# The Third Official, Authoritative GHG Thread



## Macfury

I'll begin it where we left off--with SINC's informative link to the NEW report on Himalayan glaciers. I will remind members to comment only on the information. provided. If you don't enjoy the contributions of other members, EhMac provides many other destinations that may match your interests!

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds - Telegraph



> *Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating*, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
> 
> Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.
> 
> The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
> 
> It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.
> 
> Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, *he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.*
> 
> The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlayas, are in fact advancing and that *global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts. *


Emphasis SINC's.


----------



## ehMax

I will give this topic one last chance. 3 strikes, and this topic is out. 

Please only present information, and thoughtful comments on the information. 

Please do not preface information with disparaging remarks / labels towards people who hold opposing views.


----------



## MacDoc

C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.
Background/history 
Introduction - Summary

Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions.
C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.
Carbon cycle 
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

result

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

*Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?*

Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have _already_ moved out of.

And we are only .6 degree C into it. 

THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.

It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.

Of course some few don't get that either.


----------



## MacDoc

Britain is facing up to the reality



> *Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled*
> By David Shukman Environment correspondent, BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Train goes past sea front in Scotland (PA) Climate change could affect several aspects of UK infrastructure_
> 
> Roads built to the same standards as the scorching south of France; fish moved from the overheated Lake District to cooler waters in Scotland; lighthouses threatened by rising seas.


more
BBC News - Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.


Agreed.



MacDoc said:


> Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions. C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.


Scientists can't yet even agree whether carbon dioxide levels rise as a cause or result of warming. I'm inclined to believe they follow warming. The role of water vapour as a GHG is poorly understood and not well modeled--often not modeled at all in computer simulations of the Earth's climate. 



MacDoc said:


> We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report


Still much disagreement on how much CO2 has been added by humans or whether the levels are unprecedented. Much of the so-called warming from the year 1800 on doesn't conform to proxies designed to identify CO2 levels--and certainly doesn't conform to periods of cooling during those centuries.



MacDoc said:


> It's getting warmer


If you continue to remove climate reporting stations in colder climates, then use proxies from warmer locations you might get such an appearance. Similarly, with half of North American climate stations located close to urban heat sources that were simply not there 50 years ago, you might expect to get such results. When we adjust for the effects of El Nino we get nothing.




MacDoc said:


> It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02. It won't reverse in anything like human time scales.


Agreed, but not for the reasons you suggest. So why bother controlling GHGs at this point?



MacDoc said:


> Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
> a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.


The benign, relatively stable climate was the anomaly.




MacDoc said:


> There is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.


These are data collected by various people--and they are up for contention. They are not facts as you intend the use of the word. The consensus is a myth. Please don't call those who disagree with your theories "cranks" as this is not permitted in this thread. 




MacDoc said:


> Britain is facing up to the reality


Britain is facing up to the reality that whatever climate nature serves up to us, we should be ready for it. Much better to spend money on shoring up infrastructure than on so-called GHG measures that will add up to nothing.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.


If the humongous amounts of CO2 that we've been churning into the atmosphere (esp. via plane trips to Africa & back) are responsible for current global warming, just what caused global warming during the MWP a thousand years ago, when temps are documented to be even warmer than they are today? 

What about the fact that, out of the last 10,500 years, 9100 years have been warmer than the golden trio in warmists eyes, 1934/1998/2010?

What. Caused. That?



MacDoc said:


> It's getting warmer


It might be. There are a number of peer reviewed papers out there that show after you get past the fudged data, the urban heat islands, the poor placement of thermometers, etc., etc., etc., that the recent warming disappears into noise in the data. 

There is also more & more peer reviewed research pointing to natural causes for the periodicity of climate (both warming & cooling, the sun being the main one).

There is also peer reviewed research out there to indicate we may actually be on the verge of a short (20-40 years) cooling spell, part of the next cycle. 

I know, I know. Warmists predicted that, just like they say that floods, earthquakes, and other natural, unrelated phenomena are caused by global warming.



MacDoc said:


> We're responsible


There are some really cute games out there right now running on some multi million dollar computers that, if you average the results of all 32 (both the negatives & the positives), there is an indicator that man *may* be responsible for some warming. However, *nobody* can tell you how much man is responsible for.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA (you've heard of them. That's where your bud James Hansen promulgates his warmist blog on the taxpayers dime from), has an observation I'd like to share with you:



> In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.
> 
> This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.


Oooops! OK, Roy, I promise not to let the cat out of the bag... (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)



MacDoc said:


> It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02


Man, you batted that one out of the park! Home run! Grand slam, even!!!

Why? Because there are factors orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic green house gases which actually do affect climate.

Like, say, old Sol himself?

Besides, if it's that far out of whack, we may as well party like it's 1947. 



MacDoc said:


> It won't reverse in anything like human time scales


Actually, it will. Even your short 60 odd years have experienced both warming & cooling cycles.




MacDoc said:


> Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?


Nothing. Nothing at all. It's pretty obvious to many (more by the day, actually) that the concept of AGW is a fallacy promoted by many to preserve grant monies and perpetrated by socialist organizations like the UN (read: IPCC) to facilitate the transfer of wealth. 

Oh, didn't you get the memo?




MacDoc said:


> Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
> a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have _already_ moved out of.


Dude...it ain't been proven, yet. That's why.

Take your climate models (a glorified set of computer games with a programmer's built in bias) out of the equation & what you got?

Nuttin'

Sorry.

And what do you mean by benign? It snowed some the last little while. The sun shone some the last little while? 

Records broke? Records get broke all the time.

What's changed?



MacDoc said:


> THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.


It just ain't a real MacDoc post unless there's some good, old-fashioned name calling. Thank you for not disappointing.

Isn't it interesting how some of these so called cranks have managed to get a peer reviewed paper or two published? 

Tell ya what. I put a lot of links into the last two GHG threads, links that will take you to peer reviewed papers authored by people who don't agree with the warmist point of view.

Go find one, any one, take it to yer buddies on the hockey team & let them have at it.

I'll wait for the results here. No, really. Go ahead.

Or, I can pick one for you. Your call, either way.

One more thing: There is no such thing as consensus in science. Period. You start mouthing garbage like that & any semblance of credibility you may have had just went out the window.

Lessee, where were we? Ah, yes, cranks. Speaking of which, have you ever gone over the list of failed predictions from yer bud, the infamous & immortal  James Hansen?

Have a look. Oh, wait, here's one:



> (This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America)
> 
> Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. -- The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986


You just noted 6/10's of a degree. He said 6 degrees. Which is it?

You called me out on a guest post in GHG2 from yer bud Willie E because he lied or some such. What about the credentials of a soothsayer, er, climatologist who can't be any closer than a factor of 10?



MacDoc said:


> It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one. Nice ad hominem attack cleverly disguised as a simile. Good work!



MacDoc said:


> Of course some few don't get that either.


Oh, I got it, thx anyway.

I'm just glad that my relatives had the stones to climb out of the pond despite being told by some that the sky was falling & the world would end tomorrow if I didn't buy into the proper faith...

Had a couple of them doomsayers show up at the door just last week, actually.

Great fun, them proselytizers, no?


----------



## MacDoc

> *Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
> January 27, 2011
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo of the German research vessel Maria S. Merian moving through sea ice in Fram Strait northwest of Svalbard. The research team discovered the water there was the warmest in at least 2,000 years, which has implications for a warming and melting Arctic. Credit: Credit: Nicolas van Nieuwenhove (IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel)
> 
> The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.
> 
> Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.
> 
> The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.
> 
> "Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.
> 
> According to study co-author Thomas Marchitto, a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the new observations are crucial for putting the current warming trend of the North Atlantic in the proper context.
> "We know that the Arctic is the most sensitive region on the Earth when it comes to warming, but there has been some question about how unusual the current Arctic warming is compared to the natural variability of the last thousand years," said Marchitto, also an associate professor in CU-Boulder's geological sciences department.
> 
> *"We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds."*


Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you can go a lot past 2000 years ago to find that these anomalies are very common--and abrupt:

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Alley 2000 Greenland Ice Core Data


----------



## ehMax

The topic of GHG, climate change etc... basically comes down to, nobody know for sure. 

This thread turns into a tennis battle of links to reports. Anyone can find a report opposing and against. 

What's clear is what the _majority_ of scientist think and are reporting, which is that man can and is affecting the climate. 

Again, whether its the case or not, seems pretty hard to prove, especially on a Mac forum. Some of us have clearly taken sides on who we believe. 

My viewpoint can be shifted as new information comes out. 

I think the problem of this thread, is that some on either side, aren't interested in exploring this topic, but rather, are more interested in playing study-link tennis.  Any link with new information is simply rejected, and the same arguments are played over in a loop. 

Anyways... link away.


----------



## CubaMark

Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on -* the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans* - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).

Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...


----------



## groovetube

I agree. Sometimes I've kinda (well not kinda) mocked the whole escapade, because really, no one is a scientist here. It seemed to me the most honest about not really knowing for sure was the couple who I thought was by far the most knowledgeable. They've since left.

It really does become a war of links, (my google enguard! comment) preceded by a commentary of what crooks, or blind, or whatever.

I think as humans here, there are an awful lot of really disturbing environmental things going on, and as I think a few pointed out rightly, GHG isn't our only biggest worry.

There is one thing that is definitely not something many can argue about, the use of fossil fuels, is not good for our environment. And certainly nor are many other things we are doing to our environment either.

I fear the worst is yet to come, and all these petty arguments, will seem awfully trivial, if any of us are lucky enough to survive all of this.

With that, I'm going to go eat a really, big greasy pizza.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on -* the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans*


Sorry, CM, I don't even agree to that.

The way I see it is that the temps -may- be climbing, or perhaps have even peaked. If they are & we are in the middle of another cycle then the temps could be heading down. Frankly, I'm hedging towards the going down for the next little while.

I certainly don't believe that global warming (or whatever the nom du jour is today) is responsible for floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, whatever.

I'm getting to the point where I believe man has had very little effect on the climate compared to other sources of input (the sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.). There is nothing (climatically speaking) that has happened in the lives of anyone today that has not happened dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times in the past.

There has been higher CO2 levels before & life pulled through. There have been higher temperatures before & the planet didn't stop rotating. There have been higher & lower climatic everything before & yet, here we are, products of that process.

If the climate does go extreme, man will survive until he/she/it can & then be gone like so many species before.

FWIW, I've never, ever had to Google anything to back up the point of view I've presented. I have a browser folder with hundreds of links I've read over the course of the last couple of years (pro & con). It's pretty easy to reach in there & pull out a pertinent item.
______

The study that MacDoc just linked to I read two days ago. I have questions about forams being used as proxy data. That being said, the warming is certainly not unprecedented, as Macfury has pointed out.
______

Interestingly, Mr. Mayor, is that I will take the time to address or refute an article or posting, whereas others just sprinkle links like so much fertilizer without addressing other posts. I don't know if they are afraid to do so because they have no answers or if they are afraid that it will somehow legitimize the opposing argument by addressing it.

Perhaps they are so arrogant that such things are merely beneath them. Perhaps their own hypocrisy prevents them from making a cogent argument.

I don't know for sure, but I have my theories...
______

Last, & certainly least, are the hecklers who come here for no other reason than to stir the pot.

Your efforts have certainly contributed to the closing of the previous two threads.

Thanks for nothing.


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Perhaps *they are so arrogant* that such things are merely beneath them. Perhaps *their own hypocrisy* prevents them from making a cogent argument.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but I have my theories...





FeXL said:


> Last, & certainly least, *are the hecklers* who come here for no other reason than to stir the pot.
> 
> Your efforts have certainly contributed to the closing of the previous two threads.
> 
> Thanks for nothing.


Clearly, its only the other people who are heckling, no, not you. 

Let's move on.


----------



## FeXL

<snort>


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on -* the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans* - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).
> 
> Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...


That isn't even a certainty, since the way in which data is collected an interpreted has changed severely over the past 20 years--not surprisingly within the time when temperatures are supposed to be so high. It might be getting very slightly warmer, or, if this year is any indication, we're in for a major cooling trend.


----------



## FeXL

So, back to work...

Significant & fast cooling in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean



> A paper recently published in the Journal of Physical Oceanography finds that the Mid-Atlantic Ocean has cooled strongly since 1998 with *more than half of the upper ocean warming over the 41 years from 1957-1998 erased by "strong" cooling over only 7 years* from 1998-2004. As shown in the graph below, temperatures of the upper ocean within 3 different depth ranges were also found to be relatively stable since 2004 and each of the 3 depth ranges cooler than in 1981. *This data is the opposite of climate model predictions of an accelerating steady rise in ocean heat content in relation to greenhouse gas levels.*


Emphasis mine.

Lessee, where is it, I know it's here... Ah, got it!



MacDoc said:


> It won't reverse in anything like human time scales


Those pesky real world observations, always contradicting the truther's climate models...


----------



## groovetube

it's kinda like that cartoon, the coyote and the dog. They're friends, but then when they punch their time cards...

no time to google the atlantic warming today. However later I'll read your link for interest.


----------



## FeXL

I posted a link not too long ago in GHG 2 about galactic cosmic rays & the author's conclusion of their effect on climate.

Further to that is a post by Joanne Nova who compiles data from a couple of sources into a nice, clear explanation with excellent graphs.



> With the oceans covering 70% of the planet and the clouds covering 60% of the sky, water in its various forms, dominates our climate . Solar magnetic effects correlate with changes in clouds. This graph below shows the rise and fall over the last 1000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the The Little Ice Age (upper graph) match the highs and lows of Galactic Cosmic rays (lower graph).


A brief explanation of the Planetary Physics involved:



> The right physics in my opinion: We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.
> 
> * The heat transfer from surface into space uses two mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR radiation in the higher atmosphere.
> * The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more important the convection part becomes. The height on which radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the convection top, rises.
> * More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a drier upper troposphere.
> * These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This controls the temperature.


Conclusions:



> * Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
> * Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
> * Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
> * No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
> * Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on -* the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans* - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).
> 
> Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...


 
Uh sorry, but the NASA maps showed our part of the world with a slightly warmer than normal 2010, even though it was one of the coldest years on record. So until "scientists" stop fudging data to "prove their theories it would be hard to agree with that. 

Especially from under 3 or 4 feet of snow.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Uh sorry, but the NASA maps showed our part of the world with a slightly warmer than normal 2010, even though it was one of the coldest years on record. So until "scientists" stop fudging data to "prove their theories it would be hard to agree with that.
> 
> Especially from under 3 or 4 feet of snow.


That's because NOAA eliminated most of its cold weather stations and most of the stations in Canada, and now attempts to guess at those areas through proxy data from southern stations. Not surprisingly, with the use of the proxy data, the average is always rounded upward. There are only as many stations operating now as there were at the turn of the LAST century.


----------



## FeXL

Models? Hey, we got them, too!

Further to Greenland's current warming & melting glacier's, I bring you this analysis of a paper published in _Nature Geoscience_:



> model simulations show that "ice acceleration, thinning and retreat begin at the calving terminus and then propagate upstream through dynamic coupling along the glacier." What is more, they find that "these changes are unlikely to be caused by basal lubrication through surface melt propagating to the glacier bed," which phenomenon is often cited by climate alarmists as a cause of great concern with respect to its impact on sea level.
> 
> Nick et al. conclude that "tidewater outlet glaciers adjust extremely rapidly to changing boundary conditions at the calving terminus," and that their results thus imply that "the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are _transient_ and _should not be extrapolated into the future_ [italics added]." And if this advice is followed, the extreme sea-level-rise scenarios promoted by the alarmists, such as Gore and Hansen, fail to materialize.


Kinda like a dam on a river, huh? You dam the water, it backs up. The dam breaks, the backed up water flows. Yeah, the ice is a bit more dense but same principle.

Who knew?


----------



## Macfury

Word watch: We've seen the abject failure of the term "Global Warming" as temperatures cooled. This gave way to the second abject failure of "Climate Change," a ludicrously neutral term on which everyone can agree--climate changes, so what? The new one creeping around is "Global Weirding" in which almost every notable weather event is branded an inexplicable anomaly. Nice to see such despair in action on the PR front.


----------



## FeXL

OK, so some warmists are stuck in the last hunnert years, ignoring any data older than that & completely missing factors which have periodicities much greater than a century.

Fine. We got that covered, too.

In this analysis the authors have been able to provide evidence that the mid 20th century had far more extreme conditions than any subsequent time:



> The two researchers report that with respect to all discrete five-year periods (pentads) between 1950 and 2004, "the 2000-04 pentad has the second longest mean predicted melt duration on Novaya Zemlya (_after 1950-54_), and the third longest on Svalbard (_after 1950-54_ and 1970-74) and Severnaya Zemlya (_after 1950-54_ and 1955-59) [italics added]," *which findings clearly reveal the 1950-54 pentad to have experienced the longest melt season of the past 55 years on all three of the large Eurasian Arctic ice caps.*
> 
> *In spite of almost everything we have heard from climate alarmists over the past two decades about global warming becoming ever more intense, especially in the Arctic, conditions during the middle of the past century seem to have been even more extreme in this respect than they have been at any subsequent time, especially on these three major ice caps and their associated glaciers.*


Italics from the analysis. Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, most of the real zealots are dealing with their own personal histories, not the history of the world: "In all my 33 years I've never seen anything like this!"


----------



## FeXL

Holy smokes, take a day off, galavantin' all over the province, free lunch from a fellow artist/photographer (thank you again!), beer & BS, gossiping about ehMac & the research world explodes! 

Background: When I was in university, I had the privilege of taking a couple of topics courses from Archie Stalker, now deceased & formerly of the Geological Survey of Canada (fantastic Quaternary scientist). He was the kind of old school, hands on researcher that would tell you to lick you finger & stick it in the sediment you analyzing, then place it in your mouth & feel the texture. You could always tell if the sample was a paleosol, a lacustrine sediment, a clay or something else  just by putting it in your mouth. Very cool.

He had personally hiked & mapped more of southern Alberta than anyone else before or since. Hard to keep up with him, even at 65.

At any rate, soils. A brief analysis of a paper published in _Quaternary Research_ wherein the authors analyze soils in the Italian Alps & conclude that the Roman Warm Period & the Medieval Warm Period were both warmer & longer than the current warming period.



> Among a number of other interesting findings, Giraudi determined that between about 200 BC and AD 100 -- i.e., during the Roman Warm Period -- "soils developed in areas at present devoid of vegetation and with permafrost," indicative of the likelihood that temperatures at that time "probably reached _higher values than those of the present_ [italics added]." He also concluded that "analogous conditions likely occurred during the period of [the] 11th-12th centuries AD, when a soil developed on a slope presently characterized by periglacial debris," while noting that "in the 11th-12th centuries AD, frost weathering processes were not active and, due to the _higher temperatures than at present _[italics added] or the _longer duration of a period with high temperatures_ [italics added], vegetation succeeded in colonizing the slope." He also determined that "the phase of greatest glacial expansion (Little Ice Age) coincides with a period characterized by a large number of floods in the River Po basin," and that "phases of glacial retreat [such as occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods] correlate with periods with relatively few floods in the River Po basin."
> 
> *This study provides a double refutation of the climate-alarmist claim that late 20th-century temperatures were the warmest of the past two millennia.* And it demonstrates that in this part of Europe, cooler periods have generally experienced less flooding than have warmer periods.


Italics from the analysis, bold mine.

Also wanted to give credit where credit is due:

In a sense, I'm glad all these warmists have come out with their claims about AGW. The opportunity provided has been a wonderful impetus to research the truth about the complexity of global warming & all the natural causes & cycles contained therein.

Just wanted to say, thx!


----------



## groovetube

moving past the google wars and it's google link duels.

It seems the much celebrated anti climate change champion and scientist, is in a heap of trouble, once again. 



> *Andrew Weaver Sues Tim Ball for Libel*
> 
> University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, has filed suit for libel against freelance climate change denier Tim Ball.
> 
> The suit (attached below) arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.
> 
> In the article, Ball, a former geography professor at the University of Winnipeg with an indifferent academic record and a lifetime peer-reviewed literature output of just four articles (none of them in atmospheric physics), assailed Weaver as uninformed about climate, unqualified to teach and compromised by his lavish funding, accusations for which he offered no proof whatever.
> 
> Weaver, a member of the Royal Society of Canada who has authored more than 190 papers, was also a lead author on three of the four reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change (IPCC), and is lined up as a lead author on the fifth. He's also won pretty much all the academic and teaching awards that are available to a Canadian professor who has not yet had his 50th birthday. Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn't realize that he was overmatched.
> 
> Of course, it's not the first time. Ball sued University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson in October 2006 over imagined slights in a letter to the editor that Johnson had written to the Calgary Herald. When both Johnson and the Herald filed a devastating Statements of Defence, Ball turned tail and ran.
> 
> But regardless that the suit had exposed the numerous falsehoods that once coloured Balls resume - and regardless that a University of Calgary audit confirmed that Ball had been accepting money that had been sluiced through a university slush fund that had been set up to conceal the money's oil industry origins, Ball has continued to write and speak, claiming some higher knowledge of the workings of climate change - actually, of the lack of climate change.
> 
> Suddenly, however, he appears to have gone quiet.


source


----------



## Macfury

The suit has little or nothing to do with climate science--it's two academics attacking each others credentials.


----------



## SINC

Just one more crack in the warmists theory of AGW causing severe weather. It apparently doesn't.

*Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms*

Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.



> (CHICAGO) - NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…
> 
> Now "it" is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world's weather.
> 
> *Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.*
> 
> When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.
> 
> Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth's history. It's happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.
> 
> The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.
> 
> The superstorms have arrived
> 
> The first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010.


Emphasis mine.

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The suit has little or nothing to do with climate science--it's two academics attacking each others credentials.


Another dismissive wave of macfury's hand.

It's amusing to see this reduced to simply, "two academics attacking each others credentials"...

I see someone who apparently is a notable 'scientist' making some very untrue statements about another he disagrees with. 

But it's really news when a scientist who supports climate change theories is taken to task for something that is reported as untrue.

I think you should post another "keep digging a hole' post to smooth this one over.


----------



## Macfury

Read the lawsuit more carefully.


----------



## groovetube

stop going in circles macfury. The irony of you pulling your 'nothing to see here' when a news article points out something not very flattering to your position is quite amusing.

Timothy Ball has been referenced many times here for the anti climate changers. He's been outed as a liar and a fraud. 

And this is somehow, not relevant or, the usual dismissive hand of macfury, 'nothing to see here'.

That's twice in one day my friend. Nice try.


----------



## SINC

If this keeps up, all that will be accomplished is the closing of the thread. Again. If that's the intent, carry on.


----------



## groovetube

I'm simply calling out the irony as I see fit. If that seems to ruffle some feathers too much, well, that's not my fault.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: I agree. No more from me on that topic unless it involves discussion of climate.


----------



## groovetube

Well at least we agree that Timothy Ball and the discussion of climate change are not related whatsoever.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Well at least we agree that Timothy Ball and the discussion of climate change are not related whatsoever.


Only if we can also agree that restoring the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming Period has shattered the Michael Mann hockey stick beyond any chance of repair. 

Course selling AGW to someone who spent his day shoveling snow, is a very hard sell indeed.


----------



## groovetube

oh I didn't make that one up, macfury did.


----------



## SINC

Keep chipping away and you will succeed in closing the thread yet again.


----------



## groovetube

oh yes it's my fault sinc.

It seems you have no problem jumping in and tossing jabs yourself like you just did.

I posted an article of interest a while back and got quite the snub in return. It works both ways here. If I were to do that the fireworks begins exploding.

Spare me.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oh yes it's my fault sinc.


No offence, I'm just asking you to post relevant or quit chipping to save the thread. Your decision.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No offence, I'm just asking you to post relevant or quit chipping to save the thread. Your decision.


I did, and was met by some real snobbery that what I posted had nothing to do with the topic, even though it was a notable (to the anti climate changers anyway) scientist attacking another climate change scientist. There seems to be a lot of big jabs at the credibility of some climate change scientists, so I thought it was worth posting.

It wasn't me that took it down that road, it was macfury.

End of story. I was happy to keep it to the topic I posted, about two 'climate change scientists'.


----------



## SINC

I read all that already. I get it. So, again, why keep chipping? Is it your intention to close the thread? And that will be the last I post on the subject as it is off topic.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not chipping sinc. I've only responded to people's posts directed to me.

I don't think we need to go down here, once again.


----------



## FeXL

Alright, back in Dec in GHG2 I posted about Ryan O’Donnell's submission to Journal of Climate refuting the Hockey Team's Eric Steig & his paper in Nature about Antarctic warming.

What the debate boiled down to was the use of Antarctic Peninsular & cherry picked Western Antarctica temperature stations data & what effect they had on reconstructions for temps in Western Antarctica & the Ross Ice Shelf.

O'Donnell questioned the methodology Steig used in his paper & substituted a version which gave significantly different results. There has since been some back & forth on the issue.

O'Donnell recently gave an explanation defending his methodology which was very math intensive. Since then he has come out with a short & very informative series of illustrations which summarize, in a nutshell, his defense.



> Please note how Eric’s reconstruction responds quite well to changes in the Peninsula . . . except it teleconnects them to the Ross Ice Shelf and the south pole.
> 
> Please also note how Eric’s reconstruction does not respond at all to changes in the only two West Antarctic land stations they used: Russkaya and Byrd (the response is even less if only the manned Byrd station is used).
> 
> Anything that he “got right” . . . as I said before . . . was by accident.


As I read on my morning blogroll today:

"Game, Set, Match."


----------



## FeXL

Still in denial about the global extent of the Medieval Warm (and Dry!) Period?

Here is a summary of another paper submitted to _Geology_ with the following observations:



> According to the authors, they say their data indicate that "the special feature of this period in climate history is the distinct and persistent drought, from the early ninth century AD to the early thirteenth century AD," which interval "precisely overlaps the period commonly referred to as the MCA, due to its geographically widespread climatic anomalies both in temperature and moisture." In addition, they report that "the reconstruction also agrees well with the general picture of wetter conditions prevailing during the cool periods of the LIA (here, AD 1220-1650) and the DACP (here, AD 720-930)."
> 
> In discussing their findings, the three Finnish scientists note that "the global medieval drought that we found occurred in striking temporal synchrony with the multicentennial droughts previously described for North America (Stine, 1994; Cook et al., 2004, 2007), eastern South America (Stine, 1994; Rein et al., 2004), and equatorial East Africa (Verschuren et al., 2000; Russell and Johnson, 2005, 2007; Stager et al., 2005) between AD 900 and 1300." Noting further that "the global evidence argues for a common force behind the hydrological component of the MCA," they report that "previous studies have associated coeval megadroughts during the MCA in various parts of the globe with either solar forcing (Verschuren et al., 2000; Stager et al., 2005) or the ENSO (Cook et al., 2004, 2007; Rein et al., 2004; Herweijer et al., 2006, 2007; Graham et al., 2007, Seager et al., 2007)," *stating that "the evidence so far points to the medieval solar activity maximum (AD 1100-1250), because it is observed in the Δ14C and 10Be series recovered from the chemistry of tree rings and ice cores, respectively* (Solanki et al., 2004)."
> 
> And so *the evidence continues to mount for a global and solar-induced Medieval Warm (and Dry!) Period*, which likely eclipsed (in both categories) what the world has so far experienced during the Current Warm Period.


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

Here's a cogent statement on the current state of global warming science by Federal EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power:



> *"Our best scientists in this country have reached a consensus and it is unequivocal that the science is clear that 'man' made emissions or air pollution and global warming gases."*


WV Congressman and EPA Administrator Exchange Heated Words over Global Warming - Charleston Environmental News | Examiner.com


----------



## FeXL

Unprecedented warming! Never before seen glacial melting! Oh, the horror!

I bring you this:



> The Danish chronicle states that a strong wind from the north-west carried to Iceland a large quantity of ice, laden with a number of bears and much wood.


and this:



> The Greenland whalers...found that the same thing had taken place on an extraordinary scale. No less than 18,000 square miles of ice had broken loose from the anchorage of centuries, and came plunging and whirling south and west, filling the bays and creeks of Iceland, wandering even to Labrador & Newfoundland, and disappearing in the Gulf Stream.


Date the second? 1816.

Date the first? 1271. That's twelve-seventy-one...


----------



## FeXL

Along the same vein...



> The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitsbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.


and



> The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81˚29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.


and



> There were few seal in Spitsbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surpnse the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitsbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.
> 
> With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitsbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also met with.


Observations made in 1922.

Natural cycles, people.


----------



## Macfury

Gosh FeXL, I don't remember seeing that happen. The world began in 1970 didn't it?


----------



## FeXL

According to some of these sorry SOB's, yes.

Meanwhile, science carries on...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Meanwhile, science carries on...


Albeit without all the variable in place? Here's yet another effect not taken into account in AGW computer models either. Sigh.

*New map charts a 'leaky' Earth*



> Crucially, the researchers at the University of British Columbia say, it could help unravel the hidden underground movements of most of the planet's fresh water -- *water that is not taken into account in computer models used to predict climate.*
> 
> "Groundwater makes up 99 percent of the fresh unfrozen water on Earth," says UBC researcher Tom Gleeson. "That huge store could somehow modulate the climate. *There may be really complex interactions that we don't appreciate.*"


Emphasis mine.

New map charts a 'leaky' Earth - UPI.com


----------



## SINC

From The Wall Street Journal:

*The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder*



> Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
> 
> But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
> 
> *As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend.* "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. *"So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."*
> 
> *In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict.* "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.


Emphasis mine.

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com


----------



## eMacMan

For those who believed that LEDs were a clean source of light.
LED lights' toxic chemicals
Looks like tungsten is still the best of the bunch.


----------



## groovetube

the report says they found 'varying amounts' of these toxins, and recommendations are to reduce these.

They still use far less energy than the incandescents. I'd say it appears it's still worth pursuing. Good on them for calling this out thought to push for improvements.


----------



## FeXL

I don't have a high opinion of computer models in the first place, because they are simply that: models. Guesstimates based on parts (rarely all, and never all in the case of climate models) of the equation, with the programmers' bias built in. Wonderful little exercises in "what if" but certainly nothing you can extract hard science from.

However, I found this one...illuminating. 

What the author has done is plot sunspots and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (the most significant ocean oscillations) against the temperature record...and come up with a .96 correlation (near a perfect correlation of 1)!!

This opposed to the .44 correlation of CO2 vs temp.

Old Sol & the oceans, huh? Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Just a link to an article that shows James Hansen has manipulated data from his original article in 1999 to the more contemporary version.

In '99, he believed that 1934 was the hottest year in recorded US history. Since then, the data has been changed to show that 1998 is the winner.



> In the original version, 1934 was much warmer than 1998. Sometime in the year 2000, the data was “adjusted” to make 1998 warmer. The blink comparator shows the radical change which occurred.


In addition:



> the original graph was corrupted and is no longer visible – as seen below. I do image processing professionally, and I compared the underlying byte data of the image with the original version. I don’t see how this could have happened without someone having touched the file. Files don’t normally change unless someone writes to them.


I guess the only query I have is, "Why?"


----------



## FeXL

Sonuvagun.

Just like that, the original version of the graph has been restored, along with the original file date.

Curiouser & curiouser...


----------



## FeXL

Further to my observations yesterday about computer models (and my statement about programmer bias) is this analysis of a recently updated paper by Dr. Noor van Andel that asks the question "Why do climate scientists continue to adjust the data to fit their models instead of fixing their models to agree with the data, the 'normal' procedure?"



> There has been a large activity to bring models and observations in line, *strangely only by adjusting the measurements instead of adjusting the models.* The radiosonde measurements are adjusted so that they show the larger warming trend around 300 hPa that the models must assume to exist to get antropogenic CO2 induced warming, or to attribute the surface warming to increased CO2. *Scores of publications and discussions try to prove this “atmospheric hot spot” must exist in the real world because the models say so.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The main error in the climate models is that they suppose heating and moistening, and thus higher θe [temperature], of the upper troposphere by CO2, in contradiction with radiosonde and satellite measurements. This assumed heating & moistening leads the model to assume an increase of θe [temperature] at this height, which makes deep convection decrease as a result of increasing SST, *very unphysical* as we have seen here above.


Emphasis from the analysis.


----------



## FeXL

Couple more climate model observations:

In the first, the analysis of the paper notes that cloud resolving models or CRMs:



> "have become one of the primary tools to develop the physical parameterizations of moist and other subgrid-scale processes in global circulation and climate models," and that CRMs could someday be used in place of traditional cloud parameterizations in such models.


Cool. Now, do they work?



> In light of these several significant findings, it is clear that CRMs still have a long way to go before they are ready for "prime time" in the complex quest to properly assess the roles of various types of clouds and forms of precipitation in the future evolution of earth's climate in response to variations in numerous anthropogenic and background forcings. This evaluation is not meant to denigrate the CRMs in any way; it is merely done to indicate that the climate modeling enterprise is not yet at the stage where implicit faith should be placed in what it currently suggests about earth's climatic response to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.


Guess not.

OK, how about the second, which analyzes extremes in precipitation and temperature?



> Kiktev et al. introduce their study by stating the obvious (but extremely important) fact that "comparing climate modeling results with historical observations is important to further develop climate models and _to understand the capabilities and limitations of climate change projections_ [italics added]."


Agreed. So, what happens?



> According to the international research team, hailing from Australia, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom, "the results mostly show _moderate_ skill for temperature indices and _low_ skill or its _absence_ for precipitation indices [italics added]."
> 
> If climate model results are utilized as the basis for mandating a complete overhaul of the world's energy system - as the world's climate alarmists are attempting to do - the models should possess considerably more than _moderate_ skill at what they do. But they definitely should not have _low_ skill. And to employ models that have an _absence_ of skill is the height of folly.


Emphasis from the analysis.

Folly, indeed.

Back to square one, where empirical data reigns.


----------



## FeXL

OK, something a bit more light-hearted from my bud The Daily Bayonet on interpreting global warming news stories.



> “since records began” - since 1850 if using observed data, or about 1980 if using satellite data
> 
> “might, may, could, perhaps” - we can say anything is happening if we put enough modifiers in front of it
> 
> “experts say” - (a) we’re an NGO in need of funding or (b) I’m a scientist in need of funding
> 
> “science is settled” - stop asking questions, we know better than you skeptics/deniers/cranks/scary people
> 
> “consensus of scientists” - the wisdom of crowds is all we have left, so SHUT UP
> 
> “CO2 pollution” - your high school science teacher lied about CO2 being plant food
> 
> “increasing global population” - pesky developing nations are demanding cars and appliances. The horror.
> 
> “sustainable development” - subsidies now, or the planet gets it
> 
> “raising awareness” - hippies doing something daring or stupid for attention
> 
> “cooling caused by warming” – hey, you believed everything else we said, why stop now?


Well, I found it funny, anyway...


----------



## FeXL

So, in 1989 NOAA indicated that “U.S. data show no sign of warming trend”.

from the comments:



> The warming began right after Hansen’s 1988 appearance in Congress. Since then it’s been warming for 120 years.


Lemme see if I can portray this correctly...

Ivory tower, looking down the nose, gruff sounding, harrumphing away:

'Bout right...

Yep, that'll do.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, in 1989 NOAA indicated that “U.S. data show no sign of warming trend”.
> 
> from the comments:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme see if I can portray this correctly...
> 
> Ivory tower, looking down the nose, gruff sounding, harrumphing away:
> 
> 'Bout right...
> 
> Yep, that'll do.


At least it explains why GW Alarmists have to fudge or disappear historical data.


----------



## FeXL

Models, models, models.

Have 4 more analyses of scientific papers regarding the accuracy of climate models, done by the NIPCC.

Without getting into the details, I'll provide a summary statement from each. 

The first is on the modeling of global soil wetness:



> In consequence of what "those in the know" thus describe as _large errors_ and _tremendous variations_ in what they readily characterize as _vital, critical, definitive_ and _key_ elements of state-of-the-art land surface model simulations of soil wetness (which is a pretty basic parameter), it would appear that *little faith should be placed in what they portend about the future*.


The second speaks to simulating 21st century precipitation:



> With respect to what their results imply, the two researchers say that "current climate models cannot reliably predict changes in tropical precipitation extremes," noting that "inaccurate simulation of the upward velocities may explain not only the intermodal scatter in changes in tropical precipitation extremes but also *the inability of models to reproduce observed interannual variability.*"


The third compares IPCC sims vs real world observations of soil moisture trends:



> Given these findings, the climate models employed in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment are clearly deficient in their ability to correctly simulate soil moisture trends, even when applied to the _past_ and when driven by _observed climate forcings_. *In other words, they fail the most basic type of test imaginable*; and in the words of Li et al., this finding suggests that "global climate models should better integrate the biological, chemical, and physical components of the earth system." Here's hoping that the models used in the upcoming Fifth Assessment have improved.


The fourth addresses models predicting Arctic vs Global temperature change which perform well for one period of time but not another.



> These findings constitute another important example of the principle described (and proven to be correct) by Reifen and Toumi (2009), i.e., that a model that performs well in one time period will not necessarily perform well in another time period. And this _now-incontrovertible_ fact further suggests that since AOGCMs suffer from this shortcoming, *they ought not be considered adequate justification for imposing dramatic cuts in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as their simulations of future temperature trends may well be far different from what will actually transpire.*


Italics from the analysis, bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

This bit of news, from the Southland Times:



> Once again news reaches us from the far North of that mysterious silent sea which lies round the Arctic pole, and into which no vessel has ever yet made her way.
> ...
> Off Cape Constitution, in latitude 82 deg. 27 min. N (519 miles from the pole)... a vast expanse of ocean...none other than that open Polar Sea of which glimpses had been caught by Barentz and Wrangel, by Penny and Inglefield


And this one from the Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle:



> In 1607, Hudson sailed northwards as far as latitude 81-1/2 degrees, on the open sea between Greenland and Spitzbergen; and, before his time, Cabot had penetrated so far north on the same track, in the search for a north-western passage, that he formed the design of making a journey to the North Pole...It is a singular fact that, in whatever direction the North Pole has been approached, traces should always have been noticed of a comparatively warm circumpolar sea...In the year 1818, again, Barrington & Beaufay called the attention of scientific men to the evidence of Dutch captains who asserted that they had approached within two or three degrees of the Pole, that they had there found an open sea, which was heaved by a swell that showed it to be of wide extent.


Date the first? 1873.

Date the second? 1869.

Natural. Cycles.


----------



## FeXL

YESSSSS!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011



> The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has been organized under the auspices of the non‐profit Novim Group (Science Discourse - Home). The project has the following goals:
> 
> 1) To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research
> 2) To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations
> 3) To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms
> 4) To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis
> 5) To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> YESSSSS!
> 
> Wednesday, February 23, 2011


English translation. "We have not yet come up with an accurate way to take the planets temperature." This being the first tiny step.


----------



## adagio

FeXL said:


> YESSSSS!
> 
> Wednesday, February 23, 2011


:clap:


----------



## SINC

Finally, an attempt at some honest figures! :clap:


----------



## vancouverdave

Recent survey says 80% of Canadians believe the science behind climate change. 

/relief


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury

vancouverdave said:


> Recent survey says 80% of Canadians believe the science behind climate change.
> 
> /relief
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your Tapatalking Dixie there, bud.

The survey merely asked Canadians whether "there was solid evidence of global warming." It did not ask them how much the world was warming, etc. It also showed that many of the respondents who thought the world was warming, also thought it was naturally caused.

The specific question only referred to en extremely short time span as well:



> From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average
> temperature on earth has been getting warmer_ over the past four decades?_



*/reflief!*


----------



## chasMac

If 



> From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average
> temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?


was the question in the survey - the results are meaningless - for greenies anyways. Old timers at my work for example swear all the seasons are warmer; but conservative and set in their ways that they are, don't believe for a second that it's caused through human industry. Nature, of which climate is a part, changes - it would be far more shocking if climate were proven to be static.


----------



## Macfury

The psychology of memory will allow current fads and media hype to colour our perceptions of what is warm and what is cold. You're right--the question as asked is meaningless.


----------



## vancouverdave

80% is good enough for me. I already believe the consensus of the majority of climate scientists, and am happy to see that most others do as well. Climate-change is happening at an accelerated rate, Mankind has something to do with it, and there may still be something we can do about it. World governments acknowledge this (except Canada) and are developing some policy accordingly. The policy is weak, but it's a start.

If I have to be a vocal minority, I can pick another subject. Maybe "The first official thread on MD's are self-serving Quacks?" or "PCs have always been better than Macs" - yah... =)

----------------------
"My life is my children's."

iMac27


----------



## eMacMan

vancouverdave said:


> 80% is good enough for me. I already believe the consensus of the majority of climate scientists, and am happy to see that most others do as well. Climate-change is happening at an accelerated rate, Mankind has something to do with it, and there may still be something we can do about it. World governments acknowledge this (except Canada) and are developing some policy accordingly. The policy is weak, but it's a start.
> 
> If I have to be a vocal minority, I can pick another subject. Maybe "The first official thread on MD's are self-serving Quacks?" or "PCs have always been better than Macs" - yah... =)
> 
> ----------------------
> "My life is my children's."
> 
> iMac27


I guess you are right. Last year was one of the coldest on record for Alberta and this year is already that much colder again. 

'Course NASA interpolated our temps from somewhere in Florida rather than just looking at the weather station data. Only way they could possibly claim that last year was slightly warmer than normal for Alberta.


----------



## Macfury

vancouverdave said:


> 80% is good enough for me. I already believe the consensus of the majority of climate scientists, and am happy to see that most others do as well. Climate-change is happening at an accelerated rate, Mankind has something to do with it, and there may still be something we can do about it.
> 
> World governments acknowledge this (except Canada) and are developing some policy accordingly. The policy is weak, but it's a start.
> 
> If I have to be a vocal minority, I can pick another subject. Maybe "The first official thread on MD's are self-serving Quacks?" or "PCs have always been better than Macs" - yah... =)
> 
> ----------------------
> "My life is my children's."
> 
> iMac27


This is just a huge statement of faith. There is no consensus, nor even a consensus of the majority. Mankind has something to do with it--and it is negligible. I would not be surprised to see that mankind's net effect is a minuscule cooling. Climate change is not happening at an accelerated rate--even the greenhouse gassers accept this.

World governments have developed some policies and they are falling like dominoes. The carbon trading exchanges are going belly up. The green folly of countries like Germany, England and Spain are becoming more and more apparent.

Even by the most optimistic scenario of the IPCC, even if all of their suggestions were adopted by world governments, it would buy the world a couple of weeks of delaying a tiny increase in temperature. Not that their models have proved capable of predicting anything, but you get my drift.

If you care to spend all of your children's money tilting at carbon windmills, be my guest. They will be poor and the climate will continue along its natural path.They can be hewer of wood and bearers of water for China or India, who will not follow along with such inanities.

The policies are as weak as the research and reasoning behind them.


----------



## MacDoc

the right wing mantra - hook line and sinker.....

•••

*Meanwhile in the real world the cranks are being ignored and carbon neutral is becoming a reality.*



> Highlights from Speaker Presentations
> 
> The basic energy management approach used by the Nordic countries is to reduce our current use of energy, reuse the energy we’ve already generated (through combined heat and power/district energy systems), and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
> A revolution in the research and development of clean energy and energy efficient technologies is needed for a transition to a low carbon economy.
> Norway has conducted extensive research and development on offshore wind, solar photovoltaic technologies, and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
> The Norwegian hydropower system can serve as a “battery” for Europe, by releasing water from reservoirs when electric demand is high or when power production from other sources wanes.
> In most of the Nordic countries, district energy systems play an essential role in increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources.
> Forty-six percent of Danish homes are heated with waste heat or renewable energy, displacing the need for foreign oil.
> Ninety-three percent of buildings in Helsinki, Finland are heated by district heating, and the city’s district cooling system is the third largest in Europe. The district heat produced by the new data center in Helsinki is enough to heat up to 500 single family houses. If all data centers in Finland operated on the same principle, enough energy would be saved to heat a medium-sized town in Finland.
> Ninety percent of Icelandic households are heated with geothermal heat distributed by district energy systems.
> Sweden’s large scale investments in district heating have resulted in lower energy costs for industry and created new income sources for industrial facilities that sell residual heat to local district energy systems.
> Since 1990, Sweden has reduced emissions by 12 percent, while its GDP has risen 48 percent.
> Danish consumption of energy has remained flat over the last 28 years, while the economy has grown by 78 percent. In 2009, Denmark exported energy technologies and equipment at a value of 11 billion U.S. dollars, corresponding to 11.6 percent of total Danish goods exports.
> An international treaty would be beneficial for a global fight against climate change, but the Nordic countries already have the political will to reduce energy use and transition to low carbon energy sources.
> 
> Background
> 
> Denmark has a goal of becoming 100 percent free of fossil fuels by 2050. Renewable resources produce 43 percent of Sweden’s energy supply, and the nation has a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Iceland gets 82 percent of its primary energy from renewable resources and is actively working to decrease its use of carbon fuels even further. Sixty percent of Norway’s energy consumption comes from renewable resources. Norway’s strong carbon policies have reduced average carbon emissions per barrel of oil produced to less than half the global average, and the country aims to be carbon neutral in 2030. Finland has a goal of 60 percent renewable energy by 2050, and 80 percent reduction in emissions (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050.





> *Evolving energy systems: The Swedish story*
> January 28, 2011
> 
> 
> Guest blogger Evan Mills of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories explains why recent Swedish energy policy should give us hope.
> 
> Sweden is often held up as a harbinger of the kinds of sensible energy policies needed around the world. In practice, follow-through has been less than promised, although remarkable things continue to be achieved.
> 
> As a case in point, January 1st, 2011 was the deadline for shutting down all 10 of Sweden’s nuclear reactors. They quietly missed the deadline (where was the media?), but their story remains interesting.
> 
> Aside from a small amount of oil generation and CHP, the country’s power is derived in about equal proportions from nuclear and hydro. Although Sweden has one of the world’s most electricity-intensive economies, carbon emissions from the power sector are negligible. Concerns about nuclear safety and security, the environmental effects of large-scale hydro projects, and a will to cut CO2 even lower make for a compelling set of energy planning challenges.
> 
> The nuclear phase-out decision and ban on new construction traces back to a public referendum in 1980, fueled by the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. This was only one of six such referenda in Sweden’s history along with things like prohibition, whether or not to join the EU and what side of the road to drive on. In light of this, TMI arguably had far more impact on Swedish energy policy than it did US energy policy.
> 
> The direct hit of radiation that Sweden took from Chernobyl back in 1986, added fuel to the fire. Sweden detected and publicly announced the event before Russia did. One reactor in the Barsebaeck complex was closed in 1999 and another in 2005, the same year as radioactive water was leaked from a Swedish nuclear waste storage site. Ten remain in service, but last year Parliament suspended the phase-out and even blessed unsubsidized replacement of existing reactors (although no capacity expansion), along with unlimited owner/operator liability for the costs of accidents. The ageing plants have become sufficiently flakey that the term “intermittent nuclear” is sometimes used to describe their role in the grid.
> 
> Well, it seems that energy policy is what happens while you’re making other plans … even in Sweden. Along with these developments, a meltdown in my admiration for legendary Swedish energy policy at the time thus ensued.
> 
> I was first entranced by the Swedish view of energy technology and policy in the early 1980s, when asked to do some computer simulation analysis of how super-efficient Swedish homes would perform in US climates. This was to provide background for an important book called “Coming in from the Cold: Energy-wise Housing in Sweden”, published for the German Marshall Fund and the Swedish Council for Building Research and written by international energy analysis guru Lee Schipper, along with Stephen Meyers and Henry Kelley (now Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the US Department of Energy). These homes were off the charts (or below the charts, as the case may be) in terms of their extraordinary energy efficiency – even by today’s U.S. standards.
> 
> After doing that analysis, I wanted to see Swedish energy up close. Inspired by Lee and Art Rosenfeld, my boss at the time, in 1988 I took a Visiting Scientist position at the University of Lund with Thomas B. Johansson, one of the first wave of wicked-smart retreaded physicists who had already been working on energy issues for well over a decade.
> 
> The referendum, along with seemingly colliding policies not to build out Sweden’s remaining wild rivers and not to increase CO2 emissions (yes, caps on CO2 in 1988!) set the stage for what ultimately became my dissertation work, and our study The Challenge of Choices.
> 
> In 1989, with study co-authors from the Swedish State Power Board, Thomas and I showed not only that these lofty goals could all be met, but that in doing so the cost of providing energy services in Sweden would be lower in 2010 with a mix of renewables (particularly in the form of cogen using biofuel waste from the paper and wood products sector) and high end-use efficiency than for a business-as-usual supply mix and demand scenario. The findings added a sense of do-ability to previously idealistic goals held by the Parliament. New programs in efficiency and renewable were launched in the wake of our report.
> 
> Since leaving Sweden I will admit to growing more than a little disillusioned by the reality versus the vision of energy policy there.
> 
> However, just this month a beefy annual review of the Swedish energy sector showed up in my mail, which I read with pleasure (mostly). The report contains some things that Sweden can be very proud of and an encouraging existence proof that energy futures can be chosen and a nation’s course strongly changed in very impressive timeframes. Here are some highlights of changes between the year I left Sweden (1991) and 2010:
> 
> Significant carbon-dioxide taxes (105 oere/kgCO2, or US$150/tonne!) have been introduced, generating about $4B/year in revenues, or $500/capita. This is almost as much as is generated by regular energy taxes.
> 
> National GHG emissions in 2009 were down about 18% (more than required under Kyoto – and 12% by 2008, when the world economy started to go south). Emissions of SOx are down 70% and NOx down 50%.
> Total primary energy use has dropped slightly (rising steadily, in the case of transport). Even electricity demand use has remained constant despite 60% economic growth in this same period. It is not clear whether absolute reductions in national energy demand in recent years will be maintained.
> 
> In-country coal use for energy purposes has dropped by 50% (and by 70% outside the industrial sector). BUT, the Swedish State Power Board (Vattenfall) has made massive investments in coal-fired electricity outside of Sweden, with resulting emissions that are on a par with in-country emissions. Despite its low carbon footprint at home, Vattenfall seems enamored by this fuel, and sequesters most of its profits there.
> Heating energy fuel choices in buildings have been managed very aggressively. Oil’s share has dropped from 25% to about less than 10%. Electric heating’s share of energy in the household sector has been trimmed by 30%. District heating, fueled primarily with biomass has picked up most of the slack. Between 1980 and 2010 district heating went from essentially 100% oil to essentially 0% oil.
> 
> Almost a quarter of Sweden’s primary national energy supply is today from biomass. By global standards, biomass has reached a startling scale, with more than half as much energy in Sweden as provided by fossil fuels. Biomass’ share of fuel-based electricity production went from about 20% to about 80%. Biomass’ share of district heating went from 20% to 75% while the overall production of district heat was boosted by about 50%.
> 
> Wind power went from nil to 1500 MW, but still makes a very small contribution to national electricity supply, in stark contrast to the success story of Denmark just across the water.
> Including hydroelectric power, a whopping third of Sweden’s energy supply is today renewable, a higher share than any other EU country.
> 
> *Thanks to these efforts, Sweden is proud to find itself with CO2 emissions per unit of GDP and per capita among the lowest for industrialized countries*_ [see top figure]._
> 
> *Swedish energy policymakers remain ambitious about the future:*
> 
> A moratorium on expansion of nuclear power remains (despite the stunning back-pedaling on their phase-out plan).
> At least 50% of energy supply shall be from renewables by 2020 (including 10% within the transport sector, with vehicles free of fossil fuels by 2030).
> 
> Overall energy intensity (presumably energy per GDP) shall be reduced by 20% between 2008 and 2020.
> GHG emissions shall be reduced by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, with no net emissions (nationally) by 2050. A carbon-neutral country – how about that?
> 
> Efforts on energy efficiency shall be redoubled, driven in part by efforts at the level of the EU (Wait! Why weren’t they redoubled 20 years ago, when even Sweden knew efficiency should come first in the carbon-abatement loading order??)


Evolving energy systems: The Swedish story « Climate Progress

Shows what CAN be done with sensible leadership and policies instead of corrupt ideologues with oil and gas industry calling the tunes.

Then there is us...poster child for idiocy










versus Sweden

_Aside from a small amount of oil generation and CHP, the country’s power is derived in about equal proportions from nuclear and hydro. *Although Sweden has one of the world’s most electricity-intensive economies, carbon emissions from the power sector are negligible*_

and they are thriving despite having carbon taxes going back to 1991



> Significant carbon-dioxide taxes (105 oere/kgCO2, or US$150/tonne!) have been introduced, generating about $4B/year in revenues, or $500/capita. This is almost as much as is generated by regular energy taxes.


----------



## FeXL

Why, that's fabulous information, MacDoc!

Of course, as usual, there is far more to your story than meets the eye. However, as this thread is about AGW, not ad hominem attacks, alternative energy sources, socialism & extreme tax rates I'm going to relegate it to the trash heap where it will find a more suitable fit...

Have a day!


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc: You've been asked politely to make your own points instead of vomiting up these colossal time wasters without pointing to what makes them wonderful for you.

If you are saying that we could end our dependency on foreign oil without a carbon tax and by fully developing our oil sands, I agree with you 100%.


----------



## MannyP Design

I would love to see MacDoc take the time to write a thoughtful post. I've yet to see one in all my years on ehMac.

He's been asked (even well before even the first GHG thread), but It's never happened, and I highly doubt it ever will—it's either xeroxing articles that he's clearly not fully read; or of incomplete thoughts with the gratuitous (ab)use of ellipses.

And so it goes… I don't know if he's just too busy or what.


----------



## Max

I like MacDoc... really! But I sense he's simply has no patience to explain himself to others. I don't know if it's sheer arrogance or indifference to fully explaining his thinking but it is unfortunate and his style does repeatedly belittle his own arguments. Plenty of us have attempted to pin him down and asked him to refrain from resorting to multiple links (with little else save a few cheap shots, a sprinkling of emoticons and, as Manny says, ellipses a'plenty (as if those make all the connections he needs).

In his mind, the connections and arguments are all self-evident. Those who disagree are branded as fools or lap puppies. He never deigns to respond to such criticisms, either. He has already moved on to wage fresh campaigns.


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> I like MacDoc... really! But I sense he's simply has no patience to explain himself to others. I don't know if it's sheer arrogance or indifference to fully explaining his thinking but it is unfortunate and his style does repeatedly belittle his own arguments. Plenty of us have attempted to pin him down and asked him to refrain from resorting to multiple links (with little else save a few cheap shots, a sprinkling of emoticons and, as Manny says, ellipses a'plenty (as if those make all the connections he needs).
> 
> In his mind, the connections and arguments are all self-evident. Those who disagree are branded as fools or lap puppies. He never deigns to respond to such criticisms, either. He has already moved on to wage fresh campaigns.


+1

Yep, pretty much.


----------



## eMacMan

To be fair MD is being stabbed in the back. Every time he finds a study that would seem to support his point of view it turns out that someone fudged the data.

It is hard to prove AGW when you have not taken the time to figure out what the planet's temperature is or was. 

Predicting exceptionally mild winters which turn out to be brutally cold also fails to advance the AGW cause. 

Perhaps he should relegate any studies by Mann, NASA or Hadley to the trash heap then start from there.


----------



## Max

it's not merely gazillions of links. It's more about MD refraining from using his own words to state and expand his opinion... if he bothered to back up his links with his own thoughts, I'd be far more forgiving (not that he seeks my forgiveness on anything, mind you!). Because he doesn't, it just looks like an almost spasmodic, involuntary parroting of links.

Anyway, it's no way to have a good discussion. But this is the net, after all. It's a platform for abuse and soapboxing as much as it is for enlightenment and sharing.


----------



## FeXL

Remember the hockey stick article by the Team and the Climategate email that considered "Mike's trick" to "hide the decline"?

Dr. Judith Curry has decided she could no longer, in good conscience, sit on her hands & has waded into the fray. The response, from both sides, has been nothing short of spectacular and she has netted nearly 2500 comments (at this time) from her three part blog.

The link takes you to RealClimate and the meat of the matter, two graphs, one of which illustrates proxy tree ring data only (and the ending "decline" which does not agree with the team's mandate) and the second which splices thermometer data to the proxy data (which "hides the decline" and supports their position).

If you wish to visit Dr. Curry's original postings on her blog, the links are provided at the bottom of the article.


----------



## FeXL

Once again, YESSSS!!! (and further to a question I asked in GHG 1 or 2 about manuscript submissions)



> In the February 11, 2011 issue of Science Magazine, an editorial called Making Data Maximally Available has announced a new policy regarding requirements for authors, from the pen of Bruce Alberts, the Editor-in-Chief and two Deputy Editors.


The new _Science_ policy:



> Science’s policy for some time has been that “all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science” (see Science/AAAS: Science Magazine: About the Journal: Information for Authors). Besides prohibiting references to data in unpublished papers (including those described as “in press”), we have encouraged authors to comply in one of two ways: either by depositing data in public databases that are reliably supported and likely to be maintained or, when such a database is not available, by including their data in the SOM.
> 
> However, online supplements have too often become unwieldy, and journals are not equipped to curate huge data sets. For very large databases without a plausible home, we have therefore required authors to enter into an archiving agreement, in which the author commits to archive the data on an institutional Web site, with a copy of the data held at Science. But such agreements are only a stopgap solution; more support for permanent, community-maintained archives is badly needed.
> 
> To address the growing complexity of data and analyses, Science is extending our data access requirement listed above to include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data.
> 
> To provide credit and reveal data sources more clearly, we will ask authors to produce a single list that combines references from the main paper and the SOM (this complete list will be available in the online version of the paper).
> 
> And to improve the SOM, we will provide a template to constrain its content to methods and data descriptions, as an aid to reviewers and readers.
> 
> We will also ask authors to provide a specific statement regarding the availability and curation of data as part of their acknowledgements, requesting that reviewers consider this a responsibility of the authors.
> 
> We recognize that exceptions may be needed to these general requirements; for example, to preserve the privacy of individuals, or in some cases when data or materials are obtained from third parties, and/or for security reasons. But we expect these exceptions to be rare.


As Willis notes:




> This is indeed excellent news. It is a huge step, from Michael Mann claiming that to ask for his code was “intimidation” and he would not reveal it, to Science Magazine requiring code as a condition of publication.


More accountability. Who can argue with that?

Now, let's see it in practice and see how many other journals follow suit...


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> To be fair MD is being stabbed in the back. Every time he finds a study that would seem to support his point of view it turns out that someone fudged the data.


MacDoc can't hear any of you. He has flown to South Africa, and then again to Australia--and not by glider. Methinks his bluster grows as his carbon footprint expands.


----------



## FeXL

Ran across an article this morning, got me to thinking about my own university years & parallels with current discussion on including computer code with submitted papers. 

First two years I was there I took a lot of computer science courses, some of them programming in different languages (BASIC, Pascal, C, Fortran, etc.). You were given an assignment and, in order to fulfill the requirements of that assignment, you needed to include an algorithm, a printout of the code and output and a copy of the code had to be uploaded to the professor or TA server. The code also needed to be commented, wherein you would describe what that particular subroutine was doing, including descriptions of the variables, where the input was coming from, what was happening to it & where the output was going. Pretty standard stuff, really.

Failure to follow any of these three basic tenets resulted in a failed assignment. Period. It didn't matter if the output was correct, you needed to illustrate how you got there.

Fast forward to today's link and the following observations:



> There are many good reasons to publish science source code, including:
> 
> * The paper usually does not include a full description of the algorithm: its parameters, a full list of the processing steps, the details of individual steps, and so on. Even if the description is complete, it may not be accurate.
> * The code may not perform the intended algorithm. In other words, it may contain bugs. Almost all software does, after all. Distributing your code allows these bugs to be discovered and fixed.
> * By making your code available, you allow other scientists to see, criticise, and learn from it, just as you do by describing the rest of your method. Publication, in the broadest sense, is key to scientific progress.
> * Quite separately: if you release your code under an open-source license, you allow other scientists to reuse and adapt it for their own work.


The article goes on to cover a climate related case study & reaches the following conclusion:



> This report included a good algorithmic description, and has been accompanied by source code. We greatly welcome both of these departures from the norm, as setting a good example and following the report’s own recommendation. These facts also allow us to illustrate particular reasons why code release is important, and why science software skills should be improved.
> 
> *The four separate bugs – in the description, in the code, in the configuration, and in the expectation of the reader – are, in this case, trivial and unimportant – they do not affect the broad results of the report in any way.* However, each is characteristic of problems with science software which can be more serious, and which are impossible to discover unless code is released.
> 
> ...
> 
> *By releasing the code, and opening it to general review and criticism, the report has allowed us to illustrate and discuss general problems in science software development, and to work towards resolving them. In this way, science software, and science in general, benefits from publication.*


Emphasis mine.

This sums up very nicely why code should be included in manuscript submissions.

I must confess major surprise that this particular case of including the code is by far the exception rather than the rule.

How can anyone argue against better science?


----------



## FeXL

OK, more on computer models from the NIPCC.

About an article published in _Hydrology Research_:

Basically, the authors have noted an increase in temperature of 0.7 degrees in Finland over the 20th century. The model-based "claim of climate-alarmists the world over" of "both droughts and floods are expected to intensify" is refuted, once again, by real world observation.



> I*n light of the above, once again, we have another part of the planet that does not behave as climate alarmists say it should*; and, in this case, that misbehavior resides in Finland's hydrological responses to global warming. What is more, the misbehavior occurs at both ends of the available moisture spectrum. At the high end, where flooding may occur, there has been no change in the magnitude of flows that can lead to that unwelcome phenomenon. And at the low end, where droughts may occur, there has actually been an increase in flow magnitude; and that increase either acts to prevent or leads to less frequent and/or less severe episodes of this other unwelcome phenomenon.


Bad planet. Bad!

In the second analysis (modeling surface air temps over the Arctic Ocean), the authors



> assessed how well the current day state-of-the-art reanalyses and CGCMs [coupled global climate models] are reproducing the annual mean, seasonal cycle, variability and trend of the observed SAT [surface air temperature] over the Arctic Ocean for the late 20th century (where sea ice changes are largest).


From the analysis:



> ...not only does it appear that state-of-the-art climate models have a long way to go before they can adequately simulate even the past climate of the Arctic Ocean (much less predict its future), we have the word of the six scientists who evaluated them in this study that *their creators have made "no obvious improvement" in the models' simulation ability since the time of the Third Assessment Report several years earlier.*


Do ya think they're using the wrong parameters? Hmmm?

Thirdly, an analysis of 16 (!) models that attempt to simulate Arctic cloud cover & sea ice:



> Hence, they say that they were "forced to ask how the GCM simulations produce such similar present-day ice conditions in spite of the differences in simulated downward longwave radiative fluxes?"
> 
> Answering their own question, the three researchers state that "a frequently used approach" to resolving this problem "is to tune the parameters associated with the ice surface albedo" to get a more realistic answer. *"In other words," as they continue, "errors in parameter values are being introduced to the GCM sea ice components to compensate simulation errors in the atmospheric components."*
> 
> In consequence of the above findings, the three researchers conclude that "the thinning of Arctic sea ice over the past half-century can be explained by minuscule changes of the radiative forcing that cannot be detected by current observing systems and require only exceedingly small adjustments of the model-generated radiation fields," and, therefore, that "*the results of current GCMs cannot be relied upon at face value for credible predictions of future Arctic sea ice.*"


Huh? Introducing errors to compensate for other errors?

Does that sound like settled science to you?


----------



## FeXL

And, finally, observations on a couple of papers from the boys at NASA'a good old Goddard (oh, did I mention they were about modeling?):

Paper the first:



> The six scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies report finding what they describe as "unexpected significant disagreements at the pixel level as well as between long-term and spatially averaged aerosol properties." In fact, they say that "the only point on which both datasets seem to fully agree is that there may have been a weak increasing tendency in the globally averaged aerosol optical thickness (AOT) over the land and no long-term AOT tendency over the oceans." As a result, the bottom line for the NASA scientists is quite succinct: "our new results suggest that the current knowledge of the global distribution of the AOT and, especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics remains unsatisfactory." *And since this knowledge is indispensable "for use in various assessments of climate and climate change," it would appear that current assessments of greenhouse-gas forcing of climate made by the very best models in use today may be of very little worth in describing the real world of nature*.


Paper the second:

Manuscript subtitle: We still can't predict future climate responses at low and high latitudes, which constrains our ability to forecast changes in atmospheric dynamics and regional climate.



> As to what Rind's analysis of the climate modeling enterprise suggests about the future, he writes that "real progress will be the result of continued and newer observations along with modeling improvements based on these observations," which is a conclusion we can readily endorse, as it clearly and rightly indicates that modeling improvements should be based on "continued and new observations," which must provide the basis for evaluating all model implications. So difficult will this task be, however, that he says "there is no guarantee that these issues will be resolved before a substantial global warming impact is upon us." However, because of the large uncertainties -- and unknowns -- surrounding many aspects of earth's complex climatic system, there is also no guarantee there even will be any "substantial global warming impact" due to a doubling, or more, of the air's CO2 content. *And this fact suggests to us that the massive world-economy-altering measures that are being promoted by Al Gore and James Hansen to "solve" a "climate crisis" that may not even exist are preposterously premature and, therefore, ill-advised at best and actually dangerous in the extreme.*


Wonder what their colleague at Goddard, James Hansen, thought about these results. Bet the lunch room was rather...chilly.


----------



## FeXL

First, a couple of quotes, just to establish tone:



> My point is that until you test, really test your model by comparing the output to reality in the most exacting tests you can imagine, you have nothing more than a complicated toy of unknown veracity. And even after extensive testing, models can still be wrong about the real world. *That’s why Boeing still has test flights of new planes, despite using the best computer models that billion$ can buy, and despite the fact that modeling airflow around a plane is orders of magnitude simpler than the modeling global climate.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Call me crazy, but when *your results represent the output of four computer models, which are fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model but run with different parameters*, in order to demonstrate that flood risks have changed from increasing GHGs … well, when you do that, you need to do more than wave your hands to convince me that your flood risk results are not only a valid representation of reality, but are in fact a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions.


First, emphasis mine. Second, WTF?

The observation about test flights should send the point home...

Nature magazine, a couple of weeks back, attempted to explain the widespread flooding in SW England & Wales during the fall of 2000 with, you guessed it, computer models.

A lengthy & detailed debunking is blogged here.

Enjoy!


----------



## FeXL

From a blog post at THE HOCKEY SCHTICK on a paper about water vapor feedback. 

Why is this important?



> A new paper finds that observations of atmospheric water vapor show a decrease with global warming, leading to a negative feedback on global temperature, not positive as assumed by alarmist IPCC computer model projections. *The entire basis of global warming alarmism is that a supposed 1.0-1.2C warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels (which will take 234 years at the current rate) is amplified by positive water vapor feedback to 2-5C. This paper finds water vapor feedback is instead negative, resulting in only a 0.3C warming due to doubled CO2 with water vapor feedback*.


Emphasis mine.

Conclusions?



> *Observations* of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data and ISCCP data show that upper tropospheric water vapor appears to undergo a small decrease while IR or outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) undergo a small increase. *This is opposite to what has been expected from the GCMs. These models have erroneously exaggerated the magnitude of the water vapor feedback. They have also neglected the strong enhancement of albedo which occurs over the rain and cloud elements.*
> 
> *We should disregard what the GCMs have been saying about global warming from CO2 doubling.* We should not set mandatory quotas on replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) at this time. The honest and objective science to support such serious energy utilization changes is just not there.


Emphasis from the blog.

Once again, real world observation trump models.

Go figger...


----------



## FeXL

OK, I've been beating up on models for a while and the point I want to drive home is that, without real world observation to temper programmer bias, models don't mean squat.

Further to that is this analysis of a temperature dataset from a remote island near Iceland by a _reanalysis model_ which is used to validate data from other models. Unfortunately (and typically) it falls short of _real world observation._



> I’ve written before of the dangers of mistaking the results of the ERA-40 and other “re-analysis” computer models for observations or data. If we just compare models to models and not to data, then it’s “models all the way down,” not resting on real world data anywhere.


Conclusion?



> My conclusion? The ERA-40 is unsuited for the purpose of validating model results. Compare model results to real data, not to the ERA-40. *Comparing models to models is a non-starter.*


Emphasis mine.

Agreed.


----------



## mrjimmy

Putting this thread back in your sight lines...


----------



## Macfury

This isn't the religious thread! Although it does discuss the religion of Warmism...


----------



## eMacMan

Stumbled across this delightful quote today:



> By Joseph D'Aleo, IceCap
> As we reported, the eco-pressure group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, as part of a continuing misinformation campaign sponsored a teleconference yesterday with a very confused Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, opportunist Mark Serreze of NSIDC and a UCS environmentalist. Their performance was a scientific disappointment to say the least as one scientist wrote me "Masters lost all my respect. Serreze never had it". He didn't mention the UCS. It is the crazy uncle no one talks about.
> 
> 
> The Union of Concerned Scientists _(you will) _recall had sponsored a workshop on Mt. Washington in 2007 in which they promised ski areas that snow would be hard to come by even in northern areas and they might consider another profession. *That very winter, northern New England set a record for the greatest seasonal snow and ski areas had the best year in their history. Across the hemisphere that winter was surpassed only by 1977/78, 2009/10. Through January this winter, the Northern Hemisphere had more snow than any of those years and will rank likely in the top 5. *


I can only speak for my own back yard which has snow banks piled over my head and no place left to put the 5#!7


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Stumbled across this delightful quote today:
> 
> 
> 
> I can only speak for my own back yard which has snow banks piled over my head and no place left to put the 5#!7


eMacMan, I shall come to your assistance to help you shovel ............. once I find the way through the snow. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc

:yikes:

Where _is_ that?!? It's worse than New Brunswick!


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> :yikes:
> 
> Where _is_ that?!? It's worse than New Brunswick!


Central NL back in 2003, or so I was told.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> eMacMan, I shall come to your assistance to help you shovel ............. once I find the way through the snow. Paix, mon ami.


Your kindness is appreciated but we are down to the let her melt phase. At least until the next big dump, All that's now required is to unblock the drainage channels as needed, so the slush does not get too deep at the bottom of the hill.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Your kindness is appreciated but we are down to the let her melt phase. At least until the next big dump, All that's now required is to unblock the drainage channels as needed, so the slush does not get too deep at the bottom of the hill.


As you wish, mon ami. Still, since I am afraid of heights, I shall send a friend up to your roof to clear off some of the snow, just as he did for me, and I shall widen your path a bit with my shovel. Not as much snow as I thought, but your melting shall come this week I am sure. Bonne chance, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

> ..Still, since I am afraid of heights, I shall send a friend up to your roof to clear off some of the snow, just as he did for me, and I shall widen your path a bit with my shovel.


We have been most fortunate in that those wicked East winds helped keep the roof at least partially cleared even on the West sides.

Edit: Last night we got just enough rain to give the snow banks an icy crust. Not noticeable unless you try to break it with a hammer. Wonder if this will slow down the melt.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> We have been most fortunate in that those wicked East winds helped keep the roof at least partially cleared even on the West sides.


I see that now. Well, we finished your driveway at least and shall now be on our way. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## FeXL

*Damn, this global warming thing has been going on forever...*

The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA), May, 1926.



> Lieutenant Hjalmar Larsen, the Norwegian second pilot of the Norge, on being interviewed, said thin ice and open water were found at the North Pole, but no land was discovered in the Arctic wastes by the expedition.


The Norge was an Italian built dirigible credited with, amongst other things, the first overflight of the North Pole.


----------



## FeXL

Awright, a brief synopsis by the NIPCC of a paper published in Quaternary Research.

Speaking to advances & retreats of Alaska's Tebenkof Glacier during the Medieval Warm Period (which most warmists deny the existence of) & comparisons to contemporary terminus movements,

(summary)



> Based on the data depicted in the figure above, it would appear that the central portion of the Medieval Warm Period in southern Alaska was likely significantly warmer/drier than it was at any time during the 20th century, or at any subsequent time. As a result, it can further be concluded there is nothing unprecedented or unusual about that region's current warmth/dryness, which means there is no need to invoke anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the cause of the region's current heat and moisture levels. All that is needed to have created its current warmth/dryness is just _a little less_ of whatever caused the greater warmth/dryness of the Medieval Warm Period, which we know was not carbon dioxide.


Emphasis from the analysis.


----------



## FeXL

Kilimanjaro-gate?



> If there is a poster child for global warming, it may be the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro, which were predicted to disappear as early as 2015 in a widely-publicized report a decade ago.
> 
> However, the famed snowcap is stubbornly persisting on the African peak and may not fully vanish for another 50 years, according to a University of Massachusetts scientist who had a hand in the prediction.
> 
> The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
> 
> “*Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t*,” says Douglas R. Hardy, a UMass geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “*None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now*.”


Emphasis mine.

So, if you didn't have a clew, then why the hell were you spouting off like you actually knew something, like you actually had the knowledge & authority to speak to this particular issue? (wait for it...)

Interestingly enough, back in 2009 a Dutch gentleman called BS:



> Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.
> 
> The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”


In the meantime, various papers postulating other theories as to why the glaciers are currently in recession have been published, including the above & deforestation.

Gotta hate when _real life observations_ come back to bite you in the backside. Another AGW poster child kicks the bucket...


----------



## FeXL

*One more thing...*

...on models.

The "null hypothesis" basically says that there is no significance given to differences in a data set, that any differences are due to chance. The null hypothesis is presumed to be true until an alternative hypothesis can be formulated from statistical evidence.

Having said that:



> According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:


From NOAA's report:



> “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. *The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.*”


Emphasis from the article.

Then, this:



> According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago].


Thus:



> Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it's time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.


Oh, but they saw it coming:



> 1. *I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin*. I would just suggest, as *a backup* to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. *Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. … We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.*


!



> 2. Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period [it's been over 13 years now since January 1998] of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe *cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.*


Emphasis from the article.

And all these quotes have been taken out of context.

Riiiiiight...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Poke around the internet and you'll see a whole bunch of trial balloons for new greenhouse gases, including methane, to take the place of carbon-dioxide as the _scary gas_ of the month.


----------



## FeXL

OK, all this AGW was s'pose ta flood coastal cities due to increased ocean levels, right?

A new, peer reviewed paper says not so much...



> Conclusion:
> 
> Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
> 
> It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.


----------



## FeXL

There's been a big stink lately, down under, regarding a certain freshly elected PM Julia Gillard pushing a carbon tax that few people want. There have been a number of well attended anti carbon tax rallies hosted.

Dr. David Evans recently addressed one in Perth:



> The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
> Let’s set a few things straight.
> 
> The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.


About Evans:



> Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.


----------



## FeXL

You could visualize the triumphant, bloodshot eyes, the spittle flying from cracked lips onto screens & keyboards, the desk thumping & shrill, triumphant cries as the Hockey Team proclaimed 2010 as the "warmest year evah!!!"

Let's re-examine the data sets, shall we?



> Was 2010 “the hottest year ever” as the PR machine repeats ad nauseum? Yes — but only if you ignore three of the four main global datasets and those awkward questions about why nobody thought to put thermometers in better places.
> 
> Run your eyes down this page to see how the GISS temperatures pan out compared to all the other compilations. This is James Hansen’s group, and GISS stands for the Goddard Institute of Space Studies — and in the topsy-turvey world of climate change, that’s apt — the space centre and hot bed of rocketry calculates world temperatures by ignoring … satellites. For GISS, measuring the world temperature, calls for irregularly spaced, unique, non-standardized temperature stations (sometimes near air-conditioning vents and concrete). And no sir, not the satellites that scan the Earth 24 hours a day, over land and sea, and which are usually not too close to exhaust vents, or buildings, or (thank goodness) fermenting vats of sewage either.
> 
> *So, indeed, the only sane answer to the cherry picking crowd who crow triumphantly about their outlying most favorite result, is that “No” 2010 was not hotter than 1998, not according to the satellites. And even if it had been, the world was warmer for most of the Holocene. Get over it.*


Bold from the original.

Sums it up for me...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Bold from the original.
> 
> Sums it up for me...


:clap: Me too!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You could visualize the bloodshot eyes, the spittle flying from cracked lips onto screens & keyboards, the desk thumping & shrill, triumphant cries as the Hockey Team proclaimed 2010 as the "warmest year evah!!!"
> 
> Let's re-examine the data sets, shall we?


It's sad to see them proclaiming HOT, HOTTER, HOTTEST!!! while continuing to downgrade their diagnostic capability--apparently deliberately. I believe I read somewhere that we now have the FEWEST temperature recording stations in five decades.


----------



## FeXL

Ran across a very interesting read authored by David Whitehouse who examines a paper on measurements of Stratospheric Water vapour (SWV) over Colorado.



> In the past year or so SWV has become a very interesting topic in climate science as it is clear that small variations in SWV play a larger role in the Earth's radiation budget than had been supposed.
> 
> Solomon et al looked at variations in SWV and concluded that it had been declining since about 2000 and this decline may have partly compensated for the temperature rise expected in the past decade due to AGW. It can’t be the only cooling factor involved that has kept the global annual average temperature constant within the errors for the past decade.
> 
> For me, there was another conclusion drawn in the Solomon paper that fascinated me, albeit at a lower level of statistical confidence (but still respectable.) It is that the data show that SWV started to increase around 1980 and continued to increase until about 2000 and that it may have contributed about a third of the warming observed in that period.


Whitehouse also looks at two other factors that brings the temperature signal over the past 30 years:



> down in the noise of the post-1980 warming period having only considered four factors. There are many more that will have exerted a warming or cooling influence since 1980, including AGW.


Concluding paragraph:



> Have we just lived through a period where a handful of natural decadal and longer variations have conspired to act in the same direction pushing temperatures up? When I read a peer-reviewed paper in a major journal (Solomon’s paper was published in Science) that *plucks from the air an explanation for a third of the warming seen since 1980 via a previously little regarded mechanism, I begin to wonder.*


Emphasis mine.

I'd really like to break my self imposed rule & quote the complete article here, but I won't. It's a great read, fairly short & eminently understandable.


----------



## FeXL

On post 84 of this thread, I linked to an article speaking to the Hockey Team's trick to "hide the decline".

Further light has since been shed on the subject by Steve McIntyre. Apparently not only was the post 1960 decline of the tree proxy data removed, but the pre 1550 portion, as well. Interestingly, this second excision eliminates the ramp up of temps from the "non-existent" Medieval Warm Period. (no wonder the Team doesn't believe in the MWP. Its existence would expose their own fallacies...)

The bright pink portions of the graph illustrate the eliminated data.

How do you spell "cherry pick", anyway?


----------



## FeXL

One more today.

On James Hansen's Lying Eyes, temperature changes, exponential CO2 increases and a graph or two...



> Conclusion : Hansen is wrong about both greenhouse gas growth and temperature change – even using his own bloated temperature numbers. Climate sensitivity is much lower than he projected. It is time for him to come clean about this.


Photographed a Midget provincial hockey tournament this weekend. Even the biggest kids could only take a finite amount of checks against the boards before they collapsed on the bench.

How many more hits does the Hockey Team have in them?


----------



## MacDoc

in case you were wondering



> *Warm water causes extra-cold winters in northeastern North America and northeastern Asia*
> March 30, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This map shows sea‑surface temperatures averaged over eight days in September 2001, as measured by NASA's Terra satellite. Dark red represents warm water (32 degrees Celsius) and purple is cold (‑2 degrees Celsius). The Gulf Stream can be seen as the orange strip extending from the eastern U.S. toward the Atlantic. Credit: Ronald Vogel, SAIC for NASA GSFC_
> 
> If you're sitting on a bench in New York City's Central Park in winter, you're probably freezing. After all, the average temperature in January is 32 degrees Fahrenheit. But if you were just across the pond in Porto, Portugal, which shares New York's latitude, you'd be much warmer—the average temperature is a balmy 48 degrees Fahrenheit.
> 
> Throughout northern Europe, average winter temperatures are at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than similar latitudes on the northeastern coast of the United States and the eastern coast of Canada. The same phenomenon happens over the Pacific, where winters on the northeastern coast of Asia are colder than in the Pacific Northwest.
> 
> Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have now found a mechanism that helps explain these chillier winters—and the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents.
> 
> "These warm ocean waters off the eastern coast actually make it cold in winter—it's counterintuitive," says Tapio Schneider, the Frank J. Gilloon Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering.
> 
> Schneider and Yohai Kaspi, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech, describe their work in a paper published in the March 31 issue of the journal Nature.
> 
> Using computer simulations of the atmosphere, the researchers found that the warm water off an eastern coast will heat the air above it and lead to the formation of atmospheric waves, drawing cold air from the northern polar region. The cold air forms a plume just to the west of the warm water. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, this means the frigid air ends up right over the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This image, taken by NASA's Terra satellite in March 2003, shows a much colder North America than Europe‑‑even at equal latitudes. White represents areas with more than 50 percent snow cover. NASA's Aqua satellite also measured water temperatures. Water between 0 and ‑15 degrees Celsius is in pink, while water between ‑15 and ‑28 degrees Celsius is in purple. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio; George Riggs (NASA/SSAI)._
> 
> For decades, the conventional explanation for the cross-oceanic temperature difference was that the Gulf Stream delivers warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe. But in 2002, research showed that ocean currents aren't capable of transporting that much heat, instead contributing only up to 10 percent of the warming.
> 
> Kaspi's and Schneider's work reveals a mechanism that helps create a temperature contrast not by warming Europe, but by cooling the eastern United States. Surprisingly, it's the Gulf Stream that causes this cooling.
> 
> In the northern hemisphere, the subtropical ocean currents circulate in a clockwise direction, bringing an influx of warm water from low latitudes into the western part of the ocean. These warm waters heat the air above it.
> 
> "It's not that the warm Gulf Stream waters substantially heat up Europe," Kaspi says. "But the existence of the Gulf Stream near the U.S. coast is causing the cooling of the northeastern United States."
> 
> The researchers' computer model simulates a simplified, ocean-covered Earth with a warm region to mimic the coastal reservoir of warm water in the Gulf Stream. The simulations show that such a warm spot produces so-called Rossby waves.
> 
> Generally speaking, Rossby waves are large atmospheric waves—with wavelengths that stretch for more than 1,000 miles. They form when the path of moving air is deflected due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect. In a way similar to how gravity is the force that produces water waves on the surface of a pond, the Coriolis force is responsible for Rossby waves.
> 
> In the simulations, the warm water produces stationary Rossby waves, in which the peaks and valleys of the waves don't move, but the waves still transfer energy. In the northern hemisphere, the stationary Rossby waves cause air to circulate in a clockwise direction just to the west of the warm region. To the east of the warm region, the air swirls in the counterclockwise direction. These motions draw in cold air from the north, balancing the heating over the warm ocean waters.


more

Warm water causes extra-cold winters in northeastern North America and northeastern Asia

*Yes Virginia it IS getting warmer and we ARE responsible....*


----------



## eMacMan

Pick your pizen MD.

Either AGW or a coming incoming ice-age it does not go both ways. In any case those colder temps mean the Greenland glaciers are getting bigger, the Arctic ice cap is getting thicker. The ocean levels are not rising and there is no reason to panic and send half our money to the Al Gore Church of Climatology and see the remainder gobbled up by carbon taxes.

Given that NOAA labeled 2010 in Alberta, one of the coldest on record, as slightly warmer than normal you will forgive me for taking any of their numbers with a healthy helping of skepticism.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, what does this have to do with AGW? It's a computer simulation that might explain temperature differentials between various locations on the same latitude.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> *Yes Virginia it IS getting warmer and we ARE responsible....*


Then quit flying to Africa & Australia. Yer dumpin' carbon in the atmosphere. Hypocrite...


----------



## CubaMark

*The Truth, Still Inconvenient*

_PAUL KRUGMAN_



> So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What’s the punch line? They were three of the five “expert witnesses” Republicans called for last week’s Congressional hearing on climate science. But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.





> Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”





> ...Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case.
> 
> You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.


(Krugman's full Op-Ed piece can be read at NYTimes)


----------



## Macfury

So a railroad engineer, walks into the IPCC and asks for a job... and they ask him to head up the damned thing. And what would an economist--like Krugman--know about climate?

Meanwhile, Muller "cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined."

Big story.


----------



## CubaMark

...and yet Krugman notes that some of Muller's former supporters have turned on him - why, if there's nothing to it?



> Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.”
> 
> Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming.


----------



## Macfury

Because he is presenting the information with only 2 per cent of information analyzed.


----------



## i-rui

so if the other 98% of the data continues the trend you'll change your tune?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> so if the other 98% of the data continues the trend you'll change your tune?


I won't. I wouldn't have given the guy the same credit that Watts did.


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> so if the other 98% of the data continues the trend you'll change your tune?


Is that how it's done these days? Analyse the first bits of information and then just extrapolate?

At least wait until you reach the half-way mark… And I thought I was lazy. :lmao:


----------



## i-rui

MannyP Design said:


> Is that how it's done these days? Analyse the first bits of information and then just extrapolate?


no, that's not how it's done "these days". The data has been in for *YEARS*. And it's been confirmed by numerous studies.

This *particular* study is one by a climate skeptic, and funded by wealthy industrialists. The fact that their numbers are confirming what the vast majority of the science community has been saying should be alarming.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> no, that's not how it's done "these days". The data has been in for *YEARS*. And it's been confirmed by numerous studies.
> 
> This *particular* study is one by a climate skeptic, and funded by wealthy industrialists. The fact that their numbers are confirming what the vast majority of the science community has been saying should be alarming.


As long as you are comfortable ignoring the Maunder Minimum, The Medieval warming period and those brutally cold winters most of us have been dealing with these past four years.

BTW put the Maunder Minimum and the past ten years back into the equations and the hockey stick gets turned over and points downwards.


----------



## FeXL

Precis of a paper submitted to _Climate Dynamics_.



> What was learned
> The three researchers report "there is a steep increase in inferred temperatures at the beginning of the twelfth century, followed by a century of warm temperatures (ca. 1150-1250)," which falls within the temporal confines of the Medieval Warm Period; and they state that "the record ends with a sharp increase in temperatures from around 1910 to the 1940s, followed by decreasing temperatures for a few decades," after which they indicate that "another sharp increase in April-September temperature commenced in the late 1990s," during what is commonly known as the Current Warm Period. Thus, they say that "the two warmest periods are the mid to late twentieth century and the period from AD 1150-1250," and they _emphasize_ that the temperatures of both of these periods have been so similar that "it is not possible to conclude whether the present and relatively recent past are warmer than the 1150-1250 period."


Italics from the analysis.

2010 the warmest year, evah? Once again, not so much...


----------



## FeXL

So, you've probably heard the screeching about how we're at a tipping point, how we must curb CO2 emissions yesterday, blah, blah, blah.

You've also probably heard about Julia Gillard's (freshly elected PM of Australia) failing attempt to bring AGW to the forefront & penalize Australian's citizens (via carbon tax). So, she brings on board Professor Tim "1000 years" Flannery to sell the concept. 

In a recent radio interview Professor Tim jumps on the doomsday train and makes the following statement:



> “If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."…


Tony Abbot, leader of the Opposition, is all over this:



> Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.
> 
> “It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”


Long story longer, using NASA's own official carbon cycle, Joanne Nova finds this:



> You can see below in the NASA diagram that plants absorb 16% of all the carbon dioxide in the entire atmosphere each and every year (121Gt of the 750 Gt in the air) and oceans absorb 12%, meaning that 28% of all the CO2 in the global atmosphere is sucked down each year. Let’s call it “one quarter”.
> 
> If a quarter of all atmospheric CO2 is being turned over each year, that implies that *if humans found the fountain-of -endless-energy, and stopped emitting any CO2 tomorrow, that within just four years, only about 30% of that co2 would remain. Indeed 90% of all the emissions that we’d ever put up there, since King Tut built a pointy-rock-house, would be gone by… 2020.*


Emphasis mine.

Seems like we've still got a little time to rid ourselves of all these hucksters...


----------



## FeXL

It seems like Jeffrey Condon just can't get out of blogging (the Air Vent). Fine by me, as long as he continues making salient observations like this one.

He speaks to the heat capacity of the atmosphere vs the oceans and why he became a sceptic in the first place.



> If you were to transfer enough ocean energy directly to the atmosphere to create 4 degrees of atmospheric warming, how much would that change the average temperature of the Earth’s water?
> 
> Would you believe – 0.001 Degrees C of ocean temp change? The left side pancake wouldn’t look any different in Fig 1! Hell, it wouldn’t change if we were in another oceanic current inspired ice age — think about that.
> 
> *It’s just math folks. The ocean contains so much energy that a thousandth of a degree change can throw 4C into our air temp instantaneously. Unfortunately the discussion is more complex than this because we need then to look at what happens to the release of that heat to space. The real balance is about energy flow vs content rather than instantaneous heat, but realistically tenths of a degree C of atmospheric warming over 30 years are absolutely NOT proof of CO2 global warming doom.*
> 
> ...
> 
> I’ve spent enough time on this today, but continued overconfidence in the meaning of UHI contaminated surface temperatures IS one of the main reasons I’m a skeptic of catastrophic global warming. Every time you see a plot of surface temperatures, we should shoulder shrug and ask – what about total oceanic energy.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

*I'm looking for investors for a new Arctic Polar Expedition business...*

...before all the ice disappears. We've only got  two years so I need to hear from you stat.

Supercomputers. Supercomputers, I TELL YOU!!!!!!!!

Arriving at the wrong conclusions, now 10 times as fast...


----------



## i-rui

> Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as “the ultimate millenium bug”.
> 
> “It will not make a difference for 1000 years,” the Opposition Leader told parliament. “So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years.”


so your argument is we're already royally screwed....let's just run this bad boy into the wall?

the idea is to curb emissions, and slow down the process until we can develop green energy sources that are viable.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> so your argument is we're already royally screwed....let's just run this bad boy into the wall?


Those were his words, not mine. I used them to hold to the candle the futility of pouring trillions into something that may, or may not, change anything a thousand years into the future.

That, and to illustrate that many of these so-called & self-professed experts (Professor Tim) don't have a clew about timelines.

Or much else...



i-rui said:


> the idea is to curb emissions, and slow down the process until we can develop green energy sources that are viable.


Oh.

Can you name any of those, BTW? 

"Green energy sources that are viable"?

I'd especially be very interested in learning about any that doesn't require propping up via massive financial support from the gov't and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

Bearing that prerequisite in mind, giant fans & splitting the atom just bit the dust.

There is faint hope for solar (as long as they can improve efficiency and create better batteries), in instances where the sun shines.


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> Oh.
> 
> Can you name any of those, BTW?
> 
> "Green energy sources that are viable"?
> 
> I'd especially be very interested in learning about any that doesn't require propping up via massive financial support from the gov't and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
> 
> Bearing that prerequisite in mind, giant fans & splitting the atom just bit the dust.
> 
> There is faint hope for solar (as long as they can improve efficiency and create better batteries), in instances where the sun shines.


I'm not sure what that Green Energy solution will be, but make no mistake the planet *needs* an alternative. Oil is a *finite* resource. it *will run out one day*. whether thats 25 or 50 years from now, or 100 or 200 years, we do have to find a replacement, and not looking for one is a massive mistake.



FeXL said:


> I'd especially be very interested in learning about any that doesn't require propping up via massive financial support from the gov't and, ultimately, the taxpayer.


and how many *billions* have Canadians poured into the oil sands??


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I'm not sure what that Green Energy solution will be, but make no mistake the planet *needs* an alternative. Oil is a *finite* resource. it *will run out one day*. whether thats 25 or 50 years from now, or 100 or 200 years, we do have to find a replacement, and not looking for one is a massive mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> and how many *billions* have Canadians poured into the oil sands??


I don't support government support of any energy technology, but if I had to pick one it would be the Oil Sands. At least there's a real pay-off.

All resources are ultimately finite. One day we will run out of arable land. Ready to invest billions in lunar agriculture? Do it now, because Earth's agriculture won't support us all forever, don'tchaknow? Only prudent and all.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> All resources are ultimately finite. One day we will run out of arable land. Ready to invest billions in lunar agriculture? Do it now, because Earth's agriculture won't support us all forever, don'tchaknow? Only prudent and all.





i-rui said:


> so your argument is we're already royally screwed....let's just run this bad boy into the wall?


!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> All resources are ultimately finite.


This is only semantically true. In general, when referring to 'renewable' resources, one is not considering the fact that the sun will burn out and the earth will become uninhabitable billions of years from now.



> One day we will run out of arable land.


Only if we continue to grow our population and/or mismanage the land.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> I'm not sure what that Green Energy solution will be, but make no mistake the planet *needs* an alternative. Oil is a *finite* resource. it *will run out one day*. whether thats 25 or 50 years from now, or 100 or 200 years, we do have to find a replacement, and not looking for one is a massive mistake.


No argument. At no point did I say we should stop searching for alternatives. I just don't want my tax dollar supporting it. If you truly have some earth-shattering discovery, then investors will finance it.

And, I see no need in repeating mistakes made elsewhere. Ask the Danes how well wind energy works, both as an alternative energy source and how much CO2 is reduced with their use. These mistakes were made 20 years ago and nothing has changed since then. Why aren't we smart enough to learn from other peoples' mistakes? Because of the eco-nuts and big business being able to convince certain suckers (namely, gov't) otherwise.



i-rui said:


> and how many *billions* have Canadians poured into the oil sands??


And how many billions have Canadians gotten out of the oil sands? 

Especially Quebec? 

And now, as a have not province, Ontario?

Don't see very many pushing themselves away from the trough...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Only if we continue to grow our population and/or mismanage the land.


Oh, you mean like if some bright star suddenly came along & decided that all gasoline should contain a certain percentage of, say, alcohol?

And, subsequently world food prices increased because 40% of the arable land in the US was chasing the subsidized price of corn instead of cereal grains like wheat, barley & oats?

And, because of that foodstuff price increase even more people were starving the world over?

And, the US gov't is in the process of mandating even higher alcohol content in gasoline?

Like, what's happening right now?

Don't get even get me started...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Oh, you mean like if some bright star suddenly came along & decided that all gasoline should contain a certain percentage of, say, alcohol?


This is actually an interesting topic, and I'd like to discuss it further, but I don't want to disrupt the anti-science echo chamber here... want to start a new topic?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This is actually an interesting topic, and I'd like to discuss it further, but I don't want to disrupt the *anti-science echo chamber* here... want to start a new topic?


Ouch!

Go ahead, if you like. I think it also fits the Alternative Energy Sources thread. Whatever.


----------



## MannyP Design

bryanc said:


> This is actually an interesting topic, and I'd like to discuss it further, but I don't want to disrupt the anti-pseudo science echo chamber here... want to start a new topic?


Fixed it for you. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Carrying on with my so-called anti science postings... 

I've mentioned periodicities a couple of times & my belief in the futility of relying on 150 year (or whatever) temperature records as the defining period in climate history.

Further to that is an NIPCC analysis of a paper published in Geology on a 1470 year sea surface temperature climate oscillation which, interestingly enough, lines up with the Little Ice Age & Dark Ages minimums and the Medieval Warm Period maximum.



> We also add that all of these observations and implications have absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 concentration being a contributing factor to the 1500-year cycle of warming and cooling that permeates both glacial and interglacial environments alike, and that the Current Warm Period may thus also be largely unrelated to the historical rise in the air's CO2 content.


Just because we haven't experienced it in our lifetime doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## MacDoc

Speaking of anti-science - this denier attempt at "credibility" back fired rather dramatically....



> *Global Warming Skeptic Changes His Tune*
> — by Doing the Science Himself
> by Donald Prothero, Apr 06 2011
> 
> With the GOP takeover of the House, the political climate surrounding controversial topics in science has changed radically. The extremists who now run the House Energy and Commerce Committee have been doing their best to challenge the enormous body of evidence supporting the reality of global climate change. On March 10, 2011, they set new lows for trying to redefine “greenhouse gases” to exclude carbon dioxide, methane, and all the other greenhouse gases that science has recognized. The situation was so ludicrous that Rep. Edward Markey (Democrat from Massachusetts) mocked their anti-scientific efforts by asking if they planned to repeal the laws of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, and heliocentrism. In his words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that overturns the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. However, I won’t physically rise, because I’m worried that Republicans will overturn the law of gravity, sending us floating about the room. I won’t call for the sunlight of additional hearings, for fear that Republicans might excommunicate the finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Instead, I’ll embody Newton’s third law of motion and be an equal and opposing force against this attack on science and on laws that will reduce America’s importation of foreign oil. This bill will live in the House while simultaneously being dead in the Senate. It will be a legislative Schrodinger’s cat killed by the quantum mechanics of the legislative process! Arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause us to rise from our seats today. But with this bill, pollution levels will rise. Oil imports will rise. Temperatures will rise. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. That is, unless a rejection of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is somewhere in the chair’s amendment pile.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Republican leaders of the House Science and Technology Committee were also attacking the science of global warming. The agenda for their March 31, 2011 hearing was explicitly arranged to challenge the climate science community and cast doubt on their data about global temperature change. They openly “stacked the deck” with their chosen witnesses, which included such “expert scientific witnesses” as an economist, a lawyer, and a professor of marketing—and Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at University of California Berkeley.
> 
> To geologists, Richard Muller is a well-known name, even though his expertise is primarily in nuclear physics. He has dabbled in a lot of geologic topics over the years with varied success. His efforts to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs by postulating another unseen star in our solar system (the “Nemesis hypothesis”) has been refuted, as were his explanations of a alleged 26-million-year cycle of extinctions by postulating periodic perturbations of comets in the Oort cloud. As I summarized in my 2003 paleontology textbook (Prothero, 2003, Bringing Fossils to Life, Chapter 6, the original data supporting the “periodic extinction” model has long been discredited, so the periodicity is not real. Thus, the mechanisms proposed to explain a non-existent extinction periodicity are now moot as well.
> 
> To the global warming deniers, Muller had been an important scientific figure with good credentials who had expressed doubt about the temperature data used to track the last few decades of global warming. Muller was influenced by Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman (not a trained climate scientist) and blogger who has argued that the data set is mostly from large cities, where the “urban heat island” effect might bias the overall pool of worldwide temperature data. Climate scientists have pointed out that they have accounted for this possible effect already, but Watts and Muller were unconvinced. With $150,000 (25% of their funding) from the Koch brothers (the nation’s largest supporters of climate denial research), as well as the Getty Foundation (their wealth largely based on oil money) and other funding sources, Muller set out to reanalyze all the temperature data by setting up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project. Although only 2% of the data were analyzed by last month, the Republican climate deniers in Congress called him to testify in their March 31 hearing to attack global warming science, expecting him to give them scientific data supporting their biases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To their dismay, Muller behaved like a real scientist and not an ideologue*—he followed his data and told them the truth, not what they wanted to hear.
> 
> *Muller pointed out that his analysis of the data set almost exactly tracked what the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS), and the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK had already published *(see figure). Muller testified before the House Committee that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was created to make the best possible estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record of measurements as possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and elimination of systematic biases. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right-wing ideologues were sorely disappointed, and reacted viciously in the political sphere by attacking their own scientist, but Muller’s scientific integrity overcame any biases he might have harbored at the beginning. He “called ‘em as he saw ‘em” and told truth to power. Such scientific backbone is becoming increasingly rare in a political climate where every controversial scientific topic, from evolution to global climate change to stem-cell research, has become highly polarized and ideological. But it speaks well of the scientific process when a prominent skeptic like Muller does his job properly and admits that his original biases were wrong. As reported in the Los Angeles Times :
> 
> Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, which contributed some funding to the Berkeley effort, said Muller’s statement to Congress was “honorable” in recognizing that “previous temperature reconstructions basically got it right…. Willingness to revise views in the face of empirical data is the hallmark of the good scientific process.”
> 
> This is the essence of the scientific method at its best. There may be biases in our perceptions, and we may want to find data that fits our preconceptions about the world, but if science is done properly, we get a real answer, often one we did not expect or didn’t want to hear. That’s the true test of when science is giving us a reality check: when it tells us “an inconvenient truth”, something we do not like, but is inescapable if one follows the scientific method and analyzes the data honestly.
> 
> Thomas Henry Huxley said it best over 150 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Skepticblog » Global Warming Skeptic Changes His Tune ? by Doing the Science Himself


----------



## Macfury

*MacDoc, do you not read these threads at all????*

This subject was dealt with days ago.


----------



## FeXL

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There, that should be enough HA's.

I wondered if anyone was going to be so naive as to actually post anything else about this.

Let's have a look at the other side of the argument, shall we?

From Anthony Watts, MacDoc's favorite sceptic:



> It has come to my attention that data and information from my team’s upcoming paper, shared in confidence with Dr. Richard Muller, is being used to suggest some early conclusions about the state of the quality of the surface temperature measurement system of the United States and the temperature data derived from it.
> 
> Normally such scientific debate is conducted in peer reviewed literature, rather than rushed to the floor of the House before papers and projects are complete, but since my team and I are not here to represent our work in person, we ask that this letter be submitted into the Congressional record.


Bad form, Dr. Muller.

From MacDoc's second favorite sceptic, Willis Eschenbach:



> So Dr. Muller, in his first and most public appearance on the subject, has made some of the more unusual claims about the existing temperature datasets I’ve heard to date.
> 
> 1. Since the largest temperature rise in the three datasets is 30% greater than the smallest rise, their work is not “excellent” in any sense of the word. Nor should the BEST team “strive to build on it.” Instead, they should strive to understand why the three vary so widely. What decisions make the difference? Which decisions make little difference?
> 
> 2. Not one of the three datasets shows a temperature rise anywhere near the 1.2°C rise Muller is claiming since 1900. The largest one shows only about 3/4 of his claimed rise.
> 
> 3. He claims a “0.2 degree uncertainty”. But the difference between the largest and smallest calculated warming from the three datasets is 0.2°C, so the uncertainty has to be a lot more than that …
> 
> 4. He says that the land warming since 1957 is 0.7°C. The records beg to differ. Here’s the land warming since 1957:
> 
> NASA GISTEMP: 0.83°C
> 
> NOAA NCDC: 1.10°C
> 
> CRUTEM: 0.93°C
> 
> Note that none of them are anywhere near 0.7°C. Note also the huge difference in the trends in these “excellent” datasets, a difference of half a degree per century.
> 
> 5. He fails to distinguish CRUTEM (the land-only temperature record produced by the Climategate folks) from HadCRU (a land-ocean record produced jointly by the Hadley folks and the Climategate folks). A minor point to be sure, but one indicating his unfamiliarity with the underlying datasets he is discussing.


From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.:



> the global temperature anomaly is essentially irrelevant in terms of climate change issues that matter to society and the environment. Even in terms of global warming, it is a grossly inadequate measure...
> 
> ...
> 
> All his study has accomplished so far is to confirm that NCDC, GISS and CRU honestly used the raw observed data as the starting point for their analyses. This is not a surprising result. We have never questioned this aspect of their analyses.
> 
> The uncertainties and systematic biases that we have published in several peer-reviewed papers, however, remain unexplored so far by Richard Muller and colleagues as part of The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.


Interestingly enough, Muller gets this correct:



> “*Without the efforts of Anthony Watts and his team, we would have only a series of anecdotal images of poor temperature stations, and we would not be able to evaluate the integrity of the data. This is a case in which scientists receiving no government funding did work crucial to understanding climate change. Similarly for the work done by Steve McIntyre. Their “amateur” science is not amateur in quality; it is true science, conducted with integrity and high standards*.”


Emphasis mine.

Again, from Dr. Roger Pielke Senior:



> In his testimony Richard Muller (which I posted on Friday April 2 2011), indicated that he used 2% of the available surface stations that measure temperatures in the BEST assessment of long-term trends. It is important to realize that the sampling is still biased if a preponderance of his data sources comes from a subset of actual landscape types. The sampling will necessarily be skewed towards those sites.
> 
> If the BEST data came from a different distribution of locations than the GHCNv.2, however, then his results would add important new insight into the temperature trend analyses. If they have the same spatial distribution, however, they would not add anything beyond confirming that NCDC, GISS and CRU were properly using the collected raw data.


Additional comments by Anthony Watts, who is suitably stunned that MSM, the LA Times, no less, actually had the prescience to quote a scientist:



> Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain’s Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. *But he said the Berkeley team had been “seriously compromised” by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.*
> 
> - Peter Thorne, National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.


Emphasis from the link.

Kevin Trenberth also voiced his reservations:



> Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium, said he was “highly skeptical of the hype and claims” surrounding the Berkeley effort. “The team has some good people,” he said, “but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive.”


The biggest issue here is not that Muller had changed his tune, but that he had used prepublished data in his Congressional testimony, data which had been shared in confidence and was used in nothing more than a publicity stunt. 

For those of you keeping track, that means no peer review.

C'mon, MacDoc, you can do better.

BTW, pumped any CO2 into the upper atmosphere lately? Or are you still down under?


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> From Anthony Watts, MacDoc's favorite sceptic:





> Muller was influenced by Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman (not a trained climate scientist) and blogger


ummm.....

also this ;



> Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.”


isn't he a bit of a joke?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> ummm.....
> 
> also this ;
> 
> 
> 
> isn't he a bit of a joke?


No. Muller is the joke, as FeXL so adequately demonstrates.


----------



## i-rui

i guess whatever fits your narrative....


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> i guess whatever fits your narrative....


Muller is trying to state a scientific case with only two per cent of data reporting. That's utterly ludicrous. Watt was expecting Muller to complete the work and have it peer-reviewed before spouting off.


----------



## i-rui

but he was called to testify about his research. Wouldn't it be irresponsible for him not to point out that his data points to the same results as the vast majority of scientists? Granted 2% of the data may have been analyzed, but I don't think he was hiding that fact, and he still has to be upfront about the findings so far.

A better question would be if the 2% of the data said what Watts wanted it to say would he be criticizing Muller for releasing his findings?

And again, the same question as i posed to you before, if the rest of the data follows the trend, will Watts stand by his earlier statement :



> Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “*prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong*.”


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> A better question would be if the 2% of the data said what Watts wanted it to say would he be criticizing Muller for releasing his findings?


I believe he would have, 



i-rui said:


> And again, the same question as i posed to you before, if the rest of the data follows the trend, will Watts stand by his earlier statement :


I believe he would have, if he felt the study had been performed with some degree of rigour. At this point he may simply have lost faith in Muller as a scientist.


----------



## FeXL

One of the Sacred Cows of AGW posits that water vapor in the presence of CO2 increases the absorption & emission of infra red waves, hence warming the earth's surface/atmosphere.

As such:



> “As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”


Using a calculations, Nasif S. Nahle determines:



> *The result of my calculations is that carbon dioxide reduces the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.*


Hate when that happens. Oh, emphasis mine,

Toss another bovine on the pyre...

I first ran across this through EM Smith's blog, Musings from the Chiefio. He notes:



> Yes, it is a calculated result and not a measured result. Then again, a direct calculation is better than a computer simulation any day… so I’d say it’s over to the Nintendo Kids to work out a comeback.


Nahle's article in its entirety.

Conclusion?



> My assessment demonstrates that there will be no increase in warming from an increase of absorptivity of IR by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide.
> 
> On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.
> 
> Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the carbon dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.
> 
> Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture, giving a value of ΔE = 0.3814, which is lower than the value of ΔE obtained by considering only the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide.


The herd is gettin' pretty thin these days.

Still mighty tasty, though...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> The herd is gettin' pretty thin these days.
> 
> Still mighty tasty, though...


Makes it tough on the vegetarians. Roast beef galore but no can eat.

Guess that's why so many Albertans have big grins on their faces nowadays. 

Now if we could just get all this winters $#!77y snow to melt before next winter closes in...


----------



## MacDoc

Battle lines forming in the US



> *Why We're Merging to Form a Climate Change Supergroup*
> 
> * Bill McKibbenBill McKibben
> 
> This morning, two powerhouse climate change advocacy organizations, 1Sky and 350.org, announced they would be merging. This is a guest post written by occasional contributor Bill McKibben, chair of 350.org, and Betsy Taylor, former chair of 1Sky. —Ben Jervey
> 
> If you spend a little time as an environmentalist, one thing you’ll hear eventually from friends and family: “I wish there weren’t so many groups. It’s confusing—I don’t know who to volunteer for. Wouldn’t it work better if you all got together?”
> 
> This isn’t quite as obvious as it sounds. Different groups have sprung up at different times to fill different niches—you wouldn’t look out at a marsh and say “it would be much nicer if there was just one kind of frog to keep track of.” Diversity has some very real purposes.
> 
> But there are moments, and this is one of them, when unity is essential. We’re up against the most sustained assault on the environment ever: in the last few weeks our oldest environmental groups have had to play nonstop defense just to keep Congress from gutting the Clean Air Act. A president elected on the promise of transformational energy change has reverted to opening vast tracts of Wyoming to new coal-mining. A Tea-Party House of Representatives has actually voted to deny the science of global warming.
> 
> Behind all this is a very unified fossil-fuel industry. Working through the Koch Brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a couple of other fronts they’re busy buying votes and supplying disinformation. And they’re winning. To fight back effectively, we need a much louder voice.


more
Why We're Merging to Form a Climate Change Supergroup - Environment - GOOD)

*yes Virginia there IS a conspiracy and we know where it LIES....*

_Behind all this is a very unified fossil-fuel industry. Working through the Koch Brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a couple of other fronts they’re busy buying votes and supplying disinformation. And they’re winning. To fight back effectively, we need a much louder voice._


----------



## Macfury

Heave-ho, EPA! You've overstepped your bounds. Stick a fork in 'em--they're done!


----------



## MacDoc

> * Gulf Stream could be threatened by Arctic flush *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18:00 05 April 2011 by *Fred Pearce*
> For similar stories, visit the *Mysteries of the Deep Sea*  and *Climate Change* Topic Guides
> 
> Rapid warming in the Arctic is creating a new and fast-growing pool of fresh water in the Arctic Ocean. Measuring at least 7500 cubic kilometres, it could flush into the Atlantic Ocean and slow the Gulf Stream, bringing colder winters to Europe.
> The water is mostly coming from melting permafrost and rising rainfall, which is increasing flows in Siberian rivers that drain into the Arctic, such as the Ob and Yenisei.
> 
> More comes from melting sea ice, says Laura de Steur of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Sea Research in 't Horntje, who is tracking the build-up.
> 
> Salinity anomalies like this are a regular feature of the Arctic. The last major event occurred in the 1960s. They happen when strong winds circling the Arctic restrict southward water movement. Eventually, the winds falter and the water flushes into the Atlantic through the Fram strait, between Greenland and Europe.
> 
> Recent Arctic melting runs the risk of increasing the freshwater build-up, potentially making the consequences of the eventual breakout more extreme, says de Steur. This is the first time that scientists have measured a salinity anomaly in the Arctic in detail, and in time to analyse how the freshwater pool breaks out into the North Atlantic.


more - and what happened last time this happened to the extreme..
Gulf Stream could be threatened by Arctic flush - environment - 05 April 2011 - New Scientist

Interesting times......

••
and in the Daily Humour column












> *Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic's Own Data Confirms Warming*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Graph via Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature_
> This week, a climate hearing was held in the US House of Reps. Six 'experts' on climate were brought in, but only three were scientists. And it turns out that one of the GOP's star witnesses -- a scientist who's been vocal in his skepticism of global temperature records, the physicist Richard Muller, of University of California, Berkeley, didn't quite help them disprove climate change. Quite the opposite, in fact.


Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic's Own Data Confirms Warming | AlterNet

great is the tempest in the ever shrinking deniosphere...


----------



## Macfury

MaccyD, that's the third time we've seen that erroneous Muller article here. Apparently you don't even read your own posts.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> MaccyD, that's the third time we've seen that *erroneous Muller article* here. Apparently you don't even read your own posts.


it's not "erroneous". You might be justified in saying the research is incomplete, but that 2% of data was taken randomly throughout the entire time-line and still matched the previous studies.....which is a pretty strong indicator that the rest of the data would follow suit.

I'd like to see the study completed, but I'm guessing the industrialists will pull all funding now that they know it's not going to be what they want to hear.


----------



## MacDoc

and it was Koch et al that pushed the early release. Bears repeating to limn the foolish lengths the denial crowd will stoop to.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> and it was Koch et al that pushed the early release. Bears repeating to limn the foolish lengths the denial crowd will stoop to.


OTOH the sheer arrogance of the other side equipped with nothing but shaky evidence, most of it conveniently rigged to suit their "beliefs", stoops to fear mongering.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> OTOH the sheer arrogance of *the other side equipped with nothing but shaky evidence*, most of it conveniently rigged to suit their "beliefs", stoops to fear mongering.


"the other side" being science?

the IPCC and the *vast* majority of scientific organizations that support the theory?

There are only 5 scientific organizations that are "non-committal" about the theory, and *ZERO* that disagree with it.


----------



## eMacMan

On one side science supported only by computer models and numbers that breakdown when the Maunder Minimum, the Medieval Warming and similar events over the previous 25,000 years are included in the model. 

Have things been gradually warming over the past 500 years? Yes. Has the process been accelerating over the past 50 years? No! As a matter of fact weather patterns over the past 3-5 years have been very similar to the cold spell from the mid 50s to the mid 70s. Part of a normal cycle. Interestingly the only ones who failed to predict it were the AGW crowd.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> "the other side" being science?
> 
> the IPCC and the *vast* majority of scientific organizations that support the theory?
> 
> There are only 5 scientific organizations that are "non-committal" about the theory, and *ZERO* that disagree with it.


The other side being largely _boards_ of politically-minded people running the organizations of scientific bodies.


----------



## i-rui

eMacMan said:


> As a matter of fact weather patterns over the past 3-5 years have been very similar to the cold spell from the mid 50s to the mid 70s.


NASA - NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record



> In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.





Macfury said:


> The other side being largely _boards_ of politically-minded people running the organizations of scientific bodies.


the truth is actually the reverse. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists denied climate change until 2007, but had to change to a non-comittal stance because the majority of it's members (scientists) disagreed and were actually leaving the organization. They realized they couldn't spread the propaganda of their corporate masters while being a "real" scientific body.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and it was Koch et al that pushed the early release. Bears repeating to limn the foolish lengths the denial crowd will stoop to.


Let's look at what _really_ is foolish & bears repeating here...

During your recent globetrotting, you have personally been responsible for pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than most folk on these boards.

Yet, at the same time, you continually harken the phrase, "and we are responsible!" or some other such drivel, accompanied by dem rollin' eyes...

While I brook no issue with air travel, your actions & contradictory words smack of the very same hypocrisy exhibited by other warmists like Suzuki, Gore & Pachauri-not company you really want to associate yourself with. And, don't even get me started on useless, guilt assuaging "offset credits" at a nickel a ton.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Right.

The fleeting vestiges of credibility you may have once had are now festooning the sky as crossing contrails.

Spelling "Hypocrite."

As to to your "ever shrinking deniosphere" comment, you best take a gander at the lawsuits being leveled by warmists at deniers. No longer content to fear monger and spread disinformation & science cherry-picked & so full of holes it makes a swiss cheese look solid, the lawyers have arrived.

You can always tell the other side is losing once their lawyers show up...


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> NASA - NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record


Asked & answered.

Go back a few pages in this thread. There's a link for that. The data used to find 2010 as the "warmest yeah evah" was cherry picked from stations which would support the theory.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Asked & answered.
> 
> Go back a few pages in this thread. There's a link for that. The data used to find 2010 as the "warmest yeah evah" was cherry picked from stations which would support the theory.


Yep for most of Alberta 2010 was one of the colder years on record, but NASA/NOAA somehow managed to have us showing up as slightly warmer than normal. Ditto for many other regions especially in South America.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of cherry picking, more on hiding the decline and tree proxies.

From Fig. 4:



> The effect of using “all the data to hand” is potentially quite dramatic. The graphic below compares the Briffa 2009 chronology (red) to the average of site RCS chronologies for the 20 Vaganov sites in the 10-degree box. As you can see, there is considerable correlation between the two chronologies, though the Briffa version is spikier than the much larger Vaganov network. The discrepancy becomes very pronounced from the 1970s on – the Vagnov network shows the characteristic “decline” in the late 20th century that also characterized the large Schweingruber network, while the Briffa Limited Hangout network surges to new records.


Closing remarks:



> I find the evidence of these emails is hard to reconcile with CRU statements that they had never “considered” updating the Polar Urals chronology, that they had never “considered” adding other chronologies to Yamal to make a regional network and that they had “lacked time” to make a combined Polar Urals/Yamal chronology.
> 
> In order for the “inquiries” to properly carry out their obligations, they should, among other things, have obtained the regional chronology referred to in email 1146252894.txt and provided an explanation of why this chronology never appeared. They should also have resolved the apparent contradictions between CRU’s evidence to Muir Russell (and their online statement before Climategate) was that they never “considered” the addition of Schweingruber and other data to make a regional chronology with the evidence of the emails that they had already made such a calculation in April 2006.


Mysteriously, the timelines just don't match up.

Long, dry & damning.

Read it.


----------



## i-rui

I guess it comes down to who's data analysis do you trust.

I'll pay more heed to NASA and the 98+% of scientists who agree rather than ex-weathermen and mineral prospectors.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I guess it comes down to who's data analysis do you trust.
> 
> I'll pay more heed to NASA and the 98+% of scientists who agree rather than ex-weathermen and mineral prospectors.


NASA has become the political arm of its adminstrator, James Hansen. Your figures of support for AGW are grotesquely overstated.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> I guess it comes down to who's data analysis do you trust.
> 
> I'll pay more heed to NASA and the 98+% of scientists who agree rather than ex-weathermen and mineral prospectors.


Is that this 98%?

Try again...


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> Is that this 98%?
> 
> Try again...



no it's this 98% :



> A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
> 
> (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[104]


----------



## vancouverdave

i-rui said:


> no it's this 98% :


/agree

from Tim: "Science adjusts its views based on observation. Faith is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved."

YouTube - Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie


----------



## MacDoc

Do we *all* agree CM ???- one only wishes it were so



> ScienceInsider - breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
> *Live Hearing: NASA's Schmidt, Pew's Gulledge, and Science's Kintisch on Clima*te (Transcript)
> by Eli Kintisch on 31 March 2011, 10:00 AM | Permanent Link | 3 Comments
> 
> A hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (live feed at their site) tomorrow at 10 a.m. EST will explore the science behind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's effort to regulate greenhouse gases.


NASA's Gavin Schmidt and Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change joins ScienceInsider's Eli Kintisch in liveblogging the event. It appears there will be five majority witnesses, one witness chosen by the Democrats. Come join us, send comments, questions!
Gavin is brilliant and there is a ton of good info and links

Live Hearing: NASA's Schmidt, Pew's Gulledge, and Science's Kintisch on Climate (Transcript) - ScienceInsider

If you take the time to read the dialogue you will soon see how woefully wrong your "all agree" is in the corridors of US right wing power and their Canadian fellow travellers.


----------



## Macfury

vancouverdave said:


> /agree
> 
> from Tim: "Science adjusts its views based on observation. Faith is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved."


Which scientist have you ever heard say "the science is settled." Faith is also allowing philosophy to guide one's science--as many of the AGW crowd are currently doing.



i-rui said:


> no it's this 98% :


The study has been so widely roundhoused it's shocking to see it still quoted. The guy used his own personal criteria to eliminate whatever data he didn't like, then declared that only AGW-supporting climate scientists get published, therefore they're right. If you want to see a statistical breakdown of this folly I will supply it. Publishing of this study actually led to a widespread backlash, even from those supporting AGW.


----------



## FeXL

There's a garbage article being circulated on the intertoob about recent flowering of Japanese cherry trees being unprecedentedly early.

For the truth in the matter, visit this:



> The reconstructed tenth century March mean temperatures were around 7°C, indicating warmer conditions than at present.


More warmist denial of the MWP...

Wait, wasn't there just a post about that? Something about faith & observation?

Hmmm...


----------



## eMacMan

Lets face it even the well established theories of Gravity and Relativity are undergoing major re-examination as is the Big Bang Theory. All of these are far more firmly studied,established and reviewed than CO2 as a major driver of climate change. To claim that climate science is complete and cast in stone is as moronic as claiming the laws of gravity were infallible and complete prior to Einstein or even that the modified versions we have today are indelible.

Does CO2 have a place in climate patterns? Probably. Is it a driver or a follower? Not established in either direction. Is it the major driver? Almost certainly not. Other wise Mann and his cohorts would not have to ignore the Maunder Minimum, the Medieval Warming and countless similar cycles prior to that time.

Hear them shout for carbon taxes.
Though they'll knock us on our axis.
Mann backses carbon taxes.
And that's way too cold for me.

Give me that good old global warming.
I am tired of winter storming.
The icicles are forming,
Mann it's way too cold for me.


----------



## FeXL

More on the immutable James Hansen's 1988 forecast failures...



> A doubling of CO2 by 2028 is more like Joe Romm’s “super-exponential” growth, then scenario B. And regardless of which scenario Hansen now claims he meant, they are all too high. The red line shows the GISS trend since 1960.
> 
> CO2 is not going to double by 2028 and Manhattan is not going to be underwater.


----------



## MacDoc

> 12 April 2011 Last updated at 17:10 GMT
> 
> *Shale gas 'worse than coal' for climat*e
> Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
> A core of shale rock Gas is a natural by-product of shale rock
> ates
> 
> *The new kid on the energy block, shale gas, may be worse in climate change terms than coal, a study concludes.*
> 
> Drawn from rock through a controversial "fracking" process, some hail the gas as a "stepping stone" to a low-carbon future and a route to energy security.
> 
> But US researchers found that shale gas wells leak substantial amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
> 
> This makes its climate impact worse than conventional gas, they say - and probably worse than coal as well.
> 
> "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years," they write in a paper to be published shortly in the journal Climatic Change.


BBC News - Shale gas 'worse than coal' for climate

TANSTAAFL


----------



## MacDoc

and the consequences 



> AAAS 2011: *Climate change poses challenge to food safety*
> 
> Sid Perkins
> 
> WASHINGTON, DC – Climate change will pose a number of challenges to food safety in the coming decades, from boosting the rates of food- and water-borne illnesses to enabling the spread of pathogens, researchers reported Monday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
> 
> Depending on the greenhouse gas emissions scenario, global average temperature is expected to rise between 1.1° and 6.8° Celsius by the end of the century. And warmer temperatures are known to increase rates of some diseases: According to a recent study of salmonellosis in Europe, frequency of the ailment rises about 12 percent for every 1°C that air temperature increases beyond a baseline of 6°C, said Cristina Tirado, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. The precise cause for this trend isn’t clear, said Ewen Todd, a bacteriologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing. It’s possible that warmer temperatures cause bacteria to grow more quickly, or people may prepare food differently in warmer weather (grilling outdoors vis-à-vis cooking in a kitchen, for example).
> 
> Climate change can increase disease risks in several ways, Tirado added. The concentration of methyl mercury in fish increases about 3.5 percent for every 1°C rise in water temperature. Warmer sea-surface temperatures can boost the frequency of harmful algal blooms, leading to an increased incidence of paralytic shellfish poisoning. Higher water temperatures also enable the spread of pathogens to higher latitudes: An outbreak of vibriosis on an Alaskan cruise ship in 2005, later linked to oysters that had been harvested near one of the ship’s ports of call, represents the spread of the disease-causing Vibrio parahaemolyticus to a locale more than 1,000 kilometers north of its previous known range. Dust storms, which are expected to increase in some regions due to climate change, could wreak their own havoc, because iron-rich mineral dust can drive a 10- to 1,000-fold increase in the growth rate of Vibrio bacteria.


Climate Feedback


----------



## Macfury

I guess when you toss out a nickel for every ton of greenhouse gas you produce flying around the world, none of that happens eh, MacDoc? The hypocrisy here is astonishing. "Sure, I'm causing the mercury in food fish to concentrate but I know what I'm doing and I expiate my guilt while paying a five-cent indulgence while doing it."

Seriously man, you fly more miles each year than any human I know. And still live in suburban sprawl on that environmentally sensitive piece of land at the foot of the Niagara Escarpment. 

But heaven help people who want to mine shale gas--evil, evil people.

Last time we relied on wind power was around 1300 AD. Great times, my friend.


----------



## eMacMan

What it comes down to is this: The proposals from The Church of Climatology all revolve around Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade, and poisonous lightbulbs. 

Carbon taxes: Steal from the poor>give to the government>government gives it to the Banksters. 

Cap & Trade: Steal from the poor>Give to The Church of Climatology.

Replace conventional lightbulbs with Mercury laden lightbulbs to achieve almost zero energy savings. They legislate this even though they know Canada is a Northern climate. All that "wasted" heat is captured within the home and slightly offsets winter heating requirements. The three months a year when extra heat is not required, those lights can be turned off altogether thanks to the extended daylight during our Northern summer.

In other words despite all the talk and the trillion$ they wish to steal from the worlds population. The Church of Climatology crowd has come up with nothing that would actually reduce those CO2 emissions they rail against.

If you want those of us whom you are proposing to shove out onto ice floes, to support your ideas: Try coming up with ideas that reduce our expenses and clean-up the air, water and land. Not your current ideas that cost a lot and do nothing or worse actually further pollute our environment.


----------



## FeXL

"Shale gas 'worse than coal' for climate"

Wondered if this was going to rear it's ugly head here. Shoulda knowed at least one person would have the temerity...

OK, disclaimer: The link I'm about to post is on an energy blog. This means that it has its own bias & I fully acknowledge that. No question, they have a vested interest & there is a slant.

However, take a look at some of the admissions by Robert Howarth (who is far from apolitical himself) et al., author of the study mentioned in MacDoc's link:



> Howarth: “They are limited data. These are not published data. These are things teased apart out of PowerPoint presentations here and there. So rather than try to extrapolate based on any complicated formula, we’ve ended up simply taking the mean of those values.”
> 
> Howarth: “A lot of the data we used are really low quality, but I’m confident that they are the best available data.”
> 
> Howarth: “Let me just as an aside say that, again, the quality of the data behind that number [methane emissions during well completion] are pretty lousy. You know, they’re these weird PowerPoint sort of things.”
> 
> Ingraffea: “We do not intend for you to accept what we have reported on today as the definitive scientific study in respect to this question, clearly it is not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data.”
> 
> Ingraffea: “I hope you don’t gather from this presentation that we think we’re right.”


There is much more, very readable.

Frankly, this issue, this study, this paper raises two points for me.

1) I don't think either side has a clue as to long term effects. They both have an axe to grind and are covering their backsides. Having said that, the "quality" of this so-called paper, if the word can even be applied in the loosest of terms, sucks. 

This leads me to my chiefest concern, one which I have posted about in the past;

2) This is what passes for peer-reviewed science? O.M.G. 

Honestly? This speaks more to me about the quality of the peer review process than any concerns about shale gas extraction by either party, real or imagined...


----------



## SINC

> Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. *Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.*


Emphasis mine.

Cold Facts on Global Warming


----------



## FeXL

Paper analyzed & linked to here at Judith Curry's site, on connections between Earth's climate, the orbits of planets in the solar system & old Sol by Nicola Scafetta.

Very interesting read.

Abstract:



> We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.251C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. I*t is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations.* The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators.


Some text from the conclusion:



> Herein, we have found empirical evidences that the climate oscillations within the secular scale are very likely driven by astronomical cycles, too. Cycles with periods of 10–11, 12, 15, 20–22, 30 and 60 years are present in all major surface temperature records since 1850, and can be easily linked to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. The 11 and 22-year cycles are the well- known Schwabe and Hale solar cycles. Other faster cycles with periods between 5 and 10 years are in common between the temperature records and the astronomical cycles. Long-term lunar cycles induce a 9.1-year cycle in the temperature records and probably other cycles, including an 18.6-year cycle in some regions (McKinnell and Crawford, 2007). A quasi-60 year cycle has been found in numerous multi-secular climatic records, and it is even present in the traditional Chinese, Tibetan and Tamil calendars, which are arranged in major 60-year cycles.


Observation from Scafetta on another thread:



> *The paper show that astronomical cycles match the temperature cycles with a probability of 96% and above, while current general circulation models such as the Giss ModelE would reproduce the same temperature cycles with a probability of just 16%.*


Emphasis mine.

Wow. Good information.


----------



## FeXL

Awright, so it's settled science, right? No question about it, empirical proof and all.

So, how's about you take that gold plated truth down under for a chance at winning (AUS)$10,000? 

MacDoc, you still in Sydney? You wouldn't even have to fly back again. Just hook up with yer buds on the hockey team & claim your prize.



> If all this sounds too confusing, that’s when the lazy $10k prize on offer could really come in handy. All you have to do is come up with empirical evidence that “increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global warming”.
> 
> Victorian locomotive engineman Peter Laux has pledged the prize in a statutory declaration witnessed by a police officer, and the challenge is open for 20 years .
> 
> Ms Gillard says the overwhelming evidence of “climate change” (I think she means the human-caused variety) is “accepted by every reputable climate scientist in the world”, so just hop on to Google and track that evidence down.


In showing your appreciation for this easy money, I'd appreciate a 10% finders fee. 

Just PM me for the addy.

You're welcome...


----------



## Macfury

What say, MaccyD? You could buy a lot of carbon credits with that moolah!


----------



## FeXL

*The compassionate, intellectual left...*

Ran across this some time ago, Jo Nova sums it up nicely:



> Ladies and Gentlemen, as the power of big-government comes under threat the attacks on skeptics and free citizens grow worse than ever. We are all busy, but we cannot let this one get past. Art Robinson is one of us, one of the original skeptics, back when hardly anyone else was. He’s been a key player, dismayed, like the rest of us at the way science was being used for political purposes. Indeed, he was so dismayed, he ran for congress as a Republican last year. Against an allegedly full-on smear campaign from the incumbent Congressman Pete DeFazio, Art managed to get 44% of the votes in a long-held Democrat seat.
> 
> The shocking thing is that, right now, Art has six children, and three of them simultaneously are getting their PhD projects canceled, snatched, and dismissed. They are or were all studying at Oregon State University, and despite all three having put in years of work and getting great grades, they are now locked out of labs or faced with the prospect of losing all their work.
> 
> OSU received $27 million from the same Democrat Congressman Pete DeFazio’s government that Art challenged.
> 
> _“DeFazio and the other Oregon Democrat congressmen sent a reported $27 million in earmark funding to OSU during the last legislative cycle, and Robinson opposes all earmark funding.”_ [link]
> 
> Note that the issue right now is Art Robinson versus OSU. Robinson is making no comment about DeFazio in connection with this, and focuses on OSU members who are allegedly involved in the problems his offspring are suddenly having.


Italics from the original.

This just sucks.



> What kind of man is Art Robinson?
> 
> Let the record speak. This man is a go getter, self-starter, hard-worker to the core. But more-so, he’s a man of integrity.
> 
> * Art Robinson is a true scientist to the core — last year he wrote a document about the current state of science that was so insightful I blogged part of it in: The truth shall make you free.
> * Art was the man who set up the Petition Project — the mass volunteers effort to collect and verify signatures of scientists in the US who are skeptics. I quote it all the time: 31,500 scientists, including 9,000 PhD’s.
> * Art is a man who raised six children, mostly single-handedly, because he lost his wife and their mother, in 1988 when the youngest was just 18 months old. He home-schooled them. As he describes it, he realized he could not keep teaching them one by one, so he wrote a home-schooling curriculum where they teach themselves. Over 60,000 children have used the Robinson Curriculum. It is still in use today.
> * Art Robinson is best known in science for his pioneering biochemical research work on the amide molecular clocks that are built into almost all protein molecules, work that has been brilliantly extended by his son Noah Robinson. In addition, Art is known for originating and carrying out much of the original work in the field of metabolic profiling, which is now a large part of the discipline known as “metabolomics.” This work involves the quantitative measurement of human health and disease by means of the quantitative analysis of biochemical patterns that are imprinted in the amounts of thousands of metabolic substances that can be measured in human breath, blood, urine, and tissues. [From Oregon State Outrage].


Respectable member of society, raised 6 children on his own, 2 who are vets, one who holds a PhD in chemistry and three others persuing their own PhD's.

Cross "the Man" and the establishment turns against you.

Nice...


----------



## FeXL

Some foundation that most of you will be familiar enough with:



> The theory of anthropogenic global warming is based upon the notion that increases in the minor greenhouse gas CO2 result in increases of the major greenhouse gas water vapor, thereby supposedly increasing global warming to alarming levels of 2-5C per doubling of CO2 levels. Without this assumed and unproven positive feedback from water vapor, there is no basis for alarm.


That's the argument.

However, 



> a 2005 paper based on the NASA water vapor data set [called NVAP] showed that water vapor levels had instead declined (with 95% confidence) between 1988-1999.
> 
> “By examining the 12 year record [1988-1999], a decrease of TPW [total precipitable water vapor] at a rate of -0.29 mm / decade is observed. This relationship is significant at the 95 % but not at the 99 % level [_since when do climate scientists insist on a 99% confidence level?_]. *A downward trend would be intriguing since there should be a positive slope if a global warming signal was present.*"


Emphasis from the article.

Huh? But, but, but...



> If the trend in water vapor is negative instead of positive, there is no positive feedback from water vapor and the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would be falsified. Climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. notes that the NASA findings "conflict with the conclusion of the 2007 IPCC report." NASA has not released an update of this extremely important NVAP water vapor data for the past 10 years and does not plan to release the data from 2001 through 2010 or the "reanalyzed" 1988-2001 data until "sometime in 2012 or 2013."


Why the delay? Mebbe 'cause the data doesn't Ed Zachery support the theory...



> However, an online NASA NVAP annual report dated 3/15/11 shows the telling "PRELIMINARY RESULT, NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" of a continued decline in atmospheric water vapor


Hate when that happens.



> While most NASA data is made available on the internet within a few months of collection and analysis, for some reason NASA NVAP water vapor data -which could either support or undermine the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming- is not going to be officially released for up to 12 years since collection. Is it too much to ask that NASA finishes its analysis and releases this data before the world spends trillions on a potentially non-existent problem?


You can bet your sweet patootie that if this shored up Hansen's Hockey Team work, it would have been outed years ago.


----------



## FeXL

Remember the scary "single most-important finding in climate science last year": "a sharp decline" in phytoplankton?

Never mind...



> A new paper published in Nature finds that multiple data sets instead show an increase in ocean phytoplankton over the past eight decades. Don't hold your breath for any retractions of the alarmist claims in the MSM, nor any stories reporting the good news.


They just grab the next hysteria they can manufacture & run it until the sucka collapses, then grab a new mount...

Credibility?

Not so much...


----------



## FeXL

New paper featured on Roger Pielke Sr's blog, along with a guest post by the authors.

Abstract:



> Proxy and instrumental records reflect a quasi-cyclic 50-to-80-year climate signal across the Northern Hemisphere, with particular presence in the North Atlantic. Modeling studies rationalize this variability in terms of intrinsic dynamics of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation influencing distribution of sea-surface-temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Ocean; hence the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). By analyzing a lagged covariance structure of a network of climate indices, this study details the AMO-signal propagation throughout the Northern Hemisphere via a sequence of atmospheric and lagged oceanic teleconnections, which the authors term the “stadium wave”. Initial changes in the North Atlantic temperature anomaly associated with AMO culminate in an oppositely signed hemispheric signal about 30 years later. Furthermore, shorter-term, interannual-to-interdecadal climate variability alters character according to polarity of the stadium-wave-induced prevailing hemispheric climate regime. Ongoing research suggests mutual interaction between shorter-term variability and the stadium wave, with indication of ensuing modifications of multidecadal variability within the Atlantic sector. *Results presented here support the hypothesis that AMO plays a significant role in hemispheric and, by inference, global climate variability, with implications for climate-change attribution and prediction.*


Emphasis mine.

Sunovagun.

The oceans again.

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

New information on the Agulhas Current, running along the east coast of Africa (Indian Ocean counterpart to the Gulf Stream).

Hey, Macdoc, you were in Africa recently. Did you hear about this?



> In results of a study published in this week's issue of the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science Oceanographer Lisa Beal, suggests that Agulhas leakage could be a significant player in global climate variability.
> 
> The Agulhas Current transports warm and salty waters from the tropical Indian Ocean to the southern tip of Africa. There most of the water loops around to remain in the Indian Ocean (the Agulhas Retroflection), while some water leaks into the fresher Atlantic Ocean via giant Agulhas rings.
> 
> Once in the Atlantic, the salty Agulhas leakage waters eventually flow into the Northern Hemisphere and act to strengthen the Atlantic overturning circulation by enhancing deep-water formation.


More:



> The finding is profound, oceanographers say, because it suggests that increased Agulhas leakage could trigger a strengthening in Atlantic overturning circulation--at a time when warming and accelerated meltwater input in the North Atlantic has been predicted to weaken it.
> 
> *"This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe," said Beal.*
> 
> "Instead, increasing Agulhas leakage could stabilize the oceanic heat transport carried by the Atlantic overturning circulation."
> 
> *There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.*
> 
> These data are further evidence that the Agulhas system and its leakage play an important role in the planet's climate, Beal and others say.


Huh.

Oceans. 

Again.


----------



## FeXL

So, recently this cat named Puckerclust coughed up a hairball about denier right wing ideology, pseudoscholarship, etc., etc., etc.

He listed off 10 "Physics Facts" as some sort of gospel about AGW.

Slaying the Skydragon blog addresses these "facts". You may interpret the results as you see fit.

Skydragon also gives an introduction which scales the fish just prior to filleting it...



> PHYSICS FACT #1: The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased rapidly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, after being nearly constant for thousands of years.
> 
> FACT: If the "beginning of the industrial revolution" is defined as mid-18th century, this is NOT true. *There are published measurements of aerial concentration of CO2 above 400 ppmv in the 1800s.* A further illustration of the variability of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be learnt from Ernst-Georg Beck’s accurate chemical analysis covering 180 years.
> 
> Carbon dioxide cycles with temperature spikes as evidenced by the graph below. A temperature spike is followed by a CO2 increase as ocean temperatures rise and the solubility of CO2 decreases.
> 
> Raw Antarctic ice core measurements from Siple show 328 ppmv for 1897 – the value reached in Mauna Loa measurements of "rapid increase" only in 1970. See: Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2; March 19, 2004; Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.


Emphasis mine.

It goes on.

Informative & a good read.

BBQ, anyone?


----------



## FeXL

So, recently Oxburgh et al., in a fashion similar to a kangaroo court, exonerated the CRU at the University of East Anglia of any wrong doing regarding the Climate-gate emails.

Any objective observer would have seen this foregone conclusion coming a mile away, seeing as Oxburgh, a warmist, has his own ideological axe to grind.

However, there may be a small, tiny, niggling detail which heretofore escaped address.



> In 2007, Lord Oxburgh became chairman of a company called D-1 Oils, a self-described “alternative energy crop company”. And two years later he assumed the helm at Falk Renewables, a major European solar and wind energy producer. *In other words, while Oxburgh was investigating Climate-gate scandal, he was intimately linked to commercial ventures that stood to reap huge profits from the imposition of a price on carbon.*
> 
> *If that doesn’t reek of a massive conflict of interest, your political olfactory sense is overdue for an overhaul.*
> 
> The story grew stranger still when it was reported that Lord Oxburgh failed to disclose his involvement with a little known outfit called Globe International. Globe is a not-for-profit group whose raison d’etre becomes evident when its acronymic title is spelled out in full: Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.
> 
> In reality, Globe serves a powerful low-profile network for international climate change advocacy. It sponsors meetings of parliamentarians and spends millions flying supporters around the world to lobby for a price on carbon. At next year’s Rio+20 environmental conference, Globe will be organising a World Summit of Legislators to push for the enactment of binding climate change laws in national parliaments.
> 
> Just last week, the UK Daily Telegraph reported that Globe International was funded in substantial part by the British government. One grant from the Department for International Development sent £91,240 (AUS$140,000) into its coffers.
> 
> So in essence, the British Government is paying a not-for-profit environmental organisation to lobby the British Government on environmental policy. It’s all rather weirdly incestuous.


Emphasis mine.

Please, move on. Nope, nothing to see here. Ignore the man behind the curtain...


----------



## FeXL

So, another analysis of an article by the NIPCC, debunking yet another model based climate concern, this time Lake Erie water levels.



> Climate alarmists have long "worried" that "increased evaporation under a possible greenhouse-enhanced climate, coupled with even more consumptive use of the Great Lakes waters, could lead to lower lake levels in the near future," as noted by Larson and Schaetzl (2001), while Changnon (2004) has stated that "recent shifts in lake levels [have] led to a major disaster-oriented assessment of the 'record' declines in recent years," stating that certain people have "attributed these to climate change from global warming." In this regard, he makes particular mention of the National Geographic Society, which in 2002 ran an article entitled "Down the Drain? The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes" in their flagship publication _National Geographic_.


This:



> And in the concluding sentence of the abstract of their paper, they reiterate that "the highest lake levels in the reconstruction are found over the past few decades."


Must be from all them there glaciers melting into the Great Lakes...


----------



## FeXL

OK, 1850 is more or less the year given for when the American Industrial Revolution really started taking off (AGW and all that rot). Bearing that date in mind, I offer this:



> Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was barely an indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4000 ft. thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St.Elias Range of mountains.
> 
> By 1879 naturist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay.


The math is left as an exercise for the reader.

OK, it's over 8 feet of recession _per day!_

Global warming has been with us much longer than we figgered...


----------



## eMacMan

We do need to keep in mind that since the last ice age the glaciers have been steadily melting down to mere remnants of what they were at that time. I believe that sea level was 27 meters lower at the "peak of the last ice age. 

The melting we see today is rather miniscule compared to what happened long before cow fart concertos.


----------



## eMacMan

Any ways this should help put it all into perspective.

YouTube - RayStevens - The Global Warming Song


----------



## eMacMan

*Polar Bear Irony*

Well that Mercury in CFBs is now coming back to bite the Polar bears in the a55. Ignoring the inevitable and unsubstantiated "Global Warming is going to make it worse" spin, for the moment those increased levels are largely man-made and one can blame those energy saving light bulbs for contributing to the problem



> STOCKHOLM – Global mercury emissions could grow by 25 percent by 2020 if no action is taken to control them, posing a threat to polar bears, whales and seals and the Arctic communities who hunt those animals for food, an authoritative international study says.
> The assessment by a scientific body set up by the eight Arctic rim countries also warns that climate change may worsen the problem, by releasing mercury stored for thousands of years in permafrost or promoting chemical processes that transform the substance into a more toxic form.
> "It is of particular concern that mercury levels are continuing to rise in some Arctic species in large areas of the Arctic," despite emissions reductions in nearby regions like Europe, North America and Russia, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, said.
> Emissions have increased in other parts of the world, *primarily in China, which is now the No. 1 mercury polluter, accounting for nearly half of total emissions, AMAP said.*


APNewsBreak: study warns of mercury in Arctic - Yahoo! News

The bold is mine. You fans of the curley-que bulbs look at the base and note the "Made in China" label.


----------



## MacDoc

> Ignoring the inevitable and unsubstantiated "Global Warming is going to make it worse"


snort - what do you think happens when permafrost melts into the ocean?? ....just love the whacked physics of the denio-sphere....





> *w report confirms Arctic melt accelerating (AP)*
> 
> 
> In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg is seen off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the ice in the region is melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)
> 
> A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the region's ice and snow are melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century. continues
> Report sees sharper sea rise from Arctic melt (Update)
> 
> snip
> 
> an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
> 
> It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in.
> 
> It also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change.
> 
> The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years.


but do keep on denying the obvious.....form of amusement these days.....



> *Minor Cause, Major Effect: Interactions in Ecosystems Can Intensify Impact of Climate Change*
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 2, 2011) — In a new study, marine biologists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR), together with colleagues from six other countries, show that highly complex interactions in ecosystems can intensify the impact of climate change within a relatively short period of time.
> 
> more
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0502092324.htm


----------



## Macfury

Except the sea rise has been infinitesimal, no matter how fanciful the study.


----------



## MannyP Design

Hey Mac, one of your favorite sites report differently:

May 4: Slow start to summer sea ice melt



> *Conditions in context*
> 
> Ice extent declined through the month more slowly than usual, at an average rate of 29,950 square kilometers per day (11,560 square miles per day). The average daily rate of decline for 1979 to 2000 was 40,430 square kilometers (15,610 square miles) per day.
> 
> Cool conditions helped retain ice in Baffin Bay, between Canada and Greenland. Most of the ice loss during April was in the Kara Sea, north of Siberia, and the northern Baltic Sea in Europe. Ice also retreated rapidly in the western Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.
> 
> Towards the end of April, ice loss accelerated in the eastern Arctic as temperatures warmed there, leading to the formation of open water areas, or polynyas, near Franz Joseph Land and along the coast in the Kara Sea. Open water also started to form in Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait.


So which is it? Is it excelerating faster than expected, or not? :lmao:


----------



## Sonal

For what it's worth, I'm told by a very credible source that ice is particularly difficult to model accurately.

This doesn't mean that AGW is happening or isn't happening, just that the ice models in particular are problematic.

The same source has a tendency to complain that the climatologists who use these models seem uninterested in the details of them and are therefore not necessarily well-versed on their strengths and weaknesses, but IMO that could be some run of the mill academic griping.


----------



## eMacMan

Congratulations MD on ignoring the main point of the post. 

The Magic Mercury Bullet Light Bulb, that was supposed to cure all our eco ills and save the Polar Bears may be killing them.


----------



## SINC

On tonight's news, they noted this has been the coldest spring on record in 20 years. No surprise there given continuing colder conditions year after year.


----------



## MacDoc

*Consequences*



> *Crop yields fall as temperatures rise*
> 
> * 19:00 05 May 2011 by Michael Marshall
> 
> Global warming is taking its toll on our food, according to the first study to demonstrate a link between global crop yields and climate change. It concludes that the steep rise in temperatures since 1980 has cut into yields of staple crops, offsetting gains from improved farming practices – although not all climate researchers are convinced.
> 
> "Yields went up, but they didn't go up as much as they might have," says Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University in New York City. With David Lobell and Justin Costa-Roberts of Stanford University in California, he calculated the annual yields of maize, wheat, rice and soybeans for every country in the world between 1980 and 2008. Together those crops supply roughly 75 per cent of the energy in our food.
> 
> The team then studied long-term data on the average temperatures and rainfalls for each agricultural region during the growing season. In 65 per cent of countries, the growing season has become warmer since 1980 – although trends in rainfall over the same time frame are less pronounced. For the 20 years before 1980 there were no large-scale trends in either temperature or rainfall.
> 
> The researchers then turned to statistical models that predict yield in a given year based on known factors like local soil quality, farming technology and weather. The models allowed them to calculate what the yields would have been for each year since 1980 as farming technology improved – if temperature and precipitation had remained at 1980 levels.
> 
> Maize and wheat down
> 
> *The real world yields of maize were 5.5 per cent lower and wheat 3.8 per cent lower than the team's models suggested they should have been if temperature and precipitation had stayed at 1980 levels.* Rice and soybean yields held steady, because losses in some countries were balanced by gains elsewhere.
> 
> "In most places we see temperature trends, and they have significantly reduced yield growth," Schlenker says.


more

Crop yields fall as temperatures rise - environment - 05 May 2011 - New Scientist

So much for the C02 is good for crops nonsense circling in the deniosphere..


----------



## MannyP Design

No comment? Cute.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, some crops will do well in warmer years, some worse. Likewise, the cooler temperatures we've been experiencing recently, particularly in Canada, will really dampen grain production.

However, this study shows nothing except that the researcher thought the yield should be higher--*according to his own models*. It does not take into consideration prices, markets, blights, and myriad other inputs. Any farmer can tell you that trying to model what the total world output of any given field commodity might be over a period that long is just pissing in the wind.


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> No comment? Cute.


That post of yours was _so_ yesterday, MannyP.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> On tonight's news, they noted this has been the coldest spring on record in 20 years. No surprise there given continuing colder conditions year after year.





MacDoc said:


> more
> 
> Crop yields fall as temperatures rise - environment - 05 May 2011 - New Scientist
> 
> So much for the C02 is good for crops nonsense circling in the deniosphere..


Despite the fancy NOAA graphics when you look at the real temps most of the worlds growing regions have seen late springs, early falls and cooler than normal summers over the past three years. Perhaps the continuing cooling trend (denied by Hadley et al) has something to do with crops failing. 

Also has been observed that GMO crops generally produce poorer yields than their open seed counter parts.

BTW melting permafrost does not fall into the ocean much more likely to just make deeper muskeg.


----------



## MacDoc

*Consequences*

_who'll stop the rain._......as the song goes...

Hydrology - the leading edge of vicious climate change consequences....



> *Amid 11 months of nearly nonstop rain*, ***** have burst and rivers have topped their banks, inundating communities, cattle ranches, and croplands in 28 of Colombia's 32 departments. Waterlogged Andean mountainsides have collapsed, burying neighborhoods and blocking highways. More than 1,000 people have been killed, injured or gone missing. In the flooded town of Puerto Boyacá in central Colombia, coffins holding the dead are being floated to the cemetery on boats. (Read a Q&A With Colombia's President Santos)
> 
> *All told, more than 3 million people — nearly 7% of Colombia's population - have been displaced or have suffered major water damage to their homes and livelihoods. *President Juan Manuel Santos calls it the worsgt natural disaster in the country's history, one his government predicts will shave 2.5% from Colombia's 2011 GDP. Yet hardly anyone outside of Colombia has noticed because the tragedy, unlike an earthquake or hurricane, has unfolded in slow motion. "Drop by drop the rain causes more damage every day," Santos said recently. "It's like Chinese water torture."


Read more: Who Can't Stop the Rain: Colombia?s Very, Very Wet 11 Months - TIME

and of course Manitoba right now has a massive state of emergency due to the *second* "100 year flood".......in 14 years.


----------



## Macfury

We only have 100-year forecasts (wait for it) for about 100 years. Time to upgrade the numbers with real-life data.


----------



## FeXL

And hurricanes and tornadoes and floods are related to the GHG thread how?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, you may have to wait forever for the favour of a reply.


----------



## eMacMan

'Course damaged nuclear reactors leaking gadzillions of Iodine and other particles into the atmosphere could not possibly be seeding those clouds, nor could the never endum arctic air mass be reducing the atmospheres ability to retain water. 

Seems to me we recently had a couple of rather spectacular volcanic eruptions as well. I am sure there is no possible way they helped to seed those clouds.

Course I guess there are some that are so anxious to pay their tithe to the Church of Climatology that they willingly keep drinking the Kool-Aid and shout their mantra.

Tax Me, Tax Me then Tax Me more.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> FeXL, you may have to wait forever for the favour of a reply.


I won't get a reply, for two reasons:

1) Mere mortals don't qualify;
2) He doesn't dare open up that can of worms when even his own people disagree.


----------



## FeXL

From the Hockey Schtick:



> New paper: Increased solar activity caused far more global warming than assumed by the IPCC
> 
> A recent peer-reviewed paper published in Astronomy & Astrophysics finds that solar activity has increased since the Little Ice Age by far more than previously assumed by the IPCC. The paper finds that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850) by up to 6 times more than assumed by the IPCC. Thus, much of the global warming observed since 1850 may instead be attributable to the Sun (called "solar forcing"), rather than man-made CO2 as assumed by the IPCC.


----------



## FeXL

One more from the Hockey Schtick:



> New paper: Global warming decreases the strongest wind events
> 
> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that warming of the tropical oceans results in a decrease in frequency of the strongest wind events. The paper states that these findings add further evidence to suggest the atmospheric circulation (winds) become less energetic with global warming. These results are consistent with several other papers showing that global warming reduces the strength or frequency of hurricanes. No doubt, Al Gore will do the right thing and remove the hurricane cover images from his series of books and sci-fi movie.


----------



## FeXL

And another (from the Hockey Schtick):



> Shining a light on solar impacts
> 
> A review article of solar effects upon climate was published in Nature Climate Change today and finds considerable uncertainly in estimates of solar forcing of climate based upon the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The article also suggests that TSI may not be the best indicator of solar variability because solar UV has been found to vary much more than previously thought. Solar UV is the most energetic portion of the solar spectrum and causes the most significant heating of the oceans. *The IPCC and climate models look only at TSI, without consideration of the significant variations in solar UV, and therefore likely underestimate the influence of the Sun upon climate change.*


Emphasis mine.

Color me surprised...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> From the Hockey Schtick:


That pesky variable solar constant does play havoc with the computer models.

Meanwhile last winter near record snowfalls throughout much of the Rockies, Sierras and Cascades, attributed to much stronger than normal LaNina (That's the cold one). 

The Ruskies sure got this current cooling trend right. Do hope they were also correct when they said; They do not believe we go all the way into a mini ice age, as the better half does not wish to relocate to Arizona.


----------



## FeXL

For the last two people on the planet who haven't already figger'd that the Russell & Oxburgh investigations were nothing more than kangaroo court, let me give a gentle kick with my size 11 boot to the backside in the correct direction:



> The UK government submission “tricked” (TM- climate science) the SciTech Committee with untrue and/or deceptive assertions that the Muir Russell and Oxburgh reports were carried out ‘independently of Government and Government had no role in informing how these reviews were carried out.’;
> 
> _The ICCER [Muir Russell] and SAP [Oxburgh] were carried out independently of Government and Government had no role in informing how these reviews were carried out._
> 
> Information obtained through FOI shows that John Beddington, the UK Government Chief Scientist was in direct contact with both UEA officials and even individual panelists, making sure, among other thing, that individual panelists were ‘warmed up”. Contrary to the UK Government’s claim that the panels were independent, one email from a UEA official says that they will keep Beddington “in the loop” and “seek his advice”. Contrary to the Government’s claims, the Muir Russell and Oxburgh panels were not “carried out independently” and the Government had an important role in “informing how these reviews were carried out”.


Yup. Compleat independence and objectivity...


----------



## FeXL

A couple of interesting points discussed here between a reader of Dennis Avery, his blog and Piers Corbyn (you've heard of Piers Corbyn. He's the meteorologist who is single handedly going to dissolve the British Meteorologist Office).

Comparisons are made between Maunder and current temps from the perspective of sunspot shortages (which we have now).

Interesting clarification & commentary provided by Piers at the end.



> A reader recently pointed out a fascinating temperature comparison—between 1700 AD and today. He marked two sections of the world’s oldest temperature record—Central England Yearly Average Temperature 1660–2008: The first section showed our famous recent temperature surge from 1976–1998. He also marked a similar strong temperature surge from AD 1688–1738.
> 
> The killer in the comparison is that the temperature surge after 1688 was followed by a sudden plunge into one of the coldest periods in the entire Little Ice Age! The cold of 1739-40 was called The Great Frost, and it devastated Europe from Italy to Iceland.
> 
> The linkage? The Great Frost followed a period of very few sunspots—the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715). Today, we know that fewer sunspots predict colder temperatures, and the modern world has just undergone a similar dearth of sunspots, from 2007 to 2011.
> 
> During the Maunder period, Europe’s glaciers were much larger than today; it was the Little Ice Age, after all. But the glaciers didn’t advance during the sunspot dearth. The winters of the 1730s were actually fairly warm. But during and after the winter of 1739, glaciers advanced strongly through France and Germany, and north into Sweden, Norway and Iceland and didn’t retreat for the next 50 years!


----------



## eMacMan

To clarify there were almost no sunspots from 2007 through 2010. Activity as expected is picking up now but is far less than normal at this point in the 11 year cycle. 

I saw a clear explanation as to why the really cold winters actually lag behind the solar cycle by a couple of years but at the moment can't find it again.

To put this into perspective if you found this past winter cold and miserable it may well be that; "You ain't seen nothin' yet."


----------



## FeXL

The perennial thorn in the side of the AGW religion (and the subsequent crucification of the "Hockey Stick" graph) is the ever increasing database of papers proving the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. 

If you go to the CO2 Science website, they currently list "971 individual scientists from 561 research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting!" who have published data confirming the MWP existence.

Having noted that, here is the analysis from the latest on their list:



> What was done
> Working with two ocean sediment cores -- one obtained in 1999 at 66°33.10'N, 17°41.99'W and one obtained in 2006 at 66°33.18'N, 17°42.04'W -- Ran et al. reconstructed summer sea surface temperature (SST) on the North Icelandic shelf for the period AD 940-2006, based on their high-resolution and precisely dated diatom records, along with the help of "a modern diatom-environmental dataset from around Iceland [that] was established as a basis for quantitative reconstruction of palaeoceanographic conditions on the North Icelandic shelf (Jiang et al., 2001, 2002)."
> 
> What was learned
> In the words of the four researchers, their diatom-based SST record indicates that the sea surface on the North Icelandic shelf "was not as warm during the last century as during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)." More specifically, they write that "warm and stable conditions with relatively strong influence of the Irminger Current on the North Icelandic shelf are indicated during the interval AD 940-1300, corresponding in time to the MWP," and that "a considerable cooling at ~AD 1300 indicates the transition to the Little Ice Age (LIA) with increased influence of Polar and Arctic water masses deriving from the East Greenland and East Icelandic currents." Then came "an extended cooling period between AD 1300 and 1910," followed by "a two-step warming during the last 100 years" that was "interrupted by three cool events around AD 1920, in the AD 1960s and in the late AD 1990s." And they end by stating that "the data suggest that solar radiation may be one of the important forcing mechanisms behind the palaeoceanographic changes."


Look up, people. Waaaay up. 'Bout 93 million miles or so, to that bright orb in the daytime sky.

There's your answer.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, and just in case you didn't get the email:



> Global warming did not cause April’s record tornadic outbreak
> 
> ...
> 
> But, we’re not seeing more tornadoes due to global warming. As Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., Climatologist, and the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville explains: "Contrasting air masses of widely-varying temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are always the result of UNUSUALLY COLD air pushing much farther south than normal through the Midwest into Dixie."
> 
> ...
> 
> Here is what Dr. Spencer says about this spring’s weather;
> 
> "The extra moisture from the Gulf of Mexico this spring is not that important. It’s the cold ‘wind-shear factor’ that has caused the record outbreak of tornadoes. If global warming were the cause, there would be more tornadoes in Canada than Alabama. And, that’s not happening."
> 
> Dr. Spencer goes on to add: "Anyone who claims that more tornadoes are linked to global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional."


Tee-hee. He said "delusional".


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Oh, and just in case you didn't get the email:
> 
> 
> 
> Tee-hee. He said "delusional".



Must be that Wacky Tobbacky.beejacon


----------



## FeXL

Point of fact: GISS has no (none!) recording stations north of 83N. Zero. Period. At the same time, they provide data on the area. 

Coincidently (or not) the latest poster boy for AGW is Greenland which, you guessed it, has significant landmass north of 83N.

Where does this data come from? Not NOAA.

It is completely fabricated. 

Let me repeat that.

It is completely, 100%, made up.



> They have zero data at 83N-90N, yet report very high anomalies – which massively skew the global average upwards.


How badly is the data skewed? This badly...



> These two March, 2011 maps from UAH and GISS show it pretty clearly. March was a very cold month in Greenland.
> 
> ...
> 
> Surface temps from Weather Underground confirmed this. However, Hansen’s magic (below) made most of Greenland hot (anomalies as high as 9.9C.) GISS fabricated Arctic data is worthless, at best.


How Hansen and his Hockey Team cronies maintain any semblance of credibility to anyone is beyond me.

From the comments:



> Because they are all liars, Andy. Thorough going evil bastards.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## Macfury

The data is made up... and we're responsible. Get used to it!


----------



## FeXL

From my buds over at The Hockey Shtick:



> A paper published today in the _Journal of Climate_ finds that increases in ocean heat transport from the warmer tropics to the poles are unlikely to cause alarmist 'positive feedback' 'tipping point' scenarios as predicted by James Hansen and the IPCC. The paper finds that increases in ocean heat transport above the current are likely to be offset by increased cloud cover over the tropics, resulting in cooling of the tropics, without inducing significantly warmer climates than today. *The paper shows yet another means by which negative feedbacks - not positive - dominate the climate.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

<sigh>...



> The NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group is based at the University of Colorado. It made the announcement last week that it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series.
> 
> Reporting in Forbes Magazine on this farce is James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor pinpoints that NASA’s reason for this latest trick is to “compensate” for rising land mass.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now government ‘experts’ claim they need to add the bogus extra 0.3 millimeters each year onto satellite measurements of our ocean levels, which will conjure up an 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century, to ‘compensate’ for the rise in land which has been occurring without any human interference since the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News adds, “with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.”


----------



## Macfury

I'm sure the bogus numbers were peer reviewed.


----------



## eMacMan

Does not; rising land levels=dropping ocean levels????

IOW the glaciers are growing.

Or is the counter theory the glaciers melt and with the reduced weight the land masses rise, thus eliminating the irrational fear of rising ocean levels.

In either case the NASA fudge factor is one more example of the warming alarmists massaging figures to make them fit the hypothesis, rather than reviewing the hypothesis when the evidence contradicts it.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## MannyP Design

That's a pretty big leap of faith. Carbon tax ≠ better world. It also assumes those who believe a man-made climate warming is a hoax also want to pollute the world black. How cute. :lmao:


----------



## adagio

MannyP Design said:


> That's a pretty big leap of faith. Carbon tax ≠ better world. It also assumes those who believe a man-made climate warming is a hoax also want to pollute the world black. How cute. :lmao:


Yeah, it amazes me that those who have drunk the AGW koolaid assume the rest of us want polluted rivers and soot filled skies. I can't understand why seemingly educated people cannot discern the difference between CO2 (which is natural and good) and genuine pollutants. I specially cannot figure out how paying a carbon tax to a carbon exchange (making lots of traders rich) or taxing CO2 at source (driving up cost of living) will clean up our rivers and lakes. How is driving up cost of business here so that they close shop and move to China (if they haven't already) going to help the climate? Green jobs you say? Hahaha!! Ask Europe how that is working out. Their pollution levels are the same or increased. The only difference is they have doubled or tripled unemployment levels. Their countries are bankrupt. All that for the biggest scam that has ever been perpetrated. The truth is coming out. Someday the shiit is really going to hit the fan when citizens find out they've lost their jobs to a bunch of shysters and con artists. Off with their heads!!


----------



## bryanc

adagio said:


> Yeah, it amazes me that those who have drunk the AGW koolaid assume the rest of us want polluted rivers and soot filled skies.


Because the same changes are necessary to combat pollution _and_ AGW.



> I can't understand why seemingly educated people cannot discern the difference between CO2 (which is natural and good) and genuine pollutants.


This is because your understanding is flawed. CO2, like anything natural, is neither good or bad. CO2 is one of many gasses in the atmosphere, and human activity is unequivocally changing the ratio of these gasses. The best science available says these changes will have disastrous effects. It's quite simple, once you filter out the FUD spread by the oil industry.



> I specially cannot figure out how paying a carbon tax to a carbon exchange (making lots of traders rich) or taxing CO2 at source (driving up cost of living) will clean up our rivers and lakes.


This, I agree, is much more difficult to understand. And I'm certainly not sure carbon taxes, carbon trading, or other such schemes will work. I've just not heard any even remotely feasible alternatives. If you have a suggestion, I'd love to hear it. We need some way to use the power of the market place to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

I'll give some credit to the proponents of carbon taxes/trading because at least they appear to be promoting some ideas, rather than just pretending there is no problem.


----------



## SINC

Establishing taxation that cripples the economy by cap and trade does the environment no good at all and is disastrous to the public as large corporations who emit too much CO2 simply pass additional costs back to the public.


----------



## Macfury

The "green jobs" is may favourite. Why is it that so many people are required to operate the economy once it turns green--couldn't be a hideous lack of efficiency could it?


----------



## eMacMan

A common misconception that cleaning up CO2 emissions cleans up the environment.

Some big exceptions.

Those curly cue lightbulbs; Lead, Mercury you name it headed for the landfill and in Canada the net energy savings is close to zero simply because when we need light that "wasted" energy is being utilized as much needed heat. The big benificiary here is GE and not the environment.

Nuclear power plants. Now being touted as clean energy with the aspects of waste and even possible meltdowns being downplayed or ignored altogether. An aside here; The EPA and EC are being very careful to avoid releasing any data that will show how much, if any, impact the Japanese multi core meltdowns are having on North America. I suspect if there were little or no impact those numbers would be readily available.

Hydro Power. Yes the power produced is clean but not the impact on the environment. Environmentalists have stood up against these projects for centuries for a number of sound environmental reasons and the reasons are still very valid.

Finally the obvious: Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credit trading. The latter is being touted to enrich the coffers of the Church of Climatology and its Grand PooBar, Al Gore. Carbon Taxes are intended entirely as a vehicle to steal everything the poor still have. Ultimately the combo may reduce population thereby effectively reducing CO2 emmissions. The irony here is that you have to kill about 100-200 poor people to have the same impact as killing one Al Gore. 

*NOTE: I do not advocating killing anyone, rather I am just pointing out who is really responsible for excessive consumption. Hint; It ain't the poor.*


----------



## bryanc

Okay, you're opposed to taxes on fossil fuels. I get it. 

Bearing in mind that the consensus is that we need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (i.e. this is not at issue, if you disagree, that's you're prerogative, but it's not what I'm interested in discussing), rather than just bashing the proposed solutions, propose something better. How would you suggest we bring about the reduction of fossil fuel consumption?


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Okay, you're opposed to taxes on fossil fuels. I get it.
> 
> Bearing in mind that the consensus is that we need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (i.e. this is not at issue, if you disagree, that's you're prerogative, but it's not what I'm interested in discussing), rather than just bashing the proposed solutions, propose something better. How would you suggest we bring about the reduction of fossil fuel consumption?


You asked for it.

I live in windpower country and also coal country. You wanna replace coal, ya gotta come up with a better idea than wind to replace it.

Wind energy is still 30% efficient at best. Rest of the time no wind, or power not required to supplement the grid. Not reliable for peaking not reliable for sustained loads. Best way to utilize wind power is to build a much smaller reservoir not too far below existing power reservoirs and use the wind to recycle the water several times. Around here reservoirs are also for irrigation so even that would be of limited use as the downstream impact during the 6-8 months of winter would also be very bad from a "green" point of view.

If you do not like current generation methods you really have to come up with viable alternatives. Here are a few:

Coal plants right inside major cites. All that excess heat could be diverted to heat homes and office buildings. They did that with small power plants around here from the 1900s to about 1960. Blast furnaces in steel country modified to generate electricity and heat homes? Big advantage to both of these ideas is reduced need for high power transmission lines scarring the country side. If your gonna use coal use it efficiently.

That new fangled super efficient engine developed at the U of Wisconsin. Use it as a very small onsite home generator running on natural gas or propane. Much smaller battery back-up required than with wind or solar and would make it possible for more remote homes and ranches to go off grid without breaking the bank.

Thorium reactors small enough and safe enough to place near large cities, greatly reducing the need for expensive transmission lines. Waste is much more easily managed with a Thorium reactor. Because you have to feed a small amount of energy to the core to maintain the chain reaction, chances of a meltdown are almost nil. So many advantages as compared to conventional nuclear but sadly for the war mongers does not act as a breeder for weapons grade Plutonium.

The Marshall hydro thermal system. Zero pollution, existing technology and relatively minor overall impact. Sadly the sources are usually a mile under the oceans but hey if we get our butts out of Libya and Afghanistan we could use some of the cash saved for productive purposes.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Okay, you're opposed to taxes on fossil fuels. I get it.
> 
> Bearing in mind that the consensus is that we need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (i.e. this is not at issue, if you disagree, that's you're prerogative, but it's not what I'm interested in discussing), rather than just bashing the proposed solutions, propose something better. How would you suggest we bring about the reduction of fossil fuel consumption?


WE don't bring it about by policy. It is brought about by consumer choice. No government department decided to move from wood to coal, or from coal to gas and oil.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> ...Thorium reactors...
> ....The Marshall hydro thermal system...


I really like both of these, and both are technologies that should be supported by taxation of existing dirty technologies in my opinion.

However, if we just leave the 'free market' to decide, historical choices that have made dirty technologies cheap, combined with the powerful influences of the wealthy companies profiting from current dirty technologies will prevent the development and adoption of alternatives.

The question remains, how ought we as a society, encourage the transition away from dirty energy technologies to clean sustainable technologies? The free market ain't gonna do it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> No government department decided to move from wood to coal, or from coal to gas and oil.


None of those were good choices. All of those forms of energy are fundamentally unsustainable. Because the free market is an emergent property of group behaviour, it has no long term goals, but simply maximizes efficiencies under current conditions. This is obviously a good thing, and it is very good at what it does. But it does not make good predictions about what will be desirable in the future.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> None of those were good choices. All of those forms of energy are fundamentally unsustainable. Because the free market is an emergent property of group behaviour, it has no long term goals, but simply maximizes efficiencies under current conditions. This is obviously a good thing, and it is very good at what it does. But it does not make good predictions about what will be desirable in the future.


It actually made great predictions in both those cases. Government, however, usually steps in with huge amounts of program cash and subsequent market distortions, then falls on its ass in financial ruin.


----------



## eMacMan

Again I have huge arguments against coal, but those are on the mining side. 

Do some research on the coal fired power plant in downtown Colorado Springs and you will find that it is, by most sane definitions, clean power and its location lends itself to efficient use of all the energy produced. The Zuni power plant in downtown Denver is gas fired but still uses the excess heat produced to heat buildings in downtown Denver. In both cases the energy is being used efficiently and the need for very expensive transmission lines is being reduced.

Many communities throughout the country are supported by coal. Forcing not just the miners but the remaining 75% of the population of these communities to pick up and move is not a great solution. These people love their communities and their jobs. If they wanted to live in TO or Calgary they would have long since moved there. You want to get rid of coal find a productive solutions that helps preserve these communities and does not involve further impoverishing those at the low end of the economic scale. 

Beyond that as long as we need steel we need coal. No matter what the WTC shills would have you believe, there is simply no other plentiful fuel hot enough to do the job. If jet fuel could really melt steel, would the steel companies resort to transporting and coking coal to fire blast furnaces?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> ...as long as we need steel we need coal.


If that's the case, we shouldn't be wasting it making electricity.

The point is, as long as we're getting our energy by oxidizing carbon-carbon bonds that were reduced by photosynthesis at a rate greater than extant plants can keep up, we're not running a sustainable energy system.

If we move away from carbon-carbon bonds (or develop technologies that can do the chemistry independently from photosynthesis), we may be able to continue our profligate consumption of energy. Personally, I enjoy lots of things that are wasteful of energy, so I'm a proponent of this approach. But making changes that improves our energy efficiency is also an obvious approach.


----------



## eMacMan

About the only way a power utility would pay the premium price for metallurgical grade coal is if their normal supply is interrupted and they are absolutely desperate.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The best science available says these changes will have disastrous effects.


The best science available (real world observation) says nothing of the sort. 

As a matter of fact the worst science available, namely, that based on faulty computer models, is the one reaching these erroneous conclusions.



bryanc said:


> It's quite simple, once you filter out the FUD spread by the oil industry.


Let's take a look at the amount of money thrown at AGW by non-oil (pro) vs oil (con). Easy to find, Google is your friend.

Then come back to me and tell me who has an axe to grind. Surely it wouldn't be the climate scientists trying to garner new grant money...


----------



## MacDoc

> *Climate change and the flood this time*
> 
> *Op-Ed *
> 
> *Midwest flooding is a taste of climate change in its early stages. We've got to fight back, and fast.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Young builds a walkway to his Tiptonville, Mo., home, surrounded… (Scott Olson / Getty Images)
> 
> May 10, 2011|By Bill McKibben
> Last week, at a place called Bird's Point, just below the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, the Army Corps of Engineers was busy mining a huge levee with explosives. The work was made dangerous by outbreaks of lightning, but eventually the charges were in place and corps Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh gave the order: A 2-mile-wide hole was blasted in the earthen levee, and a wall of water greater than the flow over Niagara Falls inundated 130,000 acres of prime Missouri farmland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corps breached the levee to ease pressure on other floodwalls; if it hadn't, the town of Cairo, Ill., might well have been inundated. But it's not as if the problem has been solved. That water will reenter the Mississippi a little farther downstream as it surges toward the sea. "We're just at the beginning of the beginning," Walsh said. Col. Vernie Reichling Jr. of the Memphis District of the corps said: "We'll have to fight this river all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. I don't see it letting up."
> *Photos: Mississippi River flooding*
> Of course, what the corps is really fighting is a river swelled not just by the power of nature but by the power of man. As climatologists have warned for years, warmer air holds more water vapor than cold. That means record snowfalls like the ones we saw this winter across the upper Midwest, and record rainfalls like the ones that have washed across much of the region this spring. And it also means more evaporation — and record drought — in places like parched Texas.
> In Pakistan, Australia and now the center of the North American continent, we're getting a powerful taste of what global warming feels like in its early stages. (And if for some reason you've decided not to believe scientists, then ask the people we pay to analyze risk in our society:
> 
> In September, one of the largest reinsurance companies in the world, Munich Re, said that *"the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change."*


Climate change: Midwest flooding is a taste of climate change in its early stages - Los Angeles Times

and then of course there is Manitoba declaring a state of emergency......

and those darlings of the do nothing crowd....



> * Alberta's electricity supply mix is currently 75% coal. Alberta currently holds the CO2 record from absolute electricity emissions in Canada and as Ontario has begun to implement its Green Energy Act, Alberta will stand out like a sore thumb. Alberta is the last province in Canada that has not yet set out an effective green energy plan.
> *
> 
> *Meanwhile, subsidies directed towards the inefficient fossil fuel industry continue.*


*

in return we get, aside from a warming planet....

*


> _*The Alberta Tar Sands are the largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.*_ Producing a barrel of tar sands oil creates three times the greenhouse gas emissions from producing a barrel of conventional oil.
> 
> Enough natural gas is used in processing the Tar Sands to heat over 3 million Canadian homes. The toxic tailing lakes that result from the water taken from the Athabasca River used to process the tar sands are considered one of the largest man-made structures on Earth and will have a catastrophic impact on the aquatic ecosystems of the Mackenzie River Basin should they fail. The Alberta Tar Sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.


priceless.....


----------



## MannyP Design

Here we go… flood zones that are, wait for it, FLOODING! Hoo boy! The end of days is here, folks. Get your rubber duckies ready.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The best science available (real world observation) says nothing of the sort.


I've tried to make this point before, and it has apparently been too subtle for many here, so I will try once more.

Like everyone, you're entitled to your opinion, but unless and until you have some meaningful expertise in the field, you're just some guy on the internet with an opinion.

In the same way that the overwhelming consensus of the medical community is that smoking causes cancer, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that human activity has and is causing climate change. There will always be a tiny number of dissenters, and that's good. Nothing in science is ever beyond doubt, and if the dissenters can muster facts and logic that convince the people with the expertise necessary to rigorously analyze the data (i.e. real scientists, not conspiracy theorists on the internet), then the established models will be overturned. However, until then, the established models remain the best science available, wether you like it or not.


[edit to add:] BTW, I should say that personally, I don't like it. I would far prefer to believe that human activity is not causing climate change, but my beliefs are not subject to my preferences; I am compelled to believe by evidence and data. Therefore I have no choice but to believe that we are changing our climate, and that is most disturbing.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, Bryan...

Your point is not lost on me. Neither were the previous 29 times. You would do well to repeat it to yourself, perhaps standing in front of the mirror so you could see (and hear) how ridiculous it sounds.

All the articles I've linked to over the course of the 3 GHG threads are not my *opinion*. They are largely peer reviewed *science* conducted by scientists with every bit as much credibility as most of the warmists. In many cases, more. In some cases, warmists who have come to terms with reality and crossed over to the dark side.

Have you ever even bothered to climb down off your ivory tower long enough to peruse any of them? Try it. You may learn something, whether you know anything about climate science or not. 

I guess there's no nonfiction literature in your home, huh? Books, magazines, research outside of your field? How sad. 'Cause it's obvious from your statements on these boards that there would really be no point in reading such drivel simply because you're not an aircraft pilot, or an Arctic explorer, or a motorcycle rider, or a paleontologist, or anything written by somebody outside your comfort level _because you simply wouldn't understand it, not being an expert in that field and all._ 

How do you manage to struggle through the evening news?

What. An. Elitist. Crock.

That, and typical warmist dogma: "You're too stupid to understand!"

Yep, just another idiot on the internet with an opinion. At least it's an informed one...


----------



## Macfury

Agreed, FeXL: the link between smoking and cancer was not shown using "models" and "projections"--it was based on real world data and results. In a world experiencing nothing out of the ordinary (like, say, lung cancer) the comparisons are woefully inept.


----------



## eMacMan

FWIW the flooding relates to Arctic air masses sagging further south and hanging in much longer than normal. Moisture turns to snow and accumulates. Spring comes late, extra snow melts all at once, normal or slightly above normal rains combine with snow melt and voila: Floods. 

Since the winter snow pack in the high country is double the norm and largely intact we can expect more flooding further west, as a spring both cooler and dryer than normal is extremely unlikely.

Take a deep breath. It is not the end of the world, these things happen every 50 years or so. Even bigger floods have indeed happened in the past. Occasionally really big floods happen. Don't believe it? Drop by the Grand Canyon some day.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> All the articles I've linked to over the course of the 3 GHG threads are not my *opinion*. They are largely peer reviewed *science*


I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you just don't understand how science works, because the alternative is that you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit that your position is not supported by the scientific community.



> I guess there's no nonfiction literature in your home, huh?


I can only infer from this comment that you really don't understand the difference between science and fiction.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> the link between smoking and cancer was not shown using "models" and "projections"--it was based on real world data and results.


Word of the day: epidemiology.

Like most science, models play an important role.


----------



## i-rui

isn't bryanc an *actual* scientist? wouldn't he have some perspective on what scientific organizations carry weight with their data and which theories don't?

I'm sorry, but if i see data posted by NASA saying one thing it will hold much more credibility than some blog by some random dude using iweb (or windows equivalent).

i can't help but notice the similarities between Climate Deniers and 9/11 conspiracy web sites. Supposed "real" scientists are all over the web saying 9/11 was a controlled demolition, an "energy weapon" or even a mass projection. At some point you have to hedge your bet on the science which is backed by the most scientists, right?


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> isn't bryanc an *actual* scientist? wouldn't he have some perspective on what scientific organizations carry weight with their data and which theories don't?
> 
> I'm sorry, but if i see data posted by NASA saying one thing it will hold much more credibility than some blog by some random dude using iweb (or windows equivalent).
> 
> i can't help but notice the similarities between Climate Deniers and 9/11 conspiracy web sites. Supposed "real" scientists are all over the web saying 9/11 was a controlled demolition, an "energy weapon" or even a mass projection. At some point you have to hedge your bet on the science which is backed by the most scientists, right?


NASA lost all credibility with me when they posted a map showing Alberta as being slightly warmer than normal after Alberta's third coldest year on record. Those 400°F temps in Wisconsin also failed to advance their credibility.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Word of the day: epidemiology.
> 
> Like most science, models play an important role.


But they can't play the primary role--especially in the absence of a solid understanding of how the real system works.


----------



## MannyP Design

i-rui said:


> isn't bryanc an *actual* scientist? wouldn't he have some perspective on what scientific organizations carry weight with their data and which theories don't?


As opposed to a _fake_ scientist? Question: Are all scientists cut from the same cloth?



> I'm sorry, but if i see data posted by NASA saying one thing it will hold much more credibility than some blog by some random dude using iweb (or windows equivalent).


 Understandably. It would have about as much credibility as some links to fringe news sites with heavy bias.

But a lot of the links posted here aren't from some random dude using iWeb.



> i can't help but notice the similarities between Climate Deniers and 9/11 conspiracy web sites. Supposed "real" scientists are all over the web saying 9/11 was a controlled demolition, an "energy weapon" or even a mass projection. At some point you have to hedge your bet on the science which is backed by the most scientists, right?


And here we go folks... why not call us Holocaust deniers as well. 

Yo do realize that those who you would hedge your bets were caught fudging data, right? Yes, it includes those to do The Science™, not to mention their lead spokesperson Al Gore (whom I believe is not a real scientist, but let's not let that get in the way of a good argument.)

For what it's worth, a good friend of mine who studies Biomedical Engineering is what you would categorize as a 9/11 denier, also believes people are the leading cause of climate change. He also believes Bill Gates wants to use mosquitos as a means of population control in 3rd world countries. I'd ask you to draw your own conclusions, but frankly I'd be afraid to see what the result would be.

Stop trying to pigeonhole people because they don't suit your personal point of view, okay?


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> isn't bryanc an *actual* scientist? wouldn't he have some perspective on what scientific organizations carry weight with their data and which theories don't?


Thank you, and yes, I am a real scientist. However, I'm not a climatologist, so my opinion on wether the evidence for AGW is compelling or not is no more relevant or important to the debate than FeXL's or any other member of the general public.

My point is not "trust me, I'm a scientist." But rather, unless you have the expertise to analyze the data yourself, you don't have an informed opinion, and you shouldn't claim otherwise.

I have no problem with the actual scientists that are disputing AGW (and there are a few). If their arguments are valid and the data supports their opinion, the rest of the scientists will have no choice but to change their position. However, those of us without the training to participate in that process shouldn't be making loud proclamations about how the scientific community is trying to commit a hoax or ruin the economy. The first step in becoming less ignorant is to admit you don't know.

Currently, over 97% of qualified climatologists are in agreement that the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting AGW*. Not being a climatologist, I can't pass judgement on how they've reached that conclusion. However, I can say, as a scientist, that level of consensus is almost unheard of, and indicates that the evidence must be amazingly convincing.

Cheers

*I posted a link to the peer-reviewed study published in PNAS last year that documents this remarkable consensus.


----------



## Macfury

If you have the expertise to see the flaws in how the data was collected, and how the data was analyzed, then you don't need to be a scientist to critique these studies. If a car has lost one of its wheels, I don't need to understand how its engine works to see that it's in trouble.

It's nice to see your humility in stating you don't have the expertise to comment on these things, bryanc. However, I'm not held back by your limitations.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you just don't understand how science works, because the alternative is that you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit that your position is not supported by the scientific community.


Not being a perfect individual (unlike some of the people on these boards) I probably lack many things.

That being said, I understand quite clearly how science works, thankyouverymuch. Real science is based on real world observation, not stupefied, glorified, and deified computer games.

I ask the question again: Have you ever bothered to take the time to peruse any of the links I've posted? Or is your uninformed position so firmly entrenched that it is you are in an irrefutable position of denial?



bryanc said:


> I can only infer from this comment that you really don't understand the difference between science and fiction.


I also understand this difference quite clearly. Which is why I specifically noted "nonfiction", ie. educational material as opposed to, say, free reading fiction.

You have noted any number of times that unless one is an expert in such matters, climate science is simply a topic to express an opinion upon. 

Dinner conversation at your house must be stimulating indeed: "I'm sorry dear, I simply cannot allow us to discuss <insert topic here> as neither of us are experts."


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Word of the day: epidemiology.
> 
> Like most science, models play an important role.


When the data can be backed up by real world observation. 

Until then they are nothing more than SWAG generators.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> But rather, unless you have the expertise to analyze the data yourself, you don't have an informed opinion, and you shouldn't claim otherwise.


Once again, these aren't my opinions I'm linking to. They are mostly peer-reviewed papers. Or, do peer reviewed papers only work for one side of the argument?




bryanc said:


> Currently, over 97% of qualified climatologists are in agreement that the evidence is overwhelmingly supporting AGW*. Not being a climatologist, I can't pass judgement on how they've reached that conclusion. However, I can say, as a scientist, that level of consensus is almost unheard of, and indicates that the evidence must be amazingly convincing.


Or the quality of propaganda or level of panic imbued or one's desperation to retain grant monies or...

For 40 years scientists were fooled by Piltdown Man. One of many examples of change in scientific opinion.

As to your "qualified climatologist" observation (and obsession), that means nothing to me and shouldn't to you. Many scientific discoveries have been made by both laymen and scientists far out of their disciplines and ability levels...


----------



## FeXL

*The IPCC, the UK, and Climate Censorship*

Donna Laframboise has an interesting post on her blog about the Kyoto Protocol. Even then...



> The short version is this: The Kyoto Protocol needed to be ratified by 55 parties before it came into effect. In 2003 and 2004 Russia found itself under immense international pressure to ratify this document, but Russian scientists had concerns about the IPCC findings on which Kyoto was based, and Russian economists were wary of the adverse economic impacts.
> 
> ...
> 
> The head of the Russian Academy of Scientists had arranged a scholarly two-day gathering in Moscow so that a dialogue could take place. When Illarionov spoke to the press at the end of that gathering, his comments regarding the behaviour of the scientific delegation from the UK were nothing short of eye-popping.
> 
> Having already ratified Kyoto itself, the UK was among those countries keen on persuading Russia to do likewise. According to Illarionov, however, rather than conducting themselves in a manner that would encourage trust in their judgment, the Brits behaved liked boors.
> 
> In essence, the UK delegation tried to censor the proceedings. The head of the delegation, Sir David King (then Tony Blair’s top science adviser), insisted that two-thirds of the scheduled presenters should not be allowed to speak and proposed his own agenda, comprised of topics he considered more suitable. Warning that the entire British delegation would walk out if his demands weren’t met, King apparently insisted that his atrocious behaviour was supported by the highest levels of the British government.
> 
> ...
> 
> The text of the press conference is here. It’s worth reading in its entirety. The important takeaway is that this is not how scientists behave.
> 
> If real scientists were in charge of the IPCC, would it really have declined to answer those ten questions?
> 
> Would real scientists attempt to censor two-thirds of the speakers at an event organized by another country’s national Academy?


I can't answer those questions, but I certainly hope not.


----------



## FeXL

*IPCC: Screw the Rules*

One more from Donna:



> We’ve been told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a paragon of virtue. Rajendra Pachauri, its chairman, says he:
> 
> …can’t think of a better process. There is not a parallel on this planet, in any field of endeavour as you have in the IPCC.


Hmmmm...



> When a committee investigated the IPCC last year, they weren’t nearly as impressed as its chairman. Indeed, they concluded that while the IPCC has rules and procedures, they often aren’t followed. *In one instance in particular, the committee found that the rule that said non-peer-reviewed source material should be identified as such when listed among the IPCC’s references was being utterly ignored.*


Emphasis mine.



> At an IPCC meeting earlier this week, this recommendation appears to have been approved. According to page 4 of this publication, the IPCC:
> 
> …*agreed not to flag information derived from grey literature in the reports and focus instead on ensuring the high quality of all information, placing priority on peer-reviewed literature.*
> 
> In other words, screw the rules. And screw the committee that investigated the IPCC last year which insisted the rules should be followed.


Emphasis mine.

Go figger.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Tim Ball on "The Urban Heat Island Effect Distorts Global Temperatures"



> How much do calculations of global temperatures represent the real temperature of the Earth? Every day, new stories appear about temperature records with errors or deliberate omissions. Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen’s article suggests that such a creature doesn’t exist. An important part of the debate is something called the urban heat island effect (UHIE).


Evidence?



> Original raw data is recorded to one half a degree, so reducing it tenths through statistics doesn’t mean much. Phil Jones claimed a 0.6°C increase since the end of the 19th century and said it is unnatural and clear evidence of warming due to human CO2 in the atmosphere. *Jones still refuses to disclose which stations he used and how they were adjusted, especially for the urban heat island effect.
> *
> The automobile was a major factor causing urban expansion through suburban development. Warwick Hughes has studied temperature data for years and was the person who received the following email from Jones when he asked for his data in February 2005,
> 
> *We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?*


Emphasis mine.

So much for openness and transparency...

The final two graphs in the linked article yield the following observation:



> Now you see why the CRU and IPCC limited the number of stations they were using and restricted them to mostly urban stations to get the result they wanted. You also understand why Tom Wigley told Jones in a leaked email of November 6, 2009 that
> 
> "We probably need to say more about [the difference between land and ocean temperatures]. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important."
> 
> Exactly, Tom!


----------



## FeXL

The Hockey Shtick notices James Hansen's recent confession:



> As just pointed out by an astute and disillusioned young climate scientist, James Hansen, the high priest of the global warming religion and defender of creation has recently produced a non-peer-reviewed paper finding that the net man-made effects on climate have been greatly exaggerated by computer models. *Hansen claims most climate models have underestimated the cooling effect of man-made aerosols via cloud changes, although the fine print in the paper admits they really have no idea what is causing the cloud changes and resulting cooling effect.* Hmmm, possibly the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al? Hansen also references estimates for climate sensitivity pulled out of the air by his brainwashed grandchildren in the amusing paper (p. 3).


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

From Anthony Watt's blog: New study links cosmic rays to aerosols/cloud formation via solar magnetic activity modulation



> New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
> 
> With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
> 
> The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.


Good. Substantiate with RWO & move with it.


----------



## FeXL

Guest post by Alec Rawls on Watts' blog on the recent skeptics-vs-believers "debate" at Cambridge:



> In short, the day lined up Phil Jones, oceanographer Andrew Watson, and physicist Mike Lockwood, the latter to argue that the sun couldn’t possibly have caused recent warming. He was followed by the most impressive presentation from Henrik Svensmark, whose presentation stood out head and shoulders above anyone else. Why? For two reasons. *The correlations he shows are remarkable, and don’t need curve fitting, or funky statistical tricks. And he has advanced a mechanism, using empirical science* [image above], to explain them.*


*=RWO (real world observation)



> *At the other end of the scale, by way of contrast, the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”*
> 
> Yes, you could say that.


I got nuttin'.

Apparently, neither do they...


----------



## FeXL

*Corn dog?*

Title with apologies to an article I read last year online.

Corn planting saving the planet? Not so much.



> The five researchers determined that "carbon releases from the soil after planting corn for ethanol may in some cases completely offset carbon gains attributed to biofuel generation for at least 50 years." In addition, they found that "soil carbon sequestered by setting aside former agricultural land was greater than the carbon credits generated by planting corn for ethanol on the same land for 40 years and had equal or greater economic net present value." And if forests are cleared for corn ethanol production, the outcome is determined to be even worse.
> 
> "Considering current ethanol incentives and typical CRP contracts," according to Pineiro et al., "extending current CRP contracts or enrolling new CRP lands appear to be cheaper strategies for sequestering GHG than converting such lands to corn ethanol for at least a century [italics added]."


Conclusion?



> One lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that government edicts regarding complex scientific issues should not be issued without a thorough consideration of all the pertinent facts, especially those that are hotly debated within the scientific community.


You don't say.


----------



## FeXL

Another analysis from the NIPCC: "Late Holocene climatic and environmental changes in arid central Asia." _Quaternary International_ 194: 68-78.



> With respect to temperature, Yang et al. report that "the most striking features are the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA)," both of which can readily be seen in the figure below, which also reveals the existence of the earlier Roman Warm Period (RWP) and Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP), as well as what they call "a recent warming into the 20th century," which have we denominated the Current Warm Period (CWP). As for precipitation, the five researchers say the MWP "corresponded to an anomalously dry period whereas the cold LIA coincided with an extremely wet condition."


That pesky worldwide MWP.



> Once again, we have a substantive body of evidence for the natural, non-CO2-induced, millennial cycling of climate that has alternately brought the world into -- and then out of -- the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which gives us every reason to believe that its continued operation has likely brought the planet into the Current Warm Period, and that *this natural phenomenon will likely bring the world out of its latest extended "heat wave," sometime in the future.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

So you like models (New Scientist):



> Good news is rare when it comes to the Greenland ice sheet. Yet a model that accurately mimics the way the ice responds to rising temperatures by slipping and sliding into the sea suggests the resulting rise in sea levels may be smaller than feared.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Price has calculated that changes which the ice sheet experienced between 1997 and 2007 in response to a thermal disruption in the early 2000s will eventually lead to a rise of 0.6 centimetres.* Assuming that similar thermal disruptions happen every decade, the moving ice sheet will raise sea levels by about 4.5 centimetres by 2100.
> 
> *That is about half of a widely quoted previous estimate of 9 centimetres*, calculated by Tad Pfeffer at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and colleagues. But Pfeffer's study was a worst-case scenario, in which all the processes driving sea-level rise were pushed to their absolute limits (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099).
> 
> Pfeffer says Price's study is a more plausible estimate of what might actually happen. "They use a much more realistic scenario," he says, "and *their model is really grounded in physics.*"


Emphasis mine.

And just what is the other model grounded on?


----------



## FeXL

*Dumbest Global Warming Study Yet?*

Unfortunately, from Canada (via my snarky friend Steven Goddard):



> The researchers from Queen’s and Carleton Universities studied growth rings from coastal shrubs and lake sediment from the Mackenzie Delta, the location of the widespread 1999 storm surge. The researchers found that the impact of the salt-water storm surges is unprecedented in the thousand year history of the region.
> 
> “One of the most ominous threats of global warming today is from rising sea levels, which can cause marine waters to inundate the land,”


Too bad they didn't check the data:



> Sea level at the Mackenzie Delta is falling at a rate of nearly 20 mm per year. It is probably a good idea to reach conclusions after you look at the data – rather than before.


----------



## FeXL

Global warming causing glaciers to melt?

Not so much.

Just a little map showing the melt from Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland. Most of the melt occurred when CO2 was <310 ppm (prior to 1931).


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I ask the question again: Have you ever bothered to take the time to peruse any of the links I've posted? Or is your uninformed position so firmly entrenched that it is you are in an irrefutable position of denial?


No, I do not read your links, because I am not qualified to judge the science. My position is that you are not qualified either, and neither is anyone else posting in this thread (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong).

This is not because I am entrenched in my position. If a significant number (even a significant minority) of credible scientists in the field were to state that they were in doubt about the validity of the AGW paradigm, I would be most relieved, and would be quite happy to change my position.

What you seem to have difficulty understanding is that posting hundreds of links to web sites that you claim support your position that the science is all wrong is not compelling. Published peer-reviewed research is compelling.

I understand how science works. If there is substantial evidence that is inconsistent with established theory or published work, it will be analyzed, published, rigorously reviewed, and if it is necessary to fit the observations, the theory will have to change. As it stands, the AGW theory is well supported by evidence, and continues to be the accepted paradigm in the field. If you are so convinced it's wrong, I encourage you to become sufficiently educated in the field that you can make a contribution rather than just spewing links on an internet forum.

Since climatology is not my field, I will not muddy the water by spewing my ignorant opinions on the internet, but will rather let the people with the necessary expertise do their jobs.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Since climatology is not my field, I will not muddy the water by spewing my ignorant opinions on the internet, but will rather let the people with the necessary expertise do their jobs.


Time to excuse yourself from this thread, then, I suppose.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc:

The links are provided to inform, not to be judged. Too bad, there is a wealth of information there. Questions may even arise to ask your climatologist colleagues, wherein you state you have placed your trust.

One day, my friend, not too distant in the future, I will be accepting your recognition of the dark side in the form of a dozen assorted cold ones from the fine folk at Picaroons in your fair city.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Macfury

I would also like to remind bryanc that at various times in history, his approach would have allowed the "experts" to determine that the sun revolved around the earth, that continents do not drift, that breast feeding is bad for human babies, and that the world is undergoing rapid cooling leading to an ice age.


----------



## MacDoc

The denial gang in action.....Harper's fellow travellers......



> *Mississippi flood causes billions in damage, while local representatives deny climate threat*
> 
> Grist - the latest from Grist - Monday, May 16, 2011, 10:48
> 
> by Brad Johnson.
> 
> Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.
> 
> They’ve literally opened the floodgates.Photo: Gulf Restoration Network
> 
> “Flooding along the Mississippi River has set a new water level record,” according to the National Weather Service. “The massive flood churning its way down the Mississippi River will go down in history for its catastrophic, multi-billion dollar impact on the Midwestern economy.” USA Today reported that “losses in Arkansas are estimated at more than $500 million, according to the state Farm Bureau. In Memphis, where the river crested Tuesday, damage was estimated at $320 million. Agricultural losses in Mississippi, including grain and catfish farms, could hit $800 million.”
> 
> The catastrophic flood, which is now forcing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to flood thousands of acres of Louisiana in order to protect Baton Rouge and New Orleans, is primarily the result of record rainfall in the Mississippi watershed. Record amounts of precipitation fell in the central United States from February to April, with record April rains in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
> 
> This is precisely what scientists have warned would come about as greenhouse pollution warms the air and oceans, and industrial agriculture worsens runoff [PDF]. In 1999, scientists found a clear trend of increased flooding [PDF] of the Mississippi River basin because of increasing precipitation. In 2000, the federal government’s Climate Assessment warned that “the projected increase in very heavy precipitation events [PDF] will likely lead to increased flash flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point source pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes,” citing the catastrophic 1993 flood of the Mississippi River as an example. The federal government’s 2009 climate assessment report warned that greenhouse pollution will cause “more frequent flooding” [PDF] in the Midwest, including the Mississippi River. The EPA endangerment finding, which most of the politicians in Mississippi basin voted to overturn, similarly warned of “greater flood risk” [PDF]:
> 
> The Midwest has experienced two record-breaking floods in the past 15 years, and this trend is expected to continue given projected future increases in winter and spring precipitation combined with greater frequency of heavy downpours. More frequent flooding is likely to cause increased property damage, insurance rates, emergency management costs, and clean-up and rebuilding costs.
> 
> One study expects flooding in the upper Mississippi basin to be 50 percent greater [PDF] by the 2040s, an estimate that may turn out to be unfortunately conservative. Flood frequencies calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers based on the assumption of a stable climate have been shattered in recent decades, scientists have found:
> 
> The record stage set in 1993 exceeded the calculated 500-year level, whereas 2008 was a 200-year event. In addition, 2001 suffered a 50- to 100-year flood, 1986 and 1996 experienced 25- to 50-year floods, and five more years had 10-to 25-year floods.
> 
> The states suffering from the flooding are represented by politicians who have voted to disregard the threat of a polluted climate system:
> 
> Arkansas: All six members of the Arkansas congressional delegation voted in April to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing greenhouse pollution rules.
> 
> Louisiana: Eight out of nine members of the Louisiana congressional delegation, including both senators, voted in April to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing greenhouse pollution rules.
> 
> Mississippi: Five out of six members of the Mississippi congressional delegation, including both senators, voted in April to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing greenhouse pollution rules.
> 
> Missouri: Nine out of 11 members of the Missouri congressional delegation, including both senators, voted in April to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing greenhouse pollution rules.
> 
> Tennessee: Nine out of 11 members of the Tennessee congressional delegation, including both senators, voted in April to block the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing greenhouse pollution rules.
> 
> Not only are the congressional delegations of the flooded states willfully trying to protect the polluters of our dangerous climate system, but their anti-science austerity measures are putting their constituents at even greater risk. While protecting corporate subsidies and millionaire tax cuts, they slashed funding in the 2010 continuing resolution for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Geological Service (USGS), who run our nation’s weather forecasting satellites and river gauge system.
> 
> The budget cuts to NOAA have put crucial weather satellites on the chopping block, which will lead to “flood forecast error,” NOAA warns. The USGS cuts mean that river gauges throughout the nation are being shut down after nearly a hundred years of continuous monitoring. Again, “flood forecasting will be much less accurate without the gauges.”
> 
> Brad Johnson blogs at the Wonk Room on the climate crisis, energy policy, and building a green economy. Brad holds a bachelor’s degree in math and physics from Amherst College and master’s degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos, a history of the Information Revolution, and the founder of HillHeat.com, which covers climate policy in our nation’s capital.


Mississippi flood causes billions in damage, while local representatives deny climate threat

Harper et al fiddling ....while in this case Rome floods


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> The denial gang in action.....Harper's fellow travellers......


Still with the name calling and insults? Have you ever made a comment in this thread without them? You ought to be ashamed for continuing the attacks albeit no longer personal but as a group now. You have my sympathy that you cannot give this up.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The denial gang in action.....Harper's fellow travellers......blah, blah, blah...


I guess I'm still just amazed...weather has not, does not, and will not ever, have anything to do with climate.

Period.

Even yer dimwitted buds over at NOAA have finally got that much figgered out.

I think you need to cut your stay in Canada short & move down under soonest, where you can bask under the warmth of the carbon tax before lying Jooolya gets her butt tossed out in the next election and the conservatives take over.


----------



## Macfury

That's pretty funny stuff MacDoc--no link between CO2 and Mississippi flooding though. Reminds me how the weather used to be blamed on atomic testing and satellites in the 1950s. 

I love how that gang bemoans the loss of economic activity--they usually don't give a crap about it when they're legislating the economy to pieces with draconian environmental regs.


----------



## MacDoc

Truth hurts -too bad....lots more to come.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Truth hurts -too bad....lots more to come.


Lots of weather to come. And more claptrap about greenhouse gas I imagine.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc's back to his usual routine: copy, paste, run. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design

I guess the Mississippi isn't know for flooding.

Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Mississippi and Missouri Rivers Flood of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's da climate change, I tells ya!


----------



## Macfury

The formula:

COPY + PASTE = TRUTH


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Questions may even arise to ask your climatologist colleagues, wherein you state you have placed your trust.


I converse with climatologists fairly frequently, and it's quite apparent that there is no sense that the AGW paradigm is seriously doubted by anyone actually working in the field. It's like evolution, no one doubts it any more, but there's still lots of work to be done to figure out the details, and plenty of progress is being made.



> One day, my friend, not too distant in the future, I will be accepting your recognition of the dark side in the form of a dozen assorted cold ones from the fine folk at Picaroons in your fair city.


I will be happy to recognize your prescience in this matter if ever the academic community qualified to judge the validity of the science deviates significantly from their current consensus that human activity is having an impact on the global climate.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I converse with climatologists fairly frequently, and it's quite apparent that there is no sense that the AGW paradigm is seriously doubted by anyone actually working in the field. It's like evolution, no one doubts it any more, but there's still lots of work to be done to figure out the details, and plenty of progress is being made.


Stop using the word consensus, because that doesn't exist either. A preponderance perhaps. For now.


----------



## BigDL

*Just so you know the Differance*

Clean version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7wdKg8rYL0




*Strong Language not suitable for all viewers of Ehmac*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8


This opinion piece is fair and balanced so you can decide.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> This opinion piece is fair and balanced so you can decide.


Yep. Real credible all right.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Yep. Real credible all right.


:lmao::lmao::


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Stop using the word consensus, because that doesn't exist either. A preponderance perhaps. For now.


This is where I feel I do have some relevant expertise, in that I am a working scientist and I know the culture of science. Getting more than 3 scientists to agree on _anything_ is nearly impossible unless the evidence is irrefutable.

The fact that 97% of climatologists agree with the AGW model is truly astonishing. In science, if you can get more than about 10% of researchers to agree on something, that's a strong consensus. Getting the kind of agreement we're seeing WRT AGW is effectively unanimity.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that 97% of climatologists agree with the AGW model is truly astonishing.


They don't.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They don't.


I have provided evidence for my claim of 97% support for AGW among climate researchers. If you can provide equally credible evidence to the contrary you have a point, otherwise you're just a guy on the internet with an unsupported opinion.


[edit to add:] I just realized that many of you may not have free access to the journal I've linked to above. PM me with your email address if you'd like me to send you a PDF of the research supporting this conclusion.


----------



## adagio

Given unemployment/no research funding is the likely outcome if proven there is no AGW, I'd be supporting the theory too if my livelihood depended on it. It's the same with cancer researchers. Yes, I've been there. I too worked in research labs. Not saying there isn't some legitimate research but there is an awful lot that is questionable at best. Having worked in the scientific field I'm not "awe" of scientists. They are just folks like everyone else looking to make a living.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I have provided evidence for my claim of 97% support for AGW among climate researchers. If you can provide equally credible evidence to the contrary you have a point, otherwise you're just a guy on the internet with an unsupported opinion.
> 
> 
> [edit to add:] I just realized that many of you may not have free access to the journal I've linked to above. PM me with your email address if you'd like me to send you a PDF of the research supporting this conclusion.


bryanc, that study was widely derided as unscientific. It is a proxy for the studies chosen to be funded by government grants. Look at it carefully to see how heavy the deck was stacked to achieve that outcome. 

I think John Christy, atmospheric scientist and Professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville said it best: "I think the study was pathetic. It basically says, "Those of us who agree with each other like to cite the work of our friends and not the other guys." Duh. One of my fellow scientists calls this "tribalism" - an appropriately primitive description."


----------



## bryanc

adagio said:


> Given unemployment/no research funding is the likely outcome if proven there is no AGW, I'd be supporting the theory too if my livelihood depended on it.


This illustrates how deeply you misunderstand scientific culture. The likely outcome of disproving an established paradigm in any field of science is a Nobel prize, or at the very least tenure and lots of grants. Overturning established theories is what the scientific method is all about. There's nothing as good for a young scientist's career as shooting down some widely held belief.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> that study was widely derided as unscientific.


Translation: "I got nothin'"


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Translation: "I got nothin'"


Translation: you got nuthin' but tribalism on your side.

Gaia in a lab coat.

His study says: "Those people who study AGW are most likely to be published in magazines" and "People most likely to cite each others' papers." It does not support your premise at all.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> His study says: "Those people who study AGW are most likely to be published in magazines" and "People most likely to cite each others' papers." It does not support your premise at all.


When he can get his study through the peer review process and published in a high-impact journal like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I'll have a look at it. Until then, it's just some guy on the internet with an opinion.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> When he can get his study through the peer review process and published in a high-impact journal like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I'll have a look at it. Until then, it's just some guy on the internet with an opinion.


Your confidence in "peer-review" is touching.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Your confidence in "peer-review" is touching.


Hey pookey- bear err MF's got an opinion just like this guy, he's just got one thing and it too is that embarrassing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-iToo45w60


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your confidence in "peer-review" is touching.


It is one of the foundations science. Hard to argue with success.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It is one of the foundations science. Hard to argue with success.


It is tradition, not success.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> This is where I feel I do have some relevant expertise, in that I am a working scientist and I know the culture of science. Getting more than 3 scientists to agree on _anything_ is nearly impossible unless the evidence is irrefutable.
> 
> The fact that 97% of climatologists agree with the AGW model is truly astonishing. In science, if you can get more than about 10% of researchers to agree on something, that's a strong consensus. Getting the kind of agreement we're seeing WRT AGW is effectively unanimity.
> 
> Cheers


From conversations I've had with another working scientist (who unfortunately has no particular love of debate, so I can't draw him in to speak directly on this)...

The science used by climateologists to take climate models and make predictions from them, is a very different field from the science used in developing the models in the first place--and many climateologists do not necessarily understand the strengths and weaknesses of the models well. (As modelling is his field, he can speak to that with some authority.)

Thus this is a rapidly evolving area of knowledge.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> From conversations I've had with another working scientist (who unfortunately has no particular love of debate, so I can't draw him in to speak directly on this)...


That's unfortunate. One of the only things I can imagine that would improve the rather dire signal-to-noise ratio in this particular discussion is the contribution of people who actually knew something about the field.



> The science used by climateologists to take climate models and make predictions from them, is a very different field from the science used in developing the models in the first place--and many climateologists do not necessarily understand the strengths and weaknesses of the models well. (As modelling is his field, he can speak to that with some authority.)
> 
> Thus this is a rapidly evolving area of knowledge.


This sounds very similar to discussions I've had with astrophysicists, who generally fall into two camps: the observational guys and the modellers.

I have no doubt that there will continue to be great progress in both fields, but climatology has the advantage of being able to incorporate a lot more observational data, so I have some hope that the models will improve more rapidly.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It is tradition, not success.


On the contrary, peer-review has been a spectacular success at catching bad-science and correcting errors in otherwise good science. No system is perfect, and some erroneous studies are still published, but the nature of the scientific endeavour is that any published finding of significance is reproduced and built upon by other researchers. So anything that is both interesting and fundamentally flawed will be quickly caught when it can't be reproduced by others in the field.

If you can think of a better system, I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> On the contrary, peer-review has been a spectacular success at catching bad-science and correcting errors in otherwise good science. No system is perfect, and some erroneous studies are still published, but the nature of the scientific endeavour is that any published finding of significance is reproduced and built upon by other researchers. So anything that is both interesting and fundamentally flawed will be quickly caught when it can't be reproduced by others in the field.
> 
> If you can think of a better system, I'd love to hear about it.


"Modeling" can be easily reproduced--or not--depending on the prejudices of the researcher. The peer reviewers can only judge whether or not the researcher appears to have followed the dictates of "good science." It can not determine whether data has been cherry-picked and massaged and whether or not the reviewer has been misled.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It can not determine whether data has been cherry-picked and massaged and whether or not the reviewer has been misled.


Whenever there is doubt, a reviewer can and must demand access to the original raw data. This is, in fact, how some of the discrepancies in climate data has been uncovered and expunged from our current models. Which makes it ironic that the deniers claim there is erroneous data, when it is the normal process of science that erroneous data is discovered.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Whenever there is doubt, a reviewer can and must demand access to the original raw data. This is, in fact, how some of the discrepancies in climate data has been uncovered and expunged from our current models. Which makes it ironic that the deniers claim there is erroneous data, when it is the normal process of science that erroneous data is discovered.


Which of course is why the Alarmist camp has been extra careful to avoid making access to the raw data readily available.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> II will be happy to recognize your prescience in this matter if ever the academic community qualified to judge the validity of the science deviates significantly from their current consensus *that human activity is having an impact on the global climate*.


Ah. With these broad based terms I concede. I've never said human activity wasn't having an impact. I believe we are, along the order of tenths of a percent, perhaps as much as lower single digits (<5). Certainly nothing that would justify the expenditure of trillions of dollars and hobbling the global economy in perpetuity.

The terminology I'm looking for is "significant impact", say >15%.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Ah. With these broad based terms I concede. I've never said human activity wasn't having an impact. I believe we are, along the order of tenths of a percent, perhaps as much as lower single digits (<5). Certainly nothing that would justify the expenditure of trillions of dollars and hobbling the global economy in perpetuity.
> 
> The terminology I'm looking for is "significant impact", say >15%.


Agreed. Everything has an impact on everything else--the butterfly effect and all. However, the effect is often insignificant.


----------



## FeXL

There's some hype, but also some details that should make you at least think:



> We are in the midst of the convergence of 3 major solar, ocean, and atmospheric cycles all heading in the direction of global cooling. Last year the Southern hemisphere experienced its coldest winter in 50 years and Europe just went through two particularly cold winters in a row, and the cooling trend has only just begun.


This is where my mindset currently is. I believe we are headed for a period of cooling, albeit how cold & how long I am unsure of.


----------



## FeXL

A while back (GHG 2) I posted a link to a cosmic ray theory proposed by Svensmark (cosmic rays affecting cloud formation, which then controls climate). Recently it has received a fair amount of scrutiny, not the least of which is from Dr. Roy Spencer, "climatologist, author & former NASA scientist".



> While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and *the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate*.


Emphasis mine.

Really looking forward to a peer reviewed paper on this from Dr. Spencer.



> I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. *The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.*
> 
> If this is anywhere close to being correct, *it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.*


Emphasis mine.



> *The results, I must admit, are enough for me to now place at least one foot solidly in the cosmic ray theory camp.*


Emphasis mine.

High praise, indeed.



> For example, if warming observed in the last century is (say) 50% natural and 50% anthropogenic, then this implies the climate system is only one-half as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions (or aerosol pollution) than if the warming was 100% anthropogenic in origin (which is pretty close to what we are told the *supposed “scientific consensus”* is).


<snort!> A former NASA scientist says "supposed consensus". 



> In the bigger picture, this is just one more piece of evidence that the IPCC scientists should be investigating, one which suggests a much larger role for Mother Nature in climate change than the IPCC has been willing to admit. And, again I emphasize, *the greater the role of Nature in causing past climate change, the smaller the role humans must have had*, which could then have a profound impact on future projections of human-caused global warming.


Emphasis mine.

Thank you, Drs. Spencer & Svensmark.

Give 'em hell...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I believe we are headed for a period of cooling, albeit how cold & how long I am unsure of.


Should the world be cooling, I see no indication that the GHG crowd wants to increase temperatures through increased use of CO2. They only want to control the temperature if it also dampens economic activity.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> There's some hype, but also some details that should make you at least think:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where my mindset currently is. I believe we are headed for a period of cooling, albeit how cold & how long I am unsure of.


Interestingly there have been many non IIPC accredited scientists that have arrived at similar conclusions, though approaching from different directions. Some of them are Russian with very vested interests in knowing what sort of winters are ahead.

Interestingly all of these scientists, successfully predicted the colder winters we have been experiencing over the past three years, even as the alarmists were saying that snow and ice were things of the past. Not only that but these scientists do not have to pretend that the Medieval Warming and the Maunder Minimum did not exist to make their theories valid.

After shoveling 17 feet of snow this past winter I am with Fexl as to what we should be preparing for.


----------



## Macfury

After stonewalling for months, Viriginia courts have ordered the release of Mann's climate data under a Freedom of Information request:

Judge orders U.Va. to release climate research documents | David Sherfinski | Virginia | Washington Examiner


----------



## FeXL

Nice summary of the Team's Michael "Two Minutes For High Sticking" Mann's cherry picked proxies.



> The reason for the unending addiction of Mann and his adherents to certain groups of proxies becomes obvious in this analysis. The hockeystick shape is entirely contained in a few clusters—the Greybill bristlecones and related stripbark species, the upside-down Tiljander proxies, and a few Asian tree ring records. The speleothems and lake sediments tell a very different story, one of falling temperatures … and in most of the clusters, there’s not much of a common signal at all. Which is why the attempts to rescue the original 1998 “hockeystick” have re-used and refuse to stop re-using those few proxies, proxies which are known to be unsuitable for use in paleotemperature reconstructions. They refuse to stop recycling them for a simple reason … you can’t make hockeysticks without those few proxies.


Check out the dendrogram with associated signal clusters near the end of the article.

Revealing, much?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Information such as this makes me wonder why some people continue to argue that only climate scientists can pass judgment on anything to do with climate science. Someone with a simple knowledge of mathematics can understand that if proxy data is cherry picked, the conclusion becomes invalid. You could demonstrate this using sports statistics, by using NHL hockey game attendance as a proxy for team success, showing that the Toronto Maple Leafs did, indeed, win the cup.

The whole idea that "only climate scientists may comment on climate science" reminds me suspiciously of the medieval church as the sole agents for interpreting the will of God.


----------



## eMacMan

For those that buy into the theory that fighting greenhouse gases can't possibly cause any harm, I am sure a million or so Aussie camels may disagree. 

Please note the impact of one camel's methane is about the same as the CO2 impact of two people so it would seem to follow that a similar bounty on human life may be in the not too distant future.beejacon



> By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press – 58 mins ago
> 
> CANBERRA, Australia – Kill a camel, earn cash for cutting greenhouse gases: That offer may be coming soon in Australia, where vast numbers of the nonnative, methane-belching animals have been trampling the Outback for more than a century.
> 
> The government has proposed that killing camels be officially registered as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has the world's largest population of wild camels — an estimated 1.2 million — and considers them to be a growing environmental problem.
> 
> The proposal, released for public comment this week, would allow sharpshooters to earn so-called carbon credits for slaughtering camels. Industrial polluters around the world could buy the credits to offset their own carbon emissions.
> 
> Each camel belches an estimated 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of methane a year, which is equivalent to a metric ton (1.1 U.S. ton) of carbon dioxide in its impact on global warming. That's roughly one-sixth the amount of CO2 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average car produces annually.
> 
> A bill to create a carbon credit regime will go to a vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday and is expected to become law within weeks.
> 
> A government registry will be set up to determine what actions will qualify for carbon credits, and bureaucrats are expected to decide by the end of the year whether killing camels will be among them.


----------



## Macfury

That's truly pathetic and cruel. Is this what the "green" movement has been reduced to?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Is this what the "green" movement has been reduced to?


Nope.

Far less...


----------



## MacDoc

Humorous gathering of the *how wrong can you get* clan. 
A dying sect indeed.

What next ? Croc tears from the denier crowd about the millions of cute bunnies and cane toads those nasty Australians have killed.?

This is what the Alice in Wonderland denier fraternity has been reduced to?

Lies and misdirections and denial of the obvious

From the top down



> *Canada’s UN climate change report omits oilsands emissions*
> 
> Oilsands account for more pollution than all of Canada’s cars
> Monday, May 30, 2011 1:23pm - 3 Comments
> 
> *A climate change report prepared by the federal government for the UN deliberately omitted data* showing that Canada’s oilsands accounted for a 20 per cent increase in emissions, Postmedia News reports. The 567-page report prepared by Environment Canada for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change left out numbers indicating that greenhouse gas pollution from the oilsands has increased to account for 6.5 per cent of annual emissions, and has surpassed Canada’s auto emissions levels. But the report does shows a six per cent decrease in overall emissions, which it attributes to the economic slowdown and Ontario’s reduction of coal-fired electricity production. Environment Canada produced the missing data at the request Postmedia News, while Mark Johnson, a department spokesman, could not say who’s decision it was to omit the data from the report


----------



## MannyP Design

Speaking of how wrong can you get: Carbon Credits for Camel Killing?



> *Carbon Credits for Camel Killing?*
> 
> An Australian land management consultant has proposed killing large numbers of wild camels in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a major contributor to global warming. The proposal, one of several in an initiative to be debated in the Australian parliament next week, posits that eliminating the camels would generate carbon credits, which industry could then purchase to offset their carbon emissions. Northwest Carbon proposes to shoot the animals or round them up for slaughter, with the resulting meat processed for animal or human consumption.
> 
> Camels were imported to Australia in the mid 19th century, where they were used for transport across the vast, arid interior portions of the continent. When no longer needed, they were set loose. Nature took her course and now there are about 1.2 million feral camels in the country. The ruminants are highly destructive "pests" and each camel emits about 100 pounds of the greenhouse gas methane each year.


Insert BBQ joke here. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Lies and misdirections and denial of the obvious


Speaking of the obvious, has anyone heard that Ontario recently became a have not province and is currently raking in millions of dollars on the back of the oil sands?

Haven't heard of anyone turning down the cash yet...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Speaking of the obvious, has anyone heard that Ontario recently became a have not province and is currently raking in millions of dollars on the back of the oil sands?
> 
> Haven't heard of anyone turning down the cash yet...


Sure the economy sucks, but we're making clean-n-n-n-n-n-n "bullfrog Power" of the kind MacDoc endorses. Why shouldn't the rest of the country carry us for making such insane choices? Clearly we need help!


----------



## i-rui

MacDoc said:


> Humorous gathering of the *how wrong can you get* clan.
> A dying sect indeed.
> 
> What next ? Croc tears from the denier crowd about the millions of cute bunnies and cane toads those nasty Australians have killed.?


lol. the false outrage was pretty hilarious.

too bad they don't show the same humane inclination to all the wild life killed in oil slicks.



FeXL said:


> Speaking of the obvious, has anyone heard that Ontario recently became a have not province and is currently raking in millions of dollars on the back of the oil sands?
> 
> Haven't heard of anyone turning down the cash yet...


there's actually a school of thought that the tar sands are Canada's very own version of "dutch disease", which actually only benefits Alberta, but hurts the rest of the country's industries as it drives up the dollar, hurting our exports.


----------



## MacDoc

Yep - hire the Norwegians to manage it - current crop sucks.
Give it all away to the multi-nationals and a national disgrace on the environmental front.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Yep - hire the Norwegians to manage it


How can a country be considered wealthy when its people struggle with high prices and outrageous taxes? The government is funded almost entirely by sales of fossil fuels. Amazing what you can achieve with a 25 per cent GST. 

Anyone up for having the Norwegians manage our economy?


----------



## MannyP Design

Will no one think of the poor camels?!? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Will no one think of the poor camels?!? :lmao:


I'm pissed off about this, let me tell you. I like camels better than environmentalists.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> there's actually a school of thought that the tar sands are Canada's very own version of "dutch disease", which actually only benefits Alberta, but hurts the rest of the country's industries as it drives up the dollar, hurting our exports.


Is that the same group of compassionate, intellectual, left-leaning individuals that believe in AGW?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I'm pissed off about this, let me tell you. I like camels better than environmentalists.


Just so you know...I'd walk a mile for a Camel...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Is that the same group of compassionate, intellectual, left-leaning individuals that believe in AGW?


Crap, yeah! If it weren't for "dutch disease" Canada's economy would have tanked. As shale gas production ramps up across the country I hope to see a dreadful case of "dutch disease" propping up Ontario's faltering economy.


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> Is that the same group of compassionate, intellectual, left-leaning individuals that believe in AGW?


no, it's conventional economic wisdom and well documented. Dutch Disease has affected many countries, and as mac doc pointed out Norway was the only one to plan accordingly so the oil tide would rise the other industries along with it.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> no, it's conventional economic wisdom and well documented. Dutch Disease has affected many countries, and as mac doc pointed out Norway was the only one to plan accordingly so the oil tide would rise the other industries along with it.


Except Norway's industrial and agricultural sectors are declining.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> no, it's conventional economic wisdom and well documented. Dutch Disease has affected many countries, and as mac doc pointed out Norway was the only one to plan accordingly so the oil tide would rise the other industries along with it.


Oh, well, if MacDoc said it's so, then it must be true. My apologies...

For those of us foolish enough to disagree, I'd like to venture forth a little theory of my own: this country would be in a helluva lotta more trouble without Alberta's said "Dutch Disease". On that note, you're welcome. 

Do you honestly believe that Ontario's manufacturing sector is in decline because of Alberta oil? I'm thinking there is far too much geography between the two.


----------



## Vandave

FeXL said:


> Oh, well, if MacDoc said it's so, then it must be true. My apologies...


Don't be cheeky... Remember how well Iceland did? The shining example of how to build a sustainable economy. 

Oh wait...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, well, if MacDoc said it's so, then it must be true. My apologies...
> 
> For those of us foolish enough to disagree, I'd like to venture forth a little theory of my own: this country would be in a helluva lotta more trouble without Alberta's said "Dutch Disease". On that note, you're welcome.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Ontario's manufacturing sector is in decline because of Alberta oil? I'm thinking there is far too much geography between the two.


Ontario's manufacturing sector is in trouble because the cost of doing business in Ontario is too high and because our energy sector is being strangled. At the same time, McGuinty is hag-riding industry with a vicious amount of oversight.


----------



## i-rui

FeXL said:


> Oh, well, if MacDoc said it's so, then it must be true. My apologies...
> 
> For those of us foolish enough to disagree, I'd like to venture forth a little theory of my own: this country would be in a helluva lotta more trouble without Alberta's said "Dutch Disease". On that note, you're welcome.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Ontario's manufacturing sector is in decline because of Alberta oil? I'm thinking there is far too much geography between the two.


'Dutch Disease' is a term, not coined by Mac Doc, but by economists. The point is there are ways to handle a commodity raising a countries currency that will minimize the negative impact it has on other industries that rely on exports. Canada hasn't done that, but has instead caved and catered to the oil sands every whim. It's not healthy for the rest of the country, and when that finite commodity eventually runs out the country needs other healthy industries to carry the load.



Vandave said:


> Don't be cheeky... Remember how well Iceland did? The shining example of how to build a sustainable economy.
> 
> Oh wait...


Iceland's economy fell because the banks were deregulated. Now who in 2002 opposed strict bank regulations in Canada?? 

Here's a clue....starts with an 'H' ends with 'arper'.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Iceland's economy fell because the banks were deregulated.


Iceland's economy was built on beautiful green footing.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Ontario's manufacturing sector is in trouble because the cost of doing business in Ontario is too high and because our energy sector is being strangled. At the same time, McGuinty is hag-riding industry with a vicious amount of oversight.


Exactly. This has far more to do with local politics than remote natural resources.


----------



## FeXL

i-rui said:


> 'Dutch Disease' is a term, not coined by Mac Doc, but by economists. The point is there are ways to handle a commodity raising a countries currency that will minimize the negative impact it has on other industries that rely on exports. Canada hasn't done that, but has instead caved and catered to the oil sands every whim. It's not healthy for the rest of the country, and when that finite commodity eventually runs out the country needs other healthy industries to carry the load.


Never said MD coined the term. My observation was in regards to anything that Norway does, MD is enthralled with and would immediately like to implement in Canada.

Me? Not so much a socialist. I believe in a hand up, not a hand out. I'm not happy with the way my current tax dollars are spent, let alone even more of a tax grab.

As far as catering to the oil sands, I can't disagree. At the same time, during economic times such as these, is it not nice to be able to rely on something to keep us at least partially out of the sewer?

As far as furthering industry, yes, by all means. However (as has been noted), local politics can make or break industry.

At any rate, this is far off the thread topic, I'm done here.


----------



## arminia

Floods linked to climate change: officials - Manitoba - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

arminia said:


> Floods linked to climate change: officials - Manitoba - CBC News


Indeed. Natural variations in the climate caused extensive rain. What does this have to do with GHGs?


----------



## eMacMan

arminia said:


> Floods linked to climate change: officials - Manitoba - CBC News


True enough. Most of the flooding was related to an unusually brutal winter, and in much of Canada and the Western US snow packs that were double or even triple the norm. Also linked to a La Nina (cold) cycle that just won't let go.

Global Cooling as suggested by the Sun cycle proponents, perhaps. Global butt Warming my frozen a$$.


----------



## MacDoc

> Published: June 13, 2011 *Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community*
> 
> *Author*
> 
> 
> 
> * Megan Clement *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s undeniable: our planet is changing. NASA
> 
> 
> 
> Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> *The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.*
> *Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.*
> 
> 
> Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”
> Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.
> Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.
> A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.
> At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.
> Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.
> Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.
> Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”
> For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.
> We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
> The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.
> The signatories below jointly authored this article, and some may also contribute to the forthcoming series of analyses.
> *Signatories*
> 
> Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA
> Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, UWA
> Dr Julie Trotter, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Oceans Institute, UWA
> Winthrop Professor Malcolm McCulloch, F.R.S., Premier’s Research Fellow, UWA Oceans Institute, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
> Professor Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA
> Dr Thomas Stemler, Assistant Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA
> Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
> Dr. Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, ANU
> Prof Michael Ashley, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
> Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
> Prof Ian Enting, ARC Centre for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne
> Prof John Wiseman, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
> Associate Professor Ben Newell, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Dr Alex Sen Gupta Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof. Mike Archer AM, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Dr. Katrin Meissner, ARC Future Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Dr Jason Evans, ARC Australian Research Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ
> Dr Andy Hogg, Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU
> Prof John Quiggin, School of Economics, School of Political Science & Intnl Studies, UQ
> Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
> Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide
> Prof Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
> Dr Michael Box, Associate Professor, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW
> Prof Corey Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide
> Dr Paul Dargusch, School of Agriculture & Food Science, UQ
> Prof Nigel Tapper, Professor Environmental Science, School of Geography and Environmental Science Monash University
> Prof Jason Beringer, Associate Professor & Deputy Dean of Research, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
> Prof Neville Nicholls, Professorial Fellow, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
> Prof Dave Griggs, Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University
> Prof Peter Sly, Medicine Faculty, School of Paediatrics & Child Health, UQ
> Dr Pauline Grierson, Senior Lecturer, School of Plant Biology, Ecosystems Research Group, Director of West Australian Biogeochemistry Centre, UWA
> Prof Jurg Keller, IWA Fellow, Advanced Water Management Centre, UQ
> Prof Amanda Lynch, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
> A/Prof Steve Siems, School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University
> Prof Justin Brookes, Director, Water Research Centre, The University of Adelaide
> Prof Glenn Albrecht, Professor of Sustainability, Director: Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), Murdoch University
> Winthrop Professor Steven Smith, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, UWA
> Dr Kerrie Unsworth, School of Business, UWA
> Dr Pieter Poot, Assistant Professor in Plant Conservation Biology, School of Plant Biology, UWA
> Adam McHugh, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Energy, Murdoch University
> Dr Louise Bruce, Research Associate, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
> Dr Ailie Gallant, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
> Dr Will J Grant, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, ANU
> Rick A. Baartman, Fellow of the American Physical Society
> William GC Raper, Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO (retired)
> Dr Chris Riedy, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
> Ben McNeil, Senior Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
> Paul Beckwith, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa
> Tim Leslie, PhD candidate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
> Dr Peter Manins, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (post-retirement Fellow)
> Prof Philip Jennings, Professor of Energy Studies, Murdoch University
Click to expand...

Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community

But our chattering class of deniers know better....

NOT!


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
> 
> But our chattering class of deniers know better....
> 
> NOT!


Climate change is very real. For example it was a lot hotter during the Medieval Warming Period and a whole lot cooler during the Maunder Minimum. Both facts which the Warming alarmists have tried to erase as together they shatter the Michael Mann hockey stick. 

While climate change is real and has been happening for billions of years there is no convincing evidence to support the hypothesis of catastrophic man caused global warming.

Still if you must buy into the science by consensus line of bull. Check this link:

Global Warming Petition Project

Qualifications of those thirty thousand scientists here:

Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## eMacMan

Now if you go with the Adolph theory; Hey they aren't Ayrian so they aren't really human. Or even the Zionist revision: "Thou shalt not kill other Jews but everyone else is fair game." Then you will probably shrug your shoulders and say: "Collateral Damage." 

I think most others will view it as a needless tragedy.



> *'Green' lightbulbs poison workers*
> Hundreds of factory staff are being made ill by mercury used in bulbs destined for the West
> *Michael Sheridan, Foshan*
> 
> WHEN British consumers are compelled to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs from 2012, they will save up to 5m tons of carbon dioxide a year from being pumped into the atmosphere. In China, however, a heavy environmental price is being paid for the production of “green” lightbulbs in cost-cutting factories.
> 
> Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.
> 
> Doctors, regulators, lawyers and courts in China - which supplies two thirds of the compact fluorescent bulbs sold in Britain - are increasingly alert to the potential impacts on public health of an industry that promotes itself as a friend of the earth but depends on highly toxic mercury.
> 
> Making the bulbs requires workers to handle mercury in either solid or liquid form because a small amount of the metal is put into each bulb to start the chemical reaction that creates light.


'Green' lightbulbs poison workers - Times Online


----------



## Vandave

Sun spot activity is down. Anybody want to bet that temperature follows?

A sun with no sun spots? What that could mean for Earth and its climate. - CSMonitor.com


----------



## Macfury

From MacDoc's blurt:



> Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.


Made me laugh. They could never control the temperature in the first place, but now the sun is doing the limiting for them!

50 or so signatories from future home, Australia, constitute the entire "Scientific Community" MacDoc?


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> From MacDoc's blurt:
> 
> 
> 
> Made me laugh. They could never control the temperature in the first place, but now the sun is doing the limiting for them!


I think they want to get started quickly to take credit for what the sun is about to do.


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> From MacDoc's blurt:
> 
> 
> 
> Made me laugh. They could never control the temperature in the first place, but now the sun is doing the limiting for them!
> 
> 50 or so signatories from future home, Australia, constitute the entire "Scientific Community" MacDoc?


Clearly it control is well within Australia's hands… at the expense of the camel population.

Can you smell it? beejacon


----------



## SINC

*New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace.*

Now why do you suppose that this does not surprise me in the least:

Mark Lynas: Home » climate change » New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace


----------



## Macfury

Huge surprise there, SINC. And here I thought this was all peer-reviewed?? I guess Greenpeace is their peer.


----------



## eMacMan

From todays Billings, MT Gazette:



> WEST GLACIER - Crews plowing Glacier National Park's historic Going-to-the-Sun Road say heavy snowpack this winter has put them almost a month behind schedule.
> 
> 
> Stan Stahr tells KECI-TV in Missoula he hasn't seen the snowpack this bad in the 20 years he has worked for the park, and it is making it dangerous for crews that are experiencing avalanches, mud slides and rocks breaking off cliffs.
> 
> 
> With another round of cool, wet weather in the forecast, Stahr says park officials can't say for sure when the road will be completely open over Logan Pass. It generally opens between now and the beginning of July.


If this is Global Warming I'd sure hate to see Global Cooling!


----------



## eMacMan

From this mornings SAP. Thanks Don! Yep old us old farts really are environmental monsters.



> *At the checkout at the supermarket, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
> **
> The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."
> 
> The young man responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."
> 
> She was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in her day.
> 
> Back then, they returned their milk bottles, pop bottles and beer bottles to the shop, which sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
> 
> But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day.
> 
> In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an elevator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks,
> 
> But she was right, they didn't have the green thing in her day.
> 
> Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand me down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand new stuff.
> 
> But that old lady is right, they didn't have the green thing back in her day
> 
> Back then, they had one TV, or radio in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen not a screen the size of the wall.
> 
> In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you.
> 
> When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
> 
> Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working, so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
> 
> But she's right, they didn't have the green thing back then.
> 
> They drank from a fountain or a tap when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water.
> 
> They refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and replaced the razor blades instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
> 
> But they didn't have the green thing back then.
> 
> Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their parents into a 24-hour taxi service.
> 
> They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank to power a dozen appliances.
> 
> And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from a satellite 2,000 miles in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
> 
> But isn't it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn't have the green thing back then?
> *


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> From this mornings SAP. Thanks Don! Yep old us old farts really are environmental monsters.


Yer welcome, Bob.


----------



## Macfury

Bloody brilliant!


----------



## SINC

China’s power stations generate ‘future spike’ in global warming?

Causes cooling over the past 10 years? All one can do is shake their head at the stupidity of it all:

China’s power stations generate ‘future spike’ in global warming - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent


----------



## Vandave

And why didn't North Americam releases of sulphur prevent the warming that occured from 1940 to 2000? On one hand, it seemingly has no effect, but on the other it does. 

Which IPCC scientist predicted no temperature change in the last ten years? Which model has gotten this right so far? Ya.... none.

And now the Sun spots are entering a quiet period. If temperature follows, it will get interesting.


----------



## Macfury

I love this recent Yale study which determined that people with the best scientific understanding are most likely to be skeptics of GHG theories.

In "The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change":



> “Our study results belie the conventional view that controversy over policy-relevant science is rooted in the public’s lack of scientific knowledge and its inability to engage in technical reasoning. As ordinary people learn more science and become more proficient in modes of reasoning characteristic of scientific inquiry, they do not reliably converge on assessments of climate change risks supported by scientific evidence.”


I think the authors had hoped to make a connection between scientific ignorance and opposition to theories of global warming, but were forced to make the bizarre statement above when the data failed to support the premise. 

Let me fix it for them:

As ordinary people learn more science and become more proficient in modes of reasoning characteristic of scientific inquiry, they more reliably assess what is passed off as scientific evidence.


----------



## Vandave

If the IPCC were a stock, I would short it.

It's surprising to me that it took less than 10 years for the computer models to be proven wrong. Not a single model predicted stable temperatures, and not one is going to predict the pending drop over the next decade. If sulphur gases were truly the cause of cooling and had such a major effect, then the models should account for that. If not, it's only because of a lack of understanding of what drives climate. 

The next IPCC excuse will be stating that the lack of solar activity is unprecedented in history. They will claim it provided us with a lucky reprieve and that warming will continue when things return to normal.


----------



## Macfury

When we're facing an Ice Age, we should reasonably be told to maintain CO2 production so we can count on an "underlying" degree of warmth to save us from an icy fate. However, the only antidotes offered to threats of global warming or cooling is either de-industrialization or massive socialist wealth transfers.--the panacea for all climatic ills.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> When we're facing an Ice Age, we should reasonably be told to maintain CO2 production so we can count on an "underlying" degree of warmth to save us from an icy fate. However, the only antidotes offered to threats of global warming or cooling is either de-industrialization or massive socialist wealth transfers.--the panacea for all climatic ills.


An Ice Age scares me more than global warming. The global temperature is still 1 or 2 degrees below where it has been during warm periods in the 500,000 year history of climate. Funny how, climate models predict a couple degrees of warming. Coincidence? I think not. 

We do know that these warm periods do not last very long and that the typical temperature is many degrees lower than present. And this cooling is not a question of if, but when. 

I think it is time to separate the science and the politics. Left wing ideologues have hijacked a new science to push their agenda of socialism. These types shun debate and dissenting opinions about the mechanisms of global warming. But, that's not how science works. Science requires debate, dissenting opinion and testing.

Understanding climate is very important and think we need to really get a grasp on this. I sense we have a long way to go.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc, can you give us a first hand update on the glaciers? Are they still there? Should I book my trip before they are gone?


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> MacDoc, can you give us a first hand update on the glaciers? Are they still there? Should I book my trip before they are gone?


I think he has gone permanently to the land of dromedary slaughter--Australia. Coincidentally, the Aussie populace is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that idiot PM from imposing her green dreams of carbon taxes on the country. The people were particularly furious when they discovered that a significant portion of the money was going to be sent out of the country. MacDoc may not like that place any more in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> I think he has gone permanently to the land of dromedary slaughter--Australia. Coincidentally, the Aussie populace is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that idiot PM from imposing her green dreams of carbon taxes on the country. The people were particularly furious when they discovered that a significant portion of the money was going to be sent out of the country. MacDoc may not like that place any more in a couple of weeks.


I would have guessed a move to either Iceland or Norway given the level of praise thrown their way the past few years. I suppose it would be hard to watch those glaciers disappear first hand though.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> I would have guessed a move to either Iceland or Norway given the level of praise thrown their way the past few years. I suppose it would be hard to watch those glaciers disappear first hand though.


I think the promise was to exit to "a land down under" if Harper achieved a majority. The first part happened.

Speaking of MaccyD, isn't it about time for a huge post containing out-of-date data and some sort of insult?


----------



## CubaMark

*Al Gore: Meet The Climate Reality Project*



> The climate crisis is a reality, and we are seeing its impacts in extreme weather all around the world. Using the same deceitful playbook as big tobacco used years before to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking, oil and coal companies and their allies are now deceiving the public about climate change. They have nearly unlimited resources to sow doubt, but we have one critical advantage: Reality is on our side.


(Huffington Post)


----------



## Macfury

This is just Al Gore's old, failed Alliance for Climate Protection with a new name. Something happened to the old coot's brain when Tipper left him.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Texas Drought Now Far, Far Worse Than When Gov. Rick Perry Issued Proclamation Calling on All Texans to Pray for Rain*
> 
> By Joe Romm on Jul 15, 2011 at 12:49 pm
> *Minnesota temperatures next week will be “extreme out-of-the-ordinary” — just like Bachmann and Pawlenty*
> 
> National Weather Service: “The stage is being set for a massive heat wave to develop into next week as a large area of high pressure is anticipated to circulate hot and humid air over much of the central and eastern U.S. Maximum heat index values of at least 100°F are likely across much of this area by the middle of next week, with heat index values in excess of 110°F possible over portions of these areas.”​ Extremist climate science deniers like Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty are campaigning tirelessly to give their state the climate of Texas. That is what would happen if the nation and the world continues to follow in their preferred path of doing absolutely nothing to reduce emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
> I know it is just a coincidence, but Minnesota is going to get a taste over the next several days of a Tea Party future (as will much of the rest of the country). CNN reports today:
> Extreme heat indices — how the air feels, with heat and humidity — are expected to reach up to 116 degrees in Minneapolis next week.
> “*These are extreme out-of-the-ordinary temperatures for Minnesota*,” CNN meteorologist Sean Morris said.
> Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington and other areas in Texas experienced afternoon heat indices of 105 degrees or more through Thursday.
> *The month of June was the hottest recorded for Texas since 1895*, according to the National Weather Service.​ But since Bachmann and Pawlenty are working to turn Minnesota into Texas, it is worth remembering that the ‘adaptation’ strategy of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has been to designate 3 “days of prayer for rain” while cutting the budget of agency battling record wildfires.
> It would seem no one is actually listening to Perry’s prayers because the only alternative would be to believe that whoever is listening is doing the exact opposite of what Perry has prayed for. As the latest U.S. Drought Monitor shows, *the Texas drought is considerably worse than when Perry issued an “official proclamation drawing on his constitutional authority designating three days as Days of Prayer for Rain” back in April*:


Texas Drought Now Far, Far Worse Than When Gov. Rick Perry Issued Proclamation Calling on All Texans to Pray for Rain | ThinkProgress


----------



## Macfury

Somewhere over this vast globe, someone is having a record hot day. Someone is having a drought. Someone is having a wildfire. It's really alarming to see someone who says he has a thorough understanding of climate mistaking weather for climate. I expect this from the leftist mouth breathers at Think Progress. I don't expect it from you.


----------



## MacDoc

sure 



> If the earth were not warming, random variations in the weather should cause about the same number of record-breaking high temperatures and record-breaking low temperatures over a given period. But climatologists have long theorized that in a warming world, the added heat would cause more record highs and fewer record lows.
> 
> The statistics suggest that is exactly what is happening.* In the United States these days, about two record highs are being set for every record low,* telltale evidence that amid all the random variation of weather, the trend is toward a warmer climate.


and this was LAST year....wait til this year's numbers are in



> M*ultiple Heat Waves Cap Planet’s Warming Trend*
> Fri, 2010-07-09 15:26 — markh
> Climate Change | Global Warming | Environment | Population | People | Sustainable Development
> 
> Climatewire: This time, the heat is really on. From Boston to Washington, D.C., temperatures have soared to 100 degrees or more in recent days, stressing electrical grids, scrambling rail transportation and prompting the swift creation of cooling centers for those who lack air conditioning. Central Canada, portions of the Middle East and China are also coping with searing heat. Overall, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the combined global land and ocean temperatures from January to May were warmer than in the same period in any year on record — a comparison that reaches back to the 1880s. But how much of the heat can be blamed on climate change? “We can’t say that one individual or even two heat waves are due to global warming,” said David Easterling, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “But what we can say is that warming temperatures do increase the probability of a heat wave.” Scientists have documented a pronounced warming trend in the United States and around the world over the last several decades.
> 
> In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with 90 percent certainty that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have been the primary factor in Earth’s overall temperature rise since 1950. Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization said late last year that the 2000-2009 decade appears to be the warmest since record-keeping began in the 1850s. Easterling said studies also show an increase in the occurrence of heat waves in the United States since 1960. One recent analysis he published with colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate Central and the Weather Channel concluded that climate change is skewing the proportion of record high temperatures to record low temperatures in the continental United States.
> 
> *Record highs outpace record lows*
> *Record highs outnumbered record lows 2-to-1 over the last decade, and the study — published in Geophysical Research Letters last year — predicted that disparity could balloon to 20-to-1 by the end of this century without sharp curbs on greenhouse gas emissions.* While it’s impossible to pin blame for one heat wave on climate change, since naturally occurring weather patterns like El Niño can magnify or counteract human-caused warming over short periods, experts said an emerging crop of studies suggests that heat waves will become more frequent and intense without strong cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. “Model simulations do suggest that we can expect more and longer heat waves in the future … [but] that really does kind of depend on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions through the 21st century,” Easterling said. Without a dramatic decrease in heat-trapping emissions, he said, “what we currently consider a heat wave or an unusually hot day are very likely to become more then norm. The current spate of heat waves could be a harbinger of things to come.” One new study by researchers at Stanford University finds that extreme high temperatures could become far more common even if the world manages to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius — the climate “guardrail” the European Union, the Group of Eight industrialized nations and many scientists believe will stave off severe climate change. A 1-degree-Celsius temperature rise between now and 2039, enough to bring the total temperature rise since the preindustrial era up to the edge of the 2-degree guardrail, would prompt as many as five intense heat waves between 2020 and 2029 in the western and central United States.
> 
> *Western U.S. set for frequent frying*
> The 2030s, the study concludes, could see seven to eight intense heat waves in Western states, with at least four heat waves in other regions. Researchers based their findings on comparisons among a dozen climate models. “I was definitely surprised to see such large changes occur within the 2-degree-Celsius envelope, and to see that those changes are as robust as they are across a large suite of climate model simulations,” said lead author Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford climate scientist and a fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment. “To me, that’s a suggestion that 2 degrees Celsius is not sufficient to avoid damage from climate change.”
> 
> Another study that grabbed headlines recently suggested that if greenhouse gas output continues growing at its current rate, rising temperatures could make large areas of the globe uninhabitable for humans in coming centuries. Within 200 to 300 years, concluded the study lead by Purdue University scientist Matthew Huber, the global average temperature could increase by 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit, pushing heat and humidity in many areas beyond the point at which humans can adapt by sweating or giving off heat to cool themselves. “We’re not claiming this is a central projection for the future,” Huber said. “It represents a potential future, and the interesting thing about it is, we’ve already committed to at least 2 degrees [Fahrenheit] of warming. The kind of warming we’re talking about here, at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit, maybe 15, is something we still can decide to avoid.”


http://www.wrsc.org/story/multiple-heat-waves-cap-planet’s-warming-trend


----------



## Macfury

> The 2030s, the study concludes, could see seven to eight intense heat waves in Western states, with at least four heat waves in other regions.


That's right, because they've been spot-on so far...

MacDoc's source here is "The World Resources Simulation Center" which hopes to simulate "the world" for the benefit of helping leaders to make complex decisions.


----------



## groovetube

no heat waves around in general at all. What the hell are they thinking?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> no heat waves around in general at all. What the hell are they thinking?


They're thinking people don';t know the difference between climate and weather--like you!


----------



## groovetube

or google professors who don't know the difference between sarcasm and not. Like you!


----------



## Macfury

Greenhouse experiment shows fallacy of application to Earth's climate:

Repeatibility of Prof. Wood's Experiment


----------



## MacDoc

> The world's insurance companies recognize the risk and reality of climate change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the insurance industry gets climate change*
> Insurance companies understand risk – which is why, unlike our myopic political class, they do not have their heads in the sand
> 
> ...
> 
> Insurance companies have a vested interest in reducing the risks of climate change. Like scientists and the military, they're used to dealing with and planning for uncertainty. As scientists have made clear, climate change is cranking up the dial on extreme weather. Over the last 30 years, catastrophic economic losses have been rising (pdf) with the global temperature, which chops into insurance firms' profits.
> 
> *With landscapes and livelihoods being sucked into the extreme weather vortex, insurance firm executives – especially in Europe – are getting the message.*
> 
> The insurance industry is all about risk assessment and capital accumulation. Katrina-like catastrophes lurk on the discernibly warmer horizon, giving insurance companies a real deal incentive to slice against the zeitgeist of denial. As Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told the select committee on energy independence and global warming in 2007, "The insurance industry's financial interest is inter-dependent with climate and weather."
> 
> Over the last five years, the insurance industry has become increasingly proactive on climate change, in terms of both underwriting and investment. Reinsurance companies – essentially firms that insure the insurers to manage and defray risk – have taken the lead. In September 2007, insurance firms formed ClimateWise in order to reduce economic risk associated with climate change.
> 
> That same year, Andrew Castaldi, head of the catastrophe risk unit for the Swiss Re America Corp, testified to the Senate's homeland security and governmental affairs committee, [hilite]"We believe unequivocally that climate change presents an increasing risk to the world economy and social welfare."[/hilite]
> 
> In 2008, Ernst & Young – not known for having to peel bark from their sweater vests after intensive treehugging sessions – named climate change the number one risk to the insurance industry. [hilite]In a 2009 report, Lloyd's of London warned of climate change contributing to "resource-driven conflicts; economic damage and risk to coastal cities and infrastructure; loss of territory and resultant border disputes; environmentally induced migration; government fragility; political radicalisation; tensions over energy supplies and pressures on international governance".[/hilite]
> 
> 
> 
> Why the insurance industry gets climate change | Jules Boykoff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
> 
> .
Click to expand...

some get it some don't - the insurers certainly understand...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> some get it some don't - the insurers certainly understand...


Insurance companies will jump on anything that will increase rates and stuff more profits into their pockets.

Hardly an ironclad case of anything, save greed.

That's all you got? The insurance companies say it's so?

Jeezuz...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Insurance companies will jump on anything that will increase rates and stuff more profits into their pockets.


Yes. They're especially willing to sell policies for things unlikely to occur. They will gladly sell you a policy to protect your roof from heat damage or hurricanes in February.


----------



## MacDoc

> Hot Nights and High Humidity Set This Heat Wave Apart
> 
> Published: July 20th, 2011 in Impacts, Projections, Climate, Extremes, Heat, Energy, Weather, Extreme Weather, United States, US National, Midwest, Extreme Planet
> PrintPermalinkRSSShareThis
> By Andrew Freedman
> 
> My colleague Heidi Cullen has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today on the current heat wave, and the shifting notion of what constitutes a "normal climate" as average global temperatures continue to warm. She didn't have room for details on the heat wave in that story, but it's worth doing so here given its important lessons for climate change adaptation efforts, particularly concerning public health and infrastructure.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=R8Wt-xByyMo
> ‪July 13-21 2011 heat wave‬‏ - YouTube
> 
> The heat wave that is currently roasting much of the United States stands out from typical summertime heat events that we expect to occur during July and August. First of all, the hot weather, which is associated with a sprawling area of high pressure, covers a huge expanse. Today, for example, at least 141 million people under heat advisories or warnings, according to a tweet from NOAA spokesman Justin Kenney (see video below).


..


----------



## Macfury

There is no "normal climate." We have existed in what constitutes an unusually stable climate for the past half-century. For comparisons see the reports on the 1936 Cold Wave and the subsequent 1936 Heat wave that hit Toronto and much of the U.S. with local temperatures here climbing to 43 degrees Celsius and no major cool-off at night--Torontonians flocked to the shores of Lake Ontario to sleep.

Relative humidity today - 53%. Not unusual.


----------



## MannyP Design

Can't say there's been much in the way of heat waves over here -- maybe a handful of days that were hot. We've almost had as much rain as we've had sunshine this summer and July is almost over; it's been a roller coaster for the most part. Nothing's come close to NB's record high of 39.4 °C of 1935, however. Theoretically we should have met it by now if you were to believe the hype.


----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> Can't say there's been much in the way of heat waves over here -- maybe a handful of days that were hot. We've almost had as much rain as we've had sunshine this summer and July is almost over; it's been a roller coaster for the most part. Nothing's come close to NB's record high of 39.4 °C of 1935, however. Theoretically we should have met it by now if you were to believe the hype.


Come further east, MannyP if you want some cool temps. Some sun and 21C temps with a light breeze. We had two days in early July when the humidex went over 30C and that was our hot summer right there.

Still, I recall the brutal heat and humidity in Georgia, and I do not envy anyone in the GTA.

Stay safe, mes amis.


----------



## MannyP Design

Dr.G. said:


> Come further east, MannyP if you want some cool temps. Some sun and 21C temps with a light breeze. We had two days in early July when the humidex went over 30C and that was our hot summer right there.
> 
> Still, I recall the brutal heat and humidity in Georgia, and I do not envy anyone in the GTA.
> 
> Stay safe, mes amis.


If I came an further east I'd be in the ocean.


----------



## MacDoc

> Today's forecast looks awesome - *the highest temperature ever recorded in the SWO region*. Hotter than Mumbai! Whoo Canadian record breaker!
> Take that India!


guess Harpo's subsidies are working....


----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> If I came an further east I'd be in the ocean.


Where are you located? I am about 5km from the Atlantic Ocean.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> guess Harpo's subsidies are working....


Who are you quoting and what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## MannyP Design

Dr.G. said:


> Where are you located? I am about 5km from the Atlantic Ocean.


I'm south-ish of you in NB.


----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> I'm south-ish of you in NB.


That's what I thought. Paix, mon ami.

21C and sunny as we approach 5PM here in St.John's.


----------



## MannyP Design

20° and raining. I'm sure Texas could use all the rain we've had this summer.


----------



## Dr.G.

Overcast and 18C but there is little wind and amazingly, no bugs. Not sure where all the insects went this year. All I have seen are bees and butterflies, which are fine with me.


----------



## SINC

Sadly, this has turned into the new weather thread.


----------



## MannyP Design

Not at all. I think it's relevant since MacDoc is keen on producing weather factoids of Texas and Toronto in the efforts to support his position… I think it's important to note that not all parts of the globe are burning.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Climate change threatens to spoil Ontario’s signature wines *
> 
> Ontario’s wine makers are fighting to protect their grapes against Mother Nature’s wrath.
> The destructive forces of climate change are already being felt in the world’s biggest wine-producing regions – California, Europe and Australia – as the steady rise in global temperatures scorches vineyards and depletes water supplies.


more
Climate change threatens to spoil Ontario’s signature wines - The Globe and Mail

It's still 33 at 10 pm on perhaps the hottest day ever recorded in Toronto. But of course it's of little significance.....

according to a few with their heads firmly buried in denier sands 

keep those tar sands subsidies rolling - might get warm enough they don't need to cook it....


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> keep those tar sands subsidies rolling - might get warm enough they don't need to cook it....


You betcha, big guy.

Just as long as you keep getting your crude shipped from the mid-east via bunker fuel...


----------



## Macfury

Accurate headline: _Warm weather may spoil this year's grape harvest._ 

Again, the headline does not prove AGW theory. Getting desperate are we?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Again, the headline does not prove AGW theory. Getting desperate are we?


Neither does anything else. That's why he's desperate...

MacDoc, although a couple years before your time, your momma shoulda told you about this. I see a refresher is in order:



> And still the dust blew.
> 
> On June 24 it blew with such fury that it forced the Moose Jaw fair to cancel its horse races and shut down. The force of the storms blowing across southern Saskatchewan was felt as far east as Winnipeg, where once again a dust haze obscured the sun.
> 
> Highways became so drifted with dust as to be impassable. South of Moose Jaw the blowing alkali from dried-up Johnstone Lake coated the countryside a dirty white and drove everybody indoors. Sixty miles to the south, near the town of Rockglen, Fife Lake, which had once been thirty-five miles long, dried up completely. Far to the east in the Oxbow area, the Lake of the Rivers went dry and in the process a great mass of prehistoric buffalo bones was uncovered. The farmers of the area lived that year on the returns they got from the fertilizer plants for the carloads of bones they managed to harvest. Near Arcola, the trains were delayed by the myriads of grasshoppers that lit on the rails and were ground to grease.
> 
> The Saskatchewan crop was destroyed by the fourth week of June. Then the heat got worse. At the end of June, 100-degree temperatures were common everywhere and the areas as far north as Prince Albert got a bitter taste of what Regina and Moose Jaw had experienced in 1936. The peak came on July 5 when it touched 110 degrees at Regina, Moose Jaw, and a dozen other southern communities. For the rest of the summer ninety-degree heat was the rule, for the hot weather extended well into August, and the records established all over on August 23, when it went well over the 100-degree mark again.
> 
> There had been hotter Junes than 1937, hotter Julys, and hotter Augusts, but taken together there had never been a longer and hotter summer.
> 
> 
> James H. Gray - The Winter Years


Sonuvagun. 1937 you say...

110˚F. Makes your pissant 33˚C seem like a welcome respite.

You wanna talk weather in the AGW thread? Go for it. 

All day, baby...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, what's incredible is the lapse in logic. As I follow it:

1. Heat wave hits Ontario.
2. Headline identifies "climate change" as cause of grape harvest failure.
3. MacDoc blames Oil Sands.

The Scientific Method he bellows about? Not necessary, I guess, when we're talking wine.

Headline in _Viking Times _as Maunder Minimum approaches: "Climate change destroying Iceland grape harvest."


----------



## FeXL

My bud Steven Goddard has a bit of perspective, as well:

1) In 2011, we have 22 heat related deaths in the US. In 1936, we have >12,000.

2) Temperature records aren't going up so the very scary sounding Heat Index is created:



> Temperatures refuse to go up this millennium, so alarmists had to come up with yet another way to jack up temperatures – by 15-30 degrees.


3) 1924/1925 : Years That Would Make Joe Romm’s Head Explode:



> The deadliest tornado in US history. Severe heatwaves. Severe drought in the US and Australia. Massive infestation of pine beetles. Hurricanes in Australia. Arctic melting …. Amazing the world survived.


----------



## Vandave

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

_"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."
_


----------



## Macfury

Vandave: most GHG theories are based on the false supposition that the Earth is actually a closed-system greenhouse. At its basis, this is unsupportable.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Vandave: most GHG theories are based on the false supposition that the Earth is actually a closed-system greenhouse. At its basis, this is unsupportable.


WTF are you talking about? No climate models make this assumption. Why do you make these wild claims when you clearly know absolutely nothing about the field?


----------



## FeXL

duplicate post.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> WTF are you talking about? No climate models make this assumption. Why do you make these wild claims when you clearly know absolutely nothing about the field?


I'm sorry, bryanc, as a climatology layman you are not allowed to judge the opinions of others. You may observe, you may comment but, as your uninformed opinions are just that, you may not call them wrong.

Thank you.

Carry on.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I'm sorry, bryanc, as a climatology layman you are not allowed to judge the opinions of others. You may observe, you may comment but, as your uninformed opinions are just that, you may not call them wrong.


The cheek of that guy!


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> WTF are you talking about? No climate models make this assumption. Why do you make these wild claims when you clearly know absolutely nothing about the field?


Split hairs all you want, but to this point in time, climate models assumed that very little heat escaped from the upper atmosphere. Consequently, the climate models predicted greater warming in the upper atmosphere than what has been observed. This previously raised serious questions about the validity of the climate models. And now, we find evidence that a significant amount of heat transfer does in fact occur at the upper atmosphere.

Boundary conditions are absolutely critical for finite element models. If you can't get those right, the entire model is basically garbage.

It's also interesting to see that no model predicted the lack of warming and slight cooling that has occurred over the past decade. Too bad those sunspots weren't cooperating.


----------



## MacGuiver

Another global warming con-artist/scientist?

Arctic scientist who wrote of drowned polar bears faces ‘integrity’ probe - The Globe and Mail



> A U.S. wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
> 
> Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

Interesting how the "science" around AGW is slowly crumbling under its own weight.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Interesting how the "science" around AGW is slowly crumbling under its own weight.


"Peer-reviewed" science. Give the peers some credit, SINC.


----------



## MannyP Design

For those interested in reading the report mentioned in the Forbes article regarding NASA's data http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/​3/8/1603/pdf (the cached version can be found here: On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth?s Radiant Energy Balance )

I have a feeling MDPI is getting slammed with a ton of traffic right now.


----------



## MacDoc

IN case you were wondering about the latest nonsense circulating the deniosphere from Uncle Roy the Intelligent Design proponent.....



> *“Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”*
> 
> Filed under:
> 
> Climate Science
> — mike @ 29 July 2011
> Guest commentary by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo
> 
> 
> The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”.
> 
> The paper has been published in a journal called _Remote sensing_ which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and* it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.*
> 
> 
> The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.
> 
> 
> 
> The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce but use of slightly different datasets, such as the EBAF CERES dataset, changes the results to be somewhat less in magnitude. And some parts of the results do appear to be significant. So are they replicated in climate models? Spencer and Braswell say no, but this is where attempts to replicate their results require clarification. In contrast, some model results do appear to fall well within the range of uncertainties of the observations. How can that be? For one, the observations cover a 10 year period. The models cover a hundred year period for the 20th century. The latter were detrended by Spencer but for the 20th century that should not be necessary. One could and perhaps should treat the 100 years as 10 sets of 10 years and see whether the observations match any of the ten year periods, but instead what appears to have been done is to use only the one hundred year set by itself. We have done exactly this and the result is in the Figure..
> [ed. note: italics below replace the deleted sentence above, to make it clearer what is meant here.]
> _SB11 appears to have used the full 100 year record to evaluate the models, but this provides no indication of the robustness of their derived relationships. Here instead, we have considered each decade of the 20th century individually and quantified the inter-decadal variability to derive the Figure below._ What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, using the EBAF dataset (in black). Then we show results from 2 different models, one which does not replicate ENSO well (top) and one which does (second panel). Here we give the average result (red curve) for all 10 decades, plus the range of results that reflects the variations from one decade to the next. The MPI-Echam5 model replicates the observations very well. When all model results from CMIP3 are included, the bottom panel results, showing the red curve not too dis-similar from Spencer and Braswell, but with a huge range, due both to the spread among models, and also the spread due to decadal variability.
> 
> 
> 
> _Figure: Lagged regression analysis for the Top-of-the-atmosphere Net Radiation against surface temperature. The CERES data is in black (as in SB11), and the individual models in each panel are in red. The dashed lines are the span of the regressions for specific 10 year periods in the model (so that the variance is comparable to the 10 years of the CERES data). The three panels show results for a) a model with poor ENSO variability, b) a model with reasonable ENSO variability, and c) all models. _
> Consequently, our results suggest that there are good models and some not so good, but rather than stratifying them by climate sensitivity, one should, in this case, stratify them by ability to simulate ENSO. In the Figure, the model that replicates the observations better has high sensitivity while the other has low sensitivity. The net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations.
> To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. _Geophys. Res. Lett._, 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.
> Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity.* Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds)*. Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.
> 
> 
> 
> *The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper*. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).


RealClimate

as usual pseudo science with an agenda from the dim bulbs in denier land demolised by actual climate scientists...


----------



## Macfury

As usual, you've vomited mounds of irrelevant material onto the page without making your own point. Which aspect of their commentary (they have not disproved the paper) do you find most compelling?


----------



## MannyP Design

I guess anyone who uses "climate denier" is above reproach :lmao: ; and since when is the number for adequate peer reviewal two people? Surely you jest.


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> As usual, you've vomited mounds of irrelevant material onto the page without making your own point. Which aspect of their commentary (they have not disproved the paper) do you find most compelling?


MacDoc has shown time and again that he doesn't actually read the crap he pastes on here.


----------



## Macfury

I know, MannyP--he just pokes part of his anatomy into the thread, lets fly, then immediately departs.


----------



## FeXL

*Death of a carbon salesman*

Chicago Climate Exchange is toast.

From the Wall Street Journal:



> CHICAGO—Intercontinental Exchange Inc. told traders Friday that it would shut down its U.S. emissions derivatives platform, a year after acquiring its parent only to suffer sparse trading as the prospects of a federal carbon-reduction plan remain dim.
> 
> The money-losing Chicago Climate Futures Exchange venture will continue operating through the first quarter of 2012 before closing, exchange officials said in a notice. ICE will then list over-the-counter emissions contracts mirroring products listed on the platform.


Oh noes!

Where will all the frequent fliers with a guilty conscience assuage themselves?

MacDoc?


----------



## Macfury

Cue some out-of-date charts from "DeSmogBlog."


----------



## eMacMan

I do sometimes believe that MF is taking a view opposite his own NeoCon beliefs. 

Clearly GW crowd is mostly hot air. The proposed solutions are based entirely on Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes. Neither will do anything to reduce CO2 production. However both involve stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Seems to me this should be right up Barf Limburger's alley. Maybe that crowd just wants a bigger piece of the action???

OTH since MD is clearly not a huge supporter of the Bildebuggers one wonders why he so vehemently supports the Gore Engorgement program, not to mention taxes on the air we breath???? What we do know is that somehow all those Carbon Taxes will end up in the vaults of the Banksters.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I do sometimes believe that MF is taking a view opposite his own NeoCon beliefs.


Why? As I am not a neo-conservative.


----------



## SINC

Wow, even Rex Murphy now gets it.

AGW is dead in the water:



> For those who have a wish to hear the grating sound of a man distempered and frustrated that the cause for which he has given at least a decade of his time, the “greatest moral challenge of our time,” is lost, I recommend listening to Al Gore as he was captured during an address at an Aspen global warming conference two weeks ago. It is a revelation.
> 
> Mr. Gore is not a happy Jeremiah. You hear him on the tape near rage, repeatedly shouting “bulls–t” over the arguments of his critics. He raves about conspiracy — a rebirth of the tactics of the dreaded tobacco industry of a few decades back. He blames “media manipulation” for the refusal of people to take up his gloomy summons. He hisses at “volcanoes and sunspots” as having much or anything to do with climate. “Bulls–!” he cries over and over — perhaps it’s the methane content that has him mesmerized with the word. Listen to this aria: “They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bulls–t! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bulls–t! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bulls–t!”
> 
> Can a person win the Nobel Peace prize twice? I surely hope so, for this is the E=mc² moment of our green time.
> 
> It is not a pretty display. *The question the sorry little rant calls up is whether, in its way, this temper fit was a signal that the great global warming crusade, that has had such a sweet run for the last decade or more, is finally over.* Has it run, so to speak, out of gas?





> *In tight economic times people are naturally unwilling to engage in the comic-book fantasies of the wilder environmentalists. Perhaps Climategate gave a too-souring glimpse into the mixture of science and advocacy that has, to some extent, corrupted both. Perhaps, finally, the unctuousness, sanctimony and sputtering righteousness of the high-profile environmentalists signal to most observers that they aren’t really as certain of all this “science” as they pretend to be. Either way this long green game has lost its fundamental energies. The celebrities will find another wristband; the politicians will find a new vague distraction.*


Rex Murphy: Global warming runs out of gas | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## MacDoc

Murphy is such a ditz - swallow the party line to the gullet.....

sow the wind....




> *Canada's PR work for tar sands: dirty, crude and oily*
> 
> The Obama administration is being intensely lobbied to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, but our campaign will match that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Oil swirls in the Yellowstone river after an Exxon Mobil pipeline ruptured near Billings, Montana. Campaigners argue that spillages from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would be a virtual certainty_. Photograph: Larry Mayer/AP
> 
> Another climate-related record will soon be broken, but it's not like those you've been hearing about: the heat waves, droughts and torrential floods setting calamitous precedents everywhere. For a change, mark down this next one as a sign of hope. It's that Washington will play host to the largest act of civil disobedience for the climate in US history.


Canada's PR work for tar sands: dirty, crude and oily | Martin Lukacs | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

snip



> They are up against a Canadian government that has become the foreign branch of the tar sands industry.


ain't that the truth....



> This key message of Canada's global PR strategy aims to distract from the path to genuine energy security: that we speedily get off dirty crude and, eventually, oil itself, and get into renewables. Secret British memos have revealed that the Canadian government is "acutely aware" that "CO2-intensive oil sands exports might become less desirable to the US in the future." Canada knows European governments, which are trying to slap an unwanted label on the tar sands, have seen through their smoke and mirrors; they are worried the US may follow suit.


----------



## eMacMan

Murphy has been accused of a lot of things. Never before however has he been accused of swallowing any Parties lines.

From an environmental point of view the Green House Gas BS has done a lot of damage. Money and energy that should be going to clean-up our nest instead has been going to trying to create a one way conduit from the our wallets to the Al Gore Vault and to trying to justify a blue sky tax.


----------



## FeXL

Europe doesn't want oil sands based products? Fine.

Central Canada considers it off limits? Good.

US neither? Better.

Hello, China? This is Alberta. We've got a couple million barrels of oil sands crude right now. Interested? Yup. Great, call us when the tankers arrive. Thanks. Ciao!


----------



## bryanc

fexl said:


> europe doesn't want *asbestos*? Fine.
> 
> *western* canada considers it off limits? Good.
> 
> Us neither? Better.
> 
> Hello, china? This is *quebec*....


t,ftfy


----------



## vancouverdave

Rex actually did his 'skeptics rant' some time ago, clearly positioning himself with the deniers. This recent rant is surprisingly neutral on the science, focussing instead on the waning will of the (pro) politicians in these otherwise troubled times.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> t,ftfy


I'd ask what your point was, but I don't even care...


----------



## mrjimmy

FeXL said:


> I'd ask what your point was, but I don't even care...


Then why do you bother?


----------



## FeXL

mrjimmy said:


> Then why do you bother?


I bothered responding. I didn't bother asking.


----------



## FeXL

*It's the Sun, stupid!*

So, pretty much left this thread alone this summer, not because there's been nothing happening, but because I didn't think anyone needed any more convincing...

Having said that, there were a couple of articles (1, 2) online back in July on some research being conducted at CERN by Henrik Svensmark on his CLOUD experiment (testing his hypothesis that cosmic rays make clouds). The results have been eagerly anticipated by the sceptic crowd, perhaps not so much by the warmists. While the results were not released at that time, 



> The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.


Well, fast forward to today, and the results have been released:



> CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.
> 
> The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
> 
> This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:
> 
> "We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."
> 
> The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.
> 
> Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):
> 
> "_t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone._


_

Sunovagun. The models suck. Who knew?

More (from Nigel Calder, including a brief history of the CLOUD experiment and early delays which may have brought this information to light far sooner):




A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature, it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (“particles”) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment  but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still. The various colours are for clusters of different diameters (in nanometres) as recorded by various instruments. The largest (black) took longer to grow than the smallest (blue). This is Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

Click to expand...

The editors at Nature must be feeling nauseous this morning...




It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper [Kirby].

Click to expand...

It gives me great satisfaction to bring you yet one more in the death by a thousand cuts..._


----------



## Macfury

I'm often reminded, when listening to struggling warmists, of the Black Knight in the Monty Python film:



> Just a flesh wound. Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!


----------



## eMacMan

The Cern experiments probably don't count as I am sure the scientists involved weren't MD certified. 

Still the mountain of coffin nails for the AGW types keeps getting higher. Some day they may even figure out that the AGW theory is officially dead.


----------



## FeXL

Politicians & other carrion feeders are opportunists that move from carcass to carcass as the political wind blows.

While I could care less what most politicians have to say, it remains interesting to see that recently many of them are starting to about face on AGW.

If even the politicos are leaving the AGW ship it must indeed be sunk.


----------



## MacDoc

_it's the economy stupid._...and the likes of your irresponsible mindset......

it's getting warmer
we're responsible
it's costing a lot already and gonna cost way more down the road....
but do keep subsidizing those oil sands......and keep your head buried in them.....



> Published Jan 7 2011 by Yale Environment 360, Archived Jan 7 2011
> *Calculating the true cost of global climate change*
> by John Carey
> 
> Researchers disagree about what the economic costs of climate change will be over the coming decades. But the answer to that question is fundamental in deciding how urgent it is to take action to reduce emissions.
> 
> When climate legislation died last summer in Congress, one cause was the powerful drumbeat of claims that the bill would bring economic disaster. The legislation would amount to a massive tax hike, devastating an already crippled economy and throwing more people out of work, charged Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Glenn Beck. It would be “the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class,” proclaimed an ad from the Conservative Society of America. Despite supporters’ protests that the price tag of greenhouse gas curbs would be modest, voters’ fear of hits to their pocketbooks forced even many Democrats to backpedal.
> 
> The heated argument about economic costs, however, barely touched one vitally important issue: the costs of NOT taking action on climate. What if last summer’s Russian heat wave and drought, which destroyed one third of the country’s wheat crop, or the catastrophic floods in Pakistan and China, or category 5 hurricanes like Katrina are just glimpses of future havoc from warming left unchecked? As Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, observes, “Certain events would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without global warming, and that includes the Russian heat wave and wild fires, and the Pakistan, Chinese, and Indian floods.”
> 
> The economic costs of such disasters could make even inflated estimates of the legislation’s price tag look small, says University of California, Berkeley, economist Michael Hanemann. Yet Congress didn’t seem to care. “The question of damages from climate change never penetrated the debate in Washington,” Hanemann says.
> 
> Why not? Partly, it was a conscious political calculation. Polls show that scare tactics work better to block legislation than to bring sweeping change. The Obama Administration and environmentalists decided to tout the clean energy industries that could be created and boosted by the climate bill, rather than warn of withered crops or drowned cities from heat and rising sea levels. “The assumption has been that focusing on short-term job creation would be a more compelling political argument,” says Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center.
> 
> More importantly, there’s a deeply rooted perception that the U.S. economy will suffer little damage from climate change. That view dates back to work from the mid-1990s by the influential Yale University economist William Nordhaus. Nordhaus took what was known about the science of climate change, then constructed an economic model to estimate the monetary harm. The model put the economic cost to the U.S. of raising global temperatures by 2.5 to 3 degrees C (expected by about 2100) at about ¼ to ½ percent of GDP. “There are both good and bad impacts, but they offset each other,” explains Robert O. Mendelsohn, professor of forest policy and economics at Yale University and a frequent collaborator with Nordhaus.
> 
> The original economic model wasn’t complete, Nordhaus readily acknowledges. It didn’t include some sectors of the economy or “non-market” damages — effects that economists can’t easily quantify, such as loss of species. “We basically guessed on those, and that got us up to between 1 and 2 percent of GDP,” says Nordhaus — still relatively small. Since then, Nordhaus has worked extensively on the analysis, but the general conclusion is the same. There’s little threat to U.S. GDP. “Do I think that the measured GDP of the U.S. or Britain or Japan is seriously at risk from global warming over the next 100 years?” Nordhaus asked in an interview. “No,” though he adds that “GDP is a poor indicator of economic welfare.”
> 
> *Other experts see the hit to GDP as much greater. “We did a survey of top economists in the country, asking what they think about the costs and benefits of climate legislation,” says Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “They said that climate change is a clear threat to America and the global economy.” Adds Berkeley’s Hanemann: “I don’t want to be Dr. Gloom, but our complacency in the U.S. is wrong.”
> *
> An earlier version of this debate flared into public view and the media for a short time in 2006. A report prepared for the British government by economist Sir Nicholas Stern found that the cost of unconstrained global warming would be huge — up to a 20 percent drop per year in the world’s GDP by 2050. The widely disparate conclusion compared to Nordhaus’, however, turned largely on one single factor: Stern put a higher value on costs far out in the future — and on the future return from climate change reduction investments made today — than Nordhaus did. Or in economists’ jargon, he used a lower discount rate. “You can change the discount rate and get a totally different answer,” explains NRDC’s Lashof.
> 
> Who’s right? The late climate scientist Stephen Schneider liked to ask economists if they really do value their grandchildren far less than their children, as implied by a higher discount rate. Nordhaus, who dismissed the Stern report in a 2007 book as “political in nature,” with “advocacy as its purpose,” says that’s not a fair comparison. “The argument is not how we value our grandchildren, it’s primarily about the return on capital,” he says. “My view is that the return on capital is high, so that the threshold is pretty high if we are going to compete with other uses of our investment dollars.” That makes efforts to fight global warming seem less cost-effective.
> 
> But the tiff over discount rates is really a sideshow. There are now new critiques of the low estimates of the costs of climate change that challenge core details of how those damages were calculated, such as whether the analyses correctly included the costs of heat waves, more intense hurricanes, and other extreme events predicted to become more common. The original work “has been enormously influential, but for a number of reasons, I think the analysis is profoundly wrong,” says Hanemann.
> 
> One issue cited by the critics is that the models assume that many of the costs of climate change in the U.S. are balanced by benefits — or that it will be easy to adapt. For instance, heat waves in summer mean higher energy costs and more deaths from heat. However, warmer winters save fuel and lives, so in the economic models, the two generally balance out. And sure, if temperature rises above 95 degrees F, corn pollination starts to fail. But defenders of the models figure cornfields could just move to cooler areas. “If you take adaptation into account, this turns out not be such a big effect,” argues Mendelsohn.
> 
> The critics say these conclusions are far too optimistic. Hanemann points out that summer air conditioning requires expensive daytime peak power, while the winter savings come from much cheaper nighttime baseload power. So the overall costs must be higher. Similarly, damages to agriculture from heat waves and droughts are likely to swamp benefits from milder winters and longer growing seasons — and moving crops to better climes may be costly or difficult. Nordhaus partly agrees. “The damages will differ by crop and by region,” he says. “I think the numbers will be large for some regions, such as those now bordering on desertification.”
> 
> The models also calculate future harms using predicted average increases in temperature or precipitation. But scientists don’t believe temperatures and precipitation will be uniformly average around the planet. Instead, they foresee more — and more severe — extreme events: more powerful hurricanes and storms, record floods, searing heat waves and droughts, bigger wildfires. In fact, the U.S. has already experienced a higher-than-average amount of warming. A graph showing these events would not only have a long tail (i.e. the events are more extreme), but the tail would also be fatter (i.e. more events). “The damages grow much worse as we get more extreme events,” explains Hanemann. “We need to pay more attention to the tail.”
> 
> Nordhaus says that his model doesn’t neglect the idea of extreme events. “It’s completely wrong to say we’ve ignored it,” he says. But even supporters acknowledge that not everything is in the models, including a full treatment of extreme events. “Nordhaus’ model was never intended to be the kitchen sink,” says Mendelsohn.
> 
> Critics say that’s a serious flaw. “Many, many of the costs associated with climate change are not included in the models,” says NYU’s Livermore. Additional examples include acidification of the oceans from the absorption of carbon dioxide, which could threaten ocean food chains; loss of glaciers, which could cause water shortages and reduce hydropower; sea level rise, which could flood coastal cities; and mass migrations and increased global tensions, as people move away from regions hit harder by of the effects of climate change. The military takes these possibilities seriously, noting that climate change is a “threat multiplier.”
> 
> Harvard economist Martin Weitzman even suggests that the economic costs of a catastrophic event, however unlikely it might be, would be so enormous that it would overwhelm the whole analysis. “Perhaps in the end the climate-change economist can help most by not presenting a cost-beneﬁt estimate for what is inherently a fat-tailed situation with potentially unlimited downside exposure,” he writes.
> 
> True, the models don’t include all possible costs or catastrophes, Nordhaus and Mendelsohn respond. For one thing, the models calculate the damages from climate change only in terms of economic activity. They don’t assess damages from non-market effects like loss of species. Take ocean acidification, which makes climate change more worrisome than it appeared to be in the 1990s, Nordhaus says. The direct economic damages from acidification are negligible. “We know the actual economic impacts are almost sure to be small because they involve fisheries, which are already pretty small, and they involve only ocean fisheries that are sensitive to carbon,” Nordhaus says.
> 
> Similarly, the calculated damages from extreme events are small, Nordhaus and Mendelsohn say. While the estimated cost of Hurricane Katrina topped $150 billion, hurricanes don’t actually hurt the economy, as measured by GDP. “If your million-dollar house blows away tomorrow, it would not affect GDP,” explains Nordhaus. The reason: spending to rebuild stimulates the economy. “This is one of the ways in which GDP is a flawed measure,” Nordhaus adds. Mendelsohn has spent years trying to figure out what the additional damages from extreme events might be — and he argues that they don’t amount to much. “As long as we didn’t measure this number, the perception was that it was huge,” he says. “But when we actually measure it, it turns out not to be big.”
> 
> That assertion is a matter of fierce debate, however. The damages are far higher, Hanemann and others believe. In Hanemann’s analysis, *the economic toll from unconstrained climate change in the U.S. is three to four times higher than Nordhaus’ model calculates.*


continues


----------



## MacDoc

> Other new analyses have similar results. Livermore and his colleagues looked at the economic benefits of the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the House of Representative last year, including the avoided harm from climate change, and compared those benefits to the price tag for the bill. “The benefits outweighed the costs by nine to one,” says Livermore.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also expected to conclude that inaction is costly. With climate legislation apparently dead, regulation under the Clean Air Act is the only remaining pathway to federal curbs on greenhouse gases. To bolster its case in the face of strong opposition, the agency is working on a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of regulation, sources say. Past Administration efforts to assess the economic toll used Nordhaus’ basic approach. But because of the limitations of the economic models, the agency is also planning to examine scenarios of possible climate change, and expects that it will find a large economic toll. “We think the costs of not acting will be huge,” says one EPA official.
> 
> Nordhaus acknowledges that the small hit to the GDP of rich nations from climate change predicted by his model is just part of the overall story. “I’ve been working on this a long time,” he says.* “The facts have changed, and my view has changed.” For example, “emissions and temperatures are rising faster than earlier models thought and the geophysical impacts look more serious,” he says. So even if direct economic impacts are small,* “ecologists and biologists have made a pretty serious case that other things are at risk,” he says. “I think the non-market impacts have turned out larger than I thought and what the community [of economists] thought.” Those non-market impacts don’t show up in the results of the economic models.
> 
> In addition, Nordhaus says he now has a greater appreciation for the unknowns, including potential catastrophes. “The uncertainties are enormous,” he says. “If you include them, you can say almost nothing about the second half of the century.”
> 
> *Nordhaus’ own conclusion is that action on climate is needed, especially since his analysis also shows that the economic costs of reasonable policies are relatively small.* *Indeed, there’s no longer a debate among economists that action should be taken, *says Mendelsohn: “The debate is how much and when to start. If you believe there are large damages, you would want more dramatic immediate attention. The Nordhaus camp, however, says we should start modestly and get tougher over time.”
> 
> Regardless of the role played by economists in the global warming debate, the view that climate change is not to be feared has contributed to the delay in the world’s response.* Even Nordhaus says he’s “stunned” by the lack of progress in tackling climate change. “It doesn’t matter if I, or Weitzman, or Hanemann are right on this,” says Nordhaus. “We’ve got to get together as a community of nations and impose restraints on greenhouse gas emissions and raise carbon prices. If not, we will be in one of those gloomy scenarios.”*


Calculating the true cost of global climate change | Energy Bulletin

they get it - you don't


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc--when climate changes, we adapt. What you have entirely failed to do in several thousand words is make a case that humans are responsible. I'm sure Keynesian economists are full-tilt committed to mitigating climate change--for them, government spending is paramount. It doesn't matter what it is spent on or whether it makes any sense. Remember Paul Krugman talking about spending money to defeat pretend aliens? This is similar.


----------



## FeXL

Lessee, first it was the politicians, next the insurance companies, now it's the economists, what self interest group is going to cry wolf next?

Talk about irresponsible...how many miles have you flown in the last 5 years, MacDoc? Do you dare to compare? Don't harumph at me from your ivory tower and call irresponsible at a nickel a ton.

There has been no warming since '98 and that just pisses off you and the Hockey Team 'cause your glorified computer games didn't predict it and can't account for it.

The only costs incurred have been what the taxpayers & consumers have been forced to shell out for renewable energy subsidies. Millions of dollars per "green" job, all on the tax payers back. Yeah, that's some sound economics. Get a grip...

The EPA is busy scrambling for its life 'cause funding is getting cut. Gotta scream real loud, jump up & down, gnash teeth & rend hair in the hopes that they can scare up enough panic to get enough money for another year. No vested interests here.

I may have my head in the oilsands but the view, the smell and the knowledge is a helluva lot better than having it up my backside like some of the warmists on this board. And you never have addressed bunker fueled ocean going crude carriers. What, no smarting repartee?

Remember, you're one of them there Assured Advertisers now, gotta keep it clean lest potential clients figger that your fantastic online persona is real life. Hey, maybe it is...

Have a day, big guy!!


----------



## FeXL

OK, the warmists would have you believe that we are experiencing unprecedented heat, records broken, blah, blah, blah.

There is a ton of peer-reviewed research showing to the contrary, here is the latest, working on vibracores taken off the coast of North Carolina and illustrating 2200 years of storm activity:



> *What was learned*
> The five U.S. researchers say their comparisons suggest that "the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) were both characterized by elevated storm conditions as indicated by much greater inlet activity relative to today," and they say that "given present understanding of atmospheric circulation patterns and sea-surface temperatures during the MWP and LIA, we suggest that increased inlet activity during the MWP responded to intensified hurricane impacts, while elevated inlet activity during the LIA was in response to increased nor'easter activity."
> 
> *What it means*
> Mallinson et al. conclude that their data indicate that relative to climatic conditions of both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, there has more recently been "a general decrease in storminess at mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic," reflecting "more stable climate conditions, fewer storm impacts (both hurricane and nor'easter), and a decrease in the average wind intensity and wave energy field in the mid-latitudes of the North Atlantic," which further suggests that the mean temperature of the past century or more has likely been neither as cold nor as warm as it was during comparable periods of the LIA and MWP, respectively.


Emphasis from the original.


----------



## FeXL

Just in case you really needed further evidence that the 24 climate models used in the International Panel of Climate Crooks AR4 report were nothing more than an exercise in futility, we have this:



> *What was learned*
> The four U.S. scientists report that model-derived "temporal and spatial statistics of the North Pacific Ocean modes exhibit significant discrepancies from observations in their twentieth-century climate, most visibly for the second mode, which has significantly more low-frequency power and higher variance than in observations." _They also find that the two dominant modes of North Pacific oceanic variability "do not exhibit significant changes in their spatial and temporal characteristics under greenhouse warming," stating that "the ability of the models to capture the dynamics associated with the leading North Pacific oceanic modes, including their link to corresponding atmospheric forcing patterns and to tropical variability, is questionable."_
> 
> But there are even more "issues with the models," in the words of Furtado et al., who report that "in contrast with observations, the atmospheric teleconnection excited by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation in the models does not project strongly on the AL [Aleutian low]-PDO coupled mode because of the displacement of the center of action of the AL in most models." In addition, they note that "most models fail to show the observational connection between El Niño Modoki-central Pacific warming and NPO [North Pacific Oscillation] variability in the North Pacific." In fact, they state that "the atmospheric teleconnections associated with El Niño Modoki in some models have a significant projection on, and excite the AL-PDO coupled mode instead."
> 
> *What it means*
> Furtado et al. conclude that "for implications on future climate change, the coupled climate models show no consensus on projected future changes in frequency of either the first or second leading pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies," and they say that "the lack of a consensus in changes in either mode also affects confidence in projected changes in the overlying atmospheric circulation." In addition, they note that the lack of consensus they find "mirrors parallel findings in changes in ENSO behavior conducted by van Oldenborgh et al. (2005), Guilyardi (2006) and Merryfield (2006)," and they state that _these significant issues "most certainly impact global climate change predictions."_ And, we would add, they impact them in a highly negative way.


Bold from the original, italics mine.


----------



## FeXL

My dear friend MacDoc, in a post above, quoted several thousand words of drivel on what may happen because of climate change. Guess he's never heard of hyperlinking.

I'm betting you're bright enough to click a link if you are interested enough after a brief precis of what the false gods of global warming is costing the US already:



> According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. *Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”*


United States numbers alone. 20 years. $110,000,000,000. I am gobsmacked.

Frightening as that sounds, it pales by comparison to this:



> Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
> 
> *The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year* — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.


Emphasis mine.

Again, a single country. What is the financial effect of this hogwash worldwide? It boggles the mind...

So, who wants this to come to Canada?

And Joolyar wonders why she is Australia's most unpopular Prime Minister, ever.

Big oil funding, indeed...


----------



## FeXL

AGW High Priest Jimmy Hansen and one of his acolytes, Makiko Sato have made a number of predictions about El Nino/Super El Nino events. Of course, like most crystal ball predictions these have failed to materialize. Bob Tisdale has politely requested they refrain from further embarrassing themselves. These most recent failed predictions from Hansen piggy back many of his missed calls in the past couple of decades.



> Dear Makiko and James:
> 
> I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor. I, like many people who study ENSO, hope for extreme El Niño events, but when you predict a strong El Niño, a La Niña starts to evolve, and when you predict a “Super El Niño”, a mild El Niño comes to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> And now for my question: Where’s the Anthropogenic portion of the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies during the satellite era? I can’t find it. I have been studying Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data for a number of years, and I cannot find any evidence of an anthropogenic component in Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data. I’m referring to the satellite-era Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data.
> 
> ...
> 
> In closing, I, like you, look forward to the next strong or Super El Niño. I believe, though, we have different interests at heart. You appear to hope for one so that you can continue to piggyback your hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming on its multiyear aftereffects. I hope for a Super El Niño because the ARGO buoys are in now place, and it should be possible now to better track how the oceans distribute the warm water that’s left over from Super El Niño events.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Bob Tisdale


----------



## FeXL

OK, couple of weeks back Joe Bastardi (a Penn State educated meteorologist and weather forecaster for Accuweather) appeared on Fox News. He gave a brief expose on “Why CO2 Can’t Cause Warming”, namely that AGW theory contradicts the First Law (law, mind you, not theory) of Thermodynamics: "Energy can be transferred in many forms but cannot be created or destroyed."

Of course, a number of fruit loops & wackos immediately crawled down his throat.

So, links.

First, the video clip with some updated comments by Bastardi.



> The PDO changes, sunspot activity is down from the max around 2000. The Earths temps level out and co2 continues to rise. To the folks at climate progress.. if co2 is causing the temperature rise, why is it the temperatures have leveled off while co2 continues to rise, and the other 2 forcing mechanisms have changed. Where are the trapping hot spots at 400mb? Where is the positive feedback? Why is the temperature not in any of the IPCC ranges issued 20 years ago? Even Phil Jones admitted there has been no warming, so how can co2 be the cause? Where is the heat.. The ocean bottom, a cave somewhere? And how is it the satellites say it fine after the PDO switched to warm, but cant find it now?
> 
> By The way, I didnt see Joe Rohm or any of my other accusers in my thermodynamic classes at Penn State where I earned a degree in the University’s prime, graduating 2/3 rds of the worlds meteorologists at the time. To my friends at climate progress, media matters, etc, its a simple test.. If the earth’s temps fall back to where they were in the 70s by 2030, because of the changes in the oceanic cycles, which have been warm since the start of the satellite era, then what we are seeing now will be proven, co2 has nothing to do with it. If temps rise, in the face of the major drivers that have turned around ( oceanic, solar) as measured by OBJECTIVE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE ONLY HAD SINCE THE 70S) then co2 has something, if not almost everything to do with it. HERE IS THE PROBLEM. There is no answer you will admit to being wrong. I will at least admit I am wrong if my simple test doesn’t do what i say. Mine involves logic, reason, and basic laws of science, and as I said before, I did not see any of my critics in any meteorology or atmospheric chemistry class.


Second, a criticism from Scientific American and rebuttal.



> Here’s where Bastardi goes wrong, according to SA:
> 
> _What climate science says is not that CO2 carries energy into the atmosphere or somehow magically generates it out of nowhere. Instead, it says that CO2 and other gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat from escaping into space. This, as Bastardi should know, is called the greenhouse effect._
> 
> Remember that: “keeping heat from escaping into space.”
> 
> But this is what else “climate science” will tell you:
> 
> *Earth’s thermal emission with a greenhouse effect = 239 W/m²
> 
> Earth’s thermal emission without a greenhouse effect = 239 W/m²
> 
> The same.*
> 
> For in greater detail, as this “science” purports to explain, the greenhouse blanket reduces the heat spilling out to space but in doing so makes the earth so hot that it spills out what it did before. In other words, the evidence we have of a blanketing effect is that there is no evidence. A blanketing effect is unobservable because the earth releases the same amount of heat with or without a blanket on. Indeed, Scientific American admits this in the very next sentence.
> 
> _The Earth radiates into space roughly the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun._
> 
> So how can SA say that heat is kept from escaping? Or are we to imagine that the greenhouse effect doesn’t yet exist because it is understood to trap heat?


Wait...what?

Part the third. This is where Nasif S. Nahle (a biologist with additional degrees in mathematics, earth science and physics) sits down & analyzes Bastardi's arguments.

I quote the last line:



> In brief, Joe Bastardi’s arguments are correct and in agreement to physics and climatology.


Give 'em hell, Joe.


----------



## FeXL

Polar Bear-Gate?

OK, couple of months back a news story was circulating about an investigation into author and biologist Charles Monnett. This name may not ring a bell until you learn that his paper on the deaths of 4 polar bears resulted in Polar Bears getting listed on the Endangered Species List and the Goracle used his data/photos in his film full of lies, An Inconvenient Truth.

Monnett also manages $50 million for research studies with the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.

I never jumped to any conclusions and waited for results from the investigation.

Now it comes out that his research is so full of holes (including a peer review from his wife) that you couldn't even use it for a sieve.



> Images of periled polar bears sinking into arctic seas because of melting polar ice caps have become an iconic symbol of the devastating consequences of so-called global warming. But a new government investigation into the supposed science surrounding this now-infamous urban legend has revealed that it was likely nothing more than a pseudoscientific hoax propagated by faulty math and perfunctory observations.


This wouldn't normally be associated with AGW, unless the paper inferred a connection. Sonuvagun, one of the ID investigators says it does:



> Gleason denies that his and Monnett's paper intended to link the deaths to global warming, having told investigators that they were likely caused by a simple windstorm rather. However, Eric May, an ID investigator, responded by saying that the link to global warming was "inferred" in the paper, which tends to make logical sense in light of the paper's strong verbiage concerning ice packs and complete lack of reference to a potential windstorm.


----------



## FeXL

So, when "Globull Warming" didn't work, it got moved to "Climate Change". That way, the high priests could also claim cold temps were caused by CO2, too.

On that note, hot & dry Texas this year. The Church of the Hockey Team and Heidi Cullen would have you believe that this is CO2 induced. Fortunately, cooler heads (pun intended) prevail:



> Climate activist Heidi Cullen told viewers of ABC News this week that recent 'extreme weather' was related to global warming, stating, "When you crank up the heat, when you globally warm the planet, you're going to see more extreme events." What she failed to mention is that the 'extreme weather' is due to La Nina, a cooling of the Pacific Ocean along the equator. Alarmists claim global warming leads to fewer La Ninas, and results instead in a "permanent El Nino" state of warming in the Pacific. This claim has also been repeatedly debunked in the peer-reviewed literature. The claim that warming leads to more extreme events such as storms has also been repeatedly debunked.


The real reason?



> Right now, a large high-pressure dome is stuck on top of Texas and nearby states, says Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, bringing clear skies and high temperatures. "Since the air is not going anywhere, it just gets hotter and hotter," he says. Were the jet stream still flowing, it would carry cooler air from the Pacific to replace the hot air that is currently hanging around.


Just like the one over Russia last year.

Steven Goddard offers some perspective, as well...



> Over the last ten years, Texas has averaged 29.3 inches of rain per year, 1.3 inches above the long term average. During the ten year period from 1947 to 1956, rainfall averaged only 22.6 inches.


----------



## FeXL

OK, last one 'cause my pint's almost MT.

Major flaw found in Arctic temperature reanalysis – exaggerates warming (Why does the error always end up on the warming side? Ever notice that?).



> “Atmospheric reanalyses can be useful tools for examining climate variability and change; however, they must be used cautiously because of time-varying biases that can induce artificial trends. *This study explicitly documents a discontinuity in the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) that leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere, and demonstrates that the continuing use of ERA-40 to study Arctic temperature trends is problematic.*


Bold from the linked article. 

How widespread is this? 



> This is an important issue as this data set has been used in long-term climate studies; e.g. see which has over 2000 citations in the peer-reviewed literature according to google scholar.


Not good when the data you base 2000 scientific papers on is erroneous.


----------



## MacDoc

One more bit of denier nonsense put to rest 



> _"Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly.
> 
> *Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.*"
> 
> *Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly *that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context.
> 
> 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. T
> 
> he most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"_


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> One more bit of denier nonsense put to rest


The National Science Foundation is a government organization with deep roots in the global warming/research funding complex. Their analysis has put nothing to rest.

Investigation of alleged fox attack on hen houses complete. Report by investigator J. Vulpine Foxley exonerates all foxes. Chicken dinner to follow release of report.


----------



## FeXL

Exactly. There have been, what, three (?) meaningless investigations now, each and every one conducted by a person/persons with a vested interest in producing whitewash (hogwash?) rather than honest critique.

Let's get an impartial third party in there, see what results climb out of the gutter...

_____

What about CERN, MacDoc? Crickets from Unreal Climate, nothing witty on your own this morning? They're probably still in shock that Nature would publish such heresy...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> What about CERN, MacDoc? Crickets from Unreal Climate, nothing witty on your own this morning? They're probably still in shock that Nature would publish such heresy...


Even that source of high, holy learning "deSmogBlog," one of MD's frequently consulted sources, must be suffering catalepsy over that one.


----------



## eMacMan

Nothing wrong with cherry picking and altering data to produce a result that pleases the funding bodies Good politics perhaps but very very very very .............................very bad science.


----------



## FeXL

More on the death by a thousand cuts...

OK, ENSO...the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. This is a periodic pattern of warming & cooling in the eastern Pacific and air pressure changes in the western Pacific. There are instrumental records of this event going back to 1871. The authors wanted to put together an extensive index of these events to track the presence of natural vs AGW effect.



> Wolter and Timlin report that "the new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early- to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades." In fact, they state that *"so far, none of the behavior of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then,"* whereas prior *computer model simulations* have at various times suggested that: (1) global warming will increase the frequency of ENSO events, (2) global warming will increase the intensity of ENSO events, and (3) weather-related disasters will be exacerbated under El Niño conditions.
> 
> So far, *there is no indication of the "fingerprint of man" in any aspect of ENSO behavior over the last few decades*, when climate alarmists contend the planet warmed at a rate and to a level that were both unprecedented over the past millennium or two, throwing some welcome "cold water" on another "hot climate crisis."


Emphasis mine.

Science based almost entirely on computer models is not science. It is speculation, plain & simple. Wonderful in a "what if" type of perspective, such as the type of trash MacDoc links to, I mean quotes in it's entirety, regularly, but certainly not solid science.


----------



## FeXL

Paper on efforts to get the latest General Circulation Model (GCM) to effectively mirror the observed aerosol indirect effect ("the impact that particulates and chemicals have on the earth's radiation budget by their influence on cloud properties.")

In a nutshell:


> This paper shows that uncertainty in model formulations, especially processes like cloud parameterizations, can mean considerable uncertainty in climate projections and scenarios. The results also show that in some cases, we don't understand the output and have to adjust model physics back to our current understanding of a process or back toward our basic conservations laws. These precautions are exactly the type many scientists have advised taking when looking at future climate scenarios.


Sounds like herding sheep. Is that what warmists effectively are, sheepherders? Hazing the strays back when they don't behave properly? Who knew?

(edit)

Speaking of aerosols, anyone heard about the controversy surrounding Italy's (lack of) reporting of fluorinated hydrocarbons? They are emitting 10 to 20 times what they report they are emitting. This is a nasty compound in the wild, a true greenhouse gas with "a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2".

Where's the hue & cry from the warmists?


----------



## FeXL

Warmists would have you believe many things based on faith (computer models) alone. According to their doctrine, higher average global temperatures will result in a permanent El Niño (warming) with no corresponding cycle back to cooling (La Nina).

Fortunately, there exists real world observation to temper this religion with some facts. 



> New paper finds permanent El Niños did not occur when Earth was 3C warmer
> 
> During the Pliocene epoch, the Earth was about 3C warmer than today. Alarmists assume the Pliocene period predicts what climate conditions will be like in 100 years if global warming resumes, and assume that a "permanent El Nino" would occur without the normal oscillation back & forth to colder La Ninas. *However, a paper published today in the journal Climate of the Past finds that the alarmist assumption that permanent El Ninos occurred in the Pliocene is "unrealistic."*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

More computer model climate sensitivity exaggeration.

Lindzen and Choi present a paper (nearly two years to get published, largely due to hostile reviews of skeptical papers) where they illustrate a low climate sensitivity to forcings:



> However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).
> 
> …
> 
> This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2
> 
> …
> 
> As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
> 
> …
> 
> Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.


And, I offer this conclusion as a small tidbit:



> One final point needs to be made. Low sensitivity of global mean temperature anomaly to global scale forcing does not imply that major climate change cannot occur. The earth has, of course, experienced major cool periods such as those associated with ice ages and warm periods such as the Eocene (Crowley and North, 1991). As noted, however, in Lindzen (1993), these episodes were primarily associated with changes in the equatorto-pole temperature difference and spatially heterogeneous forcing. Changes in global mean temperature were simply the residue of such changes and not the cause.


(edit)

Sorry, forgot about this codicil from Dr. Roy Spencer. He delves into the ocean depths to find Gore's "Missing Heat" and finds oversensitive models, too:



> Once again we see evidence that the IPCC models are too sensitive, which means they are predicting too much warming for our future, which means Mr. Gore needs to chill out a bit.
> 
> Also, the list of modelers’ potential excuses for their models warming more than observed is rapidly dwindling. For example,
> 
> 1) If the above results are any indication, it is unlikely the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.
> 
> 2) Blaming Chinese coal-fired power plants for a lack of warming is just taking the modelers anthropocentrism to an even higher plane. There seems to be no good evidence to support such a claim anyway.
> 
> 3) Another trick the IPCC uses is to put error bars on both the observations and the on the model results until they overlap. It is then claimed that models and observations “agree” to within the margin of error. But what they don’t realize with this last bit of statistical obfuscation is they are also admitting that there is a HUGE disagreement between models and observations when one goes to the other end of those error bars.
> 
> “Overlapping error bars” is the last resort for getting two numbers to appear to agree better than they really do.
> 
> It’s time for climate modelers to face up to the explanation they have been avoiding at all cost: the climate system is simply not nearly as sensitive as they claim it is.
> 
> If they ever have to admit the climate system is insensitive, it is the end of the IPCC and the policy changes that institution was originally formed to advance.


----------



## FeXL

Remember this post back in Feb? (#44 in this thread)



FeXL said:


> Alright, back in Dec in GHG2 I posted about Ryan O’Donnell's submission to Journal of Climate refuting the Hockey Team's Eric Steig & his paper in Nature about Antarctic warming.
> 
> What the debate boiled down to was the use of Antarctic Peninsular & cherry picked Western Antarctica temperature stations data & what effect they had on reconstructions for temps in Western Antarctica & the Ross Ice Shelf.
> 
> O'Donnell questioned the methodology Steig used in his paper & substituted a version which gave significantly different results. There has since been some back & forth on the issue.
> 
> O'Donnell recently gave an explanation defending his methodology which was very math intensive. Since then he has come out with a short & very informative series of illustrations which summarize, in a nutshell, his defense.
> 
> As I read on my morning blogroll today:
> 
> "Game, Set, Match."


There, ummmm, may be, ummmm, even bigger, shall we say, ummmm, issues...



> This paper just published in the AMS Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology has some broad ramifications for the claim (Steig et al, covered here) that Antarctica is warming. It appears that the radiation shields used for automated weather stations there aren’t fully protecting the temperature sensor from solar radiation exposure, and as a result are creating a false warming signal. The authors find that the summer Sun heats the shield for the electronic thermometers causing the warm bias that appears during the summer, which can be exacerbated by low wind conditions.
> 
> ...
> 
> Although stronger and more frequent when incoming solar radiation is high, biases exceeding 8°C are found even when solar is less than 200 Wm−2. Comparing with sonic thermometers, which are not affected by radiation but which are too complex to be routinely used for mean temperature monitoring, commercially available aspirated shields are shown to efficiently protect thermistor measurements from solar radiation biases.


The Hockey Team ain't gonna be happy...


----------



## FeXL

OK, to accompany the Vostok ice cores which indicate that CO2 peaks 800 years after temperature does, we have this little gem from Professor Murray Salby:



> Dr. Salby notes that when temperatures dropped following the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, a dramatic decrease in the rate of change in CO2 followed in 1992-1993. Subsequently, the increase in temperatures due to the El Nino of 1998 was followed by a dramatic increase in the rate of change in CO2. *These natural variations are independent of and overwhelm human emissions of CO2, and show that warmth produces more CO2, rather than vice-versa.*


Who knew?

Well, some of us anyway...


----------



## FeXL

OMG! Climate modelers almost human?

Few weeks back the UK Met Office had a press release announcing 2 new papers explaining the lack of recent ocean warming. Sonuvagun, the buggers actually admit that ENSO has a role in this. 

I know! Pick your eyeballs off the floor & put your lower jaw back where it belongs.

From Dr. Roy Spencer:



> This at least a step in the right direction, since previously climate modelers would not admit to ENSO causing much more than year-to-year variability. Our own ocean modeling research, in progress, is suggesting that about 30% of the ocean warming trend since the 1950s is due to a shift to more frequent El Nino activity in the second half of that period, while the lack of ocean warming in the last 8 years appears to be from a shift back to La Nina activity.


He has a few issues though, more at the link.

Now, I'm not interested in actually sitting down & having a beer with them quite yet, but I'll let them pick up my tab next time we're in the same bar...


----------



## FeXL

OK, one more before I pour a pint...

The original greenhouse gas experiment was conducted by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University in 1909. His results? The so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Thus, as earth's atmosphere is not a closed system, greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.

Let me repeat that: no closed system, no greenhouse effect.

Dr. Nahle (mentioned a few posts above) from Mexico had this to say:



> Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.
> 
> Nahle’s findings shoot holes in claims of Professor Pratt of Stanford University whose own replication of Wood’s experiment was touted as the first official reconstruction of Wood’s test for a century. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings.
> 
> “This is the reason that I decided to repeat the experiment of Professor Pratt to either falsify or verify his results and those of Professor Wood,“ says the Mexican professor at the Biology Cabinet.
> 
> The Monterrey science research institute also recreated Wood’s test into the effect of longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse. Unlike Pratt it found that Wood’s findings were correct, absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. The Bio Cab man affirms, *“ the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.”*
> 
> Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn't even qualified in science - he's a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers.


Emphasis mine.

Sonuvagun. 

Something tells me Dr. Nahle's cred will remain intact. Anyone want to bet?

Death of AGW theory by a thousand strokes. A most fitting reward...


----------



## CubaMark

*How to Find Common Ground in the Bitter Climate Debate*



> Even as the impacts of climate change intensify, many Americans remain confused by the issue. In an interview Yale Environment 360, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe discusses what rising temperatures will mean for the U.S., how to talk with climate skeptics, and what she would say to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to prod him into action on global warming.
> Katharine Hayhoe is an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, where temperatures during this summer of record-breaking heat have surpassed 100 degrees on 43 days


(The Matter Network)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *How to Find Common Ground in the Bitter Climate Debate*


That isn't common ground at all. The woman begins the conversation reasserting the primacy of AGW theories, then goes right into typical blather about wind turbines making "economic sense." They don't, requiring massive subsidies to provide over-priced power.


----------



## FeXL

So, you know all about that high CO2 emissions oilsands crude?

Not so much...



> The key claim of environmentalists opposing the Keystone XL pipeline is that oil produced from the Canadian oil sands produces much more greenhouse gases than conventional oil production. However, the environmental impact report released from the US State Dept. concludes *there is a mere 2% difference in CO2 emissions from oil sands production vs. the Venezuelan crude currently refined on the U.S. Gulf Coast*.


Emphasis mine.

I'd like to find out the CO2 footprint of the bunker fueled crude from the Middle East arriving at central Canadian processors...


----------



## MacDoc

> *Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paper claimed mainstream climate models misunderstood the role of clouds
> Continue reading the main story*
> 
> *
> *The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.*


Spencer's Intelligent Design advocacy puts him square in the crank column....along with his right wing fellow travellers.

snip



> It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
> Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
> 
> 
> *"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science,"* he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
> 
> 
> "Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
> 
> 
> _"Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, *the paper by Spencer and Braswell.*.. *is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."*_


an honest editor admits his mistake.....too bad Spencer et al won't. 
Too much ideology to admit 

*It's getting warmer
We're responsible*


----------



## eMacMan

So an editor being fired for publishing a well researched and peer reviewed paper that explodes a current theory is a good thing

Certainly proves the rag's controllers have no interest in science. Probably too busy trying to help funnel our hard earned savings to the Church of Climatology.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Spencer's Intelligent Design advocacy puts him square in the crank column....along with his right wing fellow travellers.
> 
> snip
> 
> 
> 
> an honest editor admits his mistake.....too bad Spencer et al won't.
> Too much ideology to admit
> 
> *It's getting warmer
> We're responsible*


Blah, blah, blah...

As with most things MacDoc, a pinch of perspective goes a long way in understanding the truth in the issues he links to, instead of the merely partisan spin that the Hockey Team puts on things they cannot answer, nor refute.

From Anthony:



> Below, I have reposted an essay from Dr. Roger Pielke Senior regarding an opinion piece published in The Daily Climate attacking Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer for their ongoing work in satellite based measurement of the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Pielke does an excellent job of summarizing his rebuttal points, and I’ll point out that he’s used some very strong unconventional language in the title of his piece.
> 
> One point Dr. Pielke touches on related to an orbital decay correction applied to the UAH satellite measurement comes from his first hand experience, and I urge readers to read it fully to get the history. One line from the op-ed in The Daily Climate bothered me in particular:
> 
> _Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover._
> 
> This my friends, is breathtaking for its sheer arrogance, agenda, and the scuttling of the scientific process in one sentence.
> 
> *The entire process of science is about building on early incomplete knowledge with new knowledge, and discarding old knowledge in favor of new evidence that is better understood and supported by observational evidence. All scientists make mistakes, it is part of the learning process of science. Any scientist who believes he/she hasn’t made mistakes, has never made a correction, or hasn’t built upon the mistakes of others to improve the science is deluding themselves.*
> 
> And that crack about “…mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.” is ludicrous. By the very nature of the scientific process, scientists work to uncover flaws in the work of others, and when mistakes and irrelevancies are burned away by this process, what is left in the crucible of scientific inquiry is regarded as the pure product.
> 
> I could say the same thing about GISS related to Hansen and Gavin’s Y2K temperature problem which required a correction, also something other scientists were “forced to uncover”.


Italics from the original, bold mine.

Yes, this is how the scientific process works.

More:



> And that is the way of science. Opinions don’t matter, certificates, awards, and accolades don’t matter. Only the provable evidence matters. In the case of Spencer and Braswell, they too bring observational evidence to bear that may require adjustments to mathematical models. The difference here has been that rather than take the path of reconsideration, and arguing using the science following the peer review process, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth ignore that process and resort to a diatribe of ad hominem attacks, which in my opinion with that one sentence referencing to “…serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”, crosses the threshold from argument to libel.
> 
> *Apparently, it is impossible for them to consider observational evidence supporting a lower climate sensitivity, and thus they’ve scuttled the scientific process of correcting and building on new knowledge in favor of a tabloid style attack.*
> 
> Clearly, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth share none of the humble virtue demonstrated by Einstein.


Go to the link to find Dr. Pielke Senior's observations on the article in question. Very revealing.

Now, addressing a certain resignation. Dr. Spencer:



> First, I want to state that I firmly stand behind everything that was written in that paper.
> 
> But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:
> 
> _…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal_
> 
> But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.
> 
> If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.
> 
> People who are not involved in scientific research need to understand that the vast majority of scientific opinions spread by the media recently as a result of the fallout over our paper were not even the result of other scientists reading our paper. It was obvious from the statements made to the press.


Italics from the original.

Further... (from Les Johnson as a guest post on wattsupwiththat, titled _Journal Deliverance: The True Story of the Climate Hillbillies_):



> The Editor-in-Chief resigns, in protest of a paper he published? OK, that grabbed my attention. If he was the E-i-C, why did he did even publish the paper in the first place? Why not retract it?
> 
> Resigning seemed a bit over the top, especially considering what Wagner wrote when he took the post over, and what he wrote when he resigned.
> 
> Before, from the announcement he was taking over as E-i-C:
> 
> _“Because it is an open access journal, papers published will receive very high publicity.”_
> 
> After, from his resignation letter:
> 
> _“ Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication.”_
> 
> It appears that the reason he was resigning is *because he did exactly what he said he would do.* Wait, what?
> 
> Equally puzzling, is not that peer reviewed science had found SB2011 flawed, but discussion in internet fora. An editor resigned because blogs said his peer-reviewed publication was flawed? Again, from his resignation:
> 
> _“Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate *pointed out in various internet discussion fora*, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
> 
> After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, *I agree with the critics of the paper*.”_
> 
> (My emphasis).
> 
> Mr. Wagner then goes on to say that the review process was flawed. Or it wasn’t. Or maybe it was. Wait, what?


Emphasis from the original.

More:



> Here comes the interconnected parts; I read Maurizio Morabito’s blog, and discovered that Mr. Wagner may have connections to Mr. Trenberth, to whom Mr. Wagner gives the only scientific reference in his letter. There are also suggestions that his apology is directed right at Trenberth, which seems odd, doesn’t it?
> 
> I went to Bishop Hill’s site, to link Maurizio’s site. While there, I noted similar work done by Robert Phelan, who mentions davidhoffer.
> 
> David Hoffer speculates that Wagner is upset that SB2011 will interfere with the modeling gravy train, of which Mr. Wagner is part of. This is pure speculation of course, but it is logical. Mr. Wagner hints at this, in his letter:
> 
> “ Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data.”
> 
> On this side of the story, that is the connection: myself, to Maurizio, to Bishop Hill, to Robert Phelan, and finally to davidhoffer, who apparently started the whole thing, then back to WUWT.
> 
> The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? *Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).
> 
> GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus it’s worse than we thought.
> *
> In the conclusion of this cloud albedo discussion, is some boot licking directed at the new Chairperson.
> 
> Thus, the circle of climate is complete.
> 
> Cue the banjo’s, and squeal like a pig….


Bold mine.

Nothing to see here folks, move along...

/perspective.


----------



## Macfury

Hellfire, FeXL--yer spoilin' MacDoc's hillbilly GHG bar-bee-cue! (That rib sauce is getting hotter, and we're responsible!)

It's a shame to waste so much space having to refute those posts.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, the 'full of it' promoters are at it again. Good to have some folks with facts to keep the playing field level.


----------



## FeXL

New Paper: Models Continue To Show Too Much Recent Warming



> About a month or so ago, Science magazine published a paper by Susan Solomon and colleagues that concluded that aerosols in the upper atmosphere that were unaccounted for in earlier estimations, have, over the past 10 years or so, acted to offset about 0.07°C of warming that would have otherwise occurred. In other words, we shouldn’t be so hard on the climate models for failing to anticipate the dearth of warming over the past 10-15 years.
> 
> Or should we?
> 
> It turns out, that what the paper really says, is that the amount of global warming that should have occurred over the past 10-15 years (that is, if the climate models were getting things correct) is about 25% greater than the model-expected warming from the combination of increases in greenhouse gases and lower atmospheric pollution alone. Which means that the observed warming during this same time—which has been close to nil—is even harder to explain and makes the models look even worse.
> 
> But, of course, that is not at all how the results were spun to the press.


Spin? Nahhh! Can't be!



> So where’s the spin, then?
> 
> Check out the first paragraph of the press release that was issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to announce the findings of Solomon et al.:
> 
> A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade, according to a new study led by NOAA and published today in the online edition of Science.
> 
> Huh? It did no such thing! For that comparison, you have to compare the blue line with the green line in Figure 1.
> 
> The variation of stratospheric aerosols has acted to increase the rate of global warming during the past decade over and above that expected from carbon dioxide (and lower atmospheric aerosols). *The press release has spun the results 180 degrees from what they actually are. And in doing so, has sparked a bunch of media coverage proclaiming that we now know part of the reason why the earth’s average temperature has risen so little during the past 10-15 years despite rapidly rising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.*


Models, schmodels...


----------



## FeXL

So, short history lesson:

Early 2010, Dr. Roy Spencer publishes paper on feedbacks & climate forcings.

Late 2010 Andy Dessler publishes paper arguing against.

July 25, 2011 Spencer publishes a response refuting Dessler's claims, after significant opposition and delay by peer reviewers, in _Remote Sensing_. This is the article which Wolfgang Wagner resigned over, noted above.

Six (6!!!) weeks after Spencer's latest work is published, a response is not only crafted (albeit loosely, as we'll see below) by Dessler, but Pal, I mean Peer Reviewed, submitted and published. That's gotta be some kind of a record, even for the Hockey Team. Interestingly enough, perhaps more time should have been taken...

So, Spencer has responded to Dessler 2011 with this, dated September 7, 2011 and titled The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

Moving back again to Dessler 2010. Now, I'm not a statistician but I do have one university stats course under my belt as well as some hands-on experience with scatter plots in an unpublished paper. Looking at the scatter plots Dessler used, I'm somewhat amazed.

The first comment in the article sums it up for me:



> It pains me to see a straight line drawn through that scatter plot.


More.

The so-called "confidence intervals" were 0.01, about as far from 100% as you can get.

Further (Hide the Decline II).



> Steve McIntyre has done it again and exposed Andrew Dessler of the Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University as yet another cherry-picking data-hiding climate 'scientist' in his rushed-to-press 'rebuttal' of Dr. Roy Spencer's seminal paper. McIntyre shows that Dessler cherry-picked data from two satellites to produce his alarmist conclusion that clouds have an overall warming effect on the Earth. McIntyre instead used all the data for clear-sky and all-sky available from the same CERES satellite (the best available datasets and obvious choice to ensure data consistency and calibration) and finds the opposite result: clouds have an overall cooling effect.
> 
> Dessler's apparently purposely-cherry-picked data from two satellites shows a positive slope of .54 W/m2/K indicating a positive forcing/warming effect of clouds:
> 
> whereas McIntyre's analysis using all the available data from the same satellite shows a negative slope of -.96 W/m2/K indicating a negative forcing/cooling effect of clouds:
> 
> McIntyre says, "the questions are obvious."
> 
> Some of those obvious questions are why Dessler made no mention of this in his paper, discarded the 'inconvenient' CERES data and went cherry-picking from another satellite to get the answer he wanted. And why didn't any peer-reviewers raise these concerns? The abject corruption of climate science once again rears its ugly head.


Let me see if I can get the intonation correct here:

<sniff> 'Bout right...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> <sniff> 'Bout right...


Yep. But a weepy sort of sniff: "I'm crying, and you're responsible!"


----------



## SINC

Here's one that pretty much confirms what everyone already knows about how Al Gore makes his money and his polluting lifestyle:

*Al Gore’s new message

Green mega-millionaire says climate change isn’t your fault - sort of*



> “Climate change is not your fault for the car you drive, the lights you turn on, or the food you eat.” The CEO of Exxon Mobil? *Republican Gov. Rick Perry? George Bush? Stephen Harper? Sarah Palin? The League of Extraordinary Climate Deniers?
> 
> Nope. It was green mega-millionaire Al Gore, no doubt well on his way to becoming the world’s first carbon billionaire.
> 
> So be sure to clip that quotation out and post it on your (not responsible for climate change, either) fridge and freezer.
> 
> I read this startling new information on the home page of Gore’s latest 24-hour “Climate Reality Project”, which started Wednesday evening on the web, prelude, no doubt, to his never-ending speaking tours (Toronto stop, Oct. 13, Roy Thomson Hall, tickets now on sale).
> 
> *All this as Gore continues to wing and SUV his way around the planet, leading a high-consumption, luxury lifestyle and a carbon footprint in his wake that would choke a dinosaur.*


Linky


----------



## FeXL

Awright, as the Bore-A-Thon carries on, some science. 

The dogma of the International Pack of Climate Crooks and The Hockey Team spells out a few things very clearly. One of them is that water vapor feedback is positive (increased clouds cause warming). Another is that global warming will result in more frequent/stronger El Ninos.

Unfortunately, RLO (Real Life Observation) trumps computer games both times.

New paper shows water vapor feedback is negative, not positive as claimed by IPCC.



> A paper published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters shows that water vapor feedback to the climate system is negative (causes cooling due to increased cloud formation) rather than positive as claimed by the IPCC and fellow alarmists. Warmists claim a doubling of CO2 levels could result in a mere 1C global temperature change, with positive water vapor feedback supposedly causing much more temperature increase. However, this new paper (and others) finds that feedback from the water cycle is instead negative and would lead to offsetting global cooling.


New paper finds warming decreases El Ninos & increases La Ninas - opposite of IPCC claims.



> The IPCC claims that global warming will result in more frequent/stronger El Ninos. However, a paper published today in the journal Paleoceanography finds the opposite weather pattern - La Nina [due to a cooling of the equatorial Pacific Ocean] - is more frequent/stronger during periods of warming such as the Medieval Warming Period.


----------



## FeXL

A slightly (sarcasm) more significant resignation than the last one I posted about:



> Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.
> 
> Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: _'*The evidence is incontrovertible*: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'_
> 
> Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is *incontrovertible*? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the _whole_ earth for a _whole_ year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."


Hmmm, he said...



> This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It's strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.


Wait, what? There are actual scientists who doubt this? Heretics! What about consensus?



> On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that *a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.*


Emphasis from the article.


----------



## FeXL

OK, on the Florida Gulf Coast, just where the state's peninsula juts out is a sinkhole which has collected sediments for a considerable time. These sediments contained marine foraminifera washed ashore during paleohurricane events giving a timeline with a resolution of about 7 years.

Guess what? (from the abstract)



> The frequency of high magnitude events peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago. High magnitude events were relatively rare with about 0–3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago and between 400 and 150 years ago. A marked decline in the number of large storm deposits, which began around 600 years ago, has persisted through present with *below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia*.”


(from Pielke, Sr.)



> This is quite an important study. While a long-term trend in basin-wide hurricane frequency cannot be detected from a single location, this data does tell us that significant long-term variations in large-scale circulation features must occur in this region of the world, as such circulations control the path of hurricanes. This is yet another study which documents the complex temporal variability of the climate system.


Yet another indicator of cycles in the climatic system, not "OMG! We've never seen this before! Unprecedented!"


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for more nails in the GHG coffin, FeXL.

Is it getting warm in here, or is it just me?


----------



## FeXL

Actually, I believe I feel a bit of a chill...


----------



## CubaMark

*University of Calgary climate research accounts used for PR, travel, wining and dining: records*



> A pair of "research" accounts at the University of Calgary, funded mainly by the oil and gas industry, were used for a sophisticated international political campaign that involved high-priced consultants, lobbying, wining, dining, and travel with the goal of casting doubt on climate change science, newly-released accounting records have revealed.
> 
> The records showed that the strategy was crafted by professional firms, in collaboration with well-known climate change skeptics in Canada and abroad, allowing donors to earn tax receipts by channeling their money through the university.
> 
> All of the activities and $507,975 in spending were organized by the Friends of Science, an anti-Kyoto Protocol group founded by retired oil industry workers and academics who are skeptical about peer-reviewed research linking human activity to global warming observed in recent decades.


(Calgary Herald)


----------



## Macfury

That's it? Against the billions shat out by the GHG lobbies?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> That's it? Against the billions shat out by the GHG lobbies?


Sorry - I'm ill-equipped to provide an accurate balance sheet of the two sides' lobbying / manipulation efforts on this issue. Sorry that you interpreted my post as a comprehensive counter-balance to the deniers' camp.


----------



## eMacMan

*Nobel physicist quits US group over climate stance*

Nobel physicist quits US group over climate stance



> "His reason is that he takes issue with APS's stance on climate change."
> 
> The APS, which is a member organization of 48,000, adopted a national policy statement in 2007 which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
> 
> Last year another climate change skeptic, University of California professor Hal Lewis, left the group, claiming global warming was a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud."


AFP: Nobel physicist quits US group over climate stance


----------



## FeXL

*More Hypocrisy from the Team*

So, didn't think the Team could get out a paper quicker than the 6 week turnaround noted above. Check this out (Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011):



> Received: 8 September 2011 / Accepted: 8 September 2011 / Published: 16 September 2011


Yup, received & accepted on the same day. Pretty thorough peer review, no?

On to the hypocrisy. Trenberth:



> Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.


Steve McIntyre on the comment:



> Obviously these are principles that have been advocated at Climate Audit for years. I’ve urged the archiving of both data and code for articles at the time of publication to avoid such problems. However, these suggestions have, all too often, been resolutely opposed by the Team. Even supporting data, all to often, remains unavailable. I haven’t had time to fully parse Spencer and Braswell as to reproducibility but note that Spencer promptly provided supporting data to me when requested (as did Dessler.) In my opinion, Spencer and Braswell should have archived data as used and source code concurrent with publication, as I’ve urged others to do. However, their failure to do so is hardly unique within the field. That Trenberth was able to carry out a sensitivity study as quickly as he did suggests to me that their methodology was substantially reproducibile, but, as I noted above, I haven’t parsed the article.


The article goes back & forth a bit, but what it boils down to is Trenberth is asking for everyone else's work to include supporting data and detailed methodologies. Indeed (Trenberth):



> Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.


Agreed. 

Alas, it is not to be seen (McIntyre): 



> Unfortunately, this principle is applied opportunistically in paleoclimate. Team methodology, for example, makes no attempt to verify that 6-sigma bulges in strip bark bristlecone pine are due to temperature (as opposed to a mechanical effect of strip barking itself.) Team methodology accepts Yamal as a temperature proxy without explaining the decline in ring widths in the majority of nearby sites.


More (from Bishop Hill).

"Do as I say, not as I do".


----------



## FeXL

*Atlas-gate?*

So, new atlas update out. No biggie, atlases get updated all the time, right?

Not so much...



> In the latest edition of the British ‘Times Atlas’ is the area of Greenland’s ice sheet decreased by 15% during the period from 1999 to 2011. It must reflect the effects of global warming.


Of course, _The Guardian_ jumps all over this tidbit.



> The world's biggest physical changes in the past few years are mostly seen nearest the poles where climate change has been most extreme. Greenland appears considerably browner round the edges, having lost around 15%, or 300,000 sq km, of its permanent ice cover. Antarctica is smaller following the break-up of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves.


However, Richard Betts (yes, of IPCC fame) had this to say:



> “I’m not happy. I wrote the climate change section for this Atlas and didn’t say any of that Greenland rubbish!
> 
> I have contacted the editors..."


More from the Bishop.


----------



## FeXL

*Riding to the Defense of Climate Models*

I guess even models need their champions.

Unfortunately, this white knight ends up unhorsed & flat on his back.



> As the observed rate of rise in the global average temperature continues to be much less than climate models project, there are a growing number of knights in shining armor, riding to the rescue of the damsel in distress (the damsel, of course, being the climate models). The rescue attempt generally employs two strategies, namely that 1) there is a bunch of stuff that has going on that the models couldn’t possibly have known about (so it is unfair to hold this against them), and 2) the climate models aren’t really doing that badly anyway.
> 
> The list of things proffered that the models couldn’t have known about that have led to slower-than-expected warming over the past 10-15 years includes declines in solar radiation, declines in stratospheric water vapor, increases in stratospheric aerosols, increases in tropospheric aerosols, the timing of El Nino/La Nina cycles, the timing of multi-decadal ocean circulation oscillations, and probably ultimately, the kitchen sink followed by the commode. *What’s interesting is that the white knights never really mention these very same influences when they are acting in the opposite sense—that is, when they are acting to speed up the warming (which many were during the 1990s). But now that warming has considerably slowed, these mechanisms seem to have taken on cosmic significance.*
> 
> *What also seems to be conveniently overlooked in the list are changes that the models couldn’t have known about that are currently acting to enhance the observed warming in recent years—these include the recovery from the effects of Pinatubo and the reduction in summer Arctic sea ice* (both of these mechanisms are explained in detail in our World Climate Report posts here and here).


More:



> Santer et al. take comfort in this Figure that the average of the observed trends falls within the spread of individual model projected trends of similar length—and are further comforted when considering the myriad influences listed above.
> 
> We, however, interpret it to show that over all time-scales from 10 to 32 years, the observed trends in the lower atmosphere consistently fall beneath the model projected trends. And that as the length of the observed trend increases, the consistency with the climate model projections decreases.
> 
> Just how much more evidence do you need that climate models are projecting too much warming? Give us all the excuses that you want, but if the excuses are real, then they are important drivers of the climate and need to be considered when offering up future climate projections (and quite possibly have an important impact in climate sensitivity determinations).
> 
> *The fact of the matter is, that the climate projections offered up thus far, have been, and continue to be, sizeable overestimates of reality.
> 
> Consequently, we see no compelling reason why we should bank on scenarios for the future that have been produced from the same set of climate models.*
> 
> At some point, chivalry becomes chicanery.


Emphasis mine.

Sums it up for me.


----------



## eMacMan

Interestingly many of the things the climate modelers were unaware of, were used by others to accurately predict the rather brutal string of winters we have suffered through over the past three years.

What it comes down to is that CO2 is not a major climate driver and probably almost insignificant as a minor one.

The Nobel Physicist who resigned from APS pointed out that over all the earth is about 0.8°C warmer than it was 150 years ago. His description of this being a remarkably stable period compared to much of the planets climate history is of course bang on.

Sorry all you "Chicken Little" fans but it really is just a pine cone.


----------



## FeXL

From Steven Goddard:



> Tamino is hopping mad about Joe D’Aleo’s suggestions on WUWT that the Arctic has been this warm in the past, and that ice has melted in the past. *The gradual education of Tamino is a worthy – though hopeless cause.*


Emphasis mine.

I'd go so far as to include most warmists...


----------



## FeXL

My good pal Trenberth, desperate to find that missing heat squirreled away somewhere on this damn planet, lately has been headed for the deep (from NCAR press release)...



> Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used *a powerful software tool* known as the Community Climate System Model


Get that? A Powerful© software tool, not just a regular one. Everybody say it together: Oooooooooo... 

Interestingly enough, there is a graph at the top of the linked article that shows exactly where the heat isn't-the oceans.

Just another computer game. These guys should program for Nintendo or something...

Anthony Watts:



> I’d like to see some supporting observations, otherwise this is just speculation for something that Trenberth is doggedly trying to explain away. My question is; show me why some years the deep ocean doesn’t mask global warming. It’s not like that big heat sink was suddenly removed.


----------



## FeXL

OK, good blurb by Stephen Wilde on Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from 1611 to present, its absence in modern computer gaming, I mean, modelling, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and 4 solid reasons why the conjecture of AGW is already dead:



> 1)Real world temperature observations which are diverging from model expectations more and more as time passes
> 
> 2)The clear recent decline in solar activity
> 
> 3)The return to a negative (cooling) Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which may last 30 years on past performances
> 
> 4)A change in global weather patterns which I noticed as long ago as 2000 whereby the jet streams moved back towards the equator from the positions they adopted during the warming spell. The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and has been dealt with by me in more detail in other articles.


Longish, great info.


----------



## FeXL

*Top African Scientist Backs Team Debunking Greenhouse Gas Fraud*

(Not the Hockey Team. The other one. The Good Guys©)

Linky. 



> Will Alexander is Emeritus Professor of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. He has come out to issue an unequivocal statement endorsing a new paper published by a think tank of independent climate analysts known as the ‘Slayers.’
> 
> Alexander’s comments are intended as a wake up call to COP17 international climate delegates converging on his native South Africa in Durban at the end of November. The top hydrologist declares:
> 
> “_the whole climate change issue is an exercise in futility. There is no analytically believable evidence that links greenhouse gas emissions with adverse climatic changes_.”
> 
> In ‘Earth-centred climatology: Memo 10/11’ (September 17, 2011) Professor Alexander showcases ‘Copernicus meets the greenhouse effect,’ a new paper by Canadian researcher, Joseph E. Postma that exposes crucial flaws in key government climate equations that incorrectly model Earth as if it were a constantly radiating star. It is this error, says Postma that leads government climatologists in their mistaken belief there is a ‘greenhouse effect’ trapping industrial heat and causing man-made warming Earth.


Emphasis from the article.


----------



## FeXL

This article has a title too good not to post:

Climate clam chowder has a spicy ENSO rhythm from an old recipe



> Earth warming will presumably not lead to a permanent El Niño state in the South Pacific Ocean. This is the conclusion drawn by an international team of researchers after it investigated 50-million-year-old clam shells and wood from the Antarctic. The growth rings of these fossils indicate that there was also a climate rhythm over the South Pacific during the last prolonged interglacial phase of the Earth’s history resembling the present-day interplay of El Niño and La Niña.
> 
> ...
> 
> To examine the significance of the growth rings of clams and wood, the researchers compared their measurement results with current ENSO data as well as with the ENSO-like fluctuations produced by a climate model of the Eocene. The result: all patterns correspond. “Our results are a strong indication that an ENSO phenomenon which fluctuated between warm and cold phases also existed in the warm Eocene,” says Brey.


Sonvagun. Normal climatic cycles you say. Who knew?


----------



## MacDoc

give it up =

*it's getting warmer
we're responsible.*

This is your idea of a climatologist overturning reality....



> *The top hydrologist declares*:
> 
> “the whole climate change issue is an exercise in futility. There is no analytically believable evidence that links greenhouse gas emissions with adverse climatic changes.”












scraping the dismal portions of barrel there Don Q



> _Tilting at windmills_ is an English idiom which means attacking *imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles*.


Yes I am responsible along with the rest of the industrial world....at least I acknowledge and make efforts to counteract my carbon footprint.
You on the other hand can't get to the acknowledgement bit ....which in the face of overwhelming physical evidence and physics you CHOOSE to STILL ignore and grasp at ludicrous alternative explanations.

It's happening, we're responsible, get over it.

•••

Do you even understand what an ENSO cycle is.....apparently not.....
Radiative balance has nothing to do with ENSO cycles.....they exist within any particular climate regime and are not a forcing - neither positive or negative.

Seen a pot boil?? the forcing is the element....the circulations with the pot are driven by the forcing of the element - they do not exist on their own.
Turn the forcing down - they slow, turn it up the patterns alter.....has NOTHING to do with global climate tho regional affects are very marked both the hydrology and the storm patterns.

If you actually read some of the science instead of the denier rags you'd know that.
You don't.

Ergo......







sobriquet "ill informed denier" is well and truly earned.


----------



## FeXL

*Atlasgate further*

Part the First:



> When megawarmist Richard Black of the BBC pans it, you know it’s a problem.


and (from the Scott Polar group)



> “There is to our knowledge no support for this claim [a 15% ice loss in just 12 years] in the published scientific literature.”


Part the Second:



> In fact, and intriguingly, and twice embarrassingly, there exists one map that strongly resembles the Times Atlas’ “15%” Greenland (see also the Greenland Physical Map from TourTeam.dk). And the embarrassing bits are: *it’s one map used on Wikipedia*. Worse, it’s supposed to be only showing ice sheet thickness, not “cover” as claimed (it doesn’t highlight the areas where the ice is less than 10m/30ft thick).


Emphasis mine.

Warmists. Never afraid to use the hard evidence on <snort> Wikipedia...

Part the Third:



> The Guardian article says this about the recently released atlas:
> 
> “But a spokeswoman for Times Atlas defended the 15% figure and the new map. “We are the best there is. We are confident of the data we have used and of the cartography. We use data supplied by the US Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.”


However, NSIDC sees it somewhat differently:



> NSIDC has never released a specific number for Greenland ice loss over the
> past decade. However, we archive and distribute several Greenland data sets
> and imagery. While it is possible that the Times Atlas obtained data from
> NSIDC, they may have made their own interpretation of the data, independent
> of advice of NSIDC.


----------



## FeXL

*Further to Trenberth's missing heat...*

Pielke Sr lists two issues he has with the nonsense:



> 1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been seen.
> 
> 2. Even more important is the failure of the authors to recognize that they have devalued the use of the global average surface temperature as the icon to use to communicate the magnitude of global warming. If this deeper ocean heating actually exists in the real world, it is not observable in the ocean and land surface temperatures. To monitor global warming, we need to keep track of the changes in Joules in the climate system, which, as clearly indicated in the new study by Meehl and colleagues, is not adequately diagnosed by the global, annual-averaged surface temperature trends.


Kevin?

Lastly:



> A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.


----------



## FeXL

*Models, models, models...*

I think my thoughts on most climate models are pretty well known by now.

As if we needed it, here's one more reason to distrust them:



> Attention alarmists: the latest version of the world's most widely used climate model arbitrarily increases the fictitious forcing from CO2 'back-radiation' and non-existent positive-feedbacks from clouds by 25%, from a fallacious 3.2C to 4.0C per doubling of CO2.


----------



## MacDoc

> l. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.


Of course it has along with the cryosphere ...but you and the your commenter apparently haven't a clue about it.



> World’s oceans hiding planet’s rising temps: study
> "The heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored"
> 
> NUNATSIAQ NEWS
> Warmth produced by greenhouse gasses is being stored in the ocean depths, says a new study by U.S. and Australian scientists. (FILE PHOTO)
> The world’s warmest year since 1880 was recorded in 1998, but after that global temperatures leveled off, although production of climate-warming emissions continued.
> 
> That record for the warmest global temperature from 1998 remained unbroken until 2010.
> 
> But the heat was still around: scientists from the United States and Australia, who used computer climate simulations to track warmth related to greenhouse gas emissions, now say the “missing heat” of those years was likely hidden in the ocean at depths of 300 metres or more.
> 
> Their findings are supported by a central law of physics which says energy — like warmth — can neither be created nor be destroyed, although it can be transformed from one form to another or transferred from one place to another.
> 
> As for man-made warmth, Julie Arblaster, a scientist at Australia Bureau of Meteorology, and co-author of the study published Sept. 18 in Nature Climate Change, says deep ocean layers may harbour “missing heat” during periods when global air temperatures show little upward movement.
> 
> “In our model we found that most of the heat is going into the deep ocean at those times when the net temperature of the surface is flat,” Arbaster said Sept. 19 on ABC Science. “These hiatus periods, or slow down periods, can happen from time to time even when there’s additional energy coming into the system.”
> 
> This deep-down ocean storage of warmth helps explains why global warming doesn’t always progress in a straight line.
> 
> The lead author of the study, Gerald Meehl, predicted in reports that “we will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future.”
> 
> “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line. This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean, the heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences,” he said.












Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice | ThinkProgress

as I said, pathetic desperation trying to defend an untenable position that we are somehow not responsible for AGW,


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> I think my thoughts on most climate models are pretty well known by now.
> 
> As if we needed it, here's one more reason to distrust them:


Should be noted that Mans contribution to the CO2 total is somewhere between 3% and 10%. Numbers really are all over the place but as near as I can determine Pope Gore is the only source to put the number over 10%. Means that doubling CO2 requires mans output going up by a factor of 10 to 30 times.

So even if you buy into the very questionable science, doubling mans contribution would increase overall temps by 0.1° to perhaps 0.3° max.


----------



## FeXL

It speaks! Did you fall off your cute little scooter & hit your head? Thank you for addressing me, oh hallowed one...



> The top hydrologist declares:


So, what's the thrust here? That a hydrologist can't ask a question? Make a statement? Then neither can a computer salesman, ie., you. Why not address what he says instead of belittling his career? Typical warmist _modus operandi_. Instead of addressing the issues, deflect attention & head into an _ad hom_ attack.



> which in the face of overwhelming physical evidence and physics


There is no overwhelming evidence nor physics to support AGW. The basis of the whole conjecture is someone's idea of a glorified computer game with holes big enough to drive tanks through and data so cherry-picked it's amazing these geniuses have the temerity to show their face in public.



> at least I acknowledge and make efforts to counteract my carbon footprint


Which is better? a) Having a smaller carbon footprint in the first place (me) or b) Having a large carbon footprint and buying guilt credits at a nickel a ton (you)?

Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question.



> get over it.


I am over it, Davey-boy. The second the stench woke me up to the BS the politicians were spreading it set off alarm bells & I haven't looked back.



> Seen a pot boil??


Nope, never. 

WTF are you going on about here? Could you try this again in small words & short sentences? Something with some structure? Maybe some sense?



> denier rags


Ah, yes, the name calling. (Why are the deniers the only ones with rags? Did you ever notice that?) 

Carry on!



> Ummm the climate scientists you don't understand or accept are the ones that pointed out the ERROR in the map. Just what don't you get about that


*not anything like as fast as the Times Atlas claimed.*

Interesting your emphasis stops just before the above phrase. Cherry picking, much? If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were a warmist. Oh, wait... 

I get it just fine. The issue is not who identified the problem, the issue is the erroneous map. The data is wrong, whomever spotted it. BTW, SPG wasn't first. They're busy CYA 'cause this one's gonna get ugly... 



> denidiots...evo deniers


More name calling. Thank you. May I have another?

Carry on!



> That record for the warmest global temperature from 1998 remained unbroken until 2010


Ah, yes, the cherry picked, freshly overhauled, single temperature record that showed 1/100th of a degree higher than 1998, whereas every other set of records for 2010 curiously fell short of said record. Things that make you go hmmmm...



> “In our model we found that most of the heat is going into the deep ocean at those times when the net temperature of the surface is flat,” Arbaster said Sept. 19 on ABC Science. “These hiatus periods, or slow down periods, can happen from time to time even when there’s additional energy coming into the system.”


Model, schmodel.

Where's the *observed* temperature increase? You know, like with a thermometer? 

That long, skinny glass tube yo momma used to stick in your backside to see if you had a fever?

Pielke asked the same question. Why hasn't the Argo network picked up on this warmth? Don't bother, it's rhetorical.

Ah, the Joe card. From a year ago (Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice | ThinkProgress).

Time to brush up on your remedial reading. That article is so 2010 and so Joe Romm.
_____

So, in order for you to have come out of your hibernation something somewhere I posted pissed you off. In typical MacDoc fashion, you've sprinkled name calling and ad homs all over the place instead of actually dealing with the issues, posted disjointed crap about ENSO & boiling pots (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot), patted yourself on the back at least a couple of times and dealt with absolutely nothing.

Thank you for participating.

Any time you want to embarrass yourself in public, feel free.

Have a night, Big Guy!

PS Missed dem ol' rollin eyes, tho. Can ya give me just one? Purty pulease?


----------



## SINC

And round and round we go with bad data:



> Dr Nigel Fox, head of Earth Observation and Climate at NPL, says: "Nowhere are we measuring with uncertainties anywhere close to what we need to understand climate change and allow us to constrain and test the models. *Our current best measurement capabilities would require >30 yrs before we have any possibility of identifying which model matches observations and is most likely to be correct in its forecast of consequential potentially devastating impacts.*
> 
> The uncertainties needed to reduce this are more challenging than anything else we have to deal with in any other industrial application, by close to an order of magnitude. It is the duty of the science community to reduce this unacceptably large uncertainty by finding and delivering the necessary information, with the highest possible confidence, in the shortest possible time."


Emphasis mine.

Uncertain climate models impair long-term climate strategies


----------



## eMacMan

Interesting times these are.

In another thread MD is perfectly willing to accept that the Theory of Relativity is still in flux, yet sees the science regarding AGW as cast in stone. 

AGW cast in stone, even though realistic estimates of mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 range from 3% from the US Department of Energy to 10% from the rabid AGW black knights. Then of course there is the Al Gore figure of 50% but that is based on everybody in the world living the same lifestyle as he does. On top of that there is no really accurate way of determining current planetary temperature let alone the past temps. Then we have the computer models that had to attempt to re-write climate history to create the now shattered hockey schtick. Add in the either falsified or simply inaccurate NASA temperature maps and still somehow AGW is cast in stone while the Theory of Relativity remains fluid.

What it comes down to is this; The AGW crowd proposes two solutions. Funnel $Trillion$ from a devastated world economy to the Al Gore Church of Climatology or funnel $Trillion$ in the form of carbon taxes to a New World Order Government. Neither solution will reduce CO2 out put and neither solution is even intended to. Both are intended to rob from the poor and give to the rich. As evil as the Great Bankster Heist and the Bush Wars are, these ideas are more evil by at least a factor of 10.

Again all you true believers can/should give everything you have to The Al Gore Church of Climatology and leave my bank account alone. Don't worry about starving or freezing to death, for surely the Great One will provide for such devoted believers.


----------



## FeXL

*Greenland ice not responding as predicted*

More empirical evidence (as in observed, not computer generated) in a new paper by Chen.

From C3 headlines:



> The IPCC’s climate models and its Climategate experts have long predicted that Greenland would lose ice mass due to CO2-induced global warming. Although satellites confirm that Greenland’s glaciers in total have dumped massive amounts of ice into surrounding seas during recent years, these same satellites also confirm that generic global warming is probably not the cause.
> 
> In actuality, if Greenland was a casualty of unprecedented global warming, then its glaciers would be losing huge ice mass in unison, as predicted by the IPCC. Instead, as the new Chen et al. study finds, there is huge variability of ice loss among Greenland’s glaciers, which can’t be explained by AGW.
> 
> For example, using the advanced technology of the GRACE satellites, scientists determined over the most recent years that:
> 
> 1. Greenland’s northwestern glaciers’ ice loss increased by: 100Gt/yr
> 2. Greenland’s southeastern glaciers’ ice loss decreased by: 109Gt/yr
> 
> This study’s scientists suggest that *the gigantic variability (that wasn’t predicted) is likely to be a function of regional climate/weather conditions resulting from normal interannual variability*.


From The Hockey Schtick:



> From The Hockey Schtick
> 
> “A paper published…in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds “the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions.” *Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead.*”


From Chen:



> The rapid change in the nature of the *regional ice mass* in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions. The dramatic slow down of ice loss in southeast Greenland observed by GRACE provides an independent verification of similar reports from other remote sensing data.


All emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

*It's the Sun, stupid...*

From the Hockey Schtick:



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research notes observations of the solar energy at the European earth surface significantly increased ~ 3.4 W/m2 per decade during the period 1973-1998. That would be a total of 8.5 W/m2 over the 25 year period. By way of contrast, the IPCC claims a doubling of CO2 levels results in 3.7 W/m2 additional forcing. CO2 increased from 330 to 366 ppm (11%) during that period, and 11% of 3.7 is 0.41 W/m2 in claimed CO2 forcing. *Thus, the change in solar radiation impacting the Earth surface during that 25 year period of global warming is about 21 times greater than the alleged effect of CO2. Alarmists who constantly say they can't find any other possible explanation for global warming between the 1970's and 1998 besides the trace evil gas CO2 please take note.* _It's the Sun, stupid_.


Bold mine, italics from the article.

Yes, models. Sauce for the gander & all...


----------



## CubaMark

*CIA says global warming intelligence is 'classified'*





> After announcing two years ago it was creating a center for analyzing the "national security impact" of such weather-related issues as rising sea levels, depletion of natural resources, and desertification, the CIA now says all such work is "classified."





> ...a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)request has been denied by the CIA over data it has concerning the effects of global warming, effectively protecting all studies it has conducted on phenomena associated with it.


(Digital Journal)


----------



## MacDoc

> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research notes observations of the solar energy at the European earth *surface* significantly increased ~ 3.4 W/m2 per decade during the period 1973-1998.


more laughter........

hmmmmmmmnow why would that be....surely could not have been due to the acid rain abatement campaign,,,,,



> Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
> 
> *Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.*
> 
> It has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
> 
> Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming.


nothing new including eMs lack of understanding of his only planet and willingness to swallow Dear Anthony's blog gas.

Climate scientists tho acknowledge that aerosols are a still terra incognita outside the known effects of SO2 particulates which could in extremis be used to provide temporary cooling.....just as Pinatubo did in a few years back.
SO2 is an anthro affect on climate as was the global dimming in the period mentioned.

some may recall these photos of the air in London in the 50s










jump forward half a century to Beijing and the Asian brown cloud










Some cities in China have shown a 23% reduction of solar* AT THE SURFACE!!!* 

try the science of climate instead of the blog crap of the likes of Watts et al



> Global dimming is the phenomena of an observed reduction (about 1-2% per decade since ~1960) of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth caused by air pollution (aerosols – small particles) and cloud changes. Some of this solar energy is reflected back out to space and this cooling effect is believed to have counteracted part of the greenhouse gas warming.
> The original version of the film focused mainly on the observational recognition of global dimming, but one aspect did not receive much attention in the film – namely the oft-claimed lack of global dimming in climate models. This led some to assume that climate modelers were ignoring air pollution other than greenhouse gases emissions from fossil fuel burning.
> Another implication was that climate models are not capable of adequately simulating the transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere and the role of clouds, sunlight extinction of aerosols and aerosol effects on clouds etc, and therefore model projections should not be trusted.
> The NOVA version will address this issue more prominently by adding an interview with Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Along this line, I’d like to elaborate on aerosols in climate models in more detail.


continues

RealClimate: Global Dimming and climate models

you would have known that eM if you actually read any of the science .......


----------



## MacDoc

> Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead.”


Chuckle - regional variation is EXACTLY what occurs as glacial accumulation is related to wind direction, sea temperature and the stalling of high pressure cells.
There are glaciers in some regions that are gaining mass due to increased moisture content in the atmosphere,

Alaska for one



> *The Taku Glacier, Alaska has advanced 7.3 km since the late nineteenth century.* ... Glacier annual mass balance is the difference between the net snow accumulation ... negative the general regime is one of positive mass balance and net mass gain. .... This provides some independent validation for Taku Glacier record


but globally the net balance has continued to decline and in fact accelerated sharply since the 80s.



> Glaciers and ice caps in Arctic Canada are continuing to lose mass at a rate that has been increasing since 1987, reflecting a trend towards warmer summer air temperatures and longer melt seasons. Ice shelf breakup is another consequence of this trend.


and the trend in the antipodes is the same...










even tho - for the same reasons there i some offsetting gain in the inland cold desert - the overall mass is declining as it is globally and at an accelerating rate.



> March 08, 2011
> 
> PASADENA, Calif. -- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.
> 
> The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.)
> 
> The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly*. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before.* In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets.














> Total ice sheet mass balance between 1992 and 2009, as measured for Greenland (top), Antarctica (middle) and the cumulative sum of both ice sheets (bottom), in gigatonnes per year, as measured by the two different methods used by the researchers: the mass budget method (solid black circles) and time-variable gravity measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) satellites (solid red triangles). Image credit: NASA/JPL-UC Irvine-Utrecht University-National Center for Atmospheric Research


NASA Finds Polar Ice Adding More to Rising Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

I don't think you really understand how foolish your denial is in the face of overwhelming evidence....

*It's getting warmer
We're responsible.*

No amount of blog gas from the likes of a watts will change that a single iota......might even add to it depending on his diet.

Arctic Report Card - Glaciers outside Greenland - Sharp and Wolken


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> more laughter........
> 
> blah, blah, blah


So, lemme get this straight...

Pollution causes less sun to hit the surface of the earth, but more clouds don't?

Riiiight...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> I don't think you really understand how foolish your denial is in the face of overwhelming evidence....


Ah, yes, "Overwhelming Evidence"...

'Pears ta be a few flies in the ointment, Slim:

European Glaciers Began A General Retreat In 1864

Glacier Bay Ice Retreated 50 Miles – Between 1780 And 1892

Alaskan Glacier Retreated *Eight Feet Per Day* Between 1794 And 1879

1922 : Global Warming, Poles Melting, Early Spring, Polar Ice Disappearing, Glaciers Rapidly Receding

1934 Shock News : Global Warming, 81% Of Swiss Glaciers In Retreat

I _could_ go on...

"Unprecedented!" they screech. "Never happened before!" "We're to blame!!!"

Bull****.

Just because it hasn't been observed in the satellite data record (all 12 years of it) and just because the 50's make a visually compelling starting point for a pretty graph doesn't mean it never happened before.

Tell me how AGW is to blame when all of the above happened at <320ppm? Musta been all those Hummers everyone was tearing around the planet on 200 years ago. Maybe it was leftover CO2 from Viking SUV's on Greenland 500 years ago. Oops, forgot the mantra. Repeat after me "The Medieval Warming Period did not exist 'cause it makes our Hockey Stick look bad. The Medieval Warming Period..."

Normal. Climate. Cycles.

They happened yesterday. They're happening today. They'll happen tomorrow.

With or without the warmists, the computer models, the screeching.

The only fools around here are the ones who think that climate can be bought with dollars.


----------



## FeXL

While only tangentially related and echoed elsewhere on these boards, my favorite Skewer-er makes salient points:



> CERN checked its own work, found no errors and then made its findings and data available to the scientific community to see if they can either replicate the result and rock the world of physics to its core, or prove them wrong.
> 
> If CERN is right, warmists are about to have a very big problem with their ‘scientific consensus’ defense. *If E does not equal MC², what chance do shaky climate models stand*?
> 
> Be grateful Phil Jones and the Motley CRU have nothing to do with it. The MO of climate scientists is to deny data to the wider community so it cannot be challenged. I*f Jones, Mann or Hansen had come across a model-busting neutrino, do you think they’d act as CERN did? Yeah, me either. That neutrino would be denounced as a denier particle and pal-reviewed out of existence.*
> 
> CERN may yet be wrong about the speed of its neutrino, but even if they are, *they are scientific giants compared to the closeted group of grubby rent-seekers running climate ‘science’.*


Thank you, Daily Bayonet.

The Team is still fighting the release of data.

Why?


----------



## eMacMan

Hmmm. Trying to re-write climate history because it blows your computer model and shatters your hockey schtick does not make Jones, Hadley, MM et al deniers?????????????????????????

BTW the rules are pretty clear; Once your hockey schtick has been shattered you have to leave it behind on the currently thickening Arctic Ice Cap.


----------



## Macfury

Add into that the supposed certainty that sea levels are rising at all. We don't even know the variability of the ocean floor--although we have certainly seen it change in Japan, recently.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> glacial accumulation is related to wind direction, sea temperature and the stalling of high pressure cells


Link, please.


----------



## FeXL

*Understanding Global Warming Technical Jargon*

Linky.



> When they say that “_the evidence is getting stronger_” what that means is “_we have no clue why the models are failing so badly_.”
> 
> It is important to remember that no one ever died before 1950, and the world was covered with ice, in perfect harmony with nature, and conflict free among men.


Emphasis from the original.

More from the comments:



> Natural variability – Our models don’t work
> Uncertainty – We don’t know why our models don’t work
> Multiple models – One of them might be right
> Multiple model runs – We picked the results we wanted
> Model verification – We’ll get around to it someday
> Denier – Sceptic, a seeker after truth


Have a great Saturday afternoon!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> more laughter........
> 
> ...
> 
> try the science of climate instead of the blog crap of the likes of Watts et al


What I find most interesting about observations like this is that we can examine clearly the record of the Climate God, Jimmy Put-Me-In-Jail-With-The-Other-Hippies Hansen.

Know what? His prediction record sucks.

Like, Big Time. Going back to at least 1982.

Here's a few:



> (from 1982) Pursuing present plans for coal and oil, Hansen found, the climate in the middle of the 21st century “would approach the warmth of the age of the dinosaurs”





> (from 1986) Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.


And this, from the same year:



> “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.





> (1989) Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century earth’s average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, making crops fail, and raising sea levels to flood low-lying coastal areas.





> (2006) “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.”


25 meters. That's >80 feet. By century end. Would somebody puleaze get building that ark...

More.

More yet.

Hansen's 1988 best case modeling scenario (Scenario C: Drastic reductions in emissions in 1990) modeling missed the current lack of warming even without "drastic reduction in emissions" and his inability to guess forthcoming El Niños is legendary.

Is that the kind of credentials and reputation (crap?) it takes to be a certified, holier than thou, warmist climate scientist?

And you're scoffing at Anthony Watts?

Get a grip...


----------



## FeXL

With a couple years of university courses in computer programming under my belt I'm quite familiar with the term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). This has been my pet peeve with most climate models: there has been no verification/validation of code or results.

On that subject, Judith Curry has posted an excellent article which details verification concerns quite nicely. The comments contain some particularly pertinent observations, too.

From the comments:



> If the climate models were used properly they would first have been used to test the CO2 forcing parameter for validity by doubling and quadrupling the CO2 as well as cutting it in half and into a quarter of its value and see the effect on global temperature. This would have shown the parameter to be faulty and an investigation into the genesis of this parameter would have revealed that there was no scientific basis for it.
> If applied scientists instead of academics were in charge this would have put an end mto the use of models to predict global temperature changes from changes in CO2 but apparently when data disagrees with theory academics tend to discard data and keep the theory.
> If an engineer built a bridge based on theory as flawed as AGW the bridge would collapse long before the construction was even close to complete.


----------



## FeXL

Any fishermen out there?

You ever hook a big one, play him, wear him out, drag him onto shore & watch 'im flop all over the place? This way, that way, jumping all around. Struggling for survival...
_____

James Hansen:



> In a paper published in PNAS in 2000, global warming religion high priest James Hansen argues that "rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by *non-CO2* greenhouse gases... *not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2* and aerosols..."


Wait. What????

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Appropriately enough, from The Hockey Schtick:



> There He Goes Again, Version 4.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS
> 
> In a letter to the editor published this month in 'Scientific' American, spinmeister Michael Mann fires off ad hominem attacks and yet again claims his "hockey stick" was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences*. The NAS report did nothing of the sort, and in fact validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) and the Wegman Report*


Emphasis mine.

Talk about beating a dead horse, er, stick...


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...



> Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.
> 
> Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was 'proof' of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). *Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT's do no such thing*.
> 
> Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. *Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.*
> 
> One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.


More:



> But Siddons quashes Spencer's assumptions quoting from manufacturers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc (MIC), who state:
> 
> “Whereas the early IRT's required a broad spectral band of IR [infrared] to obtain a workable detector output, modern IRT’s routinely have spectral responses of only one micron.” [1.].
> 
> The company explains why this is so: “*instruments necessarily need to have this selective and narrow spectral response to allows the IR thermometer to see through atmospheric or other interference*.”
> 
> MIC goes further to advise that IRT’s are routinely calibrated for selective spectral responses of only 8-14 microns [2.]. The company says IRT's are set to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements. *This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.*”


Emphasis mine.

Sucks to be a warmist these days...


----------



## FeXL

*They had to burn the village to save it from global warming*

There are some on these boards who think it's perfectly acceptable to have a huge carbon footprint and to "offset" it with guilt, I mean, carbon credits.

There are others on these boards who think that a smaller carbon footprint will simply be far less harmful to ol' Ma Earth.

Those in the former category cause things like this to happen:



> But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
> 
> The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.
> 
> The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.
> 
> In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.
> 
> But there was just one problem: people were living on the land where the company wanted to plant trees. Indeed, they had been there a while.
> 
> ...
> 
> *“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”*


Those in the latter category shake our heads...

Just...sad.

Wait for the screech of "ethical" carbon credits in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Just...sad.
> 
> Wait for the screech of "ethical" carbon credits in 3, 2, 1...


Hmm. Might some of those flights to Australia and South Africa have been responsible for evicting people from their homes?

Interesting that the land of golden environmentalism--Australia apparently, if we're to believe some EhMacers--is in all out revolt against idiot PM Julia Gillard's carbon tax scheme.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> glacial accumulation is related to wind direction, sea temperature and the stalling of high pressure cells.





FeXL said:


> Link, please.


Oh, one more thing.

As you are unwilling or unable to provide anything to back this up, I'm calling bull****.

I have university courses under my belt from one of the best Quaternary geologists the Geological Survey of Canada ever had-Dr. Archibald MacS. Stalker. Funny thing, he never credited glaciation with any of the three things you noted.

More Unreal Climate?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, one more thing.
> 
> As you are unwilling or unable to provide anything to back this up, I'm calling bull****.
> 
> I have university courses under my belt from one of the best Quaternary geologists the Geological Survey of Canada ever had-Dr. Archibald MacS. Stalker. Funny thing, he never credited glaciation with any of the three things you noted.
> 
> More Unreal Climate?


I think he's been sniffing "DeSmogBlog" again.


----------



## groovetube

While everyone has their bifocals on playing 'scientist' 'cause they have google. Here's a pretty interesting article showing how things tend to be done in the oil industry.

State Department Keystone XL Hearings Run By TransCanada Contractor | ThinkProgress


----------



## eMacMan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MacDoc* 




_glacial accumulation is related to wind direction, sea temperature and the stalling of high pressure cells._


FeXL said:


> Oh, one more thing.
> 
> As you are unwilling or unable to provide anything to back this up, I'm calling bull****.
> 
> I have university courses under my belt from one of the best Quaternary geologists the Geological Survey of Canada ever had-Dr. Archibald MacS. Stalker. Funny thing, he never credited glaciation with any of the three things you noted.
> 
> More Unreal Climate?


Hmmm I was taught that as glaciers retreat, the retreat feeds on itself. The smaller the glacier becomes, the less its ability to cool its immediate surroundings and the faster it retreats. Some years they will grow but overall they will retreat.

Given that most of what the AGW crowd are calling glaciers are really small glacial remnants, it is hardly surprising that they continue to retreat. This is perfectly normal and will continue until something triggers another ice age and those remnants once again become real glaciers.

Interestingly when we look at real glaciers say in Alaska, Greenland or Antarctica there is no real evidence of an overall retreat. Some are advancing and some are retreating.


----------



## CubaMark

*Feds try to track whistleblowers on ozone monitoring cuts*



> Revelations about the federal government's plan to cut monitoring of the ozone layer have prompted denial at the highest levels of Environment Canada, along with an attempt to pinpoint who blew the whistle, alleges an American atmospheric chemist.
> 
> Jennifer Logan, a senior research fellow from Harvard University's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was contacted by the department's top bureaucrat a few days after sending him a letter on Sept. 15 to stress the importance of Canada's monitoring network of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful radiation.
> 
> But instead of discussing the science, Logan alleged that the department's deputy minister, Paul Boothe, was more interested in denying the government's plans to downsize the monitoring and also to identify Canadian sources of an article about the cuts that was published in the British scientific journal, Nature.





> Logan and other atmospheric scientists have noted that the existing monitoring programs are essential and have helped reveal a record loss in ozone protection over the Arctic that was reported last spring.
> 
> She also warned that Canada was in danger of losing an entire community of ozone and climate experts. But she said that Boothe didn't show any interest in hearing scientific information about Canada's monitoring efforts.


(Ottawa Citizen)


----------



## Macfury

Yawn.


> The government has said it will continue to monitor ozone levels but is attempting to "optimize" the way it does this.


----------



## MacDoc

*There goes the neighborhood*



> *Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf from global warming*
> 
> CHARMAINE NORONHA
> TORONTO— The Associated Press
> Published Thursday, Sep. 29, 2011 6:39PM EDT
> Last updated Thursday, Sep. 29, 2011 8:05PM EDT
> 
> Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
> 
> The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say. Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes. The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life and changes the look of Canada’s coastline.


more

Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf from global warming - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> more
> 
> Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf from global warming - The Globe and Mail


*"Prof. Copland said their findings have not yet been peer reviewed since the research is new..."*

But why wait for peer review, eh MaccyD?

Besides, the type of good satellite data one needs to accurately map this sort of thing dates back to about--wait for it--1979.


----------



## groovetube

Try quoting the whole sentence...


> Prof. Copland said their findings have not yet been peer reviewed since the research is new, *but a number of scientists contacted by The Associated Press reviewed the findings, agreeing the loss in volume of ice shelves is significant.*


There. Suddenly different! Amazing how desperate selective hearing changes things eh?

probably not.:baby::baby::baby:


----------



## FeXL

> Between 1906 and 1982, there has been a 90-per-cent reduction in the areal extent of ice shelves along the entire coastline, according to data published by W.F. Vincent at Quebec’s Laval University.


Someone missed their remedial reading assignment. Guess I'll have to repost this:



FeXL said:


> Ah, yes, "Overwhelming Evidence"...
> 
> 'Pears ta be a few flies in the ointment, Slim:
> 
> European Glaciers Began A General Retreat In 1864
> 
> Glacier Bay Ice Retreated 50 Miles – Between 1780 And 1892
> 
> Alaskan Glacier Retreated *Eight Feet Per Day* Between 1794 And 1879
> 
> 1922 : Global Warming, Poles Melting, Early Spring, Polar Ice Disappearing, Glaciers Rapidly Receding
> 
> 1934 Shock News : Global Warming, 81% Of Swiss Glaciers In Retreat
> 
> I _could_ go on...
> 
> "Unprecedented!" they screech. "Never happened before!" "We're to blame!!!"
> 
> Bull****.
> 
> Just because it hasn't been observed in the satellite data record (all 12 years of it) and just because the 50's make a visually compelling starting point for a pretty graph doesn't mean it never happened before.
> 
> Tell me how AGW is to blame when all of the above happened at <320ppm? Musta been all those Hummers everyone was tearing around the planet on 200 years ago. Maybe it was leftover CO2 from Viking SUV's on Greenland 500 years ago. Oops, forgot the mantra. Repeat after me "The Medieval Warming Period did not exist 'cause it makes our Hockey Stick look bad. The Medieval Warming Period..."
> 
> Normal. Climate. Cycles.
> 
> They happened yesterday. They're happening today. They'll happen tomorrow.
> 
> With or without the warmists, the computer models, the screeching.
> 
> The only fools around here are the ones who think that climate can be bought with dollars.


Children, please takes notes as there will be a quiz at the end of class.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Try quoting the whole sentence...
> 
> blah, blah, blah


Yes, significant. However, old news.

The real question is what is the cause?


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Yes, significant. However, old news.
> 
> The real question is what is the cause?


You might want to poke around here FeXL:

APS Physics


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Yes, significant. However, old news.
> 
> The real question is what is the cause?


Sure, that is indeed the real question. As for "old news", I was under the impression there was very significant losses very recently. Not so old news?

As for cause, well, the bunch of you batter each other with nonsense daily (like the beauty I exposed of macflippy - play on his maccyD...) and no one is going to budge no matter how many google news links you can possibly muster.

I do know one thing, after seeing how the oil industry coerces public and governmental policy, I wouldn't trust more than 2 sentences from those thieving lying SOBs for one second, you'd be a fool to. Certainly since watching how the tar sands pipeline thing is being handled, which I noticed there wasn't 2 words said about. Par for the course I guess.


----------



## MacDoc

There is NO question as to the cause - you might as well deny evolution as deny the physics of AGW - it's a crank position held for ideological reasons....to avoid the responsibility of using the atmosphere as a free sewer. That's just fine in some circles....

The science has moved on to determining the pace of change and the regional impacts.


----------



## groovetube

It hasn't escaped my notice that the most vocals opponents of global greenhouse gases as a result of our fossil fuel use have been also the biggest defenders of the disaster called the tar sands. Defend, deny, head in the sand, all of the above.

Of course, this tidbit: State Department Keystone XL Hearings Run By TransCanada Contractor | ThinkProgress

Not a peep. Nada. Heads firmly placed up where the sun don't shine. Regardless of how much you believe the climate change theories, the whole tar sands thing totally reeks to high heaven.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> There is NO question as to the cause


I know. Problem is, you haven't figgered it out yet.



MacDoc said:


> it's a crank position held for ideological reasons


Don't you mean theological? As in the Church of Global Warming? With a whole pile of little acolytes scurrying here & there trying to preserve their funding?



MacDoc said:


> ....to avoid the responsibility of using the atmosphere as a free sewer. That's just fine in some circles


Ah, yes. Like you, for instance? Hypocritical, much? Helluva circle you travel in there, MacDoc.



MacDoc said:


> The science has moved on to determining the pace of change and the regional impacts.


The name of the game has moved on because Global Warming couldn't describe what was actually happening.

Every time the warmists get nailed down on something, they just move the goalposts.

Speaking of science, you still haven't provided any support for your contention about glacial accumulation. Nor any other question I've ever asked you about global warming.

Why is that, MacDoc? Is it merely beneath you or do you simply not have any of the answers? If the science is that settled, surely The Hockey Team can furnish you with a crushing response...


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Sure, that is indeed the real question. As for "old news", I was under the impression there was very significant losses very recently.


You mean, like more than 8 feet per day for nearly a hundred years?

With no response from the warmists as to how man is to blame when the CO2 concentration was far less than 320ppm, the level when man entered the Industrial Age??

Crickets...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The science has moved on to determining the pace of change and the regional impacts.


This is like saying you've moved on to the pay cheque portion of your job without actually doing any work.


----------



## groovetube

so is this the part where I google up lins that show the losses accelerating, not at the steady pace you suggest?

Then we get all high and mighty and feel good we've done our part cause we showed you on a forum?


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> so is this the part where I google up lins that show the losses accelerating, not at the steady pace you suggest?
> 
> Then we get all high and mighty and feel good we've done our part cause we showed you on a forum?


Nope. This is where you answer the question.

If you can.

If you can't, there's no shame.

Just don't expect any further response. I'm not interested in feeding the trolls...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Nope. This is where you answer the question.
> 
> If you can.
> 
> If you can't, there's no shame.
> 
> Just don't expect any further response. I'm not interested in feeding the trolls...


The best you can expect from certain people is to intimate that information available online is worthless, because they could find other information... if they tried... if they really wanted to. All this endless backin' and forthin' tires the mind of just plain folks.

Reminds me of some of the 19th century diatribes against "book-learning.'"


----------



## groovetube

Oh, I see. If someone points out the hypocrisy and disagrees with you, they're a troll.

Don't expect me to buy your oil industry fed and paid for propaganda either.


----------



## FeXL

What? Page 2? That simply won't do...

Do I see time in the penalty box for Hockey Team member Michael "High Sticking" Mann?



> Discredited global warming scientist, Michael Mann, sees his last-ditch efforts to hide data fall apart as legal experts reveal a mountain of legal precedents against him.
> 
> ...
> 
> The three facts likely to be fatal to Mann’s case are:
> 
> • Of more than 240 reported cases involving professor-v-university disputes the university almost always wins (note: Mann’s former university employer has already agreed to surrender Mann’s files).
> • Freedom of speech for professors at state universities has been restricted in a series of U.S. Supreme Court case rulings since 1977.
> • No American court has ever ruled to protect a former employee (Mann is no longer employed in Virginia).


Why is he so determined to keep that info under wrap? 

Only a matter of time now, folks.


----------



## FeXL

In response to a commentary posted earlier in the _Vail Daily_, Martin Hertzberg notes this:



> There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory, they search diligently for data that might actually contradict their theory so that they test it rigorously or refine it. If propagandists have a theory, they carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that might contradict it.


Sound like anybody we know?



> The carbon-dioxide “greenhouse effect” argument on which the fearmongering hysteria is based is actually devoid of physical reality. The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For details, see “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,” co-authored by myself and several other scientists, which was published earlier this year by Stairway Press.


That's the Second *Law* of Thermodynamics, not theory...



> Knowledgeable climatologists knew that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled Greenland and grapes grew in northern England, was much warmer than today and that its presence in all regions of the world was overwhelming. Similarly for the Roman Warm Period that preceded it and for a whole series of natural warmings and coolings until one gets back to the big one: the interglacial cooling of about 20,000 years ago.
> 
> And that all happened without any significant human emission of carbon dioxide.


You don't say.

Then what possibly could have been the cause?

I will leave you, gentle reader, to ponder that...


----------



## FeXL

More an FYI than anything:



> At the end of the last Ice Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose rapidly as the planet warmed; scientists have long hypothesized that the source was CO2 released from the deep ocean.
> 
> But a new study using detailed radiocarbon dating of foraminifera found in a sediment core from the Gorda Ridge off Oregon reveals that the Northeast Pacific was not an important reservoir of carbon during glacial times. The finding may send scientists back to the proverbial drawing board looking for other potential sources of CO2 during glacial periods.
> 
> ...
> 
> "Frankly, we're kind of baffled by the whole thing," said Alan Mix, a professor of oceanography at Oregon State University and an author on the study. "The deep North Pacific was such an obvious source for the carbon, but it just doesn't match up. At least we've shown where the carbon wasn't; now we just have to find out where it was."
> 
> During times of glaciation, global climate was cooler and atmospheric CO2 was lower. *Humans didn't cause that CO2 change*, so it implies that the carbon was absorbed by another reservoir. One obvious place to look for the missing carbon is the ocean, where more than 90 percent of the Earth's readily exchangeable carbon is stored.


Emphasis mine.

Humans didn't cause the increased levels of CO2 in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, either. Perhaps one of the geniuses out there can explain that to me...


----------



## FeXL

CO2 uptake data casts doubt on climate models

You don't say...



> Scientists at the University of California in San Diego say that plants are taking up as much as 45 per cent more CO2 than previously thought, based on the variability of heavy oxygen atoms in atmospheric carbon dioxide driven by the El Niño effect.
> 
> The team found that the oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide were converted faster than expected during the El Niño years. Instead of 120 petagrams of carbon, says the team, the annual global vegetation uptake probably lies between 150 and 175 petagrams of carbon.


Yet more errors in climate models?


----------



## FeXL

So, peat bogs are interesting repositories of information. This 2000 year old one from Germany has yielded a Central European temperature reconstruction that varies so much (despite the concentrations of CO2 being more or less level) the authors have expressed surprise at the results.



> Well, there’s yet another temperature reconstruction out there showing once again Michael Mann was wrong, and that the climate often went to hell in the past too.
> 
> The latest proxy reconstruction comes from a German peat bog and goes back 2000 years. And in case you haven’t guessed it by now, temperatures were all over the place. So much so, that the researchers themselves even express they can’t believe their own results.


Have a look at figure 6.

That should put the "unprecedented" lot to bed...

Mikey?


----------



## FeXL

At a nickel a ton, I don't understand the hullaballoo...



> Airlines face being caught up in a global trade war as opposition grows to the *European Union’s controversial plan to make carriers pay for their pollution*, the aviation industry’s main representative body warned on Monday.


You don't mean to tell me the cost is actually more.


----------



## FeXL

Malaria Declines Despite Local Warming



> “Spreading tropical disease” is high on the list of bad things that are going to happen as the world warms—if you believe the doomsayers. And topping their list of spreading tropical diseases is malaria.


10 years ago a study was published that could find no connection. Soon after it was refuted due to lack of warming in the test area.



> Now forward the clock to the present day.
> 
> Several members of the original team gathered by Simon Hay have gotten back together to see how malaria and climate have evolved in East Africa over the intervening 10 years since their Nature publication. Their results have just been published in the scientific (open access) journal PLoS ONE. The lead author of the new study is David Stern from the Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University.
> 
> What Stern et al. found was quite interesting. With 10 more years of climate data, they have identified significant increases in the temperature throughout their study region. Stern explains that “We conclude that there is now clear evidence of increased temperatures in highland East Africa especially in the last 15 years.”
> 
> So perhaps their critics were correct all along, the climate has indeed been warming in East Africa concomitant with the spread of malaria?
> 
> Not so fast.
> 
> It turns out, that over the past decade or so, the occurrence of malaria in the region has plummeted!
> 
> That’s right, despite rising temperature, malaria cases have bottomed out to historically low levels.


No fear mongering here. Nosireee...


----------



## FeXL

So, couple pages back I linked to an article about Africans getting displaced (and killed) in order to grow trees to create carbon credits.

The silence from the Progressives is nearly as haunting as the deed.

Further to that, there's more of the same from Honduras.



> The reported killing of 23 Honduran farmers in a dispute with the owners of UN-accredited palm oil plantations in Honduras is forcing the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) executive board to reconsider its stakeholder consultation processes.


Nice.


----------



## mrjimmy

Why conservative white men are more likely to deny climate change - The Globe and Mail



> White men fear all kinds of risks less than women and minorities do, according to Riley Dunlap, who co-authored the study, printed in the October 2011 issue of Global Environmental Change.
> 
> For conservative white men – who tend to benefit most from the current socio-economic system – recognizing climate change would be against the status quo, Mr. Dunlap explained to the Huffington Post.
> 
> The study findings echo a Yale University report, which identified that groups who dismiss climate change tend to skew male and conservative.
> 
> Reaction to the study from the conservative camp has been one of – you guessed it – denial.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Why conservative white men are more likely to deny climate change - The Globe and Mail


This is pribably because white conservative males are best educated in the sciences. And because liberal white males have the most to gain from grants involving so-called climate change. 

Seriously, are you offering this up as a legit study?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This is pribably because white conservative males are best educated in the sciences.



:lmao:

Dude, you owe me a new irony meter; you just broke mine.

If you, or the other deniers around here had the vaguest clue about science, you'd be unable to deal with the cognitive dissonance. You go right ahead and hold to your faith that the scientific consensus on AGW is a global conspiracy, but don't try to pretend your fantasies are scientifically supportable.


----------



## groovetube

it just spouts whatever it thinks is true.

Daily occurrence.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Dude, you owe me a new irony meter; you just broke mine.
> 
> If you, or the other deniers around here had the vaguest clue about science, you'd be unable to deal with the cognitive dissonance. You go right ahead and hold to your faith that the scientific consensus on AGW is a global conspiracy, but don't try to pretend your fantasies are scientifically supportable.


Dude, if you accept that study as science, you just broke mine. You proved my point by lashing out at suppositions as ridiculous as the ones presented in the study--just not favourable to your worldview.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> if you accept that study as science...


Reading comprehension FTW. You're the one who made the claim that white males are more likely to dispute AGW because they're more highly educated in science, which is what I found so over-the-top-ironic.

I have no particular opinion of the study; it's not in my feild so I'm not in a position to criticize it. Just like you're not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the climate science you so vigorously dispute. Anyone wondering why you and your compatriots are so confident that the climate scientists have got it wrong need only look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Reading comprehension FTW. You're the one who made the claim that white males are more likely to dispute AGW because they're more highly educated in science, which is what I found so over-the-top-ironic.


Which part of "both the claims of the study and my humorous claim were ridculous" is difficult to understand.



bryanc said:


> I have no particular opinion of the study; it's not in my feild so I'm not in a position to criticize it. Just like you're not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the climate science you so vigorously dispute.


I am in a position to criticize it and I am sufficiently sophisticated to understand important aspects of climate science. However, there's not much point in continuing a discussion with someone who confesses he is capable of neither.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I am in a position to criticize it and I am sufficiently sophisticated to understand important aspects of climate science.


When it is clear from what you have posted that you understand far less than I do, and it is similarly clear that I do not understand enough to criticize the science, it follows logically that you do not understand enough to criticize the science. If A < B and B < C, then A < C. Basic logic.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> When it is clear from what you have posted that you understand far less than I do, and it is similarly clear that I do not understand enough to criticize the science, it follows logically that you do not understand enough to criticize the science. If A < B and B < C, then A < C. Basic logic.


Too late, you've already disqualified yourself.


----------



## FeXL

An often heard cry from warmists is that big oil is funding skeptics.

This, in the past, has been true.

That being said, have a look at the financial support warmists have been getting:



> This is an old argument, and in 2009 Joanne Nova pointed out its hypocrisy in her paper Climate Money published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. "Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics," she said, an amount that pales in comparison to $79 billion the U.S. government invested in AGW research and technology development between 1989 and 2009. This does not count amounts spent by other governments around the globe, nor does it include tens of billions spent each quarter on the international carbon trading market.
> 
> Paul A.T. Higgins of the American Meteorological Society, who is incidentally a proponent of the AGW hypothesis, wrote in his analysis of the proposed U.S. fiscal year 2011 budget that federal dollars spent on climate change research and development totaled $15.6 billion in 2009 and $17 billion in 2010. The 2011 budget proposed a 10 percent increase over the previous year. The total annual operating revenue of groups such as Cato ($20.4 million) and AEI ($28.8 million) are paltry in comparison. Yet these are the greedy muckrakers Walsh finds so offensive, though they receive no government funding whatsoever.


Perspective.

An amazing thing...


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of perspective, here's some regarding Alberta's "dirty oil".



> In any case, here’s the facts, from the independent analysis firm CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), in a report entitled “OIL SANDS, GREENHOUSE GASES, AND US OIL SUPPLY: GETTING THE NUMBERS RIGHT” It says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transportation fuels produced solely from oil sands result in well-to-wheels life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 5 to 15 percent higher than the average crude refined in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all? Five to fifteen percent higher? That’s what this whole screaming match is about? And the emissions from the oil sands mining or in-situ extraction are dropping all the time. Here’s the most surprising thing I found out. We import lots and lots of oil from Mexico … and emissions from Canadian oil sand oil are only 1.5% higher than those from Mexican oil.
> 
> Fancy that … nobody is complaining about emissions from “clean” Mexican oil, but “dirty” Canadian oil emits a WHOLE PERCENT AND A HALF MORE CO2 than Mexican oil and folks start screaming … does this make sense to anyone? Do we think the opponents of the pipeline might have some other agenda than CO2?
Click to expand...

This ties in closely with the link I posted above about South American crude processed in the US at 2% less CO2 than oilsands product.

Well, maybe oilsands production is using up all the water...



> Second, is the water use for oil sands extravagant? Survey says … no.


Have a look at the graph in the link. Ethanol, based on corn, is a far bigger abuser of water than oilsands. Yep, the gov't subsidized production of that which is starving people around the world also uses far more water per Gj of energy.

Where's the hue & cry?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> An often heard cry from warmists is that big oil is funding skeptics.
> 
> This, in the past, has been true.
> 
> That being said, have a look at the financial support warmists have been getting:
> 
> 
> 
> Perspective.
> 
> An amazing thing...


Expansionists in government have a huge stake in promoting GHG theories.


----------



## FeXL

More on models:



> One of the criticisms of model projections used in producing climate change scenarios for the 21st century is that the models still have a difficult time reproducing various aspects of the current observed climate. Blocking is one of these phenomena that models have difficulty producing, and is often used as a surrogate for the occurrence of extreme conditions (heat waves, cold waves). If the models cannot adequately represent blocking in the current climate, then results regarding the occurrence of extreme events in future climate change scenarios must be examined in this light. Additionally, it means that in spite of the gains made in the improvement of climate modeling, there is still more work to be done and some of this work still needs to be done in the model fundamentals or on the large-scale. This is contrary to the impression that the large-scale climate is generally a solved problem.


(edit, added second link & quote)

And another.



> In addition, they note that the tropical surface temperature trend of the multi-model ensemble mean is more than 60% larger than that derived from observations, "indicating that AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010."
> 
> Fu et al. state that in addition to greatly overestimating the tropical surface temperature trend, "it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between [the] tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades," which findings do not bode well for the climate-modeling enterprise that is the foundational basis of the IPCC's unsupported claims of CO2-induced climate change.


Despite the screeching, GCM climate models are not ready for prime time and any science using them as a fundamental part of the argument is as flawed as using treemometers as proxy data for global warming.

The question is simple: If they are unable to hindcast with any degree of accuracy, how can we possibly trust them to forecast?


----------



## FeXL

More tripe debunked:



> One of the many alarmist claims about global warming is that it will lead to a "permanent El Niño" state. [Google "Permanent El Niño" (in quotes), and one will get about 110,000 hits.] Ivany et al. (2011) note that "if correct [that would have] major implications for global hydrological cycles and consequent impacts on socioeconomic and ecological systems." However, noting that there is substantial uncertainty regarding whether a more or less permanent El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) state will indeed result, they investigate whether an ENSO-like signal can be detected in proxy climate records for the early Eocene (~50 Mya), a period during which temperatures were ~ 10 °C higher than today. If such a signal was detected, it would imply that ENSO would not be a permanent condition in a warmer world.


So, what did they find out?



> The authors conclude by noting that *their data supports other studies that find ENSO-scale oscillations in much warmer worlds than today*, which indicates that the permanent ENSO state was not omnipresent during those periods. This result, they note, is "*counter to predictions of a permanent El Niño and suggest that ENSO is a robust feature of the climate system* that will persist into the warmer world of our collective future."


Bold mine.

Thank you for nothing, Hockey Team.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Expansionists in government have a huge stake in promoting GHG theories.


sort of how the harper government seems to have a big stake in debunking it?

yeah.


----------



## MacDoc

Yet Harper is the biggest spender of all ......MF has nice "theories" - strange there never has nor ever will be a libby gov
......no reality to it at all, unlike AGW which is no theory at all but an observable phenomena based on easily comprehended physical principles....if one pulls one's head out of the tar sands and looks around.
Course given the anti-science nonsense from the right why am I not surprised


----------



## FeXL

And, from my favorite satirist:

The Faithful Being Tested



> HadCrut acknowledges that temperatures have declined this millennium. NASA acknowledges that sea level has declined for the past two years. NSIDC acknowledges that multi-year Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2008. Cryosphere Today acknowledges that Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years. Rutgers Global Snow Lab acknowledges that winter snow is increasing. Trenberth can’t find the missing heat. ENSO has gone negative. US hurricane strikes are at historically low levels. ACE is at historically low levels. Severe tornadoes are on the decline.
> 
> The global warming religion has nothing legitimate to hold on to, so the high priests are now trying to convince people that bad weather never used to happen. The old white males who run this religion complain that old white males are against them.


Does anybody know how to pray?

How about an oracle to consult?

Or perhaps this from the comments:



> The high priests are examining the entrails


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Yet Harper is the biggest spender of all ......MF has nice "theories" - strange there never has nor ever will be a libby gov
> ......no reality to it at all, unlike AGW which is no theory at all but an observable phenomena based on easily comprehended physical principles....if one pulls one's head out of the tar sands and looks around.
> Course given the anti-science nonsense from the right why am I not surprised


I hear the grand poobah of Science in the Harper government is all about prayer too.
:lmao:


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> unlike AGW which is no theory at all but an observable phenomena based on easily comprehended physical principles....


Oh, you mean like the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, alone, blows the Greenhouse Theory out of the water?

As an acolyte ya got nuttin', MacDoc. You or your High Priests. Just admit it & go sulk somewhere else...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Yet Harper is the biggest spender of all ......MF has nice "theories" - strange there never has nor ever will be a libby gov
> ......no reality to it at all, unlike AGW which is no theory at all but an observable phenomena based on easily comprehended physical principles....if one pulls one's head out of the tar sands and looks around.
> Course given the anti-science nonsense from the right why am I not surprised


Yes. Harper is overspending. And other governments are overspending even more. As part of that, the government is creating increased production of what it subsidizes--billions of dollars worth of GHG studies and programs. How does this word salad of yours contradict what I said?


----------



## groovetube

all money on studies of GHG, but no mention of monies for the oil industry and furthering its interests.

Word salad indeed.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> but no mention of monies for the oil industry and furthering its interests.


Investments which, in its current state as a have not province, Ontario is benefitting from.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Investments which, in its current state as a have not province, Ontario is benefitting from.


Yep. I don't support government funding for industry, but if I had to choose between the industry that's virtually floating the entire Canadian economy and billions for a bunch of academic peckerwoods flogging their GHG papers on a theory in descendence ...


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Investments which, in its current state as a have not province, Ontario is benefitting from.


Yeah until the bill comes in for the cleanup of raping that area of the province. And oh that one is gonna hurt. For a long time.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Yeah until the bill comes in for the cleanup of raping that area of the province. And oh that one is gonna hurt. For a long time.


Tell ya what groove.

Let us worry about that.

You worry about how you're going to pay for McGuinty's legacy...


----------



## groovetube

One thing you learn in life Fexl is nothing, is for free. If anyone thinks that if there is a serious environmental disaster down the road that will cost untold amounts of money after the oil has been sucked up, and all those companies that were handed massive sums of monies and tax breaks have all vaporized and left it all, they live in a hole in the ground. Your grandchildren may see what it's like to be a have not province.

As far as McGuinty is concerned, whether it's him, or the other guy, there will be payback. I'd be more concerned about the unprecedented spending spree our federal government has been on, and still is. Meanwhile party faithful are clapping their hands over 30 million saved in party subsidies, while the one who is heading the treasury, and responsible to looking for saving money, quaffed back 50 million to ensure his re-election and gazebos.

However, as long as y'all are so concerned about the left, it'll all be righteous won't it.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You worry about how you're going to pay for McGuinty's legacy...


The good folk of Ontario are betting on transfer payments from Alberta and Newfoundland to pay for that. Someone's gotta pay for those windmills!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The good folk of Ontario are betting on transfer payments from Alberta and Newfoundland to pay for that. Someone's gotta pay for those windmills!


That's the only thing that makes me cringe about the whole transfer payment thing. How much cash is gonna be pi$$ed away?

Too bad conditions can't be applied...


----------



## groovetube

there's nothing sadder than watching a pair of conservative supporters worried about a provincial government overspending, while having supported a government who has been spending more than anyone in histroy, while thumbing their noses and spending millions and millions without a paper trail!

Then, one of you, mumbles something about the liberals "woulda spent more", when in fact when the liberals took over a situation much like the one currently brewing, they actually cut spending, and did many of the things atom smasher pines for this federal government to do.

But meanwhile, we need to moan and whine about the cost of GHG studies and cheering saving half of what Tony Clement slipped under his covers by slashing party subsidies. It really comes down to liberal bad, conservative good. You simply prefer a conservative to waste your money. Perhaps it's because they're way better at wasting far more of it.

Pardon me while I sit back, and laugh.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> That's the only thing that makes me cringe about the whole transfer payment thing. How much cash is gonna be pi$$ed away?


There's an easy formula to calculate that...

ALL OF IT!


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> You simply prefer a conservative to waste your money.


That's the most prescient observation you've ever made on these boards.

Congratulations...


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> That's the most prescient observation you've ever made on these boards.
> 
> Congratulations...


Given actual events, that's and odd choice of words.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Given actual events, that's and odd choice of words.


Geez, groove, get a grip.

I don't like being screwed over by anybody. However, if it has to happen, I'd rather it be by somebody I feel even remotely connected with (Conservative) rather than a complete stranger (Libs/Dippers).

I'm done talking politics in this thread.


----------



## MacDoc

That's all you've got is politics,,,,,- certainly not shred of science integrity when it comes to AGW


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Geez, groove, get a grip.
> 
> I don't like being screwed over by anybody. However, if it has to happen, I'd rather it be by somebody I feel even remotely connected with (Conservative) rather than a complete stranger (Libs/Dippers).
> 
> I'm done talking politics in this thread.


I think I called it pretty well fexl.

I'm a liberal, but I hadnt voted voted liberal in quite some time, because I want better government. Not just a liberal government.

I doubt most of the conservatives I debate here can say the same of their party.

And this thread's topic is very much political, someone else made it so some time ago.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> That's all you've got is politics,,,,,- certainly not shred of science integrity when it comes to AGW


Says the man who hasn't been able to answer a single one of FeXL's challenges regarding AGW pseudo-science. Of the dozens of scientific challenges to AGW hype presented here, you haven't followed through on a SINGLE ONE of them!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> That's all you've got is politics,,,,,


Where? Show me my political posts in any of the three GHG threads that weren't in response to someone else's political post?

C'mon, MacDoc, engage me. Surely someone who runs a cute little scooter like yours can handle a dumb biker onna noisy old Hawg. A mere photographer? From that loathsome & irreverent oilsands laden province in the West? An (ugh) Albertan? Gotta be an easy target, no?

Wow us all with the depth & breadth of knowledge that you claim to have a handle on. Answer a few tiny, insignificant, simple, non-political questions. Go to your warmist blogs, post the questions and rush back with the answers if you have none of your own. Crush your opponent with a single blow. 

1) What caused the documented world wide Medieval Warming Period?

2) What caused the documented melt rate of 8 feet per day of the Alaskan Glacier Bay ice (a glacier 4000 feet thick and 20 or more miles wide) between 1790 & 1880?

3) What caused the documented world wide warming of the first half of the 20th century?

4) General Circulation Models (GCM's) can be used to predict temperature (to a tenth of a degree according to some scientists). A good test of a GCM's accuracy would be to program in past climate scenarios and compare the output to observed data. Why are all the current GCM's unable to hindcast accurately? (I don't mean in general terms, either. I can look out the window & tell you if it's rain or snow falling. Exceptions for volcanism noted.)

5) Explain to me how the Second *Law* of Thermodynamics is not broken by AGW *theory* that a cooler atmosphere can transfer infrared energy (heat) to a warmer surface (the earth) below. 

Anyone wanna bet all I get is crickets?

Why is it that warmists won't debate? What are they afraid of? What are they covering up?

You know why I haven't put you on ignore, MacDoc? 'Cause your antics, hyperbole and bluster are usually entertaining as a three ring circus.

Lately, however (again), you've begun to bore the hell outta me.

Waiting on answers to 5 insignificant questions.

Bring on your science! Or, tuck tail & slink away like a whipped dog to return only when it misses the sound of it's own yappy voice...


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Reading comprehension FTW. You're the one who made the claim that white males are more likely to dispute AGW because they're more highly educated in science, which is what I found so over-the-top-ironic.
> 
> I have no particular opinion of the study; it's not in my feild so I'm not in a position to criticize it. Just like you're not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the climate science you so vigorously dispute. Anyone wondering why you and your compatriots are so confident that the climate scientists have got it wrong need only look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.


They'll never get that. They feel that putting on some reading glasses and clicking some google links makes them an expert, expert enough to make great claims. I've mocked it a few times, but it just gets them all riled up. It's one thing to be interested in a topic, and chat about various viewpoints and articles, but they feel they are experts on the level of a real scientist.

Insanity.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Bring on your science! Or, tuck tail & slink away like a whipped dog to return only when it misses the sound of it's own yappy voice...


You're still missing the point. Asking MacDoc for clarification of the science is like asking me for my opinions on South American geology. We may have opinions, but they aren't any better informed than any other random guy on the internet. If you're really interested in knowing why the denier blogs you quote are not getting traction in the scientific community, you have to ask... wait for it... *a real scientist* who works in that feild.

I'm sure I could dig up some email addresses for you. I know a few paleoclimatologists, including one here in my department, that might be willing to spend a few minutes explaining some of the basics you seem to be having trouble understanding.

But, if you'd rather play link-war with MacDoc, fill yer boots.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, you're not qualified to post here. You said so yourself.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc, you're not qualified to post here. You said so yourself.


No, that's not what I said. I said I wasn't qualified to critically analyze the science supporting the current consensus on AGW. I am certainly qualified to point out that neither are you or FeXL (unless you have credentials in the feild you have not disclosed). Furthermore, any rational observer can point out the obvious futility of two people who know nothing about the subject in dispute throwing links at each other.

If you or FeXL or anyone else wants to know *why* climatologists are so confident AGW is occurring, ask them. Don't ask one of the fringe 1% who disputes it, and don't use Google or Wikipedia as your source for information, use credible experts in the field.


----------



## groovetube

Mind. Blown.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, that's not what I said. I said I wasn't qualified to critically analyze the science supporting the current consensus on AGW. I am certainly qualified to point out that neither are you or FeXL (unless you have credentials in the feild you have not disclosed).


Sorry mate. When I can drive a Mack Truck through the holes in a study displaying frequent lapses in logic, I am perfectly qualified to criticize it. If you aren't, that's fine with me.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> You're still missing the point. Asking MacDoc for clarification of the science is like asking me for my opinions on South American geology. We may have opinions, but they aren't any better informed than any other random guy on the internet. If you're really interested in knowing why the denier blogs you quote are not getting traction in the scientific community, you have to ask... wait for it... *a real scientist* who works in that feild.
> 
> I'm sure I could dig up some email addresses for you. I know a few paleoclimatologists, including one here in my department, that might be willing to spend a few minutes explaining some of the basics you seem to be having trouble understanding.
> 
> But, if you'd rather play link-war with MacDoc, fill yer boots.


MacDoc continuously purports himself to be some kind of expert, repeatedly telling me as a sceptic I know nothing of the science. Obviously his knowledge is much greater than mine.

Just asking him to explain a few things for me.

As to your shot about email addresses, I have a few of my own, thankyouverymuch.

I'm not merely playing link-war, I'm burying the sucka.
_____

Let me present an analogy to you. And groove, as he seems to have issues comprehending the concept as well.

You don't need to be an automotive engineer to operate a car. However, you do need to have a few basics under your belt: 

1) How to unlock the door. How to start the car. How to turn on the wipers. How to put it into gear. How to stop the car. Etc. Basic operation.

2) The more knowledgeable may move up to filling it with fuel. Checking the oil. Topping up a low tire. Changing wiper blades. Perhaps even an oil change. Basic maintenance.

3) The next step might include minor repairs, bolt-on mods, etc.

4) Next, perhaps advanced repairs, engine mods, whatever.

5) Each step up the ladder requires more knowledge & understanding to the point where you become a mechanic or even an engineer and know the inner workings of the automobile inside & out.

Now, back to my questions for MacDoc.

They are basic, level one questions (OK, question 5 is tougher) that anyone who claims to have even the most fundamental knowledge about global warming should be able to answer without a linkfest, completely off the top of their head and without fear of embarrassing themselves. 

I'm not asking him to list the parameters of GCM 8, I'm not asking him to detail the effects of ENSO over the Eocene, just simple questions with simple answers.

Absolutely no expertise required.

As to your note about SA geology, you don't need to have a PhD to make salient observations. You can cover the basics and answer questions about say, continental drift, orogeny, volcanism with a high school science background.

Again, MacDoc claims to have some knowledge of the topic. I just wanna tap into it...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> If you or FeXL or anyone else wants to know *why* climatologists are so confident AGW is occurring, ask them. Don't ask one of the fringe 1% who disputes it, and don't use Google or Wikipedia as your source for information, use credible experts in the field.


See, if you were actually following any of the current research you'd know exactly why many other perfectly capable and knowledgeable people disagree. They are not fringe & they represent far greater numbers than 1%.

And, for the last time (I don't know why people can't understand this), I don't use Google or Wiki for my sources. I read upwards of 20 blogs on the subject, both pro & con (most daily, some less often), I purchase books, I read research that's not behind a paywall. I speak to & correspond with others, some scientists, who have more knowledge than I.

Does that make me an "expert"? Nope. Not by a stretch.

But it does give me something of a foundation with which to work.


----------



## Sonal

Well, similarly to what bryanc says, one complaint I hear from a particular modeller I know  is that the climateologists are in not qualified to understand the models they use and therefore are making predictions without really understanding or appreciating what errors they introduce into them. 

He also says that ice models in general are particularly bad. (Ice is apparently very, very tricky to model well.)

That's an expert opinion as re-stated by a non-expert.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Sorry mate. When I can drive a Mack Truck through the holes in a study displaying frequent lapses in logic, I am perfectly qualified to criticize it. If you aren't, that's fine with me.


I don't know what study you're referring to, but WRT the science of climatology, you aren't even on the road, let alone driving through anything.

Unlike FeXL's car analogy, knowing how to put gas in your car or drive it does not qualify you to criticize the engineering of the suspension, or to refute the recall resulting from the discovery that the breaks are faulty. Professionals with the appropriate training and credentials make these judgements. You don't.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Well, similarly to what bryanc says, one complaint I hear from a particular modeller I know  is that the climateologists are in not qualified to understand the models they use and therefore are making predictions without really understanding or appreciating what errors they introduce into them.
> 
> He also says that ice models in general are particularly bad. (Ice is apparently very, very tricky to model well.)
> 
> That's an expert opinion as re-stated by a non-expert.


Yes, and this is a reasonable position to take (for the modeller). I have no doubt that there are flaws, limits, errors, and misconceptions in the current scientific understanding of *any* topic... certainly in my feild, there is no doubt that there remains much we don't understand about evolution and developmental biology. But that is not to say that we have any doubt about the basics or the fundamental processes underlying most of the observable phenomena. Because I am not a climatologist, I have not ability to analyze the data or methods that researchers in that feild have used to reach the conclusions that they have reached. But the fact that such an overwhelming majority of investigators using such an overwhelming diversity of approaches based on such an overwhelming diversity of observational data have reached such a profound consensus suggests to me that is extremely unlikely that they've all got it wrong.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> As to your note about SA geology, you don't need to have a PhD to make salient observations. You can cover the basics and answer questions about say, continental drift, orogeny, volcanism with a high school science background.


Certainly. And when your high-school science understanding leads you to draw conclusions that are in diametric opposition to those of thousands of geologists with Ph.D.s working on that very subject, I would hope you'd have the common sense to recognize that you're probably wrong.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't know what study you're referring to, but WRT the science of climatology, you aren't even on the road, let alone driving through anything.
> 
> Unlike FeXL's car analogy, knowing how to put gas in your car or drive it does not qualify you to criticize the engineering of the suspension, or to refute the recall resulting from the discovery that the breaks are faulty. Professionals with the appropriate training and credentials make these judgements. You don't.


Not at all. When the study itself is flawed, I am perfectly qualified to criticize it. If I see that data is cherry-picked, when I see proxy data misused, when I see ridiculous confidence intervals applied to studies at random, I will speak out.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Certainly. And when your high-school science understanding leads you to draw conclusions that are in diametric opposition to those of thousands of geologists with Ph.D.s working on that very subject, I would hope you'd have the common sense to recognize that you're probably wrong.


Hey, man, as far as SA geology is concerned, I'm jes' followin' the consensus...

As far as AGW or whatever the hell it's called this week is concerned, there are thousands of PhD's who are officially calling bull****.

Go Google it or something...

(edit)

In addition, I repeat:

I'm asking a few simple, basic questions, nothing that requires a Piled higher & Deeper to answer. If MacDoc has enough knowledge to call BS, he has enough knowledge to answer a few basic questions.


----------



## eMacMan

This is maybe an oversimplified overview but here goes:

Without the "Hockey Stick" the entire "Church of Climatology" collapses. There is no reason to panic. No reason to send Al Gore most of your money and then lose what little is left to a Carbon Tax.

In order to create the Hockey Stick and make the computerized climate models appear to work, Mann and others tried to rewrite climate history. Not only did they attempt to ignore the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming, they attempted to ignore several similar cycles that preceded those. When cherry picking data got them in trouble they compounded the bad science by fudging and perhaps even falsifying data. 

Like it or not CO2 is at most a very minor climate driver and is more likely a lagging indicator. The correlation is somewhat weak given that glaciologists claim CO2 levels were 17 times higher than today during the coldest period of the last ice age. 

Stronger climate drivers include: The Sun which is not a constant, cosmic radiation another way to say the sun, variations in the earths magnetic field, surface volcanic effects, sub oceanic volcanic effects....

Little wonder the AGW crowd cannot even make their computer models work backwards, and that so far their forward predictions have been embarrassingly inaccurate.

Is the climate warming? Yes but pretty much along the same slow-rise/sharp-drop saw tooth pattern that has been repeated many times over the past 25,000 years. The Chicken Little Gang has failed to present any solid evidence that temps are even slightly skewed from that pattern.

The energy and effort that are being devoted to the CO2 boogeyman would be far better utilized in other areas. Perhaps putting a stop to some of Monsantos efforts to patent our food supplies, solving the nuclear waste issue, building products that last rather than overwhelming landfills, fighting the poisons we do put into the air, ground and water supplies. Include Mercury/Phosphorous laden light bulbs as one of those poisons.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Explain to me how the Second *Law* of Thermodynamics is not broken by AGW *theory* that a cooler atmosphere can transfer infrared energy (heat) to a warmer surface (the earth) below.


Go ask the priests, FeXL... the priests understand it in ways that mere mortals cannot.


----------



## groovetube

for all the sense you pair are making you might as well. It may help clarify things further for you.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, give me a ring when one of the scientists here decides to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be breached, just for them.


----------



## FeXL

Well, my nearly week old challenge to MacDoc remains unanswered.

Big surprise. 

Not only has he declined to respond to his accusation of me having only politics to post (a simple task, if there was any truth to the issue), he has not taken the time to provide a link (or any kind of substantiation, for that matter) to his earlier statement about causes of glaciation that I questioned. 

Is he simply promulgating lies in a transparent attempt to further his position? I don't know. I certainly haven't been on the receiving end of any evidence to the contrary. Has anyone else?

Nor has he bothered responding to any of my five questions.

As is very typical in warmist circles, ad hom attacks, circular arguments, finger pointing & screeching are the norm. Anything you can do to deflect attention from the issues at hand is acceptable defense.

Science (nor any other form of credibility) need not apply.

The light at the end of the tunnel is twofold:

1) AGW theory is suffering from a Death of a Thousand Cuts;

2) Every time MacDoc makes an another unsubstantiated accusation or indefensible statement, he looks the fool.

On the second, my friend, you have two choices. Put on your big girl panties, face the music and substantiate your claims. Or, stop making false accusations and statements and shut the hell up.


----------



## FeXL

So, current warmist dogma would have you believe that recent global warming is due to man's injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Fine. 

Then what, pray tell, caused the global Roman Warm Period when CO2 levels were 45% less than they are today?

(note: the answer to this question is the same answer to the first three questions I posed to MacDoc. hint: Natural Cycles)



> Based on their analysis the authors report that "temperatures reconstructed from ca. 570 BC to AD 120 were warmer than today (AD 1950-2000; 9.8°C),"
> 
> ...
> 
> And thus it is that the peak temperature of the Roman Warm Period (11°C) was about 0.7°C warmer than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period, while the peak temperature of the earlier 570-351 BC period (11.2°C) was approximately 0.9°C warmer than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.


Hmmm, he said...



> These findings clearly demonstrate that for this particular part of the planet, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about late-20th-century/early-21st-century warmth. And adding this result to the similar results that have been obtained for a great many other "parts of the planet," it is beginning to look like the Roman Warm Period, much like the Medieval Warm Period, was probably warmer than it has been recently over most of the planet.


Peer reviewed, empirical science. No models.


----------



## FeXL

*Hansen: Failure to communicate*

I don't know how many of you held your gorge down long enough to get through the whole article, but Hansen, hat in hand, is blaming the shift in public opinion (towards skepticism, in case you haven't been around for the last two years...) on, you guessed it, warmists' "failure to communicate".

The pertinent quote:



> ‘Part of the problem, Hansen said, was that the climate sceptic lobby employed communications professionals, whereas ‘scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don’t have the wherewithal to do it.’


Observations from _Icecap:_



> Unbelievable. Lets look at the facts:
> 
> (1) Warmists have dominated in all the popular journals by orchestrating control over the societies and editorial boards of the journals. They have the mainstream media in their camp. This is true of the magazines like Time, Newsweek, Scientific American, newspapers like the New York Times, WAPO, HUFFPO, LA Times, and on and on in this country and most of the intelligensia rags in foreign countries. Smaller papers like the Washington Times, New York Post, the Examiners, more obscure journals, talk radio and the internet are the only places where the truth can be found.
> 
> (2) Also Hansen and the modelers have failed in every prediction - temperatures stopped rising, sea level did not accelerate but slowed and now is failing. Winters are colder and snowier not warm and snowless. I could go on. Art Horn in his Energy Tribune story in Icing the Hype below tells it well.
> 
> (3) They have no sense of history. See this excellent post by Steve Goddard where Steve takes on Hansen’s claims that the Texas Drought of 2011, the Russian heat of 2010 and the Europe heat wave of 2003 are proof he was right even though his movement failed in every other respect.
> 
> I did not mention the politicians and environmental and corporate support for the green agenda and the trillions of dollars spent pushing the warmist position. *Despite claims of big oil funding, most of the truth squad works pro-bono. *
> 
> No James, you haven’t failed because of poor communication. You have failed because your richly financed, pseudo-science is being seen for what it is - a failure.


Emphasis mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Have a little story here about a gentleman who, just last week, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Bear with me, it does pertain (especially to those of you have used the word "concensus" in your argument). From the _Wall Street Journal_, as linked to in _The Hockey Shtick:_



> When it comes to scientific discovery, the world loves a Cinderella story: The lone genius, from Galileo to Darwin to Wegener, who bucks the received wisdom of his field and makes us see the world anew. The scientific community, however, would often prefer to keep its Cinderellas in the attic. Just ask Israel's Dan Shechtman.
> 
> Mr. Shechtman, who last week won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is credited with the discovery in 1982 of quasicrystals, patterned but nonrepeating atomic structures that resemble the mosaics found in medieval Islamic art. For observing under an electron microscope what the scientific community held to be a physical impossibility, Mr. Shechtman was accused of "bringing disgrace" on his lab. Linus Pauling, the chemistry (and peace) Nobelist, called the discovery "nonsense" and denounced Mr. Shechtman as a "quasi-scientist." It took two years before a scientific journal would deign to publish his findings.


Something...vaguely familiar about this...



> Today, Mr. Shechtman's observations have been fully validated and quasicrystals are beginning to have commercial applications. But *his story is a reminder that a consensus of scientists is no substitute for, and often a bar to, great science. That's especially so when the consensus hardens into a dogmatic and self-satisfied enterprise.*


Wait...what?



> *Isn't there another field in which a similar kind of consensus has taken hold, with similarly unpleasant consequences for those who question its core assumptions? Take a guess.*


Emphasis from THS.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc will probably be happy to see the dams and reservoirs of Australia filing up, despite his many links to predictions of perma-drought caused by GHGs. That's going a long way to destroying the current PMs last ditch efforts at establishing a carbon tax designed to combat "global warming." You won't recognize the place by the time you emigrate, MaccyD!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I don't know how many of you held your gorge down long enough to get through the whole article, but Hansen, hat in hand, is blaming the shift in public opinion (towards skepticism, in case you haven't been around for the last two years...) on, you guessed it, warmists' "failure to communicate".


What we got here, is a fail-ure to communicate.


----------



## MacDoc

Alberta south....in denial of AGW ...



> *Texas officials censored climate change report*
> 
> 16:40 17 October 2011
> 
> Environment
> 
> 
> _Chelsea Whyte, contributor_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Least bitterns in Galveston bay (Image: Gary Seloff/Bournemouth News/Rex Features)_
> Officials at the state environmental agency in Texas have altered a scientific report they commissioned on Galveston bay, deleting mentions of human-induced climate change and rising sea levels.
> The 2010 State of the Bay report has been delayed for a year by disputes between the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and scientists at the Houston Advanced Research Center, who are contracted to provide the state with regular reports on the bay.
> John Anderson, an oceanographer at Rice University in Houston, Texas, who wrote the chapter of the report that was apparently edited by TCEQ management, told British newspaper _The Guardian_ that the cuts reflected what he called "denial" throughout the state of Texas about the effects of global warming.
> The TCEQ is headed by Bryan Shaw, known for saying that scientific arguments that human activities are changing the climate are a hoax. He was appointed by Texas governor Rick Perry, who has publicly said that such science is inconclusive.
> "They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence - it was edited or eliminated," Anderson told _The Guardian_. "That's not scientific review, that's just straightforward censorship."
> The three scientists involved in the paper have asked that their names be removed from the edited version of the publication, reports the _Houston Chronicle_. "We feel it would impact our credibility as scientists on something where the data on sea-level rise has been censored," said Jim Lester, the vice-president of the research center and editor of the report.
> News organisation Mother Jones has published the report with tracked changes made by two of Shaw's collegues, the director of water quality planning, Kelly Holligan, and her assistant director, Katherine Nelson.
> TCEQ spokeswoman Andrea Morrow told the _Houston Chronicle_ in an email that the agency disagreed with information in the article, saying: "It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it."
> 
> But the changes made by Holligan and Nelson go against known scientific evidence. In addition to editing references to the role humans play in climate change, they deleted a sentence noting that water levels in the bay have been rising five times faster than the long-term average.
> 
> "There's no denying the fact that sea-level rise has significantly accelerated. *The scientific community is not at all divided on that issue,"* Anderson told Mother Jones.
> "I don't think there is any question but that their motive is to tone this thing down as it relates to global (climate) change," he told the _Houston Chronicle_. *"It's not about the science. It's all politics."*


nothin' new from the right wing anti-science crowd...very strange universe they live in .....XX)


----------



## Macfury

FeXL--as you predicted. Just more bull and bluster. MaccyD won't answer the most basic of scientific questions surrounding so-called AGW.


----------



## Macfury

> "There's no denying the fact that sea-level rise has significantly accelerated. The scientific community is not at all divided on that issue," Anderson told Mother Jones.


There is a lot of disagreement about whether sea levels are rising and by how much.


----------



## FeXL

> The scientific community is not at all divided on that issue," Anderson told Mother Jones.


Really?

Now, I realize that the data record is only 9 years long, but even in that short period, Envisat has gathered data clearly illustrating otherwise.



> The most sophisticated sea level satellite is Envisat. It doesn’t show any sea level rise since it was launched in 2002, so our friends in the sea level community tried to hide it by painting it almost invisible yellow and not normalising the data properly.


Here & here.

Methinks Mr. Anderson doth protest too much...

And, I don't need a Ph.D. to read a graph, thankyouverymuch...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, I believe the fact that he told _Mother Jones_ was supposed to be the clincher.


----------



## FeXL

So, Donna Laframboise, a Canadian based investigative journalist who also runs the blog NoFrakkingConsensus, has authored a new book on the hijinks of the IPCC, titled (appropriately enough) _The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert._

The book is currently available as a Kindle or PDF download (US$4.99), a paperback version will be out shortly.

She chews up & spits out the IPCC's moralistic claims of peer-reviewed, authoritative science to rave reviews.

Buy it, read it.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of the International Pack of Climate Crooks, Donna may have to pen a sequel:



> Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(which scam I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a ‘science czar’ John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to to develop his ‘environmental’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, run domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.
> 
> ...
> 
> CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.


What? An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA?

Say it ain't so...


----------



## Macfury

I still want to understand how the theories MacDoc clings to don't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Methinks the high priests of AGW must have refused to share this juicy tidbit of holy knowledge with the mere acolytes like MaccyD.


----------



## FeXL

Further on:



> "There's no denying the fact that sea-level rise has significantly accelerated. *The scientific community is not at all divided on that issue*," Anderson told Mother Jones.


From Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden:



> "Computer modelling by persons not having visited the sites in question is not good enough.”
> 
> “In the year 2000 we started an international sea level project in the Maldives where several distinguished experts took part,” he said, and he had been on six of those expeditions. *“There is no ongoing rise in the sea level at all and since 1970, it fell by about 20 cm and has remained quite stable for the last 30 to 40 years.”*


Sunovagun.

Empirical evidence. No models. Again.

This where the President of the Maldives recently held an underwater cabinet to bring attention to the "plight" of his island country.

And no, no division in the scientific community. At all.

Anywhere.

No, really.


----------



## FeXL

And, while we haven't fully immersed ourselves in the stupidity like lying Juliyar Down Under, unfortunately we cannot be absolved of all ignorance:

(from, ironically enough, Jo Nova's site from Down Under)



> I thought the Canadians had gotten over this type of insanity. Environment Canada apparently wants to cut the coal industry in half. (At least that’s as much as they’ll admit too. Presumably they’d feel like they’d completed their life’s work if they could only wipe it out completely.)
> 
> Christopher Monckton has analyzed the Canadian regulatory action on “Coal Emissions” and finds that, as usual, legislators are choosing the most expensive option possible with other people’s money. Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, it would still cost one-eighteenth as much to just do nothing, suck it and see, and pay for all the theoretical damage that could ensue.


Six billion dollars for 7/10,000 of a degree of global warming averted.

What a bargain.

I feel warm & fuzzy all over...


----------



## eMacMan

Not sure where they came up with that $6 Billion$ figure. Pretty sure replacing all of Canada's coal generation would be a good deal more expensive than that. 

In particular Nuclear plants tend to cost any where from 5 to 100 times the pre-construction estimates. Hydro is typically 3-10 times over budget. Given the inability to safely dispose of nuclear waste, the nuclear option is far less green than that which it would replace.

Both options would result in a long term loss of jobs as compared to coal. An important consideration in todays sagging global economy.


----------



## groovetube

Meet the Tar Sands PR Wizard | Mother Jones

Hey the same BS worked for cigarettes. Why not tar sands oil, er, I mean, "ethical oil"...


----------



## FeXL

So, a quick analysis of a paper (by NIPCC) about ENSO driving global temperatures. They note:



> The three researchers state, as their final conclusion, that "*natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability* and perhaps recent trends in global temperature, *a relationship that is not included in current global climate models*." We would only add that if this "major contributor" to global tropospheric temperature variability is truly "not included" in current global climate models, *one would certainly have to question the validity of the output of those models*, which form the sole basis for the fierce climate-alarmist attack on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

Another paper on the existence of the LIA & MWP, this time in Southampton Island, Nunavut. In conclusion:



> Once again we have another example of the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and its thermal superiority (greater warmth) compared to that of the Current Warm Period, which even at its 1980 peak was still about 0.2°C cooler than the Medieval Warm Period was during its peak warmth, when the air's CO2 concentration was more than a hundred parts per million less than it is currently.


The addition of this to the list at CO2 Science makes over 1000 scientists whose work substantiates the existence of the MWP.

I'm sorry, did you say something about hockey sticks?


----------



## FeXL

More support for Svensmark & CERN:



> These observations tend to support Svensmark's theory that solar-activity-induced decreases in GCR bombardment of the earth lead to decreases in low (<3.2 km) clouds as a result of reduced atmospheric ionization and, therefore, less fine aerosol particles that under normal circumstances could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei that could have resulted in more low-level clouds that could have cooled the planet (but, obviously, were not there to do so under conditions of decreased GCR bombardment). *This theory thus goes a very long way towards explaining why so many climatic phenomena appear to be related to numerous solar cycles of various frequencies. And it provides a rational explanation for the bulk of the post-Little Ice Age warming of the earth that appears to have continued all the way through the 20th century.*


Emphasis mine.

People, it's the Sun & natural cycles...


----------



## FeXL

So, lacustrine (lake) sediments, called varves, reveal a 3000 year history of severe climate change in an Iceland glacial lake. 

Why this is important:



> Modern climate alarmists, such as Joe Romm, Michael Mann, Jeff Masters, Al Gore and Kevin Trenberth, commonly deny or lie about significant climate change that took place over the last 5,000 years. Reflecting on their denial of the overwhelming empirical evidence, if they were to admit to the reality of past climate change then that would be a tacit approval that abrupt climate change is natural and does not require high atmospheric levels of CO2.


'Kay, so what did the study reveal?



> "A suite of environmental proxies in annually laminated sediments from Hvítárvatn, a proglacial lake in the central highlands of Iceland, are used to reconstruct regional climate variability and glacial activity for the past 3000 years...Varve thickness is controlled by the rate of glacial erosion and efficiency of subglacial discharge from the adjacent Langjökull ice cap...ice-cap expansion is punctuated by notable periods of rapid ice cap growth and/or landscape instability at ca 1000 BC, 600 BC, 550 AD and 1250 AD. The largest perturbation began ca 1250 AD, signaling the onset of the Little Ice Age and the termination of three centuries of relative warmth during Medieval times. Consistent deposition of ice-rafted debris in Hvítárvatn is restricted to the last 250 years, demonstrating that Langjökull only advanced into Hvítárvatn during the coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age."


In a nutshell?



> The analysis clearly documents the robust climate change during the periods of the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. The empirical evidence points to the extreme warmth of Iceland's climate during the MWP and the extreme cold of the LIA.


D'oh!

I'm sorry, you, in the back there... Yes. Weren't you just talking about Hockey Sticks? Yes, I agree... Absolutely amazing what you can find out about your planet when you get out of the games lab & go collect some *Empirical Evidence!*


----------



## FeXL

One more. The International Pack of Climate Crooks are soon to release their (yawn, soooo sleeeepy) AR5 report (in 2013). Nature magazine has an article on the report with some great news (from tAV) (sorry, the Air Vent):



> There is encouraging progress in the IPCC climate-modelling studies, *with smaller gaps between observed and modelled global average temperature and carbon-dioxide concentration.*


WooHoo!!!!!

However, as Jeff notes:



> I wonder, did they change the models, the data or the interpretation. Perhaps all three but it doesn’t sound like McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman will be front and center in the modeling section.


<snort!>


----------



## bryanc

*Sorry to disrupt the echo chamber here but...*

Have you seen this?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Have you seen this?


Don't you read the thread? This was discussed in April.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Don't you read the thread? This was discussed in April.


No, actually. I'm generally staying out of this thread because it's become abundantly clear that you don't actually want to discuss the science. But I didn't know you had a time machine... pretty cool that you discussed back in April stuff that was just published yesterday. Maybe I'm not giving you enough credit. Can you use your time machine to go back in time and find out what the real temperatures in the past were? I'm sure the climatologists would like to have the data.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, actually. I'm generally staying out of this thread because it's become abundantly clear that you don't actually want to discuss the science. But I didn't know you had a time machine... pretty cool that you discussed back in April stuff that was just published yesterday. Maybe I'm not giving you enough credit. Can you use your time machine to go back in time and find out what the real temperatures in the past were? I'm sure the climatologists would like to have the data.


Your time machine gabble is an embarrassment. They already made preliminary pronouncements on this study in April having reviewed only 2 per cent of data.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your time machine gabble is an embarrassment. They already made preliminary pronouncements on this study in April having reviewed only 2 per cent of data.


And yesterday they announced, having reviewed all of it, and more new data, that ... wait for it... the old studies were right! Damned if that ole hockey stick doesn't keep turning up, eh?

Of course, no doubt you'll decide to ignore the science, pretend it's all part of a global conspiracy, or just that the best scientists in the world are too stupid to recognize what a few people blogging on the internet believe are important flaws in their methods... so carry on with your "official authoritative" ignoring of reality.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, this is your little straw man again. The question at issue is the _magnitude_ of warming, whether the warming is unusual by historical standards and finally what may be causing it. This is still preliminary data analysis--and not peer-reviewed.


----------



## FeXL

Anthony Watts discussed this paper on the 15th of this month (yes, a week ago), yesterday & once again today. He has issues with the methodology, as does Steve McIntyre.

I'd post the link but you're so contrarian, bryanc, you wouldn't bother. 

Your observation about the Hockey Stick shows just how little you do know about the topic. You've brought up "consensus" a few times in these threads. Go up a few posts & click on the link to a list of over 1000 scientists who have conducted peer reviewed research indicating the MWP existed. Then, find me a list of anywhere close to similar size who have conducted research that indicates the Hockey Stick is an accurate portrayal of historical temperatures. 

Tell ya what, I'll save you some time: don't bother, it doesn't exist. Or does that consensus thing only work one way?

And, just so I know where you're coming from, why don't you share a few names from that list of "best scientists in the world"? As to your comment about bloggers, does that include all of them or just your select few? There are a number of climate researchers who run blogs, you know. PhD's & all, both sides of the argument. Are they all idiots because they run blogs?

I had high hopes when BEST was announced. I retain those hopes but remain to be convinced...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> no doubt you'll decide to ignore the science


One more thing.

You Progressives just f'ing slay me. Especially the so-called scientists and the so-called educated ones, the ones who are supposed to have a mind open to debate & alternative theories. Why is it that the only side of the argument that is conducting science is the warmist side?

I challenge you to get off your high horse, click on any random 10 of the links I've posted here and then come back & tell me there is nothing to support the skeptical side of the argument, that there is no science on the opposing side. Go ahead, I dare you.

Even if you aren't qualified to form an opinion (your words), have a look & learn something about yourself & the opposite side.

What AGW science? The whole warmist theory is based on computer models, completely biased by the programmers, shaky at best, with little to no empirical evidence to back it up. A literal house of cards. Despite all the screeching.

The skeptical argument is based on solid empirical evidence, more & more of which is being discovered every day.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> One more thing.
> 
> You Progressives just f'ing slay me. Especially the so-called scientists and the so-called educated ones, the ones who are supposed to have a mind open to debate & alternative theories.


I'll try explaining this one more time. Very slowly. I admit I don't have the expertise to make a rational judgement of the science on either side of this... I recognize I can't argue this point on the basis of critically reviewing the research, so I accept the consensus of the thousands of researchers who do have that expertise.

The fact that there is a *teeny tiny* minority of people within the population of people with the expertise to discuss the science rationally is not surprising; humans are like that... there will always be people who disagree. There are even a few people who ostensibly have advanced degrees in biology who claim not to accept evolution. But that does not change the fact that the *VAST MAJORITY* of experts in this field agree, and the latest results, published by members of that *teeny tiny minority* are in agreement with the consensus of the majority.

It's all well and good that there are skeptics within the research community that draw attention to aspects of the current paradigm that need work... that's how science works. But when politicians and corporate PR machines latch onto these 'alternate views' and the media inflates it into a non-existant debate, it does nobody any good.

If you can't grok the research, either accept the consensus of the experts or shut up.

It seems ever more abundantly clear that the consensus of the climate research community which has been coalescing around the theory of athropogenic global warming since the 1970's is gaining more and more support, and even the most ardent skeptics and paid corporate shills are finding they have less and less to base their positions on.



> Even if you aren't qualified to form an opinion (your words), have a look & learn something about yourself & the opposite side.


I have plenty of better things to do with my time, and there's an obvious consensus, so I don't see it as an interesting topic (except WRT some of the biological implications). In my own field, I spend a lot of time analyzing, criticizing and proposing alternate interpretations of research, and I know my own research does not get published until I've convinced other people with decades of experience in shooting holes in the work done by others are convinced I've done it right. The latest evidence shows yet again that the 'Hockey stick' is real, and all the work that the deniers have been criticizing was done carefully and correctly. But my point is that you don't have the qualifications to make a judgement about what is good science, so you can't tell if you're being fed a line of bull**** by either side. You latch onto one side because it supports your worldview, not because you've critically analyzed the (decades and decades worth of) science that has led to the current consensus.

I know enough about the culture of science to know that a consensus such as the one that exists in the climate science community on AGW does not form unless there is massive and unequivocal evidence from many independent sources. Scientists are argumentative and consensus is almost unheard of among researchers. There's just no advantage to anyone to agreeing with a theory if there's any chance it could be wrong.



> The skeptical argument is based on solid empirical evidence, more & more of which is being discovered every day.


If that were true, the consensus would not exist. You just don't understand enough of the science to be able to see why this is true. This is not your fault. If you'd spent three or four decades working in the field, you could be expected to be able to understand the argument. But you haven't. So accept the fact that you're just not qualified to formulate an informed opinion and focus on things that you might be able to contribute more meaningfully to. You're wasting your time.


----------



## Lawrence

The day mankind discovers Gravity wells and how to create them in a controlled space,
Will be the day the earth stands up and applauses the inventor.

I'm sure even Tesla would be among those that would be impressed by such a feat.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I'll try explaining this one more time. Very slowly. I admit I don't have the expertise to make a rational judgement of the science on either side of this... I recognize I can't argue this point on the basis of critically reviewing the research, so I accept the consensus of the thousands of researchers who do have that expertise.


Well, my friend, having read what I have over the course of two years from what experts on both sides of the story have published, there is one thing I can tell you. There is no consensus. Sorry.



bryanc said:


> The fact that there is a *teeny tiny* minority of people within the population of people with the expertise to discuss the science rationally is not surprising; humans are like that... there will always be people who disagree. There are even a few people who ostensibly have advanced degrees in biology who claim not to accept evolution. But that does not change the fact that the *VAST MAJORITY* of experts in this field agree, and the latest results, published by members of that *teeny tiny minority* are in agreement with the consensus of the majority.


The skeptical community is not a "*teeny tiny* minority of people". And this *VAST MAJORITY* of experts does not exist, either. Again, sorry. I know not what you speak of in your final statement.



bryanc said:


> It's all well and good that there are skeptics within the research community that draw attention to aspects of the current paradigm that need work... that's how science works. But when politicians and corporate PR machines latch onto these 'alternate views' and the media inflates it into a non-existant debate, it does nobody any good.


The links I've posted on the GHG threads are by and large to peer-reviewed science. I've not linked to any politicians site nor any corporate PR sites that I can recall. I have linked to the occasional media site. If you had taken the time to click on any of those links, you'd already know that.



bryanc said:


> If you can't grok the research, either accept the consensus of the experts or shut up.


Then shut up.



bryanc said:


> It seems ever more abundantly clear that the consensus of the climate research community which has been coalescing around the theory of athropogenic global warming since the 1970's is gaining more and more support, and even the most ardent skeptics and paid corporate shills are finding they have less and less to base their positions on.


Now, that's funny. 'Cause in the 70's the scare of the week was the next ice age, not global warming. As far as where the money is, you need to seriously bone up on your knowledge thereof. Warmists have received far more money to promote their scam than skeptics have to refute it.



bryanc said:


> I have plenty of better things to do with my time, and there's an obvious consensus, so I don't see it as an interesting topic (except WRT some of the biological implications).


If the thread is so boring, then why do you drop in? Why did you post the BEST link? Wasn't anything biological there. Just to get a calculated response? Little fishing expedition?



bryanc said:


> In my own field, I spend a lot of time analyzing, criticizing and proposing alternate interpretations of research, and I know my own research does not get published until I've convinced other people with decades of experience in shooting holes in the work done by others are convinced I've done it right.


That's great! Perhaps biologists have more morals than climate scientists. In climate science, pal review is far more the norm on the warmist side. There is evidence of this all over the literature, even as recent as three months ago. Again, if you bothered to inform yourself you'd know this.



bryanc said:


> The latest evidence shows yet again that the 'Hockey stick' is real, and all the work that the deniers have been criticizing was done carefully and correctly.


Again, what evidence? Are you talking about the BEST article? It hasn't even been peer reviewed for hell sake! It's as bad as 30% of the grey literature in the IPCC AR4!



bryanc said:


> But my point is that you don't have the qualifications to make a judgement about what is good science, so you can't tell if you're being fed a line of bull**** by either side. You latch onto one side because it supports your worldview, not because you've critically analyzed the (decades and decades worth of) science that has led to the current consensus.


Well, maybe your nose just isn't as sensitive as mine, then. My bull**** detector went off very early in the game & it hasn't stopped ringing yet. My take on the data has nothing to do with my "world view", thankyouverymuch. For someone who claims to have a background in philosophy, you're making some pretty crass generalizations. 



bryanc said:


> I know enough about the culture of science to know that a consensus such as the one that exists in the climate science community on AGW does not form unless there is massive and unequivocal evidence from many independent sources. Scientists are argumentative and consensus is almost unheard of among researchers.


Again, there is no such consensus. Sorry, your word against mine. I know which I'll choose based simply on the fact that for the last two years I've digested every nearly every piece of information I can on the subject. You, on the other hand, "have plenty of better things to do" & have done little to enrich your knowledge thereof. Fine. I can deal with that. If you want to stay as uninformed as a wooden horse, so be it. However, don't call those of us out who are better informed.



bryanc said:


> There's just no advantage to anyone to agreeing with a theory if there's any chance it could be wrong.


Right. Job security, much? 

There is just so much wrong with your statement I barely know where to begin. Again, if you'd clicked on any of my recent links, you'd come across a chemist's story which clearly illustrates the error in your thinking. If all you're going to do is play scientist with a body condom on in the fear that you may be proven wrong some day, you'll never amount to anything. You may as well have not wasted the money on yer eddication...



bryanc said:


> If that were true, the consensus would not exist. You just don't understand enough of the science to be able to see why this is true. This is not your fault. If you'd spent three or four decades working in the field, you could be expected to be able to understand the argument. But you haven't. So accept the fact that you're just not qualified to formulate an informed opinion and focus on things that you might be able to contribute more meaningfully to. You're wasting your time.


First statement asked & answered. 

No, I don't understand all of the science. But I understand enough to ask a few questions, get the gist of most of the literature I read and to be able to detect the taint of bull**** a mile away. This is supplemented with whatever else I can pick up. I'm becoming more informed on the subject, something you refuse to do.

As to your statement about 30-40 years of fieldwork, then how can graduate students possibly have any credibility? Especially all those used in the IPCC annual reports? Oh, and Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, a product of, I believe, his thesis?

Oh, gee, thanks, Dad. Who the hell are you, in your uninformed state, to tell me what to contribute to? Your arrogance is astounding.

I have contributed meaningfully to this topic if I have made a single person sit back and say "Hmmmm". Knowing that I have already done so is worth every second I've put into these three threads. I will continue to educate myself & to educate others.


----------



## Macfury

Nobody here is wasting their time slaying half-baked GHG and AGW theories. Support for policies relating to these causes is dying on the vine thanks to efforts just like these.


----------



## FeXL

*On BEST...*

Seeing as it's in the news.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) was put together to analyze existing land & water surface temperature records in a much more critical fashion that had been done before. As has been noted, a preliminary result came out a number of months ago, based on 2% of the data. 

Couple weeks or so back the full report was issued to a number of scientists (on the promise of confidentiality) for their observations. Anthony Watts was one of these & was immediately surprised when he was contacted by members of the media (who, apparently, were also issued copies of the report) looking for his comment on what he understood to be a confidential paper. He was also disappointed to find that none of his suggestions made it into the released paper, even those as basal as mere spelling corrections.

The paper has not yet been peer reviewed (my biggest issue with it). I believe the significance of the upcoming peer review is huge & hope that said process will be as transparent as BEST's alleged intentions are.

This paper only analyzes land surface temps at this time. I make this note not only because Earth's land area is significantly smaller than the water, but that land temps vary considerably more than water. I mean not to diminish the importance of this paper by saying that.

Some have already noted that "the Hockey Stick lives!!!", referring of course to Michael Mann's graphical interpretation of a number of proxy (tree ring) and thermometer data going back 1000 years or so. The ignorance of the topic at hand exposed by such statements is interesting. Skeptics have far less issue with the right hand side (the "blade" of the stick) of the graph than the left (the "handle"). Mann's interpretation completely erased the documented global Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, conveniently eliminating the need to explain why significant global temperature fluctuations in the presence of much lower CO2 levels ocurred. 

Having said that, the BEST paper data only goes back 200 years or so, to 1800. This is not nearly early enough to address any of the Hockey Stick's true flaws and was not the intent of the paper.

A few links & quotes (all emphasis mine):

From Dr. David Whitehouse:



> There are very few people who do not believe the world hasn’t warmed, in various episodes, since the instrumental record began about 150 years ago. We are today warmer than the Little Ice Age, warmer than the Victorian Era, indeed warmer than the 1970s. The proper question is, of course, why? The Berkeley team have no conclusions about this.


Exactly. No argument from anyone I know, skeptic or otherwise.



> The 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling. How does the distribution of these two sub-sets of data compare?


There was an interesting paper done recently on the effects of temperature recording station siting in regards to coastal proximity. I'll have to see if I can dig up that link...

More:



> The findings of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project are important because they emphasis the growing realisation that science has underplayed the unknowns and uncertainties in the attribution of the causes of recent climate change. Without doubt, the data compiled and the analysis undertaken, by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project is unambiguous evidence that the root causes of global warming are poorly understood.
> 
> *The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature.* They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.”


Anthony Watts notes his agreements/disagreements & his hopes for a transparent peer review process.

Observations from a mathematician on the statistical methods used in the BEST report:



> *The data analysis in the BEST papers would not pass in a third-year undergraduate course in statistical time series.*
> 
> Lastly, a general comment on the surface temperature records might be appropriate. We have satellite records for the last few decades, and they closely agree with the surface records. We also have good evidence that the world was cooler 100-150 years ago than it is today. Primarily for those reasons, I think that the surface temperature records–from NASA, NOAA, Hadley/CRU, and now BEST–are probably roughly right.


Again, no quibble. The earth has warmed (and cooled) a number of times in the last couple thousand years. The key question is, what caused it?

Musings from McIntyre:



> The decade of the 1810s is shown in their estimates as being nearly 2 degrees colder than the present. Yes, this was a short interval and yes, the error bars are large. The first half of the 19th century is about 1.5 degrees colder than at present.
> 
> At first blush, these are very dramatic changes in perspective and, if sustained, may result in some major reinterpretations. Whereas Jones, Bradley and others attempted to argue the non-existence of the Little Ice Age, *BEST results point to the Little Ice Age being colder and perhaps substantially colder than “previously thought*”.


There's more out there, have a look.


----------



## MacDoc

Another denier mantra hits the rocks.....



> *Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed *
> 
> 
> A group of scientists known for their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records. Their study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter.
> "The valid issues raised by [climate] sceptics, when addressed fully and in detail, do not significantly change the answer," says lead author Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley. In a testimony to the US Congress earlier this year, Muller questioned whether global temperature records showed a significant warming during the 20th century.


Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed - environment - 20 October 2011 - New Scientist

from their own pet scientists too.....what's the world coming to ....

and Dear Anthony face plants as usual with this crowd when confronted with reality...



> Blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has repeatedly claimed that temperature data is unreliable because weather stations are poorly placed – for instance, next to air-conditioning vents or other heat sources. *However, BEST found no statistically significant difference in the trends seen at well-placed and poorly placed stations.*
> *No surprise*
> 
> "These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results, and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal," says Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, the climatologist at the heart of the "climategate" scandal. Jones helped to compile the HadCRU dataset.
> "They get the same result that everyone else has gotten," says Michael Mann of Penn State University in University Park. "That said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."


oh yeah - warmer cuz of us...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Another denier mantra hits the rocks.....


MacDoc, are you being deliberately obtuse? What on earth would make you believe that study blames warming on human activity? Why would you assume the study is conclusive prior to peer review of its reports? Since when did the opinion of Richard Muller form the crux of the debate?

The lapses in logic even on this simple level are astounding.


----------



## MacDoc

and another denier bit of nonsense bites the dust as well....
Little Ice was regional NOT global.....



> "My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level", says Svante Björck.
> As an example, let us take the last clear climate change, which took place between the years 1600 and 1900 and which many know as* the Little Ice Age.* Europe experienced some of its coldest centuries. While the extreme cold had serious consequences for agriculture, state economies and transport in the north*, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.*
> The climate archives, in the form of core samples taken from marine and lake sediments and glacier ice, serve as a record of how temperature, precipitation and concentration of atmospheric gases and particles have varied over the course of history, and are full of similar examples.
> Instead it is during 'calmer' climatic periods, when the climate system is influenced by external processes, that the researchers can see that the climate signals in the archives show similar trends in both the northern and southern hemispheres.
> "This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously", says Svante Björck.
> Professor Björck draws parallels to today's situation. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently changing very rapidly. At the same time, global warming is occurring.
> "As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, *we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth's carbon cycle"*, says Svante Björck, continuing:


No simultaneous warming of Northern and Southern hemispheres as a result of climate change for 20,000 years

denial of AGW??.....dead in the water.....as it has been for a decade...

of course the tin hat conspiracists would never admit they are wrong....XX)
just about as wrong as it's possible to be about a global phenomena that is obvious, understood, documented and accepted by the sicence communities world wide.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and Dear Anthony face plants as usual with this crowd when confronted with reality...


What face plant?

First of all, Anthony has never said there hasn't been warming.

Secondly, fully 1/3 of the sites show cooling. That's significant enough to pursue further. I'd be very interested to find out if that 33% are the amongst the ones that are situated properly. 

Thirdly, no one knows if the sites were situated properly 30 or more years ago-nobody. This is why Anthony has issues with the methodology, namely that a 60 year period was used, instead of multiple 30's. Honest peer review should weed this problem out.

Fourth, and most hilarious, is the spin from Jones, Mann, _et al_. "Lalalalalalalalalala, told you so, lalalalalalalalalalala."


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc? One study and you think you've got it in the bag? I don't even think you could have read tBjörck's study if you think that's what it means.


----------



## Macfury

Why climatologists (with an axe to grind) may make lousy statisticians:



> Since the change is still “significant”, you might say “So what?” Glad you asked: Look at those bounds on the years before 1940, especially those prior to 1900. Applying the above changes pushes those bounds way out, which means we cannot tell with any level of certainty if we are warmer or cooler now then we were before 1940, and especially before 1900.


For those interested in a statistical analysis of the BEST study--and why its model (there's that ugly word again) is unlikely to produce valuable results, read:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4530


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and another denier bit of nonsense bites the dust as well....
> Little Ice was regional NOT global.....


First off, who said it was?

Secondly, whether the LIA was regional or global has nothing to do with proving the existence of AGW. You may want to consider going back to high school & retaking your basic logic course. A plus B does not equal C. As a matter of fact, it's mere existence (which you obviously agree to) provides evidence to the contrary. Unless, of course, you can explain why temps dropped & rose again across at least a complete hemisphere in the presence of <320ppm CO2 (long before the industrial revolution). Unicorn farts, perchance?



> *As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes* leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the earth's carbon cycle", says Svante Björck


Thirdly, that took long: Peruvian Glaciers Prove Little Ice Age Was Global

Fourth, typical warmist doctrine. We can't explain away the MWP, there's no way to get out of this one without smelling like the south end of a northbound skunk, let's move the goalposts again and hit 'em up with yet another weak, flailing, girly boy, last ditch clutching at straws.

Fifth, I could care less about how many numbers support one side of the argument or another. That's not science. There are myriad examples of the numbers supporting a particular viewpoint that would prove to be wrong in the future. Science is about empirical evidence, data which you can see, feel, measure. Not computer models playing a what-if situation with a dearth of factors on data so massaged it's nearly unrecognizable from the original.



MacDoc said:


> of course the tin hat conspiracists would never admit they are wrong


Conspiracy? HA! Look in the mirror, slim. UN world domination, much?

And mebbe I do have a tin hat...dunno for sure. Either way, I figger it's better'n a fence post up my ass...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the non-peer reviewed results from BEST, including an observation from Eric Steig that Anthony (shocka) agrees with. The linked article contains numerous links to other pertinent articles from Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry, (especially on The Economists text) and others: 



> There are three compilations of mean global temperatures, each one based on readings from thousands of thermometers, kept in weather stations and aboard ships, going back over 150 years. Two are American, provided by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one is a collaboration between Britain’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (known as Hadley CRU). And all suggest a similar pattern of warming: amounting to about 0.9°C over land in the past half century.


Pielke notes:



> The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!


Anthony also notes he has another siting paper in the works and gives a link to an interesting read from Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo whose work shows "a virtually flat century scale trend" in GISS long period stations.


----------



## Macfury

> The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!


I was wondering the same thing. How does the BEST study deal with the inaccuracy of the thermometers, urban heat island effect, and the lack of northern stations by using the same data?


----------



## FeXL

BEST claims to show no UHI effect (see second quote below). This could be in part because of the 60 year cycle they used, rather than the 30 year cycle Anthony would have like to see. Like he said, nobody knows what the sites were like more than 30 years ago. Effectively, what BEST has done is amalgamate known siting issues over the last 30 years with unknowns of the previous 30. Who knows how this may have affected results?

My next post is a of a raw data analysis by Willis Eschenbach. He makes some interesting observations:



> I agree with William Briggs and Doug Keenan that “the uncertainty bands are too narrow”. Please read the two authors to see why.
> 
> I thought of Mann’s claim because, even with BEST’s narrow uncertainty figures, their results show we know very little about relative temperatures over the last two centuries. For example, we certainly cannot say that the current temperatures are greater than anything before about 1945. The uncertainty bands overlap, and so we simply don’t know if e.g. 2010 was warmer than 1910. Seems likely, to be sure … but we do not have the evidence to back that up.


and



> The BEST folks say that there is no urban heat island (UHI) effect detectable in their analysis. Their actual claim is that “urban warming does not unduly bias estimates of recent global temperature change”. Here’s a comment from NASA, which indicates that, well, there might be a bias. Emphasis mine.
> 
> _The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. SOURCE_
> 
> A 22°F (12°C) UHI warming in Providence, and BEST says no UHI effect … and that’s just a couple cities.


and



> The disagreement between the four ground-based results also begs for an explanation. Note that the records diverge at the rate of about 0.2°C in thirty years, which is 0.7° per century. Since this is the approximate amount of the last century’s warming, this is by no means a trivial difference.


Conclusion



> With the ground records, nobody has looked at the other guys’ analysis and algorithms harshly, aggressively, and critically. They’ve all taken their own paths, and they haven’t disputed much with each other. The satellite data algorithms, on the other hand, has been examined minutely by two very competitive groups, UAH and RSS, in a strongly adversarial scientific manner. As is common in science, the two groups have each found errors in the other’s work, and when corrected the two records agree quite well. It’s possible they’re both wrong, but that doesn’t seem likely. If the ground-based folks did that, we might get better agreement.


----------



## FeXL

Don Easterbrook, on Climate Realists, addresses issues in the Björck paper MacDoc linked to above:



> In a paper entitled “Current global warming appears anomalous in relation to the climate of the last 20 000 years,” Svante Björck claims that, over the past 20,000 years, there have been no world-wide, synchronous, climate changes until recently and that shows CO2 must be the cause of recent global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Claims such as these can only be considered geofantasy, unsupported by scientific data and *contrary to a vast amount of data to the contrary.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The Greenland isotope ice core data is well correlated with glacier advance and retreat in the European Alps, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia, the Rocky Mts., the Cascade Mts., Sierra Nevada, Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, and various other places. The global record of non-glaciated areas is also clear in Asia, Australia, New Zealand,, North and South America, Europe, Russia, and elsewhere. *There is a vast literature documenting all of these globally synchronous climate changes that Björck obviously needs to read.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Figure 2, shows that not only is the Younger Dryas globally synchronous, but that *advances within the YD can also be correlated globally*, including examples from continental ice sheets in Scandinavia and North America, and alpine glaciers in the Cascade and Rocky Mts. of North America, the European Alps, and the New Zealand Alps, among many others.
> 
> ...
> 
> How Björck can ignore this immense amount of data showing globally synchronous climate changes is very difficult to understand. *His claim of no globally synchronous climate changes in 20,000 cannot be considered credible.*


All emphasis mine.

Sums it up for me...

Next?


----------



## FeXL

The Washington Post published an online opinion piece about the BEST results. S. Fred Singer responds:



> Why are you surprised by the results of the Berkeley Climate Project? They used data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming.
> 
> They covered the same land area – less than 30% of the Earth’s surface – with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.
> 
> Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that the climate models, run on super-computers, all show that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface. What does this tell you?
> 
> And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don’t show any global warming since 1940!


Who is S. Fred Singer?



> S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.


Good enough for me!


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been a lot of noise generated recently about unprecedented Arctic ice breakup, etc.

Results of a paper from Universite Laval indicate otherwise:



> But a team of researchers from the Universite Laval in Canada have found evidence that one ice shelf might have broken up before, *1,400 years ago – long before industrialisation had any impact on the planet*.
> 
> A study of sedimentary material on the bottom of Disraeli Fjord in Canada, found evidence of what the team described as a ‘major fracturing event’ 1,400 years ago.
> 
> ...
> 
> They found the ice shelf appeared 4,000 years ago staying whole for several thousand years before fracturing 1,400 years ago. They said it didn't fully re-freeze until 800 years ago.
> 
> ...
> 
> Dermot Antoniadesa said: 'At this point, it doesn’t appear that the shelf ice around Ellesmere Island is any smaller now than it was during the previous period of warming, but because it’s still shrinking, it’s possible it could become, an 'unprecedented' event.'


OK, now, before the screeching starts (from my favorite sarcastic wit, Steven Goddard), this:



> Ice shelves are extensions of glaciers flowing into the sea. If they didn’t break up and melt as least as fast as they formed, they would eventually cover the entire planet. It seems a pretty safe bet that ice shelf breakup happens on a regular basis, even during ice ages.
> 
> Logic and climate science do not mix.


----------



## FeXL

Little blurb from Roger Pielke Sr. on a new paper that discusses modeling shortfalls:



> There is a new paper...which presents quite a new perspective on the inability of climate models to realistically simulate the real world climate.


----------



## FeXL

Couple more from Steven Goddard on comparisons with BEST data using some revealing graphs.



> I plotted actual HadCRUT (red) vs. BEST HadCRUT (blue) below. Notice anything interesting since 2000?
> 
> ...
> 
> This is how science works. It checks upon itself. And when the position that you had previously taken has been proved false, you do what Muller has done:
> 
> You change your...data.


And



> I plotted the 1999 version of GISS US temperatures vs. BEST global land temperatures below. They diverged in 1950, with 1934 as the hottest year.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of course that wouldn’t do, so Hansen fixed it in 2000 by cooling the 1930s and jacking temperatures since 1960 way up.
> 
> ...
> 
> Is there some reason why we should believe any of these clowns? In the year 2000, Hansen increased 1998 by almost half a degree, and lowered 1934 by a quarter of a degree.


----------



## FeXL

Further discussion on the inability of climate models to realize accurate Surface Air Temperature prediction:



> The two researchers list numerous problems that hamper decadal climate predictability, among which is the fact that "the models suffer from large biases." In the cases of annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) and SAT over land, for example, they state that *"typical errors can amount up to 10°C in certain regions,"* as found by Randall et al. (2007) to be the case for many of the IPCC-AR4 models. And they add that several models also "fail to simulate a realistic El Niño/Southern Oscillation." In addition, they indicate that "several assumptions have generally to be made about the process under consideration that cannot be rigorously justified, and this is a major source of uncertainty."


Summarization:



> In summing up their findings, which include those noted above and a whole lot more, Latif and Keenlyside state that "a sufficient understanding of the mechanisms of decadal-to-multidecadal variability is lacking," that "state-of-the-art climate models suffer from large biases," that "they are incomplete and do not incorporate potentially important physics," that various mechanisms "differ strongly from model to model," that "the poor observational database does not allow a distinction between 'realistic' and 'unrealistic' simulations," and that many models "still fail to simulate a realistic El Niño/Southern Oscillation." Therefore, they conclude that "it cannot be assumed that current climate models are well suited to realize the full decadal predictability potential," which is a somewhat-obscure but kinder-and-gentler way of stating that *current state-of-the-art climate models are simply not good enough to make reasonably accurate simulations of climate change over a period of time (either in the past or the future) that is measured in mere decades.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> There was an interesting paper done recently on the effects of temperature recording station siting in regards to coastal proximity. I'll have to see if I can dig up that link...


Found it.

Note: This is non peer reviewed work. As such, it is only suitable for discussion at this time. That being said, the article should make you go hmmmm...

Frank Lansner discovers: 



> The coastal areas are heavily influenced by the sea surface temperature. Inland stations record larger rises and falls in temperature, which is hardly surprising. But, the implications are potentially large. When records from some stations are smoothed over vast distances (as in 1200 km smoothing), results can be heavily skewed by allowing coastal trends to be smoothed across inland areas. What Lansner finds is that coastal trends can be smoothed over the oceans, but that there is little justification for smoothing them over land.


In an earlier post I noted that the biggest issue with Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph was the "handle" and elimination of the MWP/LIA. The second issue was the "blade", in that suddenly his tree ring proxy data no longer suited his argument and he spliced on thermometer data which did. Lasner provides a tantalizing clue as to the possibility of why Mann's "treemometer" data diverged:



> Tantalizingly, Lansner also seems able to explain the mysterious post 1960 temperature “decline” in tree rings that was famously hidden from global graphs. Mann et al removed the tree ring record after 1960, saying it didn’t match thermometer recordings, but since most trees grow inland, rather than on coasts (or in the ocean), the trees turned out to be matching the inland trends, not the sea-surface trend. Global inland temperatures were cooling fast by 1960, and the temperatures implied by the tree rings followed the inland raw data.


Lots of graphs & maps. Good brain food.

I'd love to see this work peer reviewed & the data studied further.


----------



## FeXL

*Further on BEST...*

OK, Daily Mail has an online article about the BEST papers. They note that Judith Curry, second author on all 4 papers, disagrees with some conclusions & statements that Muller has noted. In addition, they falsely attribute some comments to her. As a news article, it's a bit over the top. She clarifies a few things on her blog.

Further analysis of the BEST data show that a particular smoothing was used to generate a rise in a recent decadal temperature graph, whereas the true data shows global temps flatlined for the last 10 years.

Dr. David Whitehouse expresses his criticisms here:



> It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement. Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly?
> 
> Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.


Anthony gives his take.

Steve McIntyre makes a couple of observations about BEST data at Detroit Lakes & Lampasas, TX.

Jeff Id levels some criticism at the BEST methodology.


----------



## FeXL

Pielke Sr. discusses a couple of papers on model failure.



> From Koutsoyiannis et al 2011
> 
> “….we tested whether the model outputs are consistent with reality (which reflects the entire variability, due to combined natural and anthropogenic effects). Our results extend Huard’s statements further. Specifically, *we show that, climate models are not only unable to predict the variability of climate, but they are also unable to reproduce even the means of temperature and rainfall in the past*. For example, as we stated in our paper, “In some [models], the annual mean temperature of the USA is overestimated by about 4–5◦C and the annual precipitation by about 300–400 mm”.


Bold from the original.


----------



## FeXL

Anthony takes a look at the revised NOAA hurricane database and finds that US hurricanes are far worse than originally feared...100 years ago.



> This historical reanalysis by NOAA shows U.S. hurricane landfalls were much more frequent in the past. For example, did you know that the busiest U.S. hurricane season ever was in 1886? Bill McKibben, Joe Romm and other “severe weather is climate” posers won’t like this because it blows the whole “CO2 is causing more hurricanes” argument right out of the water.


Perhaps one of the warmist geniuses out there can explain this to me...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Anthony takes a look at the revised NOAA hurricane database and finds that US hurricanes are far worse than originally feared...100 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps one of the warmist geniuses out there can explain this to me...


Not too likely. They're still trying to figure out that 17 feet of snow that went along with our coldest winter on record. Yep that was indeed just last year.


----------



## FeXL

Judith Curry has a meeting with Richard Muller.



> So all in all, I am ok with what is going on in the BEST project. The PR situation is still a problem, but the media aren’t helping here. In any event alot of people are now looking at the data. The BEST team is taking seriously the more serious critiques and are sorting through them. Progress is being made!


While she remains optimistic, I can't help but feel she's getting a snow job...


----------



## FeXL

Pielke Jr made some observations about a week ago about cherry-picked data in Rahmstorf and Coumou's recent paper on the Moscow heat record (trying to link last year's heat with global warming).

He elaborates on the theme:



> 1. Linear trend cherry pick.
> 
> ...
> 
> 2. Station cherry pick
> 
> ...
> 
> 3. Data set cherry pick.
> 
> ...
> 
> 4. Non-linear trend cherry pick.


His conclusion?



> That some climate scientists are playing games in their research, perhaps to get media attention in the larger battle over climate politics, is no longer a surprise. But when they use such games to try to discredit serious research, then the climate science community has a much, much deeper problem.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Pielke Sr comments on the FAQ at the BEST website.

His final thoughts:



> The BEST project provides an interesting new group to examine the land surface temperature record as applied to long term temperature trends and anomalies. However, they have failed to adequately consider the range of issues that are yet to be resolved. and have prematurely reported their findings and conclusions both in their submitted papers and in their media interactions.


----------



## FeXL

Pielke Sr also notes the acceptance of a new paper on Pacific Sea Surface Temps by David Douglass. Abstract reads:



> The Pacific sea surface temperature data contains two components: NL, a signal that exhibits the familiar El Niño/La Niña phenomenon and NH, a signal of one-year period. Analysis reveals: (1) The existence of an annual solar forcing FS; (2) NH is phase locked directly to FS while NL is frequently phase locked to the 2nd or 3rd subharmonic of FS. At least ten distinct subharmonic time segments of NL since 1870 are found. The beginning or end dates of these segments have a near one-to-one correspondence with the abrupt climate changes previously reported. Limited predictability is possible.


Douglass notes that:



> if he had been able to attend the Santa Fe meeting this week he would have “_shouted_” that calculating trends across a climate shift has no meaning.


----------



## FeXL

One more from Pielke Sr, on Bob Tisdale's blogged ocean temperature trend posts.



> His latest post is very much worth reading
> 
> PRELIMINARY October 2011 SST Anomaly Update
> 
> The figures he presents clearly show the effect of ENSO events which are superimposed on a longer term trend. One also does not need to perform a statistical analysis to see a long term increase from 1982 until 1998 following by a step-function type of change after the large El Nino in 1998 and nearly flat trend, or even a slight decline, since, as illustrated in the figure below from Bob’s excellent post.


He also points to a supporting piece of work from Roy Spencer.

Pielke's conclusions?



> The posts by Bob Tisdale and Roy Spencer illustrate from real world observations why a new approach is needed, since the models are not skillfully simulating the actual behavior of the climate system even in a global average. The continued defense of the dominance of CO2 with respect to climate change on multi-decadal time scales is placing those proponents of that view as increasingly looking as out of touch with the reality of the real-world climate system.


Models...


----------



## FeXL

Just a little science experiment in your kitchen...



> This video shows that a candle floating on water, burning in the air inside a glass, converts the oxygen in the air to CO2. The water rises in the glass because the CO2, which replaced the oxygen, is quickly dissolved in the water. The water contains calcium ions Ca++, because we initially dissolved calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 in the water. The CO2 produced during oxygen burning reacts with the calcium ions to produce solid calcium carbonate CaCO3, which is easily visible as a whitening of the water when we switch on a flashlight. This little kitchen experiment demonstrates the inorganic carbon cycle in nature. The oceans take out our anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3-, which in turn forms solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Just a little science experiment in your kitchen...


FeXL, why confuse MacDoc with solid chemical demonstrations, when the models create a much more desirable fantasy?


----------



## FeXL

So, couple days back John O’Sullivan wrote an article about data collected from a Japanese satellite that brought into question the proposition that first world countries owed third world countries reparations for higher production of CO2. Essentially, his read on the data is that it should be the other way around.

Here are a couple of links about his article: One and two.

Apparently this is fairly controversial, as he's just been fired...



> I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations.


----------



## FeXL

Andrew Montford, on his Bishop Hill blog, notes two new papers on surface temps. Interestingly, they contradict BEST...

From the two abstracts:

1.


> We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005. No global records are applied. The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation. For the period 1906-2005, we evaluate a global warming of 0.58°C as the mean for all records. This decreases to 0.41°C if restricted to stations with a population of less than 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level. *About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures.*


Emphasis mine. Interesting in that this roughly corresponds with BEST's 33%.

2.


> Monthly instrumental temperature records from 5 stations in the northern hemisphere are analyzed, each of which is local and well over 200 years in length, as well as two reconstructed long-range yearly records - from a stalagmite and from tree rings that are about 2000 years long. In the instrumental records, the steepest 100-year temperature fall happened in the 19th century and the steepest rise in the 20th century, both events being of about the same magnitude.
> 
> ...
> 
> These results contradict the hypothesis of an unusual (anthropogenic) global warming during the 20th century.


----------



## FeXL

NIPCC analysis of a paper indicating huge underestimates (by a factor of 10) of solar forcing in Northern Hemisphere winter climate variability.



> In 2009, nearly 31 years after direct satellite observations of solar irradiance from space, the science team from the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on board the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite led by Jerald Harder and Juan Fontenla (Harder et al. 2009) published a bombshell result that offers a new view on how large the solar UV (in the wavelength region of 200-400 nm or so) has varied between April 2004 and February 2008. *Figure 1 shows that the previous extrapolation of solar UV irradiance by Lean (2000) significantly underestimated the direct SIM observations by a factor of ten!*


----------



## arminia

Climate change 'skeptic' concludes world is warming - Manitoba - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan

Certainly the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age. The argument is whether or not it is outside of the normal sawtooth pattern that has repeated itself several times over the past 25,000 years. So far no credible empirical evidence has been presented to support the "I have a Hockey stick so the sky is falling" thesis. The computer models not only fail to predict the future but fail to accurately reflect the past. Ignoring various Ice ages and warm periods to make a computer model generate a hockey stick is in no way sound science.

So why would any one want to tithe half of their income to Al Gore's Church of Climatology and have the rest of their income stolen via a carbon tax????


----------



## Macfury

arminia said:


> Climate change 'skeptic' concludes world is warming - Manitoba - CBC News


We've been discussing Muller and the problems with the BEST study at length--in short, this is not a clincher.


----------



## FeXL

In addition, as a side note, Muller was never a "skeptic"...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> In addition, as a side note, Muller was never a "skeptic"...


Nope. He was "open-minded" and branded a skeptic by a few dimwitted Republicans dragging him before Congress. 

I do find it interesting that any time a so-called skeptic poses a point of agreement, it appears to settle the AGW hypothesis. When an AGW-supporting scientist professes to support some study that conflicts with the theory, that scientist is branded as a shill of the oil companies, or someone tries to prove he made improper advances toward his secretary in 1982.


----------



## FeXL

So, there were some who noted earlier that the Little Ice Age (LIA) wasn't global. Interestingly enough, from Antarctica, and using Steig's  own methodology, comes this evidence to the contrary:



> The researchers obtained new deuterium (δD) data from the Ross Sea region of Antarctica that they acquired via analysis of the top fifty meters of a 180-meter-long ice core that had been extracted from the ice divide of Victoria Lower Glacier in the northernmost McMurdo Dry Valleys, which they converted to temperature data by means of a temperature-isotope relationship developed by Steig et al. (1998) from data obtained from the Taylor Dome ice core record. *This work revealed three climatically-distinct time periods: the last 150 years of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, AD 1140 to 1287), the Little Ice Age (LIA, AD 1288 to 1807), and the Modern Era (ME, AD 1808 to 2000).*


Emphasis mine.

Pretty sure that covers the compleat globe.

Next?


----------



## FeXL

Jeff ID makes three salients points about the BEST results: Considered Critique of Berkeley Temp Series



> 1 – Chopping of data is excessive.
> 
> 2 – UHI effect.
> 
> 3 – Confidence intervals.


Jeff's biggest concern seems to be the lack of UHI evidence in BEST's results:



> The non-detection of UHI by Berkley is NOT a sign of a good quality result considering the amazing detail that went into Surfacestations by so many people. A skeptical scientist would be naturally concerned by this and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say the least that the authors aren’t more concerned with the Berkley methods. Either surfacestations very detailed, very public results are flat wrong or Berkeley’s black box literal “characterization from space” results are. Someone needs to show me the middle ground here because I can’t find it.


As to the time frame he predicts that these questions will require to be answered?



> Holding of breath is not advised.


----------



## FeXL

Steven Goddard was at his snarky best today, asking (among many other things) why temperature is plunging even as CO2 soars:



> CO2 is rising much faster than expected to record levels, and temperatures have dropped 0.37C since last year - with every single day in 2011 cooler than the same day last year.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hansen foolishly played his La Nina and solar cards last year, so he no longer has those in his hand.


Jim?


----------



## FeXL

Bob Tisdale analyzes output from a climate model hindcast & comes to this conclusion:



> No matter how well the NCAR CCSM4 can simulate certain aspects and processes of global climate, *the fact that it cannot reproduce many portions of the instrument temperature record during the 20thCentury emphasizes failings that call into question its ability to project future global or regional climate change.*


Emphasis mine.

Yup...


----------



## MacDoc

Meanwhile despite wishful thinking of a diminishing few.....the consequences of AGW continue to unfold....



> * Thawing microbes could control the climate *
> 
> 
> 
> 18:00 06 November 2011 by *Michael Marshall*
> For similar stories, visit the *Climate Change* Topic Guide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tundra is awakening _(Image: Steven Kazlowski/Science Faction/Getty)_
> 
> As the Arctic permafrost melts over the coming decades, long-frozen microorganisms will thaw out and start feasting on the soil. The first have already begun to wake up – and early signs are that they will have a major impact on how Earth's climate changes.
> As the Arctic permafrost thaws, runaway global warming may ensue, because the huge amounts of organic carbon the permafrost contains will escape into the atmosphere.
> To find out how the permafrost's microorganisms will respond to a thaw, Janet Jansson of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, and colleagues collected three cores from permafrost soil in central Alaska. Back in the lab, they thawed samples of each core and kept them at 5 °C. For the first two days the melting ice released lots of methane that had been trapped when it formed, but the rate then quickly dropped.
> That's because soil microorganisms thawed out, and although some began making methane that added to the emissions, others consumed it and converted it into carbon dioxide instead. "It's a very rapid response," Jansson says. Her team took samples of DNA from the permafrost as it warmed up, allowing them to track how the microbial population changed.
> Many studies have examined the gases that escape from thawing permafrost, but we knew little about how the microbes within influence the process, says Torben Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. The permafrost ecosystem is almost entirely unexplored. "Most of the microorganisms in permafrost have never been cultivated, and more than 90 per cent are unidentified," Jansson says.
> *Chilly microbes*
> 
> Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, although it does not stay in the atmosphere as long. Jansson says a release of CO2 is still bad news, but preferable to methane.
> It's long been known that methane-munching microorganisms will get to work in thawing permafrost, Christensen says. "At least 50 per cent of the gross production of methane will be oxidised." In other words, consumed.
> The question is, will the methane-eaters be able to consume the bulk of the gas once the permafrost starts melting in a big way? Christensen says that will depend on what happens to the water table. Higher water tables mean more methane and fewer microorganisms to eat it, while lower water tables mean the opposite.
> *No laughing matter*
> 
> Also adding to our worries are indications that thawing permafrost may release large quantities of nitrous oxide – aka laughing gas – which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than methane, and damages the ozone layer into the bargain.
> As the team's permafrost samples thawed they saw no boost in the levels of microbes that produce nitrous oxide reductase, an enzyme that converts nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen. Without this boost, the nitrous oxide could escape.
> Christensen has set up a monitoring system to track greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, and is increasingly tracking nitrous oxide as well as CO2 and methane. "It may be a player," he says.
> Journal reference: _Nature_, DOI: 10.1038/nature10576


Thawing microbes could control the climate - environment - 06 November 2011 - New Scientist


----------



## SINC

So, let me get this straight: "long-frozen microorganisms will thaw out and start feasting on the soil." That statement implies that the microbes were there long ago and became frozen, right? Then it would follow that the temperatures in the Arctic have been this high before, right? Which means it is all part of a natural cycle. RIGHT!


----------



## Macfury

Right you are SINC. Note, however, that the people who once publicly soiled their breeches over CO2 are now attempting to switch gears to methane after their original campaign to hobble western economies failed.


----------



## eMacMan

Here comes the "Fart-axe".


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> As the Arctic permafrost melts over the coming decades, <snip>


So, where is the evidence that the permafrost is melting? Or going to melt? Is that evidence churned out by one of the above mentioned computer models, perchance? The ones that can't figger out the past, let alone guess the future?

I'd provide links showing evidence to the contrary, from satellite land temps to sea surface temps to arctic ice accumulations but you know it all anyway, don't you?

There's nothing quite as solid as a conclusion based on a false premise...


----------



## FeXL

So, there is a paper newly published in _Science_ mag which Willis Eschenbach addresses:



> I was interested in their error bars on this graph. They were using a 1° x 1° grid size, and given the scarcity of observations in many parts of the world, I wondered how they dealt with the uneven spacing of the ground stations, the lack of data, “infilling”, and other problems with the data itself. I finally found the details regarding how they dealt with uncertainty in their SOI. I was astounded by their error estimation procedure, which was unlike any I’d ever seen.


To wit:



> *We do not reflect uncertainty* for our estimates or *attempt statistical tests because...*


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?



> …*all of our input data include some degree of model-based interpolation.* Here we seek only to describe broad regional patterns; more detailed modeling will be required to reflect inherent uncertainty in specific smaller-scale predictions.


Willis notes:



> So … using model based interpolation somehow buys you a climate indulgence releasing you from needing to calculate error estimates for your work? If you use a model you can just blow off all “statistical tests”? When did that change happen? And more to the point, why didn’t I get the memo?


All emphasis from the link.

Solid. Work.

Not...


----------



## FeXL

Anthony talks about BEST, gets an email from Burt Rutan containing data that shows summers are cooler & winters are getting colder across the US.



> I find the fact that summer temperatures were negative in five of 9 regions interesting. But most importantly, the trend for the CONUS for the past 10 years is not flat, but cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> So according the the National Climatic Data Center, it seems clear that for at least the last 10 years, there has been a cooling trend in the Annual mean temperature of the contiguous United States.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Anthony talks about BEST, gets an email from Burt Rutan containing data that shows summers are cooler & winters are getting colder across the US.


Cue the warmists demanding everyone look for the "missing warmth" at the bottom of the ocean or inside their closets. You know, the warmth demonstrated by their models.


----------



## FeXL

Steve McIntyre agrees with a readers' assessment that more than a few errors in data quality exist in BEST:



> In a surprising number of records, the “seasonally adjusted” station data in the Berekely archive contains wildly incorrect data. Gary shows a number of cases, one of which, Longmont 2ESE, outside the nest of climate scientists in Boulder CO, is said to have temperatures below minus 50 deg C in the late fall


His reader notes:



> Of the 39028 sites listed in the data.txt file, arbitrarily counting only sites with 60 months of data or more, 34 had temperature blips of greater than +/- 50 degrees C, 215 greater than +/- 40 C, 592 greater than +/- 30 C, and 1404 greater than +/- 20 C. That is quite a large number of faulty temperature records, considering that this kind of error is something that is so easy to check for. A couple hours work is all it took to find these numbers.
> 
> In the engineering world, this kind of error is not acceptable. It is an indication of poor quality control. Statistical algorithms were run on the data without subsequent checks on the results. Coding errors obviously existed that would have been caught with just a cursory examination of a few site temperature plots. That the BEST team felt the quality of their work, though preliminary, was adequate for public display is disconcerting.


There are also significant location errors:



> Peter O’Neill has spot checked a number of stations, locating numerous stations which are nowhere near their GHCN locations. Peter has notified GHCN of many of these errors. However, with the stubbornness that it is all too typical of the climate “community”, GHCN’s most recent edition (Aug 2011) perpetuated the location errors.


One wonders how much of this would have been caught in Pal, I mean Peer, Review? Preliminary results or not, my faith in BEST is beginning to falter...


----------



## FeXL

*FOIA reveals NASA's Hansen was a paid witness.*

Interestingly enough, his protests on the XL Pipeline seem to have come back to bite Jimmy on the backside...



> "We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends," President Obama famously told Hispanics in a Univision interview before last year's midterm election. And as Dr. James Hansen has just learned, your status as Obama's "friend" or "enemy" can flip fast.
> 
> Hansen, chief of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been a darling of the progressive movement since he first testified on global warming before the Senate in 1988.
> 
> Since that time, Hansen has been a relentless activist for draconian regulations on fossil fuels. This past Sunday, for the second time this year, Hansen was arrested outside the White House protesting against the Keystone XL pipeline.
> 
> But while that activism was accepted while a Republican was in the White House, such behavior simply cannot be tolerated while Obama is in the White House.
> 
> So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta's oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.
> 
> American Tradition Institute director of litigation Chris Horner first filed a FOIA request with NASA for records on Hansen's outside employment in February, but the Obama administration initially fought the request, even litigating the matter in court.
> 
> Then, all of a sudden last Friday, the Justice Department sent Horner the documents he had requested.


Where's the hue & cry from the warmist faction? 

"Somebody was paaaaaaaaaaaid!!!"


----------



## FeXL

Statoil (of MacDoc's favorite socialist country, Norway) is involved in Alberta's oilsands projects. Interestingly enough, the Norwegian gov't has a controlling interest in the company.  In addition, Aker Clean Carbon is bailing on attempts to sequester & capture carbon "because of losses and no sign of improvement".



> Rasmus Hansson of WWF has long accused Norway’s government of being hypocritical, mounting a climate-friendly international profile and campaigning for emissions cuts while allowing Statoil to generate even more emissions, both at home and abroad, and to campaign against measures aimed at preventing climate change. Norway’s oil fund also has been accused of investing in forestry, plantation and mining companies that are destroying rain forests, undermining Norway’s high-profile efforts to save them while failing to make emissions cuts at home.
> 
> Now the government faces another setback in its long-stalled efforts to promote carbon recapture projects. DN reported Friday that leading local firm Aker ASA is writing off its investment in Aker Clean Carbon and may shut down the company, because of losses and no sign of improvement.
> 
> “The market is dead,” Aker chief executive Øyvind Eriksen told DN. “Therefore Aker Solutions is taking its investment as a loss.”


Tsk, tsk...


----------



## FeXL

Some snark from Steven Goddard...

Real Scientist Vs. Hockey Scientist



> A real scientist would look at the right side of this graph and say “_CO2 has shot up but temperatures haven’t. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is pretty close to zero._”
> 
> A hockey scientist would mumble something mindlessly about missing heat in the pipeline, sea level will rise 25 metres, temperatures will go up 7C, malaria will kill the whales, polar bears will mate with penguins, snow will disappear and get deeper, ice will disappear from the Arctic and cover someplace else, Texas drought, Pakistan flood …..


Record Early Ski Opening In British Columbia



> A month ago, Colorado had their record early ski opening at Wolf Creek, after having record late closings during the summer. This is completely consistent with decades of predictions that snow is a thing of the past. It is due to an increase in humidity in British Columbia from the normal 100%, all the way up to 100%.


Coldest Year In Western Greenland Since 1993



> Using GISS data, with Weather Underground filling in the missing holes that Hansen can’t find – Nuuk, Greenland is averaging -1.1C for the year to date. The last year which was colder was 1993.
> 
> So far, November is the coldest on record – going back to 1885.


----------



## FeXL

Nothing to see here...

Just another little paper in the database of over 1000 that gives empirical evidence of the existence of the DACP, LIA, MWP or that:



> (1) there is *nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented* about the warmth of the post-1950 Current Warm Period or CWP, and that (2) it is not surprising that at the *conclusion of what was likely the coldest period of the entire Holocene (the LIA), there would be a significant warming of the globe*, all of which further suggests that (3) there is *no compelling reason to believe that 20th-century warming (which essentially ceased about 15 years ago) is a man-made phenomenon* produced by the burning of coal, gas and oil. Quite to the contrary, the CWP is much more likely to be merely the most recent phase of the natural millennial-scale oscillation of earth's climate that has been shown to be operative throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

It's a sad day down under. The hated Carbon Tax is law...



> And so it came to pass that a small band of the selfish or deluded came to steal the blood, sweat and toil of the many.
> 
> They lied, broke solemn promises, failed to provide evidence, and displayed a singular lack of good-manners. They viciously insulted anyone who disagreed, they hid the models the public were forced to pay for, they gave patrons highly paid jobs to advertize their scheme.
> 
> They speak arrant nonsense as if it is the bleeding obvious: telling us that we will grow rich if we use energy that costs more; that coal miners are to blame for heavy rain; that more taxes will bring investors; that we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pay more than we need to for energy; or that 6.98 billion people will follow the 0.02 billion who lead us on the path to the Land of Stupid. They made prophesies that failed time after time, yet speak on, as if only they have the vision to guide us.
> 
> The polls show the public would not have elected people who wanted to bring in a Carbon Tax. Yet it is law.
> 
> The narcissistic self-anointed activists have overreached, and it will be their undoing.
> 
> “We’re copying the EU” except the EU took $1.50 per capita over 5 years, and we’re taking 250 times as much.


Lying bunch of bastards...


----------



## FeXL

Roger Pielke, Jr asks a question about Chris Mooney's latest book.



> I wonder how well telling half the American populace that they are genetically/psychologically/mentally inferior will communicate?


Your compassionate, intellectual, left...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> It's a sad day down under. The hated Carbon Tax is law.


This will be overturned in the next election. Julia is an idiot.


----------



## FeXL

From Pielke, Sr, fresh off the presses is this new paper with even more evidence (auroras) of natural cycles in our climate.

Highlights:



> ► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.


Very nice...


----------



## FeXL

The abstract of a new paper said to be published soon in _Science_ gives evidence which simultaneously lowers climate sensitivity to CO2 and raises probabilities of same, in opposition to the much vaunted IPCC AR4.




> Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2–4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> The abstract of a new paper said to be published soon in _Science_ gives evidence which simultaneously lowers climate sensitivity to CO2 and raises probabilities of same, in opposition to the much vaunted IPCC AR4.


IOW The sky is not falling and there is no reason to Tithe half your income to Al Gore's Church of Climatology and watch the Banksters bleed off the remainder in the form of Carbon Taxes.


----------



## FeXL

*re: The Australian Carbon Tax*

And so it starts...



> A CHEMICAL company that operates in Prime Minister Julia Gillard's electorate says it will shelve a $1 billion world-class expansion because of the carbon tax.
> 
> With the Senate set to approve the historic climate change policy tomorrow, Coogee Chemicals says it also threatens the long-term sustainability and jobs at the nation's only methanol factory in Laverton North.
> 
> Coogee Chemicals chairman Gordon Martin told the Herald Sun the company had been planning a new $1 billion plant in country Victoria, southern Queensland or in NSW around the seat held by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.
> 
> It would have created 150 high-skilled jobs and export earnings of $14 billion, but Mr Martin said the carbon tax made it "uncompetitive and unviable".
> 
> *"The carbon tax will stop a significant Australian project that would value-add to Australia's abundant gas resource and jeopardise the long-term sustainability of the existing methanol plant at Laverton," he said.*


Bold mine.

I hope this bites Julyar so hard in the backside that she won't even be able to land a job sweeping parliament, let alone leading it...


----------



## FeXL

Pielke Sr. notes that the Pacific Sea Surface Temps paper by David Douglass I posted about previously has been published.

The summary:



> “It is shown that the central Pacific sea surface data consists of two components: NL, a low frequency signal that exhibits the familiar El Niño/La Niña phenomenon and NH, a high frequency signal of one-year period. A surprisingly simple explanation of some of the observed phenomenon comes from an analysis of these signals. In this scenario, a forcing FS of solar origin at a frequency of 1 year−1 exists, which can produce two phase-locked responses: a direct response NH at a frequency of 1 cycle/year and also, because of nonlinear effects, can produce a response NL which may be phase-locked to the 2nd or 3rd subharmonic of FS. At least ten of these subharmonic time segments since 1870 have been identified. *The beginnings or ends of these time segments have a near one-to-one correspondence with the eighteen abrupt climate changes previously reported by Douglass* [18].
> 
> *The well known El Niños of 1973–1974, 1983–1984 and 1997– 1998 are simply a positive cycle of one of the oscillations in particular 3-year period phase-locked segments.* If the climate system is known to be in one of these phase-locked states, *limited predictability is possible*.”


Emphasis mine.

Natural. Cycles.


----------



## FeXL

Steven Goddard asks What Happens If You Put A Battery In Your Flashlight Backwards?



> It doesn’t work. The batteries have to be lined up positive to negative.
> 
> Energy flow is driven by differences in energy, not absolute energy. This is true for all forms of energy. Heat flows from hot to cold. Wind blows from high pressure to low pressure. Rocks fall from high potential energy to low potential energy. A rock will not fall on flat ground, no matter how high the elevation (potential energy) is.


Straightforward, no?

Now, on warmist squirming, changing the story, moving goalposts, that's what we said but not what we meant, etc.



> Global warming theory tells us that the jet stream should be staying further north. Thus we should get fewer cold fronts, less snow and less violent weather. That is why the IPCC forecast less snow.
> 
> Recent claims that they expected more snow due to global warming are not only false and dishonest, but just plain stupid. It shows that the claimant should never have passed high school, much less have been given a PhD.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> And so it starts...
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> I hope this bites Julyar so hard in the backside that she won't even be able to land a job sweeping parliament, let alone leading it...


More on the Australian folly here:

Heavens mock us as the folly begins | Herald Sun


----------



## FeXL

Bob Tisdale details the observational data he has proving, once again, that climate models don't have a clue. Lengthy, good graphs, very informative.

Conclusion?



> This post clearly illustrates that John Nielsen-Gammon failed to consider that climate models prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 have little to no basis in reality. When one considers the significant differences between the observed Sea Surface Temperature anomaly variations and those hindcast/projected by climate models, the models provide no support for his conclusion that most of the rise in Surface Temperatures, globally and regionally, was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
> 
> This post also clearly illustrated that “The models’ difficulty in simulating the statistics of ENSO itself is”…NOT…“a red herring.” The process of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation was responsible for most of the rise in global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past thirty years.


----------



## FeXL

News article about an older paper giving further evidence of Normal. Climate. Cycles. in Greenland.



> A Norwegian research team three years ago announced it had found important evidence of an ice-free Arctic during that first Holocene warming. “The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000–7000 years ago,” says Astrid Lysa, one of the Norwegian geologists.
> 
> Dr. Lysa and Eiliv Larsen, of the Geological Survey of Norway, studied beach ridges on the northern shores of Greenland. They found distinct, very long beach ridges, running parallel to the beach, which dated back to 6000–7000 years BC. They say these ridges were formed when there was wave activity and occasional storms—on a big body of water with little or no ice. The research team says pack ice ridges are shorter, narrower and more irregular. The Norwegian team says the sea levels haven’t been as high since, because the ice hasn’t all melted since. Otherwise, new waves would have washed the older ridges away.
> 
> If the Arctic was nearly ice-free in the first Holocene Warm Period, did the seals disappear? Did the polar bears starve? If they had, there’d be no polar bears up there today, since they aren’t migratory.


----------



## FeXL

OK, this next post comes from a blood sucking lawyer. Namely Dr. David Schnare, lead attorney in the UVA-Mann email case, who wants access to Michael "Two Minutes For High Sticking" Mann's emails. Bearing that in mind, he is also a former academic scientist and offers this:



> The facts of the case include that these emails are more than five years old; that they contain none of the email attachments, no computer code, no data, no draft papers, no draft reports; that the university has already released over 2,000 of them, some academic and some not; that when they were written Mann knew there was no expectation of privacy; that all emails sent or received by a federal addressee are subject to the federal FOIA, and many have already been released; and that nearly 200 of the emails the University refuses to release were released by a whistleblower...


In addition:



> The second reason we bring this case is to defend science and the scientific process. Anyone who has taken a high school science laboratory course knows that the research or experimental process begins with recording what was done and what was observed. As UVA explains in its Research Policy RES-002, “The retention of accurately recorded and retrievable results is of the utmost importance in the conduct of research.” Why? “To enable an investigator to reproduce the steps taken.”
> 
> *Currently public emails show Mann was unable to provide even his close colleagues data he used in some of his papers and could not remember which data sets he used*. A query to UVA shows the university, who owns “the data and notebooks resulting from sponsored research,” had no copy of Mann’s logbooks and never gave him permission to take them with him when he left UVA.


(big surprise)

In conclusion:



> As a former academic scientist, I understand the need and desire to keep close the research work while it is underway. Both I and the university have a proprietary interest in that work, while it is ongoing. Once completed, however, I have a duty to share not only the data and methods with the academic community, I also have a duty to share the mistakes, the blind alleys, the bad guesses and the work and theories abandoned.
> 
> Science advances knowledge by demonstrating that a theory is wrong. All the mistakes, blind alleys and bad guesses are valuable, not just to the scientist himself, but to his colleagues. By knowing what did not work, one does more than simply save time. One gains direction. One mistake revealed often opens a vista of other ideas and opportunities. The communications between scientists during a period of research are the grist for the next generation of work. Ask any doctoral candidate or post-doc how important being part of the process is on the direction of their future research.


What is Mann trying to hide?


----------



## FeXL

OK, the International Pack of Climate Crooks has leaked a draft of an "Extreme Weather" report (all together now, ooooooo, ahhhhhhhh), due this Friday.

While my feelings about the IPCC have not changed for the better (especially in light of Donna Framboise's new book), it seems that, at least for the present, they may be getting the science right. From the BBC's Richard Black:



> And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: *"Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".
> *
> It's also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we've seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions: "Increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence).
> 
> *"Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."*


Emphasis from Pielke Jr., who notes:



> None of this is a surprise to me, and it won't be to regular readers of this blog. After working for more than a decade on this issue with many colleagues around the world, it is indeed satisfying to see the climate science community on the brink of finally get this topic right, after botching it at almost every previous opportunity.


One more from Black:



> It's possible - no, it's "very likely" - that the IPCC draft will be amended as the week progresses, and presumably the governments represented at the Climate Vulnerable Forum will be asking their delegates to inject a greater sense of urgency.


We'll see what the finished report looks like come Friday.

I'm not holding my breath...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> OK, this next post comes from a blood sucking lawyer. Namely Dr. David Schnare, lead attorney in the UVA-Mann email case, who wants access to Michael "Two Minutes For High Sticking" Mann's emails. Bearing that in mind, he is also a former academic scientist and offers this:
> 
> 
> What is Mann trying to hide?


Perhaps a hockey stick that's been shattered beyond recognition???


----------



## FeXL

Some hump day snark from the Master...

Hansen Not Hiding The Decline In His Credibility



> Dr. Hansen says that 2010 was a La Nina year with very low solar activity, which left him with no options to explain the fall in temperatures in 2011.
> 
> So true to form, he made up some crap about Chinese aerosols. Apparently the Chinese increased their pollution output on January 1, 2011 by a huge amount – enough to cool the entire planet by almost four tenths of a degree.
> 
> There must be an opaque cloud over China this year, which is why Al Gore​ says the Chinese are leading the push to clean energy.


Sea Level Continues To Plummet



> New data is available, and Envisat continues to show sea level declining at a rate of more than 5mm/year since the beginning of 2010. This is due to the record melting in Greenland over the last two years that we keep hearing about – which is filling up the oceans with anti-water.


----------



## FeXL

More snark, I mean, smiles for you. First three from Steven Goddard, the last from The Daily Bayonet, his weekly "Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up".

Sea Level To Rise 250 mm In New York During the Next 15 Years



> 1,500 mm of seal level rise by 2080 due to melting of sea ice.
> 
> ...
> 
> That is 10X higher than the worst case sea level rise claims being made now, and sea ice melting doesn’t affect sea level. The combined IQ of these people can’t be higher than a cockroach.


Tell ya what. Here's another little home-based science experiment. Hit your liquor cabinet, grab a bottle of your favorite hard stuff. Get two tumblers from the cupboard & pour a couple fingers into each. Put as much ice in the first as you normally do, put a single ice cube in the second. Pull your trusty black felt pen from the junk drawer, mark the level of the liquid in the second. Start drinking from the first. If you finish the first before the cube is melted in the second, congratulations! Help yourself to another. When the ice cube is completely melted in the second tumbler, see if the liquid level has moved, either up or down.

I'm not going to give the answer away. I'll just remind you that Arctic ice is resting on the surface of the sea, not on land (like, say, Antarctica).

Cooking The Sea Level Data



> John Cook claims that sea level is going up 3.3 mm per year.
> 
> ...
> 
> The most sophisticated Earth monitoring satellite, Envisat shows one tenth of that – at 0.33m mm/year, with sea level actually lower now than when it was launched.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is comparable to what tide gauges show. That isn’t the data alarmists want to see, so they paint Envisat nearly invisible yellow and don’t normalise the Y-axis properly.


Cooking The Sea Level Data Part 2



> CU’s sea level map is shown below. It shows 10 mm/year sea level rise north of Australia.
> 
> ...
> 
> Below is their error map (which no longer seems to be available on their site.) Note that the error north of Indonesia is nearly as great as the trend. In other words, their sea level claims are complete nonsense, even before they add the completely fraudulent GIA adjustment.
> 
> ...
> 
> Tide gauges in Northern Australia show little or no increase in sea level. The sea level numbers being passed off as science by CU make Hansen’s data look first rate. CU shows 9mm/year at Booby Island, while tide gauges show a small decline.


AGW is business. Big business. And they can't get dummies to support them if there is no fearmongering...

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up

Enjoy, gentle worker.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Julyar's fanf'ingtastic Carbon Tax, which makes MacDoc sweat like a schoolboy on prom night & wish for southern climes. 

Funny thing, that. I wish MacDoc for southern climes, too...

George Orwell, anyone?



> The whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government's clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.
> 
> On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
> 
> It says it has been "directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price."
> 
> Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
> 
> "Beat the Carbon Tax - Buy Now" or "Buy now before the carbon tax bites" are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, "you should be very cautious about making these types of claims".
> 
> There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that "choose to link your price increases to a carbon price".


Just shaddup and payup.

Nice.



> *Since he's dropped in for 26 hours, US President Barack Obama could explain to his new best friend Julia Gillard why he decided not to impose a carbon tax on his ailing economy. Or why Canada has prudently ruled out a carbon scheme, and New Zealand is scaling its back and China and India continue to sit on their hands.* Durban will be fun.


Yes. Yes, it will.


----------



## eMacMan

Just had to post this one.

RayStevens - The Global Warming Song - YouTube


----------



## MacDoc

Could name a few here suffering from the complex



> *Why do people reject science?*
> 
> Why do some of us reject consensus on a whole range of scientific findings? As Professor Stephan Lewandowsky explains, it often comes down to the way we look at the world.





> Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals.
> Why?
> Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate.
> *To manage that threat to an HI worldview, the fundamental laws of physics underlying climate science must be denied. *The greenhouse properties of CO2 may have been known for 150 years, but those indubitable physical facts cannot compete with the need to protect free enterprise from the threats posed by socialism, communism, Nazism, Green "watermelons", a corrupt IPCC, Greenpeace, the all-powerful solar-energy lobby, to name but a few of the imaginary monsters and enemies that are awakened by the peer-reviewed evidence.


more



Why do people reject science? › Opinion (ABC Science)


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, why post another of these lame analyses that begin with the premise that the Warmists are correct? Your pet theories are being taken down peg by peg in this thread as the AGW position is assailed.


> To manage that threat to an HI worldview, the fundamental laws of physics underlying climate science must be denied.


So tell me: since YOU brought it up,_ which_ fundamental law of physics is being denied? It's an easy question and it must have a simple answer.

I'm waiting for it. And don't give me crickets this time...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, an *opinion* piece. Part of _a series on Australian science._ Isn't that the erstwhile lovely continent that just got screwed over by a lying lefty politician?

Well, that settles it, then. 

I truly apologize. I'm sorry for having ever doubted the SOB's.

When did you say you were leaving, MacDoc?


----------



## FeXL

So, wanna know who benefits from AGW scare tactics? Follow the money.

In the last 5 years James Hansen has netted $1.6 million above & beyond his tidy taxpayer funded salary from NASA. Nice gig, if you can stomach it...

However, in addition to missing many of his prognostications regarding flooding, temps, etc., it seems that Jimmy has failed to report some of his income.

As noted in the comments, I guess rules are just for little people...


----------



## FeXL

More on "it sucks to be little people".

Make 29% On Your Money, Guaranteed! 



> You can see why the AGW supporters’ heads are exploding as the Durban climate party approaches. It is obvious from the chart that years and years of subsidies and tax breaks and IPCC reports and various urgings by well-meaning but clueless pundits and billions in wasted taxpayer dollars have not succeeded in getting renewables up to even 3% of the total electricity generated. Less than 3%. It must drive them round the twist to contemplate their stunning lack of success at making water flow uphill.
> 
> ...
> 
> Finally, the total subsidies for this plant were $1,430 million dollars. So this single “successful” green project will cost the consumer three times what Solyndra cost. And in return … we get energy priced at 50% above the market. Thanks, Energy Department, glad to know you have my back.
> 
> ...
> 
> Here is the problem with Energy Secretary Chu. His failures are bad enough. But his successes are lethal.


Hello, Ontario?


----------



## FeXL

So, few weeks back when the BEST results hit the intertoobs, Jeff Id (the Air Vent) noted that he had issues with the "Jackknife Method" utilized in one particular formula and offered a critique. He hasn't received a response & elucidates his concerns on the methodology.

Summary?



> Why do I bring it up again if it is potentially a small issue? Because the paper is in error. This isn’t as important as a potential bias created by the scalpel method which could very easily skew results, but it is a defined error in the usage of the Jackknife formula in a $600,000 reenactment of the global average temeprature from surface stations. The entire CI section of BEST needs to be redone and I’m not sure how to do it. There are a few more points I’ve discovered which are worth talking about as I hope to expand the detail of this post in the future. If anyone can find any errors in what I’ve done below or has anything to check with the code, let me know your thoughts.


An error is an error, no matter how small. Conclusions based on error prone methodology are error prone conclusions.


----------



## FeXL

Steven getting his argument (and his snark) on.

Jason Sea Level Data Is Useless



> In other words, the Jason reported trend is is completely broken and useless, which is why it is the accepted standard for the IPCC and other alarmists. Like Mann’s hockey stick, they switched horses in midstream – because tide gauges didn’t support funding.


_

Working Both Sides Of The Sea Level Equation



> In China, aquifers are dropping 20 feet per year. Alarmists of course have ignored the science, because all they care about is using CO2 as a prop to shove their socialist vision down everyone else’s throats.
> 
> But now that sea level is declining, they suddenly are interested in how much water there is on land.


_

Colorado Temperatures Dropping At A Rate Of 20 Degrees Per Century



> Since the turn of the century, Colorado year-to-date temperatures have been dropping at a rate of 20F per century. This explains why so many scientists in Boulder are worried about global warming. They are freezing their asses off.


_

What About Shemp?



> Curly – Permanent Drought In Australia
> Moe – Too Much Rain In Australia Causing Sea Level To Fall
> Larry – 75 Metres Of Sea Level Rise
> 
> In summary, the permanent drought in Australia is producing too much rain, which is causing sea level to rapidly fall to catastrophically high levels.


_

Pachauri : IPCC 2035 Estimate Was Only Off By 5 Years

Anybody recall Glacier-gate?



> So most of the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2040 to 2050, rather than all the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2035.


Wasn't the original excuse for the error that it was 2305 misread?



> This is what happens when scumbags aren’t thrown out the first time round. They come back and do it again.


----------



## Macfury

I still want MacDoc to explain which fundamental law of physics is being overlooked by "deniers." Should be a slam dunk, but all I'm getting is static.


----------



## FeXL

Further to my week old post on Bob Tisdale's analysis of 17 & 30 year sea surface temp anomalies from Anthony Watts...

This is the original article.

Pielke Sr comments on the article here.

Tamino doesn't approve of the analysis but makes no effort to contact Tisdale & actually discuss the issues. Instead, he is merely insulting and distracts from the issues. From Peilke, Sr:

Tamino Disparages Bob Tisdale’s Analysis Of Model Predicted Trends In SSTs

Typical warmist modus operandi, even here, MacDoc. No desire to engage or discuss, merely to belittle...


Tisdale responds:



> I’ve highlighted a portion of his graph in Figure 1 that he obviously overlooked. Look closely at the significant rise in trends of the HADISST data in the early 20th century, and then the equally impressive decline in trends. Do any of the GISS model runs produce the “Multidecadal Variations In Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Comparable To Those Observed” during the early part of the 20th century? No. So thank you for confirming one of my points, Tamino. It also contradicts your nonsensical statement, “In fact they show variability comparable to that shown by the observed data.”


Further:



> Tamino also goes into a detailed discussion of how the model mean can obscure any multidecadal variations in the individual model runs. But note that he doesn’t use the actual model runs. He uses “Artificial Models”. Refer to Figure 2. Artificial models?


Wait. Wha...?



> Why doesn’t Tamino use the real models instead of artificial ones? Because then Tamino would have to show you that the majority of the models do not have multidecadal variations in trend that are similar in timing, frequency, and magnitude of the observation-based SST data.


So, lemme git this straight...

Real models suck at hindcasting, they suck at forecasting and, in order to make them produce output anything like empirical evidence, you create data from "artificial models"?

Is that the thrust here?

And warmists wonder why the hypothesis they support is suffering death by a thousand cuts? But...but...but...THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! WE'VE MOVED ON TO LOCAL CAUSAL VARIATIONS!

Horse****...

Tisdale can agree with some things Tamino notes:



> Tamino makes a few statements in his post that I will be happy to agree with:
> 
> *There are definitely problems with the models.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Certainly the models need more work.*


Gee, do ya think? 

(with respects to Gerry...)


----------



## FeXL

The final draft of the IPCC report on "Extreme Weather" (all together now again, ooooooo, ahhhhhhhh) appeared with no surprises.

Pielke, Jr notes:



> Most importantly, the IPCC should be congratulated for delivering a message that cannot have been comfortable to deliver. The IPCC has accurately reflected the scientific literature on the state of attribution with respect to extreme events -- it is not there yet, not even close, for events such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, bushfires and on other topics there remain enormous uncertainties. That is just the way that it is, so that is indeed what the IPCC should have reported.
> 
> The IPCC has already been criticized by those who apparently would have preferred a less accurate message that hyped up the science, such as Joe Romm and Stefan Rahmstorf. I do agree with Rahmstorf that the IPCC should release its full report at the same time as it releases the SPM, but he knows as well as I what the literature says on this subject.
> 
> More generally, the reaction to the report has fallen out perfectly predictably. Those wanting to hype the report focus exclusively on its predictions of the future whereas those wanting to downplay it focus on the uncertainties. There is something here for everyone!


Peilke, Jr makes observations on a change between draft & final and on a comment left on Romm's blog by one of the report authors which, curiously (snort), hasn't been posted yet...


----------



## FeXL

Well, light up the fireworks & pop the champagne corks. Michael "Two Minutes For High Sticking" Mann has done writ a book. It covers the work of Working Groups One, Two, and Three of the IPCC, who we already know due to Donna's book and more than a few major -Gates, conduct impeccable, nay, inscrutable research...

The review (keep your barf bag nearby).

A few highlights:



> The scientific information leaps off the page, with vivid images and a multitude of maps


 (gag me with a hockey stick)



> A key element is accurate information debunking the most commonly held myths about climate change, including the ideas that carbon dioxide is causing the holes in the ozone, that the increase in carbon dioxide is the result of natural cycles, and that our atmosphere is not warming at all.


 ('cause gawd knows all of us skeptics think ozone holes is caused by CO2, all CO2 is natchural and there ain't been no warming nowhere...)

A statement I can agree with:



> it would also make a good beginning for an introductory course in the subject for students *not majoring in science*.


Oh, the ironing...


----------



## FeXL

Time to call the hounds back in, we found the missing caribou...

Remember this?



> From wildlife spectacle to wildlife mystery, the decline of the caribou — called reindeer in the Eurasian Arctic — has biologists searching for clues, and finding them. They believe the insidious impact of climate change, its tipping of natural balances and disruption of feeding habits, is decimating a species that has long numbered in the millions and supported human life in Earth’s most inhuman climate.


The Daily Bayonet skewers another one:



> Stories like that were everywhere, all based on the fact that the huge Beverly herd didn’t show up at its breeding grounds as expected. Scientists rushed to blame global warming, even as the locals told them the herd hadn’t gone away, but had simply moved. But what do pesky elders know when there’s global warming funding to be had?


Apparently quite a bit:



> A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound — pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be.


Sonuvagun. Who knew? (for the thick amongst you, that's a rhetorical question...)

He notes:



> If there is another extinction event coming, rest assured that the only reason to blame mankind is because someone, somewhere needs a study funded.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

*Climategate 2.0*

From Jeff Id of the Air Vent:



> It happened again. I woke up to find a link from FOIA.org on a thread. Thousands of emails unlocked with 220,000 more hidden behind a password. Despite the smaller size of the Air Vent due to my lack of time, there were twenty five downloads before I saw it once. As before, there are some very nice quotes and clarifications from the consensus. Below is a guest post in the form of a readme file from the FOIA.org group. – Jeff


Of course, these are all just snippets taken completely out of context.

No, really...


----------



## FeXL

Further to the above (from Anthony Watts), "Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:"



> <3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
> 
> <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help *the cause* to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
> 
> <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help *the cause* a bit.
> 
> <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping *the cause*
> 
> <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
> process
> 
> <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
> task.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

More from JoNova:



> <1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
> 
> As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, *I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)*
> 
> <1577> Jones:
> 
> [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. *I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
> station data.*
> 
> <4085> Jones:
> 
> GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
> 
> Wils:
> 
> *What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]*
> 
> <1485> Mann:
> 
> *the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.*
> 
> Bradley:
> 
> *I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.*
> 
> Cook:
> 
> *I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
> *
> Barnett:
> 
> [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. *I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer*
> 
> <1982> Santer:
> 
> there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.
> 
> <5111> Pollack:
> 
> *But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
> *
> <5096> Cook:
> 
> A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. *So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.*


Bold from Joanne.

The most telling one for me right now is the blurb about (un)Real Climate...

Oh, and Wils...what if? <snort>


----------



## SINC

Remember that huge Caribou herd that disappeared in the arctic due to global warming? Yeah, those Caribou.

Whoops! No one told the Caribou about global warming . . .

Scientists find herd of 'lost' caribou in Saskatchewan | CTV News


----------



## eMacMan

I see the Chicken Little Crowd is now touting violent weather as the new cowbell for Global Warming. The trouble with this approach is none of their predictions are half as scary as say slipping into a new mini-ice age. On top of that there is ample empirical evidence of violent weather patterns long before the industrial age.

Obviously Bradley, Hanson, Mann, et al realize that the end of the CO2 scam is at hand, and with it an end to all those cushy grants. I guess for them the sky really is falling.


----------



## SINC

*And more emails too: "Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline."*

Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## FeXL

*Further on Climategate 2.0*


^
This is every skeptic in the world this morning.

Oh, and that whooshing sound you heard yesterday? That was the sphincter of every warmist the planet over slamming shut.

I don't even know where to begin...

I guess I'll start with Real Climate's dissing of the 5000+ released emails as "two year old turkey" (h/t Willis Eschenbach). Well boys, I've got a clew what two year old turkey smells like and, by comparison, that turkey smells like fresh perfume.

Next I'll move on to MacDoc's continuous accusations of me turning the GHG threads political. I've challenged him to illustrate exactly where I've done that, to no response. On the other hand, the warmists have done exactly that & wonder about the fallout.

I'm going to just list a bunch of links, maybe give a quick description. It doesn't take long to detect the arrogance of these so-called "professionals".

CLIMATEGATE 2 Sensational Email Release: Durban Conference Derailed
_

Phil Jones and Tom Wigley – calling a scientist “the jerk” over his UHI discoveries in California



> The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.


Nice...
_

Mr. David Palmer Explains The Problem

Willis finds he's mentioned in the emails and explains his fruitless efforts at attempts to access data under FOIA.



> _Gents,
> 
> My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he wants the raw station data; *we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?* Our letter stated:
> 
> “We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series.”
> 
> Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but I’m not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. Eschenbach - *we’ve said we don’t have data sources, he says the external websites don’t have them, so who does?* Are we back to the NMS’s? [National Meteorological Services -w.] I am happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on formally….
> 
> Cheers, Dave_


However, Phil Jones ain't playing that game:



> Dave,
> 
> …
> 
> *I do not want to make the raw data available*, as it will involve more and more requests. We make the gridded data available and that should be enough.


Let me note something here. FOIA requests are not optional. By law, they must be answered to. Period.
_

Climategate 2.0 email: 'No one can really forecast weather, much less climate, at this point'

Hell's bells, even the warmists admit it!
_

Climategate team 'spring cleans' emails not specified in FOIA requests, advises against use of email



> *I assume that you didn't
> delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
> illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
> clean of various other emails that hadn't been requested, as part of your
> regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
> it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
> avoid it being misunderstood.
> 
> The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
> EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
> email. It's such a shame that the skeptics' vexatious use of this
> legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
> as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
> then we may need to avoid it.
> 
> 
> I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
> routine of deleting old emails!*


_

Mann admits deleting all criticisms from 'McIntyre and his minions' on RealClimate



> Meanwhile, I suspect you've both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre.
> Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response---if any---is necessary and appropriate. *So far, we've simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate*.


So, if you can't defend your point, you simply remove any/all opposition to it...
_

Jones to Mann: Delete my email after reading about demands to make your hockey stick methods available



> Mike,
> This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please !
> 
> ...
> 
> PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray [Bradley] and Malcolm


_

Briffa advises colleague not to let Michael Mann 'push you (us) beyond what we know is right'



> *Taken together, the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means.
> 
> ...
> 
> do not let Susan (or Mike [Mann]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right.*


_

Climategate 2.0: Phil Jones finds a way around FOIA requests, says his email will self-destruct in 10 seconds

A joke? Absolutely. Just goes to show state of mind, a continuous thread throughout this whole fabric of deception.
_

Bishop Hill highlights a few quotes from the emails.
_

Junkscience does the same.
_

Climate Depot, too.
_

Quark Soup, as well.
_

Peilke Jr talks about a (prescient) paper of his submitted for IPCC AR4 which never made final publication.



> Long time readers will recall that in 2004 and 2005 (before Katrina), I led an interdisciplinary effort to review the literature on hurricanes and global warming. The effort resulted in a peer-reviewed article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (here in PDF).
> 
> That paper, despite being peer-reviewed and standing the test of time (as we now know), was ignored by the relevant part of the IPCC 2007 that dealt with extreme events. Thanks to the newly released emails from UEA (hacked, stolen, donated, or whatever) we can say with certainty why that paper was excluded from the IPCC 2007 report Chapter 3 which discussed hurricanes and climate change. Those various reviews associated with the release of the UEA emails that concluded that no papers were purposely kept out of the IPCC may want to revisit that particular conclusion.


_

Jeff Id analyzes a particular email exchange re: Mann's treemometer data. Interestingly enough, the very same questions that skeptics ask about the series are asked here:



> What caught my attention about this email set is that Jeff [Severinghaus] makes the same arguments that we evil skeptics make about paleo reconstructions. Non-linearity, loss of sensitivity and the fact that if proxies aren’t tracking temp in the modern era, how can we assume they track historic temps?


_

Climategate 2.0: Silence of the alarmists



> They knew the hockey stick was junk science but kept it a secret.
> 
> From the Climaetgate 2.0 collection, Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes,
> 
> _In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockeytick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because *I will not cause damage for climate science.*_


_
_

And, just in case you think this is all work & no fun...

Phil Jones On The Magic Of Coal




According to Dr. Phil, the warming from 1915 to 1945 was due to the Sun and volcanoes. The subsequent cooling until 1975 was caused by burning coal – which produces aerosols. The subsequent warming until 1998 was caused by burning coal which produces CO2, and the subsequent cooling is again caused by burning Chinese coal which produces aerosols.

Click to expand...

Kevin Tells Mikey : “natural variability is not an explanation”




On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them: *Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation.* What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go?

...

*If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.*

Click to expand...

Climategate 2.0: the Warmists' seven stages of grief




Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

Repeat as needed

Click to expand...

<snort>_


----------



## FeXL

Couple analyses by the NIPCC, on ~60 year North Atlantic Oscillation and (ugh) models.

The Case for a Quasi Sixty-Year North Atlantic Temperature Oscillation



> Mazzarella and Scafetta say their findings and analysis indicate that "the global climate likely presents a ~60-year oscillation since at least 1700," and that "this natural oscillation was in its warm phase during the period 1970-2000 and has likely largely contributed to the global warming during this period," which finding, in their words, "confirms a quasi 60-year cycle in the climate system that further confirms the result of Loehle and Scafetta (2011)," i.e., that "*the climate models used by the IPCC have significantly overestimated the anthropogenic effect on climate since 1950 by three to four times." And it should also be noted in this regard, that the several real-world or "natural" experiments of Idso (1998) suggest that even the anthropogenic-induced warming component of Loehle and Scafetta is likely too large.*
> 
> Ever-accumulating real-world evidence continues to suggest that the historical warming of the past century or more has had little to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions and is likely little more than the natural recovery of the earth from the naturally-induced global chill of the Little Ice Age (Idso, 1988).


Predicting Future Climate: How Good Are Today's Models?



> The two University of Leeds (UK) researchers found that tropical 20th-century warming was too large and Arctic amplification too low in the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.1 model, the Meteorological Research Institute CGCM232a model, and the MIROC3(hires) model "because of unrealistic forcing distributions," and they determined that "the Arctic amplification in both National Center for Atmospheric Research models is unrealistically high because of high feedback contributions in the Arctic compared to the tropics." In addition, they report that "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," noting that "the simulated trend is too low, particularly in the tropics, even allowing for internal variability, suggesting there is too little positive forcing or too much negative forcing in the models at this time."
> 
> *So how good are today's climate models? "Good enough for government work,"* as the saying goes, but apparently still lacking in many aspects of their ability to faithfully reproduce the climate of the past, which renders their ability to accurately portray the climate of the future rather questionable.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Out of town for a few days covering sports.

If you want some more light & entertaining reading, I suggest Anthony Watts & Jeff Id.


----------



## MacDoc

There are a few dinos that still don't get including Herr Harpo and his motley crew...

the IEA will be a bit harder for them to ignore.....




> *Amid dire warming warnings, Canada is MIA*
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> Published Saturday, Nov. 19, 2011 2:00AM EST
> Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 9:00AM EST
> 
> Later this month, the countries of the world will gather in Durban, South Africa, to discuss climate change. The omens for progress are poor; the forecast for global warming is worse.
> 
> So says the International Energy Agency, hardly a left-wing pinko organization but, rather, one that collects and analyzes information for energy-importing industrialized countries.
> 
> *The IEA minced no words. “On planned policies, rising fossil-fuel energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change.”*
> 
> _“Irreversible and potentially catastrophic” are words not written lightly. They don’t come from the United Nations, the favourite target of the climate-change deniers and skeptics. They don’t pour forth from the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. Rather, they come from the blue chip of energy analysts, relied on by government and industry alike around the world._
> 
> The IEA, charged with tracking energy use, reported that, in 2010, emissions of carbon dioxide – the principal greenhouse gas – rose by 5.3 per cent. Little is being done, says the IEA, to “quench the world’s increasing thirst for energy in the long term.” Demand for oil, natural gas and coal continues to rise.
> 
> If these trends continue, the world will blow past the target most scientists – and the world’s governments – have said must be achieved if climate change is not to produce negative consequences. That target is a rise of 2 degrees Celsius. Ideally, greenhouse-gas emissions should be reduced sharply so warming doesn’t occur. But anything above that increase, say scientists, would bring on a series of very undesirable events.
> 
> The IEA, however, says the trends of energy use and the failure to begin reducing greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide has put the planet on a trajectory to a “long-term global temperature increase of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius.” Such an increase would lead to the “irreversible and potentially catastrophic” changes the IEA is warning about.
> 
> It is sometimes said that the world is awash in oil. Not so, says the IEA. Global oil demand will rise slowly to 99 million barrels a day; conventional oil supply will be 69 million barrels. Part of the gap will be filled with what are called “unconventional sources,” such as oil from the tar sands in Canada. The peril there is that extracting this kind of oil, using today’s technologies, is more polluting per barrel than conventional oil. More greenhouse-gas emissions, in other words.
> 
> Coal is everywhere abundant – with reserves estimated to be a trillion tonnes, or 150 years of current production. Most of the increase in coal production and use will come in the developing world, especially China and India. Coal is the baddy of baddies as a source of greenhouse gases, and it accounted for nearly half the increase in global energy use over the past decade.
> 
> Renewables such as wind and solar will make small gains in the total energy mix. They need large subsidies, and critics have a field day assailing those subsidies. What critics forget, but the IEA reminds us, is that fossil fuels around the world are estimated to receive subsidies of $400-billion a year.
> 
> Moreover, the pollution from burning fossil fuels is not captured in their pricing, which constitutes another kind of hidden, huge subsidy. Include the price of pollution in the retail price of fossil fuel energy and the playing field with other energy sources would be made somewhat more even.
> 
> At Durban, once again, Canada will be excluded from any serious deliberations. Canada is widely considered a climate-change miscreant. Nobody who knows the climate-change file in Canada or abroad believes the federal government’s intention to reduce emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 from 2005 levels.
> 
> So Canada’s delegates will try to keep the lowest possible profile in Durban, while the government’s spin machine will be in high gear talking up a target no one believes will be achieved, and fighting off complaints about this country’s poor record by pointing fingers at others.
> 
> *Meantime, according to the IEA, if the world stays on its current course, there’ll be dire long-term consequences*.


Amid dire warming warnings, Canada is MIA - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> There are a few dinos that still don't get including Herr Harpo and his motley crew...


Is Stephen Harper German, MacDoc?

I will say I'm really proud of Stephen Harper at moments like this, when he prevents Canada from steering itself off a cliff over the manufactured Global Warming Crisis.

Note the wording in that sad little article:



> Little is being done, says the IEA, to “quench the world’s increasing thirst for energy in the long term.”


They let it slip. We shouldn't be consuming "energy" at ll. You can see how little this has to do with CO2 and how much it has to do with social engineering and an anti-industrial philosophy.

I deplore industrial subsidies of any kind, but if they must go somewhere, give them to oil and gas, which have proven track records in providing our energy needs.

No comment on the release of those further damning e-mails, MacDoc? And did you ever decided which Law of Thermodynamics the "deniers" are ignoring?

Thought not.


----------



## SINC

And about time too . . .

Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month | CTV News


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> And about time too . . .
> 
> Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month | CTV News


Bravo! About time!


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> And about time too . . .
> 
> Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month | CTV News


Yep King Harpo's spendthrift habits will bankrupt Canada fast enough without diverting $50,000,000,000 or so taxpayer dollars to Al Gore's Church of Climatology.


----------



## FeXL

When the second batch of emails hit the web, I indicated just how much I was smiling. Over the course of the last few days, further reading changed that jubilation first to silent contemplation and now I'm just pissed right off.

The whole pack of lying, cheating, thieving, stealing, self-serving SOB's out to be taken out to a small arctic ice floe & left as polar bear fodder.

Once again, I know not where to begin and this time I'm not even going to editorialize. Just read and shake your head...

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows

Climategate 2 email – Rob Wilson replicates McIntyre & McKitrick – produces hockey sticks out of noise

The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident

An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU

Uh oh, “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”

Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic and worked to supress dissenting science

Briffa asks for email deletion becuase FOIA is a “time sink” and an “inconvenient subsequent distraction”

Climategate 2.0 email – Mike Mann characterized as “crazy” over MWP and “serious enemy”

SST data “so unreliable we don’t know GMT for that period”

Why all the cloak and dagger stuff if this is all settled science…?

Pheesiks? We don’t need no steenkin’ pheesiks!

Hide the Decline – Howto

Paleoclimate – Rotten to the core

Provenance of the Decline, a Forensic Analysis

The Right Kind of People

This is only the tip of the iceberg and a very incomplete list. I can't imagine anyone admitting in public that they are a warmist. Unless, of course, you're one of those desperately trying to save your funding.

This is their case? This is what the "theory" of AGW is based upon? This is the "science" they've been screeching about?

And, another 200,000+ (97%) yet unreleased...

(OK, that fact makes me smile again...)


----------



## FeXL

Just an abstract from _Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum_



> Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.


----------



## Macfury

The next big climate conference is already being dubbed the Durbin Dustbin. Looks like it will be a colossal flop!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> The next big climate conference is already being dubbed the Durbin Dustbin. Looks like it will be a colossal flop!


Hey you cannot get much further South than Durban. Obviously the Chicken Little Crowd are getting tired of having snow instead of the sky fall on their "winter" conference.

Anyways this crowd needs to look around. The economic crisis is settling in for a good long visit and most working stiffs simple don't have the funds to tithe to Al Gore. In climates like Canada carbon taxes would have the biggest impact on heating our homes and food prices. Doubling the cost of these will hardly make survival any easier if/when one member of the family finds themselves out of work.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Warmer world is the challenge of a generation*
> 
> * Updated 14:27 01 December 2011 by Michael Marshall and Catherine Brahic
> 
> 
> *The chance to prevent the world warming by 2 °C has gone, but that's no reason to give up fighting for a greener future*
> 
> Editorial: "Durban climate summit must accept degrees of responsibility"
> 
> AS THE latest round of United Nations climate negotiations began in Durban, South Africa, on Monday, expectations could scarcely have been lower. A globally binding deal is further away than ever. That makes considerable warming from climate change inevitable.
> 
> In the last few weeks major reports by the International Energy Agency and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) have concluded that we can still meet the UN's target of limiting warming to 2 °C above preindustrial levels. But climate scientists are far less optimistic. Many say the chance to avoid a 2 °C rise has been and gone, and we must now prepare for the damage to come.
> 
> To have a fair chance of keeping below 2 °C, global emissions would have to peak by 2020 or so before falling. There's no sign of that:
> 
> they made their biggest-ever leap in 2010. Many countries promised to cut their emissions at the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, but modelling carried out by climate consultancy Ecofys, based in the Netherlands, shows that even if those cuts were implemented in full we would still see 3.5 °C of warming by 2100.
> 
> 
> To meet the 2 °C target, even bigger cuts are needed. According to UNEP, nations must emit the equivalent of no more than 44 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year by 2020, but current pledges are 6 to 12 gigatonnes short. A UNEP report published last week says we can bridge this "emissions gap" by combining faster uptake of renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, and cuts to other greenhouse gases.
> 
> A second UNEP report points out that it is much easier to cut short-lived greenhouse gases like methane, and fine atmospheric particles like soot from inefficient stoves. Cutting these emissions could keep the thermostat from rising by 2 °C until the middle of the century, buying us time to deal with CO2.
> 
> It is the inertia in our society that is the problem, says the International Energy Agency in its 2011 World Energy Outlook report. The lifespan of existing power plants and factories commits us to 80 per cent of the total emissions that will take us to 2 °C. Construction over the next five years commits us to the rest, so unless we switch our investments from fossil fuels to low-carbon technologies within five years, 2 °C of warming is inevitable.
> 
> The reality is that the 2 °C target is technically and economically feasible, but politically impossible. Saleemul Huq of the International Institute for Environment and Development says that countries would have to go to a war footing to do it. He compares the situation to the second world war, when nations like the UK transformed their economies to deal with an overwhelming threat. This single-minded commitment can work miracles, but no country has any such plans.
> 
> The UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change, Chris Huhne, says the deadline for an international deal is 2015. Other countries, like the US and India, want to delay even discussing a deal until then, leaving scant time to the desired emissions peak in 2020. And as Durban talks got under way this week, Canada announced it would not be participating in any successor to the Kyoto protocol.
> 
> What should we do if we cannot hit emissions targets? First, do not give up on cutting emissions, says Brian Hoskins of Imperial College London. We don't fully understand the climate, so we might emit more than is currently deemed "safe" and stay under 2 °C by sheer luck.
> 
> And don't change the 2 °C target. It's too early, says Corrine Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK. The next IPCC report, due in 2013, could show that society can cope with a warmer world (see "Welcome to a world warmed by 2 °C"). If it does, a small increment in the target might be justifiable, she says, but until then shifting goalposts would be premature and send the wrong message. "I haven't seen anything to suggest that 2 °C is less dangerous now than it was when it was adopted," Le Quéré says. At all costs, Hoskins adds, we must avoid 4 °C. Indeed, this could wipe out the Amazon rainforest and halt the Asian monsoon.
> 
> Finally, some form of geoengineering may be necessary. "We are going to have to look at CO2 removal," says Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK. Trees are already being planted to act as carbon sinks, and prototype technologies exist for sucking CO2 from the atmosphere. Hoskins says they could be essential later in the century to keep temperatures down.


Warmer world is the challenge of a generation - environment - 01 December 2011 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

Haw! That stuff is rich. You can simply sense the stinking sweat of despair in those reports. Thanks for the laugh, Maccy D!


----------



## SINC

With one AGW model after another being proved wrong over the past few months, perhaps the AGW group's new tactic to build a carbon credit network is now fear mongering?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> With one AGW model after another being proved wrong over the past few months, perhaps the AGW group's new tactic to build a carbon credit network is now fear mongering?


It's very funny to see them talking about these models like gospel. Even funnier to see AGW presented as some sort of angry demon: "You did not make a sacrifice so the Sun God will burn you to death. Make a sacrifice by noon and he will only raise the temperature two degrees. Uh, two o'clock already? Did I say noon? Do it by 3:00 pm and we can hold it to three degrees..." 

The bowing and scraping and bargaining is hilarious. Pure pants-crapping desperation. You'll note the little caveat: maybe they can save the situation by concentrating on some other GHGs.

Even those unapologetic warmists, the BBC, are trying to put a happy face on the debacle by claiming Durban at least allows everyone to understand every other country's position. A far cry from the high-fives and back-slapping in MacDoc's salad days of the dead, departed Kyoto Accord:

BBC News - Durban: The early skirmishes


----------



## FeXL

Funniest for me is trying to portray the International Pack of Climate Crooks as some sort of authority in anything outside of partisanship, collusion, lies & FUD...


----------



## FeXL

Found a new (to me) blog yesterday by Tom Nelson. 

He lists, among other things, some interesting excerpts from the Climategate 2.0 emails. A few examples:



> Damning quote from warmist Fred Pearce in 1996: "in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence."
> 
> ...
> 
> UEA's Tim Osborn: "it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important"
> 
> ...
> 
> 2008: Jones says that Susan Solomon got "tough" with McIntyre and "threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list"; Jones also reveals that he and Briffa "work on the sedimentary sequence approach to filing!"
> 
> ...
> 
> How "robust debate" evidently works in climate science: Insider presents hypothesis; soon-to-be-outsider tries to disprove hypothesis; insider suggests that outsider be fired


Lots more a the link.


----------



## FeXL

So, Hockey Team member, IPCC bigwig and unReal Climate fairytale writer Stefan Rahmstorf has just been proven a liar:



> To make a long story short, journalist Irene Meichsner wrote a critical report about the IPCC, which appeared in the Frankfurter Rundschau daily, to which Rahmstorf reacted quite nastily. He asserted at his blog that the journalist had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and that she even lifted text from another source (Richard North and Jonathan Leake). For a journalist, such accusations are of course career threatening and thus deadly serious.
> 
> Meichsner didn’t stand for it, took the case to court, and won.


Further:



> That should have been the end of it but, according to Der Spiegel, the PIK (Rahmstorf ‘s employer) has gotten into the fray. The PIK you’ll recall is run by German masterplanner Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, who chairs the WBGU and directly advises Chancellor Angela Merkel. If you ever wondered where Merkel comes up with all these brilliant climate policy ideas, e.g. like the 2°C warming limit, then look no further.
> 
> Der Spiegel tried to contact Rahmstorf directly for comment on the Cologne State Court ruling, but received only a statement from the PIK which attempted to play down the incident. The statement was also posted at the PIK site. According to Der Spiegel the statement claimed:
> 
> _‘Mistakes can happen.’ This involves ‘interpretation questions’ and ‘misunderstandings’.”_
> 
> and that:
> 
> _ “The PIK asks his colleagues to understand that it is the duty of a scientist “to inform the public about errors”._
> 
> Der Spiegel, citing the Cologne Court Ruling”, calls the PIK published statement:
> 
> _An amazing interpretation”._


Of course, it's always a "matter of interpretation," isn't it? Kinda like the "tree ring circus"...



> The State Court ruling against Rahmstorf is a cease and desist order that requires Rahmstorf to refrain from making the false assertions about the journalist. Yet at the PIK website the statement (on behalf of Rahmstorf?) again was clearly implying there had been “errors” in Meichsner’s report when in fact there weren’t. *Talk about defying a court order!* According to Der Spiegel, the PIK has since revised the text at its site. Obviously it’s not the journalist Meichsner that’s sloppy and loose with the facts. The Court was very clear on that.
> 
> Der Spiegel reminds readers that this is not the first time that Rahmstorf has maliciously taken on people who do not share his opinion and speak out.
> 
> _Time and again he has not only gone after journalists, but also after scientists who have openly expressed views that Rahmstorf didn’t like.”_
> 
> Der Spiegel cites the Franfurter Rundschau daily as an example, who according to Der Spiegel:”played an unusual part in the affair. The editors at FR distanced themselves from Meichsers critical piece two months after they had published it” after Rahmstorf had intervened and then published a full two-page story on how “the IPCC had been the target of an awkward campaign.” *In plain English, the FR went down on its knees before a group of elite scientists.*
> 
> That is disturbing. Der Spiegel was unable to obtain any comment from the FR.
> 
> Hans von Storch of the Helmholtz Center in Geesthacht Germany was also once a target of Rahmstorf. According to Der Spiegel, today he keeps a copy of the original State Court Ruling up at his private website.
> 
> At his blog Rahmstorf in the meantime gripes that “in the classical media you no longer have any control over the end product.”
> 
> *The ice under Rahmstorf feet is getting awfully thin, and it’s not because of global warming.*


Italics from the original, bold mine.

Typical warmist tactics...


----------



## FeXL

*The Fudge Factor*

More warmist tactics...

A collection of fudge from The Team, sweet!



> "fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything."
> 
> ...
> 
> "my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor."
> 
> ...
> 
> "why the temperature needs a ‘fudge factor’"
> 
> ...
> 
> "Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics"
> 
> ...
> 
> "The use of “likely” , “very likely” and my additional fudge word “unusual” are all carefully chosen where used."
> 
> ...
> 
> "or we need to fudge the figures…"
> 
> ...
> 
> "****** *APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE**********
> ;
> yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
> valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
> 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; *fudge factor*
> if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’"


Postmodern warmist climate science at work.

Smells a lot like another fragrant brown substance...


----------



## Macfury

I note MaccyD and bryanc are silent whenever these juicy tidbits are revealed.


----------



## MacDoc

TANSTAAFL



> *Climate change could cost Canada $43B a year by 2050: Report*
> 
> *"Ignoring climate change costs now will cost us more later"*
> 
> SPECIAL TO NUNATSIAQ NEWS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The federal advisory panel warned in the study, titled "Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada," that Canadians could have a steep price to pay if governments reject the science that links human activity and greenhouse gas pollution to global warming. Consequences include shoreline erosion in the North — seen here in 2009 in Resolute Bay as a building once used by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, now taken down, lies perilously close to the water. _(FILE PHOTO)
> *MIKE DE SOUZA
> Postmedia News
> *
> OTTAWA — Canada’s environment minister says his government is not surprised that its own advisory panel on business and environmental issues is warning that greenhouse gas emissions could cost the Canadian economy up to $43 billion each year by 2050 if it fails to come up with a domestic plan to tackle global warming.


that's Harpo's own advisory committee

there's more

NunatsiaqOnline 2011-09-30: NEWS: Climate change could cost Canada $43B a year by 2050: Report


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, that's a sad, mixed-up message. Of course we should adapt to any changes in climate. However, any of the current modeling completely fails to show us anything concrete to which we need to adapt. We are not seeing significant warming if any, not seeing rising oceans, not seeing unusual weather patterns. The advisory committee than suggests we waste money on hunting the CO2 bugbear. If that truly were the culprit of any major climate change--and it isn't--then how would Canada's paltry contribution to worldwide CO2 emissions change any of the outcomes predicted by the models?

The photo above? Simple erosion. You don't need any greenhouse gas theories to explain it.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> that's Harpo's own advisory committee


So, lemme git this straight.

Herr Harpo (as you so flatteringly describe him), is the lowest form of life on the planet, the bane of your existence, anathema to absolutely everything you hold dear. A (gulp) Conservative...

A panel of politicians, environmentalists, lawyers, etc., gets thrown together, calls themselves the NRT, cobble together a piece of political propaganda and suddenly Harper has an award winning advisory committee with a report you could base religion on? Say, the CAGW religion?

Notice all those "weasel" words, MacDoc? "Could" shows up eleven times. "Likely" is there twice. "Estimate", 3x. Solid evidence, I'd say.

An old & dear friend of mine would sum that up in one simple sentence, "Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Add them all up & you've still got FA."

My aunt _could_ grow testicles & be my uncle, too.

What a crock.

Let's look at the specifics listed:



> - A greater risks of illness and death and millions of dollars of related health-care costs in cities such as Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto;


Based on what? Global warming? Where's the connection?

Funny, that. Little bit of fear-mongering and the spreading of FUD in 4 of the most populous cities in the nation. Can't get the buggers onside without the numbers...



> - Severe impacts related to forest fires, pest outbreaks and tree productivity in Western Canada;


Based on what? Global warming? Again, where's the connection? Although it's not an area I've addressed, it's been proven time & again that higher CO2 levels increase plant productivity, not reduces it.



> - The risk of major flooding in Metro Vancouver.


Again, based on what? Global warming? The empirical data shows that sea level has been dropping for years.

Where is the science to prop up these points?

Lemme give ya a hint. There ain't any.

The report is an opinion piece, much the same as I'd get from, say, any "progressive" computer salesman...


----------



## Macfury

Cold kills far more people than heat in Canada. In 2006, winter cold was credited with more than 5,600 excess deaths. I'll bet those nutty projections of health care costs don't take this into account.


----------



## MacDoc

Missed the memo did you ??



> *Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate*
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009
> 
> For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
> 
> “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
> 
> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion,* its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.*
Click to expand...

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com

and even Dear Anthony face planted big time recently....



> *Huge Blow to Science Deniers: Koch Funded Researchers Confirm Global Warming*
> 
> 
> The report is purely an estimate of planetary warming, and it makes no estimate of how much this warming is due to human activity, which is another issue for deniers.
> _October 25, 2011_ |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an "exaggerator," has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre's famous takedown of the "hockey stick" climate graph made him "uncomfortable" with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.
> 
> So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? "Muller's views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics," said_Scientific American_, "and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results." The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.
> But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Last week, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.(Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the _Economist_ here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:
> 
> 
> The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
> The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
> Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
> The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
> Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
> The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
> In the press release announcing the results, Muller said,* "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK."*_ *In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all.*_


Huge Blow to Science Deniers: Koch Funded Researchers Confirm Global Warming | Environment | AlterNet


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, we've been picking apart BEST for the BEST part of a month. A little late to the game are you?

And how does the claim that some (17) oil industry scientists might have believed AGW claims were irrefutable, make AGW irrefutable? Because the opinion came from some scientists employed by the oil industry?

In the linked document of the approval draft, however, they conclude:



> Given the limitations of climate models and other information on this question, current claims that a human impact on climate has already been detected, are unjustified.


So this supports AGW, how?


----------



## KC4

*How the Grinch Stole Christmas*

Give us money or Santa gets it

Where Will Santa Live?
Oh. Bruther.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc:



> _Kevin Drum is a political blogger for_ Mother Jones


'Nuf said. A science blogger I'd at least read. Even a warmist. Politico? Not a chance. As much credibility as a computer salesman.

For someone who places absolutely no faith in what "Dear Anthony" says, you sure spend a lot of time attempting to refute him...

And, like MF noted, this was gone through some time ago. Is your rage at losing the battle so blind that you have no recollection thereof?

Seriously, dude, you need to go get checked out...


----------



## Lawrence

Human content on global warming is a non demeanour,
2012's alignment might be an eye opener.

Buy a houseboat if you live in a lowland on the 48th parallel or learn to swim long distances.

In the meantime enjoy a little Space Weather


----------



## FeXL

Explaining the fallacy of the threat of rising sea levels.



> I may be able to help. As someone with some expertise in the field, I can assure the low-lying countries that this is a false alarm. The sea is not rising precipitously. I have studied many of the low-lying regions in my 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data. I have conducted six field trips to the Maldives; I have been to Bangladesh, whose environment minister was claiming that flooding due to climate change threatened to create in her country 20 million ‘ecological refugees’. I have carefully examined the data of ‘drowning’ Tuvalu. And I can report that, while such regions do have problems, they need not fear rising sea levels.


More:



> In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’


Summary:



> We must learn to take the environmentalists’ predictions with a huge pinch of salt. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? *The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections.* There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

Detailed analysis of a few of the Climategate 2.0 emails:



> One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. *This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Didn't think that there could be any more damage inflicted upon Mann's sorry hockey stick, but I can still be surprised. Very good, lengthy read, piggybacks some of what Jeff Id over at the Air Vent revealed.



> The alarmist lied. They lied when they claimed the data showed unprecedented warming. They lied when they claimed the Briffa data was through 1980 or 1960.


More:



> The truth is pretty clear now. There is no way to conclude with any semblance of minimal confidence that today’s climate is dramatically different from the Medieval and Roman periods. *The tree ring data, which is the link between today and Earth’s past is proven to be incapable of such a comparative conclusion. It cannot reflect the modern temp record in the Northern Hemisphere and there is almost no data at all in Southern Hemisphere.* And even if rings could track temps, they only measure a small fraction of the Earth’s surface (my guesstimate is the cherry picked tree rings at most represent 5% of the Earth’s surface).
> 
> *The IPCC alarmists knew this for a decade – did everything they could to hide this disaster from the world.* Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me …


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

*Oh, this is just rich...*

Priceless ClimateGate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann's work.



> ...At 10:03 PM 6/5/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:Mike, Well put! By chance SB03 [Soon and Baliunas] may have got some of these precip things right, but we don't want to give them any way to claim credit. Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. *A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR.* He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage nonstationary. I have not seen any papers in the literature demonstrating this -- but, as you point out Mike, it is a crucial issue. Tom.


A grade school science project proved Mann's precious work was crap.

Oh, the irony...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Climategate 2.0

Marc Morano's style is a bit more in your face, but he asks the salient questions.


----------



## MacDoc

Daily dose of reality....



> *2011 Among Hottest Years, Marked by Extreme Weather*
> 
> *Not even cooling La Niña could take edge off warming trend.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An animation still using satellite data shows Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2011.
> Image courtesy SVS/NASA
> 
> 
> Richard A. Lovett
> for National Geographic News
> Published November 30, 2011
> *This year is shaping up to be one of the ten hottest years on record, according to a United Nations report announced yesterday.*
> Likewise, 2011 may be the hottest year on record during La Niña, a periodic cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific.
> That's a bad sign, since La Niña years are generally relatively cool, said Steven Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, who was not part of the study team.
> So the new finding suggests that La Niña conditions that once produced strong global cooling now only slightly affect the overall temperature trend, Running said by email.
> "What does it take now to have a cooling cycle?" he asked. "And what will happen in the next strong El Niño?"
> El Niño is a warming of tropical waters in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. During El Niño years, the warmer currents heat the planet on top of the steady global warming trend caused by human-induced greenhouse gases.
> Based on data from 189 countries, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report was presented at an international climate conference this week in Durban, South Africa.
> (Related: "Global Warming 'Marches On'; Past Decade Hottest Known.")
> *Climate Hot, and Getting Hotter*
> The report also found that all but two of the overall 15 hottest years since record-keeping began in 1850 have occurred between 1997 and 2011. (See "Heat Wave: 2010 to Be One of Hottest Years on Record.")
> In addition, sea ice coverage was the second lowest on record. The lowest occurred in 2007.
> Even that figure might be deceptively optimistic, because much of the sea ice appears to have been thinner than in past years. When sea ice cover was at its smallest in 2011, on September 9, the total Arctic sea ice volume was 8 percent lower than in 2010—previously the lowest on record, the WMO scientists found.
> (See "Global Warming Silver Lining? Arctic Could Get Cleaner.")
> The WMO's Global Atmosphere Watch program also recently released a report concluding that heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had reached a new high—an increase that will only continue, researchers say.
> "Our science is solid, and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement addressing both reports.
> (Quiz: Test your global warming knowledge.)
> *Floods, Droughts: A Year of Climate Extremes*
> This year was also full of extremes, according to this week's report.
> Not surprisingly, given the high rates of melting in the Arctic, many Arctic regions were unusually hot. Parts of northern Russia reported springtime temperatures more than 16°F (9°C) above average, the WMO said.
> (Related blog post: "Russia Burns in Hottest Summer on Record [2010].")
> But there was plenty of other extreme weather elsewhere. For instance:
> 
> 
> Finland, Armenia, Central America, and Spain all reported record heat.
> 
> 
> It was the driest spring on record in many parts of western Europe, followed in some areas by the wettest summer.
> 
> 
> East Africa experienced severe drought followed by flooding.
> 
> 
> Other severe floods, often deadly, occurred in Southeast Asia, Brazil, Australia, Southern Africa, Central America, and Pakistan. (Read: "Extreme Storms and Floods Concretely Linked to Climate Change?")
> 
> 
> Tropical cyclone and hurricane activity was unusually low, although not as low as in 2010 (which had the lowest storm count since satellites first allowed accurate record keeping).
> (See a world map of potential global warming impacts.)
> *Texas-Size Temperature Rise*
> Extremes were also present in the U.S. and Canada, where conditions ranged from drought and heat in the South to heavy snowpack in the Midwest to record-breaking rainfall in the Northeast.
> It was also the third worst U.S. tornado season since 1950, after 2004 and 2008.
> (Read "Monster Alabama Tornado Spawned by Rare 'Perfect Storm.'")
> But the most stunning figures may have come from Texas, where daily temperatures averaged 86.7° (30.4°C), in June through August—a staggering 5.4°F (3.0°C) above normal, scientists said.
> The Texas statistic is "the highest [such average] ever recorded for any American state," according to the WMO website.
> It's difficult to determine exactly how much of the extremes are due to climate change versus normal weather variations, said Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not part of the WMO team.
> "The increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air from our activities do not make 'weather' disappear," he said by email. "But they do 'load the dice' to make hot conditions more likely.
> "We haven't made cold snaps, and even record lows, disappear, but data and our physical understanding agree that we're still pushing strongly toward warming."


2011 Among Hottest Years, Marked by Extreme Weather

That Texas stat is astonishing given the duration.


----------



## SINC

Or daily dose of claptrap, your pick.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Daily dose of reality....
> 
> 
> 
> 2011 Among Hottest Years, Marked by Extreme Weather
> 
> That Texas stat is astonishing given the duration.


Given that winter lingered around till late June, Going to the Sun Road had one of its latest openings on record I am forced to call BS. Not to mention all those Palm Trees that died with in a week of being shipped out here.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc's "report" is a mish-mash of stuff from various uncredited sources. However, his major claim--that of a "United Nations" report--is erroneous. This is drivel from the UK MET Office, implicated in the Climategate Scandal. It was only presented at the UN's Durban Debacle.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> That Texas stat is astonishing given the duration.


You & Katherine Hayhoe gettin' comfy on that couch together?

"Astonishing!", they screech. "Unprecedented!" "Never happened before!"

Just in case there are any fools out there who actually believe this crap, below is a small collection of newspaper clippings on prehistoric (before 1950) Texas weather.

These graphs show temp & precip trends.

Here is a quick snapshot.

Here are pages & pages thereof.

Too easy...

Next?


----------



## eMacMan

MD seems to have forgotten the really dry years in the late 1920s and 30s. Those of us that come from or near the prairie regions would not make that mistake.


----------



## FeXL

The contextual collection of ClimateGate 2.0 quotes



> One of the first whines out of RealClimate...was that they were “out of context” saying:
> 
> _“Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.”_
> 
> That’s typical Gavin putz-speak for “nothing to see here, move along”. His message, coming just a few hours after the release in the wee hours of the morning, and just before 8AM EST on 11/22 suggests that Gavin pulled a Peter Gleick and didn’t actually read the emails before writing a dismissive review of them. Yet it appears that with what has been discovered so far in the 5000 plus emails, the context is quite rich.
> 
> Out of context, comes understanding.
> 
> Jeff suggested I repost this collection of quotes in the words of climate scientists as discovered in Climategate 2.0 context. He’s done a great job at collecting the relevant context. – Anthony


----------



## MacGuiver

We need not worry about the north pole. David Suzuki is scaring the crap out of our children with tales of Santa's impending doom and asking mom and dad to cut him a cheque so he can save the day. Of course that cheque goes to him. It was also raining at the north pole today when he was reporting live.

David Suzuki Reporting From The North Pole - YouTube


----------



## Macfury

Suzuki has really become a money-grubbing fool.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Suzuki has really become a money-grubbing fool.


Damn, your OWS posts would lead me to believe you truly admire that trait.


----------



## FeXL

There are certain warmists on these boards who loathe Anthony Watts and his science blog Watts Up With That. Perhaps he strikes a little too close to the truth for comfort...

At any rate, in defence of "Dear Anthony", I offer the following magnanimousness:



> The sharing of system access in emails was broadly demonstrated in Climategate 2.0. For example, Dr. Phil Jones and others at CRU sent some emails out years ago that linked to papers under review at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Some WUWT readers found these early on, and sure enough, such links from years ago in the CG2 emails still worked.
> 
> A few days ago I made the issue known to Dr. Phil Jones and to the JGR journal staff so they could close this security hole. As far as I know, all have been closed. I’ve tested again tonight and the live link fails now. Now that they have been closed, I can talk about it safely without putting JGR’s manuscript system at risk.


The post goes on to include the email Anthony sent to "Dear Phil". Thus far, aside from the security fixes, there has been no acknowledgment from Jones.

Any bookies here? What are the odds that he'll put on his big girl panties, swallow his arrogance & actually say thanks? Or even acknowledge receipt of the email?


----------



## FeXL

There's a bunch of hooey floating around on certain warmist sites about higher levels of CO2 causing more "extreme" weather events.

With current CO2 concentrations approaching 400 ppm, in response, I offer this:



> While the alarmists squall over trying to control what they perceive as “extreme weather” driven by global warming at Durban COP17, urging immediate action in the form of coughing up 100 billion a year to poor countries for “reparations”, a quiet record has gone almost unnoticed. As of midnight Sunday, it has been 2232 days since a major hurricane (CAT3 or greater) made landfall on the USA.Irene this year (Cat 1) doesn’t count, and I have doubts it was even a Cat1 hurricane at all given the low wind speeds when it made landfall.
> 
> And that record can only get bigger, since hurricane season ended on December 1st. It won’t start again until June 1st, 2012, so at the very least we are likely to see 6 months (184 days including end date) added to this record for a total of 2416 days. It will probably be higher than that since historically we get few landfalling hurricanes early in the season.


The last record period ended in 1906, when CO2 concentrations were far closer to 300 ppm.

MacDoc?


----------



## MacDoc

Wente is such a disgrace to the globe she's making the international journals.....she's only too typical of the denier mindset......



> 6 December 11 *Denial Of Facts Is No Way To Understand Science*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday December 1st, _Globe and Mail_ columnist Margaret Wente declared herself a defender of scientific integrity by calling upon the scientific community to replace the “rhetoric” of climate change with open, honest debate.
> According to Ms. Wente, the impacts of climate change remain a future fantasy, unquantifiable by data collected through “insanely complicated” climate science. Her perspective is informed by the omission of facts, falsehoods, and fake experts. In a dance with smoke and mirrors she creates issues where none exist and ignores others that do.
> There was a time when I couldn’t understand what motivated writers like Wente to stand so firmly against such clear and solid science. The psychology of “confirmation bias” has provided the answer for me.
> Like all of us, Wente has her biases, and most of us, like her, like to have those biases confirmed. So we seek out the information that confirms what we already believe and disregard that information that might prove us wrong.
> As a columnist, Wente presents the information which confirms her ideological beliefs as truths and facts to the readers of the _Globe and Mail_. She excels as a columnist in part because she mocks and jeers her detractors. This pleases the people who agree with her but makes her loathed by those who don’t. It provokes reaction on both sides, and eliminates any possibility of civil conversation.
> When it comes to climate change she suffers from an extreme case of motivated reasoning. She has to ignore the concerns and views of virtually all of the world’s scientific academies and rely on the views of oil industry funded groups like the Fraser Institute as she scrounges for shreds of evidence to back up her contrary view of climate science.
> In the fantastical future Wente claims climate scientists are inventing, “the seas will rise, the glaciers will melt, the hurricanes will blow, the forest fires will rage.”
> But climate change and its consequences are not mere predictions. We live in a world that is already affected by rising global temperatures, with more frequent and more intense heat waves, more powerful hurricanes, increasing numbers of forest fires, floods and droughts. These changes are consistent with the climate data on which future predictions are built.
> In November, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts and costs of rising global temperatures, with suggestions on mitigating the damage. The report points out that although it is difficult to attribute single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change, increased global temperatures do contribute to the extreme weather trends and those are already underway.
> Wente admits to her lack of scientific credentials, but immediately slanders the world’s leading climate scientists. Their own lack of certainty about the earth’s changing climate and its causes, she implies, is clearly demonstrated by the “so-called Climategate affair.”
> The private emails between the world’s top scientists were stolen, misquoted and published as a massive accusation that the science behind climate change has been fabricated.
> Wente mentions that Climategate has been “debunked,” yet goes on to re-state the initial false claims made through the “affair”. In this, she confirms research on “confirmation bias” that proves people who read false information continue to believe it even after it has been corrected, especially if the misinformation confirms their ideological perspectives.
> Whether she is aware of it or not, Ms. Wente has become part of an “echo chamber” of misinformation created through Climategate. Following the original theft of the emails, right wing groups in the US including the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation – to name a few – made sure the scandal’s message (climate change science is a hoax) was repeated publicly as much as possible.
> She avoids mentioning that nine independent inquiries exonerated the scientists and their work, proving the biggest scandal of 2009 to be a fake scandal. After all of this, Wente still thinks the lie is worth repeating.
> Happily duped into repeating and publishing proven falsehoods, Wente has not helped her readers gain any better understanding of “the Climategate affair”. A proper explanation of Climategate would include the facts about who funded it.
> Koch Industries, owned by brothers Charles and David Koch have generously donated some $50 million of their company’s fortune to fund the same industry front groups and right wing think-tanks that fabricated Climategate. The Kochs' business activities range from the manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, as well as the production of chemicals, energy, fiber, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper. In 2009 alone, Koch Industries paid more than half a billion dollars in fines for environmental damages.
> Looking for back-up on her false assertions on Climategate, Wente refers to economics professor Ross McKitrick. He agrees with her that Climategate proves climate science is phony, and thinks the IPCC should change its process entirely.
> Surely, she knows that McKitrick is a fellow at the Fraser Institute (given $175,000 by Koch foundations between 2005 and 2008) and is affiliated with numerous other industry-funded think tanks. He is an open skeptic of climate science, and a perfect validator for Wente’s entrenched beliefs - and he has no credentials in atmospheric science whatsoever.
> A recent study by Yale University law Professor Dan Kahan would suggest that Wente and McKitrick have a lot more in common than their view on climate change. Kahan surveyed more than 1,500 Americans and found that their cultural values had a far greater impact on their view of climate change than their level of scientific literacy. Most people who tended towards a view of the world that is hierarchical and individualistic were more skeptical of environmental risks including climate change than people whose outlook was communal and egalitarian.
> Margaret Wente is only human, and is as susceptible to her own biases as anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> *As a journalist, however, she needs to be held accountable for her errors and omissions. *While misinformed vitriol may provoke reactions, and may even sell newspapers, the _Globe and Mail_ and other newspapers should be held accountable for the accuracy of the material they choose to publish.
> 
> 
> If misinformation is the new journalistic standard, then people will only absorb more media that re-enforces their own opinions, and the possibility for consensus on any issue will be lost.


Jim Hoggan | Denial Of Facts Is No Way To Understand Science


----------



## Macfury

All of which has _what_ to do with the accuracy of AGW theory?

You still haven't told me which law of thermodynamics the "deniers" are ignoring, MacDoc. That would be a slam dunk for a confirmed Warmist such as yourself.

_Edit: Ah, hell. If I had known MaccyD had cribbed that from "desmogblog" I wouldn't have even bothered to respond._


----------



## FeXL

Let us dissect a bit of this wunnerful, wunnerful article MacDoc has posted in it's entirety because warmists are too thick to click on a link.



> On Thursday December 1st, Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente declared herself a defender of scientific integrity by calling upon the scientific community to replace the “rhetoric” of climate change with open, honest debate.


I brook no issue with this and neither should anyone else, on either side of the issue. However, time & again the hippies won't debate & retain the tight lipped stoicism of a wooden horse.



> Her perspective is informed by the omission of facts, falsehoods, and fake experts. In a dance with smoke and mirrors she creates issues where none exist and ignores others that do.


Wait a minute. Is this the skeptics we're talking about here? This is exactly the mantra that the hippies have been reciting since day one.



> There was a time when I couldn’t understand what motivated writers like Wente to stand so firmly against such clear and solid science.


Ah, yes, the "science".

Lemme letcha in onna little unsettling news: Models don't produce science. Period. Sorry.



> She excels as a columnist in part because she mocks and jeers her detractors.


How many times have you name-called, mocked, jeered, and ad hom attacked in these three AGW threads? Why is that behaviour perfectly acceptable for you & not her?



> It provokes reaction on both sides, and eliminates any possibility of civil conversation.


How many times have I attempted to engage you in civil discourse, only to have you either ignore or insult me? Frankly, I've given up on it because, like all warmista hippies, you ain't interested in debating. You jump into the thread, drop a great, steaming load & leave. No interest in debate, discourse, or anything else. I used to think it was because you wouldn't. I'm now quite convinced you are simply unable.



> When it comes to climate change she suffers from an extreme case of motivated reasoning. She has to ignore the concerns and views of virtually all of the world’s scientific academies and rely on the views of oil industry funded groups like the Fraser Institute as she scrounges for shreds of evidence to back up her contrary view of climate science.


Funny, that consensus thing again, which has been debunked a number of times on these threads. Ditto on how much oil funded backing there's been compared to gov't finding. Do they have any more new material or just the same, tired, old lies?



> In the fantastical future Wente claims climate scientists are inventing, “the seas will rise, the glaciers will melt, the hurricanes will blow, the forest fires will rage.”


Ah, yes, the old weather = climate meme. Check NASA's own satellite data I've posted. Sea level ain't rising. It's falling & has been for some time. Some glaciers are melting, more are growing. Natural order of things or your sorry butt would be covered in ice right now. See my above post on hurricanes. And, forest fires. They've always burned & always will. Check the newspaper articles on extreme prehistoric (before 1950) weather at Goddard's site.



> But climate change and its consequences are not mere predictions. We live in a world that is already affected by rising global temperatures, with more frequent and more intense heat waves, more powerful hurricanes, increasing numbers of forest fires, floods and droughts. These changes are consistent with the climate data on which future predictions are built.


Asked & answered. Pure, unadulterated horse****. 



> In November, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report on the impacts and costs of rising global temperatures, with suggestions on mitigating the damage. The report points out that although it is difficult to attribute single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change, increased global temperatures do contribute to the extreme weather trends and those are already underway.


Anybody who quotes the IPCC as any kind of authority on anything hasn't read Donna Laframboise's book. Mebbe you should send Hoggan a copy for Christmas. Don't forget to pick one up for yourself...



> Their own lack of certainty about the earth’s changing climate and its causes, she implies, is clearly demonstrated by the “so-called Climategate affair.”
> The private emails between the world’s top scientists were stolen, misquoted and published as a massive accusation that the science behind climate change has been fabricated.


Have you even bothered to crack open the second batch, MacDoc? (or the first, for that matter?) Quite an eye opener. For instance, even Mann's colleagues questioned his hockey stick. There are many other examples, but you're too busy maligning anybody who disagrees with you to actually be objective & become edumacated.



> Following the original theft of the emails, right wing groups in the US including the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation – to name a few – made sure the scandal’s message (climate change science is a hoax) was repeated publicly as much as possible.


There was very little MSM coverage of Climategate 1. Period. Climategate 2.0 is getting more but, again, nothing compared to what the hippies have been getting.



> She avoids mentioning that nine independent inquiries exonerated the scientists and their work, proving the biggest scandal of 2009 to be a fake scandal.


Doesn't he mean nine independent whitewashes? Not a single so-called "inquiry" was carried out under the authority of an objective panel & not one was conducted under what would be acceptable standards in a court of law.



> A proper explanation of Climategate would include the facts about who funded it.
> Koch Industries, owned by brothers Charles and David Koch have generously donated some $50 million of their company’s fortune to fund the same industry front groups and right wing think-tanks that fabricated Climategate.


Huh? Nobody fabricated Climategate. Climategate was, quite simply, the release of damning emails. And, somehow, the Koch brothers are responsible for this? Quick, somebody ask FOIA if he/she/it received their cheque yet. 

Utter hogwash...



> The Kochs' business activities range from the manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, as well as the production of chemicals, energy, fiber, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper. In 2009 alone, Koch Industries paid more than half a billion dollars in fines for environmental damages.


So what? Sure, they've a vested interest in the debate, but no less than the government employed hippies who are fighting to keep their jobs, and have been supported by billions more than Koch Industries ever donated.



> Looking for back-up on her false assertions on Climategate, Wente refers to economics professor Ross McKitrick. He agrees with her that Climategate proves climate science is phony, and thinks the IPCC should change its process entirely.
> Surely, she knows that McKitrick is a fellow at the Fraser Institute (given $175,000 by Koch foundations between 2005 and 2008) and is affiliated with numerous other industry-funded think tanks. He is an open skeptic of climate science, and a perfect validator for Wente’s entrenched beliefs - and he has no credentials in atmospheric science whatsoever.


Ah, the old "if yer not a climate scientist you don't know squat" hyperbole. Ross McKitrick, in his role as an economist, is a statistician who probably knows more about the topic than any handful of warmist hippies. Mann's Hockey Stick statistics is where he focussed his expertise & that is exactly where he got results. His accusations have since been afforded support from any number of independent studies as well as the second batch of Climategate emails. Once again, try to educate yourself.



> A recent study by Yale University law Professor Dan Kahan would suggest that Wente and McKitrick have a lot more in common than their view on climate change. Kahan surveyed more than 1,500 Americans and found that their cultural values had a far greater impact on their view of climate change than their level of scientific literacy. Most people who tended towards a view of the world that is hierarchical and individualistic were more skeptical of environmental risks including climate change than people whose outlook was communal and egalitarian.


Who cares? MacDoc, you've accused me of this in the past & all I can say is, so what? I tend more to conservatism than liberalism (with exceptions). Does that make me a bad person in someone else's eyes? I could care less. My opinion is mine & mine only. Don't like it? Then talk to me about it as an adult or leave. Either way...



> As a *scientist*, however, they need to be held accountable for their errors and omissions.


TFTFY. The list is long & undistinguished. See Climategate emails...



> If misinformation is the new journalistic standard, then people will only absorb more media that re-enforces their own opinions, and the possibility for consensus on any issue will be lost.


Journalistic standards have been in the toilet for years. On both sides of the argument & even long before Climate was even a -gate. Jimmy-boy is just clueing in? His opinion is hardly above reproach, however. Take a look at MSM coverage of either Climategate or 2 & tell me it's not skewed. Or the IPCC.

As far as consensus is concerned, science is not about consensus. It's about a theory supported by empirical evidence. It's not about a SWAG with subsequent cherry-picking of anything that will support your guess of the week.


----------



## FeXL

Well, here's a timely article that addresses exactly what a science journalist should be, as opposed to some half-baked warmist's wet dream du jour.



> *Journalism is about not taking sides, or about being a cheerleader. It's about shaking the tree, about asking awkward questions, about standing in the place of those who can't ask such questions, and being persistent, unpopular and dogged.* It's about moral authority, something science in BBC News has lost, and it's about old-fashioned scoops. It's not about being part of the spectrum of communicating science - which is something that scientists and non-journalistic broadcasters should do - it is a vital aspect of democracy. *It is neither an extension of the scientific establishment, nor even its friend or on its side, and it is fundamentally different from science communication.
> *
> *That some active and contentious scientific topics, like climate science with all its unknowns, complexities and implications, are placed beyond debate because they are deemed "settled" is wrong.* Good journalism is the antithesis of a crude expression like "we've gone beyond that" allied to an over simplistic view of science. *Climate science in particular is reported far too narrowly with much important peer-reviewed research ignored, and with environmental reporters far too concerned with doing down those they define as sceptics.* Forget the sceptics, just report the science properly. It will all come out in the wash.
> 
> Science and science journalism are needed. Journalists should portray where the weight of evidence lies, but that is the least they should do, and they should not look to scientists for guidance anymore than an artist asks a bowl of cherries for advice about how to draw them! *They should criticise, highlight errors, make a counterbalancing case if it will stand up, but don't censor, even by elimination, don't be complacent and say the science is settled in areas that are still contentious.* The history of science and of journalism is full of those reduced to footnotes because they followed that doctrine.


Emphasis mine.

How many science articles in the MSM have you seen that contained this type of coverage & objectivity, especially regarding global warming?

Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question. All the buggers are interested in doing is selling advertising through hyped headlines...


----------



## FeXL

Article from Jo Nova about media coverage. I won't bother posting the whole article, even though the salient points are tempting to list here. 

I just believe that _most_ of you who visit are bright enough to click a link...

Scroll down to see the 10 points and the following 4.



> Ladies and Gentlemen, the Internet is the gift of gifts. How easy would it have been for the government departments, coopted scientists, and obedient media to have gotten away with the outrageous scam of forcing us to pay to change the weather? Their lock on the mainstream media would have made it easy to disguise the truth. And yet, it crumbles (all bar the Antipodes).
> 
> Then last week, I met Gina Rinehart at the Mannkal Christmas party, and she was keen to let me know that she’d mentioned David and the key points of evidence in an article for the Australian Resources and Investment publication.
> 
> *A day later, Gina Rinehart was disappointed and surprised that the editors decided to cut her description of the scientific evidence — though those of us who explain science have learnt to expect that.* (It’s as if editors are deathly afraid a scientific argument might bore the readers, when here, below, if readers didn’t already know it, are the blockbuster points that back up her claims.) It’s clear she is well versed. She’s carefully picked out the most important points. I’m grateful she’s given me permission to reprint the excerpts of her article, most especially the unpublished parts. Naturally, any credit for what Gina knows belongs to Gina, but — credit where credit is due — thanks to Monckton, Carter and Plimer too.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Caught an article on Climate Audit this morning, with a subsequent link/comment to it from the Air Vent. Jeff mentions that there are still some good people on the inside of the IPCC. There may be, but it's damned difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

That being said, here's an observation from Steve McIntyre on a quote from the IPCC AR5 Zero Draft:



> The IPCC AR5 Zero Draft summarize the present evidence on precipitation extremes over the past millennium as follows:
> 
> _*Overall, multiple studies suggest that current drought and flood regimes are not unusual within the context of last 1000 years [(e.g., Cook et al., 2010; Seager et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2010)].*_
> 
> I expect that this finding is not one that will be heavily promoted by WWF or Greenpeace. It would have been nice if they had also cited Soon and Baliunas, who, as Wigley had recognized, had drawn a similar conclusion about precipitation from similar evidence.


Bold mine.

I still don't trust the IPCC any further than I can throw them, but if the warmists own support group are saying this, then the death by a thousands cuts is nearly over...


----------



## FeXL

Where else but in Australia, where corrupt progressive politicians regularly lie to the populace to push personal mandates through...



> *SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government's environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government's claims of sea level rises threatening Australia's coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.*
> 
> Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
> 
> The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less - and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.


Further:



> "This was very thorough research, peer reviewed and getting the highest ranking from various people, and one of the papers got a nine out of 10 for the quality of the work," he said.
> 
> "You have to ask yourself why they were rejected, considering they had been peer reviewed, and the Fort Denison tide data is among the longest continuous data of its type available in the world.
> 
> "There's never been a sensible explanation of why they have stopped these papers."


I'd like to forward a small guess, Julyar...


----------



## FeXL

More from Jo Nova on ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly



> This is standard issue damage control for ClimateGate — protect the cheats and liars, attack the whistleblower, and use excuses and padding-fillers to cover a story without actually giving the public any information on the behavior of scientists who make statements that billions of dollars of public spending is guided by.


She also lists a few examples of real journalism vs sock puppet journalism.

If this doesn't make you laugh, it'll make you shake your head.


----------



## FeXL

And yet one more from Jo on the "Missing Heat" and the Argo buoy system.



> *If there is a planetary imbalance in energy, and Earth is acquiring more heat than it’s losing, we ought to be able to find that heat. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. It has to be somewhere.
> 
> On this Water-Planet, virtually every scientist agrees that the vast bulk of the extra energy ought be stored in the water. The oceans cover 70% of the surface, and are 4km deep; water has a high heat capacity (meaning it can store a lot of energy), and, because water flows quickly (unlike rock), turbulence and mixing can take that heat energy away from the surface.*
> 
> Every skeptic (and taxpayer) ought to know that since 2003 (when we started measuring oceans properly) the oceans have been cooling: Douglass and Knox 2010.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Argo buoy network uses 3,000 floating thermometers that spread through the worlds oceans and dive 2,000 m deep. They record the temperatures and radio them back when they surface every couple of weeks. It is the gold standard in measuring ocean temperatures. Argo became operational in mid-2003; before then we relied on erratic and highly uncertain measurements from boats.
> 
> ...
> 
> Short periods of cooling could be due to natural forces overriding a warming effect, but what force is at work? The models didn’t predict the cooling, and can’t explain it. Therefore the models are missing a major factor (or ten). The “noise” excuse won’t wash with the oceans. If the energy is not in the oceans, where could it be? It’s not as though the heat can sneak underground, boil off a lake, or hide in a cloud for five years.
> 
> *Where is that mass of missing heat from 2003 – 2008? It is either in the top layer of the oceans, or it’s been flung out to space. We won’t find it by looking back in time, or searching the bottom of the ocean. Anyone who pretends we will is playing a shell game. Watch the pea.*


Bold from the link.

This relates to Kevin Trenberth's missing heat problem. He can't find it anywhere. His theory is that it's hiding somewhere at the bottom of the ocean. Fine. How did it get there? Bodies of warm water don't just suddenly juxtapose themselves two miles below the surface, leaving no trace. There are currents & streams in the oceans, but these are all covered by the Argo network & there has been no indication of this missing heat by the instruments.


----------



## FeXL

The BEST horse has long since been beaten into hamburger.

Go back a few pages & educate yourself.

Why don't you try addressing a few of the other issues at hand...


----------



## Macfury

And even if the world _were_ getting meaningfully warmer (possible, but unlikely), it wouldn't support AGW theory all by its lonesome.

Now what was that law of thermodynamics that the "denidiots" were ignoring again, MacDoc?


----------



## MacDoc

Tanstaafl writ large.....one of those statistical peaks warmly enhanced by AGW - expect more,.......to cost more.



> *Billion-dollar weather disasters smash US record*
> 
> December 7, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enlarge
> FILE - In this Feb. 2, 2011 file photo, hundreds of cars are seen stranded on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago after a winter blizzard of historic proportions wobbled an otherwise snow-tough Chicago. America's wild weather year has hit yet another new high: a devastating dozen billion-dollar catastrophes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Wednesday that it has recalculated the number of weather disasters passing the billion dollar mark, with two new ones, pushing 2011's total to 12. The two costly additions are the Texas, New Mexico and Arizona wildfires and the mid June tornadoes and severe weather. (AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato, File)
> 
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday that it has recalculated the number of weather disasters passing the billion-dollar mark, with two new ones, pushing 2011's total to 12. The two costly additions are the Texas, New Mexico and Arizona wildfires and the mid-June tornadoes and severe weather.
> NOAA uses $1 billion as a benchmark for the worst weather disasters. This year's total of a dozen billion-dollar calamities matches the number for all of the 1980s, even when the older figures are adjusted for inflation.
> Extreme weather in America this year has killed more than 1,000 people, according to National Weather Service Director Jack Hayes. The dozen billion-dollar disasters alone add up to $52 billion in damage. Hayes, a meteorologist since 1970, said he has never seen a year for extreme weather like this, calling it "the deadly, destructive and relentless 2011."
> And this year's total may not stop at 12. Officials are still adding up the damage from the Tropical Storm Lee and the pre-Halloween Northeast snowstorm, and so far they are both at the $750 million mark. And there's still nearly a month left in the year.
> Scientists blame an unlucky combination of global warming and freak chance. They say even with the long-predicted increase in weather extremes triggered by manmade climate change, 2011 in the U.S. was wilder than they predicted. The six large outbreaks of twisters, which were especially deadly this year, can't be attributed to global warming, but increased droughts, heat waves and wildfires are expected to increase with global warming, scientists say. More people are also living in areas that are prone to disasters.
> 
> 
> 
> "The degree of devastation is extreme in and of itself and it would be tempting to say it's a sign of things to come, though we would be hard-pressed to see such a convergence of circumstances occurring in one single year again for a while," said Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
> *The number of weather catastrophes that pass the billion-dollar mark when adjusted into constant dollars is increasing with each decade.
> *
> *In the 1980s, the country averaged slightly more than one a year.*
> * In the 1990s, the average was 3.8 a year. It jumped to 4.6 in the first decade of this century.
> *
> *And in the past two years, it's averaged 7.5.*
> The old record for most billion-dollar disasters before this year was 2008 with nine.
> But this isn't just about numbers and records, it's about people, said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco.
> "Each of these events is a huge disaster for victims who experience them," Lubchenco said in an email to The Associated Press. "They are an unprecedented challenge for the nation."
> 
> *This year's dozen billion-dollar disasters are:*
> - Wildfires in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona from spring to fall. Losses are more than $1 billion, with at least five deaths.
> - Hurricane Irene along most of the East Coast in August. Losses exceed $7.3 billion with at least 45 deaths.
> - Flooding in the upper Midwest along the Missouri and Souris Rivers in the summer. Damage is more than $2 billion, with at least five deaths.
> - Flooding on the Mississippi River in spring and summer. Losses are $3 billion to $4 billion with at least two deaths.
> - Drought and heat wave in the southern Plains and Southwest from spring to fall. Losses are near $10 billion.
> - Tornadoes and severe storms in the Midwest and Southeast from June 18 to June 22. They caused more than $1.3 billion in damage and killed at least three people.
> - Twisters in the Midwest and Southeast May 22-27. These killed 177 people and caused more than $9.1 billion in damage.
> - Tornadoes in the Southeast and Ohio Valley April 25-28. These killed 321 people and caused more than $10.2 billion in damage.
> - Tornadoes in the Midwest and Southeast April 14-16. These killed 38 people and caused more than $2.1 billion in damage.
> - Tornadoes in the Southeast and Midwest April 8-11. These caused more than $2.2 billion in damage.
> - Tornadoes in the Midwest and Southeast April 4 and 5. These inflicted more than $2.8 billion in damage and killed nine people.
> - The Groundhog Day blizzard killed 36 people and caused damage greater than $1.8 billion.
> 
> * More information:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: www.noaa.gov


Billion-dollar weather disasters smash US record

more energy in the system. more moisture in the atmosphere, less ice cover in the Arctiv and more extreme swings as a result - amplifying normally occurring variations

.....welcome to the Anthropocene.....


----------



## Macfury

Welcome to the moronicene. The cost of severe weather disasters is rising, because the value of the property itself is rising, the cost of repair is rising and because more people live in the areas affected than ever before.

Talk about abuse of statistics.


----------



## eMacMan

BTW when you're up to your a55 in snow, that is not AGW causing the sky to fall. That is cooling. If there is a lot of snow and the range increases it is global cooling. If so much comes down that it fails to melt over the summer, that is the onset of the next ice age. AKA extreme global cooling.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> more energy in the system. more moisture in the atmosphere, less ice cover in the Arctiv and more extreme swings as a result - amplifying normally occurring variations
> 
> .....welcome to the Anthropocene.....


Blah, blah, blah...

Where's the proof that man is the cause?

You can screech as much as you want, but without confirmation of that one, tiny, annoying, niggling detail, you got nuttin'...


----------



## FeXL

One more thing:

*Weather*, not *climate*...


----------



## FeXL

More Evidence (Again) It’s The Sun (stupid)

(from the abstract of a paper analyzing a 2000 year temperature reconstruction in southern Italy)



> So how much does the reconstruction say us humans and our CO2 emissions have warmed the planet since the Roman days? Here’s what the abstract concludes (emphasis added):
> 
> _"The dinoflagellate cyst association indicates that *local sea surface temperatures which in this region are strongly linked to local air temperatures were slightly higher than today.* We reconstruct that sea surface temperatures have been relatively high and stable between 60 BCeAD 90 and show a decreasing trend after AD 90.”_
> 
> It was warmer back then! Gee, did greenhouse gases cause the warming during the time of the Romans? What could it have been, we all wonder? Stop wracking your brains, the answer is:
> 
> _"Fluctuations in temperature and river discharge rates have a strong cyclic character with main cyclicities of 7 – 8 and 11 years.”_
> 
> 11 years? Now why does this number sound familiar? Could it have anything to do with a certain solar cycle that is very well known (at least outside of the IPCC)? The abstract continues:
> 
> _"We argue that these cycles are related to variations of the North Atlantic Oscillation climate mode. A strong correlation is observed with global variation in delta14C anomalies suggesting that solar variability might be one of the major forcings of the regional climate. Apart from cyclic climate variability we observed a good correlation between non-cyclic temperature drops and global volcanic activity indicating that the latter forms an additional major forcing factor of the southern Italian climate during the Roman Classical Period.”_
> 
> Yet another reconstruction showing the sun at work. Today, however, the sun doesn’t do anything. At least that’s what the experts at the IPCC would like to have us believe.


Bold from the link.

Pesky observed, empirical science. No models...


----------



## FeXL

A real journalist on sock puppet journalism:



> [Christopher Booker's] report, The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, shows that the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects:
> 
> * First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.
> * Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.
> * Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.


From the foreword by Sir Antony Jay:



> "The costs to Britain of trying to combat global warming are horrifying, and the BBC’s role in promoting the alarmist cause is, quite simply, shameful."


This on top of Climategate emails clearly illustrating how complicit the Beeb actually is in the disinformation market...


----------



## FeXL

Anthony comments on an article by Pielke, Sr about a magazine article in UCAR speaking to atmospheric "blockings" of east/west weather systems. Such blockings caused, among others, the Russian heat wave of last year & the Texas heat & drought this year.

This flies in the face of conventional warmist screeching about such events being caused by AGW...



> The concept of atmospheric blocking might not be familiar to the general public, *but millions have come face to face with the results of spectacular blocks over the last couple of years.* Every so often, a dome of upper-level high pressure sits in place for a few days, sometimes as long as several weeks. *A major block can produce seemingly endless stretches of blazing heat or bitter cold.* It also blocks the typical eastward flow of the polar jet stream (thus the label “blocking”) and throws storm systems far from their usual tracks. Along those displaced paths, the storms can generate successive bouts of heavy rain or snow. By the time it dissipates, *a major block may leave behind a whole stack of broken weather records and an array of disastrous consequences.*


Bold from the link.

Good read, lots of information.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Blah, blah, blah...
> 
> Where's the proof that man is the cause?
> 
> You can screech as much as you want, but without confirmation of that one, tiny, annoying, niggling detail, you got nuttin'...


Hey I keep suggesting that the true believers can easily step up and give all they own to Al Gore's Church of Climatology and/or turn it over to Ripoff Canada. They believe this will reduce CO2 emissions but pass on every suggestion to prove it. 

Course despite claims of AGW, Canada's winters especially out West are pretty brutal. Might be a good idea, to hitch hike down to Florida or Arizona after divesting your wealth in that manner.


----------



## FeXL

Quick observations on a paper examining a 71 year history of seasonal frost depths in a Eurasian location.



> The paper finds freeze depths decreased (indicative of warming) between the late 1960's to early 1990's, but that "from that point forward, likely through at least 2008, no change is evident." The paper finds the observed changes linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a natural climate cycle, rather than the uncorrelated steady rise in 'greenhouse gases.'


You don't say. No correlation to CO2 levels. Who knew?

Aside from warmist BS levels, is anything correlated to CO2 increases?


----------



## FeXL

Pachuari: Obama should unilaterally determine U.S. climate policy



> Pachauri continued, “Actually, to be honest, nobody over here [at COP 17] is paying any attention to science.”


The irony of this statement just went whoosh...


----------



## FeXL

The November AMO index goes negative, first time since 1996



> Joe D’Aleo reports via email that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Index has gone negative for this past month, see the graph below:
> 
> ...
> 
> This is the first time the November value has been negative since about 1996. It appears the down cycle has started. This portends a cooler period, especially winters.


Screeching about how version 97,854 of the warmist models predicted this in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## Macfury

Happy to see the Durban talks collapsing on its sorry ass. They agreed to start working on some sort of agreement in 2015. A long way away from the heady days of the Kyoto accord!


----------



## groovetube

Canada hopeful of finalizing new climate deal by 2015, Kent says - The Globe and Mail

You know what makes me laugh so hard? This. With all the bad press the cons were getting, they were going to pull out of kyoto blah blah, they still, despite all the furious hand waving and pronouncements that no one cares anymore, care enough obviously to pull the whole sham stunt of wanting to do something about it.

I mean, why bother if Canadians don't care? Why don't they have the stones to stand for what they really believe in? What are they afraid of?

It's because actually, Canadians do care. Dismissive hand waves, or no.


----------



## Macfury

I love this stuff. They're negotiating the maximum temperature increase of the planet as thought they've got their hand on a thermostat. Never mind the sun and all of the real climate drivers:

From Mother Jones:



> Of course, the change still leaves the agreement, termed the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action,” somewhat vague. Even if negotiations on a new legal agreement are set to begin ... in 2015, it’s not clear when they’d conclude. It also reaffirms the goal of holding global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), notes with “grave concern” that the pledges listed won’t meet that goal, and launches a “work plan” to consider improving those targets. But countries are still continuing pledges that put the world on a path toward 4 degrees C warming (7 degrees F).


I'm feeling pretty happy right now.


----------



## groovetube

meanwhile, while shiny balls are being admired by many, the planet is being horrendously poisoned. I don't just mean, GHG here either. I'm talking about all the rest of it.

Happy now? Probably I bet. That kool aid must be nuclear.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> meanwhile, while shiny balls are being admired by many, the planet is being horrendously poisoned. I don't just mean, GHG here either. I'm talking about all the rest of it.
> 
> Happy now? Probably I bet. That kool aid must be nuclear.


After all it's Christmas Time and shiny balls almost appear to grow on trees.

For some, a time of Great Exploitation, so be on your guard, everyone, Seasons Greetings.


----------



## Macfury

Some people don't understand this thread is about GHGs--they get excited and begin to weep great bitter tears about other things.


----------



## groovetube

lame.

You're not so good at this passive aggressive stuff. And my post was very much, about the GHG issue thanks.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> lame.
> 
> You're not so good at this passive aggressive stuff. And my post was very much, about the GHG issue thanks.


Some fail to understand the Carbon Capture and Storage of Balsam Fir, Pine or even Spruce used in the Christmas Trees trade.

During their short lives these trees grow rapidly, capture carbon, give off oxygen and when buried in a land fill or chipped up for mulch sequester carbon for a very long time.

For the short period of Christmas they're often covered with shiny balls that can be knocked off and rolled across the floor by say some mischievous cat or other.

Christmas Tree farmer's from Lunenburg County NS are now able to exploit markets further afield thanks to refrigeration as explained in this News Story (sorry about the exploitation by advertisers)

Why talk of Christmas Trees should be sequestered from a thread on GHG is beyond me and for a cherry Season's Greetings as well.

Error noted and corrected.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> For the short period of Christmas they're often covered with shinny balls...


I didn't know you played shinny. That's quite a common injury I hear.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Some fail to understand the Carbon Capture and Storage of Balsam Fir, Pine or even Spruce used in the Christmas Trees trade.
> 
> During their short lives these trees grow rapidly, capture carbon, give off oxygen and when buried in a land fill or chipped up for mulch sequester carbon for a very long time.
> 
> For the short period of Christmas they're often covered with shiny balls that can be knocked off and rolled across the floor by say some mischievous cat or other.
> 
> Christmas Tree farmer's from Lunenburg County NS are now able to exploit markets further afield thanks to refrigeration as explained in this News Story (sorry about the exploitation by advertisers)
> 
> Why talk of Christmas Trees should be sequestered from a thread on GHG is beyond me and for a cherry Season's Greetings as well.
> 
> Error noted and corrected.


It packed enough of a wallop that the grammar tick kicked right in


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> It packed enough of a wallop that the grammar tick kicked right in


Watch it! The thread police are all about. You may be safe with talk of ticks as they may have some reference to GHG but shinny defiantly doesn't...well as near as I can reconnoitre.

So


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> meanwhile, while shiny balls are being admired by many, the planet is being horrendously poisoned. I don't just mean, GHG here either. I'm talking about all the rest of it.
> 
> Happy now? Probably I bet. That kool aid must be nuclear.


I happen to believe that the real poisons should be a much higher priority. Reducing or eliminating those will have both immediate and long lasting positive impacts on the health of our environment. 

Making everything more expensive for those just getting by will have almost no impact on GHGs for the simple reason that this group has already trimmed consumption to the bone. To cause those at a higher income level to noticeably reduce their use of Natural Gas, gasoline and electricity, the effect on that first group would be nothing less than devastating. Not quite sure why the Chicken Little crowd is blind to this, but blind they seem to be.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> I happen to believe that the real poisons should be a much higher priority. Reducing or eliminating those will have both immediate and long lasting positive impacts on the health of our environment.


Most of us agree with this. But CO2 is not a pollutant.


----------



## Macfury

Been picking through the news and enjoying the latest tales of woe from the GHG crowd in Durban. I love this sort of gobbledygook:

COP17?s late deal ?falls short? - Daily News | IOL.co.za



> And scientists have warned that the agreement still falls significantly short of what is required in scientific terms to have a 50-50 chance of keeping human-induced global-warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels – the internationally-agreed goal.


Translation: this did not turn into a huge UN slush fund to funnel wealth to other nations. Bawwwwwwww!


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I happen to believe that the real poisons should be a much higher priority. Reducing or eliminating those will have both immediate and long lasting positive impacts on the health of our environment.
> 
> Making everything more expensive for those just getting by will have almost no impact on GHGs for the simple reason that this group has already trimmed consumption to the bone. To cause those at a higher income level to noticeably reduce their use of Natural Gas, gasoline and electricity, the effect on that first group would be nothing less than devastating. Not quite sure why the Chicken Little crowd is blind to this, but blind they seem to be.


well, I don't really agree with you fully in regards to GHG, but I've always thought that instead of the trading schemes and money changing hands there should simply be realistic cuts in emissions period. no trading, no passing of the buck. but even the conservative wont back such a scheme, opting for a sham sideshow of agreeing to agree we should do something, years and years from now, or for a more deceptive 'intensity target' scheme designed to dupe not do anything.

But I also do think a lot of this has tended to shroud some real poisons that we're going to wake up in 10 years and realize we have another, possibly even more toxic problem to deal with.


----------



## SINC

Just what part of temperature will become toxic anyway?


----------



## groovetube

Sinc I wasn't referring to temperature being toxic.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Just what part of temperature will become toxic anyway?


There you go, asking for clarity again. Why should that get in the way of an honest emotional outburst? Have you no feelings, man?


----------



## groovetube

I hope my reply made more sense than the passive aggressive troll sinc.

The 'toxic' I referred to was all the other poisons etc besides our concerns with GHG


----------



## FeXL

Quite a while back I brought to light the errors in Steig's '09 (S09) paper about Antarctic temperatures, refuted by O'Donnell in 2010.

Now, more than 2 years after Steig's paper was published, we find that it is:



> cited in at least 3 different chapters of AR5 initial drafts. The O’Donnell refutation (O10) of S09 was orders of magnitude more thorough than S09 and various stages of it were reviewed in blogland. Therefore our work had accurate results. *Apparently, accuracy counts for little in climate science™ as S09 is a mess and nobody seems to care.* Instead of recognizing these widely discussed issues, IPCC authors have taken little notice of our unexciting blue/red plots (that match ALL previous work) and have gone instead to the pretty red colors of S09.


Bold mine.

Further:



> Apparently, the way to get noticed in climate science is to publish unreasonable hockey stick style warming trends written in such a confusing manner that even other scientists can’t work out how you succeeded in communicating the AGW message. If others notice some problems, you refuse to release your messy code and tease their skepticism. If they write in blogs, well that’s not credible because it hasn’t gone through peer review. If they fight back in print, count on your friends to allow you to review the critique. You can recommend to the journal editor that the work be changed to agree with yours and if they won’t, you can recommend it not see the light of day. If the skeptics of your work still manage to publish, you can count on the media to ignore it. Your friends in charge of the institutions will then pretend not to notice the problems and accept your original pretty warming plots with an uncritical eye.


More:



> We are left with a single paper supporting the warming nonsense – you guessed it – S09. The truth is that the ground trends from station data after 1981 is between 0.03 and 0.05 C/Decade. So in short, Comiso, who is a coauthor of S09, and is very aware of our correct critique, has ignored reality in favor of false warming results.


There's a surprise...


----------



## groovetube

ah, the copy paste of blogs/google that agrees with one's opinion continues.


----------



## SINC

As does the sniping of posts. At least FeXL posts info on the thread subject.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> As does the sniping of posts. At least FeXL posts info on the thread subject.


SINC: Just ignore the posts from the emotional wing.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Just what part of temperature will become toxic anyway?


When temperature allows the absorption of extra Carbon by the oceans.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> When temperature allows the absorption of extra Carbon by the oceans.


What temperature is that? Specifically?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> As does the sniping of posts. At least FeXL posts info on the thread subject.


oh come on sinc, don't play like no one else here doesn't snipe. Perhaps we expect from atom smashers, but really.


----------



## groovetube

I still find it both interesting, and amusing that this government finds it necessary, to lie, pretend, what have you to make it appear they care about climate change. This merely shows that enough Canadians really -do- want action from our government, otherwise why don't they simply come clean and stand up for what they believe in? Why the side show hmmm? So far not one has addressed this.

This is an interesting read, pointing out Kent actually lying (again, why the need to do so??)
Kent Announces Canada is Legally Leaving the Kyoto Protocol

I did like the last paragraph about those who continually whine that we are only responsible for 2% of the world's GHG. Of course, if it didn't pose any problems, why cling to tis argument in the first place?

So sorry I didn't play google scientist and had some other things to say.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> So sorry I didn't play google scientist and had some other things to say.


Odd thing to claim when a Googled link accompanies the post.

Bottom line is the Liberals ignored their commitment to Kyoto after they signed it, and the Conservatives made it honest and bailed out to join a new and committed plan.


----------



## groovetube

it wasn't a googled link actually. And one that didn't purport to replace the lack of any scientific background or credentials. It isn't a scientific argument on GHG.


And you make it sound as though Canada has made a concerted effort to join a committed plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the rest of my post regarding this sham.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> And you make it sound as though Canada has made a concerted effort to join a committed plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the rest of my post regarding this sham.


Agreed. Certainly as far as the Chretien Liberals were concerned, there was no commitment for sure. They signed an accord they had no intention of honouring. At least the current government says they will in future which surpasses anything done previously.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Agreed. Certainly as far as the Chretien Liberals were concerned, there was no commitment for sure. They signed an accord they had no intention of honouring. At least the current government says they will in future which surpasses anything done previously.


ha ha. Well you won't get any fight from me in regards to chretiens total lack of any real action in regards to kyoto.

But regardless of your beliefs in whether GHG is a threat or not, no one will ever convince me Harper has anyone's interests other than the oil companies in mind.

Well that's probably generalizing, but too far off the mark.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> What temperature is that? Specifically?


Actually, except at very high pressures, the higher the temperature the less soluble CO2 becomes in water. This, of course, is part of the feedback loop that increases atmospheric CO2, as most of the global CO2 is sequestered as bicarbonate and carbonates in the oceans.

So as the mean temperature of the ocean continues to increase, more CO2 will be released from the ocean into the atmosphere, further exacerbating the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Actually, except at very high pressures, the higher the temperature the less soluble CO2 becomes in water.


It was a rhetorical question--one that BigDL could obviously not answer.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Actually, except at very high pressures, the higher the temperature the less soluble CO2 becomes in water. This, of course, is part of the feedback loop that increases atmospheric CO2, as most of the global CO2 is sequestered as bicarbonate and carbonates in the oceans.
> 
> So as the mean temperature of the ocean continues to increase, more CO2 will be released from the ocean into the atmosphere, further exacerbating the greenhouse effect.


Yep aware of that. However the only unfudged, non-cherry picked, multi depth, empirical measurements of ocean temps presented in this forum, show ocean temps stable or slightly decreasing over the very few years the measurements were made.

Again "The sky is falling" is great if you are trying to generate fear. As with Hitler, Stalin, Bush and BO if some one tells you to; "Be very afraid", it is a given that they know their plan for the future is far worse for you than that which they would have you fear.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> However the only unfudged, non-cherry picked, multi depth, empirical measurements of ocean temps presented in this forum, show ocean temps stable or slightly decreasing over the very few years the measurements were made.


Not being an oceanographer, I make no claims of special expertise on this subject. However, I do know and work with several professional oceanographers, and their opinion (and the vast majority of their peers) is diametrically opposite to yours. I will not debate the data, as I am not sufficiently expert to critically evaluate it myself, but those who are are in consistent agreement that there is strong evidence of a significant increase in mean ocean temperatures, based on a variety of independent and mutually supporting measurements, over the past half a century. 

As I have consistently held with regard to this topic, reading blogs, articles in the pop press and internet forums is not an adequate substitute for genuine expertise. If you really believe there is a vast global conspiracy of scientists engaging in fraud, you are welcome to establish your own credibility (by earning the advanced graduate degrees in the relevant subjects, then collecting, analyzing and publishing data that meets accepted standards of academic rigour and refutes the current consensus). Until that time, your opinions on the topic are not worth the electrons inconvenienced in their transmission.

The consensus of the scientific community on this and any scientific topic is the best evidence non-experts can hope to have on which to base their decisions.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The consensus of the scientific community on this and any scientific topic is the best evidence non-experts can hope to have on which to base their decisions.


There is no consensus, even among warmists, who cite all manner of inconsistent findings.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Not being an oceanographer, I make no claims of special expertise on this subject. However, I do know and work with several professional oceanographers, and their opinion (and the vast majority of their peers) is diametrically opposite to yours. I will not debate the data, as I am not sufficiently expert to critically evaluate it myself, but those who are are in consistent agreement that there is strong evidence of a significant increase in mean ocean temperatures, based on a variety of independent and mutually supporting measurements, over the past half a century.
> 
> *As I have consistently held with regard to this topic, reading blogs, articles in the pop press and internet forums is not an adequate substitute for genuine expertise.* If you really believe there is a vast global conspiracy of scientists engaging in fraud, you are welcome to establish your own credibility (by earning the advanced graduate degrees in the relevant subjects, then collecting, analyzing and publishing data that meets accepted standards of academic rigour and refutes the current consensus). Until that time, your opinions on the topic are not worth the electrons inconvenienced in their transmission.
> 
> The consensus of the scientific community on this and any scientific topic is the best evidence non-experts can hope to have on which to base their decisions.


Falling on deaf ears bryanc. Pronouncements on a forum has more credibility than any of your professional oceanographer friends. Apparently they don't know the value of anonymity and forums.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> There is no consensus, even among warmists


Your denial of well-documented facts does little to support your position.

The fact that scientists cite and argue about inconsistencies in the data is *normal*. That's how science works. Resolving those inconsistencies is how we gain a better understanding of phenomena. Pretending the phenomena are not occurring is the purview of oil company shills.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Your denial of well-documented facts does little to support your position.
> 
> The fact that scientists cite and argue about inconsistencies in the data is *normal*. That's how science works. Resolving those inconsistencies is how we gain a better understanding of phenomena. Pretending the phenomena are not occurring is the purview of oil company shills.


Nope. When even warmists disagree over whether the ocean is warming, we have a problem that goes to the root of the theory.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Nope. When even warmists disagree over whether the ocean is warming, we have a problem that goes to the root of the theory.


Well, you may have a problem. I don't know any 'warmists'. Just scientists, and they're in remarkable (and extremely uncharacteristic) agreement. There are certainly lots of disagreements about the details, the mechanisms, and the causes of discrepancies, and even how much warming is occurring, but that's to be expected and it is a good thing. As I said, that's how science works.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Well, you may have a problem. I don't know any 'warmists'. Just scientists, and they're in remarkable (and extremely uncharacteristic) agreement. There are certainly lots of disagreements about the details, the mechanisms, and the causes of discrepancies, and even how much warming is occurring, but that's to be expected and it is a good thing. As I said, that's how science works.


It can work to create the false appearance of consensus.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> As I have consistently held with regard to this topic, reading blogs, articles in the pop press and internet forums is not an adequate substitute for genuine expertise. If you really believe there is a vast global conspiracy of scientists engaging in fraud, you are welcome to establish your own credibility (by earning the advanced graduate degrees in the relevant subjects, then collecting, analyzing and publishing data that meets accepted standards of academic rigour and refutes the current consensus). Until that time, your opinions on the topic are not worth the electrons inconvenienced in their transmission.


And if my posts contribute nothing to this forum, your continuous litany of heretofore disproven "consensus" and wilful ignorance to the topic at hand contributes even less...


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> And if my posts contribute nothing to this forum, your continuous litany of heretofore disproven "consensus" and wilful ignorance to the topic at hand contributes even less...


Let;s see, someone who knows what they are talking about, and a pair of internet google experts getting hepped up.

Let's see, hmm, who has more credibility....


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Let;s see, someone who knows what they are talking about, and a pair of internet google experts getting hepped up.
> 
> Let's see, hmm, who has more credibility....


Hmmm, bryanc has repeatedly stated he does not know what he is talking about, he trusts his peers.

As for you, please feel free to include yourself in that second group you noted. You know, the ones without credibility. You belong with them without question.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Hmmm, bryanc has repeatedly stated he does not know what he is talking about, he trusts his peers.
> 
> As for you, please feel free to include yourself in that second group you noted. You know, the ones without credibility. You belong with them without question.


Why would you think I wouldn't? Except oh right... I'm not googling links pretending I'm a scientist. Were you not reading my post carefully enough? Obviously you were angered by my post enough to miss the point.

I'm not stupid enough to pass -myself- as someone as knowledgeable as say bryanc, who actually works in the field. bryanc, seems to know enough when he is not in his area of expertise, and when he is. And he honestly admits this.

Which is more than I can say for a few around here.

Hope that doesn't leave too much of a mark.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I'm not stupid enough to pass -myself- as someone as knowledgeable as say bryanc, who actually works in the field. bryanc, seems to know enough when he is not in his area of expertise, and when he is. And he honestly admits this.


Nice try, but no, bryanc does NOT work in the field. That's exactly why he continues to state he does not have the expertise to do any more than trust the scientists he respects.

Got it now?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Nice try, but no, bryanc does NOT work in the field. That's exactly why he continues to state he does not have the expertise to do any more than trust the scientists he respects.
> 
> Got it now?


try reading my post a little more carefully.

Hope it gets clearer.


----------



## groovetube

in case you need readin glasses...

 bryanc, seems to know enough when he is not in his area of expertise, and when he is. And he honestly admits this.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> try reading my post a little more carefully.
> 
> Hope it gets clearer.


I did and you clearly stated bryanc works in the field. Since this is the AGW thread, I call BS. Try and deny that one.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I did and you clearly stated bryanc works in the field. Since this is the AGW thread, I call BS. Try and deny that one.


Alas, some posters have a memory that stretches back to just after the last thing they posted.


----------



## groovetube

he works in science. As far as I know. And you likely know there are many different areas of study.

I would consider someone who works in the field of science, and someone who understands better when they;re not as qualified to comment or not on something that is not their area of expertise, someone with a littl more credibility than some anonymous character on an internet forum who reads blogs.

I'm sorry that this upsets you. But that's just how it is.


----------



## SINC

Sorry to get you all excited. Wow even enough to pull a child like stunt like someone else here to use the giant type. I repeat:



groovetube said:


> I'm not stupid enough to pass -myself- as someone as knowledgeable *as say bryanc, who actually works in the field*. bryanc, seems to know enough when he is not in his area of expertise, and when he is. And he honestly admits this.


That statement is flat out wrong.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Alas, some posters have a memory that stretches back to just after the last thing they posted.


are you describing yourself, oh captain passive aggressive? Were you not just crapping on someone else for not providing research somewhere else?

Yeah you were. Come on complain some more about people "sniping". Then go about your merry business doing so yourself

Both of you, hypocrites. Whining when someone does something only to do the very same thing yourselves. Embarrassing. Then that other screechy one, who cries holy terror if he thinks someone insulted him, only to call people friggin 10 year olds later.

Come on. Grow up.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Sorry to get you all excited. Wow even enough to pull a child like stunt like someone else here to use the giant type. I repeat:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is flat out wrong.


how many times must one explain that it clearly, was science. Was this not obvious?

Come on, have drink and call it a day, seriously. You're just simply looking for a fight where there is none. I told you twice it referred to someone working in science, you either get that or you don;t.

I don't care.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> how many times must one explain that it clearly, was science. Was this not obvious?
> 
> Come on, have drink and call it a day, seriously. You're just simply looking for a fight where there is none. I told you twice it referred to someone working in science, you either get that or you don;t.
> 
> I don't care.


Nor do I. You made an incorrect statement and don't have the stones to admit it. Fine by me.


----------



## groovetube

the field science. How many times must one explain the obvious. The very nex statement which I put in huge text for your benefit, clearly showed I was well aware of this. He has said many many times, he is not in that particular field.

Now go fight with someone else.


----------



## SINC

Then correct yourself and edit the post. Your ambiguities are a laugh. Night.


----------



## groovetube

I think it was quite clear. You asked, I clarified it 3 TIMES, but you just wanted a fight.

Unfortunately, you missed it. And now you're upset. So you got your little fight, hope you're satisfied.


----------



## Lawrence

I still think the cereal bowl will become a dust bowl if the Harper government interferes.


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> I still think the cereal bowl will become a dust bowl if the Harper government interferes.


Why?


----------



## Lawrence

...Sorry wrong thread, Meant to post in wheat board thread.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Then correct yourself and edit the post. Your ambiguities are a laugh. Night.


It would be nice if people stopped posting merely to tell us they are not qualified to post.


----------



## groovetube

It -is- a drag when someone responds to your sweeping pronouncements as though it was fact.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It would be nice if people stopped posting merely to tell us they are not qualified to post.


I'm sure you would love it if no one ever called you out on your deliberate conflation of issues (such as the conflation of one's ability to analyze specific scientific data with one's ability to recognize the significance of an unprecedented consensus among scientists), but there remain a few intellectually honest people discussing these topics, and I drop in occasionally for their benefit.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm sure you would love it if no one ever called you out on your deliberate conflation of issues (such as the conflation of one's ability to analyze specific scientific data with one's ability to recognize the significance of an unprecedented consensus among scientists), but there remain a few intellectually honest people discussing these topics, and I drop in occasionally for their benefit.


Howe do they benefit form this? You seem to know very little about the topic, other than calling out your false claim of "consensus."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Howe do they benefit form this?


Several ways: Firstly, someone less familiar with your habit of conflating unrelated issues could be confused by your rhetorical trickery. Secondly, someone unfamiliar with the culture of science may not understand that disagreement about details and specific interpretations is common (and valuable) even when there is strong consensus about the general paradigm. Thirdly, someone unfamiliar with the culture of science may not know that achieving a consensus of more than 50% of researchers within any given feild is extraordinary, let alone the >90% consensus that exists among climatologists regarding AGW. Fourthly, a naive but otherwise intelligent individual may mistake apparently reasonable critiques by non-experts for credible problems with published research.

Finally, there are a few of you who have set up a little echo chamber here, and while I appreciate the merit of keeping this discussion out of other threads, it seems a valuable contribution for me to remind any naive readers who may come across this thread that you, and the other vocal science-deniers around here don't have a smegging clue what you're talking about.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> don't have a smegging clue what you're talking about.


Pot, meet kettle...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Pot, meet kettle...


Really. Since any of our disagreements with the false consensus are based in science. Strikes me that bryanc has got religion... because the evidence on his side is getting mighty sketchy.


----------



## FeXL

So...

There are people on these boards who insist that you cannot be a climate scientist without years of schooling, work, training, publication, secret handshakes, blah, blah, blah.

I happen to agree. 

I know, I know.

However, you do not need to be a climate scientist to ask some salient questions. Like, say, these for instance:

1) There are two well documented periods of global warming during the 20th century. The first was from 1917 to about 1947 when CO2 levels were <320ppm. The second period of warming occurred from about 1977 to 1998 when CO2 levels were >350ppm. If, as you say, global warming is caused by high CO2 levels, what caused the first warming & subsequent cooling?

2) If, as you say, high CO2 levels cause global warming, why, according to every temperature record out there, has there been no warming since 1998 in the presence of 390ppm CO2?

3) So, you say you have computer models which can accurately forecast future climate. Great! How accurate is the output when you hindcast?

Nor do you need to be a climate scientist to be able to read. Take, say, the Climategate 2.0 emails and the lies, the collusion & willful ignorance of many of the participants. In what context could any of these be considered acceptable?

Perhaps a book or two?

1) Donna Laframboise's expose of the IPCC, _The Deliquent Teenager_, investigative journalism at it's finest.

2) _The Hockey Stick Illusion_ by Andrew Montford.

Some persons on these boards have accused me of reading only "blog" science, as if there can be nothing learned from the reading thereof. Interestingly enough, not only do some of the credentialed "warmists" have their own blogs (which, according to the large brush some people paint with, must be crap 'cause it's merely a "blog"...), but so do some credentialed skeptics.

1) Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist.

2) Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr, meteorologist.

Some people on these boards screech & parrot about "unprecedented" heat waves, cold snaps, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, unicorn farts, whatever, caused by high CO2 levels. You don't need to be a climate scientist to visit Steven Goddard's blog to read the multitude of press pieces from years ago about extreme weather events when CO2 levels were far lower than today. What caused those?

There are some on these boards who screech regularly about the 90%+ consensus amongst scientists about global warming. This was a crock when the number was first cited & remains so.



> However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.


There are many warmists out there who screech that a 2 degree increase in temperatures will push our climate to a no return scenario, a situation which cannot return to stasis, a runaway. One need not be a climate scientist to observe a graph of our paleoclimatic history charting temps & CO2 levels to find that during most of our past worldwide temperatures have been 10 degrees warmer than today and CO2 levels have been this low infrequently in the past.

One need not be a climate scientist to check up on failed predictions from, among other colourful characters, James Hansen. At what point does Chicken Little begin to lose credibility?

One need not be a climate scientist to question Michael Mann's hockey stick handle (complete elimination of the Medieval Warm Period). There are over 1000 scientists who have published data to the contrary. You don't even need to read the papers. Merely knowing that this massive database is extant should lead you to question.

One need not be a climate scientist to see warmist rhetoric change as predictions come due & fall flat on their face: "Global warming" -> "Climate Change" -> "Climate Disruption."

One need not be a climate scientist to know that the argument put forth by warmists is so full of holes it looks like swiss cheese, _even at the basal, most elementary levels._ All you need is enough brainpower to melt the snowflakes falling on your pretty head.

No degrees required for some quick, basic, revealing research...


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> No degrees required for some quick, basic, revealing research...


those damn idiots spening 100s of Gs on degrees and such.

All you need is some gumption and a burnin fire to figure she out.

Sounds like a top sellin tv reality show.


----------



## SINC

Another snipe to a thoughtful post. If you took half the time he did to present his case, to respond in a meaningful manner, I might respect a post from you. As it is, well, you know. Good job, on a clearly presented post FeXL, well done.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry, but I disagree. And I clearly stated that. If you don't like it, too bad. In my Canada, freedom of expression still exists to express one;s opinion whether you like it or not. At least until Harper and co. take that away as well.

In short, I don't care. You call it a snipe, I call it a disagreement.

deal with it.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> There are people on these boards who insist that you cannot be a climate scientist without years of schooling, work, training, publication, secret handshakes, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> I happen to agree.


Good to know. I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing here.



> However, you do not need to be a climate scientist to ask some salient questions.


No you do not. However, you may need to be a climate scientist in order to understand the answers.

You will also have to ask *real* climate scientists for the answers to these questions. Getting your answers from bloggers, journalists, forum posters, etc. is not the same thing. Furthermore, like any other field of science, you may find that the answers you get are not 100% consistent. In my feild, for example, if you were to ask a good question of 100 developmental biologists, you may get 200 or even 300 good answers; it's certainly the case that you'd find very little consistency or consensus on most non-trivial topics. If you can find a topic about which you can get a consistent answer from even 50% of people working in that field, you can conclude that this is a topic which is "very well understood". 95% consensus is effectively "settled". There will always be dissenters.



> No degrees required for some quick, basic, revealing research...


Not if you don't care about actually understanding the science, or why there is essentially no debate among those people with degrees in the field.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Really. Since any of our disagreements with the false consensus are based in science.


On the contrary. Our disagreements are emphatically unrelated to the science as neither you nor I are qualified to discuss it.



> Strikes me that bryanc has got religion... because the evidence on his side is getting mighty sketchy.


My evidence is simply the well-established fact (to which I have previously linked ample evidence) that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is a significant factor. I make no claims about the evidence that has compelled these scientists to come to this conclusion, because, as I have said over and over, no one here has the expertise to discuss it rationally. You persistently try to conflate your meaningless opinions about the science (which are meaningless because you lack the expertise to formulate meaningful opinions) with the issue of wether or not a consensus among researchers exists. These are unrelated issues.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> My evidence is simply the well-established fact (to which I have previously linked ample evidence) that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, and that human activity is a significant factor.


That big superiority complex must be a heavy burden to carry around some days.


----------



## groovetube

I merely expressing my opinion sinc. It is you that is complaining about it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a snipe.


----------



## SINC

Right you are gt, and you just keep on believing that. As for me, it's little more than deja moo. Bull I've heard before.


----------



## Macfury

Remember folks, bryanc's opinion on this is self-admittedly meaningless. 

Mine is not.


----------



## groovetube

you guys are just mad because someone reminded y'all yer not scientists.

and it left a mark obviously.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> However, you may need to be a climate scientist in order to understand the answers.


Your superiority complex is showing her slip again. Simple questions, simple answers. Unless, of course, you happen to be a warmist & suddenly you need to start fabricating some elaborate piece of rhetoric to deflect from the original question.



bryanc said:


> You will also have to ask *real* climate scientists for the answers to these questions. Getting your answers from bloggers, journalists, forum posters, etc. is not the same thing.


These questions have been answered by *real* climate scientists, with PhD's an' everythin'. I noted two of the finest in my post. You may wish to educate yourself by clicking on a link.



bryanc said:


> Furthermore, like any other field of science, you may find that the answers you get are not 100% consistent.


I'm not looking for consistency. I'm looking for results based on empirical evidence. If that means that there is one single, solitary voice of reason amidst all the screeching, hand waving & chest-thumping, they've got my attention.



bryanc said:


> 95% consensus is effectively "settled".


There is no 95% consensus. Click on the link, learn something about these numbers that spew uncontrollably from your mouth. Your ignorance of the most basal of matters is, once again, showing. Tired of holding your hand, bryanc...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Click on the link, learn something about these numbers that spew uncontrollably from your mouth. Your ignorance of the most basal of matters is, once again, showing. Tired of holding your hand, bryanc...


This is the "religion" of his stance. He has already spoken to the climate priests. There is no reason to look at writs of false doctrine.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> This is the "religion" of his stance. He has already spoken to the climate priests. There is no reason to look at writs of false doctrine.


Hmmm, why am I finding parallels to blindly following peers data on AGW so strikingly similar to people's religion? And then calling other's Gods the "flying spaghetti monster" and the like?

Seems to me that some actually practice what they ridicule others in real life for believing?

Anyone else see the similarity, not to mention the irony?


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Anyone else see the similarity, not to mention the irony?


This would be similar and ironic if I were taking the stance that we must believe what the authorities say without evidence. I am not.

This is apparently to subtle for MF and FeXL, but I'll try again for your benefit; Any feild of science is complex, and requires decades or more of study before you can establish a credible understanding of any unsettled issues. If you wish to become educated in some specific field, that's great. Once you have established your credibility in that feild, you opinion is worth considering. However, if you have not undergone the training, your opinion on the validity of hypotheses and theories within that field is worthless. Thus, you can either accept the consensus of the people who *do* have the training, or withhold judgement.

I have no argument with folks who take the position that they don't know enough to have an opinion. Nor do I have a problem with the (very few) people who are trained in the relevant disciplines who are arguing against the consensus of their peers.

My problem is with the poster-children for the Dunning-Kruger effect, who are so ignorant of the fundamental science that they can't understand why the scientists are in agreement, and therefore conclude that the scientists must have got it wrong.


----------



## groovetube

Or, the ones that think that because there are disagreements in the details etc., that that automatically means there is no consensus. There'll always be the ones that find a handful of "scientists" that are in disagreement with the consensus, as if this somehow breaks it all up. And we have all seen the endless attempts at the fabricated lists of scientists who disagree with GHG being a cause of climate change. It's been found to be fraudulent numerous times, but they still try.


----------



## MacGuiver

I see the Irony Sinc.

Bryan's absence of credentials don't seem to get in the way of him fielding his toxic opinions on the religions he doesn't adhere to. You'd figure he'd be silent on the subject until he's at least obtained a degree in theology if he were to adhere to his own standards. 
Next time someone starts religion bashing thread, and its only a matter of time before they do, we'll remind Bryan he's unqualified to front an opinion on the matter and anything he says is irrelevant since he lacks the expertise in the field to comment. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This would be similar and ironic if I were taking the stance that we must believe what the authorities say without evidence. I am not.
> 
> This is apparently to subtle for MF and FeXL, but I'll try again for your benefit; Any feild of science is complex, and requires decades or more of study before you can establish a credible understanding of any unsettled issues. If you wish to become educated in some specific field, that's great. Once you have established your credibility in that feild, you opinion is worth considering. However, if you have not undergone the training, your opinion on the validity of hypotheses and theories within that field is worthless. Thus, you can either accept the consensus of the people who *do* have the training, or withhold judgement.
> 
> I have no argument with folks who take the position that they don't know enough to have an opinion. Nor do I have a problem with the (very few) people who are trained in the relevant disciplines who are arguing against the consensus of their peers.
> 
> My problem is with the poster-children for the Dunning-Kruger effect, who are so ignorant of the fundamental science that they can't understand why the scientists are in agreement, and therefore conclude that the scientists must have got it wrong.


It appears from your comments, bryanc, that YOU are ignorant of the most basic tenets of science. Look at just some of those links that FeXL posted. Can you honestly examine the gross errors that have crept into the assumptions of these studies, throw up your hands and declare: "Oh, take it away! How can little old me understand the language of science? I'll leave it to the experts."

Unfortunately, science is not the respected discipline it once was. Sure, it's tough to look at fellow scientists and see they make errors, develop studies with meaningless parameters and inferior data sets, are sometimes driven by their emotions and political leanings, manipulate data, often wear blinders a mile wide that prevent them from assessing the validity of their data and conclusions, and can even be bought--and that studies produced under any of the above conditions can be happily peer-reviewed and published.

Your respect for scientists seems to be a holdover from the 1950s.


----------



## FeXL

*The Empire Strikes Back...*

Breaking news:



> It seems that the world governments are escalating cliamtegate to the next level. Tallbloke a fellow recipient blog of the climategate emails, and linked on the right, was raided today in what seems to be a coordinated effort by Metropolitan Police, the Norfolk Constabulary and the Computer Crime division and the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division. His home was raided and computers were taken for ‘examination’.


More:



> The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke’s Talkshop first reported on CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police (Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence. He writes:
> 
> _After surveying my ancient stack of Sun Sparcstations and PII 400 pc’s, they ended up settling for two laptops and an adsl broadband router. I’m blogging this post via my mobile._
> 
> That means his cellphone. In his blog report are all the details. including actions in the US involving WordPress and the US Department of Justice. Jeff Id at The Air Vent also has a report here.


Further:



> *They don’t really want to catch the leaker, because a whistleblower is protected by UK legislation. The proof that this is aimed at intimidating bloggers rather than catching the climategate leaker is the coordinated and pointless US dept of Justice action through wordpress.* To wit:
> 
> Both Tallbloke and JeffID received “the following notification from the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division and forwarded by Ryan at WordPress. ClimateAudit is also mentioned yet I’m not certain that Steve Received notice. It seems that the larger paid blogs may not have received any notice. On pdf -WordPress Preservation Request-1“
> 
> The notification apparently asks them not to make the information public or else... they may terminate their wordpress account.


Bold mine.

I agree entirely with what Jo Nova observed.

What a crock...


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I see the Irony Sinc.
> 
> Bryan's absence of credentials don't seem to get in the way of him fielding his toxic opinions on the religions he doesn't adhere to. You'd figure he'd be silent on the subject until he's at least obtained a degree in theology if he were to adhere to his own standards.
> Next time someone starts religion bashing thread, and its only a matter of time before they do, we'll remind Bryan he's unqualified to front an opinion on the matter and anything he says is irrelevant since he lacks the expertise in the field to comment.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


brync's scalpel-like intellect only cuts in one direction--to support his presuppositions.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> they can't understand why the scientists are in agreement


On the contrary, this has never been a mystery.

They're all scrambling around like a bunch of cockroaches, trying to save their jobs.

Follow the money.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> On the contrary, this has never been a mystery.
> 
> They're all scrambling around like a bunch of cockroaches, trying to save their jobs.
> 
> Follow the money.


But hell, man, these are SCIENTISTS! They are only interested in uncovering the truth--remuneration and job security be damned.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> But hell, man, these are SCIENTISTS! They are only interested in uncovering the truth--remuneration and job security be damned.


The irony in that statement is that nearly all warmists are paid, whereas many skeptics conduct their work for the sheer pleasure of uncovering the truth.


----------



## groovetube

Yeah I don't know that I've seen any of the skeptics in the back pocket of any il companies.

bah ha ha ha. Fraudulent claims after fraudulent claims. Next we'll get that fake list of all the scientists against the climate change theories.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It appears from your comments, bryanc, that YOU are ignorant of the most basic tenets of science. Look at just some of those links that FeXL posted. Can you honestly examine the gross errors that have crept into the assumptions of these studies, throw up your hands and declare: "Oh, take it away! How can little old me understand the language of science? I'll leave it to the experts."
> 
> *Unfortunately, science is not the respected discipline it once was*. Sure, it's tough to look at fellow scientists and see they make errors, develop studies with meaningless parameters and inferior data sets, are sometimes driven by their emotions and political leanings, manipulate data, often wear blinders a mile wide that prevent them from assessing the validity of their data and conclusions, and can even be bought--and that studies produced under any of the above conditions can be happily peer-reviewed and published.
> 
> Your respect for scientists seems to be a holdover from the 1950s.


Yes and Fexl and macfurys of the forums are just the men to restore these great crimes of errors!


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Bryan's absence of credentials don't seem to get in the way of him fielding his toxic opinions on the religions he doesn't adhere to. You'd figure he'd be silent on the subject until he's at least obtained a degree in theology if he were to adhere to his own standards.


Actually, I do have a degree in philosophy, and have studied both western and eastern religions fairly seriously. Hence my strong opinions on the subject.

It is also possible to have opinions on subjects about which one is not terribly well informed, but it is incumbent on someone who holds such opinions to defer to greater expertise should such expertise be demonstrated. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with someone because they have more training than you, but if you disagree with someone on a topic about which they know a great deal more than you, it's only reasonable to consider that there might be more to their opinion than you had previously considered. This is all the more obvious when the topic is objectively accessible (like science) rather than subjective (like religion), especially when the objective data and analyses are highly technical and therefore require specialized training in order to understand them.

Thus, it is reasonable to formulate your own opinions on any topic, but when discussing these opinions one must remain cognizant of one's own limitations. If my opinions regarding the mechanisms of vertebrate morphogenesis are challenged, I will hold to them far more forcefully than if my opinions regarding the causes of climate change are challenged, but in both cases I would carefully consider the reasoned opinions of experts on the subject (it's just that I _am_ one on the former, but not the latter). 

My complaint with the participants here is not that they have opinions that differ from those of the scientists in the field, but rather that they are unwilling to accept that their opinions are not worth as much as those of the scientists they oppose. Unless and until they obtain the relevant training, all they are doing is trawling the internet for indications that there are others out there who agree with them, but they are in no position to even judge wether those who do agree understand the science any better than they do. So it's meaningless.



{edit to add: if someone with even so much as an undegraduate degree in climatology were to chime in here and say that there was merit to the argument against AGW, I'd give it far more credence than the continual cheerleading for Big Oil from the partisan right-wing-nuts}


----------



## Macfury

Philosophy is not religion. You're not qualified.


----------



## groovetube

it appears it went right over atom smasher's head.

It's rather hilarious that someone would draw such a parallel between religion, and science.


----------



## bryanc

Epistemology is the study of how we 'know' or form beliefs. Religion is a way of forming beliefs. Religion, especially if you agree with Kant, also relates to Ethics and Metaphysics. And, my favourite philosophical topic, the idea of conscious agency, has been inextricably interwoven with the religious notion of a soul since it's earliest conception.

So while I agree that religion _ought_ not be considered philosophy, it most assuredly is.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Philosophy is not religion. You're not qualified.


As indicated, I'm certainly as well qualified as you, MacGuiver, or anyone here. If someone with advanced degrees in relevant disciplines shows up and want's to contribute to the discussion, I'd welcome it. 

Why wouldn't you? ... oh... nevermind, that's obvious... you'd hate to have another scientist to point out how wrong you are.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Why wouldn't you? ... oh... nevermind, that's obvious... you'd hate to have another scientist to point out how wrong you are.


That would be you. I don't have the same awe and respect of scientists that you demonstrate.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't have the same awe and respect of scientists that you demonstrate.


Dosent surprise me, given your demonstrable lack of scientific understanding.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Dosent surprise me, given your demonstrable lack of scientific understanding.


Understanding is one thing, respecting as a superior class is quite another. It's a profession. No more, no less.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's a profession. No more, no less.


Well, that's arguable, but if we take that as a given, would you agree that a consensus among electrical engineers about the design of power stations should be taken more seriously than the opinions of some guy on the web, even if that guy can find some blog posts that support his position?


----------



## groovetube

Wow. It didn't take long for him to get to the "superior class" thing. Well that certainly speaks volumes as to why it's so difficult to understand why people who have the education, and experience may have more credibility in their opinions than the anonymous individuals excited by a handful of blogs.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Well, that's arguable, but if we take that as a given, would you agree that a consensus among electrical engineers about the design of power stations should be taken more seriously than the opinions of some guy on the web, even if that guy can find some blog posts that support his position?


No. The consensus would be meaningless. I trust them because they can demonstrate their findings almost immediately in the real world through the successful designs of the power stations. Most of their designs have some historic validity. We can also measure inputs and outputs and costs and arrive at an objective measure of the value of their design. Any consensus would be derived from the demonstrable operation and efficiency of their power station.

However, if they merely told me that they wanted all power stations built according to some weird design by 2020 or some irreversible catastrophe would occur, I would need to see reasonable proof, damn the so-called consensus. (At the same time, I expect that no such consensus would occur).


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I trust them because they can demonstrate their findings almost immediately in the real world


Thus my contention that you don't understand science. Engineering can do this. Science often can to some extent, but you have to be extremely knowledgeable to understand the evidence and logic underlying the conclusions, because, unlike engineering, science must deal with large uncertainties and aspects of nature that are completely unknown (that's why we call it "research"). Thus, unlike an engineer who can point to a machine that works, a scientist can only point to data that fit certain kinds of models when constrained by certain kinds of assumption and measured in certain kinds of ways. In order to understand why the science is valid, you have to understand all the logic underlying the limitations and the collection of the data. With respect to climatology, no one here has that expertise, and therefore no one here is qualified to say wether or not the climatologists are interpreting their data correctly.

All we can say is that there is a very unusual consensus among climatologists regarding AGW. Personally, as a scientist, I find that very compelling evidence that they must be onto something, because in my experience scientists almost never agree about anything. You may not find that consensus compelling, but I would argue that's because either A) you're ideologically opposed to the logical consequences of accepting that conclusion, or B) you're not a scientist, so you don't recognize how unusual such a consensus is (or both).

Regardless, your interpretation of the scientific evidence that has given rise to this consensus is not relevant, because you lack the expertise to interpret the data and do the analyses. You (and others) persistently conflate the evidence for the existence of a consensus among qualified climatologists about AGW (which is something we _are_ qualified to argue) with the evidence for AGW itself (which no one here has the qualifications to discuss). I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and tried to clarify this on several occasions, but have come to the conclusion that you are simply being obtuse in order to prevent any useful or illuminating discussion from occurring.


----------



## bryanc

As another illustration of this point:

Assume that by next year, the community of subatomic physicists comes to a >90% consensus that the data emerging from the LHC reveals the existence of the Higgs boson. I don't think you or I or anyone here would be able to argue that they're wrong. But there will doubtless be a few dissenters who have alternate explanations, or who argue that the data is flawed, and it may even emerge that some of the physicists engaged in the research are secretive, competitive and/or not very nice people. Furthermore, there will not be any practical application of this discovery for decades at least (perhaps ever), so there will be no "real world" demonstration that the physicists have got it right, except of the form that only physicists can understand. But for someone who is not a physicist to loudly proclaim that the skeptics are right and the vast majority of physicists are wrong would be ludicrous. Yet this is exactly what you're doing WRT climatologists.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> In order to understand why the science is valid, you have to understand all the logic underlying the limitations and the collection of the data. With respect to climatology, no one here has that expertise, and therefore no one here is qualified to say wether or not the climatologists are interpreting their data correctly.


No one here, true, but I do know someone with such expertise who does not find that the majority of climatologists possess the expertise to understand the underlying logic of the models that they use. That is, he doesn't think they are interpreting the computer models (which climatologists don't typically create) correctly. 

This isn't to say that he does not think that AGW isn't happening, because from what he understands, something does seem to be happening. But he questions the predictions made based on computer models as he finds that the interpretation of these models seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of limitations of the models themselves.

(This is my layperson's interpretation, of course.)


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> All we can say is that there is a very unusual consensus among climatologists regarding AGW.


I don't believe we can say that at all. And I have seen the way the models have been rigged to produce the desired outcome. Many climate scientists either fail as statisticians or they're deliberately deceitful. The Climatgate 2.0 e-mails reveal that this sort of thing is commonplace to serve a cause.


----------



## SINC

I think it is important to note that the vast majority of us here are more than fully qualified to comment on the human condition. And most of us from experience know very well when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is very likely a duck. We also are keenly aware that the human condition is often driven by a desire for riches and any carbon trading network would certainly provide that opportunity. 

Further I submit that we all, at one time or another, have seen our own kind fudge data or results to try and justify their own ends. That noted, I submit we are imminently qualified to comment on what we see as the quacks and waddles of so-called scientists driven to convince the general population there is something to be feared with AGW. After all, scientists themselves are vulnerable humans, just like those of us that they are trying to push their questionable conclusions down our throats. 

There is without any question serious flaws in their models and processes that are part of the human condition that leave gaping holes in any such 'consensus', even if it is accepted by scientists who admittedly know nothing about climate change.

While other scientists may be silly enough to blindly accept skewed results, even when they admittedly do not understand it either, many of us are not.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> While other scientists may be silly enough to blindly accept skewed results, even when they admittedly do not understand it either, many of us are not.


Some people (notably few climatologists) say the results have been skewed, and some people (many of whom _are_ climatologists) say they have not been skewed. I say, as members of the lay public, we are in no position to decide for ourselves with regard to the scientific results. So all we can do is look at the social result: among climatologists there is a strong consensus that AGW is happening.

My primary complaint has been with those people who've been google-linking various tidbits of data as evidence for or against AGW, because none of us here has the expertise to critically analyze the data. So the best we can do is consider the analysis of those who do have the expertise.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> No one here, true, but I do know someone with such expertise who does not find that the majority of climatologists possess the expertise to understand the underlying logic of the models that they use. That is, he doesn't think they are interpreting the computer models (which climatologists don't typically create) correctly.


I'm sure there are some climatologists who aren't analyzing their data optimally. Just as I'm sure there are computer scientists making models that don't optimally represent the current understanding of climatic processes. Science is hard, and interdisciplinary science is hard raised to the power of the number of disciplines involved.

I have a friend who is trained as an astrophysicist, who's special expertise is in modelling convective mixing of plasmas during stellar evolution. He has been working with climate scientists (oceanographers) and computer scientists in an effort to bridge this gap. They're making progress, and as they do so, their models continue to improve and converge on what seem likely to be better predictions of how the climate is likely to change. One of the points to take note of here, however, is that the types of errors made are just as likely to cause under representation of warming as over-representation; and as the models have improved over the last decade, the estimates have changed, but they've never shown anything other than warming.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't believe we can say [that there's a consensus among credible climate researchers] at all.


You can believe or not believe what you like, but the facts speak for themselves:



> 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change]


 (Anderegg, et al., 2009).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You can believe or not believe what you like, but the facts speak for themselves:
> 
> (Anderegg, et al., 2009).


How many times does that embarrassing study need to be debunked? Apparently you haven't followed this thread.

Models are getting better? Great! But since their own margins of error are greater than the anomalies they attempt to explain, worthless.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> How many times does that embarrassing study need to be debunked? Apparently you haven't followed this thread.


It's true, I generally leave this little echo chamber to the cheerleaders. If by "debunked" you mean some blog post, I'm not interested. If you have a link to some peer-reviewed research published in a reputable journal like PNAS (which is where "that embarrassing study" was published), I might actually have a look at it.


----------



## groovetube

I'd be interested in tis as well.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> No one here, true, but I do know someone with such expertise who does not find that the majority of climatologists possess the expertise to understand the underlying logic of the models that they use. That is, he doesn't think they are interpreting the computer models (which climatologists don't typically create) correctly.
> 
> This isn't to say that he does not think that AGW isn't happening, because from what he understands, something does seem to be happening. But he questions the predictions made based on computer models as he finds that the interpretation of these models seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of limitations of the models themselves.
> 
> (This is my layperson's interpretation, of course.)


Sounds like (another layperson here) he doesn't necessarily think climate change from GHG is totally bunk, he merely disagrees with some things and some of the ways results are interpreted. But this is the kind of thing that makes the anti-whatever it is crowd go totaly apecrap hopping up and down and spending 200+ pages posting about how it's all bunk, when they don't have the first clue of what they're talking about.

Witness the "I know ya are, but what am I" responses of the usual suspect.

In any case, I think the disagreements, and constant review of any of these findings is healthy, and I'm glad it happens. Certainly, if these climate change theories were indeed truly bunk, it'd be good to know eh?


----------



## FeXL

Well, now that the dog & pony show is over, back to work.

Refreshing.



> We are discontinuing our *early December quantitative hurricane forecast* for the next year and giving a more qualitative discussion of the factors which will determine next year’s Atlantic basin hurricane activity. Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill. Reasons for this unexpected lack of skill are discussed.


Emphasis mine.

Anthony notes:



> When is the last time you can recall any scientist suspending a highly visible public work because they decided it just didn’t have any predictive skill?


Oh, that others would take note.

The authors continue:



> *We strongly believe that the increases in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the 20th century have had little or no significant effect on Atlantic basin or global TC activity as extensively discussed in our many previous forecast write-ups and recently in Gray (2011).* Global tropical cyclone activity has shown no significant trend over the past thirty years.


Emphasis mine.

Thank you.


----------



## groovetube

oh I think the dog and pony show tried to get back on it's legs


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Well, now that the dog & pony show is over, back to work.
> 
> Refreshing.
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Anthony notes:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that others would take note.
> 
> The authors continue:
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Thank you.


bryanc's eyes glass over. He cannot comprehend these studies or conclusions. He leaves it to other experts who he prefers.


----------



## FeXL

From Climate Audit:



> As CA readers are aware, the “big news” of Mann et al 2008 was its claim to have got a Hockey Stick without Graybill’s bristlecone chronologies (camouflaged as a “no-dendro” reconstruction). CA readers are aware that this claim depended on their use of contaminated modern portion of the Tiljander sediments and that the original claims for a “validated” no-dendro reconstruction prior to 1500 fell apart, even though no retraction or corrigendum to the original Mann et al (PNAS 2008) has been issued.


So what? Well, Tim Osborne, Chapter 5 author of the upcoming IPCC AR5 report (and his co-authors), have this to say about Mann's data:



> Mann et al. (2008) used an expanded database of proxy records and two statistical methods and found enhanced amplitude of millennial NH temperature variations, a warmer MCA than in some previous work though perhaps still cooler than the modern warm period, and that *similar findings were obtained without using tree-ring data*.


Ya ain't gotta be a climate scientist to know (by reading that nastiest of reference materials, the modern blog) that:



> Thousands of blog readers are aware that the “similar findings…without tree-ring data” were *obtained only by including upside-down contaminated data.* It’s disquieting that IPCC coauthors are unaware of this. The failure of Mann and his coauthors to retract or correct the PNAS 2008 article lingers on.


All emphasis mine.

And some people quote the PNAS as some sort of unquestionable authority on consensus...


----------



## FeXL

More from CA, this time on AR5 Chapter 10.



> As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was not identified to us as such). Ross eventually managed to get similar results published in another journal.
> 
> ...
> 
> Our article stated that there was a statistically significant difference between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. Instead of citing our articles as rebutting Santer’s assertions, IPCC cites us as endorsing Santer’s false assertions:
> 
> ...
> 
> _Taking these studies together, we conclude, that apparent differences between tropical free tropospheric temperature trends in models and observations and differential warming in the tropics over the period 1979–1999 are unlikely to be statistically significant after fully accounting for observational uncertainties._


Further:



> Watch the pea. The issue with Santer was that key results fell apart over the longer period of 1979-2009 (or 2010 or 2011) as opposed to the 1979-1999 period. As noted above, realclimate spoke out strongly against Courtillot’s analysis which didn’t use up-to-date data. Pierrehumbert alleged that such analysis was dishonest. Why should different standards apply when employed by IPCC chapter 10?


Typical MO. Deflect & move on.

Give 'em hell, boys...


----------



## FeXL

UNPRECEDENTED!!!!!

Horse feathers & bull pucky...



> The Dead Sea died once. During a warm period long ago [120,000 years ago] it dried up completely, new evidence reveals.


Who knew?



> That’s bad news for the lake today. It’s been shrinking for decades and may be about to die again.


That sucks. Must be global warming, er, climate change, er, climate disruption, no?

Not. So. Much.



> Today the Dead Sea is threatened again, this time by the diversion of water from the Jordan River for irrigation and other uses. Now fed only by mountain runoff and underwater springs, the Dead Sea dropped 10 meters between 1997 and 2008.


----------



## groovetube

Fexl, you keep this up, YOU buy the next round.


----------



## FeXL

The Indomitable IPCC.

Yet another error in AR4.



> The IPCC error was first noted in a contribution to Climate Audit by Michael Smith, back in January 2008. He pointed out the median of the data shown in figure 2.14 is not -0.7, it is actually -0.985. Note that one of the numbers from the Williams et al study listed in Table 2.7 is not included in Fig 2.14. It is not explained why this number was omitted; perhaps it was thought not to be an independent estimate. If this number is included, the median is -1.07. On the CA unthreaded post there is some further discussion involving UC and RomanM (two smart people with a track record of reverse engineering climate science claims), who are unable to understand how the figure of -0.7 was obtained. Michael posted the question at RealClimate, where their Martin Vermeer was also unable to explain it (see comments 123 and 127 on this thread.)


How do these get by review?



> This incident illustrates a serious flaw in the IPCC process. *After the second round of reviewer comments on the SOD, IPCC authors are free to insert whatever they like into the final version of the report* (in this case, further tricks to make the number smaller, and an arithmetic error). *Ross McKitrick* noted this flaw in his recent report on the IPCC, and gave two examples. Another example is the insertion into the final report of misleading short and long trend lines on the figure in FAQ 3.1.


What's this? An error spotted by someone who is not a climate scientist? Can't be...



> The IPCC chose not to regard the second indirect effect as a forcing, and carried out three distinct fiddles in order to make the headline figure for the cloud albedo effect as small as possible.
> 
> ...
> 
> The attempts by the IPCC to disguise this sequence of fiddles led to an erroneous statement in the final report.
> 
> When the error was reported, it was denied by the IPCC, with the false claim that the text explained the reasoning behind the estimate and that there was no error.


Again, typical MO.


----------



## FeXL

NIPCC makes observations on, yet another *peer reviewed paper* (that seems to be important to some people), proving the worldwide existence of the Medieval Warm Period.



> The international research team -- composed of scientists from Argentina, Chile, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States -- write that their summer temperature reconstruction suggests that "a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century," which they describe as being temporally located "towards the end of the Medieval Climate Anomaly as concluded from Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions." And as can be seen from the figure below, the warmest decade of this Medieval Warm Period was calculated by them to be AD 1079-1088, which as best as can be determined from their graph is about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period.


One paper. Eighteen authors. All calling BS on CO2 levels causing current warmth and adding to the MWP global extent database.

And some people say they can't find two PhD'd skeptics to rub together...


----------



## FeXL

From Joe Bastardi, chief meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.:



> A Discourse on Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, oops I mean Climate Disruption.
> 
> ...
> 
> I* respect the advanced degrees, for what they are, signs that the person persisted in their education. But it does not give them license for them to be an authority on something that have never practically applied!* When I was in school there was a saying ( mind you at that time PSU was out and out the unchallenged number one meteorology department in the country, something I am well aware can not be said today as there are many great schools) among the meteorologists ( we were a cocky bunch) that *if you can’t do the meteorology, you can be a climatologist.* I still bust my brother on it, cause his degree is in climatology though HE IS VEHEMENTLY AGAINST AGW. But the point is the idea that a meteorologist cant weigh in on this debate when in reality a good forecaster has to know his clime is simply another way to try and silence dissent.


Further:



> I encourage people to open their minds. *I have never asked for people to accept what I say, BUT ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE OF WHAT I AM SAYING and then go look for themselves.* I think you will see that at the very least there is reason to doubt this and as many have, dismiss it as a red herring to cover up a bigger issue that is at play. *That the weather and climate are now being prostituted this way, that something we love is used as a cheap tool to drive ideas down people throat, should be alarming enough for you to arm yourself with the knowledge that will form the armor to resist such assaults on free thinking people of good will.*


You go, Joe!

And, thx. I am looking for myself...


----------



## FeXL

Disclaimer: None of this has been peer reviewed, but then again, none of it was s'pose ta be published. It one of the few times you'll actually catch these guys being honest...

A few notes from Tom Nelson on 4 of the Climategate emails.

Part the first:



> Check out this 1998 email from UEA's Mike Hulme on using climate propaganda to mobilize opinion and maybe get WWF funding


All together now: Bu-bu-bu-but b-b-bi-bi-big o-o-o-oi-oi-oil!

Part the second:



> 2004 ClimateGate email: Antarctic meteorologist lists a litany of problems in collecting Antarctic temperature data, including sites that "suffer from snow accumulation" and "one of the coldest spots" not being considered


But dem der temprature records is ac'rate...

Part the third:



> Revealing ClimateGate email 4060: Warmist Ed Cook argues that a "double-blind" approach shouldn't be used in the proxy reconstruction game


If you don't know what a double blind test is, check out an online definition, come back & read the link, then see if this Fruit Loop has a leg to stand on. Tip: you don't need to be a climate scientist...

Part the last:



> DeSmogBlog climate hoax promoter Richard Littlemore to Michael Mann, 2007: "I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science)"


Oh, the iron...


----------



## FeXL

To close the day off, a little model experiment with methane & a little snark.



> I tried an experiment on RRTM – the radiative transfer model used in NCAR’s climate and weather models. A 10X increase in methane in the tropics increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one fourth of one percent. A 100X increase in cow farts increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one percent. A 1000X increase in methane increases downwelling LW radiation by a little over one percent.


----------



## groovetube

heh.


----------



## SINC

heh, heh


----------



## FeXL

So, few pages back I listed some very basic questions about the whole CAGW topic that stump the warmists. It wasn't a complete list, just a few quick questions.

John O'Sullivan has 8 of his own.



> 1. Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
> 
> 2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
> 
> 3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
> 
> 4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
> 
> 5. Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?
> 
> 6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
> 
> 7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
> 
> 8. Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?


Why, indeed.

And, just before some wunnerful person comes along & says I might need a PhD to "get" the answers, get a grip. I'm tired of the "you're too stupid to understand" chant, as well...


----------



## FeXL

News article, opinion piece, not peer reviewed. Yup, jes' like belly-buttons: everybody's got one. You may agree, you may not. Either way, it should make you _think..._



> The warmists' scientific conclusions are based purely on climate modeling, not experimentation, observation or hard empirical data. Worse, they've turned the scientific method on its head. Instead of constructing a theory and then rigorously testing and re-testing to see if it stands up to scientific examination, they start with a pre-ordained conclusion (i.e., fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions cause the earth to warm) and then manipulate and tune their computer models to churn out data that support it. In short, human-induced global warming is the product of laboratory computer simulations and over-active imaginations; it doesn't exist in the real world.


----------



## FeXL

NAS addresses a few of the Climategate 2.0 emails.



> The following three e-mails show dissent in the climate ranks -- some researchers are concerned that in portraying the current state of climate science in journals, to the press, to politicians and to the general public, lead climate researchers are not being honest and are downplaying significant uncertainty. The concerned researchers note the risk to such a strategy:
> 
> <1939> Thorne/MetO
> 
> Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
> 
> <3066> Thorne:
> 
> I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
> 
> <2884> Wigley:
> 
> Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]


Now, it's been noted correctly that true science operates by having your work open for review, discussion, debate (as above). This is a wonderful theory. However, in the climate science world, most are far more interested in CYA. This is portrayed most clearly in the many instances of resistance to or downright refusal of FOIA requests. Penn State has funnelled somewhere near a million bucks into their "lawyer-up". What have they got to hide? You don't dig up that kind of scratch because of a few lines of model computer code...

There's more...


----------



## FeXL

On the IPCC claim that Antarctic ice is melting. Not so much.



> There indeed has been some slight warming in the area of the Antarctica Peninsula but the huge mass of ice sheets actually reside in East and West Antarctica, which measurements show to be cooling.
> 
> As can be seen, the temperatures (listed by each red circle) during both the warmest and coldest months (January and July) are well below freezing temperatures. The major ice sheets exist in an interior environment where melting can't occur presently; and, even a future warming of 10 degrees won't cause any melting.
> 
> Simply stated, West and East Antarctica are just too freaking cold for any melting to happen, with the exception of coastal areas that already are affected by moderate maritime temperatures.
> 
> Despite this actual empirical evidence, the fraud-centric IPCC and its associated scientists still make claims that Antarctica is warming and its gigantic ice caps will soon melt, thus flooding the world. These are flat-out false claims designed to only promote hysteria.


----------



## eMacMan

> So, few pages back I listed some very basic questions about the whole CAGW topic that stump the warmists. It wasn't a complete list, just a few quick questions.
> 
> John O'Sullivan has 8 of his own.



All of the 8 questions have been asked many times in these threads and we still have as yet to see an intelligent answer. Instead the Chicken Little Crowd has consistently answered by attacking the questions and/or the poster rather than answering. Guess if you know your argument has no foundation in reality you got no choice but to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

_If AGW you must adore.
Send *only your own hard earned wealth* along to Alan Gore!

_


----------



## FeXL

That popping sound you just heard was a head exploding in Mississauga...

Anthony's been appointed as a reviewer for the International Pack Of Climate Crooks AR5...



> Yesterday I did something that I never expected to get any results on. My lucky number 1029 paid off.
> 
> I’ve been appointed as an expert reviewer for the IPCC AR5. I’ve viewed the invitation letter and it’s the real deal.


As noted in the comments, all his email is secret, now...


----------



## FeXL

So, EM Smith runs a blog named Musing from the Chiefio.

It's an eclectic collection of things he finds interesting. Most days a good read.

He's put together some Climategate 2.0 emails & has a some good observations on them, across two rather lengthy posts.

Part 1

Part 2


----------



## MacDoc

40,000 + years it's been locked up....now the genie is out and some STILL don't get it...

The smoking gun.....err tundra...

Nasty report - longish and informative read











> _Katey M. Walter Anthony, a scientist, investigated a plume of methane, a greenhouse gas, at an Alaskan lake. Dr. Walter Anthony is a leading researcher in studying the escape of methane_.





> *Temperature Rising
> As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks*


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/s...ate-change-worries.html?pagewanted=1&src=recg

catch the clips



> Dr. Walter Anthony had already run chemical tests on the methane from one of the lakes, dating the carbon molecules within the gas to 30,000 years ago. She has found carbon that old emerging at numerous spots around Fairbanks, and carbon as old as 43,000 years emerging from lakes in Siberia.
> 
> “These grasses were food for mammoths during the end of the last ice age,” Dr. Walter Anthony said. *“It was in the freezer for 30,000 to 40,000 years, and now the freezer door is open.*”





> Edward A. G. Schuur, a University of Florida researcher who has done extensive field work in Alaska, is worried by the changes he already sees, including the discovery that carbon buried since before the dawn of civilization is now escaping.
> 
> “*To me, it’s a spine-tingling feeling, if it’s really old carbon that hasn’t been in the air for a long time, and now it’s entering the air,” Dr. Schuur said. “That’s the fingerprint of a major disruption, and we aren’t going to be able to turn it off someday.”*


----------



## Macfury

Yep. If the temperature rises... and it's a big if... some of that carbon will be released. Now prove that this means something.


----------



## FeXL

So, MacDoc posts a link to a wunnerful little article that asks, "What if?" Got no problem with that. It's good to be curious about your surroundings, to wonder about one's world, think about genies, unicorns, fairy tales & stuff. He would even have you believe that the world is warming around you merely by looking at raw data posted on, say, the NOAA & NCDC, so-called authorities on world wide temperatures.

On the other hand, you may want to give your head a shake & find out what those reputable keepers of the data are actually doing with it:



> As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - *even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.*


Wait. What????



> Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. *Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!*
> 
> Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they simply accomplish it on their PCs.
> 
> *Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.*


Bold mine.

Don't see the skeptics shoring up their argument by adjusting records at NOAA...


----------



## FeXL

Rather lengthy blurb analyzing more fabric of some Climategate 2.0 emails. The common thread here is Phil Jones & his efforts to conceal the fact that his data has been lost (effectively makings his results unrepeatable, therefore his conclusions void), how to dodge FOIA and his fear of being found wrong (despite screeching on these boards that scientific discovery & criticism is supposed to be how science works...), overall a real black mark on the face of scientists everywhere.



> The emails show over time an arrogant ass who felt he was too pure to be bothered with criticism, challenges and scientific scrutiny. Time and time again he simply made things up and communicated these fantasies as fact. The email record exposes a petty and whiny man whose career should now be truly over.


Well! That's a mouthful...

Conclusions?



> So let’s review. In ’2′ Jones claims he has some old agreements (somewhere), but he cannot connect the agreements to the station identifiers. So he basically is saying he never could protect the date rights. In ’3′ he postulates a complete lie. All US federally funded work is available to anyone as public property. The DoE would never, and could never, make such an assertion (take it from a person who has made a living in federal contracting). At best the contractor (in this case CRU) can make a claim of IPR, but it has to do so at the time and when the data was generated and labeled as such.
> 
> In ’5′ Jones admits he does not really have any signed agreements. He has verbal or imagined agreements. In ’6′ he admits that CRU to this day does not retain copies (configuration managed) of the data has it is processed. A serious breach of data auditing and another reason his units work is unrepeatable. And finally in ’7′ he confirms a prime complaints of the skeptics – without knowing which stations to use in developing the gridded data, you cannot replicate CRU results. A major and damning admission.
> 
> So the skeptics were right. Jones’ methods are not repeatable, his data is not controlled and maintained and even he cannot replicate his results. In a July 2009 email (#1577) Jones confirms many of these revelations


And remember, it's the skeptics who are causing all of this, those pernicious little oil-financed vermin...



> What a mess. What a liar. All those people who believed Phil Jones was a qualified man of science with a clear audit trail of his work now know he was a shoddy charlatan.
> 
> *If this had been data on medical trials for drugs, structural testing for foundations, buildings or bridges, or safety data on cars, trains or planes the man would be fired and possibly charged with some form of criminal negligence. But this is climate science, where professional rules of conduct are apparently optional.*


Bold mine.

Just the kind of scientist I'd want on my Team.

And climate scientists wonder why people are sceptical?


----------



## FeXL

Nice analysis of some of the BEST temperature data & assertions by Richard Muller. Part 1 of 2.



> Conclusion
> 
> Now, let’s revisit the claims by Dr. Richard Muller:
> 
> _"…The global land mean temperature has increased by 0.911 ±0.042 C since the 1950s…”_
> 
> Strictly speaking, that claim is true. But what is left out is that the same amount of cooling took place from the late 1930’s to the late 1950’s. *The temperature is cycling with a period of about 66 years,* with about one degree amplitude. Dr Muller is only looking at one-half of the temperature cycle.
> 
> _"The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) gives an operational definition of climate as the average weather over a period of 30 years (Arguez and Vose 2011).”_
> 
> See 1 above. *That definition is too short by at least a factor of two.* There are many cycles seen in the temperature record. See this paper from the Chinese Science Bulletin. They mention 110, 199, 800, and 1324-year cycles; and their Fourier
> analysis plot shows other cycles at 66 (one third of the 199 year cycle) and about 38 years. *The 66-year cycle is clearly seen in the above plots.* The 38-year signal may reflect the slower cooling part of the cycle followed by quicker warming. This author submits that any attempt to define climate as some time-average weather is a futile exercise.
> 
> _"No part of the Earth’s land surface shows appreciable cooling.”_
> 
> Dr. Muller did not define appreciable, or a time period. For over 80 years, the SE and mid-west U. S. are cooling. Over the last decade, the U.S. and Canada are cooling. Anthony Watts here, and Matti Vooro here, have described this phenomenon. *The so-called climate scientists must get over thinking that the linear trend over the last thirty years is telling them anything about the climate.*


Italics from the original, bold mine.

So, despite the screeching that the BEST results confirm the warmists' position, a little bit of perspective goes a long way in understanding the complete truth of the matter.

Looking forward to Part 2...


----------



## Macfury

Cue MacDoc with some "conclusive" story about warm water in a crater he read on DeSmogBlog.


----------



## FeXL

Earlier this summer Dr. Roy Spencer (who I've posted about a number of times) posted an article titled “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” on his blog. This article caused a number of people to scratch their heads, as it flies in the face of the Second law of Thermodynamics.

John O'Sullivan writes about the recently revealed emails between Dr. Spencer & Dr. Pierre R Latour on the subject.



> The hitherto unseen correspondence between leading climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer and former NASA and DuPont engineer, Dr. Pierre R Latour, one of an increasing number of experts now attacking the crumbling science, exposes a key fallacy in the so-called man-made global warming theory.
> 
> Dr. Spencer’s essay “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still” (July 23, 2011), written to support the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) the science behind man-made global warming has sparked increased criticism since publication. *Dr. Spencer, without question a leading researcher of great integrity, has since gone on record to concede that he may be wrong and being misled by an ‘assumption bias.’*
> 
> It was apparent assumptions in Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” essay that inspired Dr. Latour, who first made a name for himself working on NASA’s Apollo Space program, to publish a counter-argument to Spencer's essay entitled, “No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still.”


Bold mine.

What I find most...encouraging, is not that Dr. Spencer may be changing his mind, but that he is open to observation & criticism, willing to learn from others who may know more than he does in a particular area. This whole concept is beneath the arrogance of most warmists (who feel their work is beyond reproach) & will be their downfall...

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of arrogance...

Little blurb about Lord Monckton & Kelvin Kemm during their recent visit to Durban and COP-17.



> As we rounded a corner, we saw someone we didn’t know being interviewed for the in-house television information system that transmitted programs throughout the official venue. We were astounded by how biased and inaccurate his comments were. When atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose, temperature also rose, he insisted – very simple. Of course, that is simply not true.
> 
> His interview over, he stepped off the dais and headed our way. I asked him whether he would agree that global temperatures had actually gone down during the early 1970s, even as CO2 levels continued to rise. He refused to acknowledge this universally accepted fact. I then mentioned the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago. In response, he asserted that the MWP was merely a localized event of no consequence. Also simply not true.
> 
> At that point Monckton asked him to acknowledge that the science was nowhere nearly as clear cut as he had proclaimed. The official refused to do so, asserted “I have work to do,” and walked off.
> 
> Josh had been filming the entire exchange, but now an aide put a hand over the camera lens. *When I remarked that just walking off was bad manners, the aide said “You are not worth debating.” I replied, “All he had to do was answer two simple questions.” I was amazed when the aide responded, “He is the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation. He does not have to answer your questions.”* The aide then walked off just as rudely as his boss had.


Bold mine.

Oooooo. Ahhhhh. Secretary General. And his snot-nosed aide.

If that had been me this insouciant little pup had been sniping at, he would have quickly found himself lying on the floor, his ears still ringing from the freshly delivered cuff upside the head.

Then, I'd have gone looking for his boss...


----------



## FeXL

I've sat on this one for a while, just because I have issues with treemometers, period (on either side of the argument). From the comments:



> Trees, for example, by themselves can be a measure of several different variables, such as precipitation, soil nutrients, predation, and yes, even temperature.


That being said, as Jo Nova noted, "Only time will tell if this analysis has nailed it, but, yes, it is worthy of our attention."

The paper is a Chinese study of Tibetan tree rings going back nearly 2500 years.

C3 links to Jo Nova's article.


----------



## FeXL

Donna Laframboise, on Tom Nelson's blog titled _Settled science: Everyplace to be hit by climate change harder than everyplace else._

She notes:



> According to the stories Nelson links to Arctic communities, Africa, Australia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Greenland, Guatemala, India, South-East Asia, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, and small island developing states (see the dropdown list on the right side of this page) are all contenders for the ‘Worst Hit by Climate Change’ grand prize. So, apparently, are the US states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Texas.


Quick! Someone call the UN!

When the screeching hits this level, it's no wonder people just tune it out.

The desperation is palpable...


----------



## FeXL

Willis on Hansen's latest publication.

Jim:



> The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, *instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2* (Loeb et al., 2009).


Wait. Wha..???

Willis:



> I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest. Since the observations were not of the expected range, rather than figure out why the results might be wrong, they just twisted the dials to “reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models.”


Willis notes a curious <snort> connection with the figure of 0.85 W/m2 & a previous paper by Hansen. He also introduces me to a new word, "Procrustean".


----------



## FeXL

So, over two years since the original Climategate hit the intertoobs, and with little to show for their sleuthing efforts, Norfolk Police have called the nut too big for them to handle & have handed off the investigation to "another force".

Interestingly enough, this is reported by the same guy who had his computers raided by six of the country's finest (as I noted earlier):



> This is much bigger news than the raid at Tallbloke Towers, when police from three forces seized computers belonging to yours truly, on the basis of information supporting a warrant which has not yet been revealed.


Update:



> I’ve got my wires crossed on this it seems. Apparently the Norfolk Constabulary, along with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police and the National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism unit (Golly!) are to revue the evidence so far assembled in order to decide the future direction of the investigation.


----------



## FeXL

Linky.



> Shocker – Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC AR5 lead author


Why?



> it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…


And:



> It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.


Hmmm. I think I have a clew why. From the comments:



> The scrabbling of little paws on the tilting deck, a fading squeak and a small furry splash.


BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Some Friday snark from Goddard...

New Ways To Hide The Decline!



> Rahmstorf is disappointed that data shows temperatures declining over the last 14 years, so he has developed some further upwards adjustments to keep man made global warming on track. *The adjustments are based on low solar activity (which they kept telling us didn’t make any difference) and low ENSO (which they told us was a thing of the past due to permanent El Nino.)*


Bold mine.

HA!


----------



## FeXL

One more snark (on Hansen's magic crayon...)

Jimmy Works His Arctic Magic



> *Despite having no data north of 80N*, Hansen has determined that it was very hot there in November. *By fabricating a huge 4-8C anomaly at the North Pole*, he is able to keep global temperatures (barely) rising this century, while HadCRUT shows global temperatures falling.
> 
> He also did a bang up job warming Greenland well above measured temperatures. *RSS showed almost all of Greenland cold, but Hansen’s magic crayon did an impressive job of heating the place up.*


Just for the heck of it, I decided to confirm where 80 degrees north falls. Checked out another online map, have a look.

Mein Gott, imagine the problems the polar bears are having in that massive hot tub at the top of the planet! Sealsicles are limp, no ice for their martinis.

Somebody call the UN!


----------



## eMacMan

..


----------



## FeXL

So, it's been said on these boards that science works by being critical of research (paraphrased). I agree. However, when your two coauthors aren't even on board, there are bigger problems in the fleet...

More from Climategate 2.0:



> Hockey stick co-author Ray Bradley:
> 
> “it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right”;
> 
> “I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!”


Further, from [hockey stick co-author] Malcolm Hughes [that makes two of the three authors of said paper, Mann being the odd <snort> man out...]:



> In any case, *the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.*
> 
> ...
> 
> I am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of decadal-scale growth season temperature variability. *I am equally confident that, after that date, they are recording something else.*


Bold from the link.

I dunno. Unicorn farts, perchance?

So why, after Mann has been thoroughly debunked by not only sceptics but members of the warmist camp (and questioned by his own coauthors), too, is this still important?

From the comments:



> Mann is cited 45 times in the Ch05_paleoclimate AR5 ZOD.


Forty five times in the upcoming IPCC AR5 Chapter 5 as some sort of authority on the paleotemperature record. With a theory & data so full of holes you could shove a mountainside of bristlecone pines through them. Oh, sorry, I meant just one tree. With a statistical weighting 390 times the others. Scary...

Further on treemometer data (also from the comments):



> 1. Tree growth is correlated in any given year to a combination of temperature, precipitation, length of growing season (which is not directly related to temperature during the growing season), CO2 levels, incidence of late frost, incidence of pestilence, competition from other trees and plants, sun spot levels, and many other factors. It is not possible to eliminate all the other factors in order to isolate temperature.
> 
> 2. Tree growth occurs during the growing season, which depending on latitude may be as little as two months of the year. Tropical trees are nearly absent from tree ring studies because they are not nearly as long lived as, for example, Siberian Larch, and hence useless for long term study. As a consequence, the bulk of tree ring data comes from high latitudes with short growing seasons. There is no possible way for a tree in Siberia to in any possible way grow (and hence measure ANY of the factors regulating growth) in October, November, December, January, February, March, April and May. Even if the tree rings correlated to temperature during the growing season, they would still be useless in terms of determining annual temperatures.
> 
> 3. No data from the tropics. Nearly no data from low latitude temperate zones. No data from arctic zones. The bulk of the data comes from high latitude temperate zones which have the highest natural variability on the globe. This makes the tree ring data nearly meaningless from both a statistical analysis perspective, *and can in no way represent a global average temperature.*


Emphasis mine.

More from the comments:



> _The growth season being about a dozen weeks or so. Usually even shorter than that, about 8 in most cases. The darker end wood created toward the end of the growing season is generally not counted. You are looking at June/July temperatures, mostly July.​_
> This just blew me away. I hadn’t connected the dots on this one, and since I live in a fairly mountainous area (I’m in a “valley” at 4850 ft. with mountains around me in almost all direction) and have spent a lot of time in the mountains around me, *I can’t figure out how measuring growth for just 15% of the year translates into average global temperature.* (I’ve seen cold winters follow hot summers, and warm winters follow cool summers, and every combination inbetween.)


Bold mine.

Yup.

Merry Hoho...


----------



## MacDoc

AGW deniers and Copernican deniers.....cut from the same cloth....how very antiquated....



> * Science controversies past and present *
> 
> Steven Sherwood
> October 2011, page 39
> Reactions to the science of global warming have followed a similar course to those of other inconvenient truths from physics.


continues

Cookies Required


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Reactions to the science of global warming have followed a similar course to those of other inconvenient truths from physics.


Sure. The inconvenience of Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 combined with the inaccuracy of the research and conclusions is rendering the AGW theory irrelevant. Happens eventually with all incorrect theory.


----------



## eMacMan

Just a bit confused here.

MD claims scientific consensus supports AGW, then provides several examples of scientific consensus being blown out of the water.

Maybe he's changing sides. Hey if I did it I guess he can.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Just a bit confused here.
> 
> MD claims scientific consensus supports AGW, then provides several examples of scientific consensus being blown out of the water.
> 
> Maybe he's changing sides. Hey if I did it I guess he can.


Exactly. AGW is the Ptolemaic viewpoint, informed by philosophy, not based in science.

Is the author of that piece, the same Steven Sherwood mired in Climategate 2.0?


----------



## groovetube

only because an anonymous internet poster says so.

gotcha.


----------



## MacDoc

AGW denial is verging on bathos.....even most of the fossil fuel companies have moved on ......some individuals just have their heads buried wilfully.
So ironic that they ignore the real conspiracy of denial funded by the likes of Koch

of course considering the Libby underpinning of Koch I'm not surprised certain individuals have bought into the nonsense

Brendan DeMelle | Koch Industries' Extensive Funding of Climate Denial Industry Unmasked

snip



> The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society.


While Exxon has scaled down funding of the denial nonsense, Koch keeps feeding the willing denier dupes and funding politicians to protect their free sewer program.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, that post is verging on conspiracy nonsense. It's not a crime to spend money to oppose creaky, failing AGW theories. And they once built oil refineries in Russia? How could they?

From _desmogblog_ to MacDoc's ears.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> So ironic that they ignore the real conspiracy of denial funded by the likes of Koch


So, lemmee get this straight...

It's the Koch Bros financing which has been the cause of James Hansen's failed predictions.

It's the Koch Bros financing which caused all the whackos & fruit loops in the Climategate 1.0/2.0 emails to conspire to cover up data, to wilfully break the law regarding FOIA requests and to engage in practices so shady & unethical that real scientists hang their heads in shame.

Matter of fact, it was probably the Koch Bros financing which caused the release of the Climategate emails, non?

It's the Koch Bros financing that have proven, without a doubt (to even his fellow Team Members), that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick is nothing more than pure, unadulterated bunk and the MWP not only existed (with temperatures higher than today), but was extant worldwide.

It's the Koch Bros financing that forces warmists to clam up the second they are asked to debate the science of their argument.

It's the Koch Bros financing that caused the cooling of global temperatures since 1998.

It's the Koch Bros financing that has caused Antarctic ice to increase.

It's the Koch Bros financing that has proven Al Gore to be nothing more than a charlatan.

It's the Koch Bros financing that backed Donna Laframboise's investigation of the supposed impartial International Pack of Climate Crooks.

It's the Koch Bros financing that supports all the voluntary efforts on the skeptic side, which interestingly enough, are burying warmists with real Science, not computer model produced what-if situations.

Shall I go on? There are dozens more.

Why don't you take a look at both sides of the story, gitcher calculator out, start adding up all the funding given to warmists? Once you've got those figures, come back & tell us all about the huge discrepancy, the _real_ conspiracy.





MacDoc said:


> While Exxon has scaled down funding of the denial nonsense, Koch keeps feeding the willing denier dupes and funding politicians *to protect their free sewer program.*


Once again. 

Hypocrite.

How many tons of pollution have your around the world flights pumped into the atmosphere?

As always with warmists, do as I say, not as I do.

Oh, I know, I know. Heard it before. Offset credits.

The kind that have people killed if they don't voluntarily leave their ancestral homes, their businesses, their livelihoods. The kind of program that only a dyed-in-the-wool "progressive" such as yourself would participate in.

You just keep on posting crap like this, MacDoc. The more drivel you paste on these boards, the less credibility you have.

And the more foolish you look to anyone who swings by. 

Dupes, he says. Take a look in the mirror...

Lemmee give ya a little hint, MacDoc. Best thing you can do on this thread right now is to start clicking links, read a little, educate yourself some. Put away any preconceived notions you have, along side your political proclivities. "Mind: no mind." Learn some real science. Start nodding your head in agreement when, suddenly, it all starts making sense.

Then come back & post some. 

I eagerly await the dawning of your "Aha!" moment.


----------



## FeXL

Tom Nelson on another C2 email exchange between Phil Jones (and his "scientific" gut feelings) and Tom Wigley, who has major concerns about Hockey Stick science, from 2004.



> Phil, I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work -- an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? -- or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful. Tom


----------



## FeXL

An opinion piece from the Washington Times:



> “Climate research,” the New York Times confidently assures us, “stands at a crossroads.” *This means that a lot of research scientists are standing at the crossroads, holding out paper bags like trick-or-treaters on Halloween night, standing in line for taxpayer largesse to fill ‘em up.*
> 
> These specialists in shakedown “science,” who speak only in hyperbole, are calling the weather of 2011 the worst in history, or at least in memory, or maybe a decade, and say they could have found useful links between disasters and global-warming “science” by now if only they could shake down tightwad taxpayers for a few more millions.


More:



> Science, which has replaced religion as the source of faith in certain circles, has otherwise always been skeptical of certitude. Science has always held that nothing is so settled as to be beyond questioning. This held until the propagation of the gospel of global warming. Skeptics are called “deniers,” their arguments mocked, and held up to public ridicule.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard links to a 2009 response by the Alabama state climatologist to a federal report on climate change. He addresses cherry picking & communication intent.



> *If your intent is to promote the idea that the climate is warming you would focus on the period starting around 1970, the coldest of the last 115 years, and ignore the rest.* If your intent is to inform the public on climate variations, you would show the entire record. The 30 years from 1925 to 1954 were, in fact, extremely warm in Alabama, reaching levels not seen before or since. *The bottom line on temperatures is that the state has not experienced overall warming, despite attempts to promote such an idea by starting in 1970.*


Bold from the link.

This is also the method used by warmists who chart records starting at 1950, at the start of the incline, instead of dust bowl inducing temperatures of the 30's.

Perspective, people.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Goddard links to a 2009 response by the Alabama state climatologist to a federal report on climate change. He addresses cherry picking & communication intent.
> 
> 
> 
> Bold from the link.
> 
> This is also the method used by warmists who chart records starting at 1950, at the start of the incline, instead of dust bowl inducing temperatures of the 30's.
> 
> Perspective, people.


I am assured by an unimpeachable cherry picker, that those dust bowl inducing abnormally high temps were an anomaly that only impacted Grey County in Oklahoma. All those other farmers who lost their homesteads were merely the victims of an optical illusion.


----------



## Macfury

These occasional dribs and drabs from you MacDoc have the flavour of ADHD about them. A few weeks back you accused "deniers" of ignoring the laws of Thermodynamics, but when asked which law of Thermodynamics they were ignoring, you responded with a few weak scattershot posts culled from desmogblog. You have never answered a single one of FeXL's questions. 

Is something wrong?


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha. the few of you spend every waking minute of the day posting like demons and you accuse macdoc of ADHD?

hahahahahahahahahahahaaa


Good one.


----------



## FeXL

Ten days back there was some screeching about methane bubbling up from the tundra. I didn't access the link because it there's been nothing the NYT has ever written to compel me to play their "register first" game, but I wasn't too concerned. After all, it's just the NYT rending hair, right?

Turns out, I was right. Although, in all fairness, Andy Revkin actually seems to have done some research on the article topic and gone directly to the source. A reply to Revkin from Semiletov and Shakhova, authors of a 2010 _Science_ paper analyzing methane emissions in Siberia:



> *We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change.
> 
> In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago.*


Bold from the link.

Summary: Methane gas bubbles? Yes. Caused by climate change, especially CAGW? Not. So. Much.

So, amidst all the desperate calls of "Eureka!", a little bit of research to find the truth in the matter and yet another warmist tale debunked.

Cue dead silence in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## FeXL

Longish article by Bod Tisdale (posted at Anthony's site) on The IPCC’s Undue Confidence In Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Models – A Summary Of Recent Posts

The IPCC says:



> “There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”


After lengthy analysis, Tisdale says: Not. So. Much.



> There should be little confidence in climate models. The model simulations fail in their attempts to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, on regional, or continental, or global scales. The models have shown little to no ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is greatly overstated by the IPCC for the most common of climate variables (e.g., surface temperature) used to present the supposition of manmade global warming. After several decades of development, models have continued to show no skill at establishing that climate warming is a response to increasing greenhouse gases. No skill whatsoever.


However, there is a bright side for the IPCC:



> The only skill shown by the IPCC is their unlimited capacity to market a concept that has been shown to have little basis in reality.


Zing!


----------



## FeXL

Steve McIntyre posts at length about his attempts to gain access to data via FOIA & the subsequent emails his efforts generated, as released from Climategate 1 & 2.



> The FOIA/Mole incident has been central in self-serving rationalizations of Climategate events by institutional climate science. They’ve represented the affair as an attempt to “harass” climate scientists, claiming that the events vindicated many prior years of data obstruction. However, institutional climate science and their house organs (e.g. Nature) have failed to report the origins of the incident. Its proximate cause was an institutional mendacity incident. In July 2009, CRU had refused a FOI request for station data with the flagrantly untrue claim that language in their alleged confidentiality agreements prevented them from sending station data to “non-academics” (while not preventing them from sending the same data to sympathetic academics


Very revealing as to the mindset of Jones & Palmer.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: non-reer reviewed material posted by a blood-sucking lawyer...



> The maps show the temperature of most of the northern hemisphere centred on the North Atlantic and cover the bulk of the northern hemisphere land masses and the northernmost section of the Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> The significance is that one can readily observe the extent and intensity of the cold air covering the northern high latitudes as a whole at the time and date of each map.
> 
> The volume and intensity of cold polar air is dependent on the level of solar energy received into the Earth system and the rate at which the oceans release absorbed solar energy to the air. There is little variation overall from year to year because solar intensity varies very little and the oceans take many years to alter their rates of energy release as witness the 60 year cycle of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation.
> 
> There is a good deal of variability around the edges of the polar air masses but at any given time those regional variations even out.
> 
> In order to ascertain whether there is a global warming or cooling trend it is necessary to wait several years and then compare the volume and intensity of the cold polar air masses as a whole between the dates chosen. In this case I have chosen the years 2007 and 2011.


Conclusion?



> The polar air masses are getting colder and expanding, contrary to expectations. That is likely to be the reason why there have been a number of notable incursions of cold air into middle latitudes in recent years. Such events have been occurring in both hemispheres so it is likely that the observed cooling trend is occurring at both poles.
> 
> *It is a fundamental tenet of anthropogenic global warming theory that the poles warm more than other latitudes. Instead, what we can see here is the poles cooling and exporting cold air and colder ocean water towards the equator.*


Bold mine.

Something Hansen & his magic crayon are trying to fix...


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting piece put together by Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D., proposing a "Unified Theory of Climate". Don't understand all the math, but agree with at least a couple things (take a deep breath):



> An increase in atmospheric emissivity does _indeed_ cause a warming at the surface as stated by the current theory. However, Eq. (3) is _physically incomplete_, because it does _not_ account for convection, which occurs _simultaneously_ with radiative transfer.
> 
> ...
> 
> Equation (4) dramatically alters the solution to Eq. (3) by collapsing the difference between Ts, Ta and Te and virtually erasing the GHE (Fig. 3). This is because convective cooling is _many orders_ of magnitude _more efficient_ that radiative cooling. These results do not change when using multi-layer models. In radiative transfer models, Ts increases with ϵ _not_ as a result of _heat trapping_ by greenhouse gases, but due to the _lack_ of convective cooling, thus requiring a larger thermal gradient to export the necessary amount of heat. *Modern GCMs do not solve simultaneously radiative transfer and convection. This decoupling of heat transports is the core reason for the projected surface warming by GCMs in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. Hence, the predicted CO2-driven global temperature change is a model artifact!*


The authors also ask a very good question, which is the crux of the article:



> _Could air pressure be responsible for the observed thermal enhancement at the Earth surface presently known as a ‘Natural Greenhouse Effect’?_


They then go on to present evidence supporting this.



> Large climatic shifts evident in the paleo-record such as the 16C directional cooling of the Globe during the past 51 million years (Fig. 8) can now be explained via changes in atmospheric mass and surface pressure caused by geologic variations in Earth’s tectonic activity. Thus, we hypothesize that the observed mega-cooling of Earth since the early Eocene was due to a 53% net loss of atmosphere to Space brought about by a reduction in mantle degasing as a result of a slowdown in continental drifts and ocean floor spreading. Figure 9 depicts reconstructed dynamics of the mean surface pressure for the past 65.5M years based on Eq. (8) and the temperature record in Fig. 8.


Wait...wha?

*Atmospheric mass* may be controlling temps? The evidence ties in with plate tectonics? Very interesting.

Thoughts?



> Earth’s climate is currently in one of the warmest periods of the Holocene (past 10K years). It is unlikely that the Planet will become any warmer over the next 100 years, because the cloud cover appears to have reached a minimum for the present levels of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure, and the solar magnetic activity began declining, which may lead to more clouds and a higher planetary albedo. At this point, only a sizable increase of the total atmospheric mass can bring about a significant and sustained warming. *However, human-induced gaseous emissions are extremely unlikely to produce such a mass increase.*


All italics from the link, all bold mine.

From the comments:



> So the total mass of the atmosphere is more important than its composition? Pressure controls climate and albedo? The current models don’t work and here’s why?
> 
> That’s a lot to chew on.


I agree, it is. Love to see this go through peer review.

Very good read.


----------



## FeXL

Yet another post by McIntyre based on emails from C2 on evading Mosher's FOIA.



> Climategate 2.0 emails contain an interesting backstory on East Anglia’s evasion of Steve Mosher’s request for something as simple as university policies that governed entry into confidentiality agreements. Palmer consulted university specialists, receiving an answer that was adverse to the line that they were taking in their CRUtem refusals. Rather than providing this information to Mosher, Palmer adopted a tactic borrowed straight from Sir Humphrey. He pretended that he didn’t understand the question and asked Mosher for clarification – undoubtedly on the off-chance that Mosher would not return the ball. Palmer’s tactic succeeded. They avoided answering the question. The Climategate 2.0 backstory, especially Jones’ candid answers, make fascinating reading, as it shows that there were indeed compulsory university policies which were related to a term of standard employment contracts – information provided directly to Palmer.


Wondering when charges are going to be laid...


----------



## FeXL

More glacier melt info-Shock news: Glacier shedding ice as fast as in the 1930's when CO2 was safe



> Big chunks of ice have been falling off Greenland’s Helheim Glacier at an unusually high rate over the past 10 years, a new study finds.
> Warm summers and the intrusion of warmer Atlantic waters may be to blame, researchers in Denmark and the United States report online December 12 in Nature Geoscience.
> 
> To reconstruct the glacier’s history since 1890, the scientists examined sediments from the fjord below. *Sand grains in the sediments revealed that only in the 1930s was the glacier falling apart as quickly as it has been recently.*


I'm sorry, what does "unprecedented" mean?


----------



## FeXL

Hey, Trendberth, Jimmy found your missing heat:



> We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and *a deep prolonged solar minimum.*


Wait...wha?

I wuz under the impression old Sol had nothing to do with it...

Doncha jes' luvs playin' a game where the goalposts keeps on movin'?

Edit:

Goddard's snarky take: 

Hansen Explains The Missing IQ



> A couple of months ago the missing heat was due to Chinese aerosols. Now it is due to Pinatubo aerosols from 20 years ago.
> 
> Earth to Jim – Pinatubo aerosols were gone by 1995. There has been essentially no warming since then.
> 
> ...
> 
> The sun didn’t affect the temperature when it had record high activity last century, but now it affects the temperature since temperatures stopped rising.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard has some New Year’s Resolutions For Climate Scientists:



> 1. I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
> 2. I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
> 3. I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
> 4. I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
> 5. I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
> 6. I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
> 7. I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
> 8. I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
> 9. I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
> 10. I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
> 11. I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
> 12. I will stop making up data where none exists
> 13. I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
> 14. I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
> 15. I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
> 16. I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
> 17. I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
> 18. I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
> 19. I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
> 20. I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
> 21. I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
> 22. I will admit that there is no missing heat
> 23. I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
> 24. I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
> 25. etc. etc. etc.


and two more:



> * I will not change measurement systems when the data becomes unfavorable to my pre-determined conclusions – and then blame my junk science on CO2.
> * I will not fabricate phony upwards adjustments when the data becomes unfavorable to my predetermined conclusions.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Hey, Trendberth, Jimmy found your missing heat:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...wha?
> 
> I wuz under the impression old Sol had nothing to do with it...
> 
> Doncha jes' luvs playin' a game where the goalposts keeps on movin'?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Goddard's snarky take:
> 
> Hansen Explains The Missing IQ


Hey don't they also deny that volcanoes have any real impact on climate????


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Hey don't they also deny that volcanoes have any real impact on climate????


Hell, I dunno.

Can't keep track of all the changes...


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> Hey don't they also deny that volcanoes have any real impact on climate????





FeXL said:


> Hell, I dunno.
> 
> Can't keep track of all the changes...


I certainly recall a flat denial that sub-marine volcanic activity could possibly cause melting of the Arctic Ice pack even though there was clear evidence of recent activity corresponding to the melting.


----------



## MacDoc

Love the vague they.....

Yes Virginia single volcanos do have a short lived impact on climate if sufficiently large...of course if you read some climate science instead of blog tripe from Dear Anthony you might know that.....the impact of S02 injected into the stratosphere cools the planet for a couple of years.

Gotta love the puerile sig 

meanwhile in the real world away from the tin hat purveyors of AGW denier nonsense 



> *Extreme weather events and climate change*
> 
> 2011 has been a year of unparalleled extremes: 14 disastrous weather events in the US so far this year have resulted in over a billion dollars in property damage – an all-time record breaking number – and their estimated $53 billion price tag doesn’t include health costs.
> 
> As shown recently, in a first-of-its-kind study published in the journal Health Affairs1, when health-related costs of extreme events are calculated, the total tally increases substantially and will likely continue to climb due to climate change. 7 of the 2011 extreme events – a record-high number – are the type expected to worsen due to climate change.
> 
> Climate scientists are saying that these events may be part of a troubling trend influenced by climate change2.*
> This trend has also been identified by the international reinsurance company MunichRe [PDF]; they concluded that from 1980 through 2011, the frequency of extreme events in the U.S. is rising*.3
> A newly-released analysis by international climate scientists (IPCC)4 concluded that climate change will amplify extreme heat, heavy precipitation, and the highest wind speeds of tropical storms.


Extreme Weather Map | NRDC

but do keep denying the obvious.....daily dose of humour.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Yes Virginia single volcanos do have a short lived impact on climate if sufficiently large...of course if you read some climate science instead of blog tripe from Dear Anthony you might know that.....the impact of S02 injected into the stratosphere cools the planet for a couple of years.


Holy hell! Somebody call Hansen. MacDoc says couple years, Jimmy says twenty years later. Let's get a debate goin' here!

Anybody remember Dire Straits? _"Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."_

'Sides, "Dear Anthony" is now an official IPCC reviewer. Think that qualifies his opinion just a wee bit more than yours...



MacDoc said:


> Gotta love the puerile sig


The childish sig is your "puerile" words, repeated ad nauseum throughout the AGW threads. Shall I link to a couple dozen instances for you? How is it you're allowed to post them but I'm not allowed to repeat them? Another warmist double standard? Or another MacDoc double standard?



MacDoc said:


> meanwhile in the real world away from the tin hat purveyors of AGW denier nonsense


That's a really cute map you linked to, pretty colours an' all.

Show me the _*science*_ that 2011 weather was
a) unprecedented;
b) had anything to do with AGW.

I'll take any kind of empirical evidence you got. Note: Computer models don't spew science.

Give me some of that "science" you're always screeching about. Bright boy like you, always so quick to be critical, to demean, to deflect, but never a shred of scientific evidence in your defence. If it's so bleeding obvious, why don't you educate the unwashed masses? C'mon, bring it. 



MacDoc said:


> daily dose of humour.


My daily dose of humour comes from people who not only post crap like yours and can't defend it but, sadly enough, actually believe it.

ROTFLMFAO...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The childish sig is your "puerile" words


Rubbish. It's a blatant breach of the forum rules, and I'm quite surprised the mayor lets you get away with it. But it certainly does illustrate your disrespect for other members of the community and your complete disinterest in a reasonable or mature discussion of anything to do with this topic.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Rubbish. It's a blatant breach of the forum rules, and I'm quite surprised the mayor lets you get away with it. But it certainly does illustrate your disrespect for other members of the community and your complete disinterest in a reasonable or mature discussion of anything to do with this topic.


MacDoc slings insults with almost every one of his churlish posts.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> 2011 has been a year of unparalleled extremes: 14 disastrous weather events in the US so far this year have resulted in over a billion dollars in property damage – an all-time record breaking number – and their estimated $53 billion price tag doesn’t include health costs.


This always makes me laugh. Basing it on dollar value makes each successive generation's weather damage unparalleled. More people living in concentrated areas, higher property values, higher repair costs and simple inflation see to that. Embarrassing.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Rubbish. It's a blatant breach of the forum rules, and I'm quite surprised the mayor lets you get away with it. But it certainly does illustrate your disrespect for other members of the community and your complete disinterest in a reasonable or mature discussion of anything to do with this topic.


Show me the rule that says you can't quote someone else & use it as your sig. I'm waiting...

I have no problem publicly stating that the little respect I had for MacDoc ended round about 6 years ago the very first time he called me a name. I realized then that he was nothing more than a bully on these boards and was rarely admonished for his behaviour, despite being called on it on these boards by any number of people. He has given me nothing to change that opinion. Respect is earned and all his name calling (which continues unabated to this day and which still remains rarely addressed) & "puerile" antics on these boards will get him none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Oh, sure, once in a blue moon he'll give a helping hand, when it appears to suit his bottom line.

He's a big boy. He's made his bed. He may now reap what he has sown. He also shouldn't be very surprised...

I'm interested in reasonable discussion with anyone who wishes to enter the topic as a mature adult, speak their piece, defend it, ask a question, post a link, move on. I do not respect & will not treat anyone with respect who calls myself & others denidiots, lap puppies, dupes or any other of a number of colourful and derogatory terms and resorts to ad hom attacks to "defend" a position or POV. Period.

What I find most interesting, however, is that you have never brought his name calling or ad hom attacks to light in any of your posts. 

Is that further support of the MacDoc double standard?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Show me the rule that says you can't quote someone else & use it as your sig. I'm waiting...


I was under the impression that personal attacks against members of this forum were frowned upon. 

I don't like it when I see MacDoc doing it either, and what if any actions I have taken in that regard is not relevant. However, the creation of a signature file, the sole purpose of which is to goad another forum member strikes me as to be exceptionally juvenile and unlikely to facilitate civilized discussion.

We shall see what the mayor has to say on the matter.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I was under the impression that personal attacks against members of this forum were frowned upon. We shall see what the mayor has to say on the matter.


Double standard. Got it.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I was under the impression that personal attacks against members of this forum were frowned upon. We shall see what the mayor has to say on the matter.


First off, if this is a personal attack then every time MacDoc has used it is also a personal attack.

Second, the mayor & I have previously exchanged correspondence on the issue.


----------



## ehMax

*SIGH* 

Once again, school yard antics in this infuriating topic. 

Here goes...

FeXL signature - Removed. It's intent is to insult. 

Insulting other members on ehMac - There is no double standard. If it is reported, I will act on it. Doesn't matter who or what it is, I will act on it. If it's not reported, I probably won't know about it. Especially if it's in a beaten to death topic like this one. Any report I have received from Macdoc, I have either spoken to him, or have given some time away from the site. 

If this thread goes off track one more time, I'm killing it and any future topic related to green house gasses, and the incessant cheerleading from either side of the fence and going around and around and around in circles.


----------



## Macfury

Please go back and remove all of MacDoc's insults as well. It will take you awhile.


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> Please go back and remove all of MacDoc's insults as well. It will take you awhile.


Just skimmed back about 15 pages and didn't see any insults besides categorizing people as deniers. Like I said, if anyone comes across any specific insults in a post, click the report icon. I'm not reading through this thread any more than I have a desire to read a 100 pages of Mac vs PC or Chevy vs Ford.


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> Just skimmed back about 15 pages and didn't see any insults besides categorizing people as deniers. Like I said, if anyone comes across any specific insults in a post, click the report icon. I'm not reading through this thread any more than I have a desire to read a 100 pages of Mac vs PC or Chevy vs Ford.


"Denidiots"


----------



## ehMax

Macfury said:


> "Denidiots"


I've deleted comments in this thread from Macdoc with that term. 

-------------------------------

Feel free to debate issues vigorously on ehMac, but the second the post turns to insulting the fellow ehMac member posting, that is not acceptable. 

This rule applies to every single ehMac member including myself. 

Things get heated and mistakes and lack of judgement can happen to the best of anyone, that's why there will be words of warning, and brief cooling off periods, but if I don't know about them, nothing will happen. 

I do ask for a level of self-moderation and keeping things respectful.


----------



## FeXL

So, another warmist myth bites the dust.

UHI in South Korea – responsible for over half of the warming

From the _Journal of Atmospheric Environment_



> On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37 °C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77 °C.


My only question is, how do they attribute the balance to the "greenhouse effect"? Natural cycles I'd buy. AGW? Not. So. Much.


----------



## eMacMan

Before we got derailed there, I noticed that Hansen was blaming extremely low solar activity for the cooling that he has been denying existed at all.

Interesting as the AGW crowd still firmly denies that the unusually high solar activity made any contribution to that brief period of warming immediately prior to the cooling stretch.


----------



## FeXL

New paper-GISS temps and solar activity: Far beyond TSI

From the abstract:



> _A very significant correlation (Rz 0.57 to 0.80) is found in the 22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16–32 years ) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth’s climate than solar variations related to the 11-yr sunspot cycle._


From the link:



> Recall that the CO2 warmists in their half-baked models stubbornly keep focusing only on total solar irradiance (TSI), which itself varies only about 0.1% over an 11-year cycle (and thus by itself is no real climate driver) and ignore all the other amplification mechanisms. Well, the results of this study, as do dozens of others studies, show you can’t do that. Like it or not – the sun is a real player. Eventually the CO2 warmists will have to admit this, as anyone with even just an inkling of intuition would do.


From the comments:



> It’s the S U N not the S U V


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Unified Climate Theory.

Some criticism leveled by Ira Glickstein & Dr. Roy Spencer.

Glickstein:



> The Unified Theory of Climate post is exciting and could shake the world of Climate Science to its roots. I would love it if the conventional understanding of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect (GHE) presented by the _Official Climate Team_ could be overturned, and that would be the case if the theory of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, both PhDs, turns out to be scientifically correct.
> 
> Sadly, it seems to me they have made some basic mistakes that, among other faults, confuse cause and effect. I appreciate that WUWT is open to new ideas, and I support the decision to publish this theory, along with both positive and negative comments by readers.


Spencer:



> While I applaud Ned Nikolov’s willingness to advance a controversial alternative, at this point I still must side with the greenhouse effect (despite its terrible name) as an explanation for the average surface temperature of the Earth being considerably higher than that calculated based upon the rate of solar heating of the surface alone.


I still say I'd like this to go through peer review.


----------



## FeXL

New Paper: Cold Arctic winters becoming colder, resulting in large ozone hole



> Paper published today notes near-complete loss of ozone over the Arctic due to *one of the coldest stratospheric winters on record* from 2010-2011. No mention of the now-inconvenient link to man-made chlorofluorocarbon emissions.


So how does this tie in with AGW?



> These results indicate that severe ozone depletion like in 2010/2011 or even worse could appear for cold Arctic winters over the next decades if *the observed tendency for cold Arctic winters to become colder continues into the future.*


Bold from the link.

Arctic is getting colder, people. Just like Jimmy & the boys aren't predicting...


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of Jimmy:



> Nature has played a mean joke on James Hansen. The PDO shift in 1977-1978 was exactly coincident with the launch of satellites monitoring temperatures and sea ice. The rising temperatures since the 1970s fooled Hansen into believing that his CO2 theory was correct.
> 
> Sadly though for the CO2 team, ENSO and PDO went south this decade and warming has stopped. Hansen blathers on mindlessly about volcanoes from 20 years ago affecting current temperature. There is really no place left for him to hide. Hansen should admit that he was wrong – and retire.


From the link:



> _ “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
> 
> Albert Einstein_


Yup.


----------



## Macfury

I thank the Internet for recording in their entirety all of Hansen's failed predictions. 

It's a shame that some so-called scientists don't spend more time looking these up instead of taking on the role of "tattle-tale."


----------



## eMacMan

Been following a news story of a Russian oil tanker escorted by the US Coast Guards only ice breaker trying to get the winter shipment of diesel into Nome Alaska. This should have happened in November but early winter storms made the attempt too dangerous.

Long story short as of yesterday the icebreaker is now stopped dead. 

Interestingly the Coast Guard has only one Pacific ice breaker because the idiots in Washington preferred to drain the Treasury killing people in the Middle East. Besides that, they were certain that because of Global Warming they would be wasting taxpayer dollars if they built more ice breakers.

No matter how much faith you place in the Church of Climatology, it is still better to prepare for Global Cooling. We know when things get colder it is far more sudden and disastrous than gradual warming.


----------



## SINC

Interesting read:

Researchers discover particle which could 'cool the planet'


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Interesting read:
> 
> Researchers discover particle which could 'cool the planet'


It's interesting--and fairly frightening that these nutbars want to cool down a planet that may be barely warming.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It's interesting--and fairly frightening that these nutbars want to cool down a planet that may be barely warming.


Course if they are wrong about AGW, induced cooling could produce catastrophic results.


----------



## SINC

Well boys, it's finally over:



> Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
> 
> *The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.*
> 
> The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
> 
> Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
> 
> Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
> 
> Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
> 
> We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
> 
> Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.


Forget Global Warming


----------



## groovetube

For every link you post that says it didn't, there's more that says it did.

Far, from over.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> For every link you post that says it didn't, there's more that says it did.
> 
> Far, from over.


.


----------



## groovetube

So? Does that prove anything? Does posting a graph with a different result prove anything either?

That's what I thought. En garde!


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Don't get into a battle of wits with... you know the rest of it...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> SINC: Don't get into a battle of wits with... you know the rest of it...


Well, you sure showed us what real wit is didn't you.

I'm sorry you didn't like my comment macfury, but that's no reason to stoop that low and insult me. Grow up.

Comments like that is the reason people stay out of threads. My comment may have been disagreeable, but at least I don't stoop to your level.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Don't get into a battle of wits with... groovetube.


----------



## groovetube

Yes always with the personal attacks. That's all you have I guess.

Aiming to alienate more people I suppose?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Yes always with the personal attacks. That's all you have I guess.


Take another look at that graph and then who released it. SINC had a reason for singling it out. It isn't just another graph. Anyone who was has been following the GHG issue with any regularity would not comment on it the way you did.


----------



## Vandave

SINC said:


> .


/debate

Come back when the earth starts warming again guys. 

All the Climate models have failed.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Take another look at that graph and then who released it. SINC had a reason for singling it out. It isn't just another graph. Anyone who was has been following the GHG issue with any regularity would not comment on it the way you did.


I'm sorry, but the linked article wasn't found on that news site, but I did find this article on the upsides of global climate change... Imagine grazing on blueberries, fresh plaice and warm winters? Global warming doesn't sounds so bad | Mail Online

And one graph by someone no matter how important you think, doesn't mean the 'end of climate change debate', which is what I said to SINC.

Far from it. I didn't say either way what would or should be the final outcome. But you found it necessary to resort to personal attacks instead. One can only guess as to why you continue to need to assert how much smarter you are than others on a forum, but that's your deal not mine I guess. Maybe show it by staying on topic rather than these childish personal attacks. Buh bye.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry, but the linked article wasn't found on that news site, but I did find this article on the upsides of global climate change... Imagine grazing on blueberries, fresh plaice and warm winters? Global warming doesn't sounds so bad | Mail Online
> 
> And one graph by someone no matter how important you think, doesn't mean the 'end of climate change debate', which is what I said to SINC.


This is what is so frustrating when people try to discuss things with you groovetube. You often fail to stay on topic. That link is only tangentially related to the topic we were discussing. Perhaps the link wasn't found any longer, but the information is easily accessible.

And yes, the release of that graph ends that particular debate.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This is what is so frustrating when people try to discuss things with you groovetube. You often fail to stay on topic. That link is only tangentially related to the topic we were discussing. Perhaps the link wasn't found any longer, but the information is easily accessible.
> 
> And yes, the release of that graph ends that particular debate.


That's your opinion macfury. And don't talk to me, about failing to stay on topic. There's almost an entire political thread where you contribute nothing but jabs and personal attacks, while admonishing everyone you're too intellectually superior to grace us with joining the conversation.

And no, I disagree that this ends the debate. I didn't say that in the end the results wouldn't found to be right, I said I doubted that this ends the debate.

Now it seems there's only a few of you here left who merely agree with each other, and one can see why. I'll leave you to continue to agree with each other. Because apparently, you get attacked if you dare say something verboten here.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> No, you are challenged when you are off topic or mistaken. Do the background research and then contribute your opinion!


I did. My opinion, was that this info posted by sinc wasn't going to end the debate yet. Not that it was wrong, but that this was far from "over". Apparently, you consider opinions that differ from yours as not researched. Typical.

You didn't like the opinion, and followed it with a personal attack. You seem incapable of dealing with disagreement.

YOU were the one that took it off topic pal. Don't give me this crap about contributing, or research. Grow up.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> If you become angry when challenged, this is not a good place for you.


Just keep trying macfury. But the fact is, YOU were the one who got angry and resorted to personal attacks.

I challenged the notion the debate was over and you lost it. Right back there in black and white for everyone to see, so don't bother turning this around.

Next you'll try to blame me for derailing the thread. Look in the mirror. You started the personal attacks, and I refuse to take it this time. I'm tired of your childish games and personal attacks, as are others.

I said:


> For every link you post that says it didn't, there's more that says it did.
> 
> Far, from over.


Merely disagreeing with Sinc. That happens sometimes in the real world.

The YOU responded with:


> SINC: Don't get into a battle of wits with... you know the rest of it...


Making it personal. So it appears, YOU, were the one to get angry here.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This sort of angry rambling is killing the thread, groove. Thanks for your contribution.
> 
> Over.


I'm not sure where the anger is besides you macfury. You were the one who lost it and got personal over a comment I made that was on topic. I requoted the exchange, it's quite clear who 'got angry'. You.

So in short, you were the one who decided to kill the thread, because you got angry at my comment and attacked me personally.

Sorry, but that's the truth. Perhaps there's a reason why you need to attack people personally when you dislike an opinion and get upset when called out on it, but that's your problem.

I simply won't put up with your trolling and personal attacks any longer.


----------



## Macfury

.


----------



## groovetube

So you'll return the your usual passive aggressive personal attacks. Well that's comforting.

Keep on trolling.


----------



## eMacMan

Time to again point out the obvious.

The Chicken Little Crowd still has failed to explain how raising the atmospheric level of CO2 by .001% (That's 1/1000th of a percent) will cause cataclysmic climate failure, without every burp of a volcano or every major forest fire having a similar impact. They keep touting computer models which consistently fail to reflect the past and fail to predict the future.

Despite that failure they continue to pimp as the only viable solution: Steal $Trillion$ from the poor and give it to the rich, with no intent to reduce emissions. Clearly the banksters will be the ultimate beneficiaries of either cap and trade, or carbon taxation. 

Even if the most dire predictions are accurate we cannot afford the proposed cure.


----------



## bryanc

For those of you who may no be readers of the Pulitzer-prize-winning and consistently brilliant Doonesbury, here's today's cartoon to lighten the burden of being so obviously _right_ while the entire scientific community is so obviously _wrong_.

:lmao:


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> For those of you who may no be readers of the Pulitzer-prize-winning and consistently brilliant Doonesbury, here's today's cartoon to lighten the burden of being so obviously _right_ while the entire scientific community is so obviously _wrong_.
> 
> :lmao:


:lmao::lmao::clap:


----------



## Macfury

We're not even sure the climate has changed significantly. The question is--if it has changed, what has caused it?

Is_ Doonesbury_ still in print?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> *I'm* not even sure the climate has changed significantly.


T,FTFY.



> The question is--if it has changed, what has caused it?


If you want answers to questions about the observable universe, the best approach we've got is science. The best science we've got addressing this question says that there are multiple causes, one of which is human activity.



> Is_ Doonesbury_ still in print?


Yes. And still one of the only cartoons that regularly addresses serious social issues with humour, wit, and insight.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, it's not considered polite to change actual quotes. YOU may be sure the climate has changed in unusual fashion, however science does not bear this out.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc, it's not considered polite to change actual quotes.


The "There, fixed that for ya" (T,FTFY) tag is widely used to indicate that the poster has intentionally altered a quote (with the alteration in bold) for humorous/argumentative purposes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.



> YOU may be sure the climate has changed in unusual fashion, however science does not bear this out.


My opinion on the topic isn't particularly relevant, as I'm not a climate scientist. The community of climate scientists has repeated and unequivocally stated that they are confident that the climate has changed significantly and that human activity is at least partially responsible for this change. From our point of view, these are the only observable facts. 

The scientists say "X". Neither of us is qualified to critique this conclusion.

In order to convince me that the denier camp has a valid scientific argument, I would need to see a significant number of climate scientists being convinced by that argument (i.e. because I am not qualified to critically analyze the science, I need to have evidence by proxy that the scientific argument is valid... a suitable proxy would be the published opinions of recognized experts in the field). While there have been a small number of climate scientists who've been convinced by the deniers, a much larger number of skeptics have been convinced by the proponents of ACC (indeed, during the recently published formal analysis of this dispute, a large number of climate scientists who were on record as skeptics of ACC were contacted and responded that they were no longer skeptical of the basic tenets of ACC). I am thus forced to conclude that the scientific evidence in favour of ACC is far more compelling than the evidence against it on the basis of the behaviour of the people qualified to consider it.

Something those of you posting here seem not to recognize is that no amount of blog postings on either side is of any value whatsoever in this discussion. All that matters is the opinions of those who are qualified to have an opinion on the science. Those opinions fall almost unanimously (98% last I heard) on one side of the debate.

Thus, I consider the issue resolved unless and until significant new evidence emerges.

I will now leave you to your echo-chamber.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The "There, fixed that for ya" (T,FTFY) tag is widely used to indicate that the poster has intentionally altered a quote (with the alteration in bold) for humorous/argumentative purposes. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


It's clear--but I don't want you to do it.



bryanc said:


> My opinion on the topic isn't particularly relevant, as I'm not a climate scientist.


I stopped reading after this line.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I stopped reading after this line.


"Blah blah blah -- I can't hear you!"


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> "Blah blah blah -- I can't hear you!"


Why should I bother reading anyone who disqualifies his own post? 

Thanks for the warning.


----------



## SINC

Well, well, well, would you lookie here, and from an IPCC guy yet:

*Impact of burning all Alberta’s oilsands negligible, scientists argue*



> Andrew Weaver isn’t what you’d call an oilsands apologist.
> 
> *Weaver, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, was a lead author with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.* He is one of the world’s leading authorities on global warming, and one of the fiercest critics of the Harper government’s carbon emissions policy — or lack thereof.
> 
> That’s what makes Weaver’s latest research publication such startling news. This Sunday, Feb. 19th, Weaver and his doctoral student, Neil Swart, published an analysis in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, an offshoot of Nature, the world’s most prestigious science journal.
> 
> In their paper, *Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible.* Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
> 
> Burning up all the oil in the areas currently being mined *would have even less impact.*


Emphasis mine. Makes that "dirty oil" campaign kind of weak now:

Link


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Well, well, well, would you lookie here, and from an IPCC guy yet:
> 
> *Impact of burning all Alberta’s oilsands negligible, scientists argue*
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine. Makes that "dirty oil" campaign kind of weak now:
> 
> Link


Allegations of payoffs from "big oil" or "Harpo" in 3..2..1


----------



## SINC

I would have thought that myself MacGuiver, But apparently the warmists won't touch this one when it's from one of their own.


----------



## CubaMark

*
From that mouthpiece of lefty commie propaganda comes the following shocker:*

*John Moore: A peek into the climate denier industry*



> Leaked documents from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute expose the efforts of the conservative “research organization” to sow doubt about climate change. The documents also reveal information about donors — including a mysterious unnamed individual who provided more than $14-million dollars to Heartland.





> Here’s the reality: *Of the 200 most significant climate scientists in the world, precisely two dissent on the consensus theory of climate change.* But the media has been bullied into presenting the issue as a he-said, she-said affair. And so in a public debate on the issue, you end up with a quarrel between an internationally respected scientist and a blogger who quotes Ayn Rand.


(National Post)


----------



## groovetube

I've been reading about this as well. Of interest was the furious claims of the docs being a forgery, only to have threats of action taken over alleged theft of, said "forgeries".

Interesting thing to watch nonetheless.


----------



## Macfury

One of the documents was an obvious forgery--the rest were nothing special. Mostly descriptions of which scientists would receive a share of their paltry budget.


----------



## groovetube

An obvious forgery? What are the details on this conclusion?

Peter H. Gleick: The Origin of the Heartland Documents


----------



## Macfury

This explains it better than I can:

Leaked Docs From Heartland Institute Cause a Stir—but Is One a Fake? - Megan McArdle - National - The Atlantic


----------



## groovetube

Yes, I did see that, And that is a good opinion, on why it could, be a forgery, but far from damning evidence that it's "an obvious forgery". Unless you simply just believe anything you read. However if you follow what I posted, and followed the rest of the story, you'd know there are other points of view on this. Valid ones.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Yes, I did see that, And that is a good opinion, on why it could, be a forgery, but far from damning evidence that it's "an obvious forgery". Unless you simply just believe anything you read. However if you follow what I posted, and followed the rest of the story, you'd know there are other points of view on this. Valid ones.


I believe the one document is forged, and the others aren't. However, I don't understand what's so stunning about the other ones. They have small budget with which they fund some climate experts. So what?


----------



## groovetube

Sounds like you've already made up your mind.

I'm going to watch this with interest as this develops.


----------



## Macfury

Yes. I've made up my mind on the one document. The evidence against it's legitimacy is overwhelming.


----------



## groovetube

Well that may be your opinion, however the evidence is hardly overwhelming at this point.

Valid opinion, at best.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Well that may be your opinion, however the evidence is hardly overwhelming at this point.
> 
> Valid opinion, at best.


Everyone is, of course, free to struggle with the evidence _ad infinitum_.


----------



## MacDoc

Love the deniers squirming on this.....Koch's et al funding of the denier machine is hardly new news. It's just about time the shoe got on the other foot.....the conspiracy of denial has been obvious - engendering a historical remonstration of Exxon from the Royal Geographic and a shareholders revolt in Exxon on the same subject.

Koch et al seems to have no restraints on it's murderous campaign....

•••

However some valid information recently on somewhat benign impact of the oil sands in the bigger picture as far as GHG goes....for those that actually have progressed enough to stop denying AGW in the first place.....a denial position so ludicrous now that it only breeds laughter and disrespect - not dialogue.

Canada’s oil sands: Not so dirty after all - The Globe and Mail

That does not lessen the dire local degradation of especially of the water in the area nor reduce Canada's woeful record on climate.

Coal remains the villain and of course Alberta is opening a new coal plant.....what else is new in the heart of AGW denier land.


----------



## Macfury

Who is squirming? The documents reveal which people receive funding from the Heartland Institute. And so?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Everyone is, of course, free to struggle with the evidence _ad infinitum_.


Absolutely! It is indeed, a much more difficult road to do the work to form one's own opinion, rather than allow others to do so.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Who is squirming? The documents reveal which people receive funding from the Heartland Institute. And so?


Well. You certainly squirmed enough to drop the sort of post you did previous.

Not just a bit defensive are we.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Absolutely! It is indeed, a much more difficult road to do the work to form one's own opinion, rather than allow others to do so.


It is very difficult for some to form their own opinion. To each his own!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It is very difficult for some to form their own opinion. To each his own!


Oh macfury, you're too easy. It doesn't take much to get you questioning someone's intelligence, the oldest forum trick in the book.

Squirm on my friend.


----------



## Macfury

I ask again, what's to squirm over? If you've read the documents, what, specifically, is supposed to make me uncomfortable?


----------



## BigDL

*Apparently The Sky Is Falling?*

>Sky is Falling?



Wired said:


> Cloud-top height fell one percent on average between March 2000 and February 2010, according to measurements from the multi-angle imaging spectroradiometer mounted on NASA’s Terra satellite. That one percent means a reduction of 30 to 40 meters in the average maximum height of clouds, during the 00s.
> 
> While the short record means it’s difficult to draw any strong conclusions from the data, it does hint towards a longer-term trend. Roger Davies, the lead researcher on the project, warns that it’s something that should be monitored in the coming decades to determine how significant it is for global temperatures.


----------



## BigDL

*Explanation of statistic and weather vs. climate*

This little ditty a short explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw


----------



## MacDoc

In case anyone has any remaining doubts.

Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds | Climate Central


----------



## Macfury

Of course we don;t even have climate records for a lot of the areas on the map--NASA is just "modeling" them. You can get even more dramatic results by bumping up the colours on the cartoon even further and changing the beginning and end points. In the end it's still just plain old climate variation.

If they'd had any guts they would have made a little cartoon showing the past 20,000 years.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> In the end it's still just plain old *science*.


T,FTFY.

If you had any guts you'd admit that you don't understand the science and refrain from criticizing research you can't comprehend.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> T,FTFY.
> 
> If you had any guts you'd admit that you don't understand the science and refrain from criticizing research you can't comprehend.


Only one of us has stated that he can't comprehend the research--YOU! I guess I'm just smarter than you are.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I guess I'm just smarter than you are.


Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? Check the mirror.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? .


It's not Dunning-Kruger at work here--it seems I'm just smarter than you are. Although linking repeatedly to the Dunning-Kruger effect as you have done does indicate the possibility of a crippling inferiority complex at work. 

Now please stop with the personal attacks and I'll get back to my research.


----------



## MacDoc

Lindzen et al....got love the the "denier authorities"...

this time Lindzen had no escape from his misrepresentation and had to apologize for his latest scientific gaffe
Apology From Prof. Lindzen for Howard Hayden's NASA-GISS Data Interpretation Error


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Lindzen et al....got love the the "denier authorities"...
> 
> this time Lindzen had no escape from his misrepresentation and had to apologize for his latest scientific gaffe
> Apology From Prof. Lindzen for Howard Hayden's NASA-GISS Data Interpretation Error


He made an error on one table, MacDoc and apologized when he realized it. The GHG house of cards is still crumbling.


----------



## MacDoc

Self explanatory


----------



## Macfury

It explains that some cities had a record high temperature in March.

I've got two more words for you: "Jet Stream.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> It explains that some cities had a record high temperature in March.
> 
> I've got two more words for you: "Jet Stream.


That is what we were told was the cause of all of our frigid temps here in St.John's while others were very hot. From Environment Canada:
"The Worst Weather In Canada"
March 23, 2012 11:51 AM




Well, it was only fitting that this was the week, which Money Sense magazine labeled St. John's as having "The Worst Weather in Canada". 



While the rest of Eastern Canada has basked in unprecedented record breaking heat this week, Newfoundland and Labrador barely got a sniff. Winnipeg, Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Fredericton, Halifax and dozens more experienced their warmest temperatures EVER recorded for the month of March. Halifax hit 28° degrees on Thursday, while St. John's reached just +3° (and that happened overnight) Or how about this... Sydney, Nova Scotia hit 23.1° degrees, while just 170 km across the Cabot Strait, Port aux Basques managed just 9.2°



In end, the jet stream firmly in place over NL, just wouldn't allow that ridge of High pressure and warm air to move into Newfoundland and Labrador.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> That is what we were told was the cause of all of our frigid temps here in St.John's while others were very hot. From Environment Canada:
> "The Worst Weather In Canada"
> March 23, 2012 11:51 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was only fitting that this was the week, which Money Sense magazine labeled St. John's as having "The Worst Weather in Canada".
> 
> 
> 
> While the rest of Eastern Canada has basked in unprecedented record breaking heat this week, Newfoundland and Labrador barely got a sniff. Winnipeg, Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Fredericton, Halifax and dozens more experienced their warmest temperatures EVER recorded for the month of March. Halifax hit 28° degrees on Thursday, while St. John's reached just +3° (and that happened overnight) Or how about this... Sydney, Nova Scotia hit 23.1° degrees, while just 170 km across the Cabot Strait, Port aux Basques managed just 9.2°
> 
> 
> 
> In end, the jet stream firmly in place over NL, just wouldn't allow that ridge of High pressure and warm air to move into Newfoundland and Labrador.


I wonder if that damn jetstream is responsible for Obama too.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I wonder if that damn jetstream is responsible for Obama too.


Now, now, gt, this is not the American Political thread. All I am able to say is that the day to day weather here in St.John's has been strange these days, and the climate has changed in my 35 years here in St.John's. Whatever the cause, although I do believe in global warming, there is a change that we can't ignore. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc

Just a small reminder - our local coterie of climate change deniers knows better than these national and international bodies....

as far as credibility goes ......



> *General science*
> Many science organizations have issued statements supporting the IPCC or pointing out the dangers of avoiding action on climate change.
> American Association for the Advancement of Science As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:
> The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[40]
> American Chemical Society[41]
> American Institute of Physics[42]
> American Physical Society[43]
> Australian Institute of Physics[44]
> European Physical Society[45]
> European Science Foundation[46]
> Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]
> [edit]Earth sciences
> [edit]American Geophysical Union
> 
> *The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[48] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.* _Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
> 
> _[edit]American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
> In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:
> _A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
> Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.
> Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global
> temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[49]_
> 
> [edit]European Federation of Geologists
> In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[50](EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :
> _The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
> It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
> CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[51]
> [edit]European Geosciences Union_
> 
> In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC
> represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[52]
> Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[53]
> 
> [edit]Geological Society of America
> In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.
> _Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[54]_
> 
> [edit]Geological Society of London
> In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement *Climate change: evidence from the geological record:*
> _The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on **** sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[55]
> _[edit]
> International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
> In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “*The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”.* In it, the IUGG concurs with the _“comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change_.” They state further that the _“continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society_.”[56]
> [edit]
> National Association of Geoscience Teachers
> In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[57] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that_ "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":
> NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases_.[58]


continued


----------



## MacDoc

continued



> [edit]*Meteorology and oceanography*
> [edit]American Meteorological Society
> The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
> _Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction_.[59]
> 
> [edit]Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:
> _Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity_.”[60]
> 
> [edit]Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
> In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that
> _We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes_.[61]
> 
> [edit]Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
> In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:
> _Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life_.[62]
> [edit]
> 
> Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
> In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”[63]
> 
> [edit]World Meteorological Organization
> In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” _The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice._” [64]
> 
> [edit]Paleoclimatology
> [edit]American Quaternary Association
> The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated
> _Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity._[65]
> 
> [edit]International Union for Quaternary Research
> The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.
> _Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses — including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide — to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority_.[66]
> 
> *Biology and life sciences*
> Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.
> American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[67]
> American Institute of Biological Sciences
> _In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement:[68][69]
> The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases._[70]
> 
> American Society for Microbiology[71]
> Australian Coral Reef Society[72]
> Institute of Biology (UK)[73]
> Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[74] and the UNFCCC.[75]
> The Wildlife Society (international)[76]
> 
> *Human health*
> A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming
> American Academy of Pediatrics[77]
> American College of Preventive Medicine[78]
> American Medical Association[79]
> American Public Health Association[80]
> Australian Medical Association in 2004[81] and in 2008[82]
> World Federation of Public Health Associations[83]
> World Health Organization[84]
> _There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.
> The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather._
> 
> *Miscellaneous*
> A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:
> American Astronomical Society[85]
> American Statistical Association[86]
> Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)[87]
> International Association for Great Lakes Research[88]
> Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[89]


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are they all wrong???..
....nah ...you're wrong...you know who you are.


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> are they all wrong?


Obviously all those scientists are just trying to protect their lucrative grants, and high-flying lifestyles. I bet most climatologists have at least two Porsches in their driveways. And everybody knows how scientists are such conformists, I'm sure none of them have seriously tried to *disprove* the consensus about anthopogenic climate change.


----------



## Macfury

Look at all of your references. Only a very few endorse AGW in the sense that you believe. They're just warning against the dangers of a warming climate.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Look at all of your references. Only a very few endorse AGW in the sense that you believe. They're just warning against the dangers of a warming climate.


Which BTW is not nearly as bad as the alternative, a cooling climate.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Which BTW is not nearly as bad as the alternative, a cooling climate.


They're not interested in that, because if the climate cooled, you would have no excuse to deindustrialize the western hemisphere. Their theory would indicate that you needed to produce more CO2 to counteract the cooling.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They're not interested in that, because if the climate cooled, you would have no excuse to deindustrialize the western hemisphere. Their theory would indicate that you needed to produce more CO2 to counteract the cooling.


Yes, that follows. Unfortunately the data says the opposite. While I'm sure Exxon and the Koch brothers wish there was some scientific support for continuing to oxidize fossil fuels that have accumulated over geological time, there isn't. So they use their political power to spread FUD about the science and have successfully duped a sizeable number of otherwise rational people into suspecting the science is fraudulent or wildly inaccurate.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Yes, that follows. Unfortunately the data says the opposite. While I'm sure Exxon and the Koch brothers wish there was some scientific support for continuing to oxidize fossil fuels that have accumulated over geological time, there isn't. So they use their political power to spread FUD about the science and have successfully duped a sizeable number of otherwise rational people into suspecting the science is fraudulent or wildly inaccurate.


This sounds strangely familiar. Did I read essentially the same thing in the religious thread?


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> This sounds strangely familiar. Did I read essentially the same thing in the religious thread?


Um... sorry, I'm not following you. Could you link to a specific post?


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Um... sorry, I'm not following you. Could you link to a specific post?


I was being facetious, but your statement _"they use their political power to spread FUD about the science and have successfully duped a sizeable number of otherwise rational people"_ seemed familiar to me from your postings in the religious thread regarding some forms of christianity and evolution.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Yes, that follows. Unfortunately the data says the opposite. While I'm sure Exxon and the Koch brothers wish there was some scientific support for continuing to oxidize fossil fuels that have accumulated over geological time, there isn't. So they use their political power to spread FUD about the science and have successfully duped a sizeable number of otherwise rational people into suspecting the science is fraudulent or wildly inaccurate.


That would be trying to pass off computer models that consistently fail to mirror the past, as proof positive of AGW?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> That would be trying to pass off computer models that consistently fail to mirror the past, as proof positive of AGW?


What does this have to do with the Koch brothers funding the FUD machine?

The validity or lack thereof of the current scientific evidence for/against AGW is a subject for debate among qualified experts: not you or I. That the experts have come to an almost unanimous consensus *is* something that the non-expert can interpret. It means that, among those who are knowledgeable, the evidence is extraordinarily compelling and consistent across many different methodological approaches. So either AGW is essentially correct, or it is an extraordinarily improbable co-incidence that so many different scientists using so many different approaches have uncovered so much compelling evidence that points to the same conclusions.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I was being facetious, but your statement _"they use their political power to spread FUD about the science and have successfully duped a sizeable number of otherwise rational people"_ seemed familiar to me from your postings in the religious thread regarding some forms of christianity and evolution.


Okay, I get it now. And I guess there is a similarity; the oil industry and it's apologists do have extraordinary political clout (even more than the religious fundamentalists, in my estimation), and they are both similarly unconcerned with truth or the long term consequences of their actions on society, as long as their short term interests are served.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> What does this have to do with the Koch brothers funding the FUD machine?
> 
> The validity or lack thereof of the current scientific evidence for/against AGW is a subject for debate among qualified experts: not you or I. That the experts have come to an almost unanimous consensus *is* something that the non-expert can interpret. It means that, among those who are knowledgeable, the evidence is extraordinarily compelling and consistent across many different methodological approaches. So either AGW is essentially correct, or it is an extraordinarily improbable co-incidence that so many different scientists using so many different approaches have uncovered so much compelling evidence that points to the same conclusions.


Which differs not in the slightest from the Gore Gangs attempts to fleece us via carbon trading. 

Without Saint Gore's desire for "The sky is falling" data, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Periods would still exist and the Hockey Stick would be a straight line portion of a sawtooth pattern that goes back many thousands of years.

For many years the emphasis of the AGW crowd has centered all of its efforts on justiftying its attempts to steal from the poor and giving to the rich. Either via carbon trading or carbon taxation.

While limiting global population may or may not be a noble goal, stealing even more from those that can least afford it is not the answer.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Okay, I get it now. And I guess there is a similarity; the oil industry and it's apologists do have extraordinary political clout (even more than the religious fundamentalists, in my estimation), and they are both similarly unconcerned with truth or the long term consequences of their actions on society, as long as their short term interests are served.


Yep, that's the way I saw it.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Without Saint Gore's desire for "The sky is falling" data, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Periods would still exist and the Hockey Stick would be a straight line portion of a sawtooth pattern that goes back many thousands of years.


That's your interpretation. I'd be far less worried about AGW if 98% of the people who actually know how to obtain and analyze this sort of data didn't disagree with you.

You also seem to have causality reversed. The scientific community has been trying to get this issue recognized since the 1980's; Gore et al. got on board long *after* the evidence of AGW had become unequivocal.

Finally, your opposition to specific mechanisms of *dealing* with AGW is in no way related to wether or not AGW is actually occurring. Perhaps if you came to terms with the fact that AGW is real, and really represents a problem, you might be able to make a contribution to the discussion of how society ought to prepare for and/or mitigate it?


----------



## Macfury

AGW is so minimal that it presents no problem.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> AGW is so minimal that it presents no problem.


So speaketh the Pope of Deniers... have faith in MacFury and trust not the heathen scientists for they are faithless skeptics who use reason and evidence. Trust the infallible Pope of EhMac for through him does speak Exxon, and the holy Koch Brothers!


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So speaketh the Pope of Deniers... have faith in MacFury and trust not the heathen scientists for they are faithless skeptics who use reason and evidence. Trust the infallible Pope of EhMac for through him does speak Exxon, and the holy Koch Brothers!


bryanc, you have publicly stated you don't understand the science. I have accepted your word for this, so I have no reason to listen to your opinion further on this matter.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I have no reason to listen to your opinion further on this matter.


What reason have you provided for anyone to listen to _your_ opinion on the science?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> What reason have you provided for anyone to listen to _your_ opinion on the science?


Absolutely none. People can judge my contributions on the strength of what I write and the sources I credit.... and they can judge your contributions on your admission of inadequacy.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> People can judge my contributions on the strength of what I write and the sources I credit.... and they can judge your contributions on your admission of inadequacy.


When making such judgements, I think you will find that most of our compatriots here are more capable than you at distinguishing between discussions of the science (which no one here is qualified to do) and discussions of the reactions (in the media, politically, and economically) to that science. 

I refrain from criticizing the science because I recognize the limits of my expertise. Apparently you do not.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I refrain from criticizing the science because I recognize the limits of my expertise. Apparently you do not.


The Chair recognizes the limits of your expertise


----------



## groovetube

hmmm.

Someone smart enough to recognize the value of real expertise, vs, some anonymous forum poster who has a degree in google.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> hmmm.
> 
> Someone smart enough to recognize the value of real expertise, vs, some anonymous forum poster who has a degree in google.


And then there's groovetube...


----------



## groovetube

yes, right here. Chuckling at professor google, and the inane responses I've seen the last page or so.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yes, right here. Chuckling at professor google, and the inane responses I've seen the last page or so.


Chuckling. Yeah, that seems about right.


----------



## SINC

And so the back pedalling begins. No change in temperatures since the millennium despite carbon dioxide rising is proof global warming is not happening as predicted. 

*'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change*



> *James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.*
> 
> Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
> 
> He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
> 
> *However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."*
> 
> The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”
> 
> The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
> 
> Climate's 'usual tricks'
> 
> *It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.*
> 
> “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
> 
> *“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.*
> 
> “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
> 
> *He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.*


Emphasis mine. More debunking here:

World News - 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change


----------



## MacDoc

What a joke - anything to grasp at straws...that bastion of science - World News...

reality



> *2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO*
> March 23, 2012
> 
> The UN weather agency noted that during the decade, "numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, heat waves and cold waves."
> 
> Climate change has accelerated in the past decade, the UN weather agency said Friday, releasing data showing that 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.
> The 10-year period was also marked by extreme levels of rain or snowfall, leading to significant flooding on all continents, while droughts affected parts of East Africa and North America.
> 
> *"The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46 degrees Celsius above the long term average of 14.0 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit)," said the World Meteorological Organisation.*
> 
> Nine of the 10 years also counted among the 10 warmest on record, it added, noting that "climate change accelerated" during the first decade of the 21st century.
> 
> The trend continued in 2011, which was the warmest year on record despite La Nina -- a weather pattern which has a cooling effect.
> The average temperature in 2011 was 0.40 degrees Celsius above the long term average, said the WMO. ( World Meteorological Organization )
> 
> "This 2011 annual assessment confirms the findings of the previous WMO annual statements that climate change is happening now and is not some distant future threat," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
> 
> "The world is warming because of human activities and this is resulting in far-reaching and potentially irreversible impacts on our Earth, atmosphere and oceans," he added.
> The UN weather agency noted that during the decade, "numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, heat waves and cold waves."
> 
> Historical floods hit Eastern Europe in 2001 and 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia and Australia in 2010.Global precipitation -- including rain or snow -- reached the second highest average since 1901. The highest average was recorded for the decade 1951-1960.
> 
> Meanwhile for the North Atlantic basin, the 10 years marked the highest level of tropical cyclone activity, including Hurricane Katrina which struck the United States in 2005 and Cyclone Nargis which hit Myanmar in 2008.


2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO

Lovelock indicated the consequences has not unfolded as rapidly as HE had thought.

However the actual increase has consistently been higher than projected.

Still trolling tabloids for nonsense Sinc??


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> What a joke - anything to grasp at straws...that bastion of science - World News...
> 
> reality
> 
> Still trolling tabloids for nonsense Sinc??


Uh, no, perhaps you should read a bit more closely. It was an msnbc.com interview in their world news section. No tabloid, no trolling, no sensationalism, just facts.

Can you see it this time, David?


----------



## bryanc

Yep, Lovelock exaggerated. Not particularly shocking, as he makes his living selling books, not doing research. Meanwhile, the scientific community continues to look at real data and continues to observe real global warming that is less that what non-climate-scientists like Lovelock predicted, but pretty much exactly what real climate scientists predicted.

Surely you weren't suggesting that Lovelock was a respected climate scientist or that anyone ever took his statements as such, were you?


----------



## MacDoc

Somewhat more than predicted...but certainly shows a clear guidance even 30 years ago



> *Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection*
> Filed under:
> — group @ 2 April 2012
> 
> Guest commentary from Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma, KNMI
> 
> Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.
> 
> They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.
> 
> Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).
> 
> *To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%*, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Surely you weren't suggesting that Lovelock was a respected climate scientist or that anyone ever took his statements as such, were you?


Nope, my entire point was that the science is not yet conclusive and scientists are prone to both error in predictions and alarmism when caught with their hand in the cookie jar.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Nope, my entire point was that the science is not yet conclusive


At what point would you consider it "conclusive"? 80% confidence? 90%? 95%? 98%? 99? 99.999%? Because real science never gets you 100%, and we're already well beyond 98%.



> and scientists are prone to both error in predictions


You realize that Lovelock is not a climatologist, right? So it's not like his predictions were worth anything to start with. As it turns out the predictions of the real climatologists weren't very good either; they *under*estimated the rate of global warming by about 30%. Of course, that was based on data from the 1970's and earlier, and more recent work has greatly improved on those predictions.


----------



## SINC

No doubt they are getting closer. It is just wasn't for those niggling little things that trip them up and they have to correct themselves or back up a bit. Himalayan glaciers for example. Those are the inconclusive aspects that I refer to, and how many more will turn them out to be wrong again? But that is science, you have to be wrong to be right sometimes.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> But that is science, you have to be wrong to be right sometimes.


Absolutely. But it's common to hear people arguing that we shouldn't do anything about problems that science and scientists are warning us about because "they're not certain; it's just a theory." Science does not provide certainty, so this line of reasoning would have us ignore science entirely.

Even as a scientist, I don't think science should be the only consideration when making policy decisions, but policy makers cannot be waiting for scientific certainty before they consider what science is available.


----------



## MacDoc

We do not fully understand aerodynamics but we build and fly planes.

The risk of AGW is well understood and so far has unfolded consistently faster than projections.

The risk was known for decades.....no one really considered it might unfold as rapidly as it has.

Denying the risk at this point is the height of foolishness. The insurers understand that and charge accordingly.

Trying to find reasonable manner of dealing with the risk has no easy answers beyond the longer the delay the more dealing with it will cost.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Denying the risk at this point is the height of foolishness. The insurers understand that and charge accordingly.


That's really weak. If insurers charge more to people who like to use cell phones while driving, would that _prove_ that cell phones use causes car accidents-or just prove that the insurer has found a new way of raising premiums?


----------



## eMacMan

*The Global Warming Song*

Now the True Believers can put their money where their mouth is. Step right up folks and buy that discounted frozen farm.

BTW be sure to read the banners as they fly by.

RayStevens - The Global Warming Song - YouTube


----------



## MacDoc

Couldn't be more deserved.....shows just how stupid climate deniers can get....




> *Heartland Institute’s billboards are costing them donors*
> 
> I wrote a few days ago about the disgusting billboards put up by the far-right Heartland Institute, a climate-change denial group that apparently has no lower bounds to what they’ll do. The billboards, which went up in Chicago, likened climate scientists (and anyone who knows global warming is real) to mass murderers and madmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was repulsive and hateful. After an uproar — and in less than a day — Heartland took down the billboards, but didn’t apologize for them. Instead they claimed it was an "experiment", and declared victory in getting attention. This would be why I use the words repulsive and disgusting.
> But the damage was done — this tactic has backfired on Heartland. Even before the billboards went up they lost sponsorship from the Diageo liquor company, which makes such brands as Smirnoff and Guiness. In March, General Motors dropped Heartland as well. Even people who support climate change denialism are worried that their own reputations "[have] been harmed".
> And now, after a few bloggers wrote to State farm, the insurance company has announced they too will withdraw funding from Heartland Institute. State Farm specifically cites the billboards as the reason in their announcement.


meanwhile back in oh so green Canada.  .the deniers are hard at work screwing up the watered down down targets they set....



> I*t may be too late to reach 2020 greenhouse targets, auditor says*
> The Canadian Press OTTAWA
> Published Tuesday, May. 08, 2012 10:23AM EDT
> 
> The federal environment auditor says Ottawa still has no solid plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and now it's almost certainly too late for the government to recover in time to reach its 2020 targets.
> 
> Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan tabled a report this morning that finds that federal officials have not done the work required to make sure the few regulations in place will meet even the government's water-down goals.
> 
> He says there is no analysis of the costs of the regulations nor has there been much effort to ensure departments and provinces aren't working at cross purposes.
> 
> And since regulations are so slow to be developed and implemented, Vaughan says there's a big risk that the framework required to meet Canada's 2020 obligations can't be set up in time.
> 
> He points out that Ottawa is paying heavily for the environmental mistakes of the past.
> 
> He says the federal government is staring at $7.7 billion clean-up bill for contaminated sites, but has only set aside a fraction of the needed money.


It may be too late to reach 2020 greenhouse targets, auditor says - The Globe and Mail

why am I not in the least surprised and what was that about deserving respect??? I think not.


----------



## Macfury

Knowing that we can't meet the 2020 targets is heartening. Clean up contaminated sites by all means. A lot of work has already been done in this regard in remote northern sites.


----------



## Macfury

Study shows increase in scientific knowledge among test subjects shows an increase in skepticism about risks of global warming:



> Contrary to SCT predictions, higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks.


The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Study shows increase in scientific knowledge among test subjects shows an increase in skepticism about risks of global warming:


From the paper you just cited:


> This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.


(i.e. there is no doubt that the science supports AGW, and policies that reduce GHG emissions.)

This is one of several papers that has come out in the past month that shows that it is political allegiance that determines wether an individual is open to scientific evidence. Republicans and those allied with the politics Right will not consider the evidence of science, even if they are able to understand it, unless it supports their position. This is also true (although apparently to a lesser degree) on the left. However, the distribution of scientific literacy is not homogeneous across the political spectrum; the Left is far better educated than the Right as a population.

{edit to add: if you look beyond the first figure, you'll see that when the respondents are divided by cultural values (egalitarian communitarian vs. hierarchical individualist), the egalitarians fit the prediction of how scientific literacy is expected to relate to the perceived risk of AGW perfectly, but the hierarchical individualists completely ignore the scientific argument. *This is just an illustration of the fact that Right wingers are good at ignoring science, even if they're educated enough to understand it.*}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> From the paper you just cited:
> 
> (i.e. there is no doubt that the science supports AGW, and policies that reduce GHG emissions.)
> 
> This is one of several papers that has come out in the past month that shows that it is political allegiance that determines wether an individual is open to scientific evidence. Republicans and those allied with the politics Right will not consider the evidence of science, even if they are able to understand it, unless it supports their position. This is also true (although apparently to a lesser degree) on the left. However, the distribution of scientific literacy is not homogeneous across the political spectrum; the Left is far better educated than the Right as a population.
> 
> {edit to add: if you look beyond the first figure, you'll see that when the respondents are divided by cultural values (egalitarian communitarian vs. hierarchical individualist), the egalitarians fit the prediction of how scientific literacy is expected to relate to the perceived risk of AGW perfectly, but the hierarchical individualists completely ignore the scientific argument. *This is just an illustration of the fact that Right wingers are good at ignoring science, even if they're educated enough to understand it.*}


That certainly was the spin placed on the shocking results of the study--which they had certainly not predicted.

It also shows that the egalitarians are easily influenced to think like each other.


----------



## MacDoc

Reality



> *U.S. Has Hottest 12-Month Period on Record*
> 
> NOAA researcher say the average temp from May 2011 to April 2012 was nearly three degrees above the 20th century average.
> By Jeffrey Bloomer | Posted Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at 4:24 PM ET
> 
> On its own, 2012 is already an average of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above normal in the lower 48 U.S. states
> Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images.
> 
> *The average temperature in the contiguous United States over the past 12 months was the warmest ever recorded, the government announced Tuesday.*
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report found that the average temperature in the lower 48 over the 12-month stretch ending in April was 55.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the warmest average since record-keeping began in 1895 and 2.8 degrees above the 20th century average.
> The past 12 months included both the second hottest summer on record and the fourth warmest winter, along with the warmest ever March. All that was good enough for to eek out the top spot from the previous record holder, set in November 1999 to October 2000, by 0.1 degree.
> Even more troubling for climate watchers: All 10 of the warmest 12-month periods on record have occurred in the past 15 years.
> 
> The Washington Post explains that scientists believe the culprit for the exceptional warmth this year are jet stream patterns that have created heat domes over the middle of the country. The paper says the persistence of such patterns in recent years is "very likely related" to human activity.
> 
> The NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center also noted in the report that there were 228 reported tornadoes in April, above average but still down sharply from last year’s historic spring, when 750 tornadoes were reported in April alone.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, this is predictable, given the number of reporting stages removed from service in the northern parts of the continent, and new efforts to "adjust" the remaining actual readings to compensate.


----------



## MacDoc

no conspiracy here ....no siree.....



> *Top US companies shelling out to block action on climate change*
> 
> Analysis of 28 companies finds cases of support for thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, including Heartland Institute
> Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
> 
> guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 May 2012 18.49 BST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Oil company heads during the US Senate finance hearing on oil and gas tax incentives on 11 May 2011. Photograph: Scott J. Ferrell/Getty Images_
> 
> Some of America's top companies are spending heavily to block action on climate change or discredit climate science, despite public commitments to sustainable and green values, a new report has found.
> 
> An analysis of 28 Standard & Poor 500 publicly traded companies by researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a sharp disconnect in some cases between PR message and less visible activities, with companies quietly lobbying against climate policy or funding groups which work to discredit climate science.
> 
> The findings are in line with the recent expose of the Heartland Institute. Over the years, the ultra-conservative organisation devoted to discrediting climate science received funds from a long list of companies which had public commitments to sustainability.
> 
> The disconnect in this instance was especially stark in the researchers' analysis of oil giants ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, and the electricity company DTE energy.
> 
> But even General Electric Company, which ranks climate change as a pillar of its corporate policy on its website, had supported trade groups and thinktanks that misrepresent climate science, the researchers found.
> 
> Caterpillar Inc, despite its public commitment to sustainability, also worked behind the scenes to block action on climate change. The company spent more than $16m (£10.3m) on lobbying during the study, with nearly five times as much of that spent lobbying to block climate action than on pro-environmental policies.
> 
> Other big corporate players were fairly consistent with their public image. Nike and NRG Energy Inc lobbied in support of climate change policy and supported conservation groups.
> 
> Peabody Energy Corporation, which produces coal, was ranked the most obstructionist of any of the companies. It spent more than $33m to lobby Congress against environmental measures and supporting trade groups and think tanks which spread disinformation about climate science, the researchers found.
> 
> "The thing we found most surprising in doing this research is just how all 28 companies expressed concern about climate change," said Francesca Grifo who heads the UCS scientific integrity programme. "But when we took a deeper look we found that a lot of the actions they took weren't connected to the messages."
> 
> The result of the disconnect was growing confusion about climate science, the researchers said. That made it more difficult to push for environmental protections.
> 
> The study was focused on the years 2009 and 2010, and looked at the companies' responses to moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions and the failed attempt by Congress to pass a climate change law.
> 
> It also looked at lobbying and political contributions surrounding the 2010 referendum to overturn California's climate change regulations.
> 
> But the researchers acknowledged that they were handicapped by a lack of transparency about corporate donations and lobbying, which made it difficult to determine exactly how companies were trying to exert political influence.
> 
> "Given the inconspicuous ways in which companies can utilize supposedly independent groups to further their own agendas, the funding of industry groups is an important pathway through which corporations influence the national climate conversation without accountability," the analysis said.


and of course there is one born every minute that swallows the disinformation and not a few that actively promote the nonsense.


----------



## Macfury

If so-called climate change were being foisted on my company on such shoddy evidence, I would do all I could to block legislation as well.


----------



## MacDoc

move on move on - nothing to see here... 










*In March 2012, 15000 warm temperature records broken in US ...*
earthsky.org/.../in-march-2012-15000-warm-temperature-records-br...10 Apr 2012 – *Some parts of the United States saw temperatures 20 to 40 degrees above average in March 2012.*



> Here’s the amazing fact regarding the record warmth: According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature for the contiguous United States was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average. Since record keeping began 117 years ago, only one month, January 2006, seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012. Exactly 15,272 warm temperature records were broken.


In March 2012, 15,000 warm temperature records broken in US | Earth | EarthSky


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> move on move on - nothing to see here...


Certainly _little_ to see when you report an April story in June. 

But from the same link:



> The main explanation has to do with the synoptic or large-scale setup that occurred during the month of March. A large area of high pressure was situated east of the Rocky Mountains. Across the Pacific Northwest, a series of storm systems and troughs were digging across the area. The pattern was rather stagnant as nothing was able to push the area of high pressure out of our area. The warm temperatures pushed as far north into Canada. According to NOAA, a strong low level southerly jet was initiated and sustained by the greatly enhanced west-east pressure gradient between the abnormal low pressure over the western U.S. and abnormally high pressure over the Northeast United States. This feature was probably the single most critical factor responsible for the extreme magnitude of the heatwave. By late March 2012, the pattern finally budged as an upper level low pushed east and brought cooler temperatures.


----------



## MacDoc

Yes MacFury extreme weather builds on climate change - thats why you get extremes. So an event that might happen once in a hundred years now has a fivefold risk - once in 20 .....the insurers know this - too bad you don't.



> _*Canada's most comprehensive climate change adaptation report calls for immediate action*_
> TORONTO, June 11, 2012 /CNW/ -
> 
> Intact Financial Corporation and the University of Waterloo, along with more than 80 experts from across the country, today released the Climate Change Adaptation Project report, which provides a roadmap for adaptation in Canada. It projects rising temperatures across the country and substantial fluctuations in precipitation levels, all of which will leave a range of sectors, cities and rural regions in Canada vulnerable. City infrastructure, biodiversity, freshwater resources, Aboriginal communities and agriculture were targeted as the most vulnerable areas where adaptive solutions to address climate change are most urgently required. The report outlines 20 practical and cost-effective recommendations that can be implemented on a priority basis in the short term.
> To guide the project, climate projections for Canada were developed. The results are striking. Canada will continue to warm by up to 2°C by 2020 and 4°C by 2050. The most significant impact will be in the Arctic, which will see increases of up to 4°C by 2020 and 8°C by 2050, along with increased precipitation of up to 20 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2050. Climate change will impact regions across Canada differently. For example, Vancouver will see a decrease in summer precipitation, Winnipeg will see an increase in winter precipitation and Toronto and Montreal will see milder winters.
> "Unfortunately, climate change is a reality that is already taking a toll on many parts of our country. When you consider that the 10 warmest winters on record have all happened since 1998, it becomes clear that we need to think immediately about how Canada must adapt," said Professor Blair Feltmate, director of sustainable practice of the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), based at Waterloo's Faculty of Environment. "If there is one take-away from this project, it's that climate change needs to be an important consideration in all planning processes, whether you work for industry, government, an NGO or within an Aboriginal community."
> "It is quite clear that there will be serious implications for Canadians if we stand still while our weather patterns continue to evolve," said Feridun Hamdullahpur, president & vice-chancellor of Waterloo. "The recommendations outlined in this project are the push we need to bring climate change adaptation to the forefront."
> The project draws attention to the leading climate change challenges facing this country as well as the cost-effective actions needed in order to adapt.


Intact Financial Corporation - Press Centre - Press releases - Press Release Details


----------



## Macfury

The insurers understand one thing--increased premiums. If you told them that you feared purple kangaroos they would add a purple kangaroo rider to your policy. By your logic, those increased premiums would prove the existence of purple kangaroos.


----------



## bryanc

That argument might hold some merit, MacFury, if the people making the projections were not publicly funded researchers at publicly funded institutions, making predictions based on the best science currently available.

The insurance industry is naturally going to jump on these statements as the basis of a new line of business for them; who can blame them? But that has nothing to do with the validity of the claims.

I certainly don't fault you for not wanting AGW to be true, I don't want it to be true either. But I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, rather than what I wish were true. And AGW is now so well established that there is no room for any but the most intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That argument might hold some merit, MacFury, if the people making the projections were not publicly funded researchers at publicly funded institutions, making predictions based on the best science currently available.


I suppose in some circles the term "publicly funded" is supposed to enhance a claim or somehow be equated with objectivity or accuracy. Not with me.



bryanc said:


> The insurance industry is naturally going to jump on these statements as the basis of a new line of business for them; who can blame them? But that has nothing to do with the validity of the claims.


MacDoc's claim was that, since insurers are raising rates, I should also believe that AGW has more validity--I make no claim for the reverse.



bryanc said:


> I certainly don't fault you for not wanting AGW to be true, I don't want it to be true either. But I am compelled to believe by reason and evidence, rather than what I wish were true. And AGW is now so well established that there is no room for any but the most intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.


Where did you get the idea that I care whether or not the world is warming? My opinion is based on an objective reading of studies and data, not on any inane wish that the globe's temperature remains artificially static for the next five centuries.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I suppose in some circles the term "publicly funded" is supposed to enhance a claim or somehow be equated with objectivity or accuracy. Not with me.


Yes, I understand that you'd rather read the 'studies' funded by the oil industry and their PR representatives because they are more congruent with your world view. I prefer studies that are not so obviously self-serving.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, I understand that you'd rather read the 'studies' funded by the oil industry and their PR representatives because they are more congruent with your world view. I prefer studies that are not so obviously self-serving.


This is a really weak rejoinder from you bryanc. I expect better.


----------



## bryanc

What, like links to the latest peer-reviewed papers published in Nature showing that the unequivocal warming we've observed can be attributed to athropogenic causes with >99% confidence now?

But you've already made it clear that you think there's a global conspiracy of scientists, some how in league with the insurance brokers, to raise insurance premiums... or something.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc. We've been through that one before. No conspiracy is necessary for many people to achieve an inaccurate conclusion. 

Neither does that study say what you claim it does. It speaks only of upper ocean temperatures and doesn't derive its data from real-world sources. It's an aggregation and averaging of models. If you believe that averaging the results of a dozen or more computer models will create a result that mirrors real-life conditions and data, then your burden of proof is much lower than mine.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Neither does that study say what you claim it does. It speaks only of upper ocean temperatures and doesn't derive its data from real-world sources.


Read the paper. It *does* use real world data, as well as the outputs of models (both with, and without the input of anthropogenic CO2). The outputs of the models with the anthropogenic CO2 match the observed data, whereas the outputs of the same models show the temperature remaining effectively constant without the anthropogenic CO2 (but with all the solar variation, volcanoes, etc. etc.) Given the now very well documented capacity for these models to predict (and recreate) climatic data, and the need for the anthropogenic CO2 to be included in the models in order to match the observations, the researchers conclude (within a very rigorously defined uncertainty) that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming observed.



> If you believe that averaging the results of a dozen or more computer models will create a result that mirrors real-life conditions and data, then your burden of proof is much lower than mine.


If you can't read the scientific literature and understand that this is not what is being done, it's no wonder you don't believe the science. But I understand you don't like to be constrained by facts and reason in this regard; so by all means, continue to inhabit the land of colourful unicorns and fairy dust. Just try not to interfere with the adults who are actually trying to address this problem rationally.


----------



## MacDoc

Don't even try MF- you don't quote sources and either on purpose or through ignorance do not understand what's going on in the climate system and the risk that is presented.

Tell me why the climate scientists hired by the fossil fuel industry confirmed that the influence of fossil fuel burning on the atmosphere could not be refuted.
That was 17 years ago.



> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion,* its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.*
> 
> “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.


now they knew it then - they know it now and they're wrong and you're right.....sure.

And you are sill tossing the doubt card out....pathetic hardly covers it and you hit on Bryanc who IS a professional trained scientist and understands just what is occurring and the risks..

The problem is we don't expect anything except repetitious denial from you in the face of overwhelming evidence.



> *This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”*
> 
> In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
> *This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”*
> Dr. Richard H. Gammon
> Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
> Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington


But of course you know better.....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Tell me why the climate scientists hired by the fossil fuel industry confirmed that the influence of fossil fuel burning on the atmosphere could not be refuted.
> That was 17 years ago.


Because _that group_ of scientists hired by the fossil fuel industry:

a) believed the theory already, and
b) were basing their assumptions on the science available 17 years ago.

Tell me why most scientists of the 14th century believed the sun traveled around the Earth.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Read the paper. It *does* use real world data, as well as the outputs of models (both with, and without the input of anthropogenic CO2). The outputs of the models with the anthropogenic CO2 match the observed data, whereas the outputs of the same models show the temperature remaining effectively constant without the anthropogenic CO2 (but with all the solar variation, volcanoes, etc. etc.) Given the now very well documented capacity for these models to predict (and recreate) climatic data, and the need for the anthropogenic CO2 to be included in the models in order to match the observations, the researchers conclude (within a very rigorously defined uncertainty) that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming observed.


It can only use real-world data to collate climate information as we know it. It has no real-world data to calculate climate data without the so-called greenhouse gases produced by humans.

Given the woeful inability of these models to either predict or recreate climatic data, and given the tendency of the creators of such models to skew results to favour their own theories, I see nothing new or spectacular here. 

Given the same available data, Large and Yeager (_On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)_) conclude that the variance is natural.

AMS Journals Online - On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)

Yes, it is peer-reviewed.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I see nothing new or spectacular here.


I guess the editors of _Nature_, the most prestigious journal in all of science, have lower standards, and or are less knowledgeable abut the feild, than the omniscient MacFury


----------



## MacDoc

Indeed nothing new about MF....


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I guess the editors of _Nature_, the most prestigious journal in all of science, have lower standards, and or are less knowledgeable abut the feild, than the omniscient MacFury


No. They reproduced a recent paper. If you expect that everything these journals print is either extremely important or earth shaking, you are mistaken. That their papers are peer reviewed does not make them true.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If you expect that everything these journals print is either extremely important or earth shaking, you are mistaken.


"Important" is a matter of perspective. _Nature_ (and _Science_) are the two most prestigious journals of research in the world; most scientists will spend their entire career working arduously and never publish in either of these journals simply because they never discover anything of sufficient importance. If you think papers published in Nature are "unimportant," by definition, you think the best research in the world is "unimportant."



> That their papers are peer reviewed does not make them true.


Science does not deal with Truth(tm). Science deals with data, logic and probabilities. That is why quantitative statements in science are usually accompanied by some indication of the degree of certainty with which the conclusion can be held. In this case, the research shows that the probability of the measured warming of the oceans being due to human activity is at least 99%.

If you think their methodology is in error, you're welcome to write a letter to the editors of _Nature_; they do publish these sorts of things when they are of academic merit. Somehow, I doubt you're knowledge of the subject is up to the task.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> "Important" is a matter of perspective.


Exactly. I'm pleased to see we agree on this.



bryanc said:


> Science does not deal with Truth(tm). Science deals with data, logic and probabilities. That is why quantitative statements in science are usually accompanied by some indication of the degree of certainty with which the conclusion can be held. In this case, the research shows that the probability of the measured warming of the oceans being due to human activity is at least 99%.



No--it means that, given the way they chose to analyze the data, they believe their hypothesis is borne out to 99% certainty. Part of the fun of such studies is setting and resetting various experimental parameters to find the greatest significance. That is why the previous study I mentioned looked at the same data and came to a much different conclusion.

Given a complete data set, the parameters of any theory can be tweaked to create a confidence level approaching 100. Comparing other such tweaked models to each other does not allow solid conclusions to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Anyone interested in this phenomenon might be interested in the book _Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds_, by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.

In discussing the excellent 1977 paper by Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtensteini, appearing in the _Journal of Experimental Psychology_ Piatelli-Palmarini notes that, “...the discrepancy between correctness of response and overconfidence increases as the respondent is more knowledgeable…the level of accuracy increases, yes, but the level of overconfidence increases to a far greater degree.”

I would be more impressed if the researchers based their models on half the data only. When their model approached 99% certainty they should then be able to predict the other half of the data with a significant degree of accuracy. However, they all begin with access to the entire data set.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Indeed nothing new about MF....


Personal remarks prohibited. As an Assured Advertiser, you should strive for something better here.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I would be more impressed if the researchers based their models on half the data only. When their model approached 99% certainty they should then be able to predict the other half of the data with a significant degree of accuracy. However, they all begin with access to the entire data set.


This is model-building 101. That's how all the models have been developed, and they all succeed to various degrees within various constraints. And this is how the researchers estimate the accuracy of their models WRT predictions of future climate.

But ironically, your wish has been far exceeded by what has happened over the past 3 decades in climate research. Back in the 70's climatologists began to model the greenhouse effect with some rigour, and found their models predicting significant increases in global temperature. As more and more data has been accumulated, the models have been iteratively refined, and are now able to 'back project' with extremely good accuracy. Furthermore, as new and independent methods of measuring things that were not previously accessible have developed, researchers have found that the predictions of the models ranged from moderately accurate to seriously under-estimating the effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions.

So, while no one publishes without considering all the data available to them, the progress of time (not to mention the life work of many excellent researchers) provides us with much more than twice as much new data. And low and behold! The "alarmist" scientists of the 1970's weren't "alarmist" at all... they were conservative in their predictions (as scientists tend to be).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is model-building 101. That's how all the models have been developed, and they all succeed to various degrees within various constraints. And this is how the researchers estimate the accuracy of their models WRT predictions of future climate.
> 
> But ironically, your wish has been far exceeded by what has happened over the past 3 decades in climate research. Back in the 70's climatologists began to model the greenhouse effect with some rigour, and found their models predicting significant increases in global temperature. As more and more data has been accumulated, the models have been iteratively refined, and are now able to 'back project' with extremely good accuracy. Furthermore, as new and independent methods of measuring things that were not previously accessible have developed, researchers have found that the predictions of the models ranged from moderately accurate to seriously under-estimating the effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions.


There are many such climate models and many can "back-project" only given the actual data. In other words, the model is created to fit the data.

Finally, the models do not finger the so-called greenhouse gases. They assume carbon-dioxide is the culprit, then make their predictions. The models themselves don't say anything about carbon dioxide.

Are the models improving? Their errors are less egregious as time passes. Are they worth basing public policy on? No, not yet, given the inability to either make accurate predictions, or free the data from their obvious AGW bias.



bryanc said:


> So, while no one publishes without considering all the data available to them, the progress of time (not to mention the life work of many excellent researchers) provides us with much more than twice as much new data. And low and behold! The "alarmist" scientists of the 1970's weren't "alarmist" at all... they were conservative in their predictions (as scientists tend to be).


They need to test the models without considering all of the data available to them. Seeing all of the data allows them to skew the model to the data. They should publish only after completing this step.



bryanc said:


> And low and behold! The "alarmist" scientists of the 1970's weren't "alarmist" at all... they were conservative in their predictions (as scientists tend to be).


I was in grade school when the predictions of Ice Ages came down from scientists. Many were not conservative at all.

The climate prediction models used by the IPCC, for example, are woefully inadequate and consistently fail to accurately predict what they were designed to predict. Some of these models predicting warming, not cooling, made wildly exaggerated predictions and others did not. Given enough predictions, even an astrologer is right, some of the time.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They assume carbon-dioxide is the culprit, then make their predictions.


Read the _Nature_ paper. You are simply wrong. If you had any knowledge of this feild, you'd recognize how ludicrous your criticisms and assertions are. I can only presume that reading denier weblogs for so long has left you completely divorced from the actual science of the feild, because you're almost comically mis-informed on this topic.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Read the _Nature_ paper. You are simply wrong. If you had any knowledge of this feild, you'd recognize how ludicrous your criticisms and assertions are. I can only presume that reading denier weblogs for so long has left you completely divorced from the actual science of the feild, because you're almost comically mis-informed on this topic.


You have stated on this forum that you're incapable of offering an informed opinion on climate science.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You have stated on this forum that you're incapable of offering an informed opinion on climate science.


I am not capable of analyzing the data. I am capable of recognizing that the standards of academic research are being upheld*. There is a difference. You are, apparently not capable of doing either, or distinguishing the difference.


{edit: for example, I'm currently examining a Ph.D. thesis in Geology. I don't know much about geology, and I'm certainly not capable of criticizing the analysis of the data, but I am a scientist and I can assess wether the standards of academic research are being met. Part of that assessment will be my reading of the external examiner's review (i.e. I will consider the opinions of appropriately trained experts in the feild), and part of that assessment will be based on the candidate's responses to my questions about how the methodology and data eliminate alternative explanations, etc. 

The point here is that anyone who has the faintest clue about how science works is capable of seeing that AGW is now so well supported scientifically that it's essentially beyond question. The questions are now "how bad is this problem" and "what can we do about it?" And the consensus of the experts who actually have a meaningful opinion on these issues is that the problem is pretty bad, and the sooner we do something about it the less it will cost us in the long run.}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The point here is that anyone who has the faintest clue about how science works is capable of seeing that AGW is now so well supported scientifically that it's essentially beyond question. The questions are now "how bad is this problem" and "what can we do about it?" And the consensus of the experts who actually have a meaningful opinion on these issues is that the problem is pretty bad, and the sooner we do something about it the less it will cost us in the long run.}


This conclusion reflects your philosophy and political leanings. Even on the question of ocean warming, you refused to consider the conclusions of the other study I presented, which was released before the paper appearing in _Nature_ and concluded that ocean temperature variations are natural.

You have made it clear that you already agree with the policy "solutions" to AGW, regardless of whether AGW is real. You have nothing to lose in supporting the weak science.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ...weak science...


Weak science dosen't get published in _Nature_.


> ...you refused to consider the conclusions of the other study...


This nicely illustrates the point I'm trying to make. While you and I could search for papers that support our respective positions and wave them in each other's faces all day*, neither of us has the expertise necessary to determine if these papers are even in disagreement, let alone which ones are more likely to be correct. Fortunately, there exists a large and extremely well-educated population of experts in this feild who have read most, if not all of these papers, and have considered the possible explanations for any discrepancies between them, and have almost unanimously come to the conclusion that AGW is real. These people are called "climatologists". I know it's a big word, but you can understand it if you try. "Climatologists" are people who's opinion on climate science matters. You're not one of them, so your persistent disbelief in their conclusions simply reveals your refusal to accept the science.

{edit to add * I did actually try to read the paper you referred to, but it's behind a pay wall so I can't get at it. I presume you actually read it, or you wouldn't have cited it as supporting your claim, as that would be intellectually dishonest. Could you send me a PDF copy please?}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Weak science dosen't get published in _Nature_


AGW is, overall, weak science. it is not impossible that some day there might be enough evidence to support it, but the likelihood grows weaker each day.



bryanc said:


> This nicely illustrates the point I'm trying to make. While you and I could search for papers that support our respective positions and wave them in each other's faces all day*, neither of us has the expertise necessary to determine if these papers are even in disagreement, let alone which ones are more likely to be correct.


One of us doesn't. And one of us has admitted that.



bryanc said:


> I did actually try to read the paper you referred to, but it's behind a pay wall so I can't get at it. I presume you actually read it, or you wouldn't have cited it as supporting your claim, as that would be intellectually dishonest. Could you send me a PDF copy please?}


I forgot about the pay wall. I assumed universities had some sort of academic access. I'm stuck between appearing to be intellectually dishonest and in breach of copyright.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> AGW is, overall, weak science.


If you had any evidence to back this up, it would be a good point.



> I forgot about the pay wall. I assumed universities had some sort of academic access. I'm stuck between appearing to be intellectually dishonest and in breach of copyright.


Not a problem. Canadian copyright law permits the dissemination of academic work for purposes of study and research. You can send me a PDF without fear of prosecution.


----------



## MacDoc

The usual retreat of the ill informed denier - weak science for what is perhaps THE most vetted science in the history of the world.

Now MF - why would the energy companies themselves acknowledge the need for reduced emissions by way of an energy tax when you and Harper and his brain dead colleagues think they know better on AGW



> *The taboo tax the energy industry (not-so) secretly wants*
> Published 39 minutes ago
> Share on twitterShare on facebook
> 
> “Are you for or against the oilsands?”
> 
> When a Calgary relative posed the question at a family reunion recently, it felt like a test of my allegiance — and one I didn’t know how to answer. “For” implied I put industry ahead of the environment. “Against,” that I wanted to shut down one of the most important drivers of Canadian wealth.
> 
> But posing the question in such all-or-nothing terms also intrigued me. What would it take, I wondered, to create an oilsands sector that both the “for” and “against” sides could live with?
> 
> Was it even possible?
> 
> After months of interviewing dozens of insiders on both sides of the debate, I reached a surprising conclusion. Despite routinely lobbing rhetorical shells at each other, greens and industry are not as far apart on many issues as they often appear in the media. They actually agree on quite a bit.
> 
> In particular, they agree on the one issue you might expect would most divide them: the economic price on CO2 that the Harper cabinet has denounced as a killing machine for Canadian jobs.
> 
> Virtually every serious climate policy reformer I spoke to over five months of research told me they believe that the most cost-efficient and effective way to restrain climate-changing emissions would be to apply a market price to carbon across the entire Canadian economy.
> 
> *More than 150 major Canadian corporate CEOs — including the chief executives of oilsand giants like Shell, Cenovus and Suncor — argue precisely the same point.
> 
> “We think a price should be put on carbon,” Suncor vice-president of sustainable development Gordon Lambert recently told me directly. “Ideally the model would be a national carbon tax.”*
> 
> Such a tax would force every industry in the country to factor the CO2 it emitted into its bottom line as a distinct financial cost. Businesses and industries that figured out inexpensive ways to shrink their carbon footprint would gain a competitive advantage over those that didn’t.
> 
> Some costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices and heating bills, yes. But those higher prices would also motivate Canadians to take energy conservation more seriously.
> 
> “It seems clear that (carbon pricing) will work in a way that public exhortation and appeals to the greater good have not,” the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an industry group speaking on behalf of the country’s mainstream business community, declared last December.
> 
> “A broad-based carbon pricing scheme,” the council added, is “fundamental,” if Canada is to make a transition to a low-carbon economy.
> 
> Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s 2008 Green Shift election initiative for a “broad-based carbon pricing scheme” won him plaudits from environmental groups. “It’s the type of policy that we would support,” Équiterre executive director Sidney Ribaux said at the time.
> 
> Federal Conservatives crushed the concept at the ballot box, and four years later still consider it toxic. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird claimed recently that a national carbon tax would “kill jobs and hurt Canadian families.” His boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has merely dismissed the idea as “crazy economics” and a “crazy environmental policy.”
> 
> Yet the most recent academic inquiry confirms my own findings. A study released earlier this week by researchers at British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University after they surveyed business, community, civil society and academic leaders on that province’s unique-in-Canada economy-wide carbon tax, found that “a strong majority (64 per cent)” felt the policy has had positive consequences to date.
> 
> Meanwhile, the federal government has struggled to find a viable alternative policy on carbon. Its plan to regulate each of Canada’s industrial sectors separately will, by all estimations, get the country only one-quarter of the way to its 2020 carbon-reduction target.
> 
> Environment Canada predicts that expanding oilsands operations will, under present policies, nearly double their emissions by that year.
> 
> The federal government would do well to look beyond the exchange of “for” versus “against” rhetorical salvos to see that a better idea is already gaining ground on both sides.


The taboo tax the energy industry (not-so) secretly wants - thestar.com

So are the energy companies also a part of your "conspiracy clique" ?


----------



## MacDoc

> The climate prediction models used by the IPCC, for example, are woefully inadequate and consistently fail to accurately predict what they were designed to predict


oh? ...wrong again 

As to the models.

This was published in 1981 and the bright line indicates the actual results since then.










are you going to admit you are wrong or just lie and try and spread disinformation some more.?

Then you drag out that hoary old ice age nonsense....._yes Victoria global dimming is was and is a reality and no Victoria not a single climatologist predicted an ice age.
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_

The mechanism of global dimming ( S02 ) is in fact the one being considered by a few to counteract AGW



> Recent analysis suggests that the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol climate engineering through emission of non-condensable vapors such as SO2 is limited because the slow conversion to H2SO4 tends to produce aerosol particles that are too large; SO2 injection may be so inefficient that it is difficult to counteract the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling. Here we describe an alternate method in which aerosol is formed rapidly in the plume following injection of H2SO4, a condensable vapor, from an aircraft. This method gives better control of particle size and can produce larger radiative forcing with lower sulfur loadings than SO2 injection. Relative to SO2 injection, it may reduce some of the adverse effects of geoengineering such as radiative heating of the lower stratosphere. This method does not, however, alter the fact that such a geoengineered radiative forcing can, at best, only partially compensate for the climate changes produced by CO2.


Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft

You accuse Bryanc of political views altering his perception of the science!!!!!!

....buddy take a long hard look in the mirror. You are an exemplar of why Canada is rapidly becoming a pariah in the world's eyes


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The usual retreat of the ill informed denier - weak science for what is perhaps THE most vetted science in the history of the world.
> 
> Now MF - why would the energy companies themselves acknowledge the need for reduced emissions by way of an energy tax when you and Harper and his brain dead colleagues think they know better on AGW
> 
> 
> 
> The taboo tax the energy industry (not-so) secretly wants - thestar.com
> 
> So are the energy companies also a part of your "conspiracy clique" ?


No conspiracy. The energy companies are trying to mitigate what they see coming from ill-informed sectors of the populace. They are perfectly happy to institute an energy tax paid for by consumers.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> oh? ...wrong again
> 
> As to the models.
> 
> This was published in 1981 and the bright line indicates the actual results since then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you going to admit you are wrong or just lie and try and spread disinformation some more.?
> 
> Then you drag out that hoary old ice age nonsense....._yes Victoria global dimming is was and is a reality and no Victoria not a single climatologist predicted an ice age.
> Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
> 
> The mechanism of global dimming ( S02 ) is in fact the one being considered by a few to counteract AGW
> 
> 
> 
> Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft
> 
> You accuse Bryanc of political views altering his perception of the science!!!!!!
> 
> ....buddy take a long hard look in the mirror. You are an exemplar of why Canada is rapidly becoming a pariah in the world's eyes


You can't just plunk down one of the many models predicting various outcomes and claim it is THE model. Which one is the one you have presented?


----------



## MacDoc

Meanwhile despite the denier industries best efforts the greater threat continues - extreme weather.



> *Farenheit 104 (40 degrees C). This is a number everyone should know*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This graphic needs to be engrained in public awareness. Why? As I said in 2009, global warming could stop photosynthesis in plants we need to survive.
> 
> That is not some academic projection of potential interest to people living in the second half of the 21st century. It is relevant now. I repeated that warning earlier this year because we were already starting to see the impact of this biological reality in other countries with increasing frequency.
> 
> Well now comes the inevitable news ....
> 
> *According to the UK's Financial Times, Heatwave threatens US grain harvest.*
> 
> Since the US is the world’s top exporter of corn (about half the world's export), soya beans (about one third of the world's export) and wheat, damaging the harvest will have a global impact. This follows mere months since similar problems hit crops in Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay and Brazil. As a result, the price of corn has risen 30% since mid-June and soy prices are the highest they have been in years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters a few years ago, titled, When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures? (warning PDF) offered some sobering projections. Here is one of their graphs. Given the projections shown above (pay attention to the US Midwest) this recent news should come as no surprise. Yet, the current turn of events apparently caught traders and the USDA off guard. The warmer than usual spring meant more planting was done. However, what was a benefit has now become a liability as the heat, coupled with drought, threatens these crops before harvesting.
> 
> “The combination of low subsoil moisture, which is a reflection of the lack of precipitation that we had during the winter, together with the very hot weather that we’re seeing right now could spell a pretty disastrous scenario for corn and soyabeans,” said Hussein Allidina, head of commodities research at Morgan Stanley.
> The seriousness of the problem can be demonstrated by the fact the USDA recently declared less than half of US corn was in good or excellent condition while 22 per cent was in poor condition. Even more concerning is the speed with which this problem developed. Only a few months ago, the USDA was projecting US farmers would produce a record corn crop this year.
> The bottom line: The current heatwave threatens to undermine forecasts of record output after the most widespread US corn plantings in 75 years. This is only two years after Russia suspended grain exports because of droughts that were worse than any they had experienced in half a century.
> 
> I doubt you will be hearing anyone say that again any time soon because this sort of failure is likely to become increasingly commonplace.


Daily Kos: Farenheit 104 (40 degrees C). This is a number everyone should know.

Do keep the rose coloured glasses on - won't help but looks nice.










and the heat goes on



> Millions without power as stifling heat wave hammers eastern US
> *Nearly 2,200 heat records matched or broken between June 25 and July 1, NOAA reports*


Millions without power as heat wave hammers eastern US - Weather - msnbc.com


----------



## Macfury

Translation: It's warm this summer. We sometimes have low yields on crops.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Translation: <...completely misses the point...>



Reading comprehension FTW.


----------



## Macfury

Attributing a false quote to another member is forbidden on EhMac.


----------



## MacDoc

Here is why relatively small amount of AGW ( to date ) ups the risk of extreme events dramatically

Its a good read












> _IPCC (2001) graph illustrating how a shift and/or widening of a probability distribution of temperatures affects the probability of extremes._
> 
> For illustration, let’s take the most simple case of a normal distribution that is shifted towards the warm end by a given amount – say one standard deviation. Then, a moderately extreme temperature that is 2 standard deviations above the mean becomes 4.5 times more likely (see graph below). *But a seriously extreme temperature, that is 5 standard deviations above the mean, becomes 90 times more likely*! Thus: the same amount of global warming boosts the probability of really extreme events, like the recent US heat wave, far more than it boosts more moderate events. This is exactly the opposite of the claim that “the greater the extreme, the less global warming has to do with it.” The same is also true if the probability distribution is not shifted but widened by a constant factor. This is easy to show analytically for our math-minded readers.














> _Graph illustrating how the ratio of the probability of extremes (warmed climate divided by unchanged climate – this increased likelihood factor is shown as a dashed line, scale on right) depends on the value of the extreme.
> _
> *So in summary: even in the most simple, linear case of a shift in the normal distribution, the probability for “outlandish” heat records increases greatly due to global warming.* But the more outlandish a record is, the more would we suspect that non-linear feedbacks are at play – which could increase their likelihood even more.


RealClimate: Extremely hot

Taking this the next step further - it only takes a single extreme event in an otherwise "normal" growing season to devastate a harvest.....no amount of "normal" will repair a damaged crop.

Crops might tolerate 6 days of extreme weather for instance and not 10. So you get events like hit Bombay in 2005 where a single rain event was 50% above the highest ever recorded --- just short of a meter of rain fell and hundreds of people died.
It's this kind of extreme event that is and will increase in frequency as the atmosphere loads up with water and energy due to our release of fossil carbon.

The physics is quite simple despite the crap from the deniers.
The fossil fuel companies themselves have known it cannot be refuted since the mid 90s.
The mechanism has been understood for over 100 years.
The cautions were voiced as far back as the 50s.
The warnings and concern got louder and more urgent in the 80s.
Now we are up against it - not some far future but now and getting worse over the next few decades.
The worst can be avoided by putting serious effort to reduce fossil carbon usage and the rest working out how to cope.

but we won't as there quite enough ****heads about as amply demonstrated in this thread alone.
At least Australia has a carbone tax now, British Columbia as well and Europe has made an effort. Sweden and Norway have had carbon taxes since the 90s $50 a barrel.

The heads of fossil fuel companies recognise the need for it..



> *Canada's Oil Insiders Want a Carbon Tax*
> Surprising as that sounds, interviews reveal a business community consensus based on economics.


snip



> Senior figures from Suncor and Cenovus, two of the largest and most profitable oil sands companies in the country, told the Tyee Solutions Society directly that they support a national carbon tax. Chief executives from more than 150 of Canada's largest corporations have likewise publicly urged the government to establish a price on carbon.


The Tyee – Canada's Oil Insiders Want a Carbon Tax

Even Exxon has acknowledged reality



> Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:09pm IST
> Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research,* has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate. The company now supports taxing carbon emissions.*


They get it.....what the **** else does it take to sink in to those with the rose coloured glasses..........


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, the above graph merely tells you that an extreme heat event will ruin a crop. What does this have to do with carbon dioxide?

Regarding the oil companies? They are worried about draconian regulation--they are trying to negotiate a carbon tax to mitigate what might be coming down the pipe from frightened adult children, who don't understand a heat wave. In the long run, they don't care much either way. The consumers will be the ones punished by such nonsense.


----------



## MacGuiver

I think oil companies have much to gain from the guilt associated with the use of their products. A carbon tax will only reinforce that. They can charge consumers and business through the nose for the gas and oil they NEED to survive and justify it by pointing to the environmental destruction and increased consumption that would ensue if they charged less. Don't be mad about paying $1,30/l for gas, remember its for the polar bears.
They can rip you off while looking noble all at the same time. More revenue, less work and expense.


----------



## Macfury

Australia, by the way, is ready to toss that ass of a PM out on her keester. The carbon tax will not survive.


----------



## MacDoc

> It's more than a little unnerving to see just how many high temperature records have been broken recently. I thought I'd use this thread to share a link to Wundermap
> U.S. Severe Weather Map | Weather Underground
> , which has one of the most robust interactive maps I've seen to date.
> 
> Click on the link and turn on the Extremes option; it's quite the wake up call (ETA: Set date range from 06-30-2012 to 07-03-2012 and take note of the number of broken all time/daily records).


Second Warmest May On Record : Earth Sciences • Rational Skepticism Forum


----------



## Macfury

Second warmest since 1880, not adjusting for urban sprawl and vastly reduced sampling in the north. And how does this relate to GHGs?


----------



## MacDoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IsTM5qRER8&


----------



## Macfury

It's a simple and vigorous explanation of a faulty theory. The earth is not a greenhouse and this has been known since 1909:

THE FAMOUS WOOD?S EXPERIMENT FULLY EXPLAINED | Latest News


----------



## MacDoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE

*Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives *


indeed - I see Exxon caves - maybe they will pay for "adaptation"

funny that he acknowledges the reality and some here haven't even got that far....


----------



## Macfury

This is strictly amateur reporting, again mistaking weather for climate. The climate is changing--and will continue to change in ways that surprise us. The highest temperatures since 1890? That isn't even a wink in the time scales necessary to make the conclusions made by these people--let alone a guy who says his "dogs are freakin' out."


----------



## MacDoc

The usual crock - climate DRIVES weather and more energy means more extremes and 100 years is NOT a blink in human terms - the last time it occurred there were less than a billion people. 
Your propaganda of denial is being tattered by the reality that the climate is changing - extreme weather is a consequence.
Even Exxon has admitted it - you can't ......pure unadulterated ignorance of both science and reality.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The usual crock - climate DRIVES weather and more energy means more extremes and 100 years is NOT a blink in human terms - the last time it occurred there were less than a billion people.
> Your propaganda of denial is being tattered by the reality that the climate is changing - extreme weather is a consequence.
> Even Exxon has admitted it - you can't ......pure unadulterated ignorance of both science and reality.


Then Exxon is as wrong as you are. 

I don't deny that the climate is changing--as it always has. That you expect it to remain the same is what shocks me.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> The usual crock - climate DRIVES weather and more energy means more extremes and 100 years is NOT a blink in human terms - the last time it occurred there were less than a billion people.
> Your propaganda of denial is being tattered by the reality that the climate is changing - extreme weather is a consequence.
> Even Exxon has admitted it - you can't ......pure unadulterated ignorance of both science and reality.


So it took the combined efforts of 6 Billion people to get the temp back up to where it was in 1880? 

'Course in areas that happen to be hit by unusually hot weather perhaps the true believers could simply turn off their Air Conditioning. See it's really hot outside. A/C cools the interior by pumping heat outside making it even hotter. Spread over an entire city we have to be talking at least 2 or 3 degrees. 

So if you really believe turn off the A/C. Count on good old fashioned sweat to cool your hide.


----------



## MacDoc

I'll repeat it so you understand from a professional climate scientist how relatively small changes in global temperature increases the frequency of extreme events.

Up to 90 times more frequent for the most damaging events - insurance companies understand it - the denier community seems to be thick about it.....amongst other things.



> Extremely hot
> Filed under:
> 
> * Climate Science
> 
> — stefan @ 26 March 2012
> 
> By Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou
> 
> One claim frequently heard regarding extreme heat waves goes something like this: ”Since this heat wave broke the previous record by 5 °C, global warming can’t have much to do with it since that has been only 1 °C over the 20th century”. Here we explain why we find this logic doubly flawed.
> 
> One can ask two different questions about the influence of global warming on heat waves (Otto et al. 2012), and we take them in turn.
> 
> 1. How much hotter did global warming make this heat wave?
> 
> We have some trouble with framing the question like this, because it tacitly assumes that the same weather situation would have also arisen without global warming, only at a (say) 1 °C lower temperature level. That need not be the case, of course, since weather is highly stochastic and global warming can also affect the circulation patterns of the atmosphere.
> 
> But even if we accept the basic premise (and it could be meant in a purely statistical sense, although that is not usually how it is expressed), would an average anthropogenic warming by 1 °C in the relevant location mean that 1 °C is also the amount added to an extreme event? Only in a linear climate system. Imagine a heat wave that pushes temperatures up to 30 °C in a world without global warming. In the same weather situation with global warming, you might expect that this weather then results in a 31 °C heat wave. But that could well be wrong. Possibly in the situation with warming, the soil has dried out over the previous months because of that extra 1 °C. So now you lost evaporative cooling, the incoming sunlight turns into sensible heat rather than a large fraction going into latent heat. That is a non-linear feedback, and not an imagined one. Detailed studies have shown that this may have played an important role during the European heat wave of 2003 (Schär et al. 2004).
> 
> The basic phenomenon is familiar to oceanographers: if the mean sea level in one location rises by 30 cm, this does not mean that the high-tide level also rises by 30 cm. In some cases it will be more, due to nonlinear feedback. I.e., a higher water level increases the flow cross-section (think of a tidal inlet) and reduces bottom friction so the tide rolls in faster, reaching a higher peak. The tidal range increases as well as the mean sea level.
> 
> Numerous other non-linear mechanisms are possible, which we are only beginning to understand – think of the recent studies that show how changes in snow cover or sea ice cover as a result of global warming affect weather systems. Or think of factors that could affect the stability of particularly strong blocking events. Thus, we’d be very cautious about making an essentially linear, deterministic argument about heat extremes to the public.
> 
> In the scientific literature, the influence of global warming on extreme events is therefore usually discussed in terms of probabilities, which is more fitted to stochastic events. The typical question asked is:
> 
> 2. How much more likely did global warming make this heat wave?
> 
> For this question, it is easily shown that the logic “the greater the extreme, the less global warming has to do with it” is seriously flawed. The change in probability of certain temperature values being reached can be visualised with a probability density function (see Figure). The probability distribution could be shifted unchanged towards warmer values, or it could be widened, or a combination of both (or some other deformation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _IPCC (2001) graph illustrating how a shift and/or widening of a probability distribution of temperatures affects the probability of extremes._
> 
> For illustration, let’s take the most simple case of a normal distribution that is shifted towards the warm end by a given amount – say one standard deviation. Then, a moderately extreme temperature that is 2 standard deviations above the mean becomes 4.5 times more likely (see graph below).* But a seriously extreme temperature, that is 5 standard deviations above the mean, becomes 90 times more likely!*
> 
> *Thus: the same amount of global warming boosts the probability of really extreme events, like the recent US heat wave, far more than it boosts more moderate events.* This is exactly the opposite of the claim that “the greater the extreme, the less global warming has to do with it.” The same is also true if the probability distribution is not shifted but widened by a constant factor. This is easy to show analytically for our math-minded readers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Graph illustrating how the ratio of the probability of extremes (warmed climate divided by unchanged climate – this increased likelihood factor is shown as a dashed line, scale on right) depends on the value of the extreme._
> 
> So in summary: even in the most simple, linear case of a shift in the normal distribution, *the probability for “outlandish” heat records increases greatly due to global warming. *But the more outlandish a record is, the more would we suspect that non-linear feedbacks are at play – which could increase their likelihood even more.


RealClimate: Extremely hot

Like AGW itself - this is not hard to comprehend - the interesting thing is we are seeing the reality play out sooner than anticipated in such a damaging manner.
Wake up call for most.....


----------



## Macfury

The temperature of the globe cannot be divided arbitrarily into "global warming" and "heat." Likewise, the current distribution of "extreme events" is not remarkable.


----------



## MacDoc

sure - hand down the tablets of wisdom - you're going to argue with professional scientists and now a climate scientist AND the insurance wonks.....hubris unchained comes to mine.

Reality isn't the way you want it to be under "wishful thinking rules" which you seem to employ frequently if not continually ---- it follows physics....try it sometime....even the Exxon head doesn't deny it anymore and you do.....what a joke of a world view.


----------



## Macfury

The insurance industry is reacting to higher costs associated with expanding human communities in susceptible areas--coastlines for example. The rest is mere premium inflation. If you believed you needed to protect your home against falling chocolate, an insurance company would be happy to raise your premium rates and cover you for it.

But go ahead--let's hear the litany of severe weather events that are now worse than they have ever been...


----------



## MacDoc

> T*he most important thing I've written in many years*
> byBill McKibbenFollowforDK GreenRoots
> 
> PERMALINK	50 COMMENTS
> And, well, I write a lot.
> 
> But this long piece that just went up at Rolling Stone tries to distill what we now know about climate change into 3 numbers
> 
> 1) *2 degrees C--that's what the world's nations (even oil states) have agreed is the most we can possibly let temps rise.* It's actually too high--but it is the one thing about climate change that the world has agreed on
> 
> 2) 565 gigatons co2--that's roughly how much more carbon we can pour into the atmosphere between now and 2050 and have a reasonable chance of staying below 2 degrees. It's not much--we burn about 30 gigatons a year, and growing, so at current rates would go by in 16 years
> 
> 3) 2795 gigatons co2. This is the really scary number. It's how much carbon the fossil fuel industry (and the countries that operate like fossil fuel companies) have already in their reserves. The stuff that props up their share price, lets them borrow money. The stuff they're committed to burning.
> 
> What that means is: we now know for certain that the stated business plans of this industry will wreck the planet. It's not even close--*they're planning to burn 5 x the carbon that any sane scientist sets as the absolute upper limit.*
> 
> *So stopping them doesn't mean gradual shifts in trajectory. It means taking on this industry with at least as much vigor as we took on companies that did business with apartheid South Africa.
> *
> We'll be announcing plans at 350.org to do just that. But for the moment, I'd be most grateful if people could read and share the Rolling Stone piece, and provide feedback. Warning: it's long.
> 
> thanks much--bill


Daily Kos: The most important thing I've written in many years



> *Global Warming's Terrifying New Math*
> Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is
> 
> Read more: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone


Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

so enjoy your role as arch-enemy - even the oil states eh.....and you still don't get it.


----------



## Macfury

I didn't ask you for more links reiterating the fears of left-wingers. I asked you to tell me which severe weather events were now worse than they had ever been.


----------



## MacDoc

.....


----------



## Macfury

By the way, for those not familiar with Bill McKibben, touted on the previous page as some sort of climate expert, he is not a scientist, just a journalist. He's been nicknamed "Weepy" Bill because of his frequent emotional outbursts and fears that God will destroy the world because of our "turbocharged and jet-propelled arrogance." In 1989 he predicted the world would burn up by 2009. Not so much you say?


----------



## CubaMark

*Koch-Funded Scientist: Global Warming is Caused by Humans*



> _The founder and director of a climate change study project funded heavily by the Koch brothers, who last year reversed course and said he believed global warming was real, has gone one step further, writing in a weekend op-ed in the New York Times that he is now convinced the phenomenon is caused by humans.
> 
> In a piece titled, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Richard A. Muller, a University of California, Berkley physicist who founded the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) wrote that his, “total turnaround, in such a short time,” was driven by a new report from the group that concluded for the first time that global warming is a man-made problem. That revelation brings Muller essentially full circle from his stance a few years ago, when he criticized other global warming studies as flawed and questioned whether the Earth was even warming abnormally, dangerously fast at all.
> 
> “Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted,” Muller wrote. “I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes.”
> 
> The BEST study, he wrote, found that the Earth had warmed by about two and a half degrees over the past 250 years, with the bulk of that spike occurring in the past 50 years. Moreover, he found that, “essentially all of this increase” was likely due to greenhouse gas emissions, a point climate change believers have accepted as fact for years._


(RawStory via Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury

I don't know why these death-bed conversions should carry any more weight than any other studies.

Amazing that this should come out at just the time that NOAA's North Aerican climate figures and the BEST project are coming under the heaviest fire:



> A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.


New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

The paper is available for full download. 

Again, I have no quarrel with acknowledging the notion of a warming Earth--or a cooling one. This is natural. I DO have a problem with using data to falsely prop up the social agenda of a minority of the population.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't know why these death-bed conversions should carry any more weight than any other studies.


They shouldn't. It is interesting, however, when even those being supported to produce FUD for the denier camp can no longer deny the obvious, and are forced to admit that yes, human activity is changing the global climate.



> The paper is available for full download


I went to check that, and found that


> This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.


So this paper has not been peer-reviewed. I'll wait until it's been throughly analyzed by experts in the feild before I read it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> They shouldn't. It is interesting, however, when even those being supported to produce FUD for the denier camp can no longer deny the obvious, and are forced to admit that yes, human activity is changing the global climate.


Human activity has an insignificant effect on global temperature, IMHO. If that's true, then all of the mitigation efforts proposed by the AGW crew do not pass muster in the cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the man changed his mind--so what? That's not any more important than the growing group of scientists who have switched their opinions away from the anthropogenic camp.



bryanc said:


> So this paper has not been peer-reviewed. I'll wait until it's been throughly analyzed by experts in the feild before I read it.


Fair enough. But neither was the BEST study paper peer-reviewed on release. The author of this one notes that he is following BEST's protocol here.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Human activity has an insignificant effect on global temperature, IMHO.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I get the impression that there is nothing 'humble' about it. You have no expertise in the field on which to base this opinion, and it is therefore essentially worthless in this discussion.



> In this case, the man changed his mind--so what?


It's interesting because he has some expertise in the field, and hired explicitly to find support for the AGW deniers, and therefore had a very strong bias against the conclusion he was forced by the data to reach.



> That's not any more important than the growing group of scientists who have switched their opinions away from the anthropogenic camp.


[citation needed]


----------



## Macfury

Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Popular Technology.net: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm


From that link:


> The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors... a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics


Furthermore, this does not support your position that the number of scientists skeptical of AGW is increasing. It is simply a list of every paper the author of the web page could find that had ever been published that has something that could be construed to support some aspect of some criticism of AGW. Indeed, I'm quite sure I've read recently about the striking number of researchers that were initially skeptical (and therefore may well have published many of the papers archived in the collection you reference), who have become convinced by the accumulating unequivocal evidence that ACC is real. I have seen no analysis that supports your position that scientific support for ACC is declining; on the contrary, the consensus continues to accumulate supportive evidence on a daily basis.


----------



## bryanc

I just did some searching to see if I could find any credible data on the number of climate researchers in the skeptic camp vs. the ACC camp (vs. intermediate, which is an important category that gets left out), and how that has changed over time. Came up empty.

I did, however, find a report on an interesting finding in which the same statistical analysts who had throughly refuted global warming data on behalf of a right-wing think tank, found the exact same data completely convincing of a "strong growth" when it was presented to them as share prices :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I just did some searching to see if I could find any credible data on the number of climate researchers in the skeptic camp vs. the ACC camp (vs. intermediate, which is an important category that gets left out), and how that has changed over time. Came up empty.
> 
> I did, however, find a report on an interesting finding in which the same statistical analysts who had throughly refuted global warming data on behalf of a right-wing think tank, found the exact same data completely convincing of a "strong growth" when it was presented to them as share prices :lmao:


Why should share prices and temperature share the same type of "physics." The data is not applicable across disciplines.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Why should share prices and temperature share the same type of "physics." The data is not applicable across disciplines.


It wasn't a question of physics, but of statistics. The question was "does this data show a statistically significant upward trend" and when the data was presented as temperatures, the answer was "no" but when the same data was presented as share prices the answer was "yes."

But since this is old news, and it has nothing to do with the actual science or the statistical analysis done by reputable academic statisticians (as I said, the analyses in question were done by statisticians paid by a right-wing think tank; they're paid to get the "right answer" not to do the statistics right), it doesn't really pertain to this thread.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It wasn't a question of physics, but of statistics. The question was "does this data show a statistically significant upward trend" and when the data was presented as temperatures, the answer was "no" but when the same data was presented as share prices the answer was "yes."


I understand. But it would be like asking whether the growth chart of a cactus or a stalk of corn represented a strong upward trend. Measured in inches, what is meagre for a corn stalk is alarming for a cactus.


----------



## MacDoc

Bryanc there was ONE.....he was tasked by Dear Anthony to disprove the upward trend in the US - he WAS a skeptic - which i why they hired him.

He is not anymore and Watts has been scrambling to regroup ever since.....( especially once his paid for science from Koch /Heartland was outed )



> *Climate Change Denier Concludes Global Warming Is Real, Caused By Humans*
> By ASHLEY PORTERO: Subscribe to Ashley's
> A study released from the University of California, Berkeley, on Monday confirms what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for years: that global warming exists, and that human activity has contributed to its acceleration.
> 
> The big difference with the findings from the university's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project is that it was led by Richard Muller, a professor of physics at Berkeley who until recently was a self-professed climate-change skeptic.
> 
> And, the single biggest funder of the study was a charitable organization backed by the Koch brothers, arguably among the leaders in climate disinformation in the United States.


there are a few whackos - one notorious one also has no time for evolution 

some sources for you

climate change deniers - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc there was ONE.....he was tasked by Dear Anthony to disprove the upward trend in the US - he WAS a skeptic - which i why they hired him.
> 
> He is not anymore and Watts has been scrambling to regroup ever since.....( especially once his paid for science from Koch /Heartland was outed )
> 
> 
> 
> there are a few whackos - one notorious one also has no time for evolution
> 
> some sources for you
> 
> climate change deniers - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com


Muller used extremely poor methodology in his study. Even his comments following the release of BEST are confusing... at best.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Muller used extremely poor methodology in his study.


You say this, with monotonous regularity regarding the peer-reviewed science published that supports ACC. Yet we have yet to hear anything about how you'd improve upon the methodology that these people with Ph.D.s in the relevant disciplines have used, or why it is that we should take your word on it.

For the umpteenth time, what special expertise do you have relevant to climatology that makes you more credible than the tens of thousands of professional scientists with tens of thousands of Ph.Ds and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers that disagree with you?

Do you have a high school diploma? A baccalaureate degree (in what field)? Post graduate training (again, in what field)? How is it that the great MacFury is able to pontificate so disdainfully on the life's work of so many professional scientists with such confidence? Surely there is no human being so full of hubris that they could dismiss the consensus of tens of thousands of the worlds experts on a given subject without _some_ actual knowlege of the field?!?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Even his comments following the release of BEST are confusing...


psst... maybe his comments are confusing to _you_ because _you_ don't have the training to understand what he's talking about...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I understand. But it would be like asking whether the growth chart of a cactus or a stalk of corn represented a strong upward trend. Measured in inches, what is meagre for a corn stalk is alarming for a cactus.


This is an interesting and potentially valid point. But it turns out to be wrong. The point here is that the same statisticians who said that the data is "within the statistical noise" and that there is no evidence of an upward trend when they knew the data they were working with related to temperatures came to the conclusion that the same data showed an unequivocal and statistically significant upward trend when they were told that the data represented share prices. This simply shows something that you guys have been saying for a long time; statistics can be twisted to support whatever the boss want's them to support... unless of course, you actually know something about the math and the assumptions behind the statistics.

Personally, as a molecular biologist, who's data is usually largely qualitative ("there's a band here on this gel, and a signal there in this micrograph"), I don't have to deal with statistics beyond ANOVAs, chi-squared tests, power analyses, and the odd binomial regression, so I don't claim to be an expert in this stuff. But I know enough to know that there are lots of people who really do know how to do statistics right, and I consult with them regularly. And they *ALL* say the stats done by the ACC supporters are correct; whereas the stats done by the oil industry apologists are completely bogus. The numerical analysis done by the climatologists is peer-reviewed by people who actually know what they're doing, and while there may be some arguments here and there about some details of wether some specific cases fit some specific assumptions, the net result is that the data are unequivocal; the earth is warming, and the only explanation that fits the data is that anthropogenic combustion of fossil fuels has altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere sufficiently to change the net energy balance of the climate.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> psst... maybe his comments are confusing to _you_ because _you_ don't have the training to understand what he's talking about...


pssst--I do!
Here is a good round-up of his best comments.

C3: The 'BEST' Global Temperature Bust: Muller?....Muller?....Muller?....Anyone?



> December 17, 2003 - "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
> 
> November 3, 2011 - "It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,”..."But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "CALL me a converted skeptic."..."I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded..."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism..."
> 
> July 28, 2102 - "Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings."
> 
> July 28, 2012 - "And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is an interesting and potentially valid point. But it turns out to be wrong. The point here is that the same statisticians who said that the data is "within the statistical noise" and that there is no evidence of an upward trend when they knew the data they were working with related to temperatures came to the conclusion that the same data showed an unequivocal and statistically significant upward trend when they were told that the data represented share prices. This simply shows something that you guys have been saying for a long time; statistics can be twisted to support whatever the boss want's them to support... unless of course, you actually know something about the math and the assumptions behind the statistics.


Statistical noise in one discipline is different than statistical noise in another. Show me the stuff so I can be convinced.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Statistical noise in one discipline is different than statistical noise in another.


Perhaps rgray or someone else who really knows statistics can weigh in on this further. But this is not my understanding; Variance in a regression analysis is a function of the data itself. There would be no difference in the significance of the data that was contingent on wether the data were temperature records or share prices.


----------



## eMacMan

The issue is not whether or not there is Global Warming. In the past ten thousand years over a mile of glacial ice has disappeared from the very spot from which I am making this post. By the end of the Medieval Warming Period the Glacial remnants in this area were even smaller than today. They expanded a great deal during the Little Ice Age but have continued to retreat since that time. So there is absolutely no doubt that the earth is warming and will continue to do so until something triggers another ice age.

The issue is whether mankinds activities will really cause a climatic catastrophe, and whether stealing $Trillions$ from those least able to pay will prevent the sky from falling. 

Neither the highly pimped Carbon Tax, nor the Give your Lifes' Savings to Gore Trading Scheme, are designed to actually reduce emissions of any variety. Rather they are thinly disguised efforts to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Those who approved of the Great Bankster Heist in 2008 will absolutely love Cap & Trade, and Carbon Taxation.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Perhaps rgray or someone else who really knows statistics can weigh in on this further. But this is not my understanding; Variance in a regression analysis is a function of the data itself. There would be no difference in the significance of the data that was contingent on wether the data were temperature records or share prices.


My understanding is that you need an observable expected value before you can determine this.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> My understanding is that you need an observable expected value before you can determine this.


Not for regressions. You need to specify expected values to determine if observations fit within a defined model, but not to determine if a change is statistically significant.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> The issue is not whether or not there is Global Warming.


Well, until recently, the deniers were vocally denying this.



> The issue is whether mankinds activities will really cause a climatic catastrophe, and whether stealing $Trillions$ from those least able to pay will prevent the sky from falling.


You're mixing several issues here.

The first is *wether* human activities have affected the climate? The deniers continue to deny this as well, but the overwhelming (>98%) consensus among people who have the expertise to analyze the data is that "yes, we have."

The second is *how much* of the observed change is due to human activity? This is a far more complex question, and the certainty that science can provide is therefore proportionately less. Consequently, the denier camp is spreading FUD in this regard as far and wide as possible, making the jobs of the scientists far more difficult and prone to political interference. From my reading of the literature, it appears that the consensus is "most-to-all of it."

The third is what will be *the consequences* of these changes? Some of the consequences are relatively easy to predict - rising sea levels, ocean acidification, increases in extreme weather events, etc. But because our understanding of the complex networks of interacting processes that determine things like the ocean's carbon-fixation rate, it's not clear how bad things will become or how fast things will happen. Again, the consensus appears to be "pretty bad" and it appears things are already changing faster than we expected.

The fourth is *what can we do* about it? Well it's obviously true that anything we can do to reduce the rate at which we make things worse is a good idea. Ultimately, it also trivially obvious that we will need to develop a globally sustainable economic system based on renewable energy. How we accomplish these goals is yet another issue.

All the various socio/political/economic mechanisms that various people have proposed to try to implement these changes need to be carefully and fairly considered. It is difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis when you can't be certain what either the costs or benefits will be. But given that the worst case scenarios are pretty dire, and the benefits are both significant and necessary even if the worst case scenario turns out not to be true, there is a strong logical argument for taking action, even if we cannot be sure it is the optimal solution.

It seems you have issues with the last point, but the way you present it, it appears you have conflated all of the previous issues with that last one.


----------



## MacDoc

Stealing trillions is hilarious given the $7 Trillion dollar fossil fuel industry which is making money hand over fist while killing tens of thousands every year and ruining the environment. One wonders who pays his salary given that bit of outrageous nonsense claim.

Every economic study has shown the move to a carbon neutral industrial society will create a huge boom in jobs and technology and Sweden is well on it's way and not exactly hurting - nor is Norway and both have had carbon taxes of $50 a barrel since the mid 90s.
All the deniers are doing is stalling the inevitable and denying the obvious.

The fossil industry itself knew that the C02 they were releasing was impacting the climate back in the 90s - you haven't even got there yet. Incontrovertable they told their bosses who then went on to fund a huge disinformation campaign which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. Pathetic hardly covers it. 
Or perhaps there is another motive beyond honest enquiry.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Every economic study has shown the move to a carbon neutral industrial society will create a huge boom in jobs and technology..


_Every_ economic study has certainly not shown that at all--in fact carbon taxes are demonstrated to be a huge drag on the economy. Why would an internal csrbon tax lead to some sort of amazing technology? It might artificially make af crippled windmill or inefficient solar panel look good to the populace suffering from overpriced energy. That certainly isn't transformative. The idea that environmental taxes are job creators is even more laughable. Ask Spain how that worked out for them.

I'm also amused by this canard about the oil companies having solid proof of AGW in the 1990s--since scientists still don't have it now, these oil companies must really have been clever. 

Thankfully, the public is getting over this nonsense, as the AGW cult diminishes in influence.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Stealing trillions is hilarious given the $7 Trillion dollar fossil fuel industry which is making money hand over fist while killing tens of thousands every year and ruining the environment. One wonders who pays his salary given that bit of outrageous nonsense claim.....


And with Cap and Trade or carbon taxes would continue to do so. 

Of course C&T would steal from the poor and give to the Gore, while Carbon Taxes would also steal from the poor and give to Goldman Sachs. All without reducing carbon consumption in the slightest. 

If you want to reduce consumption then you need more efficient autos, and they need to be at the low end of the cost spectrum. A high efficiency auto that starts at $40,000 or $50,000 is not an affordable solution. 

Nor is the highly touted public transit a real solution. PT works best with very high population densities, and where everyone wants to go to the same place, something that is the exception rather than the rule in most of Canada.


----------



## Macfury

I was not previously aware that the Mueller BEST study was rejected by the_ Journal of Geophysical Research _after peer review:



> JGR told me "This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."


Ross McKitrick - Home


----------



## SINC

Ma Nature Helping Out? Earth helping put brakes on climate change: study


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Ma Nature Helping Out? Earth helping put brakes on climate change: study


Yes, there are many physico-chemical and biological systems that will buffer CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) to an extent. The problem is that we're releasing CO2 at a rate greater than these processes can absorb it, and also some of these processes (like the ocean's absorption of CO2) are the problems we're trying to avert (ocean acidification due to the increased concentration of carbonic acid is the primary threat to the world's coral reefs, which, in turn, are the primary nurseries of most of the global fish stocks).

These systems have been active for literally billions of years, and they've done a good job of buffering CO2 in the past, so why, one might reasonably wonder, should we worry? The reason is the *speed* with which human activity has changed the chemistry of the atmosphere (and oceans). If all the CO2 our civilization has released were to have been released over a few hundred thousand years (i.e. about as rapidly as any natural process could happen), the buffering and CO2 fixing capacities of photosynthetic plants and geological processes (like the formation of lime stone), would've been able to keep up. But we've released millions of years worth of fixed carbon in the last 100 years (effectively instantaneously from the POV of ecological and geological systems), so they can't keep up.


----------



## Macfury

Or it doesn't matter if they keep up. The fact that they are absorbing it doesn't mean that they are modifying the Earth's temperature, or preventing it from modifying, to any important degree.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> it doesn't matter if they keep up.


It does if you're a coral reef, or any other organism that uses calcium carbonates, or depends on any organism that uses those carbonates, etc.

Despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past, it changed much more gradually, so the buffering systems could keep up. We're changing it so fast that the mechanisms that have to re-equilibrate to the new chemistry can't adapt quickly enough.


----------



## Macfury

This is funny. Warmists like Bill McKibben thought that streetlights were melting due to global warming:

Melted streetlights in Oklahoma blamed on global warming - Wry Heat



> It was a very hot day in Stillwater, Oklahoma, about 115°F. Someone sent a photo to KFOR-TV, via FACEBOOK, showing part of a streetlight that had melted. The far-left blog Think Progress picked up the story. Global warming true believer Bill McKibben saw the story and, believing he finally had proof of global warming, took to Twitter, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.) saying, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
> 
> *Alas, ground truth intervened. People on the ground noted that there was a dumpster fire at that location. *The fire melted the front two bulbs of the four-light street lamp.
> 
> The fact that only two of the four lamps were melted should have been a clue. Another clue is that glass does not melt at 115°F (glass begins to soften at a minimum temperature of over 1100 °F).
> 
> It seems the credulous will believe the incredible. This story shows the perils of confirmation bias (the tendency of people to believe information that confirms their beliefs).


----------



## MacDoc

Too good ......



> *Climate change skeptic causes a stir with his about-face*
> Published on Tuesday August 07, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAN TUFFS/GETTY IMAGES FILE PHOTO
> Michael Woods
> Staff Reporter
> 
> _A prominent climate change skeptic’s about-face on the subject is causing a stir in the world of environmental science.
> _
> *In a self-proclaimed “total turnaround,” Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, now says human greenhouse gas emissions are almost entirely to blame for global warming.*
> 
> “Call me a converted skeptic,” Muller wrote in a July 28 New York Times op-ed. Three years ago, he said, he doubted whether global warming even existed. “Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
> 
> “I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
> 
> While many scientific organizations reached that conclusion years ago, it’s one Muller wasn’t comfortable reaching until now, he told the Star.
> 
> “If that classifies me as a skeptic, I consider that proper skepticism; something that’s a duty for any scientist.”
> 
> Muller’s opinion is based on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which he co-founded. Its results show the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by 1.5 C over the past 250 years.
> 
> The match between the temperature records and carbon dioxide records suggests human greenhouse gas emissions are the best explanation for the warming, the study says.
> 
> Muller says the findings are stronger than those from the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.
> 
> The project’s results are “elegantly simple,” Muller said. It rules out changes in solar activity in global warming and shows that volcanic eruptions have short-term, but not long-term, effects on global temperatures.
> 
> Some critics have dismissed Muller’s reversal as a publicity stunt. Others caution that the research hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, called its analysis “way over simplistic and not at all convincing” on her blog.
> 
> But Muller told the Star he’s “delighted” at the amount of reaction the project has received and thinks it will remain of interest to people he calls “thoughtful skeptics.”
> 
> “Many of them have been attacked for being anti-science. I always thought that was unfair — I thought the thoughtful skeptics were raising valid points. We tried to address those points.”
> 
> Another twist to the news: one of the project’s sources of funding is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Koch and his brother David are the billionaire owners of Koch Industries Inc., the conglomerate with annual revenues estimated at $100 billion, and are known for bankrolling conservative causes.
> 
> Penn State geoscientist Michael Mann, whose “hockey stick” graph showing a rise in global temperatures in the 20th century has faced criticism from global-warming skeptics, pointed this out in a Facebook post. *“There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers — the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet — demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades,*” he wrote.


Climate change skeptic causes a stir with his about-face - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury

Too old... 

MacDoc, we've been talking about Mueller's flawed study--which was rejected for publication after peer review--for weeks.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Too good ......
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change skeptic causes a stir with his about-face - thestar.com


After hearing about this mythical growth in scientists becoming skeptics these sorts of news items make one chuckle.


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah especially given who he was paid by.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Yeah especially given who he was paid by.


What does it matter who paid him? Mueller's study did not even survive peer review.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Yeah especially given who he was paid by.


Still watching for this mythical big movement to the skeptics.


----------



## eMacMan

A seemingly unrelated study that when thought about could blow huge holes in the AGW theories.

Extreme Earth Microbes Pave Way for Discovery of Alien Life - Yahoo! News



> Called high-temperature methanogens, these microbes rely on the hydrogen and carbon dioxide in their superheated deep-sea vents for growth, excreting waste products like methane.


Yep it is entirely possible that Methane is continuously being created naturally and not dependent on a 1/10° atmospheric temperature rise to cause its release. If this is indeed so, even cutting mans 10% contribution to atmospheric CO2 to zero, will have absolutely no impact on the amount of CH4 being released into the atmosphere. Atmospheric methane levels will continue to increase and warming will continue unabated until something triggers the next ice age.

Another huge side effect. Since we are talking deep ocean it is even possible that some of that Methane is being compressed into longer chains. Yep it is possible that the earths petroleum reserves are being replenished even as alarmists claim they are all but gone.

Still I whole heartedly continue to support a campaign that would see all true AGW believers giving half of their accumulated wealth to Al Gore and the other half to the Government. If you really believe this will prevent a catastrophic climate failure, please prove it to me using your money rather than mine.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> A seemingly unrelated study that when thought about could blow huge holes in the AGW theories.
> 
> Extreme Earth Microbes Pave Way for Discovery of Alien Life - Yahoo! News
> 
> Yep it is entirely possible that Methane is continuously being created naturally and not dependent on a 1/10° atmospheric temperature rise to cause its release. If this is indeed so, even cutting mans 10% contribution to atmospheric CO2 to zero, will have absolutely no impact on the amount of CH4 being released into the atmosphere. Atmospheric methane levels will continue to increase and warming will continue unabated until something triggers the next ice age.
> 
> Another huge side effect. Since we are talking deep ocean it is even possible that some of that Methane is being compressed into longer chains. Yep it is possible that the earths petroleum reserves are being replenished even as alarmists claim they are all but gone.
> 
> Still I whole heartedly continue to support a campaign that would see all true AGW believers giving half of their accumulated wealth to Al Gore and the other half to the Government. If you really believe this will prevent a catastrophic climate failure, please prove it to me using your money rather than mine.


Don't assume that those who are not skeptics for man's part in climate change are automatically onboard for the solutions offered namely, "giving money to Al Gore".

Red Herring.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Don't assume that those who are not skeptics for man's part in climate change are automatically onboard for the solutions offered namely, "giving money to Al Gore".
> 
> Red Herring.


Perhaps not but the only reason the Great Saint Gore is such a promoter is that he fervently hopes that Mega compulsory contributions to his bank account will be the main result. 

Like I said if you truly believe, buy those Carbon Credits while they are very cheap and audit free.


----------



## groovetube

red herring. Again.

There's people that will want to make tons of money both sides of this issue.


----------



## bryanc

I think it would be valuable to separate the arguments about the scientific evidence for athropogenic climate change (ACC), (which seems to be very strong and widely agreed upon by people who are sufficiently knowledgeable to formulate informed opinions on the subject), and the arguments for and against various socio/political/economic course of action that may or may not effectively address the problem.

If we can stop conflating these issues, we might have a more reasonable, productive and enjoyable discussion.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I think it would be valuable to separate the arguments about the scientific evidence for athropogenic climate change (ACC), (which seems to be very strong and widely agreed upon by people who are sufficiently knowledgeable to formulate informed opinions on the subject), and the arguments for and against various socio/political/economic course of action that may or may not effectively address the problem.
> 
> If we can stop conflating these issues, we might have a more reasonable, productive and enjoyable discussion.


good idea.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I think it would be valuable to separate the arguments about the scientific evidence for athropogenic climate change (ACC), (which seems to be very strong and widely agreed upon by people who are sufficiently knowledgeable to formulate informed opinions on the subject), and the arguments for and against various socio/political/economic course of action that may or may not effectively address the problem.
> 
> If we can stop conflating these issues, we might have a more reasonable, productive and enjoyable discussion.


I don't believe this is always the best course of action, when the "science" is promoted by people who are already on record as supporting a particular course of socio/political/economic action. The pontifications of Dr. James Hansen would be a good example. However, this would be a good policy where no such identification exists.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't believe this is always the best course of action, when the "science" is promoted by people who are already on record as supporting a particular course of socio/political/economic action.


Scientists are people too, and as such, they have (and are entitled to) their opinions on topics outside their areas of expertise. However, one needs to be alert to when someone is speaking with regard to a subject on which they are an expert, and when they are expounding on topics regarding which they have no special knowledge.



> The pontifications of Dr. James Hansen would be a good example.


Hansen is a physicist, who specializes in atmospheric energy transfer and planetary climate modelling. So his opinions on these topics should be considered seriously as those of an expert in the feild. If he has opinions on how we should or should not address the climate change problem through economic or social policy, I'd certainly hear him out, as he's demonstrably a very bright guy, but his expertise in atmospheric physics has no obvious relevance to this issue, so I'd be much more skeptical of whatever he has to say on these topics.

But even if you think his ideas about how we should address climate change are risible, that does not in any way weaken his authority on atmospheric physics.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But even if you think his ideas about how we should address climate change are risible, that does not in any way weaken his authority on atmospheric physics.


It's the reverse. His opinions on such matters have been heavily influenced by his politics.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's the reverse. His opinions on such matters have been heavily influenced by his politics.


If this were the case, his research articles would not have survived peer-review. Math is apolitical. Your opinions on politics and/or economics are certainly as worthy of consideration as his. However, your opinions on atmospheric physics are not.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If this were the case, his research articles would not have survived peer-review..


Your faith in peer-review is touching.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your faith in peer-review is touching.


As an active participant in it, and frequent victim of it, my confidence in the ability of the peer-review system to catch and prevent the publication of poor research has nothing to do with faith. I'm well aware of many examples where the system has failed, but it has proved to be better than any other system at preventing the publication of flawed or fraudulent research. It is also worth noting that the failures of peer-review are far more common in the applied disciplines (medicine being the most egregious example), where significant monetary rewards are at stake, than they are in the basic sciences.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It is also worth noting that the failures of peer-review are far more common in the applied disciplines (medicine being the most egregious example), where significant monetary rewards are at stake, than they are in the basic sciences.


And not peer review by others sharing the same political views/philosophy?


----------



## MacDoc

Sometimes calling a spade a spade IS appropriate.
..time to stop pulling punches on this subject..there is no more room for civil
.......just sayin' :










••••

Good insight on the food impact



> Tomgram: Michael Klare, *Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy Becomes Everyday Reality*
> Posted by Michael Klare at 9:12am, August 7, 2012.
> 
> Wherever you look, the heat, the drought, and the fires stagger the imagination. Now, it’s Oklahoma at the heart of the American firestorm, with “18 straight days of 100-plus degree temperatures and persistent drought” and so many fires in neighboring states that extra help is unavailable. It’s the summer of heat across the U.S., where the first six months of the year have been the hottest on record (and the bugs are turning out in droves in response). Heat records are continually being broken. More than 52% of the country is now experiencing some level of drought, and drought conditions are actually intensifying in the Midwest; 66% of the Illinois corn crop is in “poor” or “very poor” shape, with similarly devastating percentages across the rest of the Midwest. The average is 48% across the corn belt, and for soybeans 37% -- and it looks as if next year’s corn crop may be endangered as well. More than half of U.S. counties are officially in drought conditions and, according to the Department of Agriculture, “three-quarters of the nation's cattle acreage is now inside a drought-stricken area, as is about two-thirds of the country's hay acreage.” Worse yet, there’s no help in sight -- not from the heavens, not even from Congress, which adjourned for the summer without passing a relief package for farmers suffering through some of the worst months since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
> 
> In sum, it’s swelteringly, unnerving bad right now in a way that most of us can’t remember. And that’s the present moment. The question of what lies ahead is the territory occupied by TomDispatch regular Michael Klare, author most recently of The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources. From the time he published his book Resource Wars back in 2001, he’s been ahead of the curve on such questions and he suggests that we’re going to have an uncomfortably hot time in all sorts of unexpected ways on this increasingly hot planet of ours. Tom
> 
> *The Hunger Wars in Our Future
> Heat, Drought, Rising Food Costs, and Global Unrest*
> By Michael T. Klare
> 
> The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will be severe. With more than one-half of America’s counties designated as drought disaster areas, the 2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in countries that rely on imported U.S. grains.
> 
> * This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences:* if history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.


more

Tomgram: Michael Klare, Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy Becomes Everyday Reality | TomDispatch

and from Hansen who also is not known for pulling punches....



> OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
> *Game Over for the Climate*
> By JAMES HANSEN
> Published: May 9, 2012
> 
> GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening.


snip



> That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
> 
> *If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.*


more
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html

••

Meanwhile in an Arctic near you



> Cyclone warning!
> 
> I have postponed this post until I was sure that what follows is going to happen.
> 
> Remember the term 'flash melting'? That's when from one day to the next large swathes of ice disappear on the University of Bremen sea ice concentration maps. We witnessed one such instance last year when a relatively large and intense low-pressure area moved in from Alaska over the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea regions (see blog post). It lasted about a day or two and then quickly faded, but the effects were spectacular.
> 
> *Well, it looks like we have something bigger coming up this year.*


more

Cyclone warning! - Arctic Sea Ice

:yikes:

Stay tuned :


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> And not peer review by others sharing the same political views/philosophy?


Predictably, those who's beliefs are compelled by logic and evidence, and who have the training to understand the science of climate change, have become largely congruent in their political views, at least on this issue.

When one is unable to deny the existence of the problem, one is forced to start considering possible solutions. It is painfully obvious to those with even the most feeble intelligence that sweeping changes to our economic system are unavoidable. Furthermore, many of the other problems in our society may be solved at the same time if changes that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels are implemented intelligently.

Consequently, it is no surprise that most scientists with any expertise in climatology are proponents of political agendas focused on shifting western economies off of fossil fuels. I.e. the congruence in political views among scientists is the *effect* of their understanding the science, not the cause of their scientific conclusions.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, that's just another agglomeration of FUD from people who have no historical perspective.

1) Regarding the cartoon, it may well have been the hottest spring on record in Kansas City. How does that prove AGW, poarticularly in light of the rapid urbanization and urban island heat effect there?
2) Heat and drought may cause crop failure. This has been true for the duration of agrarian man. It was true in the 1930s when we faced higher record breaking temperatures, worse drought and more devastating crop failure. Your point, again?
3) James Hansen has been identified as a partisan hack with near-religious belief in apocalyptic visions. As an AGW advocate, rather than a climate scientist, his work is no longer being taken seriously. Even in those two quotes, he has nothing to back up his contentions. I call FUD.
4) "Arctic cyclones" are more commonly known as Polar Vortexes. Read all about them here, if this is news to you:

Polar vortex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## groovetube

I can think of a few 'non-climate scientists' who wish to be taken very seriously. Somehow, their opinions carry more weight since it may support another's opinions.

I whole heartedly agree though, it is hard to listen to someone who isn't qualified to understand the science.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ...How does that prove AGW...


The fact that you think a scientific theory is provable is ample demonstration that you are completely confused about the scientific method. Science falsifies; it does not prove. AGW (or more properly ACC - anthropogenic climate change - of which global warming is a part) is not a single theory, but a collection of theories, all of which have some degree of empirical and/or theoretical support, and which are currently accepted as the best explanation of the data we have. They will not and can not ever be proved. They can, however, be falsified; however the data we have collected to date continues to support and/or refine our understanding of ACC, and thus it remains the current paradigm (much to the chagrin of the rapidly diminishing population of deniers).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that you think a scientific theory is provable is ample demonstration that you are completely confused about the scientific method. Science falsifies; it does not prove. AGW (or more properly ACC - anthropogenic climate change - of which global warming is a part) is not a single theory, but a collection of theories, all of which have some degree of empirical and/or theoretical support, and which are currently accepted as the best explanation of the data we have. They will not and can not ever be proved. They can, however, be falsified; however the data we have collected to date continues to support and/or refine our understanding of ACC, and thus it remains the current paradigm (much to the chagrin of the rapidly diminishing population of deniers).


I understand. You cannot even "prove" your existence. 

However, let's get beyond grade school philosophy, shall we?


----------



## groovetube

aaaand it gets ugly.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You cannot even "prove" your existence.


Science cannot prove my existence; but logic can (at least introspectively). 



> However, let's get beyond grade school philosophy, shall we?


Science is a subset of philosophy, and while that ought to be part of everyone's grade school education, it is abundantly clear that most people (including some scientists) are not aware of this, and are terribly confused about the epistemological limitations of science.

So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; what aspect of your question "how does that prove AGW" is beyond grade school philosophy?


----------



## MacDoc

More to the point, getting beyond the kinder school stupidity of denying the obvious.


----------



## bryanc

I'd also really like to see some evidence that a significant number of scientists with relevant expertise are "leaving" the consensus on ACC, as claimed by MacFury a few pages back. I haven't been able to find much data, but everything I've found suggests that the consensus started to emerge in the 1970's* and has been consolidating since then, to the point of near unanimity we see today.

You just don't see this behaviour among scientists unless the data is absolutely irrefutable.

*note: I did find an article on the myth of the 1970's "consensus" regarding global cooling; there were a few papers published that speculated about this topic, but there was never any consensus among climatologists, and the idea of "nuclear winter" notwithstanding, no one was suggesting human activity was going to cause another ice age.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at; what aspect of your question "how does that prove AGW" is beyond grade school philosophy?


The cartoon tried to make that intimation, bryanc, not me. Point is, that I am not going to spend a lot of effort examining the meaning of the word "prove."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The cartoon tried to make that intimation, bryanc, not me.


I don't think so. The cartoon merely pointed out how record heat in the US makes the position of the climate change denier uncomfortable. You asked "how does this prove AGW". Extreme weather and record heat waves are predictions of most ACC models, and therefore these observations clearly support ACC, but there are no observations that could prove ACC.


> Point is, that I am not going to spend a lot of effort examining the meaning of the word "prove."


Perhaps you should; it may improve your ability to understand the science you are so fond of criticizing.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't think so. The cartoon merely pointed out how record heat in the US makes the position of the climate change denier uncomfortable. You asked "how does this prove AGW".


The ice cream glob is lying on the ground. It does not make the position of those who do not believe in AGW uncomfortable, however--it makes an editorial cartoon character uncomfortable. 



bryanc said:


> Extreme weather and record heat waves are predictions of most ACC models, and therefore these observations clearly support ACC, but there are no observations that could prove ACC.


Then the temperature records of the 1930s clearly supported the theory.



bryanc said:


> Perhaps you should; it may improve your ability to understand the science you are so fond of criticizing.


Seriously? No.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I'd also really like to see some evidence that a significant number of scientists with relevant expertise are "leaving" the consensus on ACC, as claimed by MacFury a few pages back. I haven't been able to find much data, but everything I've found suggests that the consensus started to emerge in the 1970's* and has been consolidating since then, to the point of near unanimity we see today.
> 
> You just don't see this behaviour among scientists unless the data is absolutely irrefutable.
> 
> *note: I did find an article on the myth of the 1970's "consensus" regarding global cooling; there were a few papers published that speculated about this topic, but there was never any consensus among climatologists, and the idea of "nuclear winter" notwithstanding, no one was suggesting human activity was going to cause another ice age.


I see a tendency not to answer uncomfortable questions. I was interested in that too, though I doubt we'll see an answer, if ever.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Then the temperature records of the 1930s clearly supported the theory.


No one has ever argued that human activity is the *only* thing that causes climate change or extreme weather. But the climate models that incorporate the predicted effects of athropogenic changes to the atmosphere are statistically significantly better at predicting the observations than models that consider human activity negligible. Consequently, rational scientists are forced to accept that the data is most consistent with the hypothesis that human activity is having a significant effect on the global climate.

Now, how about some evidence that scientists are "leaving the AGW bandwagon in droves"?


----------



## MacDoc

> *note: I did find an article on the myth of the 1970's "consensus" regarding global cooling;


global dimming was and IS a factor in global climate and is every bit as much ( with the exception of Pinatubu et al ) man made as well.
It was only with the Clean Air Act and other legislation here and in Europe that S02 was abated and the warming trend started to emerge clearly in the 90s as the air cleared of S02.

The Asian Brown cloud is still a factor dimming solar radiation reaching the surface up to 25% in affected areas.

La Nina, El Nino, NAO, PDO are all oscillations of ocean current impacts and sometimes decade long cycles that are regional in impact tho also have some global impact.

However they are just shifting energy around - not increasing the net energy of system being stored as GHG do.

The same hoary old arguments keep getting regurgitated by the dwindling ranks of deniers. The physics don't change because of wishful thinking by the likes of MF.
The mechanism of why the planet is habitable at all has been known for over a 100 years. There are heat trapping gases in the atmosphere.

Bumping them 50% in a century has consequences as we are seeing right now. Denial of that is so wearisome and stupid it's an instant headache.

What to do about it is fertile ground for debate......some luzers haven't progressed to that point and we ALL luz with stubborn pockets in governments getting in the way of a move to low fossil fuel civilization.
Sweden is well on it's way as are others. Harper and his hangers on have made Canada a pariah internationally and delayed and worsened the cost of transition - all the while the fossil interests record record profits without regard to consequences.

Yet Exxon has the gall to produce "green" ads.

ExxonMobil: New Energy Sources for the Future - YouTube

what bull****......

Instead of funding low carbon - the Canadian and Australian and US govs subsidize the likes of Exxon and other fossil energy producers without calling them to account for the damage to the environment their products create.
The companies pay to create controversy where there is little or none that is meaningful to avoid being held to account. And MF et al swallows the malarkey whole cloth.

Meanwhile the climate changes to a warmer and more violent era not seen for millions of years.

Stupid monkeys......some more brain dead than others.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Stupid monkeys......some more brain dead than others.


Even the notion of the world as a greenhouse system is fundamentally flawed, as you well know. The Earth is not a closed system.

And stop with the insults, which violate the terms of your membership here.


----------



## MacDoc

bout right...


----------



## Macfury

'bout typical.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Even the notion of the world as a greenhouse system is fundamentally flawed, as you well know. The Earth is not a closed system.


OMG!!! Who knew? I'm sure all those climatologists with Ph.D.s in atmospheric physics will be shocked to learn this, and even more embarrassed to find such a glaring flaw in their models!

Or perhaps "greenhouse effect" is meant metaphorically, and the scientists are taking great pains to accurately account for incoming and outgoing energy fluxes in their models? Which do you think is more plausible? If you're not sure, I invite you to take a first year course on atmospheric physics at your local university.


----------



## MacDoc

Here you go MF - let's hear your science based critique.

Pathfinder 201 - Carbon Cycle and Greenhouse Warming

it's only been known for 100 years after all......surely you can overturn it in a few terse sound bites.

Introduction - Summary

We'll wait on the Nobel paper......


----------



## MacDoc

Well this is refreshing...no more namby pamby



> Bloomberg Businessweek: ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid’


Bloomberg Businessweek: 'It's Global Warming, Stupid' | ThinkProgress


----------



## MacGuiver

MacDoc said:


> Well this is refreshing...no more namby pamby
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg Businessweek: 'It's Global Warming, Stupid' | ThinkProgress


Would he be referring the global warming that hasn't occurred for the past 15 years?

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Would he be referring the global warming that hasn't occurred for the past 15 years?


Let us know when you've got some peer-reviewed science, rather than pop-media, to support this idea.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Well this is refreshing...no more namby pamby
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg Businessweek: 'It's Global Warming, Stupid' | ThinkProgress


More misleading bunk MacDoc. Bloomberg should stick to finance. Here is what the experts are saying:

Don't blame Sandy on Global Warming - NYPOST.com



> The Atlantic is going through its warm cycle while the Pacific is going through its cold cycle — a perfectly normal pattern in the oceans’ ebb and flow between warm and cool anomalies. The El Nino Southern Oscillation, a measure of warming and cooling in the tropical Pacific known as El Nino and La Nina, also matches the pattern in the ’50s.
> As evidenced by the 1950s, this pattern tends to steer large tropical storms toward the eastern seaboard.
> In other words, it has everything to do with a natural cycle of Mother Nature and nothing to do with global warming.


Superstorm's link to global warming uncertain, scientists say - Technology & Science - CBC News



> For more than a dozen years, Oppenheimer and other climate scientists have been warning about the risk for big storms and serious flooding in New York. A 2000 federal report about global warming's effect on the United States warned specifically of that possibility.
> Still, they say it's unfair to blame climate change for Sandy and the destruction it left behind. They cautioned that they cannot yet conclusively link a single storm to global warming, and any connection is not as clear and simple as environmental activists might contend.
> "The ingredients of this storm seem a little bit cooked by climate change, but the overall storm is difficult to attribute to global warming," Canada's University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said


Global warming did not cause Sandy



> If even NOAA says Sandy is not attributable to global warming, you can put that in the bank. And that is exactly what NOAA’s Dr. Martin Hörling says: “Great events can have little causes. In this case the immediate cause is most likely little more than the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extra-tropical storm.


Hurricane Sandy: Michael Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo blame hurricane on climate change | Mail Online



> However, many experts have denied that climate change was behind Hurricane Sandy - Houston Chronicle science reporter Eric Bergen wrote that the connection was 'a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time.'
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has previously said that there is little evidence global warming worsens tropical storms and hurricanes.


Hurricane Sandy Fans Flames of Climate Change Debate - AlertNet



> Not everyone agrees with the claim that global warming and climate change alone have paved the way for Hurricane Sandy.
> "It's a probabilistic issue. You can't say that Sandy occurred because of climate change, but what you can say is that that such storms are much more likely to happen with contributing factors that include things directly related to climate change," Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at Environmental Defence Fund, told IPS.
> "Could Sandy have happened without climate change? Sure. Is it likely? No," Hamburg added.
> David Biello, an environmental journalist and associate editor at Scientific American, agreed. "Global warming didn't spawn Sandy but it certainly contributed to the impact, with a couple of features definitely worsening it," he told IPS.


----------



## Macfury

There must be a term that can be used to describe this sort of grasping at straws. 

bryanc demands peer-reviewed science--to counter the charges of no less of a scientific luminary than _Bloomberg_.


----------



## groovetube

Is the Bloomberg the only that is 'charging'? Or are they agreeing with the scientists and their peer reviewed science?

It's interesting how spin can twist things around.


----------



## bryanc

Attributing a specific storm to global warming is like attributing a specific home run to steroid use. There's no question that steroid use helps base ball players increase their odds of hitting one out of the park, but it doesn't help you predict the outcome of any particular hit.

As global warming continues, we'll have more powerful storms like Sandy. But we'll also have some weak storms and some of every other type of weather. And if, a thousand years from now, we've restored our atmospheric chemistry to an equilibrium something like what we had in the pre-industrial age, we'll still have hurricanes and there will still be bad weather. It just won't be quite so bad quite so often, and all the other really serious problems of climate change (ocean acidification, etc.) will be solved.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As global warming continues, we'll have more powerful storms like Sandy. But we'll also have some weak storms and some of every other type of weather. And if, a thousand years from now, we've restored our atmospheric chemistry to an equilibrium something like what we had in the pre-industrial age, we'll still have hurricanes and there will still be bad weather. It just won't be quite so bad quite so often, and all the other really serious problems of climate change (ocean acidification, etc.) will be solved.


Or not.


----------



## MacDoc

The Economist weighs in on the costs of inaction - pay now or pay much more later....$60 billion is just a small down payment



> *Hurricane Sandy
> Costs to come*
> Oct 31st 2012, 17:03 by R.A. | WASHINGTON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE economic approach to global warming is relatively straightforward. The emission of greenhouse gases generates a negative spillover—global warming—that harms others. Someone driving a car emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which contributes to climate change, but because most of the cost of the car's contribution to warming will be felt by people other than the driver, he has an incentive to drive too much. Aggregate that decision to emit too much across all of the world's population, and you get a serious economic problem.
> 
> Luckily, there is a solution. By taxing the emission of greenhouse gases, one can align private and public costs. The cost of the driver's emissions will be "internalised", he'll drive less, emissions will fall, and warming will slow. All that remains is to tot up an estimate of the "social cost of carbon" and convert that into an optimal tax rate. And in fact, many models reckon the tax need not be too high, as it makes sense to accommodate quite a lot of warming. The costs of climate change will mount over time, but so too will global income, the thinking goes. Economic actors are resilient and will be able to adapt. All in all, we shouldn't expect global warming to dent expected GDP growth so much that a stifling tax rate is necessary.
> 
> There is some wisdom in this analysis. Remarkably, Americans have adopted what is effectively an even more sanguine view of the harm from warming, by refusing to tax carbon and investing quite conservatively in green technology and research. But as the devastation from Hurricane Sandy makes clear, the economic approach is a bit too anti-septic and simplistic a way of understanding and responding to an incredibly complex and potentially catastrophic climate phenomenon. The American approach is out-and-out reckless.
> 
> With the superstorm now dissipating, estimates of its economic impact are beginning to emerge. Kate Mackenzie comments on some of them here. Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius notes that damage estimates of $10 billion to $20 billion look small and may well be revised up (Hurricane Katrina was responsible for roughly $113 billion in damage). Yet the observed impact of the storm on economic numbers could be even smaller. October data will probably take a hit, but much of the shortfall may be made up in November and December such that fourth-quarter GDP will hardly register the event. Pimco's Mohamed El-Erian reckons that the storm will show up in the fourth-quarter data, but mostly because state and federal governments are less fiscally willing and able to provide support. Still, the fact that such an epic storm might not even knock the GDP statistics off track lends credence to those who argue, for instance, that things like a massively expensive sea wall to protect New York City or an Apollo programme for green energy would represent useless waste.
> 
> But there are two problems with this mode of thinking. One is that the economic resiliency that allows us to shift economic activity across time and geography, holding down the cost of such storms, has its limits. People cluster together in New York City, despite the high cost of living, because of the extraordinary advantages of being there, surrounded by other skilled professionals. There are "returns to scale" that hold New York together—productivity per person rises with population and density. Given limited disruption, the city will quickly bounce back, but a larger disaster could disperse enough of the city's people and businesses to undermine the scale that acts as New York's gravity. That could generate very large economic losses. New York can't easily be replaced, and even if it were logistically possible to create another megacity there's no guarantee that resources would re-congeal there. They might stick, instead, to lots of smaller cities: a much less productive distribution.
> 
> The more serious issue, however, is simply that GDP is not capturing everything we care about. GDP is a flow of income, for one thing. A storm that destroys existing wealth could actually raise the flow of production in the short term as people rebuild, such that higher GDP growth might nonetheless mean less wealth overall. Moreover, GDP is a very imperfect measure of human welfare. Even if GDP and wealth were relatively unharmed by the storm, we might nonetheless want to prevent a great deal of human suffering. The damage to America's northeast pales in comparison with the destruction wrought in Haiti, but because Haitians are so poor the economic cost of the damage there is almost imperceptible. The fact that the average Haitian emits about a hundredth as much carbon dioxide each year as the typical American suggests that unaccounted-for economic injustice may be at least as big a concern with global warming as underestimated human costs.
> 
> And so it would be entirely appropriate if the damage done by Sandy shakes Americans out of complacency on the issue of global warming, despite the relatively tolerable price tag of the storm. The storm is costlier than the estimated bill reflects. And future storms will be costlier still.
> 
> Many scientists and journalists are cautious in listing climate change as a causal factor behind a storm like Sandy. Understandably so: weather emerges as part of a complex system, and it would be impossible to say whether a storm would or would not have materialised without global warming. But scientists are becoming ever less shy in drawing a line between a higher frequency of "extreme" weather events and a warming climate. Climate shifts the probability distribution of such events, and so global warming may not have "caused" Sandy, but it makes Sandy-like storms more probable. As the ever-less-funny joke goes, 500-year weather events seem to pop up every one or two years these days. Frequency and intensity of storms aside, future hurricanes that hit the east coast will do so atop rising sea levels. Contemplate the images of seawater rushing over Manhattan streets and into subway and highway tunnels. Then consider that sea levels are rising. And then reflect on the fact that New York is very much like a typical megacity in being located on the water; tracing a finger around America's coastlines leads one past most of the country's largest and richest cities.
> 
> Americans may absorb all of this and decide that the smart choice continues to be a course of inaction. They may continue to believe that the storms—and droughts and heat waves and blizzards and floods—to come will be manageable because they'll be richer and well-equipped to adapt. Hopefully, there will at least be a better sense of what that is likely to mean and the trade-offs it will involve. Adaptation will be an ongoing, costly slog, with a side order of substantial human suffering. It will be one American icon after another threatened. Adaptation is not going to be easy. Hopefully Americans will ask themselves whether it's so much worse than the alternatives—high carbon taxes or large public investments or both—after all.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/hurricane-sandy


----------



## Macfury

How much was the down payment on Hurricane Hazel--and the other massive storms that have occurred when people knew better than to build heavily along coastlines subject to floods? This stuff is just typical embarrassing, big government socialism from the_ Economist_.

Note that even global wamingistas see that a warming planet would cause fewer such storms, not more of them:

There will probably be fewer Sandy-like storms in the future | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog


----------



## MacDoc

first the sacred son loses and now the climate news worsens - I suppose denial of reality is cocoon for some



> *Climate change is here — and worse than we thought*
> 
> By James E. Hansen, Published: August 3
> 
> James E. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
> 
> When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
> 
> But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
> 
> My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
> 
> In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
> 
> This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
> 
> The deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year can each be attributed to climate change. And once the data are gathered in a few weeks’ time, it’s likely that the same will be true for the extremely hot summer the United States is suffering through right now.
> 
> These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.
> 
> Twenty-four years ago, I introduced the concept of “climate dice” to help distinguish the long-term trend of climate change from the natural variability of day-to-day weather. Some summers are hot, some cool. Some winters brutal, some mild. That’s natural variability.
> 
> But as the climate warms, natural variability is altered, too. In a normal climate without global warming, two sides of the die would represent cooler-than-normal weather, two sides would be normal weather, and two sides would be warmer-than-normal weather. Rolling the die again and again, or season after season, you would get an equal variation of weather over time.
> 
> But loading the die with a warming climate changes the odds. You end up with only one side cooler than normal, one side average, and four sides warmer than normal. Even with climate change, you will occasionally see cooler-than-normal summers or a typically cold winter. Don’t let that fool you.
> 
> Our new peer-reviewed study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, makes clear that while average global temperature has been steadily rising due to a warming climate (up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century), the extremes are actually becoming much more frequent and more intense worldwide.
> 
> When we plotted the world’s changing temperatures on a bell curve, the extremes of unusually cool and, even more, the extremes of unusually hot are being altered so they are becoming both more common and more severe.
> 
> The change is so dramatic that one face of the die must now represent extreme weather to illustrate the greater frequency of extremely hot weather events.
> 
> *Such events used to be exceedingly rare. Extremely hot temperatures covered about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the globe in the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. In the last three decades, while the average temperature has slowly risen, the extremes have soared and now cover about 10 percent of the globe.*
> 
> This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it — the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe.
> 
> There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time. We can solve the challenge of climate change with a gradually rising fee on carbon collected from fossil-fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to all legal residents on a per capita basis. This would stimulate innovations and create a robust clean-energy economy with millions of new jobs. It is a simple, honest and effective solution.
> 
> The future is now. And it is hot.


----------



## MacDoc

this is quite astonishing



> If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month
> 
> By Philip Bump
> 
> This image sums up 2012, temperature-wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:
> 
> The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.
> 
> Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.


more
If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month | Grist


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> first the sacred son loses and now the climate news worsens - I suppose denial of reality is cocoon for some


You're quoting_ Hansen_ as an authority in this after all the drubbing he's taken?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> this is quite astonishing


I thought you loved to read _Nature_ magazine, MacDoc? The link between drought and global warming is tenuous at best:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

The notion that people 27 years old have never experience a month that was colder than average is nonsense. At the very least they have experienced months of average coldness. The MET office recently released a report that the world has not warmed measurably in the past 16 years.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> this is quite astonishing
> 
> 
> 
> more
> If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month | Grist


Straight up BS. We had our third coldest year ever in most parts of Alberta, I think it was either two or three years ago. Interestingly NOAAs maps had us pegged slightly warmer than average. Perhaps they should have talked to the various local weathermen rather than relying on interpolated data.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> this is quite astonishing
> 
> 
> 
> more
> If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month | Grist


Thsi is utter nonsense and a pack of lies:

Only Siberia was colder | Edmonton


----------



## MacDoc

> *Degrees of devastation: major report warns of drastically hotter planet*
> 
> Date
> November 19, 2012 - 12:33PM
> 
> Climate change is coming to a planet near you.
> 
> The World Bank has warned the planet is on track to warm by four degrees Celsius this century - causing increasingly extreme heat waves, lower crop yields and rising sea levels - unless significant action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> In a major report released ahead of the year-end United Nations climate summit in Qatar, the bank says changes associated with four degrees of warming would have dramatic and devastating effects on all parts of the world, including Australia, but that the poor would be most vulnerable.
> 
> Scientists say global warming must be kept within two degrees of pre-industrial temperatures to give the world the best chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
> 
> The report – a snapshot of the most recent climate science prepared for the bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics – says global mean warming is now about 0.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
> Advertisement
> 
> It says that if current promises by nations to curb emissions are met then it is most likely there will be more than three degrees warming. However, under that scenario it warns there is also a 20 per cent likelihood that four degrees of warming will occur by 2100.
> 
> If current promises are not met, then the world is "plausibly" on a path to warm by four degrees this century, possibly as early as 2060, the bank says.
> 
> The report, titled Turn Down the Heat, says if the world experiences four degrees of warming it would:
> 
> * See a 150 per cent increase in ocean acidity, leading to the extinction of some sensitive coral reef ecosystems.
> 
> * Result in sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 metres by 2100, with more in following centuries, affecting low-lying islands and coastal communities.
> 
> * Lead to more extreme heatwaves, reduced run-off into major rivers and a significant decline in biodiversity, all risking the support systems of humans.
> 
> The report says the full impact on human development of a four-degree-hotter world is unknown, making it is unclear whether humanity would be able to adapt.
> 
> "A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally," the report says.
> 
> "It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today."
> 
> World Bank Group president Jim Yong Kim said: "A four-degree-warmer world can, and must be avoided – we need to hold warming below two degrees."
> 
> "Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest."
> 
> United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: "This new report from the World Bank reminds us that climate change is happening – now. The evidence is clear. No country is immune. If we mobilise today, we can make a difference tomorrow."
> 
> The World Bank is the second major international body this month to raise concerns about the rate of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere.
> 
> The International Energy Agency last week warned in its latest World Energy Outlook that no more than a third of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves can be consumed to 2050, without carbon capture and storage technology, if the two degrees target is to be met.
> 
> The warnings come as nations meet in Doha, Qatar next week for the next major round of international climate change negotiations.
> 
> Read more: Climate Change | World Bank Warns of Four Degrees Global Warming


........

sure Sinc - you know better  get over it and get on with dealing with reality instead of monumentally stupid denial
That's the World Bank doing the warning, along with Swiss Re the largest insurance company in the world and the science bodies world wide. Your view is wrong - get over it and get on with discussing the policies to deal with it ......and there is no clear path there.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Thsi is utter nonsense and a pack of lies:
> 
> Only Siberia was colder | Edmonton


But the coldest day ever recorded in Edmonton remains unbeaten at -48.3 C with a windchill of -61 C on Jan. 26, 1972. 

My wife claims to have gone to her high school in Edmonton on this day and says she has a certificate to prove it. We can't find the certificate (it is in her high school yearbook which we can't find), but I trust her honesty.


----------



## Dr.G.

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month | Grist 

Had my son been here in St.John's for the past two years (he just turned 26 and spent the last 18 months in TO), he would have experienced the coldest month of June last year, which was broken by a colder June this year. However, to be fair, we have experienced our hottest month of July, August, September, October and most likely November this year. Keep in mind that the records for St.John's temps go back to the early 1880s.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> hat's the World Bank doing the warning....


The World Bank is doing the warning is it? Any ties to the United Nations and the IPCC to speak of? Thought so.

And which "model" are they using to predict this slate of nightmare scenarios?

I'll bet part of the solution will be to buy carbon credits from poorer nations to achieve the goals of the World Bank--moving more financial resources to poorer nations. Just a guess.



MacDoc said:


> ..along with Swiss Re the largest insurance company in the world...


The insurance companies will insure anything you ask them to, If you want to buy insurance against flying spaghetti monsters, Swiss Re will sell it to you. Insurance companies will offer a policy to salve any of your irrational fears, even if you fear that the heat of the sun will burn you up.


----------



## Sonal

MacDoc said:


> this is quite astonishing
> 
> 
> 
> more
> If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month | Grist


Really?

Then explain this:
February was coldest in 28 years - thestar.com


----------



## eMacMan

Sonal said:


> Really?
> 
> Then explain this:
> February was coldest in 28 years - thestar.com


Stop trying to divert the discussion with Empirically established facts. The important thing is for the World Bank to divert as much cash as possible to their Bankster buds.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> ........
> 
> sure Sinc - you know better  get over it and get on with dealing with reality instead of monumentally stupid denial
> That's the World Bank doing the warning, along with Swiss Re the largest insurance company in the world and the science bodies world wide. Your view is wrong - get over it and get on with discussing the policies to deal with it ......and there is no clear path there.


Ah, prove you wrong once and now Sonal too has the same opposing data and you still get bitter? Get over it yourself, that data is flawed.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Thsi is utter nonsense and a pack of lies


No, it's not. It's entirely possible for the average surface temperature of the planet to be warmer than average, while a specific spot is colder than average. Indeed, that is exactly what the climate models predict will happen as more energy is trapped in the atmosphere and oceans; there will be greater extremes with a slightly increased average temperature.

The confusion here is between NOAA's empirically true statement that there hasn't been a colder than average month for 28 years if you look at the average surface temperature and the empirically true statement that certain places (like Edmonton or Toronto) have experienced some colder than average weather.

Climate != Weather.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> No, it's not. It's entirely possible for the average surface temperature of the planet to be warmer than average, while a specific spot is colder than average. Indeed, that is exactly what the climate models predict will happen as more energy is trapped in the atmosphere and oceans; there will be greater extremes with a slightly increased average temperature.
> 
> The confusion here is between NOAA's empirically true statement that there hasn't been a colder than average month for 28 years if you look at the average surface temperature and the empirically true statement that certain places (like Edmonton or Toronto) have experienced some colder than average weather.
> 
> Climate != Weather.


Except that nullifies the claim that there has not been a colder than average month in the last 27 years. Believe me when you live through one of the coldest years on record and people throughout the same region suffer through the same, NOAA listing you on their charts as having a slightly warmer than normal year comes across as deliberate deception.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Except that nullifies the claim that there has not been a colder than average month in the last 27 years.


No it doesn't. Just because the earth as a whole has been warmer than average for 27 consecutive years does not mean that specific locations have not experienced cold weather. Weather is weather. Climate is the big picture and you seem to be missing it.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> No, it's not. It's entirely possible for the average surface temperature of the planet to be warmer than average, while a specific spot is colder than average. Indeed, that is exactly what the climate models predict will happen as more energy is trapped in the atmosphere and oceans; there will be greater extremes with a slightly increased average temperature.
> 
> The confusion here is between NOAA's empirically true statement that there hasn't been a colder than average month for 28 years if you look at the average surface temperature and the empirically true statement that certain places (like Edmonton or Toronto) have experienced some colder than average weather.
> 
> Climate != Weather.


My point is the premise of the story is incorrect. There are in fact plenty of people under 27 who HAVE INDEED experienced colder than average weather including my five year old grandson here last winter. Even the headline itself is incorrect.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No it doesn't. Just because the earth as a whole has been warmer than average for 27 consecutive years does not mean that specific locations have not experienced cold weather. Weather is weather. Climate is the big picture and you seem to be missing it.


He's not missing it. It all depends on how you cherry pick the data set to create your "average" and whether the average is accurate.


----------



## MacDoc

the short sighted seem to have an issue with GLOBAL.

As to local effects - it's been said time and again in this thread that blocking highs and a warmer Arctic internal continental temps will suffer from some deep freeze events as after all - the earth still tilts


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> the short sighted seem to have an issue with GLOBAL.
> 
> As to local effects - it's been said time and again in this thread that blocking highs and a warmer Arctic internal continental temps will suffer from some deep freeze events as after all - the earth still tilts


Right, but your excerpt did not include the necessary statements to qualify the quote.

Add to that the cherry picking of data and you have a pretty unremarkable statement on your hands.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Right, but your excerpt did not include the necessary statements to qualify the quote.


Are you suggesting that pop-media often over-simplifies or gets science stories completely wrong  Who knew?!?

If you want a coherent, factually supported discussion of what is know about climate change, its causes and consequences, you have to get it from reputable climate scientists. Unfortunately for the denier crowd, they're all "in on the conspiracy."


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> No it doesn't. Just because the earth as a whole has been warmer than average for 27 consecutive years does not mean that specific locations have not experienced cold weather. Weather is weather. Climate is the big picture and you seem to be missing it.


Except in this case I have demonstrated one area where part of the data from which the conclusion was drawn is erroneous.

If NOAA labels a broad chunk of Western Canada as having a slightly warmer than average year when it was one of the coldest years on record, then clearly there is a problem with how they interpolate their data and so their conclusions must also be questioned.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Are you suggesting that pop-media often over-simplifies or gets science stories completely wrong  Who knew?!?


I'm saying that the quote about never experiencing a colder than average winter may be right or wrong depending on how the data is cherry-picked.



bryanc said:


> If you want a coherent, factually supported discussion of what is know about climate change, its causes and consequences, you have to get it from reputable climate scientists. Unfortunately for the denier crowd, they're all "in on the conspiracy."


Never ascribe to conspiracy what greed and incompetence will achieve.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Never ascribe to conspiracy what greed and incompetence will achieve.


This may get at the heart of why I strongly disagree with your position on climate change, despite not being a climate scientist (and therefore not being able to critically analyze the research) myself. It has to do with the culture of science. There are certainly many very dysfunctional aspects of the modern scientific culture, but they are quite different than the culture of business or government or other facets of society. In business greed is good, and the Peter Principle is particularly true in government bureaucracies. But, while you might reasonably be able to ascribe some consistent failing of the scientific community to our contrarian natures or pedantic arguments, it's laughable to attribute the behaviour of scientific communities to greed or incompetence.

Anyone motivated by greed got out of science as quickly as they could get out of high school, and you don't get far in science without demonstrating exceptional competence (at least within your discipline). So attributing the consensus of the global scientific community on the issue of ACC to "greed and incompetence" is ludicrous in the extreme.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Anyone motivated by greed got out of science as quickly as they could get out of high school, and you don't get far in science without demonstrating exceptional competence (at least within your discipline). So attributing the consensus of the global scientific community on the issue of ACC to "greed and incompetence" is ludicrous in the extreme.


I respect all firemen, said the fireman.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I respect all firemen, said the fireman.


What are the common characteristics of firemen? Let's ask a chef.

We're not discussing respect. As a scientist, I can tell you what some of the most obvious features of scientific culture are.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> What are the common characteristics of firemen? Let's ask a chef.


Yes, of course. That's why the police review board should only be run by police officers. Who else could assess a fellow officer? Anyone else is talking through his/her hat.


----------



## bryanc

We're not talking about a review board. 

If you were trying to determine if the culture of the RCMP was chauvinist, would you interview a bunch of medical doctors or a bunch of RCMP officers?

You're basing your belief that the consensus of science regarding ACC is due to a culture of greed and/or widespread incompetence. If you live in the business world, where greed is a virtue, or in the government world where incompetence is not consistently punished, you could possibly convince yourself this is generalizable to culture of science as well.

As a scientist, I can tell you that greed and incompetence are extremely rare among scientists; most of us could be making far more money doing something else, and becoming a successful scientist required developing extraordinary competence in skills that are very difficult to master, so incompetence is not really on the table either.

But don't take my word for it; by all means contact a few thousand scientists and ask them what they view the major cultural flaws of the scientific community might be. I predict you'll get answers involving words like "workaholic" "obsessive" "fractious" "pedantic" "arrogant" "argumentative" "reductionist" "objectivist" "stodgy" etc. I don't think many scientists will suggest our community has anything approaching an ideal culture; we have many failings, but greed and incompetence aren't among them.


----------



## Kosh

But don't some scientists live in the "business world"? So there must be some greedy scientists. How about those scientists in the drug business? A scientist has never faked the results of a drug trial in order to make money? Or those scientists who get hired to lobby that Global Warming is BS? I guess what your saying, is it's not an epidemic.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But don't take my word for it; by all means contact a few thousand scientists and ask them what they view the major cultural flaws of the scientific community might be. I predict you'll get answers involving words like "workaholic" "obsessive" "fractious" "pedantic" "arrogant" "argumentative" "reductionist" "objectivist" "stodgy" etc. I don't think many scientists will suggest our community has anything approaching an ideal culture; we have many failings, but greed and incompetence aren't among them.


It's a community now, is it? And free of greed and incompetence? Why yes, I see it there... a glowing city built on a hill!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> It's a community now, is it? And free of greed and incompetence? Why yes, I see it there... a glowing city built on a hill!


Wow, Macfury, I would not have thought you were a utopian socialist. An interesting transformation. You have become a modern-day Julian West. Kudos. :clap::clap:

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## bryanc

Kosh said:


> But don't some scientists live in the "business world"? So there must be some greedy scientists. How about those scientists in the drug business? A scientist has never faked the results of a drug trial in order to make money?


Of course you're right; I wasn't really considering the scientists who work for industry. Those folks have generally given up the privilege of pursuing their curiosity and freely interpreting their data in exchange for much larger paycheques. And, as you point out, their integrity is often less reliable.



> Or those scientists who get hired to lobby that Global Warming is BS?


Yes, the scientists who get hired by the oil industry to present the appearance of "dissent" among credentialed scientists are certainly selling out their academic integrity in exchange for a nice payday. But the academic scientists don't get payed any more or less if they lend their expertise to efforts to form public policy. That's part of the point of being an academic; your income isn't affected by these sorts of things, so there is no incentive to be dishonest.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Yes, the scientists who get hired by the oil industry to present the appearance of "dissent" among credentialed scientists are certainly selling out their academic integrity in exchange for a nice payday. But the academic scientists don't get payed any more or less if they lend their expertise to efforts to form public policy. That's part of the point of being an academic; your income isn't affected by these sorts of things, so there is no incentive to be dishonest.



Hmm but the goal of those paying the AGW scientists is to divert more $Trillion$ from those who can least afford it into the vaults of those who are already obscenely wealthy. Matters not whether it is Carbon Credits or Carbon taxes, only the Banksters will benefit. With that in mind I suspect those scientists who maintain that increasing the CO2 portion of the atmosphere by 1/1000 of a percent will cause a catastrophic climate failure are also ethically compromised. 

As I have said before, the financial and physical efforts would be far better expended on stopping the poisoning of air, land and water. Once that is accomplished go on to cleaning up the same. If by then there is any capital or energy left we may well need it to build domes over our cities. The Russian scientists with no axes to grind are pointing towards another Maunder Minimum, beginning in as little as five or ten years.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Hmm but the goal of those paying the AGW scientists is to divert more $Trillion$ ....


Rubbish. _*You *_are paying the "AGW scientists". The goal of publicly funded academic scientists is to generate knowledge. The knowledge academic scientists have generated over the past 50 years regarding the climate of earth leads to the unequivocal conclusion that human activity is changing it. There is no monetary or other incentive for scientists to reach that conclusion. It is simply what the evidence forces us to conclude.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Rubbish. _*You *_are paying the "AGW scientists". The goal of publicly funded academic scientists is to generate knowledge..


Much of the academic research conducted in Canada is industry-sponsored. However, I believe the goal of publicly funded academic scientists is to generate published papers, not knowledge.



bryanc said:


> The knowledge academic scientists have generated over the past 50 years regarding the climate of earth leads to the unequivocal conclusion...


It is not unequivocal as there are other interpretations about the climate record--including natural variation.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I believe the goal of publicly funded academic scientists is to generate published papers, not knowledge.


The only way you get published is if you present some new knowledge.


> It is not unequivocal as there are other interpretations about the climate record--including natural variation.


That interpretation has long ago been relegated to the "unsupportable by evidence" dustbin. This is what it means when people say that there is a consensus among climate researchers that human activity is significantly altering the climate.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That interpretation has long ago been relegated to the "unsupportable by evidence" dustbin. This is what it means when people say that there is a consensus among climate researchers that human activity is significantly altering the climate.


There is a consensus among _some _scientists that other interpretations are not valid.

Just as the consensus on global cooling lies in the dustbin, the consensus on AGW may wind up there as well.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> There is a consensus among _some _scientists that other interpretations are not valid.


Yes, and that "some" comprises over 98% of the people qualified to come to a reasoned opinion on the issue. Hence "consensus."



> Just as the consensus on global cooling lies in the dustbin


There never was any consensus on global cooling. There were a few researchers in the 1970's who thought there might be mechanisms that could cause such a phenomenon, and got some coverage in the pop-media, but they never found any evidence that it was occurring, so they dropped it.



> the consensus on AGW may wind up there as well.


It certainly will if the evidence ever opposes it. Unfortunately, the evidence is continuing to accumulate and currently indicates that our models were all conservative; the climate is warming faster than expected.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> ....
> 
> It certainly will if the evidence ever opposes it. Unfortunately, the evidence is continuing to accumulate and currently indicates that our models were all conservative; the climate is warming faster than expected.


There is a lot of evidence supporting that we have been warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum. The hockey stick evidence to support AGW was shattered by the claims of the AGW crowd that the MM did not exist and further compromised by the continued denial of the Medieval Warming period. With both of those properly in place, we are in the upper portion of a well established sawtooth cycle. Whether the reversal will be a relatively mild minimum or another ice age is entirely unknown at this point but may be uncomfortably close.

Unfortunately, as many a freeze dried mammoth can attest, the reversal will be a good deal more precipitous than the relatively gentle rise.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, and that "some" comprises over 98% of the people qualified to come to a reasoned opinion on the issue. Hence "consensus."


The result of a cherry-picked literature review along vague parameters, not an actual vote among climate scientists on AGW.



bryanc said:


> There never was any consensus on global cooling. There were a few researchers in the 1970's who thought there might be mechanisms that could cause such a phenomenon, and got some coverage in the pop-media, but they never found any evidence that it was occurring, so they dropped it.


Not at all correct. In 1974, the CIA conducted a survey of climate scientists and developed a policy based on a return to a "Neo-arboreal" climate agreed upon by all of the major climate research bodies of the day. 



bryanc said:


> Unfortunately, the evidence is continuing to accumulate and currently indicates that our models were all conservative; the climate is warming faster than expected.


The angst is beginning to accumulate, while the evidence remains inconclusive.


----------



## bryanc

If either of you guys had even the barest shred of academic credibility in the field, I'd give your criticisms some consideration. But neither of you are in any position to criticize the science, so you're just a couple of guys on the internet with random opinions; this has no bearing on the discussion.

With sufficient effort, one can find isolated bits of evidence to support almost any claim. But the vast VAST preponderance of evidence in this case is on one side of the argument. So until that changes there's no point in discussing it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> With sufficient effort, one can find isolated bits of evidence to support almost any claim. But the vast VAST preponderance of evidence in this case is on one side of the argument. So until that changes there's no point in discussing it.


Don't then. We'll miss you.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Don't then.


I haven't been discussing the science; I've just been calling you out on posting things that are factually incorrect, unsupportable by evidence, or regarding topics on which you have no credibility.

If the consensus of climatologists on ACC changes, I'm sure we'll hear about it, and at that time, it will be worth discussing what implications such a reversal of scientific opinion implies.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I haven't been discussing the science; I've just been calling you out on posting things that are factually incorrect, unsupportable by evidence, or regarding topics on which you have no credibility.
> 
> If the consensus of climatologists on ACC changes, I'm sure we'll hear about it, and at that time, it will be worth discussing what implications such a reversal of scientific opinion implies.


Couldn't resist, huh? When I threaten to stop a discussion, I tend to do just that instead of skulking back and starting up again.


----------



## MacDoc

only the right wingdings in each nation are hold outs and the rest of the planet is moving on....like this....Harper as usual is entirely out of step and the majority of Canadians are well aware of his intransigence.

Some progress on the "bravery" front.



> *Full steam ahead for carbon trading
> *
> * 17:32 20 November 2012 by Michael Marshall
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> How can you force firms to cut down their carbon emissions? Put a price on them. That's the idea behind carbon trading, which got a boost last week when California launched the world's second-largest carbon market. Other new and improved trading systems are springing up around the globe and could eventually work together.


Full steam ahead for carbon trading - environment - 20 November 2012 - New Scientist

and further down



> One remaining problem with local carbon markets is that firms can avoid paying for emissions by outsourcing manufacturing abroad. This may explain why the UK's emissions fell in recent years. "A lot of emissions got exported to countries like China," says Taschini.
> 
> But as more carbon markets launch, fewer countries will be willing to import emissions. China, for example, is launching seven prototype markets, and hopes to have a national system by 2016. South Korea will set up a market next year, and Brazil, Mexico and India are considering setting them up too.
> 
> *The system will work better if markets link up to trade internationally – greater competition for permits should add to the incentive to cut emissions.* The first such link will be between the ETS and Australia's new trading system, after it launches in 2015. "Linking is the holy grail," says Burtraw.


Full steam ahead for carbon trading - environment - 20 November 2012 - New Scientist

I much prefer a carbon tax regime but the trading is a start. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc

> 21 November 2012 Last updated at 06:00 ET
> 
> *Climate change evident across Europe, says report*
> By Mark Kinver Environment reporter, BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Flooded properties as the River Tiber, Rome, breaches its banks (Getty Images) The cost of damage from extreme weather events is projected to increase in the future_
> 
> The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned.
> 
> In a report, the agency says the past decade in Europe has been the warmest on record.
> 
> It adds that the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events is rising, and the continent is set to become more vulnerable in the future.
> 
> The findings have been published ahead of next week's UN climate conference.
> 
> They join a UN Environment Programme report also released on Wednesday showing dangerous growth in the "emissions gap" - the difference between current carbon emission levels and those needed to avert climate change.
> 
> "Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.
> 
> "It is across the board, it is not just global temperatures," she told BBC News.
> 
> "It is in human health aspects, in forests, sea levels, agriculture, biodiversity - the signals are coming in from right across the environment."
> 
> 2C or not 2C
> 
> The report - Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Europe 2012 - involving more than 50 authors from a range of organisations, listed a number of "key messages", including:
> 
> * Observed climate change has "already led to a wide range of impacts on environmental systems and society; further climate change impacts are projected for the future";
> * Climate change can increase existing vulnerabilities and deepen socio-economic imbalances in Europe;
> * The combined impacts of projected climate change and socio-economic development is set to see the damage costs of extreme weather events continue to increase.


BBC News - Climate change evident across Europe, says report


----------



## eMacMan

For the record climate is not static nor has it ever been static. It follows a sawtooth pattern. Things warm up until they max out similar to the end of Medieval Warming Period. Then it cools off quickly as in the Maunder Minimum. Once it bottoms out it is back to a much longer warming stage. 

Climate changing ≠ AGW


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> For the record climate is not static nor has it ever been static.


No one is arguing that it is.


> It follows a sawtooth pattern.


This is a gross oversimplification, but the point is that climatologists have studied the factors that affect climate extensively, and now have a very sophisticated understanding of most of these factors and how they interact. When we look at the natural factors, they _are not_ able to explain all of the change we are currently observing. When we also consider the anthropogenic factors, we _are_ able to explain the change we are observing. Therefore we conclude that anthropogenic factors are affecting the climate.

The vast (*VAST*) majority of people who have studied this complex topic well enough to formulate an evidence-based opinion on the issue agree that the best explanation for the observations is that human activity is having a significant effect on the global climate. This is a fact.

What some people here seem to have difficulty understanding is that their inability to reconcile some aspects of the empirical data the climatologists have been including in their analysis with the conclusions the climatologists are making is not a problem for the science. If you want to criticize the science, you need to get the scientific training that proves you understand the feild well enough to rationally criticize the reasoning of thousands of experts who all agree on this.

If you want to discuss the sociopolitical aspects of what society is/ought to do about it, you don't need special scientific training, but the more sophisticated your understanding of sociology, economics, and politics may be, the better.


----------



## SINC

So much for all the talk of global warming causing more tornados:

2012 could break record for fewest tornadoes | MNN - Mother Nature Network


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> So much for all the talk of global warming causing more tornados


Tornados, and even hurricanes or other large weather phenomena are just that; weather. They're difficult to predict. What is easy to predict is that an atmosphere with more energy (heat), will _*on average*_, generate more extreme weather events. So while I have no doubt that there will be years with fewer than average storms, or colder than average temperatures, a warming climate will generate more and bigger storms over the long term.


----------



## eMacMan

Ahhh now I begin to see. That which supports your theory is climate. That which does not is weather. With parameters like that there is little wonder skeptics abound on either side.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Ahhh now I begin to see. That which supports your theory is climate. That which does not is weather. With parameters like that there is little wonder skeptics abound on either side.


It seems to me, that what Bryanc is trying to point out, is that you can't simply take one aspect, like say fewer tornadoes, and say, well there you go, it disproves it! The same goes for the global warming side, where you have some who jump up and down because we had a hot summer, or a warmer than usual winter. 

These singular events, aren't enough to prove, or disprove anything. Hell I'm not climatologist, nor have any credentials in this subject and it seems painfully obvious to me.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> These singular events, aren't enough to prove, or disprove anything. Hell I'm not climatologist, nor have any credentials in this subject and it seems painfully obvious to me.


Perhaps there is just a certain mental phenotype that cannot comprehend this, no matter how many times it is explained or exemplified for them. All we can do is keep trying, I guess.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Perhaps there is just a certain mental phenotype that cannot comprehend this, no matter how many times it is explained or exemplified for them. All we can do is keep trying, I guess.


You can keep trying, but when your premise is false, you'll find few takers.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You can keep trying, but when your premise is false, you'll find few takers.


So how should I interpret the fact that essentially everyone with sufficient education in the natural sciences accepts that human activity is affecting the climate?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So how should I interpret the fact that essentially everyone with sufficient education in the natural sciences accepts that human activity is affecting the climate?


You should not interpret that premise, as it is not a fact.


----------



## eMacMan

Human activity yes. Deforestation has had a huge impact on climates and micro-climates. The BP oil spill certainly had an impact on the currents within the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf stream Current as well. Chem trails. Urban hot spots.....

Lots to be done before we start wasting time and energy trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by 10 parts per million.


----------



## MacDoc

Some heft here..:clap:

snip



> *The alliance of 200 investment institutions includes Scottish Widows, Aviva and HSBC and controls $21 trillion (£13trn) of assets worldwide and its lobbying of the UK government is part of a broader campaign to persuade the world’s biggest economies to escalate their actions against climate change.*
> 
> The alliance’s call, which extends to countries such as the US, China and India, represents by far the biggest political intervention staged by financial investors over climate change and underlines just how concerned they have become about the damage it could inflict on the global economy.
> 
> “Hurricane Sandy, which caused more than $50bn (£31bn) in economic losses, is typical of what we can expect if no action is taken and warming trends continue,” said Chris Davis, a member of the alliance who advises institutions controlling $11trillion (£6.9 trn) on climate change issues.
> 
> “Investors are rightly concerned about the short and long-term economic risks of climate change and understand that ambitious climate and clean energy policies are urgently needed to avoid catastrophic impact,” Mr Davis added.
> 
> In a letter to the governments, ahead of the international climate negotiations that kick off in Doha on Monday, the alliance urges the world’s largest economies to engage in “a new dialogue on climate change policy”.* In particular, it calls for “clear, consistent and predictable policies that encourage low carbon investment*”.


City tells George Osborne: we can


----------



## Macfury

> The alliance of 200 investment institutions includes Scottish Widows, Aviva and HSBC and controls $21 trillion (£13trn) of assets worldwide and its lobbying of the UK government is part of a broader campaign to persuade the world’s biggest economies to escalate their actions against climate change.


They hope to benefit from a carbon trading market. Nothing more.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> They hope to benefit from a carbon trading market. Nothing more.


Not to mention a carbon trading tax will stifle the world economy overnight.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Not to mention a carbon trading tax will stifle the world economy overnight.


Naturally. 

The bigger joke is that they believe they can control storms and climate. Reminds me of the old story of farmers who believed that Daylight Savings Time would alter the movement of the sun.


----------



## SINC

Yep, Daylight Saving Time is akin to cutting six inches off the top of a blanket and sewing it on the bottom to make the blanket longer.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You should not interpret that premise, as it is not a fact.


You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. That the vast majority of people with post-graduate training in climatology agree that human activity is affecting the global climate is a well-established fact. Deal with it.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Human activity yes. Deforestation has had a huge impact on climates and micro-climates. The BP oil spill certainly had an impact on the currents within the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf stream Current as well. ....


Fortunately, the vast majority of actions we can take to reduce these impacts are the same actions we need to take to reduce emissions of GHGs. So rather like I approve of Ducks Unlimited, even though they seem primarily motivated by the desire to kill ducks, the fact is that they're making a big difference in preserving wetlands, so I don't care what their reasons may be.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Fortunately, the vast majority of actions we can take to reduce these impacts are the same actions we need to take to reduce emissions of GHGs. So rather like I approve of Ducks Unlimited, even though they seem primarily motivated by the desire to kill ducks, the fact is that they're making a big difference in preserving wetlands, so I don't care what their reasons may be.


The comparison is false. The duck hunters don't require me to sign up to any loony scheme to preserve wetlands. They act on their own.

The AGW crowd wants to do me direct economic harm and reduce my standard of living, so they can feel better about their own kook-fringe fears. I am a tolerant person—let them act on their own without roping me into their delusions. The Gaia-worshiping religion must be separated from politics.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The comparison is false. The duck hunters don't require me to sign up to any loony scheme to preserve wetlands. They act on their own.
> 
> The AGW crowd wants to do me direct economic harm and reduce my standard of living, so they can feel better about their own kook-fringe fears. I am a tolerant person—let them act on their own without roping me into their delusions. The Gaia-worshiping religion must be separated from politics.


no, your comparison is false, and you keep repeating falsehoods as fact, over and over again as if repeating it makes it true.

And your assertion that all this -requires- you to do direct economic harm and reduce your standard of living is truly 'kook-fringe fears.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> no, your comparison is false, and you keep repeating falsehoods as fact, over and over again as if repeating it makes it true.
> 
> And your assertion that all this -requires- you to do direct economic harm and reduce your standard of living is truly 'kook-fringe fears.


The great Bankster heists of 2007-2008 diverted a total about $1.5 Trillion$ to the Banksters and demolished the world economy. 

Carbon Taxes and Credits are only intended to further the trickle up economy. The only way Carbon Taxes and Trading can effectively reduce CO2 is to so impoverish people who can still afford to drive cars and heat their homes to the point, that they can no longer afford to do so. If it doesn't, then a lot of money will be diverted to the Banksters with no impact whatsoever on GHG emissions.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The great Bankster heist of 2008 diverted about $1.5 Trillion$ to the Banksters and demolished the world economy.
> 
> The only way Carbon Taxes and Trading can effectively reduce CO2 is to so impoverish people who can still afford to drive cars and heat their homes to the point, that they can no longer afford to do so. If it doesn't, then a lot of money will be diverted to the Banksters with no impact whatsoever on GHG emissions.


Exactly, The money will be skimmed off the top by businesses and the various the costs will be forced down to consumer level. The World Bank also helps itself to s share of internationally traded carbon credits. Only a fool would think that the costs will magically stop at their doorsteps.

The poorest will be hardest hit as they lose their mobility and their comfort in heating and cooling their homes.


----------



## bryanc

Several people here seem to have a lot of trouble separating their fear of one proposed approach to dealing with climate change from the science of climate change itself. The science of climate change is now so well established as to be beyond argument by anyone without very specialized expertise (i.e. no one here).

The approaches to dealing with the problem you seem so worked up about are a completely different topic.

If you don't like the ideas of carbon-trading or carbon taxes, what alternatives do you suggest (again, keeping in mind that the science that shows that ACC is happening is beyond the scope of what you can legitimately claim to dispute)? Given that ACC is happening and is a problem, what policies would you suggest we should implement to combat it?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If you don't like the ideas of carbon-trading or carbon taxes, what alternatives do you suggest (again, keeping in mind that the science that shows that ACC is happening is beyond the scope of what you can legitimately claim to dispute)? Given that ACC is happening and is a problem, what policies would you suggest we should implement to combat it?


Your premise is incorrect, there is no reason to fear carbon dioxide in these quantities. I suggest we find better ways to reduce harmful exhaust fumes until the price of fossil fuels rises to the point where alternative energy sources appear to be a reasonable trade.

Gaia will not mind.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Several people here seem to have a lot of trouble separating their fear of one proposed approach to dealing with climate change from the science of climate change itself. The science of climate change is now so well established as to be beyond argument by anyone without very specialized expertise (i.e. no one here).
> 
> The approaches to dealing with the problem you seem so worked up about are a completely different topic.
> 
> If you don't like the ideas of carbon-trading or carbon taxes, what alternatives do you suggest (again, keeping in mind that the science that shows that ACC is happening is beyond the scope of what you can legitimately claim to dispute)? Given that ACC is happening and is a problem, what policies would you suggest we should implement to combat it?


Not my responsibility and not given. If the AGW crowd can present a plan that does not involve impoverishing people, then let's see it. So far all they've got is dust. 

$50/month does not sound severe to someone with a solid mid-life income. But do at least try to think of the seniors and others on fixed incomes. They have already pared their living expenses to the bone. In many cases they just make it from one month to the next. Do you take that $50 from their food budget and let them starve to death. Oops that does not work, they already depend on the local food bank. Reduce the heat and let them freeze to death? Cut off the water or electricity? Take their home 'cause they cannot afford to pay property taxes?

What happens when the great AGW Guru inevitably comes back and says $50 ain't enough. His super bunker-vault is not filling up fast enough. Now they have to cough up $100/month....

The real problem of course is that those who will be hurt the most can all be put out on ice floes with almost no impact whatsoever on GHG emissions. The reason is that they are already living the minimalist lifestyle the AGW crowd is promoting. So $50 or even $100/month won't cut it. To have any real impact it has to force you forego walking to work on cold days because opening the door will cause the furnace to kick in. 

Trading and taxes are not the answer. Come back with ideas that don't involve stealing from those who have the least to give.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Not my responsibility and not given. If the AGW crowd can present a plan that does not involve impoverishing people, then let's see it. So far all they've got is dust.
> 
> $50/month does not sound severe to someone with a solid mid-life income. But do at least try to think of the seniors and others on fixed incomes. They have already pared their living expenses to the bone. In many cases they just make it from one month to the next. Do you take that $50 from their food budget and let them starve to death. Oops that does not work, they already depend on the local food bank. Reduce the heat and let them freeze to death? Cut off the water or electricity? Take their home 'cause they cannot afford to pay property taxes?
> 
> What happens when the great AGW Guru inevitably comes back and says $50 ain't enough. His super bunker-vault is not filling up fast enough. Now they have to cough up $100/month....
> 
> The real problem of course is that those who will be hurt the most can all be put out on ice floes with almost no impact whatsoever on GHG emissions. The reason is that they are already living the minimalist lifestyle the AGW crowd is promoting. So $50 or even $100/month won't cut it. To have any real impact it has to force you forego walking to work on cold days because opening the door will cause the furnace to kick in.
> 
> Trading and taxes are not the answer. Come back with ideas that don't involve stealing from those who have the least to give.


Unfortunately none of your criticisms (perhaps valid) have anything to do with the climate change problem whatsoever. This is exactly where denialists turn the minute they are faced with facts. 

Perhaps you are better off criticizing the methods or solutions being currently offered to deal with this problem, rather than whether or not we have a problem to begin with.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Trading and taxes are not the answer. Come back with ideas that don't involve stealing from those who have the least to give.


Exactly. Since the link between traces of CO2 and warming are far from proven, I would be open to suggestions that do not involve a lower standard of living--if only to do so out of charity to Gaia-worshipers.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Unfortunately none of your criticisms (perhaps valid) have anything to do with the climate change problem whatsoever. This is exactly where denialists turn the minute they are faced with facts.
> 
> Perhaps you are better off criticizing the methods or solutions being currently offered to deal with this problem, rather than whether or not we have a problem to begin with.


They are intertwined. Those funding the scientists want to hear AGW in the studies results. The reason they want to hear it is that they expect a windfall which makes the Great Bankster Heists pale in comparison.

If you want something to worry about look into what some various Russian scientists are saying. Their fear is that we may be very close to a climate reversal. That point in time when things go from warming to either cold, very cold, or ice age. Like it or not living in a cold country their motivation is less in who primes the scientific pump and more in allowing their country to be prepared for what's next. 

One area where we can test their predictions is the previous low solar cycle. Sunspot activity as they predicted was almost non-existent for an extended period of time. The current solar high cycle is also well below normal activity again as they predicted. 

If both sets of scientists happen to be right then it is at least theoretically possible that we should be increasing GHG emissions as way to push back the next Maunder Minimum. I tossed that in just to make the AGW types cringe but who knows?

What keeps getting lost is that well over 90% of climate change is caused by nature. At most 10% is man caused and realistically only 10% of that can be offset in the short term. That is 1%. The proposed solutions are incredibly costly particularly to those of us who lack Al Gore's financial cushion.


----------



## Macfury

emacman, I have put that one out to warmists many times, but have never found any takers--not one of them is willing to agree that carbon-dioxide production should increase in the face of an Ice Age.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your premise is incorrect, there is no reason to fear carbon dioxide in these quantities.


Again, this is not in question and is not what is being discussed.

You may not accept that the science is compelling, but the scientists do, and the government elected by the people are beginning to try to decide what policies best address these established facts.



> I suggest we find better ways to reduce harmful exhaust fumes until the price of fossil fuels rises to the point where alternative energy sources appear to be a reasonable trade.


This sounds like something we can agree on. But given that in the current economic system, the harmful tailpipe emissions are spewed into the common atmosphere, the only approach we've been able to apply to the problem is government regulations. That costs a lot to enforce, and businesses complain that government regulations are strangling their competitiveness. How are our companies going to compete with companies in jurisdictions where harmful emissions aren't regulated?



> Gaia will not mind.


WTF does that have to do with anything?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Those funding the scientists want to hear AGW in the studies results.


You do realize *you* are funding this research, right? The science supporting ACC is almost all publicly funded, and conducted by peer reviewed researchers throughout the world (including Russia). Research scientists at public universities and research institutes don't get paid to come up with results that support a specific theory; that's industry's job.



> What keeps getting lost is that well over 90% of climate change is caused by nature.


What you keep loosing track of is that you're not a climatologist and you don't know how much climate change is caused by anything. As far as I know the climatologists aren't very confident that they know exactly how much climate change is caused by human activity, but they're confident that it is enough to worry about, and we have to take their word for it because we're not climatologists.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You do realize *you* are funding this research, right? The science supporting ACC is almost all publicly funded, and conducted by peer reviewed researchers throughout the world (including Russia). Research scientists at public universities and research institutes don't get paid to come up with results that support a specific theory; that's industry's job.


They're driven by a need to have their research funded and to publish. The current fad supports studies supporting AGW, just as it once supported a consensus on global cooling.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> You do realize *you* are funding this research, right? The science supporting ACC is almost all publicly funded, and conducted by peer reviewed researchers throughout the world (including Russia). Research scientists at public universities and research institutes don't get paid to come up with results that support a specific theory; that's industry's job....


Bingo! The politicians want Carbon Taxes but want to also claim they had no choice. The Banksters want carbon taxes so nations can run up even greater debts allowing even more money to be funneled to the Banksters. The only thing that is not quite as obvious is how those who worship at the alter of Al Gore's Church of Climatology fail to see the connections. Even worse they wish to sacrifice the nations poorest at the same alter. What they forget is that as each group is sacrificed they themselves are one step closer to becoming the lambs. Once begun further sacrifices are always necessary, lest the previous sacrifices are shown to be in vain.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They're driven by a need to have their research funded and to publish. The current fad supports studies supporting AGW, just as it once supported a consensus on global cooling.


Again, there was never a consensus on global cooling. And while you are correct that researchers need to have their work published in order to secure funding, getting your research published requires producing high-quality reproducible science that is in agreement with empirical observation. This, for the uninitiated, is how science works. And because science uses facts rather than fads, it has established a good track record for making correct predictions. Because of science's demonstrable success in making predictions, the general public and the politicians they elect are starting to pay some attention to the advice they get from scientists. This is good for society.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Again, there was never a consensus on global cooling.


I showed you the CIA document from 1974 announcing the consensus on global cooling among climate groups. Did you ignore it?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Bingo! The politicians want Carbon Taxes


Right... because every politician knows how popular introducing new taxes is; it's practically a guaranteed re-election!


> The only thing that is not quite as obvious is how those who worship at the alter of Al Gore's Church of Climatology fail to see the connections.


Who is this "Al Gore" you keep talking about; I don't think he's a climatologist or has anything to do with the consensus among scientists with relevant training on the effects of human activity on climate.

At any rate, none of these cartoon characters you seem worried about have any influence on the science or the publication of scientific papers, so you're off on a wild goose chase.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> They are intertwined. Those funding the scientists want to hear AGW in the studies results. The reason they want to hear it is that they expect a windfall which makes the Great Bankster Heists pale in comparison.
> 
> If you want something to worry about look into what some various Russian scientists are saying. Their fear is that we may be very close to a climate reversal. That point in time when things go from warming to either cold, very cold, or ice age. Like it or not living in a cold country their motivation is less in who primes the scientific pump and more in allowing their country to be prepared for what's next.
> 
> One area where we can test their predictions is the previous low solar cycle. Sunspot activity as they predicted was almost non-existent for an extended period of time. The current solar high cycle is also well below normal activity again as they predicted.
> 
> If both sets of scientists happen to be right then it is at least theoretically possible that we should be increasing GHG emissions as way to push back the next Maunder Minimum. I tossed that in just to make the AGW types cringe but who knows?
> 
> What keeps getting lost is that well over 90% of climate change is caused by nature. At most 10% is man caused and realistically only 10% of that can be offset in the short term. That is 1%. The proposed solutions are incredibly costly particularly to those of us who lack Al Gore's financial cushion.


total nonsense. You make it sound like all scientists who support the climate change theories are funded by these interests.

Prove it. Prove that ALL of them are.

If what you are saying is true, why aren't scientists all lining up to debunk Climate change theories under this anti-climate change government who is busy silencing and cutting funding from these scientists?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I showed you the CIA document from 1974 announcing the consensus on global cooling among climate groups. Did you ignore it?


Yes, because it showed no such thing. As I said, there were a few people who briefly considered the possibility of a cooling climate back in the 70's, but could find no consistent evidence to support it, and they dropped it. There was never any consensus.

{edit to add: the CIA is not a scientific organization, and the report you scanned and posted had to do with a single meeting of a few researchers who concluded that things were probably changing, but says nothing about a consensus on cooling}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, because it showed no such thing. As I said, there were a few people who briefly considered the possibility of a cooling climate back in the 70's, but could find no consistent evidence to support it, and they dropped it. There was never any consensus.


The consensus was achieved among the major climate groups of the time. I posted the conclusion of the CIA report following the consensus. Do you want the entire report?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The consensus was achieved among the major climate groups of the time. I posted the conclusion of the CIA report following the consensus. Do you want the entire report?


I'd be interested in any reports you have from peer-reviewed climate science journals at the time. I know some papers arguing that cooling was occurring were published, and that some papers arguing that the evidence didn't support cooling were also published. There were meetings and debates, and no consensus was reached. More research was done, and by the late 70's it was clear that, if anything the earth was getting warmer. By the 1980's the fact that the earth was getting warmer was clear, and the mechanisms underlying it were beginning to be understood. 

What the CIA may or may not have been worried about isn't really relevant.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> If what you are saying is true, why aren't scientists all lining up to debunk Climate change theories under this anti-climate change government who is busy silencing and cutting funding from these scientists?


Indeed. If one is not concerned about being consistent with the facts, there's far more money to be made denying ACC than supporting it. Look at the buckets of money guys like Mike Behe make using their Ph.D. to lend scientific credibility to Creationism.

I'm surprised there aren't a lot more scientists who are tired of being perpetually broke and are morally flexible enough to take the paycheque to compromise their integrity. Of course, that wouldn't make a whit of difference to the science; if you turn over enough rocks, you can almost always find someone who's willing to deny the obvious, but that won't make it any less obvious.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> What the CIA may or may not have been worried about isn't really relevant.


They were worried about national security in the face of a consensus by climate scientists on global cooling.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They were worried about national security in the face of a consensus by climate scientists on global cooling.


Then they were, as is typical of these spooks, chasing a chimera. No such consensus ever existed. (Maybe it got hidden with the WMDs in Iraq)


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Indeed. If one is not concerned about being consistent with the facts, there's far more money to be made denying ACC than supporting it. Look at the buckets of money guys like Mike Behe make using their Ph.D. to lend scientific credibility to Creationism.
> 
> I'm surprised there aren't a lot more scientists who are tired of being perpetually broke and are morally flexible enough to take the paycheque to compromise their integrity. Of course, that wouldn't make a whit of difference to the science; if you turn over enough rocks, you can almost always find someone who's willing to deny the obvious, but that won't make it any less obvious.


It just seemed obvious to me. Not being a scientist, I can't really get into a technical discussion on the theories themselves (though some feel they can...). But I can use simple reasoning to see the trash here in some of the responses from denialists.

The attempts to attack the clear consensus on climate change by human activity have so far failed miserably. Truthfully, I'd love it if it weren't true and we can go back to happily burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Then they were, as is typical of these spooks, chasing a chimera. No such consensus ever existed. (Maybe it got hidden with the WMDs in Iraq)


I love the phrasing in this article from the 1970s on global cooling. Substitute the word warming and it sounds just like you, bryanc!



> Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.


----------



## groovetube

Funny, I still see no evidence that there was a consensus, beyond the reference to, "climatologists', or, 'the scientists'.

And given the track record, I doubt we'll see any.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Then they were, as is typical of these spooks, chasing a chimera. No such consensus ever existed. (Maybe it got hidden with the WMDs in Iraq)


It occurred at the San Diego climate conference of 1974. I thought you were up on these developments.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> Funny, I still see no evidence that there was a consensus, beyond the reference to, "climatologists', or, 'the scientists'.


It doesn't even refer to climatologists until the end; they're "meteorologists" in this little pice of pop-media mush.

I do recall there being a few researchers who got some brief media attention back in the '70s for predicting a "new ice age", but there were just as many researchers who were saying that the data was not very convincing. The resulting debate may well have led to the emergence of the current consensus in the late 1980's.

There was certainly nothing like the current global consensus of thousands of researchers driven by mountains of data collected from dozens of different analytical methods that has accumulated for decades and reached the point of being completely beyond doubt.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It occurred at the San Diego climate conference of 1974. I thought you were up on these developments.


A consensus among a few researchers at a single conference is very different from a global consensus within a feild.

My research group had a lab meeting last week at which we reached a consensus regarding how we should be dealing with fungal contaminations of our embryo cultures; but I wouldn't say there's a global consensus on this issue.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> A consensus among a few researchers at a single conference is very different from a global consensus within a feild.
> 
> My research group had a lab meeting last week at which we reached a consensus regarding how we should be dealing with fungal contaminations of our embryo cultures; but I wouldn't say there's a global consensus on this issue.


This was a meeting among the major scientific groups studying climate at the time, including NOAA.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This was a meeting among the major scientific groups studying climate at the time, including NOAA.


From what I could read in your scan (it's kind of fuzzy), it was a meeting of a few PIs from a few American research institutes, and they managed to agree that something was probably changing.

That's not a global consensus within the field that the climate was cooling.

But let's just pretend you're right; even if the climatologists of the 1970's all thought the climate was cooling, what happened next... they did research... ya know... actual science... and since then they've discovered that anyone who thought the climate was cooling in 1974 was wrong, because now we've got so much more and so much better data, and so many more people are analyzing it using so much more powerful methods we can see that the climate is clearly warming. Even if scientists make mistakes, the scientific process finds errors and corrects them. Given that ACC has been under so much scrutiny for the past decade, we can be pretty confident that if there was anything fundamentally wrong with it, it would've been discovered by now.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Given that ACC has been under so much scrutiny for the past decade, we can be pretty confident that if there was anything fundamentally wrong with it, it would've been discovered by now.


That's why we know the planet is now getting cooler.


----------



## groovetube

and there's why it doesn't go anywhere. A nice way to put it is, a merry go round, on purpose. 

When faced with facts and reason, it always goes there.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> When faced with facts and reason, it always goes there.


Alas, it seems you're right. There's no interest in a reasoned discussion of the facts here. I'm beginning to wonder if the "fact-free bubble" that we joke about the denizens of the political Right inhabiting may be a real psychological problem. Did Obama's victory cause them to suffer a so much cognitive dissonance that they snapped?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Alas, it seems you're right. There's no interest in a reasoned discussion of the facts here. I'm beginning to wonder if the "fact-free bubble" that we joke about the denizens of the political Right inhabiting may be a real psychological problem. Did Obama's victory cause them to suffer a so much cognitive dissonance that they snapped?


All you do is go on about a consensus that does not exist. I'd agree with you if you said a preponderance, but you aren't content with a reasonable assessment of your position.


----------



## eMacMan

I do love the way that trying to label someone a right wing nut or a socialist is somehow supposed to pass for intelligent debate.

Myself I am a good deal more fiscally conservative than the Tea Party. Other than that I often fall to the left of the NDP. Either way my opposition to Carbon Taxes/Carbon trading has nothing to do with any political beliefs and every thing to do with the impact on those that can least afford it. 

In Alberta there are more than a few seniors living on about $1200/month with little or nothing in savings. They usually own their house so their monthly expenses might break down as follows. $150 property taxes (often more almost never less). $125 house and car insurance (again at the very low end). Utilities Gas, Water, Electricity, telephone $250 (at least $100 in gouge fees) $100 auto (includes 200 mile gas and $50 for maintenance) Take away another $100 carbon gouge fees and that leaves about $110/week to cover such mundane things as food, paper goods, clothing, medicines, alcohol, entertainment... (Don't forget I have not included iPhones, cable or internet in the basic expenses.)

Now $50 is what the AGW types say their scheme will cost us. Going with the minimal double the guess and $100 is not unreasonable. God help us if it turns out like the 30¢/head gun registry. 

Anyways anyone who thinks that $100 hit is not going to phase this segment of the population. Try limiting yourselves to 200 miles of driving and $110/week for all your personal needs. Try it for three months and let me know how you do.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I do love the way that trying to label someone a right wing nut or a socialist is somehow supposed to pass for intelligent debate.


Who did that?



eMacMan said:


> Myself I am a good deal more fiscally conservative than the Tea Party. Other than that I often fall to the left of the NDP. Either way my opposition to Carbon Taxes/Carbon trading has nothing to do with any political beliefs and every thing to do with the impact on those that can least afford it.
> 
> In Alberta there are more than a few seniors living on about $1200/month with little or nothing in savings. They usually own their house so their monthly expenses might break down as follows. $150 property taxes (often more almost never less). $125 house and car insurance (again at the very low end). Utilities Gas, Water, Electricity, telephone $250 (at least $100 in gouge fees) $100 auto (includes 200 mile gas and $50 for maintenance) Take away another $100 carbon gouge fees and that leaves about $110/week to cover such mundane things as food, paper goods, clothing, medicines, alcohol, entertainment... (Don't forget I have not included cable or internet in the basic expenses.)
> 
> Now $50 is what the AGW types say their scheme will cost us. Going with the minimal double the guess and $100 is not unreasonable. God help us if it turns out like the 30¢/head gun registry.
> 
> Anyways anyone who thinks that $100 hit is not going to phase this segment of the population. Try limiting yourselves to 200 miles of driving and $110/week for all your personal needs. Try it for three months and let me know how you do.


Again, don't assume that if someone accepts the view that we need to do something about Climate change due to human activity that a) we don't accept that all climate change isn't caused by human activity, and b) we automatically agree with the solutions proposed.


----------



## MacDoc

The FIRST step is acknowledging the problem instead of denying there is a problem.
The denial crap is over.....



















after that comes the harder part of what policies are both fair and effective.

I'm entirely fed up with the moaning about how much it will cost. For low income families there will be little or no cost at all. That is very easy to put into affect as Australia is doing.
That said however - there are very few situations where the increased cost cannot be offset by decreased use of carbon based energy or more costly electricity.

We are incredibly wasteful - especially in Canada - the Nordic nations put us to shame and there is little reason for it. If Sweden can do it so can we.
Just pure curmudgeon is preventing it.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, read what you posted:

"The climate is changing and at least part of that is anthropogenic."

Well of course the climate is changing. I think you can score pretty close to 100% on that one. At least part of that is anthropogenic? Sure--the law of conservation of energy and matter says that even you, MacDoc, can spout enough hot air to affect the climate in your own tiny way.

This is not a consensus on the greenhouse gas theory, or carbon dioxide. It does not tell us whether the planet will continue to cool, or warm up again. Neither is it a call to alarm to create policies or to do much of anything..

*Next time, make the proof fit your claim.*


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> *Next time, make the proof fit your claim.*


As I and others have posted here before, peer-reviewed academic meta-studies of the climate change literature have shown unequivocally that the vast majority (>98%) of working climatologists accept the theory of Athropogenic Climate Change (ACC). So there is a consensus; it's a fact, get over it.

However, accepting the scientific consensus that ACC is occurring does not require accepting that carbon taxes or carbon markets are the only or best ways of dealing with the problem. If you or anyone else has a better solution, I'd love to hear it. But to be considered a solution, it has to address the problem that has been identified by science, wether you accept that science or not.

Think of it as a thought exercise; like the creationist who is asked to put aside their beliefs and required to teach evolution because that's what the scientific consensus has settled on, if you accepted ACC, how would you address it from a sociopolitical/economic perspective?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As I and others have posted here before, peer-reviewed academic meta-studies of the climate change literature have shown unequivocally that the vast majority (>98%) of working climatologists accept the theory of Athropogenic Climate Change (ACC). So there is a consensus; it's a fact, get over it.


You haven't made this point at all. You've just parroted the talking points of others and it continues to look bad on you.

Would you like to delve into the "meta-study" you believe is "unequivocal"? I recall one study that was considered so embarrassing in its methodology and conclusions that it caused the resignation of several noted scientists from bodies that were willing to overlook them.

Be specific with the "meta study" you believe to be unequivocal and let's get down to the nitty gritty with it. Since your argument about consensus hangs on this one study, you should have no problem with this.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Would you like to delve into the "meta-study" you believe is "unequivocal"? I recall one study that was considered so embarrassing in its methodology and conclusions that it caused the resignation of several noted scientists from bodies that were willing to overlook them.


Unless you're referring to some other study, your recollection is typically distorted by your almost comically right-wing bias. The only study I've posted here was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a group of researchers from the University of Toronto and Stanford University. None of them have resigned; on the contrary, all are well-respected and the senior author (Stephen Schneider) was recognized as one of the luminaries in climate change research. Unfortunately, Dr. Schneider died in 2010. Perhaps you are suggesting his death was due to the shame of having published rigorous, peer-reviewed analyses of the climatology research published by 1,372 climatologists, and concluding that "97-98% of the climate researchers publishing in the feild support the tenets of ACC." If so, I suggest you consider looking into your biases, because you're loosing grip on reality.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> You haven't made this point at all.


I have made this point by citing peer-reviewed publications in highly respected journals. You have done nothing but deny it. The ball's in your court. If you want to continue to suggest that a consensus among climate researchers regarding ACC does not exist, you must cite something more credible than your opinion or some guy's blog. Let's see some hard evidence.


{edit to add: here is the DOI for the paper I cited so long ago, and which you still have not refuted: Expert credibility in climate change }


----------



## groovetube

Once again, yet another conversation with lots of accusations, and nothing to back up any of them. People get upset when I call it, but it's plain to see when you follow a conversation closely.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I have made this point by citing peer-reviewed publications in highly respected journals. You have done nothing but deny it. The ball's in your court. If you want to continue to suggest that a consensus among climate researchers regarding ACC does not exist, you must cite something more credible than your opinion or some guy's blog. Let's see some hard evidence.
> 
> 
> {edit to add: here is the DOI for the paper I cited so long ago, and which you still have not refuted: Expert credibility in climate change }


We've been through it before on this forum, but I'm happy to do so gain.

The study group is not the set of all climate scientists, or even the group of all peer-reviewed scientists. 

It is a* list of scientists who signed a subset of public climate change petitions as selected by the study author.* 

Does that sound like a reasonable starting point to you?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We've been through it before on this forum, but I'm happy to do so gain.


Good, because apparently you didn't understand it the first time.


> The study group is not the set of all climate scientists, or even the group of all peer-reviewed scientists.


They used the most complete set of researchers they could. If you read the materials and methods section you will see this:


Anderegg et al. said:


> We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and clas- sified each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers compre- hensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007 Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 903 names.
> We define UE researchers as those who have signed reputable statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from the following 12 lists: 1992 statement from the Science and Environmental Policy Project (46 names), 1995 Leipzig Declaration (80 names), 2002
> letter to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (30 names), 2003 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (46 names), 2006 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (61 names), 2007 letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (100 names), 2007 TV film The Great Global Warming Swindle in- terviewees (17 names), NIPCC: 2008 Heartland Institute docu- ment “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," ed. S. Fred Singer (24 listed contributors), 2008 Manhattan Declara- tion from a conference in New York City (206 names listed as qualified experts), 2009 newspaper ad by the Cato Institute challenging President Obama’s stance on climate change (115 signers), 2009 Heartland Institute document “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)” (36 authors), and 2009 letter to the American Physical Society (61 names). After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names. Links to source documents are available at  .






Macfury said:


> It is a* list of scientists who signed a subset of public climate change petitions as selected by the study author.*


And you can see from the materials and methods that the authors tried to be as inclusive as possible, even going to great lengths to find examples of researchers who were "UC" (unconvinced) by collecting names from the Heartland Institute and other oil industry mouthpieces.


> Does that sound like a reasonable starting point to you?


Emphatically yes. It is as reasonable as could possibly be imagined, even to the extent of biasing the sample set in favour of over-representing the 'skeptics.'


----------



## Macfury

No, he did not use the most complete list of researchers he could find--and I'm surprised to hear you make such a statement. He used a list compiled of climate researchers who had signed petitions.

Do you not see the difference between the set of_ all climate scientists_ and _the sub-set of climate scientists who sign *certain, selected* petitions_?

The researcher has proved that a majority of a sub-set of climate scientists who have signed petitions he has selected have supported AGW and/or had any part in the IPCC report.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> No, he did not use the most complete list of researchers he could find--and I'm surprised to hear you make such a statement. He used a list compiled of climate researchers who had signed petitions.


They used the most complete list of climate researchers who's position on ACC (convinced or unconvinced) could be fairly determined.

The only way in which this could be improved would be to survey thousands of climate researchers, which would've required a significant financial investment. Given that this question is not even interesting or controversial (which anyone who knows or works with climatologists will understand), there is no way funding for such an undertaking could be obtained. So they simply took all the climatologists who's opinion on this issue is a matter of public record and did the math.

{edit to add: The 2010 Anderegg paper is the most authoritative study on this issue I know of. They conclude 97-98% agreement with ACC. If you have a citation that you think is better, I'd be happy to look at it, but simply saying you continue to disagree with the peer-reviewed published literature on the science, or on the meta-science (i.e. studies about the consensus of scientists) is a waste of time. As I said, you're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> They used the most complete list of climate researchers who's position on ACC (convinced or unconvinced) could be fairly determined.
> 
> The only way in which this could be improved would be to survey thousands of climate researchers, which would've required a significant financial investment. Given that this question is not even interesting or controversial (which anyone who knows or works with climatologists will understand), there is no way funding for such an undertaking could be obtained. So they simply took all the climatologists who's opinion on this issue is a matter of public record and did the math.


Never mind the difficulty in conducting such a study or the cost involved, Because such a study would be necessary to prove your contention, and that study has not been undertaken, then your contention has not been proved. 

All you have is a list of climate scientist petition signers (and the unfair addition of the list of anyone who contributed to the IPCC report).


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Never mind the difficulty in conducting such a study or the cost involved, Because such a study would be necessary to prove your contention, and that study has not been undertaken, then your contention has not been proved.


See edit (sorry). If you think you have a better study, let's see it. Nothing outside of mathematics and logic is really "proved," but my point that there is a consensus of climatologists that agrees with the tenets of ACC is very well supported with factual evidence and peer-reviewed publications (there have been several since Anderegg... see the citations of that paper). Your contention that this is not the case is based on nothing but your continual assertions to this effect. So either come up with some evidence or accept the fact that basically all the scientists with substantive understandings of climate agree that human activity is changing the climate.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> See edit (sorry). If you think you have a better study, let's see it. Nothing outside of mathematics and logic is really "proved," but my point that there is a consensus of climatologists that agrees with the tenets of ACC is very well supported with factual evidence and peer-reviewed publications (there have been several since Anderegg... see the citations of that paper). Your contention that this is not the case is based on nothing but your continual assertions to this effect. So either come up with some evidence or accept the fact that basically all the scientists with substantive understandings of climate agree that human activity is changing the climate.


There is no study that supports what you are saying about a consensus, plain and simple. I don't need to look for a better study--you were going to provide convincing evidence of a consensus. You haven't done that.

But by all means show me a comprehensive study asking the right questions and I'll be happy to look it over.

And please--no questionnaire asking scientists if they believe in "climate change" or whether "humans affect the climate." These are very broad questions that don't indicate a support for any specific theory.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> There is no study that supports what you are saying about a consensus, plain and simple.


I've presented you with peer-reviewed published research that says explicitly that such a consensus exists. You dispute that conclusion, because you don't feel the study was sufficiently rigorous. When the National Academy of Sciences invites you to referee submissions, you can use whatever criteria you like. But the fact is the National Academy was satisfied by the rigour of the study we've been discussing, so you're simply wrong. There are studies that support what I'm saying about the consensus. That's a fact. Deal with it.

The ball's in your court. If you can refute the study, we can go back to arguing over wether a consensus exists, but until then, that point has been decided in my favour. QED.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I've presented you with peer-reviewed published research that says explicitly that such a consensus exists. You dispute that conclusion, because you don't feel the study was sufficiently rigorous. When the National Academy of Sciences invites you to referee submissions, you can use whatever criteria you like. But the fact is the National Academy was satisfied by the rigour of the study we've been discussing, so you're simply wrong. There are studies that support what I'm saying about the consensus. That's a fact. Deal with it.
> 
> The ball's in your court. If you can refute the study, we can go back to arguing over wether a consensus exists, but until then, that point has been decided in my favour. QED.


Excuse me? That study only describes a very small sub-set of climate scientists. Realizing that the study makes no allowance for scientists who don't sign petitions of any kind makes it even more embarrassing.

It doesn't matter if the study was peer-reviewed, because peer review can only determine whether the study methodology was acceptable within its own narrow parameters. A peer review does not mean that the conclusions of a study are correct, or that it it can mean anything you care to attribute to it. 

The author certainly proved his point--however it is not the point that you claim he has proven. He only succeeded in describing the beliefs of a narrow selection of climate scientists using subjective criteria.

No point has been decided in your favour. In fact, quite the opposite.

Note the authors' own words:



> *A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted* and would inform future ACC discussions.


Compare this to your own words:



> As I and others have posted here before, peer-reviewed academic meta-studies of the climate change literature have shown unequivocally that the vast majority (>98%) of working climatologists accept the theory of Athropogenic Climate Change (ACC). So there is a consensus


----------



## groovetube

Let's see, so far from an observer's point of view, Bryanc has provided his proof. Macfury... has provided zip beyond 'you're wrong'.


----------



## bryanc

Something worth noting is that most scientific papers end with something along the lines of "this study was necessarily limited in scope; if we had more money we could address this and other worthwhile questions better." The fact that one can always improve on something does not mean that you can't work with what you've got.

What we've got is a study of every climatologist who's opinion can be deduced from the public record shows that 97-98% agree with the tenets of ACC. If you'd like to fund a broader study, I wholeheartedly support that, and I'm sure we could find someone with the appropriate expertise to conduct it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> What we've got is a study of every climatologist who's opinion can be deduced from the public record shows that 97-98% agree with the tenets of ACC.


In this case the limitations of the study are such that they do not match your claim of 98% consensus among climatologists. You only have a list of climatologist who sign petitions that are published, and (questionably) a list of people who worked on the fourth IPCC report.



bryanc said:


> If you'd like to fund a broader study, I wholeheartedly support that, and I'm sure we could find someone with the appropriate expertise to conduct it.


I can't help it that no study exists to back up your claim. Until such a study is conducted and bears out your claim--you got nothing.


----------



## groovetube

I'd like to see evidence of this. I'm very interested in this debate of consensus. However macfury has presented zero.

But I believe Bryanc has asked several times for this.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## groovetube

well there's a surprise. Once again, no evidence, no facts, nothing. It doesn't even seem like a fair fight.

My personal opinion is, if in fact human activity is not affecting climate, I'd like to see an overwhelming number of scientists on board with this. As a reader here, I'd say Bryanc clearly proved his case.

One thing I might note, is that while we bicker about climate change, we should be focusing on cleaner, greener fuels anyway, since climate change is not our only worry. Our current government wishes to keep us back in the stone age, and not address the horrendous harm to our environment air/water etc., that burning fossil fuels causes. Remember that part?


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> I'm very interested in this debate of consensus.


Just to clarify; I've presented the best, and to my knowlege most widely accepted study on this issue (Anderegg, et al, 2010), which was peer-reviewed and published in a very high impact scientific journal (The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science). There are several other more recent studies that cite this work (e.g. Aarstad, 2010, which states "Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today.") but none that go to the extraordinary lengths MacFury would require to be convinced.

One might reasonably wonder why the sort of study MacFury is suggesting hasn't been done; why not just survey every climatologist on earth and find out where they stand? There are two reasons for this; firstly, it would be costly and difficult (how do you define "climatologist?"... does it include everyone with a Ph.D. in any feild that has anything to do with climate research? That'd be a lot of people and it'd be very hard to ensure you had a comprehensive list with contact info for each of them... then it would be even harder to get even a large proportion of them to respond. Survey-based research is fraught with problems like this). Secondly, and more importantly, anyone even remotely familiar with the field will recognize that it's a stupid question; it's like asking "do the majority of biologists agree with the tenets of evolutionary theory?" Of course we do. Everyone knows this, so it's not worth going to the effort and expense of verifying this beyond the confidence we already have. It's not an interesting question.

Until MacFury, or one of the other deniers around here can come up with a study refuting the claim that the 97-98% of climatologists included in the Anderegg study are representative of the community, the conclusion stands.

But of course, that's never really been in question; the only reason the Anderegg study could get published was that the senior author (Stephen Schneider) was a huge name in the field, and there'd been a lot of noise made in the media about that time regarding there being a significant number of "skeptics" in the "unconvinced by the evidence" camp. Of course, there was never any real evidence of this significant number of skeptics in the first place, but it seemed worth the modest effort of statistically analyzing the public record and showing this claim was false. Every working climatologist on earth knows this is the case, and no one has ever said otherwise.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Would he be referring the global warming that hasn't occurred for the past 15 years?
> 
> Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


I missed this earlier; it's been quite thoroughly debunked (with reference to peer-reviewed science) here.


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


The dying polar bears. Another warmist myth. Fact is populations have doubled since the 80s.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> I have made this point by citing peer-reviewed publications in highly respected journals.


Would those be the same 'highly respected journals' that 'peer-reviewed' Michael Mann's hockey stick?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Just to clarify; I've presented the best, and to my knowlege most widely accepted study on this issue (Anderegg, et al, 2010), which was peer-reviewed and published in a very high impact scientific journal (The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science). There are several other more recent studies that cite this work (e.g. Aarstad, 2010, which states "Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today.") but none that go to the extraordinary lengths MacFury would require to be convinced.


You've completely failed to make your case with the first study. It does not prove what you said it proved. Citing a second study that misstates the goals and parameters of the first does not pull your ass out of the fire.

Be content with the likelihood that a _majority_ of climate researchers support the theory of AGW. You have completely failed to support your contention that there is a consensus—or anything close to it—no matter how many times you restate your premise. That no thorough study has been conducted to help support your viewpoint is no concern of mine.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Would those be the same 'highly respected journals' that 'peer-reviewed' Michael Mann's hockey stick?


For bryanc, peer-review is tantamount to a priestly blessing. He possesses an almost religious respect for peer-reviewd journals that is simply not shared by others outside his group.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I missed this earlier; it's been quite thoroughly debunked (with reference to peer-reviewed science) here.


From the link:



> "Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."


So in essence, the temperature of the globe has *not* risen over the past 15 or so years. While the MET Office typically speaks of the significance of decadal averages, it poo-poohs this particular swath of 15 years of data.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> For bryanc, peer-review is tantamount to a priestly blessing. He possesses an almost religious respect for peer-reviewd journals


There's nothing remotely religious about it; the peer-review system is the best we've got, and it's been remarkably effective at reducing the rate at which errors are propagated in the scientific literature. Nobody thinks it's perfect, but it's better than anything else anyone has come up with.


> that is simply not shared by others outside his group.


By my "group", you presumably mean "scientists." In which case you're right; and this is possibly a significant reason science is so much more successful than other approaches that people take to understanding the world.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> So in essence, the temperature of the globe has *not* risen over the past 15 or so years. While the MET Office typically speaks of the significance of decadal averages, it poo-poohs this particular swath of 15 years of data.


Reading comprehension fail. The link clearly states that while the global _*surface*_ temperature has not increased enough to be statistically significant, ocean temperatures have, so the global temperature has continued to rise exactly as predicted. Furthermore, these scallops in surface temperature are predicted by the climate models, so far from refuting the predictions of ACC, they are actually support.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Would those be the same 'highly respected journals' that 'peer-reviewed' Michael Mann's hockey stick?


Yes, the same ones like Science, Nature, Climate Review, and others who peer-reviewed and published the 'hockey stick' which has now been reproduced and expanded on many times, and which we are now far more confident is correct than we were when it was initially published


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Reading comprehension fail. The link clearly states that while the global _*surface*_ temperature has not increased enough to be statistically significant, ocean temperatures have, so the global temperature has continued to rise exactly as predicted. Furthermore, these scallops in surface temperature are predicted by the climate models, so far from refuting the predictions of ACC, they are actually support.


The ocean temperature theory is highly contentious. It's based on the inability of researchers to find "missing heat" based on their models.

Depending on how deeply you want to go into this topic, here's a decent precis:



> The two researchers had suggested that the oceans might be putting away some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow.
> 
> Observation of a global network of buoys has shown some warming in the upper ocean, not enough to account for the global build-up of heat.
> 
> Scientists suspected the deep oceans played a role, but few measurements were available to back that hypothesis.
> 
> So Meehl and his colleagues set out to track where the heat was going by using a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy developed and others.


Deep Oceans Trap

In other words, they don't have real-world information about the "hidden heat." They assume heat is hidden somewhere on the Earth, then use a computer model to "find" it.

A study appearing in the peer-reviewed _International Journal of Geosciences _(Recent Energy Balance of Earth, Robert S. Knox, David H. Douglass) shows that the missing heat is not missing at all. Ocean temperatures have remained flat over the past decade.


----------



## Macfury

I hope you're also aware that when the Anderegg paper was submitted for PNAS review, the peer review process allowed NAS members to organize their own peer review panels. After the publication of some highly embarrassing papers, the peer-review process was toughened in 2010.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> A study appearing in the peer-reviewed _International Journal of Geosciences _(Recent Energy Balance of Earth, Robert S. Knox, David H. Douglass) shows that the missing heat is not missing at all. Ocean temperatures have remained flat over the past decade.


Already refuted. I'd be happy to send you the PDF if you can't access the original, but here's a quote from the abstract:


Nuccitelli et al. said:


> A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately −0.03±0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change.


{edit to add: I do commend you on going to the actual science, rather than blog posts, however. Now try to read enough to understand the consensus in the field, as opposed to cherry picking those occasional papers like Douglass and Knox, that even the author's recognized conflicted with the vast majority of what is known about the subject}


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I hope you're also aware that when the Anderegg paper was submitted for PNAS review, the peer review process ... was toughened in 2010.


I'm aware that efforts to politicize the review process were of sufficient concern to the NAS that they've taken measures to maintain the integrity of the system, yes. As I understand it, this was largely due to unrelated issues arising from drug companies trying to bias reviewers.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm aware that efforts to politicize the review process were of sufficient concern to the NAS that they've taken measures to maintain the integrity of the system, yes. As I understand it, this was largely due to unrelated issues arising from drug companies trying to bias reviewers.


Actually, it was in response to an insane 2009 peer-reviewed paper by a British researcher that claimed that caterpillars become butterflies because two different species accidentally mated with one another.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Already refuted. I'd be happy to send you the PDF if you can't access the original, but here's a quote from the abstract:


This is a comment on the study, not a study itself. 

Douglas and Knox adequately defended themselves against Nuccitelli's critique shortly after, noting that he incorporated incompatible comparison data and that the original study took into consideration the 700 m to 2000 m data and how it did so.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Just to clarify; I've presented the best, and to my knowlege most widely accepted study on this issue (Anderegg, et al, 2010), which was peer-reviewed and published in a very high impact scientific journal (The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science). There are several other more recent studies that cite this work (e.g. Aarstad, 2010, which states "Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today.")


Blah, blah, blah, blah...

I've heard this crap for so long the mere mention of it makes me want to hurl in voluminous technicolor.

You, of all people Bryan, should know that consensus does not make science. Research, knowledge (and not a poll option), makes science. It doesn't matter if 100% of researchers believe something is correct. Science is a dynamic & ever-changing field and what was known as true yesterday is can be entirely disproven tomorrow. One need not go any further back than Piltdown Man or the Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus naming debacle to see that.

Who cares about 97%? I sure as hell don't and neither should anyone serious in pursuing the truth, on either side of the argument.

If, however, there are still some of you who put stock in such inane trivia, below are a couple of links for the other side of the story. No, they're not peer-reviewed, if that is an issue for you. If you are the type of person who cannot learn from something unless it is peer-reviewed, then why the hell are you posting on a public blog? Get a grip...

In a nutshell:



> It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> 
> Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.


More:



> The study by Anderegg et al. (1) *employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise.* Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. *They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation.* The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. *In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise* (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.


An opinion piece.

Oh, one more thing. This link goes to other things the 97% had to say:



> “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”
> 
> “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”
> 
> “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”


All emphasis mine.

(Man, that was cathartic...)


----------



## FeXL

From my old, dear, hypocritical friend MacDoc:



> The alliance of 200 investment institutions includes Scottish Widows, *Aviva* and HSBC and controls $21 trillion (£13trn) of assets worldwide and its lobbying of the UK government is part of a broader campaign to persuade the world’s biggest economies to escalate their actions against climate change.


Aviva, huh?

Funny, I've seen that name somewhere...someplace...let me see...

Ah, here it is! They're my insurance underwriters! 

Conflict of interest? CYA? Both?


----------



## CubaMark

MacGuiver said:


> The dying polar bears. Another warmist myth. Fact is populations have doubled since the 80s.


Not that I consider Wikipedia the end-all of all authoritative sources, but for what it's worth:



> Modern methods of tracking polar bear populations have been implemented only since the mid-1980s, and are expensive to perform consistently over a large area.[31] The most accurate counts require flying a helicopter in the Arctic climate to find polar bears, shooting a tranquilizer dart at the bear to sedate it, and then tagging the bear.[31] In Nunavut, *some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. Scientists have responded by noting that hungry bears may be congregating around human settlements, leading to the illusion that populations are higher than they actually are.*[31] The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN takes the position that "estimates of subpopulation size or sustainable harvest levels should not be made solely on the basis of traditional ecological knowledge without supporting scientific studies."[32]
> *Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data, as of 2009.*


----------



## Macfury

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers - The Globe and Mail



> The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
> 
> The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Let us know when you've got some peer-reviewed science, rather than pop-media, to support this idea.


Well, I don't have any peer-reviewed science that counters the MET's statement, any more than they have any peer-reviewed science to support the statement. However, I do have a link with a whole bunch of pretty graphs an' all. Shouldn't take a scientist to read 'em...

Global Warming Gone Missing


----------



## FeXL

Little bit more info regarding Polar Bears.

First a blurb about lineage. This is important because erstwhile to this research, the polar bear lineage was thought to have split off around 160K years ago. New DNA analysis reveals it is much older than that, somewhere between 4 and 5 million years ago. At that age, polar bears have already weathered (no pun intended) a number of warming periods and managed to survive.

One.

Observations about One.

On populations.



> Of the eight allegedly declining populations, two of them, including Baffin Bay, are non-contentious: sceptics concede that the two sub-populations, representing 16.4 per cent of the bear population, are declining – but in both regions the temperatures have actually fallen, so warming is an irrelevant issue. H Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, has pointed out that in two regions where the population is growing – the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea – air temperatures have risen. So polar bears appear to thrive on warming – as scientists claim they did during the Mediaeval Warm Period 1,000 years ago and the Holocene Climate Optimum 5,000-9,000 years ago.


More:

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

Global warming fraud: Iconic polar bear on melting ice cap a hoax


----------



## CubaMark

I know better than to get drawn into this thread... but I do think it's interesting to note some of the sources cited above...

"Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe" comes from "_Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices_"

"Global Warming Fraud: Iconic Polar Bear on Melting Ice Cap a Hoax" comes from _NaturalNews.com: Real News, Powered by the People, Naturally_ 

...two sources that couldn't possibly have any editorial bias, eh?


----------



## MacDoc

Yeah there is this hilarious rightwingding vortex of nonsense pretending to be peer reviewed science and picking on outlier issues and ignoring the elephant in the room

it's getting warmer
we're responsible..

and I very much doubt anything will prevent a 4C rise sometime between 2060 and 2100 when 2 was considered a tolerable limit.
The world bank does not think it will be limited to 2C either.



> November 19, 201212:21PM
> 
> *The World Bank has warned of a 4C rise in temperatures this century unless urgent action is taken.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE World Bank has warned that global temperatures could rise by four degrees this century without immediate action, with potentially devastating consequences for coastal cities and the poor.
> 
> Issuing a call for action, the World Bank tied the future wealth of the planet - and especially developing regions - to immediate efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as energy production.
> 
> "The time is very, very short. The world has to tackle the problem of climate change more aggressively," World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said on a conference call on Sunday as he launched a report conducted for the global lender.
> 
> "We will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change. It is one of the single biggest challenges to social justice today."
> 
> *The study said the planet could warm 4.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels as early as the 2060s *if governments' promises to fight climate change are not met.
> 
> Even if nations fulfill current pledges, the study gave a 20 per cent likelihood of a four-degree rise by 2100 and said that a three-degree rise appeared likely. UN-led climate negotiations have vowed to limit the rise of temperatures to no more than two degrees.
> 
> "A four-degree warmer world can and must be avoided. We need to hold warming below two degrees," Kim said.
> 
> "Lack of ambitious action on climate change threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development."
> 
> UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that the study showed the need to hold nations to their commitment, made last year in Durban, South Africa, to put in place a legally binding new climate agreement by 2015.
> 
> The more than 190 nations in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change start their latest annual talks on November 26 in Qatar.
> 
> Global temperatures have already risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius.
> 
> The planet has charted a number of record-breaking temperatures over the past decade and experienced frequent disasters some experts blame on climate change, most recently superstorm Sandy, which ravaged Haiti and the US East Coast.
> 
> The report said that, if temperatures rise by four degrees, regions will feel different effects - recent heatwaves in Russia could become an annual norm and July in the Mediterranean could be nine degrees higher than the area's warmest level now.
> 
> Under that scenario, the acidity of the oceans could rise at a rate unprecedented in world history, threatening coral reefs that protect shorelines and provide a habitat for fish species.
> 
> Rising sea levels could inundate coastal areas with the most vulnerable cities found in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, the Philippines, Venezuela and Vietnam, the study said.
> 
> "Many small islands may not be able to sustain the communities at all. There would be irreversible loss of biodiversity," Kim said.
> 
> The study found that the most alarming impact may be on food production, with the world already expected to struggle to meet demand for a growing and increasingly wealthy population that is eating more meat.
> 
> Low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam and parts of Africa's coast could see major blows to food production, with drought severely hindering agriculture elsewhere, the study said.
> 
> Flooding can also contaminate drinking water, increasing illnesses such as diarrhoea.
> 
> The dire warnings were designed to encourage bolder action, but the report did not focus on potential steps.
> 
> Identifying one area, Kim called for less reliance on coal, which is the dirtiest major form of energy but is politically sensitive in the United States and China due to industry jobs.
> 
> Kim said that the World Bank was determined to support renewable energy in its lending, saying: "We do everything we can not to invest in coal - everything we possibly can."
> 
> The fight against climate change has faced political obstacles in a number of nations including the United States, where many conservative lawmakers have called action too costly and cast doubt on the science.
> 
> Kim, a physician and former president of Dartmouth College who was tapped for the World Bank by US President Barack Obama, said that 97 per cent of scientists agreed that human activity was causing climate change.
> 
> "As someone who has lived in the world of science for a long time, 97 per cent is unheard-of consensus," he said.
> 
> The report was carried out by German-based Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The World Bank said it did not consider the study a substitute for next UN-backed scientific assessment on climate change expected in 2014.


World Bank fears a 4C warming this century unless immediate action taken | News.com.au


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> I know better than to get drawn into this thread... but I do think it's interesting to note some of the sources cited above...
> 
> ...two sources that couldn't possibly have any editorial bias, eh?


Hi, Mark, nice to hear from you again. How's things?

Thx for clicking the links. Yes, I noted the source. Understood. Is there a problem with the data? The premise of the articles? Anything aside from the source? Would the articles have been any more or less accurate if they had come from non-conservative sources?


----------



## bryanc

This reminds me of arguing with Creationists; every time you get into the science that irrefutably supports evolution, the goal posts move. I've just got through reading MacFury's OHC papers (which all agree the ocean is heating, the argument is about how much, and wether the high resolution surface data shows a significant change in slope, which may or may not indicate something important about the mechanisms), and now it seems we're on to polar bears. 

I'll keep my eye on the thread on the off chance that anyone has something interesting to discuss about how to _*deal*_ with the problem of ACC that has been clearly and unequivocally identified, and regarding which there is an unprecedented consensus within the scientific community.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Would the articles have been any more or less accurate if they had come from non-conservative sources?


It's impossible for us to know; we're not scientists trained in the field. So getting this sort of information from obviously biased sources is just amplifying the political noise. If you want to know what is actually happening with respect to observable reality, look to the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the relevant feild. If you're not sufficiently expert in the feild to analyze this literature yourself (and we can't be experts in everything), read the reviews published by authorities on the subject, and either accept the consensus of authorities on the subject or make the effort to become sufficiently expert yourself.


----------



## MacDoc

Yup - most of the other forums I'm engaged with have moved on to what policies which is a very fractious issue with no clear path.

For instance should coastal flood plains be declared off limits to any new development.
Of direct interest - should Sandy Point be rebuilt at all.

Australia already has in place mandatory cyclone proofing of new homes and any resale homes plus a carbon tax.

Pay now or pay more later....that was the message in the Stern Report a decade ago.....holds true even more so now as the consequences of fossil fuel use unfold.

It built the civilization we enjoy, it's up to the first world to ameliorate the damage and an responsible libertarian would agree with - the party responsible pays for the knock on effects of their actions.
Time to pay the piper.

and of course the heels are dragging...



> *Doubts on $30 Billion Climate Aid Threaten UN Talks*
> By Alex Morales - Nov 26, 2012 7:02 AM ET
> 
> Doubts mounted about whether developed nations honored a pledge to deliver $30 billion in aid for fighting and defend against climate change after two analysts estimated different amounts had been paid out.
> The question over how much finance was provided under the “fast-start” program has the potential to undermine trust between donor and recipient nations during two weeks of United Nations talks on a treaty to curb global warming. Aid is the linchpin of the talks starting today in Doh*a after industrial nations pledged in 2009 to channel $100 billion a year for climate projects by 2020*.


Doubts on $30 Billion Climate Aid Threaten UN Talks - Bloomberg


----------



## CubaMark

First, let me apologize for entering (cartoon) polar bears into this thread. Y'all are trying to have a nice little pseudo-scientific debate in here, and I had to go distract you. Sorry.

Second - I think somewhere earlier in here I stated my position: I'm fine with not arguing with the cynics about the causes of global warming. Doesn't even matter if Global Warming is a naturally-occuring cycle in earth's climate. The issue, as I think I said before, should be -as MacDoc notes- what should humans do about it? What governmental policies make sense if we can anticipate a rising climate and (among other things) an anticipated effect upon coastal sea levels? Expanding desertification? Food supply? Habitat viability? And within those policy discussions, howzabout we make room for the precautionary principle... that in case there is a human effect upon climate change, why not try to ameliorate it?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Yeah there is this hilarious rightwingding vortex of nonsense pretending to be peer reviewed science and picking on outlier issues and ignoring the elephant in the room
> 
> it's getting warmer
> we're responsible..
> 
> and I very much doubt anything will prevent a 4C rise sometime between 2060 and 2100 when 2 was considered a tolerable limit.
> The world bank does not think it will be limited to 2C either.


Blah, blah, blah...

First, World Bank, huh? No conflict of interest there...

Second, when did they become climate experts?

Third, about those coal reductions. Go talk to China...

Fourth, if lowering emissions is the goal, why are so many progressives against natural gas via new deposits, shale gas & fracking?

Fifth, the UN? Give your head a shake...

Sixth, I read a lot of shoulda, coulda, woulda in that article. I have a friend who sums that garbage up quite nicely. "Add 'em all up & you still have FA..."

Seventh, sea level rise rates have been dropping for some time. The Maldives are gonna be OK.

Eighth, the recent heat wave in Russia had nada to do with CO2/AGW and everything to do with the jet stream.

Ninth, global temps have risen 0.8 degrees. Fine. Since when? Yesterday? Last week? Last month? Last year? Last decade? Last century? Last millenium? How about some scale here? A little perspective, hmmm? I know the answer but it's nowhere in that article & not nearly as frightening with some scale. That & there is no proof anywhere as to what portion is man-made.

Tenth, record breaking temps, frequent disasters. Fine. Let me direct you to Steven Goddard's excellent site. One of his forte's is to dig up newspaper articles from decades ago showing record breaking temps, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, all kinds of weather, dating back 200-300 years. Fill your boots, then come back & tell me all about broken records, why tornado #'s are down this year and why the paucity of major hurricanes over the last 5 years. All this despite CO2 levels approaching 400ppm?

Eleventh, food production. If we are so damn worried about food availability, why is the US turning fully 40% of its corn crop into automotive fuel, a process which has doubled the price of corn in less than a year and pumps more pollution into the atmosphere than just using gasoline?

Twelfth, consensus does not science make. (oh yeah, barf...)

Thirteenth, the same models used to generate the 4 degree predicted rise by 2100 didn't see the past 16 year flatline, either.

'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> It's impossible for us to know; we're not scientists trained in the field. So getting this sort of information from obviously biased sources is just amplifying the political noise. If you want to know what is actually happening with respect to observable reality, look to the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the relevant feild. If you're not sufficiently expert in the feild to analyze this literature yourself (and we can't be experts in everything), read the reviews published by authorities on the subject, and either accept the consensus of authorities on the subject or make the effort to become sufficiently expert yourself.


Fine. Like Macfury said above, we'll miss you. Bu-bye...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Yup - most of the other forums I'm engaged with have moved on to what policies which is a very fractious issue with no clear path.


There's dem rollin' eyes! Thank you, I was wondering when they'd show up.

As to your above statement, cart before the horse much?

And your link? Bloomberg? Really?

I hope the UN climate talks fall flat on their face. There will be less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere without all those jets flying around...

BTW, you aren't still flying all over the globe, are you?


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> First, let me apologize for entering (cartoon) polar bears into this thread. Y'all are trying to have a nice little pseudo-scientific debate in here, and I had to go distract you. Sorry.


No apology necessary. It's all related.



CubaMark said:


> Second - I think somewhere earlier in here I stated my position: I'm fine with not arguing with the cynics about the causes of global warming. Doesn't even matter if Global Warming is a naturally-occuring cycle in earth's climate. The issue, as I think I said before, should be -as MacDoc notes- what should humans do about it? What governmental policies make sense if we can anticipate a rising climate and (among other things) an anticipated effect upon coastal sea levels? Expanding desertification? Food supply? Habitat viability? And within those policy discussions, howzabout we make room for the precautionary principle... that in case there is a human effect upon climate change, why not try to ameliorate it?


You pose good questions here. If, as I believe, the global warming we've experienced since the LIA is natural, the question is not what should humans do but what could we possibly do? Earth's climate has been warming & cooling for over 4 billion years, CO2 levels have also been rising & falling for the same period, without man's influence. Nothing we've seen recently, despite all the screeching, is "unprecedented".

As to gov't involvement, frankly, that scares the hell out of me. As soon as things become political bad things happen to well meaning people. I want the gov't as far away from this as possible. Otherwise, you'll have some fruit loop or whacko saying that you should dump a bunch of iron filings into the ocean to address a non-existant problem. Oh, wait...


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> Yes, the same ones like Science, Nature, Climate Review, and others who peer-reviewed and published the 'hockey stick' which has now been reproduced and expanded on many times, and which we are now far more confident is correct than we were when it was initially published


Awesome. The people who got caught lying investigated themselves, and gave themselves two thumbs up. 


Really, that's my biggest issue here. I don't claim to understand the math involved with calculating temperatures from tree ring data, or anything like that. I'm fully prepared to step back and let the scientists do the science. What I won't stand for though, is those same people peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. I don't trust people who continually lie to me, and the AGW proponents have just told far too many blatant lies to be even given the time of day anymore.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> As to gov't involvement, frankly, that scares the hell out of me. As soon as things become political bad things happen to well meaning people. I want the gov't as far away from this as possible.


IMHO, that's ridiculous. You think "the people" are going to magically act to counter possible rising global temperatures and the resultant effects? Governments are far from rational entities, are far to tied to special interests (curiously an argument used by both sides of the political fence), but they are the only mechanism that exists for broad-based action toward a particular goal. 

I doubt we'll see a Libertarian Brigade leading the charge to prevent new construction on coastlines or push for the development of technologies that may enable our societies to address some of the potential effects of warming. 

Governments have to exist, in some form. Work toward making them more efficient, more accountable - sure - but to cast them off completely is irresponsible and dare I say it, rather utopian.


----------



## groovetube

cubamark said:


> imho, that's ridiculous. You think "the people" are going to magically act to counter possible rising global temperatures and the resultant effects? Governments are far from rational entities, are far to tied to special interests (curiously an argument used by both sides of the political fence), but they are the only mechanism that exists for broad-based action toward a particular goal.
> 
> I doubt we'll see a libertarian brigade leading the charge to prevent new construction on coastlines or push for the development of technologies that may enable our societies to address some of the potential effects of warming.
> 
> Governments have to exist, in some form. Work toward making them more efficient, more accountable - sure - but to cast them off completely is irresponsible and dare i say it, rather utopian.


+1


----------



## MacDoc

> I doubt we'll see a libertarian brigade leading the charge to prevent new construction on coastlines or push for the development of technologies that may enable our societies to address some of the potential effects of warming.


unless you consider the insurers the vanguard of the libby response....of course the libbies, having built their wealth on the fossil fuel use will step up to the plate and offer compensation for the displacement they helped initiate. ....and Virginia there really is a Santa Claus...

•••

how is that "gov hands off" working out for emissions in Alberta?? ...it's not ??!! why such a surprise...
seems the hands the meat inspection didn't work too well either


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> urprise...
> seems the hands the meat inspection didn't work too well either


Government meat inspectors.


----------



## groovetube

yeah. Private ones are even better. :lmao:

The stuff of fools.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Governments have to exist, in some form. Work toward making them more efficient, more accountable - sure - but to cast them off completely is irresponsible and dare I say it, rather utopian.


Way off topic but exactly how would you suggest we do that? I'm all ears.

Right now, personally, the less gov't there is, the less idiots I've got to keep in line/keep track of/pay for doing bugger all. It's as simple as that.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> unless you consider the insurers the vanguard of the libby response....of course the libbies, having built their wealth on the fossil fuel use will step up to the plate and offer compensation for the displacement they helped initiate. ....and Virginia there really is a Santa Claus...


WTF are you going on about here? Why don't you try some basic english so the rest of us can understand exactly what you're ranting about? Maybe a capital or two, short sentences, some punctuation here or there.




MacDoc said:


> how is that "gov hands off" working out for emissions in Alberta?? ...it's not ??!! why such a surprise...
> seems the hands the meat inspection didn't work too well either


The emissions thing is working quite well, thankyouverymuch. And the jobs they are creating are benefitting Canadians all across this country. Your welcome.

As to the meat inspectors, Macfury answered it for me.

For your next trick, show me you can actually keep on topic.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> yeah. Private ones are even better. :lmao:


Way off topic but they both dropped the ball. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the gov't inspectors. Period.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Way off topic but they both dropped the ball. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the gov't inspectors. Period.


Certainly. But I was laughing pretty hard at the idea that private automatically means better than government.

As for the climate change thing, that I mainly observe and read about. You'll have to forgive me but you are not a scientist. I can appreciate that you have an opinion, and it may be interesting to read your links, but I do take it with a grain of salt. I cannot find very scientists at all who agree with you. I do see a handful of individuals however, who cherry pick stuff (as they accuse the scientists of...) to suit their agendas.

To me, the fact that some studies etc., have been found to be not as correct as first thought, but still research continues to point to climate change because of human activity is telling. The notion that scientists somehow have something to gain from that is absurd, (especially after the 'scientists' being held up as proof of no climate change being discovered to have ties to oil companies... LOL)

It's still an evolving study, but has consistently held to the fact that human activity is affecting climate. Unlike the nonsense macfury tried to float (and failed to support other than blathering...) about the time when a few scientists floated the idea of global cooling. And the overwhelming majority of scientists, not just bloggers spouting whatever facts or links they're excited about, support the idea of climate change from human activity.

Perhaps we'll discover that al gore is paying every one of the scientists in the world huge salaries. The truth is, many people who believe in the climate change theories, also do not like the solutions proposed.

cheers.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Unlike the nonsense macfury tried to float (and failed to support other than blathering...) about the time when a few scientists floated the idea of global cooling.


<deep breath, there's so much here to tear apart...>

The global cooling scare in the 70's is legit. I recall discussing it in Current Events in school & even had a math teacher discuss it with us a few times. It was followed by far more than a few scientists. It made Time Magazine cover, was discussed in Newsweek & was even followed by the CIA.

Time Magazine article.



> However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.


CIA article analysis:



> A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.


More in _The Courier_, UNESCO magazine.

In 1971 Stephen Schneider (yes, that one) even wrote a paper talking about it:



> An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.


From Der Spiegel in 1974:



> The climate in the northern hemisphere, explained Dr. Reid Bryson, Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, is cooling slowly but steadily. After the the mean temperature made a step upwards since the turn of the century, there’s been a comparably rash temperature drop over the last 20 years: On average temperature dropped from 16 to 15,7°C


Excerpts from the CIA Report

More.

From the National Academy of Sciences:



> “there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".


The common thread? Man was responsible for that, too...


----------



## FeXL

So, I'm sure most of you have heard about the lawsuit Michael Mann laid against Tim Ball in British Columbia. This was in regards to a comment Ball made about Mann along the lines of Mann "belonging in the state pen, rather than Penn state" 

Perhaps less known is one Andrew Weaver pressed against Tim Ball, too. This was regarding "complex computer models", blah, blah, blah.

Well, in order to proceed, discovery was needed to support the underlying lawsuits. Interestingly enough, neither plaintiff was forthcoming with their top secret information and both lawsuits have now timed out.

However, there are repercussions:



> Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since it was filed in February 2011. This dismissal us due to Weaver's (and Mann's) bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to reveal the hidden evidence that supposedly underpins their science. Honest researchers would have no qualms over a little 'show and tell' to convince a jury their science is "settled." But these charlatans must now think its worth blowing a cool million to keep it hidden. *As such, for refusing to come clean both their lawsuits are now scheduled for summary dismissal, plus costs.*


Emphasis mine.

Good.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> From the National Academy of Sciences:
> ...*there is no consensus*...


There was a period during the 70's when the idea of global cooling, either as a result of anthropogenic aerosols or natural causes, was considered, but there was never any consensus (i.e. extended periods of time (5+ years), during which a significant majority (75%+) of experts in the feild agree) that this was occurring. Indeed, the debate over this was a significant factor in driving the research that led to the opposite conclusion; that, contrary to expectations based on the natural drivers of climate, the global temperature is increasing.

In contrast, we now have a very extended period (10+ years) during which the vast majority (90%+) of experts agree that ACC is occurring.

But all of this is largely beside the point; the science is beyond anyone's ability to criticize here, so we should be discussing how to deal with the conclusion. If you aren't willing to accept the science, fine, you're welcome to your opinions, but the facts are in disagreement. The scientific consensus is a given; what are we going to do about it?


----------



## FeXL

Back in Feb, Mann & his Hockey Stick Team published a paper about cooling due to volcanic eruptions & its effect on tree ring growth. His conclusion was somewhat...interesting:



> Their main conclusion was that a tree-ring based Northern Hemisphere (NH) reconstruction of D’Arrigo et al. (2006) failed to corroborate volcanically forced cold years that were simulated in modelling results (e.g. 1258, 1816 etc).


Hmmm... Observations trumping models? Say it ain't so!

So, this work was examined by another dendrochronologist. He came to the following conclusion. I believe it stands on its own (much more at the link):



> Well – he has provided NO evidence that there are stand (regional) wide missing rings for major volcanically forced cool years. Let’s focus on 1816 as an example – The “Year without a Summer” – where historical observations clearly show cool summer conditions (related to Tambora in 1815) throughout NE North America and Europe. Using either long instrumental records or historical indices, there is no evidence of a stand-wide missing ring in temperature sensitive tree-ring chronologies in Labrador, Scotland, Scandinavia or the Alps. Mann would probably turn around and say – well, actually, my model says that 50% of the sites would express missing rings – just not those in NE America and Europe. Sheesh!
> 
> To be less flippant, and putting aside criticisms of tree-ring series as proxies of past climate, the method of crossdating is robust and easily verifiable by different groups. I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The scientific consensus is a given


For the final time, consensus is not science. Period. Any way you'd like to color it.

In answer to your question: Absolutely nothing.


----------



## FeXL

*Peer reviewed an' everything!*

New paper contradicts IPCC assumptions about precipitation



> The IPCC claims that a warming climate causes an increased variability of precipitation and that wet areas will become wetter and dry areas drier. However, a new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds on the basis of global observations from 1940-2009 that the opposite was true: precipitation variability decreased, there was no significant change in global average precipitation, and that dry areas became wetter and wet areas drier.


Big surprise.



> Once again, observations demonstrate that the predictions of IPCC computer models fail to reflect the real world.


Yup.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> For the final time, consensus is not science.


Never said it was... But scientists can [very rarely] reach a consensus, and on the issue of ACC they have. So from the point of view of laymen in the field, we, and our policy makers have to accept the fact that such a rare consensus has been reached, and that therefore the onus is on us to deal with it accordingly, wether we like the conclusion the experts have reached or not.


----------



## FeXL

*Peer reviewed an' everything!*

Couple from the NIPCC

Holocene Temperature Histories of Northern & Southern Norway.



> In viewing Figures 1 and 2, it is obvious that there is nothing _unusual_, _unnatural_ or _unprecedented_ about present-day temperatures in both Northern and Southern Norway, in contradiction of climate-alarmist claims to the contrary regarding Earth's current climatic state. In addition, it can be seen that after the planet finally emerged from the last great period of glaciation, the coldest interval of the current interglacial occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age, which prevailed just prior to the warming that ushered the planet into its current period of warmth, which is still _far less_ than that of much of the prior part of the record. And as a result of this fact, there would appear to be nothing unusual about the Earth warming a good deal more than it already has sometime in the near future, without any need to invoke anthropogenic CO2 emissions as an explanation for the warming.


How Unusual Was 20th-Century Global Warming?



> In light of this wealth of information, which continues to be discovered, published and thereby augmented on a regular basis, it should be clear to all that 20th-century-type global warmings occurred multiple times over the course of the Holocene, and that it was significantly _exceeded_ many _more_ times during the glacial period that preceded it. And, of course, _none_ of those earlier "regime changes" was associated with atmospheric CO2 concentration changes anywhere _near_ what occurred over the 20th century. It should therefore be readily evident to most people that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have likely had _next to nothing_ to do with the global warming of the 20th-century, which the world's climate alarmists irrationally continue to attribute to them.


Italics from the links.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Never said it was... But scientists can [very rarely] reach a consensus, and on the issue of ACC they have. So from the point of view of laymen in the field, we, and our policy makers have to accept the fact that such a rare consensus has been reached, and that therefore the onus is on us to deal with it accordingly, wether we like the conclusion the experts have reached or not.


Time & time again you have, if not stated directly, then implicitly implied that those of us who do not believe in AGW are wrong simply on the basis of numbers, whether scientist or layman. This despite the fact I have posted links to many studies stating otherwise which have passed your hallowed "peer-review".

That is pure, unadulterated, horse****, especially coming from a so-called "scientist".

As to how I'm dealing with it? By posting everything I can find to the contrary, the stack of which is getting higher every day as the truth comes out.

If I convince one, a single, solitary person, to sit back and scratch their head and say "Wait...what?", I've won.

Have a day, sir.


----------



## FeXL

Hottest evah! Unprecedented!

Common cries from warmists. 

Have a look & decide for yourself. Don't worry, you don't need to be a bleeding scientist to read a graph...



> The decade with the most record monthly maximum temperatures, was the 1930s. Ten months set their all time record below 350 ppm CO2.
> 
> ...
> 
> The 1930s also had the most daily record maximum temperatures.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Couple from the NIPCC
> 
> Holocene Temperature Histories of Northern & Southern Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> How Unusual Was 20th-Century Global Warming?
> 
> 
> 
> Italics from the links.


Don't you think it's important to point out that the text you're quoting is not from the scientific, peer-reviewed paper, but rather from the blog post that is clearly mis-interpreting the publication in question. I downloaded and read that paper, and it's about landscape development in high mountain regions of Norway during the holocene. The only thing even remotely relevant to the discussions of the current climate is this statement: "Today, permafrost thaws in response to higher temperatures, raising concern about GHG emissions from old permafrost."

If you're going to refer to something as being peer-reviewed, try not to quote a blog post.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> <deep breath, there's so much here to tear apart...>
> 
> The global cooling scare in the 70's is legit. I recall discussing it in Current Events in school & even had a math teacher discuss it with us a few times. It was followed by far more than a few scientists. It made Time Magazine cover, was discussed in Newsweek & was even followed by the CIA.
> 
> Time Magazine article.
> 
> 
> 
> CIA article analysis:
> 
> 
> 
> More in _The Courier_, UNESCO magazine.
> 
> In 1971 Stephen Schneider (yes, that one) even wrote a paper talking about it:
> 
> 
> 
> From Der Spiegel in 1974:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpts from the CIA Report
> 
> More.
> 
> From the National Academy of Sciences:
> 
> 
> 
> The common thread? Man was responsible for that, too...


As far as I can see, regardless of whether it made the cover of Time! etc etc, it still doesn't begin to compare to the near unanimous agreement amongst scientists regarding climate change.

I believe Bryanc attempted to get macfury to show otherwise, but macfury (predictably) failed.

As I said, I certainly have no vested interest in taking either side, in fact, I would wish the climate change theories are totally wrong. But the handful of blogs with incorrect info, etc., isn't convincing me of otherwise. That's not to say the info isn't interesting, or worth considering, but let's consider the source!


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Time & time again you have, if not stated directly, then implicitly implied that those of us who do not believe in AGW are wrong simply on the basis of numbers, whether scientist or layman.


No. Time and time again I have stated explicitly that none of us here have any business criticizing the climatology because none of us are climatologists. I have also stated very clearly that, since we are not able to judge the merit of the science ourselves, we can either refrain from formulating an opinion, or trust the experts who have made their opinions very clear; the experts agree that ACC is occurring.

So we can either accept the consensus of the experts and discuss the policy alternatives rationally, or we can admit that we're too emotionally invested or otherwise irrational about the issue to accept the expert consensus and refrain from discussing it further.



> As to how I'm dealing with it? By posting everything I can find to the contrary, the stack of which is getting higher every day as the truth comes out.


You are dealing with it by finding blogs that chronically misinterpret the research in order to promote a specific political agenda that is congruent with your own, presumably to help deal with the cognitive dissonance that arises as the science chronically conflicts with your irrationally held world view. This strikes me as somewhat pathetic, but it's you're life.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> In contrast, we now have a very extended period (10+ years) during which the vast majority (90%+) of experts agree that ACC is occurring.


That is not consensus either. But at least you are becoming more honest with your numbers.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> That is not consensus either. But at least you are becoming more honest with your numbers.


How is this in any way different than anything I have ever said on this subject?



dictionary.com said:


> con·sen·sus [kuh n-sen-suh s]
> noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
> 1.
> majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
> 2.
> general agreement or concord; harmony.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> No. Time and time again I have stated explicitly that none of us here have any business criticizing the climatology because none of us are climatologists.


Then quit criticizing. If you are not able to do so, why do you continue to do so?



bryanc said:


> I have also stated very clearly that, since we are not able to judge the merit of the science ourselves, we can either refrain from formulating an opinion, or trust the experts who have made their opinions very clear;


Last I checked, I wasn't living in some totalitarian regime where speaking one's mind was against the law. I can express my opinion on any damn thing I want to, expert on the subject or neophyte. You want to limit yourself, go ahead.




bryanc said:


> the experts agree that ACC is occurring.


Some do, some don't. The actual numbers don't matter to me.



bryanc said:


> So we can either accept the *consensus* of the experts and discuss the policy alternatives rationally, or we can admit that we're too emotionally invested or otherwise irrational about the issue to accept the expert consensus and refrain from discussing it further.


Nope, I never use the word consensus, especially to shore up my side of the argument. Nope. Nosiree Bob...

Yes, I do get emotional about this, merely because of all the blatant stupidity, informed or not, on the subject. As to irrationality, have you checked the mirror lately?



bryanc said:


> You are dealing with it by finding blogs that chronically misinterpret the research in order to promote a specific political agenda that is congruent with your own,


Jeezuz this gets tiring... Once again, and for the last time, I have provided links to peer-reviewed studies. So you didn't like the last one. I don't care. I don't need to justify anything to you or to anyone else on these boards. You don't like what I post, put me on ignore. Or don't visit this thread. Or just go away. Whatever.

From my perspective, this has nothing to do with politics. Period. I know many warmists tend to politicize the issue. Frankly, that turns it into an ad hoc argument about left vs right that has absolutely no bearing on the issues at hand.




bryanc said:


> This strikes me as somewhat pathetic, but it's you're life.


What's pathetic is that I stooped low enough to engage you in the first place. It won't happen again.

Good bye, Bryan.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> How is this in any way different than anything I have ever said on this subject?


When you said 98%.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> When you said 98%.


How is 98% not over 90%?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Then quit criticizing. If you are not able to do so, why do you continue to do so?


I'm not criticizing the science; you are. I'm criticizing you for trying to criticize science you clearly don't understand.


> Last I checked, I wasn't living in some totalitarian regime where speaking one's mind was against the law. I can express my opinion on any damn thing I want to, expert on the subject or neophyte.


You are obviously entitled to your own opinion, you just aren't entitled to your own facts.


> The actual numbers don't matter to me.


Glad to have that cleared up. No wonder you have trouble with science.


> Once again, and for the last time, I have provided links to peer-reviewed studies. So you didn't like the last one.


I liked the peer-reviewed article just fine; it just didn't say any of the stuff you said it did. You linked to a blog post that clearly and egregiously misinterpreted the research. There was nothing wrong with the research, it just didn't say what the blog post said it did, and a blog is most certainly not a peer-reviewed study, so don't claim it is.


> I don't need to justify anything to you or to anyone else on these boards. You don't like what I post, put me on ignore.


Or better yet, continue to call you out on your misrepresentations (or, at best naive re-posting of politically motivated crap that deliberately misrepresents the science).


> What's pathetic is that I stooped low enough to engage you in the first place. It won't happen again.


Woo... zing! I'm _beneath_ you. How scathing. :-(

Perhaps you should use the ignore feature... if you can figure out how.


----------



## bryanc

*Ocean Acidification is more immediately problematic*

Ocean Acidification is more immediately problematic than global warming.

Regardless of its GHG effect, athropogenic CO2 emissions are having a catastrophic effect on the chemistry of the ocean.



> the current rates of ocean acidification at monitoring sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans exceed those experienced during the last glacial termination by two orders of magnitude.


 (Friedrich, et al. 2012 doi:10.1038/nclimate1372)

This is having catastrophic effects on organisms that use calcium carbonate as a shell or endoskeleton (e.g. Bednaršek, et al., 2012 doi:10.1038/ngeo1635).

What do EhMaccians think about efforts to "fertilize" the ocean with iron sulphates to increase the rate at which phytoplankton can fix CO2, and/or to precipitate the CO2 as carbonates?


----------



## FeXL

So, there are probably a number of you wondering what the next panic the warmists are going to throw at you, the next "sky is falling".

I'm going to guess that ocean acidification will be on the forefront.  To that end, I offer the following:

1. Paper that discusses the vast pH range that exists in the oceans. It's not all 8.0 (which, incidently, is slightly basic, not acidic). Some good graphs showing ranges at 15 sensor locations, including groundwater springs off Mexico (with a pH range of .905) and CO2 vents off Italy (with a stunning pH range of 1.4). Despite these extremes, calcareous fauna exist nearby.

In addition:



> This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions”


Highly significant if the null hypothesis bears scrutiny...

2. Another paper which covers their own research, analyzes data from other sources & provides this conclusion regarding plankton: 



> The four researchers determined that nutrient uptake and photosynthetic parameters "were all unaffected by pH treatments 8.3-7.7," treatments that they say "match the predicted 21st century changes in CO2 and pH." In addition, they found that "cellular carbon and total particulate organic carbon were both completely unaffected by pH treatment within this range," and that "the same was true for the succession of all 25 enumerated protist species." In addition, they report that "phytoplankton pigment analysis did not show effects of pH either," and they say that *"the investigated plankton community was thus, in all ways, resilient to pH changes between 8.3 and 7.7,"* noting once again that these changes are equivalent to the *predicted changes for the next century.*


Recall that these predicted extremes are model based and immediately suspect.

They also note:



> One potential reason for this "broad level of pH-tolerance," as they describe it, is that "pH in coastal waters often fluctuates as a result of respiratory and photosynthetic processes," as well as "hydrographical events," with the result that "seasonal, and even diurnal, fluctuations in coastal seawater pH have been shown to encompass 7.5 to 9.6 (Macedo et al., 2001; Hansen, 2002)." And thus they conclude that *"it is unlikely that the investigated plankton community would be significantly affected by a pH and CO2 change as predicted for the 21st century."*


3. Also have the following on one widespread species of coral which adapted to pH as low as 7.75 (from 8.1) in 6 months. Yes, it's only one species but it also tells us that we have much to learn about marine life. This research is unusual in that the study period was 6 months long, as opposed to the more typical few days.



> *In contrast, L. pertusa was capable to acclimate to acidified conditions in long-term (six months) incubations, leading to even slightly enhanced rates of calcification.* Net growth is sustained even in waters sub-saturated with respect to aragonite. Acclimation to seawater acidification did not cause a measurable increase in metabolic rates. This is the first evidence of successful acclimation in a coral species to ocean acidification, emphasizing the general need for long-term incubations in ocean acidification research. To conclude on the sensitivity of cold-water coral reefs to future ocean acidification further ecophysiological studies are necessary which should also encompass the role of food availability and rising temperatures.


Bold mine.

I'm sure this will be followed up by a bunch of stuttering and cries of "consensus". Just ignore it...


----------



## SINC

Good grief, I love this thread again!

FeXL re-emerges form a better place to tackle the wrath of the warmists and the reaction is typical. The usual suspects will cheer from the sidelines, the usual scientist will try in vain to debunk it all with consensus and every once in a while, MacDoc himself will sweep in between polluting flights to huff and to puff and to blow the house down.

I am so glad I bought a lifetime membership here on ehMac to take it all in!

Let the debate continue.


----------



## groovetube

by usual suspects cheering from the sidelines, I assume you include yourself in that!

I tend to put a little more weight on what a trained scientist says. Especially when he admits he is not a climatologist, and backs what he says up with solid facts, not some blog.

You know how people here react to someone who posts a link to a blog post eh?

It is, an entertaining thread, at times.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

It's hard to believe that there are still people who think that **** sapien's excessive ways are not responsible for climate change. I applaud those of you who try to convince the deniers but you're likely wasting your time.
Skippy - YouTube


----------



## Macfury

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> It's hard to believe that there are still people who think that **** sapien's excessive ways are not responsible for climate change. I applaud those of you who try to convince the deniers but you're likely wasting your time.
> Skippy - YouTube


How much climate change is "**** sapien's" excessive ways responsible for?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> How much climate change is "**** sapien's" excessive ways responsible for?


Great question; ask a climatologist, not a kangaroo.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Great question; ask a climatologist, not a kangaroo.


:lmao:


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

Macfury said:


> How much climate change is "**** sapien's" excessive ways responsible for?


The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


The planet is accumulating heat

When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
Skippy - YouTube


----------



## bryanc

Hmm... it seems the kangaroo is well informed.


----------



## Joker Eh

bryanc said:


> Hmm... it seems the kangaroo is well informed.


Nice copy and paste to promote video.


----------



## bryanc

You're right Joker. Skippy, please stop posting cut-and-paste crap; if you've got an opinion, let's hear it.

I'm far more interested in discussion of topics that are not clear cut; we are now so confident that ACC is happening, it's not really worth discussing it any more (unless new science emerges that overturns the established paradigm). On the science side, what is less clear is the speed and impact of ocean acidification, and on the policy side (what options are viable, and which have the best chances of succeeding) nothing is really clear (at least to me). So I'd like to know what informed people think about these issues.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

bryanc said:


> You're right Joker. Skippy, please stop posting cut-and-paste crap; if you've got an opinion, let's hear it.
> 
> I'm far more interested in discussion of topics that are not clear cut; we are now so confident that ACC is happening, it's not really worth discussing it any more (unless new science emerges that overturns the established paradigm). On the science side, what is less clear is the speed and impact of ocean acidification, and on the policy side (what options are viable, and which have the best chances of succeeding) nothing is really clear (at least to me). So I'd like to know what informed people think about these issues.


Fair enough. MacFurry's simple question can be answered with existing information. Looking through the thread MacFurry appears to be in the denier camp and ultimately he is wasting time and space. Please accept my apology if any harm was done. It was not intended. 

Skippy - YouTube


----------



## bryanc

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> MacFurry's simple question can be answered with existing information. Looking through the thread MacFurry appears to be in the denier camp and ultimately he is wasting time and space.


Well, I'm sure he and the other deniers think their campaign to spread confusion and disinformation regarding the science is justified because they're trying to save us all from the economic apocalypse that they're convinced will certainly result from people developing new technologies... because... like... new technologies are not likely to make anyone any money... or something... er. right.



> Please accept my apology if any harm was done. It was not intended.


It's up to you if you want to make a meaningful contribution to this community or if you just want to hop around depositing links to your video. The former is always welcome, even if you choose to do so in a silly way, but the latter gets old fast. It's not just okay, but highly desirable to cite your sources, but please try not to cut-and-paste; let us know what you think and provide a link to the evidence you're using.

I hope you stick around.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

Thanks. Actually I often refer to a fantastic iPhone app called Skeptical Science whenever I encounter frequent deniers and trolls. The answers are excellent and the deniers are frequently silenced and forced to deal with the weight of work that is peer reviewed and overwhelmingly accepted by a vast majority of the science community.

Unfortunately due to me being a newbie around here I need to post my link. I would prefer to put it in my signature but I need a certain amount of posts before restrictions are lifted.

Thanks for your encouraging comments.

Skippy - YouTube


----------



## SINC

UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows flood


----------



## bryanc

The "Hows the weather?" thread is thataway ===>

Back on the topic of climate, a major study of global climate sensitivity over the past 65 million years was published in _Nature_ yesterday. It suggests we're in uncharted territory.


> Present-day atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations and the radiative perturbation due to anthropogenic emissions increase much faster than observed for any natural process within the Cenozoic era.


It also concludes that the IPCC estimates regarding how anthropogenic GHGs will affect the global climate over the next century are likely correct.


> Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W^−1 m^2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.


This brings up the question of wether those who've vilified the IPCC, and specific climatologists, will reverse their position as these organizations and individuals are consistently vindicated?


----------



## MacDoc

and the 900 lb gorilla for projections is



> *Thawing of Permafrost Expected to Cause Significant Additional Global Warming, Not Yet Accounted for in Climate Predictions*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2012) — Permafrost covering almost a quarter of the northern hemisphere contains 1,700 gigatonnes of carbon, twice that currently in the atmosphere, and could significantly amplify global warming should thawing accelerate as expected, according to a new report released November 27 by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).


Thawing of permafrost expected to cause significant additional global warming, not yet accounted for in climate predictions

once that starts in earnest....bend kiss your ass etc. at least in the long term. Not one single thing we could do about short of injecting hundreds of thousands of tons of S02 into the atmosphere hoping to refreeze the area - ( equivalent of a lot of volcanoes ) - of course the damage from that would be extensive.

I simply do not see avoiding 4C rise and that make the methane release on a mass scale just about inevitable. Oh joy


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> I simply do not see avoiding 4C rise and that make the methane release on a mass scale just about inevitable. Oh joy


The silver lining here is that methane won't cause further ocean acidification (except by indirectly increasing CO2), so there is some hope that increased plankton growth at higher temperatures will help.

I have no doubt that life will continue; but our civilization will certainly have to adapt. And if we don't try to mitigate some of the damage we've already done, that adaptation may take a rather apocalyptic form.

Nevertheless, I remain fundamentally optimistic; I expect to see a future in which developed countries consume significantly less energy which is largely provisioned through renewable and other carbon-neutral technologies, and we provide economic assistance for developing countries trying to by-pass the fossil fuel powered technologies we used to gain our economic dominance. Between that and reducing global population, I think we can bring about a livable future.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> The silver lining here is that methane won't cause further ocean acidification (except by indirectly increasing CO2), so there is some hope that increased plankton growth at higher temperatures will help.
> 
> I have no doubt that life will continue; but our civilization will certainly have to adapt. And if we don't try to mitigate some of the damage we've already done, that adaptation may take a rather apocalyptic form.
> 
> Nevertheless, I remain fundamentally optimistic; I expect to see a future in which developed countries consume significantly less energy which is largely provisioned through renewable and other carbon-neutral technologies, and we provide economic assistance for developing countries trying to by-pass the fossil fuel powered technologies we used to gain our economic dominance. Between that and reducing global population, I think we can bring about a livable future.


Was reading about an archeologist who is convinced the Vikings had a well established Arctic trade route during the "They faked it" Medieval Warming era. The planet has nicely survived warming and cooling eras in the past. As have the Polar Bears.

We do need to be ready and able to adapt no matter which way the climate changes. Climate is not static. If you must expend capital resources spend them in preparing for whatever changes may happen to come down the road. Warming despite the Sky is Falling clamour is fairly gradual. Ample evidence now suggests that cooling is very sudden and dramatic. Also harder to deal with quickly. 

Incidentally I find it most interesting that none of the AGW worshippers were willing to try living on the income levels that many seniors would face should Carbon Trading and taxes become reality. Ironically it now appears my double the best guess of the supporters cost was too low. Now the AGW worshippers claim all the money various nations spent trying to fulfill their Kyoto Accord commitments made zero difference. So maybe that $100/month impact I guessed at was way too low. Maybe $200 to $500/month is more realistic.


----------



## FeXL

*IPCC? I don't think so...*

So, for those of you who are new to the 3 threads on ehMac about AGW, or have poor memories, or just need a refresher on the kind of non-peer reviewed crap that IPCC encourages (or are merely in denial about the veracity of the much-vaunted International Pack of Climate Crooks), go search for posts by "FeXL" containing "IPCC". You will find numerous examples of the fact that fully 30% of their sources in AR4 are grey literature, that their version of "peer review" constitutes nothing more than "pal review" (at best), all the -gates they were responsible for (glaciergate is one that comes to mind) and all the associated disinformation. There are a veritable litany of reasons why anything from the IPCC should be immediately suspect. I'm not going to rehash that, feel free if you like.

I will, however, point you in the direction of Donna LaFramboises excellent website and you can read not only her posts about the IPCC but also access her book about the IPCC, _The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert_. She is a Canadian journalist who effectively dissects the IPCC into pieces small enough to swallow, providing you don't vomit from the stench of corruption. A review of her book by Judith Curry (Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and who, incidently, supported the IPCC until 2009) is available here.

Having posted all that, there may in fact be something of substance within the IPCC's findings. However, when you are utilizing organizations like the WWF as sources, it becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, including, but not limited to, the performance of their GCM models and associated predictions.


----------



## FeXL

> and could significantly amplify global warming should thawing accelerate as expected


coulda + shoulda + woulda = SFA...


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back there was some screeching about an article from the World Bank. This was picked up by "The Atlantic" and, with the addition of some other fear-mongering, churned out some wonderful low quality butt-wipe : "5 Charts About Climate Change That Should Have You Very, Very Worried".

Are ya shakin' in yer frozen boots yet? It's OK, take a deep breath & have a look at the link, it's been dealt with. Typical FUD...

Linky...


----------



## FeXL

Now, on to skippy's line of "empirical evidence". I have...questions.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> We're raising CO2 levels


No question. Around a 100 ppm, maybe a bit more, since the industrial revolution. Open & closed.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> CO2 traps heat


Kind of a broad reaching statement. How much? Is there a saturation point? At what scale (ie, arithmetic, logarithmic, etc)? Are there any other factors?

That said, I offer this link which takes one to the Plant Fossils of West Virginia website. Scroll down to "Similarities with our Present World" and have a look at the "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" graph. The graph plots time (going back to the beginning of the Cambrian, ~570 mya to the present) on the x. Included on the y are CO2 concentrations and temperatures. Now, realizing that we are looking at a graph with a scale of hundreds of millions of years, there is a great deal of smoothing. However, general trends are easily observed.

Go to the Cambrain. Temps remained more or less level (again, at this scale) despite CO2 levels ranging from ~4500 ppm to ~7000 ppm. How?

Next, I bring attention to the late Ordovician, where the temperature plummets. This was due to an ice age at the time. All this despite CO2 concentrations peaking near 4500 ppm, more than 11 times our current concentration. If "CO2 traps heat", how did this happen?

Have a look at the early Tertiary. Temps were as hot as they've ever been on the planet, yet CO2 levels were <1000 ppm. During the recent Tertiary, temps were ~8 degress higher than current, with CO2 levels comparable to todays. Again, why?

Yes, there is greater uncertainty with the numbers the further back in time you go but there is certainly something else going on besides "CO2 traps heat".



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> The planet is accumulating heat


Yes, but how much & where? The oceans are obviously the most vast heat sink and, consequently enough, the most difficult to measure.

This paper examines "ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010". Interestingly enough, their findings compute 0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface, nearly 1/3 of the IPCC's (at 1.12). This is why Trenberth can't find his "missing heat". It never existed in the first place. (ie. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. ", from the Climategate emails)

More 1.
More 2. 

You will note the third of 3 key points:



> The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs


Anthony observes (and I agree):



> That last bullet point makes me cringe a bit, because I seriously doubt the resolution of this study down to hundredths of degrees seeing the sort of measurements mess we’ve seen in the surface network. Nonetheless, even if the resolution is low, there’s little trend.


OK, a couple items.

You used data from Hansen. Hansen carries absolutely no weight with me. Period. His adjustments to the temperature record and the political posturing he does tells me he is far more interested in his next grant money than actually conducting any science. Not one of his predictions from the past has come to be and he is famous for his inablity to call the next El Nino or La Nina. Current temps are well under his best case scenario (C), of no CO2 added to the atmosphere since 2000.

Worldwide temps have flat-lined for the 15 years, despite CO2 temps going up by 8%. Why the disconnect? Could the IPCC models be wrong? Is there some other factor at work? Factors?

Further, I believe (and have for some time) we are headed for a period of cooling. If anyone is interested, this link expands on that.

The author notes:



> Of course no one has a perfect lock on predicting the future of climate or anything else. *But there is more than sufficient doubt concerning IPCC model projections to block any large scale implementation of massive redistribution of funds* -- ultimately in the $trillions of dollars -- based upon IPCC model output. Particularly since the IPCC and its sister UN organisations would be among the main beneficiaries of this extorted largesse.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

And just in case you like some snark while PO'ing the warmists... 

12 Straight Months Of Above Normal Antarctic Sea Ice

Pakistan Lead Negotiator : Greenland Ice Sheet Disappeared Last Summer

Pachauri Batting 0.000 – Wants A New Contract

Moscow Heatwave Continues

Another GISS Smoking Gun

US Climate Becoming Much Less Extreme


----------



## MacDoc

It just gets worse,,,,,


> * Projections of sea level rise are vast underestimates *
> 
> 
> 
> 19:00 29 November 2012 by *Anil Ananthaswamy*
> For similar stories, visit the *Climate Change* Topic Guide
> Expect more water to lap at your shores. That's the take-home message from two studies out this week that look at the latest data on sea level rise due to climate change.
> The first shows that current projections for the end of the century may seriously underestimate the rise in global sea levels. The other, on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, looks at just how much of the water stored up there has been moving into the oceans.
> Both demonstrate that global warming is a real and imminent threat.
> *What mechanisms could lead to a rise in global sea level as climate change warms the planet?*
> There are four major mechanisms: the thermal expansion of oceans in a warming world; the loss of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; the melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps (such as those in the Himalayas); and the extraction and discharge of groundwater.
> *What is the latest on sea level rise?*
> One of the two new studies shows that last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, vastly underestimated actual sea level rise. That's because the IPCC's fourth assessment report (AR4) did not include contributions from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
> So, for the years 1993-2011, the IPCC estimated that sea level would rise by about 2 millimetres a year. But the satellite data from that period now tell a different story.
> Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and colleagues compared IPCC AR4 projections with actual measurements and found the projections lagging behind what was happening in the real world. Global sea level has been rising at about 3.2 millimetres a year over the past two decades (_Environmental Research Letters_, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035).
> *Why the discrepancy?*
> The likely culprits are continental ice sheets. "[In IPCC models], the two big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica contribute nothing to future sea level rise, because they assume that the mass loss from Greenland is balanced by ice gain in Antarctica due to higher snowfall rates," says Rahmstorf.
> But satellite data show that the ice sheets are losing ice to the oceans.
> If the models have not accurately reproduced what happened in recent years, it is likely that their projections for the future are not correct either. Since 2007, the IPCC has recognised this. Its initial projection of a maximum sea level rise of 60 centimetres by 2100 has been upped to include an additional 20-centimetre rise due to ice sheets melting. This effect comes from simplified models of what the ice sheets are doing, however, so even the updated projections could be off the mark and sea level rise could potentially be greater still.
> *So, what do the latest satellite readings tell us about ice sheets?*
> They tell us that the melting in Greenland is not offset by gain of ice in Antarctica. Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds, UK, and colleagues combined data from three independent types of satellite studies to lessen uncertainties and remove year-to-year variability.
> "It's probably now the best overall and most comprehensive estimate of what the ice sheets are doing and what they have been doing for the last 20 years," says team member Ian Joughin of the University of Washington in Seattle.
> 
> 
> And the data are clear: from 1990 to 2000, the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets added about 0.25 millimetres a year to global sea level rise. For 2005-2010, that number has increased to about 1 millimetre a year (_Science_, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228102"
> This is a concern, says Joughin. "It shows an accelerating increase of mass loss."
> 
> *Is there a difference in how Greenland and Antarctica are reacting to global warming?*
> Yes. Greenland is losing the most ice, causing sea level to rise by about 0.75 millimetres per year. What's happening in Antarctica is more nuanced. East Antarctica is gaining mass because of increased snowfall, but this is more than offset by the loss of ice from West Antarctica, particularly along the Amundsen Coast, where warm water is melting ice shelves from beneath. This is leading to thinning and speed-up of glaciers, such the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
> 
> *How much will the extraction of groundwater for irrigation add to the sea level?*
> Until now, sea level rise from the extraction of groundwater (which eventually ends up in the sea) has been countered by dams built on rivers over the last century, which hold water back on land. But the best sites for dams have now been utilised, so we can't expect to store more water on land.
> As we extract more groundwater for irrigation – a trend that could increase as climate change causes droughts – it could add up to 10 centimetres to the sea level by 2100, according to Rahmstorf. "This will become a net contribution to sea level rise in the future," he says. "Not big, but not negligible."


Projections of sea level rise are vast underestimates - environment - 29 November 2012 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> It just gets worse,,,,,


It really does. The histrionics of these people is embarrassing!


----------



## MacDoc

Fexl - you hand out the Koolaid while the **** hits the fan - what a joke - the usual crap from the rapidly shrinking deniosphere.

Try from real climate science from those in field.

Greenhouse Gas Goals Grow More Elusive | UNEP Emissions Gap Report | LiveScience


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> ry from real climate science from those in field.
> 
> Greenhouse Gas Goals Grow More Elusive | UNEP Emissions Gap Report | LiveScience


These goals do grow more elusive--because support for the theory is dwindling.

Histrionics rising faster than expected!


----------



## groovetube

I think he says it just to make himself feel better :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

Lets take the Antarctic bit .....sea ice cover is only one aspect. Unlike blogger sources with a denial agenda ---- there are actual scientists from a variety of disciplines involved.



> *Ice Sheet Loss At Both Poles Increasing, Major Study Finds*
> By NASA
> Published: Thursday, Nov. 29, 2012 - 11:33 am
> 
> WASHINGTON, Nov. 29, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An international team of experts supported by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) has combined data from multiple satellites and aircraft to produce the most comprehensive and accurate assessment to date of ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica and their contributions to sea level rise.
> (Logo: Login )
> 
> In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, *47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s* (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.
> 
> This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.
> 
> The study was produced by an international collaboration -- the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) -- that combined observations from 10 satellite missions to develop the first consistent measurement of polar ice sheet changes. The researchers reconciled differences among dozens of earlier ice sheet studies by carefully matching observation periods and survey areas. They also combined measurements collected by different types of satellite sensors, such as ESA's radar missions, NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE).
> 
> "What is unique about this effort is that it brought together the key scientists and all of the different methods to estimate ice loss," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager in Washington. "It's a major challenge they undertook, involving cutting-edge, difficult research to produce the most rigorous and detailed estimates of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica to date. The results of this study will be invaluable in informing the IPCC as it completes the writing of its Fifth Assessment Report over the next year."
> 
> Professor Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom coordinated the study, along with research scientist Erik Ivins of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Shepherd said the venture's success is because of the cooperation of the international scientific community and the precision of various satellite sensors from multiple space agencies.
> 
> "Without these efforts, we would not be in a position to tell people with confidence how Earth's ice sheets have changed, and to end the uncertainty that has existed for many years," Shepherd said.
> 
> The study found variations in the pace of ice sheet change in Antarctica and Greenland.
> 
> "Both ice sheets appear to be losing more ice now than 20 years ago, but the pace of ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a five-fold increase since the mid-1990s," Ivins said. "In contrast, the overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained fairly constant with the data suggesting a 50-percent increase in Antarctic ice loss during the last decade."
> 
> For more on ICESat, visit:
> 
> NASA: ICESat & ICESat-2
> 
> For more on GRACE, visit:
> 
> GRACE - Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
> 
> SOURCE NASA
> 
> Read more here: Ice Sheet Loss At Both Poles Increasing, Major Study Finds - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee


----------



## Macfury

Real scientists also say:



> The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.


Read "Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses" by Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David right here:

NASA Technical Server!

*Now MacDoc, first tell me why these are not real scientists at work. Then tell me in your own words why you believe the study to be wrong. *


----------



## MacDoc

sort of obvious at this point



> *Adapting to a warmer world: No going back*
> 
> With nations doing little to slow climate change, many people are ramping up plans to adapt to the inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bangladeshis use the ubiquitous hyacinth weed to build floating, flood-proof crop gardens.


more

* Olive Heffernan1

28 November 2012http://www.nature.com/news/adapting-to-a-warmer-world-no-going-back-1.11906

Welcome to waterworld.....sooner than anyone imagined


----------



## Macfury

Your current article link merely points out that storm defenses across the globe have always been weak, and that increased coastal development has spurred some nations to improving those defenses.


----------



## MacDoc

> Then tell me in your own words why you believe the study to be wrong.


Study is not wrong, it's perfectly consistent with increased moisture in the atmosphere penetrating into a very dry polar desert.
It's your interpretation that is flawed that it somehow counters AGW.
It does not in any way.
Nothing new in that bit of information and simply a wonderful example of your poor understanding of the planet you live on.

In fact had you bothered to read the science you would have noted there is glacier growth in some areas but it's not due to falling temperatures globally but rather to increased precipitation from a warmer atmosphere.

The earth is tilted so it will always be cold a certain portion of the year and the mass of ice sheet at the southern pole creates it's own climate. Warmer moist air entering that zone will produce more snow just as lake effect does here when moisture is picked up from a warmer lake and hits the colder land areas downwind.
Snow accumulation in the central regions means a glacial build up *in that region.*
It's straight forward and nothing in the least bit difficult to understand for most people...I guess you are the exception.

But in addition I use support for my knowledge ..



> Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as "Global Glacier Recession Continues". *Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends.* Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?
> 
> *The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). *There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 2: Percentage of shrinking and growing glaciers in 2008–2009, from the 2011 WGMS report
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also very important to understand *that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) *such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008).
> 
> The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.


Is the monitoring accurate??



> International glacier monitoring has produced a range of unprecedented data compilations including some 36000 length change observations and roughly 3400 mass balance measurements for approximately 1800 and 230 glaciers, respectively. The observation series are drawn from around the globe; however, there is a strong bias towards the Northern Hemisphere and Europe. A first attempt to compile a world glacier inventory was made in the 1970s based mainly on aerial photographs and maps. It has resulted to date in a detailed inventory of more than 100000 glaciers covering an area of about 240000 km2 and in preliminary estimates, for the remaining ice cover of some 445000 km2 for the second half of the 20th century. This inventory task continues through the present day, based mainly on satellite images.
> WGMS. 2008. Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures. Zemp, M., Roer, I., Kääb, A., Hoelzle, M., Paul, F. and W. Haeberli (eds.), UNEP, World Glacier Monitoring Service, Zurich, Switzerland


and continues to improve especially with new satellite technology like GRACE
NASA - NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice

•••••

Now in your own words tell us why, if there is no AGW, the stratosphere is cooling.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Real scientists also say:
> 
> 
> 
> Read "Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses" by Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David right here:
> 
> NASA Technical Server!
> 
> *Now MacDoc, first tell me why these are not real scientists at work. Then tell me in your own words why you believe the study to be wrong. *


BIG OIL MACFURY! BIG OIL!


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> BIG OIL MACFURY! BIG OIL!


And on the other side Bigger Taxes and Carbon Credit Commissions.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> And on the other side Bigger Taxes and Carbon Credit Commissions.


Not to mention an abundance of government cash for your research.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Not to mention an abundance of government cash for your research.


There simply is not a *rolls eyes* gif big enough for this on the whole internet. If you had any idea how difficult it is to get the merest pittance of research funding for basic science in this country, I think even _you_ would be appalled at the lack of financial support for science.


----------



## groovetube

and we all know, how much our government would love to throw an 'abundance of cash' at scientists who might find evidence of climate change due to human activity!


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> There simply is not a *rolls eyes* gif big enough for this on the whole internet. If you had any idea how difficult it is to get the merest pittance of research funding for basic science in this country, I think even _you_ would be appalled at the lack of financial support for science.


Which is why they proclaim their steadfast belief in whatever pays the bills.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Which is why they proclaim their steadfast belief in whatever pays the bills.


:lmao:


----------



## MacGuiver

heavyall said:


> Which is why they proclaim their steadfast belief in whatever pays the bills.


You could certainly pay a lot of bills with the ever increasing billions thrown at it. In the US at least. Our government may be more sensible, I'm not sure.

This from Forbes.

The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Forbes



> Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”


So yeah, if you're a scientist and you want to get on the gravy train, there is plenty of gravy for climate change studies. The more dire the results, the better the chance more cash will be coming.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> So yeah, if you're a scientist and you want to get on the gravy train, there is plenty of gravy for climate change studies. The more dire the results, the better the chance more cash will be coming.


Can we just try to pretend for a minute that we have some interest in reality? Research scientists at publicly funded universities don't get paid on the basis of what findings their research generates. That's the whole point of tenure. If your research does not support the established paradigm, you won't loose your job; it won't have any impact on your income at all. If your research supports the established paradigm; same deal, it has no impact on you personally. The point is to remove one of the major motivations for biasing one's research.

There are obviously still sources of bias, but everyone's biases are different, and what any one research group publishes can be verified and reproduced by dozens of others, so the objective reality is what determines who's right. When scientists stop arguing among themselves, it's because every possible point of contention has been settled to the point where nobody thinks the can gain some notoriety by showing someone else has been wrong about it. That's what's so remarkable about the degree of consensus among climatologists regarding ACC; scientists almost never agree on anything. We make our livings trying to disprove each others claims.

There's nothing more attractive to an ambitious scientist than a well-established paradigm; if you can knock one of those down, you're doing great. Therefore, when well-established paradigms persist for extended periods of time, it's either because they are fundamentally correct, or because we don't have the technology necessary to get at the data necessary to falsify them.


----------



## MacDoc

> Joanne Nova
> Credentials
> 
> Joanne Nova holds a Bachelor of Science degree in microbiology
> 
> Joanne Nova is a self-proclaimed climate change skeptic who declares that science has disproved the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Nova's most notable work in the area of climate change is the controversial document, "The Skeptic's Handbook."
> 
> The Skeptic's Handbook asserts that global warming is not caused by greenhouse gasses, that "the world has not warmed since 2001," and that any global warming is a natural process.
> 
> After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children. Currently, Nova works as a professional speaker, the Director of Science Speak, and the writer and creator of the blog, JoNova.
> 
> Science Speak is a business Nova runs with fellow climate change skeptic David Evans. It describes itself as a "scientific modeling and mathematical research company," that also "speak about some science issues." The website appears dedicated to the issue of global warming, yet doesn't appear to provide any examples of current projects or areas of research. [2]
> 
> Furthermore, Science Speak does not accredit Nova with any of its research in the area of global warming.
> 
> Desmogblog (Joanne Nova)




lovely credentials....



> In 2007, the Heartland Institute arranged for and funded a group of scientists to be sent to Bali to challenge and protest the annual conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. [7]
> 
> Included in this team of "scientists" was Joanne Nova, as well as other prominent skeptics Christopher Monckton, Vincent Gray, Will Alexander, and David Evans.
> 
> The group's activities attracted media coverage from outlets such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and the Drudge Report.
> 
> Desmogblog (Joanne Nova)


the denier comedy circus goes on without a shred of credibility.


----------



## MacDoc

No explanations from MF ..._in his own words_....about the stratosphere cooling....perhaps he didn't even know about it.....why would I not be surprised. 

In the meantime the comedic procession from the rightwingdings is an amusing interlude.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> I simply do not see avoiding 4C rise and that make the methane release on a mass scale just about inevitable. Oh joy


That 4C rise is gonna take an awful long time at the current temperature flatline...


----------



## MacGuiver

MacDoc said:


> lovely credentials....
> 
> 
> 
> the denier comedy circus goes on without a shred of credibility.


Instead of puffing your chest and shooting the messenger, how about countering her numbers. What are the warmists claiming is spent on the issue? I know they cry the blues for more cash to be thrown at their cause so I'm sure they must have some figures as to how many $$$$ the government is tossing their way now?


----------



## FeXL

So, on Antarctica...

There has been much screeching about ice thicknesses, melting ice, ice extent, etc. The usual superlatives have also been thrust into the conversation: unprecedented, etc. I also laugh my backside off when some journalist or warmist uses the "melting ice" terminology while describing continental Antarctica, with average temperatures in the neighbourhood of -30C... Sublimation? Fine (some). Melting? No. So. Much.

When I hear/read about these sorts of things, the first question I ask is "Is it really unprecedented? Unusual? Has it happened before?"

As it turns out, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced periods of warming greater than today.



> Repeating the temperature trend analysis using 50-year windows confirms the finding that the rapidity of recent Antarctic Peninsula warming is unusual but not unprecedented ... natural millennial-scale climate variability has resulted in warming on the eastern Antarctic Peninsula that has been ongoing for a number of centuries and had left ice shelves in this area vulnerable to collapse.


More.

What else do we know about Antarctic Ice?

Well, we know that southern sea ice is currently nearly half a million sq. km. above the 30 year average.

Map view.

On the lighter side, we know there are fruit loops and wackos out there...

We know that between 2008 and 2010 the blue ice region of Antarctica ice height rose by 9 cm, nearly offsetting the 10 cm drop measured between 1991 and 2008.

Blue ice is ice with no snow covering, therefore allowing satellite radar signals to bounce directly from it with no interference. This is unlike signals bounced from snow covered ice, which may affect the readings.

We also know that, although there has been some Antarctic _sea ice_ melt, a certain percentage of that comes from warm water from beneath. Of course, that amount is never quantified.

We know how GISS manufactures lots of warming from the data.

We also know that when Arctic ice is at a low, Antarctic ice peaks and vice versa.

Speaking of which, here is a very cool graph plotting both polar ice extents and, interestingly enough, the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). Note the three observations:



> 1) The AMO trend is identical to the Antarctic trend even though the AMO is the sea surface trend of the North Atlantic Ocean! The trend are so close it is hard to see the AMO and Antarctic trends as separate items.
> 
> 2) The Arctic trend is almost a mirror image of the Antarctic trend.
> 
> 3) The cross over point is around 1997 which is when the AMO went officially positive (it sometimes goes opposite to the main trend for a few months)


Sunovagun...

Lastly, you have much screeching coming from my favorite non-engager, MacDoc, and his link to the latest & greatest data from Grace (which, incidently, many of us read about over a month ago when it first came out. SS & RC must be behind the times. Maybe it takes 'em that long to figger stuff out...).

Now, you can't get much from the article he linked to, save the histrionics, so let me present this (the actual abstract, in the comments):



> Recent estimates of Antarctica’s present-day rate of ice-mass contribution to changes in sea level range from 31 gigatonnes a year (Gt yr−1; ref. 1) to 246 Gt yr−1 (ref. 2), a range that cannot be reconciled within formal errors3. Time-varying rates of mass loss2, 4, 5, 6 contribute to this, but substantial technique-specific systematic errors also exist3. _In particular, estimates of secular ice-mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data are dominated by significant uncertainty in the accuracy of models of mass change due to glacial isostatic adjustment7, 8 (GIA). Here we adopt a new model of GIA, developed from geological constraints, which produces GIA rates systematically lower than those of previous models, and an improved fit to independent uplift data9. After applying the model to 99 months (from August 2002 to December 2010) of GRACE data, we estimate a continent-wide ice-mass change of −69 ± 18 Gt yr−1 (+0.19 ± 0.05 mm yr−1 sea-level equivalent)._ This is about a third to a half of the most recently published GRACE estimates2, 5, which cover a similar time period but are based on older GIA models. Plausible GIA model uncertainties, and errors relating to removing longitudinal GRACE artefacts (‘destriping’), confine our estimate to the range −126 Gt yr−1 to −29 Gt yr−1 (0.08–0.35 mm yr−1 sea-level equivalent). *We resolve 26 independent drainage basins and find that Antarctic mass loss, and its acceleration, is concentrated in basins along the Amundsen Sea coast. Outside this region, we find that West Antarctica is nearly in balance and that East Antarctica is gaining substantial mass.*


So, let's look at some of this.

The italicized text talks about utilizing a better model in the study to predict isostatic rebound. This is when the earth's surface moves back into shape after being pressed down by continental ice, a glacier. So, they're still using a model, but the results more closely resemble actual measurements. (I'd roll my eyes but...)

The underlined text covers their calculated ice loss range, which, incidently, is "confined" by "Plausible GIA model uncertainties". Worst case? Zero point zero eight to zero point three five mm/year of sea rise.  I know...

Lastly, the bold text outlines the geographical confines of the ice "loss". Concentrated along the Amundsen Sea coast, West is balanced, East gaining substantially.

An Aussie journalist has a go of it here.

Now, first question: Does this abstract sound anything like the crap MacDoc linked to?

Second: Based on these numbers, are we anywhere near an Antarctic meltdown?

Third: Is there anything anywhere that indicates what we are currently seeing in the Antarctic (or Arctic for that matter) that is unprecedented, out of sync, or seriously FUBAR'd?

Fourth: Did you seen the bloody correlation in that graph between the Antarctic ice extent and the AMO?

Natural cycles, people. And old Sol.

And I'm the one drinking the kool-aid? Give yer head a shake...


----------



## FeXL

MacGuiver said:


> Instead of puffing your chest and shooting the messenger, how about countering her numbers.


Because MacDoc has never had issues letting a good, old-fashioned, straw man argument get in the way of intelligent discourse...


----------



## FeXL

Seems like MacDoc's most recent, favorite, tabloid, "The Atlantic" is not limiting itself to a single course of disinformation, but multiple.

Now, I brook no issue with the problem of snail shells "corroding". It may already be happening. Probably is. My criticism stems from the use of the words "ocean acidification", in the sense that this is caused by GHG's.

The current, average pH in the ocean is a touch more than 8.0. Everyone go back to their Science 9 or Chem 10 notes. This is still a basic solution. 

Now, as I noted in my lengthy post a couple days back about ocean pH, the pH of the ocean has been measured from 6.69 (which actually is slightly acidic) to 8.05. Interestingly enough, the two lowest measurements came from:



> locations termed our “Extreme” sites - a CO2 venting site in Italy (site S2 in ref. [36]) and a submarine spring site in Mexico.


Absolutely nothing to do with AGW.

Interestingly, if you pay enough attention, you find this little tidbit in the Atlantic article:



> _Part_ of the acidity in the water sample was due to upswelling, a natural occurrence in which cold water from the depths of the ocean is pushed up to the surface by heavy winds.


What _part_? 1%? 50%? 98%? What a crock...

Next, we get statements like this: 



> But the ocean's pH is also decreasing at least in part because of atmospheric carbon dioxide attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.


Again, what part?

The lesson here, people, is to pay attention to what you're reading. When you run across what are known as "weasel words", should, could, part, model, take a step back, have a deep breath, and head back in with your BS flaps down...

Next. Once again, I bring up my "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" graph, from the same post as noted above.

I have some crinoid fossils in my basement. They're calcareous and from the late Paleozoic. Also have some _Arctica ovata_, clam, fossils from the late Cretaceous, also calcareous.

From the chart we see that CO2 levels in the Devonian Period (my crinoid age) ranged from a maximum of about 4000 ppm to a low of about 1200 ppm. My _Arctica's_ are from the late Cretaceous, from the chart around 1000 ppm.

I pose the question: If higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations automatically increase sea water CO2 concentrations, and subsequently lower pH, and then start to dissolve calcium carbonate, how did these two animals ever make it?

These are just two examples of countless species of animals with calcareous body parts over the millennia that thrived, sometimes to today (as in the crinoids). 

As an aside, have you ever seen an _Arctica_ shell? Mine are as much as a 1/4" thick. Hardly an animal that was having difficulty keeping a shell around it.

There is something more than just higher levels of CO2 going on here.


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> Because MacDoc has never had issues letting a good, old-fashioned, straw man argument get in the way of intelligent discourse...


You also have to love the irony of him braying about source credibility using DeSmogBlog as his source. These are the same guys who insist that Tim Ball doesn't have a Ph.D in Climatology, even after he sent them a copy of it. 

Their smear of Joanne Nova makes no sense either. She's ONLY a Microbiologist, as opposed to what credentials does Jim Hoggan have? What? Head of a PR firm, hired by Al Gore and David Suzuki to spread AGW propaganda. OK then.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> ...simply a wonderful example of your poor understanding of the planet you live on.


So, Mr. Wunnerful...

Perhaps you can tap into your vast knowledge and explain why the Glacier Bay ice retreated 50 miles between 1780 & 1892? All with CO2 <300 ppm? Jes' askin'...


----------



## FeXL

heavyall said:


> You also have to love the irony of him braying about source credibility using DeSmogBlog as his source. These are the same guys who insist that Tim Ball doesn't have a Ph.D in Climatology, even after he sent them a copy of it.
> 
> Their smear of Joanne Nova makes no sense either. She's ONLY a Microbiologist, as opposed to what credentials does Jim Hoggan have? What? Head of a PR firm, hired by Al Gore and David Suzuki to spread AGW propaganda. OK then.


There is further irony...

I once took some time to check into the backgrounds of some of his AGW gods. There were some who had bugger all to do with climatology.

That, and he frequently uses links which refer to the IPCC as some sort of authority. It doesn't take much research to find out that some of the lead authors had only undergraduate degrees. 

Funny, too, about Jo Nova. If she doesn't represent a threat, why so much effort to discredit her?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> No explanations from MF ..._in his own words_....about the stratosphere cooling....perhaps he didn't even know about it.....why would I not be surprised.


I was still waiting for you to qualify your statement. Our earliest records of the temperature of the stratosphere go all the way back to that distant year of... 1979. Are you trying to make a case for stratospheric temperature trends with only 32 years worth of data?


----------



## FeXL

Holy smokes! Just about forgot my morning blogroll! Think I'll just put them all in one post...

New paper finds Greenland was 2–3°C warmer than today 4000 years ago

From the abstract:



> Temperature reconstructions from subfossil insect (chironomid) assemblages suggest that summer temperatures were warmer than present by at least 7.1 ka (the beginning of the North Lake record; ka = thousands of years before present), and that the warmest millennia of the Holocene occurred in the study area between 6 and 4 ka. Previous studies in the Jakobshavn region have found that the local Greenland Ice Sheet margin was most retracted behind its present position between 6 and 5 ka, and here we use chironomids to estimate that local summer temperatures were 2–3 °C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent.


New paper finds Arizona droughts were less frequent and less extreme during 20th century

From the abstract:



> Through the use of two different analysis techniques, we identify multiyear and decadal-scale drought events more severe than any in the modern era. Furthermore, the reconstructions suggest that many of the historically significant droughts of the past (e.g., 17th century Puebloan drought) were not merely winter phenomena, but persisted through the summer season as well.


New paper shows W Greenland glacier retreat has decelerated about 50% over past 70 years

From the abstract:



> The studied glaciers all showed an overall retreat with an average of 1.2 ± 0.2 km over the 20th century, indicating a general rise of the equilibrium line along the west coast of Greenland during the last century. Furthermore, the *average rate of retreat was largest in the first half of the 20th century.*


Bold from the link.

New paper shows a large increase of solar radiation in Spain since 1985, dwarfs alleged effect of CO2

[global solar radiation=(G)]



> The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of +3.9 Wm-2 per decade...*These results are in line with the widespread increase of G, also known as brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites.*


Bold mine.

Wait. Wha...?



> All these results point towards a diminution of clouds and/or aerosols over the area.


Old Sol doing the warming? Reported worldwide?

Who new?


----------



## FeXL

Hansen Caught In Another Big Lie

So, in 2012, Jimmy says this:



> We conclude that extreme heat waves, such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, were “caused” by global warming, because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.


Yet, in 1999, he said this:



> Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..
> 
> in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country


So, which the hell is it? 

As a scientist, are you allowed to change your mind? Absolutely! Once, twice, 10 times if the empirical evidence allows. However, if the empirical evidence was fit enough to form a statement in 1999, what changed? The empirical evidence hasn't. Hansen has recently seen fit to make massive adjustments in the temperature record but that doesn't change the raw data.

I suggest that the only thing which has changed is his politics and the need for further grant monies.

It's no wonder you can't pin these guys down. The goalposts just keep getting moved...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> It's no wonder you can't pin these guys down. The goalposts just keep getting moved...


That's why they keep moving from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to "Climate Disruption." As each support drops out of their arguments, they need to build a fresh house of cards to live in.


----------



## groovetube

It is rather difficult to grasp how science and the studies tend to evolve as more is learned.


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> Hansen has recently seen fit to make massive adjustments in the temperature record but that doesn't change the raw data.


Those adjustments are a big part of what I was talking about earlier with respect to blatant lying. The real numbers clearly show no warming, so they keep going back and lowering the temperatures in the past to make it appear as though current temps are relatively warmer. Who is their communications director, George Orwell?


----------



## Macfury

Joker Eh said:


> Nice copy and paste to promote video.


Yep. That stuff is available verbatim from 100 warmist sites. Way to soil the memories of the real Skippy,


----------



## Macfury

*Dooooooh-a!*

I know MacDoc speaks frequently about the world's commitment to GHG reductions. The Doha circus puts that claim to rest:

http://www.economist.com/news/21567...te-summit-has-only-modest-aims-theatre-absurd



> The jamboree in Doha is the 18th UN climate-change summit, but the third since a landmark one at Copenhagen in 2009. That year, instead of negotiating a big new treaty to go beyond the timid Kyoto accords, America, plus China and other big emerging markets, announced a deal outside the UN framework, promising to cut emissions but leaving the talks in disarray. The next year, at Cancún in Mexico, others bowed to the inevitable and brought the “Copenhagen accord” within the UN framework. The year after that, at Durban, with the obligations that Kyoto put on rich countries about to expire, countries promised more talks about talks, saying they would negotiate a new climate regime by 2015 and have one in force by 2020. The Doha meeting begins that negotiation.
> 
> In other words, the first period of the Kyoto accord ends in December with no new treaty to replace it and no prospect of one till 2020. In its second period, Kyoto has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. Russia, Japan and Canada have either pulled out or said they will not make any new promises. A climate-finance system, Fast Start Finance, set up at Copenhagen to help poor countries pay the costs of mitigation and adaptation, also ends this year, without being fully funded. Worst of all, no country has made significant pledges to cut greenhouse-gas emissions since the Copenhagen conference and its aftermath.
> *
> Climate policy is going nowhere fast.*


Get on board the Love Train folks!


----------



## MacDoc

This was new to me.....just one more thing.



> *Megastorms Could Drown Massive Portions of California*
> 
> Huge flows of vapor in the atmosphere, dubbed "atmospheric rivers," have unleashed massive floods every 200 years, and climate change could bring more of them
> 
> By Michael D. Dettinger and B. Lynn Ingram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DROWNED: A 43-day atmospheric-river storm in 1861 turned California’s Central Valley region into an inland sea, simulated here on a current-day map. Image: Don Foley
> In Brief
> 
> * Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California about every 200 years. The most recent was in 1861, and it bankrupted the state.
> * Such floods were most likely caused by atmospheric rivers: narrow bands of water vapor about a mile above the ocean that extend for thousands of miles. Much smaller forms of these rivers regularly hit California, as well as the western coasts of other countries.
> * Scientists who created a simulated megastorm, called ARkStorm, that was patterned after the 1861 flood but was less severe, found that such a torrent could force more than a million people to evacuate and cause $400 billion in losses if it happened in California today.
> * Forecasters are getting better at predicting the arrival of atmospheric rivers, which will improve warnings about flooding from the common storms and about the potential for catastrophe from a megastorm.
> 
> More In This Article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intense rainstorms sweeping in from the Pacific Ocean began to pound central California on Christmas Eve in 1861 and continued virtually unabated for 43 days. The deluges quickly transformed rivers running down from the Sierra Nevada mountains along the state’s eastern border into raging torrents that swept away entire communities and mining settlements. The rivers and rains poured into the state’s vast Central Valley, turning it into an inland sea 300 miles long and 20 miles wide. Thousands of people died, and one quarter of the state’s estimated 800,000 cattle drowned. Downtown Sacramento was submerged under 10 feet of brown water filled with debris from countless mudslides on the region’s steep slopes. California’s legislature, unable to function, moved to San Francisco until Sacramento dried out—six months later. By then, the state was bankrupt.
> 
> 
> 
> Editor's note (11/30/12): The article will appear in the January 2013 issue of Scientific American. We are making it freely available now because of the flooding underway in California.
Click to expand...

Megastorms Could Drown Massive Portions of California: Scientific American


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> This was new to me.....just one more thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Megastorms Could Drown Massive Portions of California: Scientific American


Thanks for joining my side on this one MaccyD:



> Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California about every 200 years.


These storms have been occurring every 200 years. Long before picayune increases in CO2,


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> The real numbers clearly show no warming, so they keep going back and lowering the temperatures in the past to make it appear as though current temps are relatively warmer.


In NOAA's _State of the Climate 2008_ report we get this bold statement:



> Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. *The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.*


So at 16 years of cooling, where is the admission that the models were dead wrong?


----------



## FeXL

Why ice loss and sea level measurements via satellite and the new Shepard et al paper are highly uncertain at the moment

So, does _Shepard et al_ have some issues with the basic data that they're basing the conclusions of their paper on? Anthony thinks so, & so do some of the authors' colleagues.



> In a nutshell, other JPL scientists (Yoaz Bar-Sever, R. Steven Nerem, and the GRASP Team) are saying we don’t have an accurate reference point for the satellites, and therefore the data from these previous satellite missions likely has TRF data uncertainties embedded.


Why is this important?



> TRF errors readily manifest as spurious sea level rise accelerations


Wait. Wha...?

You mean all those wonderful graphs that are based on satellite data & painting current sea levels rises as accelerating are wrong?



> That’s a bucket of cold water reality into the face of the current view of sea level rise.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost the EPA...

EPA Say Heatwaves Much Worse in 1930’s



> Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1). Many years of intense drought (the "Dust Bowl") contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.


----------



## FeXL

How NCDC Hides The Decline



> Two things become clear
> 
> 1. They cooled all pre-1970 temperatures by nearly 0.4C. Note how the 10C line is about 0.4C lower on the old graph than on the current graph.
> 2. After 1970, all current graph temperatures are increasingly raised. The 1990 temperature in the 2012 graph is 0.2C above its value in the 1990 graph.


Hmmm, he said...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You mean all those wonderful graphs that are based on satellite data & painting current sea levels rises as accelerating are wrong?


They need to rely on those satellites, because otherwise people would go out and look at their coastlines--which demonstrate no rise at all.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> How NCDC Hides The Decline


This reminds me of the infamous tree ring proxy study in which the results of the study showed a temperature pattern unsupportive of the warmist mantra. "Wait," said the enterprising investigators, "we must examine what happened to the trees in those years that their ring growth was so distorted!"


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> They need to rely on those satellites, because otherwise people would go out and look at their coastlines--which demonstrate no rise at all.


Maybe the sea is only rising in the middle, like a baking cake.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe the sea is only rising in the middle, like a baking cake.


:clap::lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

> *California is under an atmospheric river, or ARK storm with the worst to come*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California is under an atmospheric river or ARK storm with the worst to come. This is a string of storms that battered California on Wednesday and Friday, and will continue through Sunday. Forecasters had warned of a string of intense tropical storms that would pass through northern California over a five-day period, but this is something that has not been seen in a long time.
> 
> The first storm arrived on Wednesday, bringing wind gusts of up to 40 MPH and substantial rain.
> 
> The second storm arrived on Friday, dumping substantial amounts of rain on top of saturated ground and bringing up fears of localized flooding in certain flood prone areas.
> 
> The third storm is expected to deliver the worst soaking and will last through Sunday. All three storms are expected to have dumped 4 to 8 inches in the valley and 12 to 18 inches of rain in the Sierras.
> 
> Three unusual events are going on. First, this weather pattern is normally not seen before January. Atmospheric rivers are massive columns of warm, tropical water that are picked up from the Pacific Ocean, carried for thousands of miles, and then dumped on California. In other words, this is an atmospheric river.
> 
> Second, atmospheric rivers can rapidly melt an existing Sierra snow pack. If there is no snow pack, the water will drain off right away. The current string of storms can inundate the valley, while the Sierras will be unable to freeze the rain and serve as cold storage for a slower spring snow melt and controlled runoff. Whatever these storms dump, it all will start to drain right away.
> 
> Third, the natural watershed that drains the massive Sierra mountain range will bring most of Northern California’s water to the Feather and American rivers. Those two rivers meet up at Sacramento, where the water either heads out through the delta to San Francisco Bay or it is sent southward via the central canal. Add in thousands of creeks, streams, sloughs and tributaries, and a lot of trouble can happen in a relatively short period.
> 
> Minor atmospheric rivers are traditionally an annual event in California. Those are called the “Pineapple Express”. However a major atmospheric river can be a huge problem. Scientists refer to a devastating atmospheric river as an “ARK storm” that could flood part of California’s central valley to a 20 foot depth. *The last ARK storm occurred in the 1800s and was estimated to have dumped several times the volume of the Mississippi River during 40 straight days of rain.
> 
> The United States Geological Service (USGS) has officially designated the current series of storms as an atmospheric river.* The USGS also discusses the ARk Storm Scenario, a major experiment that simulated the worst that could happen.
> 
> Currently high winds and storm dynamics may create hail and minor tornado activity. Northern California has already seen several small tornadoes this fall.
> 
> California is under an atmospheric river or ARK storm with the worst to come, so all residents are advised to prepare for flooding in low-lying areas. Clogged storm drains, falling trees and inundated roads, will aggravate some flooding. This would be the best time to review the business and household disaster preparedness plans and to prepare for power outages and anything else that comes with flooding in Northern California.
> 
> CALIFORNIA STORMS 2012DECEMBER 1, 2012BY: EDITH ALLEN


wow first Sandy on the East Coast and now the west coast....expensive year for weather....Sci Am sure called that - Shades of Katrina where they ran simulations the year before that came only too true


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> wow first Sandy on the East Coast and now the west coast....expensive year for weather....Sci Am sure called that - Shades of Katrina where they ran simulations the year before that came only too true


What does this have to do with GHGs?


----------



## MacDoc

this was the prediction in 2011



> *ARkStorm: California’s Other 'Big One'*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011) — For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state's flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage.


continues

ARkStorm: California’s other 'Big One'

that you don't get what it has to do with GHG is hilarious if not at all unexpected......

for the ill informed....

Warmer oceans and atmosphere means there is more moisture carried.
A "minor" event morphs to a major one.
A once in 200 years weather extreme, becomes a once in 50 year event as the energy in the global systems rise.
Extreme weather....get used to it.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> this was the prediction in 2011


Not a prediction, but a hypothetical list of damages a storm could cause.


----------



## MacDoc

whatever - give it up - you're vainly trying to defend an indefensible position with little sound bites of nonsense garnered from fossil fuel funded denier sites. Getting very old.....and always wrong.

Like Katrina science bodies are warning about extreme weather events.

A major ARK storm is one of them.

The current situation in California has been designated a major ARK storm.

more extreme events to come regardless of your state of denial.....this is just one more in a rising number.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> whatever - give it up - you're vainly trying to defend an indefensible position with little sound bites of nonsense garnered from fossil fuel funded denier sites. Getting very old.....and always wrong.
> 
> Like Katrina science bodies are warning about extreme weather events.
> 
> A major ARK storm is one of them.
> 
> The current situation in California has been designated a major ARK storm.
> 
> more extreme events to come regardless of your state of denial.....this is just one more in a rising number.


No, in fact projections show fewer storms would happen as temperatures rise--unless the projection just ramps up storms as its sole purpose.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> .


As the globe has not warmed in the past 16 years, the animal has not even jumped that small hurdle.

I love pants-pissing comic panels like this. Keep them coming!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> this was the prediction in 2011


Ah...predictions.

Let's take a look at some of those, shall we?

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, in 2000 noted this:



> within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
> 
> “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.


In 2001, in the TAR, the International Pack of Climate Crooks agreed, saying:



> Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms


This March, Kevin Trenberth noted:



> "It's consistent with the idea that global warming is going on," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the independent National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.




*So, Global Warming causes mild winters with less snow.*

Now, in 2011 we get this:



> “Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for the Weather Underground website.


Charles H. Greene is the author of this:



> “The Winters of Our Discontent: Loss of Arctic sea ice is stacking the deck in favor of harsh winters in the U.S. and Europe”


coming to you soon in the Dec 2012 issue of _Scientific American_, notes this:



> The recent extensive summertime losses of Arctic sea ice...have previously been linked to extremes in U.S. and European winter weather




*So, Global Warming causes harsh winters with more snow.*

Wait. Wha...? So which the hell is it?

John Christy notes:



> My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.”
> 
> ...
> 
> The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, *these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.”* In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. *This is not science.*


Bold mine.

Or, as I noted above, moving the goalposts to fit your argument.

Or, in other words (as Steven Goddard notes):



> Heads I win. Tails you lose.




Links & notes from:
97% Of Scientists Agree : How Global Warming Affects Winters
CRU’s forecast: UK winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”
2000 Forecast: Snowfall to disappear from the UK
Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall
Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely
August Snow and Other Weather News
Expert in Doha - Climate Change Is the Driver Behind Extreme Winters and Superstorm Sandy


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> whatever - give it up - you're vainly trying to defend an indefensible position with little sound bites of nonsense garnered from fossil fuel funded denier sites. Getting very old.....and always wrong.


ROTFLMAO...

Have a look at my above post, speaking of indefensible.

Why don't you provide a list of all those "fossil fuel funded denier sites" for us? DeSmogBlog must have some resource for you to cut and paste from. C'mon, MacDoc, post a few. Astound us with your vast knowledge.

The only thing getting old around here is your screeching hyperbolic rants based on nothing more than assumption and presumption. There isn't a damn bit of science in a model's output & never will be. And as far as empirical evidence, hell, the warmists can't even decide if global warming causes more snow or less snow. The story changes as does the wind. Get a grip. Pretty hard to lose an argument when both sides are supposedly covered...

"...always wrong." Look in the damn mirror.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been a lot of screeching about global warming causing everything from more wildfires, more snow, less snow, melting ice, blah, blah, blah.

Of course, hurricanes have also been included in this BS metric and there were many warmists who were happy to see Sandy hit the US as some sort of vindication of their voodoo science.

Unfortunately for these sad lads, one need not look far for some truth. The US hurricane season is over for the year and Roger Pielke, Jr, has an interesting graph illustrating the current US hurricane drought, which will be 2777 days (as of June 1, 2013) since a Cat 3 or higher storm made US landfall.



> Such a prolonged period without an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900.


This despite NOAA's recent practice of naming every cloud over the Atlantic. So much for the connection between global warming & more, intense, hurricanes.

Maybe the hurricanes are on fossil fuel payrolls, too...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Of course, hurricanes have also been included in this BS metric and there were many warmists who were happy to see Sandy hit the US as some sort of vindication of their voodoo science.


I saw an interesting "model" that showed that if all trees were removed form the earth, there would be an overall cooling effect. Get chopping boys!


----------



## FeXL

In regards to snide comments above by MacDoc about "fossil fuel funded denier sites", I went into my bookmark folder and pulled the following out:

The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money



> The World Wildlife Fund’s first corporate sponsor was Shell oil – which continued to fund it for the next four decades.


Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee



> The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?





> How Can I Get Some of That Anti-Global Warming Big Oil Money? - Forbes





> As stated, “The President’s FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.” This is part of “…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to nearly $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020.”


California’s Prop 23 and the “big oil money” campaign – outspent 3 to 1

And, if the whole AGW thing actually is a matter of right vs left, big oil vs green, as MacDoc insists (a concept I personally do not subscribe to), then is the following (or any of the above for that matter) considered acceptable behaviour?

Who Receives Big Oil Money?



> According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama has received $88,951 from BP PAC and individuals since he became a US Senator in 2004. Total, he received $920,922 from Oil & Gas corporations during his 2008 run.


Does anybody know how to spell hypocrisy??


----------



## bryanc

fexl said:


> does anybody know how to spell hypocrisy??


p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n.


----------



## MacGuiver

FeXL said:


> Does anybody know how to spell hypocrisy??


I've always been of the opinion that the fossil fuel industry actually benefits from warming hysteria. In fact many are jumping on the bandwagon with support. 
I've often heard warmists lamenting the fact that fossil fuels should be more expensive to deter consumption. The oil and gas companies are happy to oblige and address this problem. They know our need for energy will not be quenched by expensive solar panels and windmills and they can justify fleecing us at the pumps, for the good of the environment of course.


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> I've always been of the opinion that the fossil fuel industry actually benefits from warming hysteria. In fact many are jumping on the bandwagon with support.
> I've often heard warmists lamenting the fact that fossil fuels should be more expensive to deter consumption. The oil and gas companies are happy to oblige and address this problem. They know our need for energy will not be quenched by expensive solar panels and windmills and they can justify fleecing us at the pumps, for the good of the environment of course.


Yep, then just add in a phony war or two and their profits soar to even greater levels.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> I've always been of the opinion that the fossil fuel industry actually benefits from warming hysteria. In fact many are jumping on the bandwagon with support.
> I've often heard warmists lamenting the fact that fossil fuels should be more expensive to deter consumption. The oil and gas companies are happy to oblige and address this problem. They know our need for energy will not be quenched by expensive solar panels and windmills and they can justify fleecing us at the pumps, for the good of the environment of course.


Dow Chemical was a major source of lobbying against CFCs--they had a more expensive chemical replacement waiting in the wings.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds an accelerating increase of snow accumulation on Greenland



> We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate.


Of course, this is all due to Global Warming. 

Or not. 

Or Peyote buttons. 

Or something...


----------



## MacDoc

> *"What if climate-change doubters held a debate and nobody came?"*
> 
> "Al Gore's Climate Reality Project held its second annual 24 Hours of Reality broadcast today, with live online presentations about climate change from all 24 time zones. The event started at 8 p.m. EST on Nov. 14 and had attracted 3.2 million online viewers as of its halfway point on Thursday morning."
> 
> "At the same time, the climate-change doubting site Watt's Up with That held its own online event, featuring 24 hours of live broadcasts intended as a "counterpoint" to Gore's event. As of 10 a.m. the morning of Nov. 15, the event had attracted about 9,000 viewers. (Update 11/15/12, 8 p.m.: As the 24-hour events concluded, the Climate Reality Project broadcast had exceeded 15.7 million views. The Watts Up with That broadcast totaled just over 16,000."
> 
> *Progress is being made, A thousand to one ratio is a step in the right direction*.


as I was saying - denial is a dying meme.....


----------



## groovetube

didn't I hear someone mewling about support for Climate change is dwindling?

So much for captain 'if I say it often enough it'll be more true'...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> as I was saying.....


Even though Al Gore lost the 2000 election, he's still more famous than Anthony Watt. Of course he drew more viewers. 

15.7 million viewers tuned in at least once during 24 hours--across the entire world? That's what I call a powerful movement! Almost 3 million people tune into a half-hour episode of _Here Comes Honey Boo Boo_.

There's your new meme, MacDoc!


----------



## FeXL

First of all, Al Gore? The Goracle? _"An Inconvenient Truth"_ Al, who got his movie thrown out of British schools because of "factual errors"? Are you frickin' serious? <shakes his head> Unbelievable...

Fine, here goes:

Secondly, viewer numbers...gawd, that was over two weeks ago, must take DeSmog boyz a while to digest this crap...just a minute, I know it's here in the bookmarks somewhere, "USTREAM viewership", "Alexa" and "Fruit Loops & Whackos"...hang on...Got it!

So, the thrust is that Al Gore got somewhere around 16 million viewers to watch his climate porn and Anthony Watts got far less. Does this stand up to basic scrutiny? About as well as the Goracle's <cough>science<cough>.



> That 16 million figure is the views counter for the channel at USTREAM. Mr. Gore and his supporters have claimed these millions of visits represent a success for the broadcast.
> 
> *But, like with Mr. Gore’s other claims, it folds easily with the slightest scrutiny.*
> 
> The data gathered from the broadcast doesn’t support the 16 million viewer total. As analyzed by a telecommunications expert it suggests the final number might be inflated, especially since the Gore team apparently had the “current viewers” count removed from the USTREAM video player, leaving only the total views count. If you look at any other USTREAM live feed, you’ll see two sets of numbers, representing current and total viewers. The current viewers count on Mr. Gore’s channel remained in the 10,000-12,000 range during the part of his broadcast where that number was available. *The question is, why would they need to remove the “current viewers” counter mid broadcast?*
> 
> A second independent analysis of the data suggests that some electronic virtual viewers were involved, concluding from a mathematical analysis of the numbers that *“At least 85% of total views were bots cycling every 10 seconds.”*.
> 
> And there’s more, the Internet traffic reporting website Alexa has monitored USTREAM since its inception, logging the visits. *Surprisingly, there’s no traffic blip visible on Alexa from Mr. Gore’s event on November 14-15. Traffic rank actually went down during that 24 hour period.*


Bold mine.

Bahahahahahahahaha! Traffic went down during the freak show. Bahahahahahahahaha! Even his regular audience couldn't stomach it. Bahahahahahahahaha!

So, is there any actual way to count the traffic? Dunno. Thing is, they ain't gonna spend any time or money doing it 'cause of all the egg on their face. They know damn well the numbers don't actually pan out. Wouldn't it be hilarious if all Sideshow Al had for viewers was 10-15,000, barely more than Anthony? Bahahahahahahahaha!

Maybe the 16 million isn't the raw data, it's the data that's been "warmed over"... :lmao:

Liars. Still and, again.

Yup. That ol' dying "meme"...

C'mon, MacDoc, you got more in ya than that. That didn't even break a sweat. 

I'd forgotten how cathartic it feels, rubbing your nose in this stuff.

Next?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I've always been of the opinion that the fossil fuel industry actually benefits from warming hysteria. In fact many are jumping on the bandwagon with support.
> I've often heard warmists lamenting the fact that fossil fuels should be more expensive to deter consumption. The oil and gas companies are happy to oblige and address this problem. They know our need for energy will not be quenched by expensive solar panels and windmills and they can justify fleecing us at the pumps, for the good of the environment of course.


I would say that it's a little more accurate to say that once they have begun to figure out that escaping the obvious is becoming less an option, they've put a lot into figuring how they can profit from it rather than continue to resist. It is, what corporations have always done. Why would anyone be surprised?

They've done it now for some time with 'green' products, and certainly organic products ( which people are beginning find out that lobbying has ensured organic means pretty much nothing here...)

Corporations don't do anything for anyone's benefit. Why is it people are so surprised at this obvious fact?


----------



## MacDoc

so much for ice increase in Antarctica....nother denier nattering point shot down in flames.....



> *EcoAlert: Forty-Seven ESA/NASA Experts Warn of Increasing Ice Melt & Rising Sea Levels*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinning in the ice steam and surrounding ice sheet is also evident. After two decades of satellite observations, an international team of experts brought together by ESA and NASA has produced the most accurate assessment of ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland to date. This study finds that the combined rate of ice sheet melting is increasing. The image above shows the Kangerdlugssuaq glacier in eastern Greenland from 1992 and 2011 from the ERS mission. The ice stream’s calving front retreated by five kilometres over 19 years.
> The new research shows that melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has added 11.1 mm to global sea levels since 1992. This amounts to about 20% of all sea-level rise over the survey period. About two thirds of the ice loss was from Greenland, and the remainder was from Antarctica.
> 
> Although the ice sheet losses fall within the range reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the spread of the estimate at that time was so broad that it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking.The new estimates are a vast improvement – more than twice as accurate – thanks to the inclusion of more satellite data, and confirm that both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.
> 
> The study also shows that the combined rate of ice sheet melting has increased over time and, altogether,* Greenland and Antarctica are now losing more than three times as much ice, equivalent to 0.95 mm of sea-level rise per year, as they were in the 1990s, equivalent to 0.27 mm of sea level rise per year.*


more
EcoAlert: Forty-Seven ESA/NASA Experts Warn of Increasing Ice Melt & Rising Sea Levels


----------



## Macfury

I love this news source:_EcoAlert_!



> I found this is an informative and interesting post so i think so it is very useful and knowledgeable.
> 
> Posted by: Jimmy Broadway | December 05, 2012 at 01:47 AM


MacDoc, you didn't even bother to find the original study!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Dow Chemical was a major source of lobbying against CFCs--they had a more expensive chemical replacement waiting in the wings.


Yes, I remember that. And of course the scientific evidence that CFCs were damaging the ozone layer was just as flimsy as the current "warmest" claptrap about GHGs, right? And it didn't make any difference in the final analysis, did it... I mean, it's not like we saved the ozone layer or anything, right? 


groovetube said:


> I would say that it's a little more accurate to say that once they have begun to figure out that escaping the obvious is becoming less an option, they've put a lot into figuring how they can profit from it rather than continue to resist. It is, what corporations have always done. ... Corporations don't do anything for anyone's benefit.


Well, they certainly do benefit their shareholders, and to the minimum extent they can manage they benefit their employees. But you're right, that corporations will do whatever is maximally profitable. So when we made preserving the ozone layer profitable, the free market sprung into action and accomplished the task quite handily.

The questions are, when and how will we make reducing anthropogenic impacts on the climate profitable?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, I remember that. And of course the scientific evidence that CFCs were damaging the ozone layer was just as flimsy as the current "warmest" claptrap about GHGs, right? And it didn't make any difference in the final analysis, did it... I mean, it's not like we saved the ozone layer or anything, right?
> 
> Well, they certainly do benefit their shareholders, and to the minimum extent they can manage they benefit their employees. But you're right, that corporations will do whatever is maximally profitable. So when we made preserving the ozone layer profitable, the free market sprung into action and accomplished the task quite handily.
> 
> The questions are, when and how will we make reducing anthropogenic impacts on the climate profitable?


Absolutely wrong. I am saying that whether or not the science is correct, corporations will maximize their profits by backing whatever people will believe. They're agnostic as to the truth of the matter.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Absolutely wrong. I am saying that whether or not the science is correct, corporations will maximize their profits by backing whatever people will believe. They're agnostic as to the truth of the matter.


Then we are in complete agreement. Corporations are necessarily amoral and unconcerned with truth, justice, or any other value apart from profit. This is why we should completely ignore their PR when considering what society ought to value and what actions legislation will mandate. In contrast, science is entirely (even exclusively) concerned with what is true, and when the science is clear (as was the case regarding CFCs and their impacts on the ozone layer, and as is the case regarding GHGs and their impacts on the climate), the profit motive is a powerful force that can be directed at solving the problem.

So your example of Dow Chemical being pleased to provide alternatives to CFCs at a substantial profit to them is a perfect illustration of how science, governmental legislation, and the free market can work together to solve a serious environmental problem arising from anthropogenic impacts on the atmosphere. Thank you. I should've thought of it myself.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Then we are in complete agreement. Corporations are necessarily amoral and unconcerned with truth, justice, or any other value apart from profit. This is why we should completely ignore their PR when considering what society ought to value and what actions legislation will mandate. In contrast, science is entirely (even exclusively) concerned with what is true, and when the science is clear (as was the case regarding CFCs and their impacts on the ozone layer, and as is the case regarding GHGs and their impacts on the climate), the profit motive is a powerful force that can be directed at solving the problem.
> 
> So your example of Dow Chemical being pleased to provide alternatives to CFCs at a substantial profit to them is a perfect illustration of how science, governmental legislation, and the free market can work together to solve a serious environmental problem arising from anthropogenic impacts on the atmosphere. Thank you. I should've thought of it myself.


I would think that recent events stateside and even in Canada would lead one to the same conclusions about governments. Even now the propaganda machines are cranking up the WMD hysteria about Syria and ditto the Iran is gonna nuke us bit. The real shame is that we seem to have learned nothing from the $Trillion$ wasted after the same lines were applied to Iraq.

In the case of AGW saying they have faith in the science, gives governments the excuse they want to implement Carbon taxes. A perfect tax from an elitist viewpoint in that the effects will be most devastating on the poorest n society.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Then we are in complete agreement. Corporations are necessarily amoral and unconcerned with truth, justice, or any other value apart from profit. This is why we should completely ignore their PR when considering what society ought to value and what actions legislation will mandate. In contrast, science is entirely (even exclusively) concerned with what is true, and when the science is clear (as was the case regarding CFCs and their impacts on the ozone layer, and as is the case regarding GHGs and their impacts on the climate), the profit motive is a powerful force that can be directed at solving the problem.
> 
> So your example of Dow Chemical being pleased to provide alternatives to CFCs at a substantial profit to them is a perfect illustration of how science, governmental legislation, and the free market can work together to solve a serious environmental problem arising from anthropogenic impacts on the atmosphere. Thank you. I should've thought of it myself.


No, we're not in agreement at all. Corporations are not necessarily "amoral and unconcerned with truth, justice, or any other value apart from profit." However, if the market begged them to protect it from GHGs at a higher price, it would oblige. If the market wanted a Gaian priestess to bless the oil, they would do that too and pass the costs along.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> However, if the market begged them to protect it from GHGs at a higher price, it would oblige.


This is exactly my point; corporations will do whatever it is most profitable for them to do. So while we would be foolish to trust corporations to act in our best interests, if we can correctly determine what our best interests are (using science), we may be able to use a combination of legislation and market forces to drive corporate behaviour such that it serves those interests. This is exactly what happened with respect to CFCs, and it worked. You've made my point for me.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is exactly my point; corporations will do whatever it is most profitable for them to do. So while we would be foolish to trust corporations to act in our best interests, if we can correctly determine what our best interests are (using science), we may be able to use a combination of legislation and market forces to drive corporate behaviour such that it serves those interests. This is exactly what happened with respect to CFCs, and it worked. You've made my point for me.


Except on this case it does not suit our best interests. Your argument has failed.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Except on this case it does not suit our best interests. Your argument has failed.


You are one of a tiny bastion of individuals who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that reducing GHG emissions is in our best interests. So this argument fails only in your anti-science bubble of denial.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You are one of a tiny bastion of individuals who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that reducing GHG emissions is in our best interests. So this argument fails only in your anti-science bubble of denial.


You are among a shrinking group bryanc. Enjoy your small majority while you can.


----------



## groovetube

hmmm. Speaking of failed arguments... so much for the dwindling support theory!

Fun to watch nonetheless.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> so much for ice increase in Antarctica....nother denier nattering point shot down in flames.....


Go back to post #1519 on this thread from three days ago.

Asked and answered.

Do try to keep up...


----------



## groovetube

Anthony Watts.... hmmm, oh this guy??

The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial "Crock of the Week" | ThinkProgress


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> Fun to watch nonetheless.


For some definitions of 'fun.' I find it somewhat disturbing that the exact same people who managed to convince many of us that Iraq's WMDs were real are now trying to convince us that climate change is not. It seems that some of us are only selectively skeptical; scientists, with their well-known bias are not to be trusted, but conservative politicians and corporate PR flacks are unimpeachable.


----------



## FeXL

So, there was some screeching a couple days back from the usual suspect about big oil funded denier sites. As is typical, he has been unable to furnish any information regarding my challenge to prove it. Big surprise...

Among other resources, I view about 20 sceptical blogs every week, some on a daily basis. Anthony Watts and Marc Morano's sites are two of the most viewed worldwide and neither of them receive a dime from "big oil". Neither are any of the others I visit, for that matter. It's not even a matter of me choosing not to visit "big oil funded" sceptical websites: there are just damn few, if any.

One organization I'm aware of who does receive relatively minor funding from oil companies is the Heartland Institute. Among other things, Heartland does occasionally publish information of a sceptical nature.

As such, last week the Washington Post penned some crap about the huge donations Heartland has received from "big oil". Since then, they've had to post a retraction about the real numbers.

WaPo’s Juliet Eilperin retracts false Heartland claims



> *Eilperin was only off by a factor of 10 regarding Exxon (putting aside Heartland hasn’t received a dime from Exxon since 2006), and off by a factor of at 400 regarding the Kochs. (Our first gift from them in a decade was $25,000 for health care work, not climate).*
> 
> I say “somehow,” but *I know where she got it: from the lies printed at DeSmog Blog*. In fact, it was at least a double fail on Eilperin’s part. She grabbed a lie wrapped in a mistake, and printed that as fact — without even calling or emailing me to ask if, say, it’s true that Heartland has been the beneficiary of some $21 million from Exxon and the Kochs in the last decade or so.
> 
> That’s a pretty significant sum of money, no? Perhaps something a reporter might check — or an editor might insist be checked. Alas, for The Washington Post — as it is for all of the corrupt mainstream media — the idea that Heartland is lighting cigars with endless hundred dollar bills from “Big Oil” is a “fact” too good to check.


Counter that against the billions that warmist researchers receive from government funding and special interest groups like WWF, etc. The scale is not even in the same county, let alone the same ballpark.

Of course, despite that fact that a retraction has been made, the damage is already done as other MSM picked up the story & ran with it. Typical warmist tactics.

DeSmog Blog & MSM: never allowing facts to get in the way of FUD & a good lie...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> find it somewhat disturbing that the exact same people who managed to convince many of us that Iraq's WMDs were real are now trying to convince us that climate change is not. It seems that some of us are only selectively skeptical; scientists, with their well-known bias are not to be trusted, but conservative politicians and corporate PR flacks are unimpeachable.


Who are these "exact same people"? Some scientific precision please.


----------



## groovetube

but no more precision than we've seen from the fury!

Which means not much at all! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Lessons still not learned from climate modelling of 50 years ago?  



> But, the crux of unpredictability lies in the fact that measurements, and thus the initial conditions, cannot be precisely known. There is always some form or degree of uncertainty in them, and thus we don't know whether or which trajectory on that we lay. Lorenz states, "*when our results concerning the instability of non-periodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic, they indicate that prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.*" This problem of not knowing the measurements precisely is called "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" (SDIC) and it is an integral characteristic of chaotic systems.
> 
> *Lorenz's statement was plain that beyond the 10-14 days, which is the typical times-scale for the evolution of the mid-latitude flow, dynamic predictability is impossible.* This is in spite of the fact we know the equations representing motions in the flow. Today, we understand that such limits on predictability are scale dependent, for example, we cannot dynamically predict the occurrence of individual thunderstorms on the smaller-scales beyond the 30 - 120 minute time-scale in take for them to evolve. *Beyond our time limits, corresponding to the proper space-scale, only statistical prediction is possible.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *Thus, there is ample evidence that the climate does behave in a chaotic sense and that climate prediction is currently not possible, or only the development of "scenarios" is possible...The bottom line is don't trust the climate scientist who believes climate prediction is possible.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Lessons still not learned from climate modelling of 50 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Yup.


Most people don't realize that these climate "models" don't produce any novel results. They pre-determine, for example, that X amount of CO2 produces Y amount of warming, then increase X to get more Y.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Depot (Marc Morano) put together a 35 page document detailing why current weather "extremes" are neither unprecedented, nor unusual. It was presented at the UN Climate Conference in Doha, Qatar, today.

The document is available as a PDF from the link. Good resource, much information. Any rational person reading this material who thinks there is still a connection between raised CO2 levels and extreme weather events ain't rational...


----------



## eMacMan

Like it or not AGW has the stench of a scam.

Trot out a computer model programmed to show the sky is falling. Tell everyone that the only way to keep the sky from falling is to dig deep into your wallet and willingly or otherwise give, give and keep on giving. Never mind if the kids have no shoes or if you can't afford to heat your home just keep on giving.

Yep all the elements of a scam. Generate fear, then promise protection but at a very high price.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Like it or not AGW has the stench of a scam.


Only to someone not familiar with the scientific method.


> Trot out a computer model programmed to show the sky is falling.


Climatolgical modelling is not about predicting catastrophe; it is about predicting climate, and the computer models have been very successful in doing so. Indeed, despite technological and practical limitations of data collection, the success of computer climate models since the 1970's is astoundingly good.

The fact that these models are unanimous in their prediction of dire consequences if GHG emissions are not curtailed is reason for concern and rational action, not panic.


> Tell everyone that the only way to keep the sky from falling is to dig deep into your wallet and willingly or otherwise give, give and keep on giving.


This has nothing to do with the accuracy of the science, nor is it in any way a fair characterization of the advice of the scientific community.


> Never mind if the kids have no shoes or if you can't afford to heat your home just keep on giving.


The obvious course of action would seem to be to position yourself as the one selling the technologies necessary to prevent or otherwise mitigate the effects of climate change, rather than continuing to deny the obvious reality.


----------



## groovetube

The evidence to prove it's a scam is not even close to being convincing. Simply announcing it doesn't make it any more convincing.

So far, all I see are cherry picked denier claims that have so far been shown as nonsense. But somehow presented as conclusive overwhelmingly solid hard evidence. 

Arguing that the scientific community in the world somehow has some kind of agenda or something to gain, is laughable at best.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Climatolgical modelling is not about predicting catastrophe; it is about predicting climate, and the computer models have been very successful in doing so. Indeed, despite technological and practical limitations of data collection, the success of computer climate models since the 1970's* is astoundingly good.*


My husband, whose area of research is in developing such models, would disagree on that point.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that these models are unanimous in their prediction of dire consequences if GHG emissions are not curtailed is reason for concern and rational action, not panic.


Only those models designed and programmed to produce catastrophes are unanimous in their results.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> My husband, whose area of research is in developing such models, would disagree on that point.


what is the opinion of the majority on this?


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> My husband, whose area of research is in developing such models, would disagree on that point.


As we have discussed before, I would genuinely welcome some expert opinion on this topic. But my understanding is that climate modelling is widely considered to be one of the most computationally challenging fields (I have several friends who do oceanic modelling, and convective mixing alone boarders on computationally intractable). Thus, achieving a model that can correctly predict the direction of change, let alone its magnitude with any precision at all is a remarkable accomplishment. Current models are achieving this result within fractions of a degree is remarkable. Perhaps your husband has higher standards than I do in this regard.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> The evidence to prove it's a scam is not even close to being convincing. Simply announcing it doesn't make it any more convincing.
> 
> So far, all I see are cherry picked denier claims that have so far been shown as nonsense. But somehow presented as conclusive overwhelmingly solid hard evidence.
> 
> Arguing that the scientific community in the world somehow has some kind of agenda or something to gain, is laughable at best.


Chicken Little himself has found the solution. If you truly believe, then you must give, give and keep on giving. If your faith is strong enough and you dig deep enough you will be protected. You don't need trips to Europe, or clothes or heat or even food. If you have anything left then you must give more. 

Personally I think the banksters and the Great Gore can get along quite nicely without taking what little I have managed to save over my lifetime. Those who feel differently are of course welcome to give even more.

Funny thing though so far none of the true believers has even offered to try the seniors challenge I issued a while back. Plain and simple just live on $110/week including food, clothes, alcohol, prescription meds, entertainment, internet, smart phone, travel outside your locale...

If you are willing to demand that those with the least do this, at least prove it possible by doing it yourselves.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Only those models designed and programmed to produce catastrophes are unanimous in their results.


No, all the models programmed to predict climatic change, using any of several well-estabilished theoretical and/or empirically verified methods, produce startlingly congruent results. We interpret those entirely objective findings as catastrophic because of our vested interests in the status quo. The choice remains to either accept the evidence of science and react accordingly, or deny the obvious and suffer the consequences.

Fortunately, the majority of citizens are slowing becoming sufficiently well-educated that rationality is gaining some traction in this regard.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Chicken Little himself has found the solution. If you truly believe, then you must give, give and keep on giving. If your faith is strong enough and you dig deep enough you will be protected. You don't need trips to Europe, or clothes or heat or even food. If you have anything left then you must give more.
> 
> Personally I think the banksters and the Great Gore can get along quite nicely without taking what little I have managed to save over my lifetime. Those who feel differently are of course welcome to give even more.
> 
> Funny thing though so far none of the true believers has even offered to try the seniors challenge I issued a while back. Plain and simple just live on $110/week including food, clothes, alcohol, prescription meds, entertainment, internet, smart phone, travel outside your locale...
> 
> If you are willing to demand that those with the least do this, at least prove it possible by doing it yourselves.


Unfortunately your post doesn't make any sense. Rather than talking about whether climate change theories are valid, you immediately run to attacking some of the responses or solutions some have proposed.

If the solutions are bunk, it doesn't somehow magically make climate change as a result of human activity magically disappear. It simply means humans haven't been smart enough to propose better solutions.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, all the models programmed to predict climatic change, using any of several well-estabilished theoretical and/or empirically verified methods, produce startlingly congruent results. We interpret those entirely objective findings as catastrophic because of our vested interests in the status quo. The choice remains to either accept the evidence of science and react accordingly, or deny the obvious and suffer the consequences.
> 
> Fortunately, the majority of citizens are slowing becoming sufficiently well-educated that rationality is gaining some traction in this regard.



They are only "startlingly" congruent when programmed to do so. Its not as though you've created a virtual Earth that teases out any secrets of the planet's future.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> It simply means humans haven't been smart enough to propose better solutions.


:clap:
While nothing in science is ever beyond question, none of us here have the expertise necessary to critique the science regarding ACC, so we have to take it as a given. What could conceivably develop into an interesting discussion is how we ought to address this.

Unfortunately, whenever discussion starts showing some sign of heading in this direction, one of the usual suspects de-rails it by proclaiming the science, regarding which they are hopelessly ignorant, to be inconclusive or fraudulent.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> While nothing in science is ever beyond question, none of us here have the expertise necessary to critique the science regarding ACC, so we have to take it as a given.


YOU have to take it as a given, apparently. Please live your life accordingly and we will respect your decision.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> They are only "startlingly" congruent when programmed to do so.


Sure... all the climatologist in the world are in on this little scam and they're all independently rigging their software to give the same answer because if they're members of a secret society bent on destroying the global economy.  You're worse than the ******** convinced Obama's working for the UN who live in fear of the black helicopters coming to take their guns.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Sure... all the climatologist in the world are in on this little scam and they're all independently rigging their software to give the same answer because if they're members of a secret society bent on destroying the global economy.  You're worse than the ******** convinced Obama's working for the UN who live in fear of the black helicopters coming to take their guns.


It's not a scam, although some ego is involved I'm sure. The models can't predict climate. They can only create scenaria based on narrowly defined formulae.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> YOU have to take it as a given, apparently. Please live your life accordingly and we will respect your decision.


I am. Unfortunately, your choices affect my planet, so in the same way I have to try to elect a government that will protect my water, I have to try to protect my atmosphere by ensuing that climate changing pollutants are regulated.

This is fundamentally the reason Libertarianism fails; there are over 7 billion of us sharing this planet, and we can't simply let the other guy do as he choses. My actions affect others, so I have to accept some constraints on my freedoms (many of which I object to). When I object to these constraints, I try to convince my fellow citizens that the rational for these constraints is invalid, or that the constraints do not achieve what they set out to do. But I don't object to society constraining the actions of citizens in principle.

You are certainly free to argue that the rational for the constraints on GHG emission are invalid, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, until you establish some scientific credibility, your objections aren't worth anything. The rational for these constraints are scientific in nature, so any objection has to be on scientific (not economic) grounds. If you feel so strongly about it, go earn a Ph.D. in climatology and fill yer boots. But until then, you have not earned any right to criticize the science.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> My actions affect others, so I have to accept some constraints on my freedoms (many of which I object to)..


Go for it!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's not a scam, although some ego is involved I'm sure. The models can't predict climate.


Fair enough. But the point is that these models are not arbitrary random number generators; they're based on well-supported theoretical frameworks and they make testable predictions. These predictions have been vindicated by empirical observation (or, in the cases where that is not true, the models have been adjusted or abandoned... this is how science works) sufficiently well that we can put confidence intervals on their predictions and use that to inform our decisions.

After decades of refinement, they are now very sophisticated and surprisingly congruent in their predictions. Furthermore, not only are the models predicting significant deleterious consequences of our continued pollution of the atmosphere, the biological and geophysical effects of the climate change that has already occurred are unequivocal. These effects are already significant, and would be sufficient cause for alarm even without the predictions of the climate models.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> As we have discussed before, I would genuinely welcome some expert opinion on this topic. But my understanding is that climate modelling is widely considered to be one of the most computationally challenging fields (I have several friends who do oceanic modelling, and convective mixing alone boarders on computationally intractable). Thus, achieving a model that can correctly predict the direction of change, let alone its magnitude with any precision at all is a remarkable accomplishment. Current models are achieving this result within fractions of a degree is remarkable. Perhaps your husband has higher standards than I do in this regard.


I would love to include him this. He's not big on Internet debate, and he tends to take a very conservative approach to drawing conclusions on anything. (If you are ever in Toronto, however, let me know.)

Currently, he's working on glaciers, though he has (I think) done work in oceanic modelling, the atmosphere, and even the human body. 

I have a very, very tiny understanding of numerical computation (from an old BMath/Comp. Sci. degree) and yes, it is very challenging. The area of new research is probably more in the field of mathematics rather than what I might call 'regular' science. And from what I understand, when you dig deeply into the math, the math gets shaky.... and in some cases the mathematical understanding needed to shore up the mathematical underpinnings just does not exist. 

From what I understand, it's possible to take a more half-assed approached to the math using things that are known or assumed to make the models appear to work well, but that means that the model only works well for a limited number of cases.... and then the errors compound when you go beyond those cases. So it's very possible to develop a model to that seems to be very accurate, but actually is not. 

And it's lot faster (i.e., a few years vs. unknown) to develop this kind of model. 

This isn't to say that because he believes that the models are not very good that he thinks that there is nothing happening.... rather, he takes a very cautious approach to any conclusions drawn from models.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> I would love to include him this. He's not big on Internet debate, and he tends to take a very conservative approach to drawing conclusions on anything. (If you are ever in Toronto, however, let me know.)


I will definitely take you up on this if I'm ever in TO... I think I'd really enjoy talking with both you and your husband.

I've done a little modelling myself (reaction-diffusion simulations), but my math is simply not up to anything more complex. I certainly understand that any mathematical model of even relatively simple chaotic system can never be anything better than an approximation, which is why I find the accuracy and consistency of current climate models so remarkable.

As in biology, I take this as an indication that the much of the small scale or high temporal frequency noise is buffered by feedback inhibition or other dampening mechanisms, allowing low frequency/large scale trends that can be accurately approximated to dominate. This is fundamentally why we can predict climate, but not weather, and why we can predict that a zebra will have a striped coat, but not what the pattern of stripes will be in any individual.


> From what I understand, it's possible to take a more half-assed approached to the math using things that are known or assumed to make the models appear to work well, but that means that the model only works well for a limited number of cases.... and then the errors compound when you go beyond those cases.


While I can't claim to know much about the models themselves, I do know at least some of the people doing some of the modelling, and their math is decidedly not half-assed (these research groups consist of dozens of people with Ph.D.s in mathematics, physics, and computer science). Furthermore, several (but admittedly not all) of the models are taking corrective input from empirical measurements of the various parameters they're working on. (Indeed, part of the research being done is running the same code with and without these empirical corrections to determine what assumptions give rise to significant deviations from reality; those assumptions are obviously the ones that need to be re-examined).

While I have no doubt that progress will continue to be made and the models will continue to be refined, when so many different groups generate so many fundamentally different approaches using so much independently measured data and they all come to essentially the same conclusion, I think we can be very confident that the conclusion is fundamentally correct.



> he takes a very cautious approach to any conclusions drawn from models.


I can certainly respect that. And if all we had was the output of computer models, I'd be a lot less worried. But literally tens of thousand of biological data sets (geographic ranges of species, blooming dates of plants, migration patterns, tree ring data, etc. etc. etc.), not to mention even greater arrays of physical oceanography, geochemical and other physical data also confirm the predictions of the ACC theory. This puts ACC beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Sonal

In using the term 'half-assed' I'm paraphrasing what I understand of one of his own research dilemmas: either do things the most mathematically pure way (and possibly spend his entire career pursuing this without knowing if he can get there) or approximate that mathematically pure solution to build the model (which would take 3-4 years of research but is at least feasible.) 

The 'half-assed' approach is still requires extremely complex math and programming--hence still requiring years of research. But in his view, the model produced this way is still flawed. (Maybe he's too much of a purist in this, but that's beyond the scope of my understanding.)

Like you, he does trust that the consensus means that something is up. But given his particular field, he doesn't trust the results generated from computer models as in his view these models are not quite good enough. So if someone asked him, do you think the climate is changing due to human activity, he'd likely say yes. But if someone asked him what he thought about a particular result that was predicted from model, he'd be highly skeptical.

FWIW, he says that ice models are particularly bad... ice is apparently very tricky to model.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been some recent noise about how remarkably accurate models are, compared to empirical evidence. Let's have a _brief_ look at that, shall we?

Once again, reality trumps models – Pacific SST’s are flat



> The models say the Pacific sea surface temperatures should have warmed approximately 0.4 deg C or about 0.7 deg F. However, based on the linear trend, the satellite-based data for the Pacific Ocean haven’t warmed since 1994.
> 
> ...
> 
> If we extend the model-data comparison back in time to the November 1981 start of the dataset, Figure 3, the trend of the model simulations is still about 3 times higher than the observed warming. *If the modelers can’t even simulate the warming of the largest ocean basin on the planet, what value do the models have?*


Bold mine.

Not only is the model's slope of the trend from '94 to '12 incorrect, the peaks and valleys of El Nino/La Nina aren't mapped closely (if at all) and the value of the decadal delta change is off by a factor of 42 (0.211/0.005).

Yup, sure loves me them models. What a wonderful foundation for a scientific theory to be built upon...


----------



## FeXL

I know, I know...1/3 of warmists say that higher global temperatures is going to make more snow (another 1/3 third said the opposite and the final 1/3 don't have a clew...).

Whatever the reason, the Himalayan glaciers (remember Glacier-gate? Oh, the horror, they're all going to be melted by 2035!) have been rejuvenated by heavy snowfall.

This, and more newsbytes, at the link.



> With high-altitude mountains in Himachal Pradesh experiencing up to 100 cm fresh snowfall in November month after 10 years, the abundance of snow on mountains has rejuvenated nearly one thousand Himalayan glaciers and has ensured uninterrupted supply of water for drinking, irrigation and hydel projects. While scanty snowfall and rising temperature in the last decade had sparked the possibilities of fast shrinking of glaciers, good spells of snowfall in last three years have changed the trend with glaciers almost growing to their original size.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds a significant decrease in Pacific tropical cyclones



> A paper published today in _The Journal of Climate_ examines tropical cyclone activity over the western North Pacific from 1960-2011 and finds "overall tropical cyclone activity shows a significant decrease" during the "recent inactive period" from 1998 to 2011. *The paper adds to several others finding, contrary to the claims of climate alarmists, that global warming is correlated with a decrease in cyclone activity and decreased "extreme weather."*


Bold mine.

More empirical evidence shattering warmist "science" & shuttering warmist screeching...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> More empirical evidence shattering warmist "science" & shuttering warmist screeching...


If you actually read the scientific paper, rather than the denier blog, you'll see that it says nothing like what you've quoted. Please do not imply you have the support of peer-reviewed science when in fact all you're doing is parroting denier PR.


----------



## FeXL

On sea level rise...

Sea levels are rising. That is a given. "How much?" is the key question. Warmists would have you believe that sea level rises are accelerating, as do their wunnerful, wunnerful models.

Once again, empirical evidence says not so much... German meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls uses not only the 20 year satellite record, but a 160 year old tide gauge record, too. What does he find?



> It is obvious to see that sea level rise has slowed down significantly. In view of the relatively short time frame in which the measurements have been made, it should not be speculated on whether the deceleration in the rise is a trend change or if it is only noise. What is certain is that there is neither a ‘dramatic’ rise, nor an ‘acceleration’. *Conclusion: Climate models that project an acceleration over the last 20 years are wrong.*


Further...



> The latest alarmist reports on the supposedly dramatic sea level rise for the present and the future cannot be confirmed by actual measurements. Quite to the contrary, they are refuted by the data. *Globally neither tide nor satellite data show an acceleration of sea level rise. Rather they show a slow-down.* Moreover they starkly contradict the previous and current claims coming from climate institutes. *Also there are good indications that the satellite data were ‘overly corrected’ using inflated amounts*.


Bold mine.

Gee, doctoring the data? Who knew?

More on sea level rise.

Some questions...If sea level rise is decelerating, ie. there is less water going into the seas & oceans, hows can that possibly reconcile with warmist claims of increasing polar ice melt?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Some questions...If sea level rise is decelerating, ie. there is less water going into the seas & oceans, hows can that possibly reconcile with warmist claims of increasing polar ice melt?


The answer here is, firstly, not to use the result of a single study, but rather look at all the data and try to reconcile inconsistencies. Either A) Sea level is rising as predicted, B) it is not rising as predicted, or C) we can't tell. Because we're dealing with very small changes in the low frequency mean of a parameter with huge variation in it high frequency mean, getting a clear answer is going to be difficult. So 'C' is going to be where we start; but after a lot of work using a lot of different approaches for a long time, has yielded a bunch of studies, most of which conclude A, some of which conclude C, and only a few of which conclude B.

To the rational observer, that suggests either A is true or we're still stuck at C. To the denier, that means there are still a few studies we can cherry pick to defend our irrational denial of the facts.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The answer here is, firstly, not to use the result of a single study, but rather look at all the data and try to reconcile inconsistencies. Either A) Sea level is rising as predicted, B) it is not rising as predicted, or C) we can't tell. Because we're dealing with very small changes in the low frequency mean of a parameter with huge variation in it high frequency mean, getting a clear answer is going to be difficult. So 'C' is going to be where we start; but after a lot of work using a lot of different approaches for a long time, has yielded a bunch of studies, most of which conclude A, some of which conclude C, and only a few of which conclude B.
> 
> To the rational observer, that suggests either A is true or we're still stuck at C. To the denier, that means there are still a few studies we can cherry pick to defend our irrational denial of the facts.


Or: since the differences are so picayune we can't tell and in the absence of any obvious reason to be concerned about it, alarmists have got nothing.


----------



## groovetube

I think the fury is alluding to the possibility that C is it. But then descends into some ranting.


----------



## FeXL

On NOAA temperature fraud.

NOAA is adjusting 1930's temperatures downwards and subsequent temperatures upwards, with total adjustments >1.5 Degrees. Why?

NOAA 2012 Fraud Continues Unabated



> As of 1999, Hansen showed 1934 almost a full degree Fahrenheit warmer than 1998. How did 1998 retroactively become the hottest year ?



The Hockey Stick Of US Temperature Fraud



> They cooled the 1930s by almost 0.2C, and since 1940 they have been exponentially increasing the tampering – in an obscene hockey stick of scientific fraud.


Record NOAA Fraud In North Carolina : Sixth Coldest Autumn On Record



> *NOAA needs to generate numbers that show that 2012 is the hottest year on record*, so they massively cheat in North Carolina -as they do in the rest of the US.
> 
> Autumn 2012 is upwards adjusted by an amazing 1.24 degrees. Apparently over the last six years, the quality of the thermometers in North Carolina has degraded so much that NOAA feels obliged to add an additional 0.7 degrees on to the temperature.


Bold mine.

That's why...


----------



## groovetube

parroting cherry picked denier crap serves no one.

But it makes for boring entertainment I guess.


----------



## FeXL

Further to my post 1594 above about significant decreases in Pacific Tropical cyclones, from the abstract of the *peer-reviewed paper*:



> Tropical cyclone (TC) activity over the western North Pacific (WNP) exhibits a significant interdecadal variation during 1960-2011, with two distinct active and inactive periods each. This study examines changes in TC activity and atmospheric conditions in the recent inactive period (1998-2011). *The overall TC activity shows a significant decrease*, which is partly related to the decadal variation of TC genesis frequency in the southeastern part of the WNP *and the downward trend of TC genesis frequency in the main development region.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *The strong vertical wind shear and strong subtropical high observed during 1998-2011 together apparently lead to unfavorable atmospheric conditions for TC genesis and hence the low TC activity during the period.*


which, again, just happens to go against warmist model predictions of dire consequences with greater CO2 concentrations.


----------



## FeXL

So, where's the screeching from the Usual Suspects, the lefty's, warmists, whatever, who denigrate Alberta's oil sands?

B.C. coal exports are Lotus Land’s dirty little secret



> Environmental activism has long been a key part of the province’s identity and political fabric. Given that, it’s no surprise that many Lotus Landers despise what they regard as “dirty oil” from Alberta’s oilsands and are dead set against any new pipelines that would carry bitumen to the West Coast.
> 
> But when it comes to “dirty” coal, it’s a different story. For the most part, B.C.’s rapidly growing, multi-billion-dollar coal industry has gotten a free pass, even if it conflicts with the province’s carefully cultivated green brand.
> 
> Although B.C. has dramatically ramped up the production and export of coal — the dirtiest of all fossil fuels — it rarely merits a peep from the West Coast’s raucous anti-oilsands crowd or the Vancouver media.
> 
> What’s more, unknown to most people, B.C.’s widely praised carbon tax isn’t imposed on the province’s booming coal exports.


Often wondered about the scale of this, as I rode into BC on hiway 3, past the massive coal mining operations near Sparwood & Elko.

Typical MO, screeching & pointing at the neighbours back yard, all the while the dog crap is piling up in their own.

C'mon, MacDoc, surely this is worse than the oil sands? Where's the outrage? Gimme some rollin' eyes an' red faces...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, where's the screeching from the Usual Suspects, the lefty's, warmists, whatever, who denigrate Alberta's oil sands?
> 
> B.C. coal exports are Lotus Land’s dirty little secret
> .


In Canada, the anti-oil position is largely an anti-Alberta position, predicated on jealousy.


----------



## FeXL

Just another lowly, insignificant, piece-of-garbage, big-oil funded denier site, paper on the inability of 23 climate models to accurately predict medium term forecasts.

New study shows: climate models still struggle with medium- term climate forecasts

Link to paper: Tellus A 2012, *64*, 19777, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.19777

Oh, did I mention it was peer-reviewed?



> “Short-term weather forecasts are now very reliable. The problems for seasonal and decadal, that is medium-term, predictions refer to the enormous variability and the broad range of feedback effects to which atmospheric circulation is subjected”, explains AWI meteorologist Dörthe Handorf with respect to the special challenge presented to model makers. To test the forecast quality of the 23 most important climate models, the AWI scientists investigated how well these models were able to reproduce atmospheric teleconnection patterns over the past 50 years. A total of 9 known circulation patterns were investigated retrospectively, four of which in special detail. The result was that the spatial distribution of atmospheric teleconnection patterns is already described very well by some models. *However, none of the models were able to reliably reproduce how strong or weak the Icelandic Low, Azores High and other meteorological centres of action were at a particular time over the last 50 years, i.e. the temporal distribution patterns.*
> 
> 
> 
> “Climate researchers throughout the world are currently working on increasing the resolution of their models and the performance of their climate computers”, says AWI researcher Dörthe Handorf in describing an obvious and important possibility of further improving the medium-term prediction quality of climate models. This enables climatic changes to be reproduced on a smaller spatial and temporal scale. “But it will not be enough to increase the pure computer power”, says the Potsdam scientist who has worked on questions of climate variability since 1997. “We must continue to work on understanding the basic processes and interactions in this complicated system called “atmosphere”. *Even a high power computer reaches its limits if the mathematical equations of a climate model do not describe the real processes accurately enough.*”


Bold mine.

So, you can tell me what's going on tomorrow, but not next month nor next year. Why should I put any stock in what you have to say about next century?

And, what's this? We're not describing natural processes clearly enough? 

Quelle surprise...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, where's the screeching from the Usual Suspects, the lefty's, warmists, whatever, who denigrate Alberta's oil sands?
> 
> B.C. coal exports are Lotus Land’s dirty little secret
> 
> 
> 
> Often wondered about the scale of this, as I rode into BC on hiway 3, past the massive coal mining operations near Sparwood & Elko.
> 
> Typical MO, screeching & pointing at the neighbours back yard, all the while the dog crap is piling up in their own.
> 
> C'mon, MacDoc, surely this is worse than the oil sands? Where's the outrage? Gimme some rollin' eyes an' red faces...


Don't know about other parts of BC but the coal exported from the Crowsnest Pass area is coking coal. Which means it is used for making steel. Coking coal itself has very few contaminates but the coking process is still very dirty, so nowadays Canada ships both coal and iron ore overseas then pays a premium price for the finished steel. OTOH we don't pollute our own air.

I would be quite happy to see this coal ride the rails back east. Have the coking done there rather than Japan and the eastern iron ore deposits converted to steel right there. If properly designed, energy could be generated both in the coking and the foundry ends, reducing Ontario's dependence on that dirty imported oil.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Don't know about other parts of BC but the coal exported from the Crowsnest Pass area is coking coal. Which means it is used for making steel. Coking coal itself has very few contaminates but the coking process is still very dirty, so nowadays Canada ships both coal and iron ore overseas then pays a premium price for the finished steel. OTOH we don't pollute our own air.
> 
> I would be quite happy to see this coal ride the rails back east. Have the coking done there rather than Japan and the eastern iron ore deposits converted to steel right there. If properly designed, energy could be generated both in the coking and the foundry ends, reducing Ontario's dependence on that dirty imported oil.


The steel coming back is cheaper than the steel we produce here, even when electric foundries are used.


----------



## FeXL

A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking

A few excerpts:



> From 1750 to 1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten times the rate of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions…
> 
> Oddly enough, plant stomata-derived CO2 reconstructions indicate that CO2 levels of 315-345 ppmv have not been uncommon throughout the Holocene...
> 
> When I plot a NH temperature reconstruction (Moberg et al., 2005) along with the Law Dome CO2 record, it sure looks to me as if the CO2 started rising about 100 years after the temperature started rising…
> 
> The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. *Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800′s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age.*


Bold mine.

Good read, nice graphs, the author asks some salient questions.

I can hear the screeching already, it's not peer reviewed, it's hosted on one of those big oil denier sites, blah, blah, blah.

Fine. Shoot the messenger. Then, if you can hold the gorge down, read it with an open mind.

After that, find evidence to the contrary...


----------



## FeXL

So, Lord Monckton of Brenchley was in Doha this week, accredited as an observer.

He was a bad boy... beejacon



> I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.
> 
> One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.
> 
> No one was allowed to give the alternative – and scientifically correct – viewpoint. The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place.
> 
> The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.


Talk about sand.

Of course, the hue & cry is already on and he, single-handedly, caused the failure of consensus in Qatar. I'm thinking that if the argument is so fragile that a simple 3 point presentation caused the whole event to collapse upon itself, there ain't much substance in the first place...


----------



## FeXL

New paper by sea-level expert concludes IPCC alarm over sea-levels is baseless

Link to the paper's PDF inside.

Further points on sea levels rising:



> - At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.
> 
> - Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
> 
> - The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
> 
> - The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
> 
> - *In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.*
> 
> - *Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself.*


Emphasis mine.

I know. But it is those of us who question these sort of thing who are the ones politicizing the issue, donchaknow...

Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Princeton U's analysis of the GRACE data.



> At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely,


Yup. Unprecedented...


----------



## FeXL

EM Smith has his own blog, called "Musings from the Chiefio".

No expertise, no peer review, nothing that makes him an authority on climate change. Amongst other things he's an old school computer programmer. He is, however, an excellent researcher and has put together a blurb titled "Broken Reasoning And Hot Air" about global heat gain/loss.

I'm going to post his conclusion, you can visit the link to find out how he got there:



> In short, we use static scoring and a ridiculously short time scale to think about a process that simply MUST have very long time scales and dynamic system approaches used instead. *We put on the blinders of averaging (that hides things) and only one changing parameter, then are surprised to find that parameter is the only one left to change.* We make the time scale very short so we don’t notice that other things changed in the past, and did more.


Bold mine.

I like his analysis & the questions he asks.


----------



## Macfury

If the world is ever so slightly warmer today, it's because the conference at Doha just crashed and burned. Sweet!


----------



## FeXL

So, have a little snowfall/snowpack chart for you to have a gander at. From California, no less. Goes back a hundred thirty years or so.

To the warmists who say higher CO2 concentrations cause more snow, I call horse feathers.

To the warmists who say higher CO2 concentrations cause less snow, I call bull pucky.



> All I’m seeing is a whole lot of year to year variation and a bit less than the typical range, but well inside normal, lately.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Nils-Axel Mörner's paper on sea levels rising.



> In 2003, the raw records were adjusted (see Fig 7 above). The satellites suddenly “tilted”. What was flat became 2.3mm rise per year. The correction apparently has not been disclosed (see p13 of the SPPI report). It appears the corrections may have come from one outlier tide gauge in Hong Kong:
> 
> Originally, it seemed that this extra, unspecified “correction” referred to the global isostatic adjustment, given as 2.4 mm/year (see, for example, Peltier 1998) or 1.8 mm/year (IPCC 2001) The isostatic adjustment is intended to allow for the deformation of the Earth’s crust by tectonic influences. According to Peltier (1998), the zero isobase, which is the reference point for calculating the global isostatic adjustment, passed through Hong Kong, where a single tide gauge gives a sea level rise of 2.3 mm/year relative to the isobase. This is exactly the same as the apparent trend in sea-level rise over the decade 1992-2003 in Fig. 7 . *However, this single tide gauge record is an outlier: it is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong, and obviously represents a site-specific subsidence, a fact well known to local geologists.*
> Nevertheless, Fig. 7 shows that the keepers of the satellite altimetry record have introduced a new calibration factor – an upward tilt compared with the raw data, which show no real uptrend in sea level. *At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to adjust the record, otherwise there would not be any trend.”*​


Warmists. Never letting empirical evidence get in the way of a good lie...


----------



## FeXL

Hottest year evah?

No Warming For Sixteen Years

Four graphs that sum up temps for the last 16 years.


----------



## FeXL

Green Activists Close To Despair After UN Climate Confab

Why is that? Why, after all the warmist's model output and warmist's diametrically opposing views on empirical data, why can't these politicians come to agreement?

Must be all those big oil funded deniers and their websites.

Or, perhaps there is another, more insidious, reason:



> The only real winners here were the bureaucrats in the diplomacy industry for whom endless rounds of carbon spewing conferences with no agreement year after year mean jobs, jobs, jobs.


This sums it up nicely for me...



> The UN climate conferences have descended into ritual farce, as naked money-grabbing on behalf of poor countries contrasts with finagling impossible solutions to what is likely a much-exaggerated problem. One leading question is how dubious science, shoddy economics and tried-and-failed socialist policies have come to dominate the democratic process in so many countries for so long. The answer appears to be the skill with which a radical minority — centred in and promoted by the UN, and funded by national governments and, even more bizarrely, corporations — has skilfully manipulated the political process at every level.


----------



## groovetube

.


----------



## heavyall

Groovetube, that's the big red herring. No one is opposed to pollution control, cleaner air, or any of those things. They just want people to tell the truth about what's really going on instead of fear mongering people into very expensive programs that won't do anything to solve the thing they claim it will.


----------



## MacDoc

HA - What programs are those?

and what is "really" going on? .....

•••

scraping the barrel dregs again XL?


----------



## heavyall

MacDoc said:


> HA - What programs are those?


Programs to supposedly reduce CO2 emissions.



> and what is "really" going on? .....


Normal weather and temperature fluctuations.


----------



## SINC

Well now, apparently we can fix the Arctic ice loss easily:

Study suggests we could refreeze Arctic. But should we? | Windsor Star


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> No one is opposed to pollution control, cleaner air, or any of those things.


Industry has traditionally strongly opposed pollution control and all other regulations via extensive political lobbying and the use of "think tanks" that produce FUD to confuse the public regarding whatever science is available. When it becomes clear that it's no longer feasible to avoid regulation, one or more big players will defect from the corporate stone-wall and try to take the first-mover advantage in the new niche while scoring PR points with the public for being a 'good corporate citizen.' There's nothing really wrong with this as long as people don't believe the corporate FUD about the science.


> They just want people to tell the truth about what's really going on instead of fear mongering


If you want to know the truth about objective reality, you have to trust the science not the PR flacks. The climatologists have spoken very clearly and consistently; ACC is real and it is serious. There are a few people here who dispute this, but, importantly, they're not climatologists and have no expertise in the field, so while they're entitled to their opinions, a rational person will not consider them seriously on issues of science.

One's options regarding any technical feild are to either trust the consensus of experts or become an expert one's self and form your own informed opinion. Given that the consensus of experts on climatology is so extraordinarily strong, and the fact that becoming an expert will require decades of study, I choose to accept the opinion of experts on this subject.

The question the citizens of the world need to focus on is what should we do about it. You appear to be less than enthusiastic about some of the proposed solutions; that's fine. But it is incumbent on you to either propose a better alternative, or failing that, to let others at least make an effort.


----------



## heavyall

Bryan, you keep using the logical fallacies of appealing to authority and to popularity. People's credentials or even their sheer numbers are irrelevant if they are wrong.

Besides being irrelevant, it's not even true anyway. Many of the prominent climate realists are climatologists and atmospheric physicists. Some of the foremost experts in the field, the very people called to assemble the first IPCC report, are some of the most outspoken opponents of the AGW hype.


----------



## MacDoc

You are part of a completely wrong minority for whatever reasons you might have.
Those reasons are nothing to do with the science..whatever your oh so dramatic pronouncement - just another Koolaid drinker and the fossil fuel companies applaud you.
You can't back your words with substance.

How would you account for this - he was hired by Dear Anthony et all



> *After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller now says "global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause.*" The admission by Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has gained additional attention because some of his research has been funded by Charles Koch of the Koch brothers, the right-wing billionaire known for funding climate skeptic groups like the Heartland Institute. "We could make the scientific case more solidly than had been made in the past," Muller claims. "I think this does say we do need to take action, we do need to do something about it." [includes rush transcript]


Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans the Cause

or this back in 1995 -



> *Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate*
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009
> 
> For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
> 
> “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
> 
> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion,* its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.*
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

That was the industries own hired help.....

BTW Bryanc is a working scientist....of course that matters not one wit to your ilk. You'd rather listen to clowns like Lord Moncton.

You like conspiracies....you are part of one and very well documented.

Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE | PBS

Hopeless


----------



## groovetube

They keep repeating this thing about all these scientists who are standing together against this hoax, this dwindling support for climate change.

But they are lying. Either that, or they really just buy into the crap they're fed. Remember when macfury was asked to provide more proof of this great stand against climate change theories?

Failed as usual! (just as he has in all the other subjects, the great depression, recall the great face plant on the US election polls, the list is endless)


----------



## groovetube

heavyall said:


> Groovetube, that's the big red herring. No one is opposed to pollution control, cleaner air, or any of those things. They just want people to tell the truth about what's really going on instead of fear mongering people into very expensive programs that won't do anything to solve the thing they claim it will.


what a pile of nonsense. This government has spent 7 years dragging their feet and bullcrapping us about their (non) commitment to cleaner air blah blah.


----------



## MacGuiver

Expensive programs? OK
How about paying 80 cents a kilowatt for electricity from solar panels and windmills with a 20 year contract when we don't even use the capacity we currently have, where the majority of our hydro is clean already and produced for less than 1/10 that cost. Not to mention millions payed out time and time again for some other state or province to take our overcapacity off the grid to avoid catastrophe.
Have you looked at your hydro bill lately? The skyrocketing provincial debt? This is one boondoggle we can clearly lay at the feet of warmist hysteria.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of hysteria...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> How would you account for this - he was hired by Dear Anthony et all
> 
> Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans the Cause


Sadly, Muller was convinced by the hash he made of his own Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.



MacDoc said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2
> 
> That was the industries own hired help.....


Yes. Read the unexpurgated document which admits that the effects of humans on the climate is unknown circa 1996--the year the Earth stopped warming. (image below)




MacDoc said:


> You like conspiracies....you are part of one and very well documented.


There are no conspiracies. Merely a ragtag bunch of internationalists, activists, poor countries and researchers glomming onto global warming in hope of shaking the government money tree.



MacDoc said:


> Hopeless


Indeed.



MacGuiver said:


> Expensive programs? OK
> How about paying 80 cents a kilowatt for electricity from solar panels and windmills with a 20 year contract when we don't even use the capacity we currently have, where the majority of our hydro is clean already and produced for less than 1/10 that cost. Not to mention millions payed out time and time again for some other state or province to take our overcapacity off the grid to avoid catastrophe.
> Have you looked at your hydro bill lately? The skyrocketing provincial debt? This is one boondoggle we can clearly lay at the feet of warmist hysteria.


That one doesn't count because making it harder to heat your home or run appliances is good for the environment anyway, regardless of Warmist theory.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Bryan, you keep using the logical fallacies of appealing to authority


This is an important point. If I were making the case that "ACC must be true because this climatologist, who is an authority on this subject says so" you would be absolutely correct. But that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying we, as lay people in the field cannot judge for ourselves the validity of the scientific arguments that have been made either in support or in opposition to ACC. Therefore we must either A) refrain from making a judgement, B) spend decades becoming experts ourselves, or C) accept the consensus of the experts in the field.

For me B is not an option. A is not acceptable, as this is an issue of significant political and socioeconomic importance, so it is incumbent on responsible citizens to formulate an opinion that can be supported by reason and evidence. Fortunately, C is an option (it is also a type of evidence in that consensus is rare in science, and the fact that essentially all credible climatologists agree on this is strong evidence that the conclusions are very well supported indeed).



> Many of the prominent climate realists are climatologists and atmospheric physicists.


To my knowledge, there are only a handful of credible scientists with demonstrated expertise in climate science who do not agree with the tenets of ACC. While you are entirely correct that this has nothing to do with what is actually true, we are not in a position to critically analyze the science, so we must use the evidence we can analyze. That evidence is that the vast **VAST** majority of people with expertise in this feild agree with ACC. As non-climatologists, that is the best evidence that we are going to get that ACC is likely true.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm saying we, as lay people in the field cannot judge for ourselves the validity of the scientific arguments that have been made either in support or in opposition to ACC. Therefore we must either A) refrain from making a judgement, B) spend decades becoming experts ourselves, or C) accept the consensus of the experts in the field..


Of course we can, particularly when evidence is misused, and when conclusions are based on logical fallacies.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> This is an important point. If I were making the case that "ACC must be true because this climatologist, who is an authority on this subject says so" you would be absolutely correct. But that's not what I'm saying.
> 
> I'm saying we, as lay people in the field cannot judge for ourselves the validity of the scientific arguments that have been made either in support or in opposition to ACC. Therefore we must either A) refrain from making a judgement, B) spend decades becoming experts ourselves, or C) accept the consensus of the experts in the field.
> 
> For me B is not an option. A is not acceptable, as this is an issue of significant political and socioeconomic importance, so it is incumbent on responsible citizens to formulate an opinion that can be supported by reason and evidence. Fortunately, C is an option (it is also a type of evidence in that consensus is rare in science, and the fact that essentially all credible climatologists agree on this is strong evidence that the conclusions are very well supported indeed).
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, there are only a handful of credible scientists with demonstrated expertise in climate science who do not agree with the tenets of ACC. While you are entirely correct that this has nothing to do with what is actually true, we are not in a position to critically analyze the science, so we must use the evidence we can analyze. That evidence is that the vast **VAST** majority of people with expertise in this feild agree with ACC. As non-climatologists, that is the best evidence that we are going to get that ACC is likely true.


but they really really want to be experts in the field, what with their little blogs cherry picking little bits of data and stuff.

I see fury still hasn't been able to show this 'dwindling support' for climate change. That's a surprise.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that non-human caused drought...



> A few very rational and objective conclusions one can draw from the chart:
> 
> * Severe droughts have occurred well before 1960 and the large influx of human CO2 emissions.
> * The droughts of the 1930's and 1950's were worse than the 2011/12 drought.
> * The 30-year drought average (red curve) indicates little in the way of extreme climate change - in fact, current drought conditions are well within the bounds of natural climatic variation over the last 100+ years.
> * U.S. severe droughts appear to follow some natural rhythm or cycle.
> * CO2 levels are not the cause of severe droughts.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds no evidence of a human influence on sea levels



> A new paper published in the Journal of Climate examines global average sea-level rise during the 20th century and finds
> 
> 1) Global sea level rise was constant throughout the 20th century, with *"small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing,"* in other words, increased CO2 has not accelerated sea-level rise.
> 
> 2) The rate of glacier mass loss *"was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century,"* in other words, increased CO2 has not accelerated glacier mass loss.
> 
> 3) Future projections of sea-level rise *"depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of sea-level rise, but...such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century."* In other words, alarmist projections of sea-level rise are based upon the false assumption of a human influence on sea-levels, which is not found by observations.


Bold mine.

No anthropogenic link found with sea levels.

Period.

I know, I know. This is obviously a single instance (not, BTW) and therefore a discrepancy, an outlier, and we should all sit down and reconcile it with the output from the models... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models

From the Abstract:



> ...quite large biases in the simulated cloud climatology affecting all GCMs [global climate models] as well as a remarkable degree of variation among the models, which represented the state-of-the-art circa 2005.
> 
> ...
> 
> We show that intermodel differences are still large...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...the differences in the simulated cloud climatology from CMIP3 and CMIP5 are generally small and there is very little to no improvement apparent in the tropical and subtropical regions in CMIP5.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...poor performance of current GCMs [global climate models or general circulation models] in simulating realistic cloud fields.


So, how many of you would say that accurately portraying cloud cover would be a fairly important part of modelling? Show of hands, please? Thank you, me too. (I guess that's some of that "consensus" science at work there...  )

Can't model a cloud, can't model the climate.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds a large increase of solar radiation in Greece since 1990; dwarfs alleged effect of CO2



> A new paper published in the International Journal of Climatology examines solar radiation at the Earth surface in Greece from 1993-2011 and finds a significant increase after 1990 of 0.33% per year. This upward trend in solar radiation would equate to about 14.1 Wm-2 over the past 18 years, dwarfing the alleged effect of CO2 at the Earth surface during that same period [0.13 Wm-2] by a factor of more than 108 times. *The paper adds to many others showing that solar radiation at the Earth surface significantly increased beginning in the 1980's and could more than account for the tiny global warming observed [0.4C] since the ice age scare of the 1970's.*


Bold mine.

Abstract:



> The variability of shortwave downward solar irradiance (SDR) received at Earth's surface over Thessaloniki, Greece for the period 1993–2011 is investigated, focusing on the effects from the aerosols variability on the irradiance trends derived for different solar zenith angles (SZA). Linear trends have been calculated for the entire dataset, for cloud-free cases, and for different SZAs, separately for each season. *The global upward trend in SDR after 1990 (0.33% year−1) is reconfirmed and is found to depend strongly on SZA, ranging from ∼0.1 to +0.6% year−1*. The long term changes in aerosols in conjunction with the local aerosol patterns result in differences of up to 0.1% year−1 in the derived trends in SDR between morning and afternoon hours. Finally, based on the analysis of the cumulative sums of the differences in monthly averages of SDR from the long term mean we report *signs of a slowdown in the upward trend in SDR during the beginning of the 2000s.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Of course we can, particularly when evidence is misused, and when conclusions are based on logical fallacies.


This is the point I've been trying to make; you're not in a position to determine if the evidence is being analyzed correctly, or if there are logical fallacies in the arguments. You don't know enough about the field to understand the reasoning underlying the analyses or the basis for logical deductions. You may thing 'they're doing it wrong' but you don't know how the science is done, so you're opinion on wether they're making methodological errors isn't meaningful.

If I wanted to construct an apparently scientific 'refutation' for a well-established theory in my feild that would convince a significant number of lay people (even intelligent lay people), it would be easy to do so. Indeed, this is exactly how Mike Behe makes his living. As long as I didn't care about what was true or what my colleagues thought of me, I could easily claim to have overturned evolution by natural selection, or the DNA->RNA->Protein paradigm of molecular biology, and make a case that sounded convincing to someone who was not an expert in the field.

In order for the consensus among climatologists on ACC to exist, either the data must be be overwhelmingly compelling, or all of those thousands and thousands of scientists must be engaged in a conspiracy from which they derive no benefit. Parsimony dictates the former is far more likely.


----------



## FeXL

The prescient among you already know that there are many natural cycles at work governing our atmosphere, weather, climate, temperature, _et al_. As such, I give you this:

New paper finds only 1 weather station in the Arctic with warming that can't be explained by natural variation

Abstract:



> This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but *only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic [natural] climate fluctuations* when tested against any of the three null models. *Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models.* The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.


Bold from the link.



> Note a "null model" assumes the "null hypothesis" that climate change is natural and not forced by man-made CO2 or other alleged human influences.


----------



## FeXL

On that Greenland meltdown...

Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)

From the Abstract:



> We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, *suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Just a "musing" from the Chiefio:

Do temperatures HAVE a mean?



> All the statistical manipulation I’ve seen done on temperatures tends to presume they have a Standard Normal Distribution and that it is a valid statistical operation to compute a mean. While this might seem reasonable for a single thermometer in a single place ( but even there can ‘have issues’ ) as soon as you start doing an arithmetic mean over a geographic field of thermometers spread over 1200 km (as is done in codes like GIStemp) you are making the implicit* assumption that the mean is defined.*


Bold from the link.

From the "Things that make you go hmmm..." department.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen Caught Cheating Again



> Hansen is constantly warming the present and cooling the past. The graph below shows changes to GISS reported temperatures since July 15, 2011.
> 
> Hansen of course overwrites in situ or deletes his old data, but I have been saving the files to track his cheating.
> 
> GISS is also diverging from satellite data at a rate of almost 1C per century. Hansen has to keep the global warming scare alive – the planet depends on it.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> scraping the barrel dregs again XL?


Actually, I've never needed to trawl the dregs to bury you, my portly friend. There is plenty enough empirical evidence to accomplish that.

You have little interest in science, even less in civil discourse, but openly welcome the hyperbole the next sensationalist headline generates. Quoting the UN, WWF, WaPo, Atlantic, etc., as disinterested, objective third parties. This from the fruit loops and whackos whose entire scientific foundation is based on little better than Nintendo 64 output. The only difference is that they can now arrive at the wrong conclusion 1000 times faster. Can't model cloud cover properly but can tell me what the climate will be a century hence. 

Then, when they finally do grab a ruler to actually measure something, they can't figger out what the hell the data means. Are higher CO2 concentrations s'pose to make it snow more, or less? Quick, somebody grab me that coin... Where's that damn missing heat? If Hansen's hypothesis is so sound why does he need to adjust temperatures up & down like a new bride's pajamas? Why have Mann's supporters distanced themselves from his dendro work? The answer to all of these lies in that the data was interpreted incorrectly but it matters not. As long as we can paint a catastrophic "something" else with a tweak here, a pull there, we'll get more funding. It's a self-perpetuating prophecy. 

Have you even noticed that your cadre has since moved on from Global Weirding to Catastrophic Weather Events? The ever changing goalposts have not netted a win yet and don't expect that to change.

Despite the screeching from yourself (as well as dem rollin' eyes and red faces) and protestations from other warmists here, I largely link to peer reviewed evidence refuting CAGW. So you don't like some of the messengers. Fine. If you were truly interested in educating yourself, you'd hold your nose & push through. You may never become an expert but at least you'd git some balance, see both sides of the story, mebbe even a bit edumacated.

As long as that peer reviewed evidence exists (and, BTW, there is more & more each day), I have an interesting diversion a few hours each week. The entertainment factor is worth the price of admission alone.

The gravy is attaching the lid to the warmist coffin, one denialist nail at a time...


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> This is the point I've been trying to make; you're not in a position to determine if the evidence is being analyzed correctly, or if there are logical fallacies in the arguments. You don't know enough about the field to understand the reasoning underlying the analyses or the basis for logical deductions.


We don't need to know how they're doing it though. If they're flat out wrong on the very basics, WHY they are wrong is irrelevant to me. If they keep presenting study after study, model after model to try to convince me of the same lies, it only makes their position more and more suspect. 

Temperatures have been flat since the late 90's, yet they keep insisting that it not only is warming, but that's it "catastrophic" and "unprecedented", etc. If they won't back down from this basic lie, everything else they say is worthless. Polar Bear populations have skyrocketed, but they keep insisting that they are in dangerous decline. Ice in Antarctica and Greenland are increasing substantially, yet they keep insisting that it's melting at an alarming rate.


----------



## FeXL

What's this? A Liberal in denial? 

Former U.S. Navy Meteorologist Blasts Super Storms Hype



> “The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased…..the hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused or will cause dangerous global warming is not supported by the evidence.”


----------



## FeXL

Steven Goddard is not the only one noticing the changing of the NASA GISS temperature record...

Massive data manipulation at NASA GISS warms most weather stations



> Prof. Ewert found "*All appeared to have been tampered with.* His conclusions: changes were made in most stations, probably in all. Two thirds of the changes resulted in stronger warming. A third of the stations showed enhanced cooling to simulate a homogenization." According to Dr. Ewert, *the data manipulation methods include: decreasing data of beginning sections, decreasing data between 1920 and 1950, increasing data of final sections, and deleting data of disturbing sections.*


Bold mine.

Again, you don't have to have a frickin' PhD to read these graphs & see the differences. The old "You're too stupid to know the difference" saw don't cut it.

Regarding the adjustments, just one question: Why?


----------



## FeXL

Refreezing The Arctic At -30C

So, back in the 70's, scientists wanted to melt the Arctic in order to stop global cooling. Today, scientists want to "refreeze" the Arctic in order to stop global warming.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Refreezing The Arctic At -30C
> 
> So, back in the 70's, scientists wanted to melt the Arctic in order to stop global cooling. Today, scientists want to "refreeze" the Arctic in order to stop global warming.
> 
> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


I can imagine bryanc at that point, declaring that scientists were workinf with the best information possible and that we really needed to go along with their plans to melt the Arctic at that point.


----------



## groovetube

I think the difference between when some scientists thought briefly there was global cooling and now, was already pointed out.
But don't let that slow your little 'circle party'.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> We don't need to know how they're doing it though. If they're flat out wrong on the very basics, WHY they are wrong is irrelevant to me.


This is what's so aggravating about seeing people reposting crap from blogs; you don't know the basics, you don't know they're doing it wrong, you don't even understand what they're doing. If you can imagine for one second that thousands of people with Ph.D.s in a given field would be "flat out wrong on the very basics" you're so deep into tinfoil hat territory that it's not even worth discussing it.


----------



## groovetube

why they are wrong isn't relevant??? Are you kidding?????

That's the most relevant part!!


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is what's so aggravating about seeing people reposting crap from blogs; you don't know the basics, you don't know they're doing it wrong, you don't even understand what they're doing. If you can imagine for one second that thousands of people with Ph.D.s in a given field would be "flat out wrong on the very basics" you're so deep into tinfoil hat territory that it's not even worth discussing it.


If they're manipulating data--that's "flat out wrong."


----------



## groovetube

but if why they're wrong isn't relevant, and you have no idea. you wouldn't have the first clue beyond parroting blog posts you don't understand.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If they're manipulating data--that's "flat out wrong."


I know of no quantitative data in science that is not subject to routine adjustment; in astrophysics the raw spectrographic data is corrected based on assumptions regarding distance and speed of stars, in biochemistry we have to adjust enzyme reaction rates to compensate for experimental conditions or idiosyncrasies of instrumentation, in feild ecology population estimates are adjusted on the basis of many observational parameters, etc. In any field of science the first step in data analysis is applying corrections. This is not "flat out wrong" and unless you are an expert in the feild, you have no idea of wether the corrections being applied are reasonable or not. When you get your interpretations of science from politically motivated blog posts, it's not surprising that your perception is that there's something fishy going on. But it's wildly implausible that thousands of independent researchers with decades of specialized training in the analysis of this sort of data would all make the same mistakes, that these mistakes would be obviously "flat out wrong" to a bunch of amateurs, and that the huge population of independent (and very competitive) researchers would then ignore the mistake and recommend to politicians that society make fundamental changes to the way we run our economy even though they now know that their evidence is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I know of no quantitative data in science that is not subject to routine adjustment; in astrophysics the raw spectrographic data is corrected based on assumptions regarding distance and speed of stars, in biochemistry we have to adjust enzyme reaction rates to compensate for experimental conditions or idiosyncrasies of instrumentation, in feild ecology population estimates are adjusted on the basis of many observational parameters, etc. In any field of science the first step in data analysis is applying corrections. This is not "flat out wrong" and unless you are an expert in the feild, you have no idea of wether the corrections being applied are reasonable or not. When you get your interpretations of science from politically motivated blog posts, it's not surprising that your perception is that there's something fishy going on. But it's wildly implausible that thousands of independent researchers with decades of specialized training in the analysis of this sort of data would all make the same mistakes, that these mistakes would be obviously "flat out wrong" to a bunch of amateurs, and that the huge population of independent (and very competitive) researchers would then ignore the mistake and recommend to politicians that society make fundamental changes to the way we run our economy even though they now know that their evidence is fundamentally flawed.


James Hansen is politically motivated as hell, so when he manipulates data it's only right that politically motivated blogs take him to task for it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> James Hansen is politically motivated as hell, so when he manipulates data it's only right that politically motivated blogs take him to task for it.


No, it's only right that trained climatologists look at his methods and assess wether they are appropriate and correct; his motivations are irrelevant.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, it's only right that trained climatologists look at his methods and assess wether they are appropriate and correct; his motivations are irrelevant.


In your dreams, sir! When Hansen fudges data, it is fair game for all. His political proclivities make him all the more a target for scrutiny.


----------



## groovetube

Even by nobodies with absolutely not a hope of being a real scientist with like test tubes and stuff who like google stuff on the Internet and stuff?

Yeah we're listening. Lol.


----------



## MacDoc

> iWhen Hansen fudges data,


 crap. without a shred of credibility .....just another moronic comment.

This particular campaign about the reality of AGW has got to be one of the more hilariously misguided by the rightwingdings since the anti-evo days.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> This particular campaign about the reality of AGW has got to be one of the more hilariously misguided by the rightwingdings since the anti-evo days.


So Warmism is a left-wing ideology?


----------



## MacDoc

meanwhile in real world 


> *More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica December 12, 2012*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Science Foundation Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet might grow under climate change. Now a study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean. Thus Antarctica's contribution to global sea-level rise is probably greater than hitherto estimated, the team of authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) concludes. Ads by Google New Sustainability Book - Program and Portfolio Planning Population, Climate & Energy - GLH, Inc.: Project Management Books and Consulting Services "Between 30 and 65 percent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall in Antarctica is countervailed by enhanced ice loss along the coastline," says lead-author Ricarda Winkelmann. For the first time, an ensemble of ice-physics simulations shows that future ice discharge is increased up to three times because of additional precipitation in Antarctica under global warming. "The effect exceeds that of surface warming as well as that of basal ice-shelf melting," Winkelmann says. During the last decade, the Antarctic ice-sheet has lost volume at a rate comparable to that of Greenland. "The one certainty we have about Antarctica under global warming is that snowfall will increase," Winkelmann explains. "Since surface melt might remain comparably small even under strong global warming, because Antarctica will still be a pretty chilly place, the big question is: How much more mass within the ice sheet will slowly but inexorably flow off Antarctica and contribute to sea-level rise, which is one of the major impacts of climate change." Since snowfall on the ice masses of Antarctica takes water out of the global water cycle, the continent's net contribution to sea-level rise could be negative during the next 100 years – this is what a number of global and regional models suggest. The new findings indicate that this effect to a large extent is offset by changes in the ice-flow dynamics. Snow piling up on the ice is heavy and hence exerts pressure – the higher the ice the more pressure. Because additional snowfall elevates the grounded ice-sheet but less so the floating ice shelves, it flows more rapidly towards the coast of Antarctica where it eventually breaks off into icebergs and elevates sea level. A number of processes are relevant for ice-loss in Antarctica, most notably to sub-shelf melting caused by warming of the surrounding ocean water. These phenomena explain the already observed contribution to sea-level rise. "We now know that snowfall in Antarctica will not save us from sea-level rise," says second author Anders Levermann, research domain co-chair at PIK and a lead author of the sea-level change chapter of the upcoming IPCC's 5th assessment report. "Sea level is rising – that is a fact. Now we need to understand how quickly we have to adapt our coastal infrastructure; and that depends on how much CO2 we keep emitting into the atmosphere," Levermann concludes.
> 
> Read more at: More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> So Warmism is a left-wing ideology?


you better clarify macdoc, they can only really relate in these terms.


----------



## MacDoc

Clarity?....science stupidity is an embedded right wing ideology. Plenty of evidence for that.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> This is what's so aggravating about seeing people reposting crap from blogs; you don't know the basics, you don't know they're doing it wrong, you don't even understand what they're doing. If you can imagine for one second that thousands of people with Ph.D.s in a given field would be "flat out wrong on the very basics" you're so deep into tinfoil hat territory that it's not even worth discussing it.


Typical. You have no answer to the actual facts, so you keep retreating back to "but, but, the EXPERTS!" The experts are lying. They get caught lying on a daily basis, and those blogs you deride so gleefully are posting the proof.


----------



## groovetube

how do you know?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> crap. without a shred of credibility .....just another moronic comment.
> 
> This particular campaign about the reality of AGW has got to be one of the more hilariously misguided by the rightwingdings since the anti-evo days.


Rightwingdings, huh? That's at least twice now. In that case, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Typical libtard ideology: When ya got nuttin', ya resort to ad hom attacks...

Screeching about name calling in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> meanwhile in real world


From MacDoc's wunnerful link:



> Now a study published in Nature shows that a lot of the ice gain due to increased snowfall is countered by an acceleration of ice-flow to the ocean.


No ****e, Sherlock. More snow=more ice=more flow. Less snow=less ice=less flow. That ain't global warming, that's glaciology 101. 

Were you asleep that day or were you out with the choom gang? Need a remedial course?

And, of course, the nod to models:



> For the first time, an ensemble of ice-physics simulations <snip>


An *ensemble!*

Well, click my heels together and saaaaalute...

And this:



> A number of processes are relevant for ice-loss in Antarctica, most notably to sub-shelf melting caused by warming of the surrounding ocean water. These phenomena explain the already observed contribution to sea-level rise.


Really! "A *number* of processes" You don't say. Notice the weasel words? How many of them are man made and how much does it add up to? And how much of that is natcheral? Don't bother looking for the answer amongst all the hand waving, you won't find it.

So, now that you've managed a few snickers, let me give you the whole enchilada. Here's the abstract from said paper. I'll bold a few words/statements:



> Anthropogenic climate change is *likely* to cause continuing global sea level rise1, but *some* processes within the Earth system *may* mitigate the magnitude of the projected effect. Regional and global *climate models simulate enhanced snowfall* over Antarctica, which would provide a direct offset of the future contribution to global sea level rise from cryospheric mass loss2, 3 and ocean expansion4. *Uncertainties exist in modelled snowfall*5, but e*ven larger uncertainties exist in the potential changes of dynamic ice discharge from Antarctica1, 6 and thus in the ultimate fate of the precipitation-deposited ice mass.* Here we show that snowfall and discharge are not independent, but that *future ice discharge will increase by up to three times as a result of additional snowfall under global warming*. Our results, *based on an ice-sheet model7 forced by climate simulations through to the end of 2500* (ref. 8), show that the enhanced discharge effect exceeds the effect of surface warming as well as that of basal ice-shelf melting, and *is due to the difference in surface elevation change caused by snowfall on grounded versus floating ice.* Although different underlying forcings drive ice loss from basal melting versus increased snowfall, similar ice dynamical processes are nonetheless at work in both; therefore results are relatively independent of the specific representation of the transition zone. In *an ensemble of simulations* designed to capture ice-physics uncertainty, the additional dynamic ice loss along the coastline compensates between 30 and 65 per cent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall over the entire continent. *This results in a dynamic ice loss of up to 1.25 metres in the year 2500 for the strongest warming scenario.* The reported effect thus strongly counters a potential negative contribution to global sea level by the Antarctic Ice Sheet.


I don't think I really need to note anything else. It speaks well enough on it's own...


----------



## groovetube

just spitballin here but if someone who actually did know what he was talking about read this pap, he'd be rolling his/her eyes, and have a not so nice take on it.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Clarity?....science stupidity is an embedded right wing ideology. Plenty of evidence for that.


Just...nice.

Don't you ever tire of looking like the south end of a north bound skunk, MacDoc? Or are you, like at least one other sniper on these boards, so thick you don't even realize it?

Do you treat your clients like this? Do you think that how you express yourself and address others on these boards is part of a successful business plan? 

You spend money to become an "Assured Advertiser", you regularly change your little ads, you pat yourself on the back for a job well done. *However, you've just effectively called half the people on these boards stupid.* Quite a stunt. You should be proud, not even young Messr Trudeau was able to do that. How many people are gong to read this post of yours and say, not a chance, not buying from MacDoc. That's gonna leave a mark...

Are you endearing yourself to anyone with posts like that? Do you speak to your son or daughter like that when they disagree with you? Your significant other? Friends? Relatives? Anyone face to face?

Jes' askin', 'cause if we were settin' across from t'other on barstools, after a comment like that you'd be pickin' yer sorry butt up off the floor three rooms hence, the slap still ringin' in yer ears. That'd be called action and reaction, just a bit of right wing science I picked up over the years.

And, the smile wouldn't have left my face... beejacon

Carry on, Davey-boy. Can't wait for your next award-winning performance where you alienate the other 50%...


----------



## groovetube

It isn't so much about being thick, you're not a scientist and don't have the capacity to truly analyze the findings.

Cherry picking blogs without any qualifications whatsoever, proves nothing. Absolutely nothing.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Typical. You have no answer to the actual facts, so you keep retreating back to "but, but, the EXPERTS!" The experts are lying. They get caught lying on a daily basis, and those blogs you deride so gleefully are posting the proof.


Please tell me you aren't another one who's so dense that they can't distinguish between topics on which they're qualified to formulate a meaningful opinion and topics they aren't.

Tell me; do you have strong opinions on the evolution of RNA interference pathways... there's quite a controversy regarding which came first - eukaryotic splicing mechanisms or the RISC-mediated viral silencing mechanism. If you know enough to accuse climatologists of lying, surly you can tell me which group of molecular biologists are lying.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> 'cause if we were settin' across from t'other on barstools, after a comment like that you'd be pickin' yer sorry butt up off the floor three rooms hence, the slap still ringin' in yer ears.


Ooh... a _tough_ guy. Well we _are_ impressed. 

Someone who resorts to physical violence in circumstance other than self defence can only be considered a mentally-deficient goon. Someone who resorts to empty threats of physical violence from behind a keyboard on an internet forum has to be admired for having found a way to make such a mentally-deficient goon look good.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ooh... a _tough_ guy. Well we _are_ impressed.
> 
> Someone who resorts to physical violence in circumstance other than self defence can only be considered a mentally-deficient goon. Someone who resorts to empty threats of physical violence from behind a keyboard on an internet forum has to be admired for having found a way to make such a mentally-deficient goon look good.


Please! He was only referring to the type of belligerence MacDoc displays in these forums. It would certainly land him flat on his ass in the real world.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Please! He was only referring to the type of belligerence MacDoc displays in these forums.


It is perfectly acceptable to take umbrage at another poster's tone, and either respond in kind or put that poster on 'ignore.' Threats of physical violence are not acceptable, and, in this context of an internet forum, bespeak an utterly pathetic combination of ignorance and cowardice.

It's bad enough that he thinks being a tough guy ought to earn him any respect in the first place, but playing the tough guy from behind a keyboard on an internet forum is just pathetic.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Please! He was only referring to the type of belligerence MacDoc displays in these forums. It would certainly land him flat on his ass in the real world.


What is most telling here is not the fact that MacDoc can say what he wants on these boards with impunity but that his BS is tacitly endorsed by those who refuse to address it, on either side of the political spectrum.

It's perfectly fine to call others names, but the second someone stands up to the bullying, I'm castigated as the neanderthal.

Go figger...

_____

What bout the goon hiding behind the keyboard who composed the initial post?

Where's the outrage? How is that considered acceptable behaviour, by any measuring stick?

Get a grip.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> What bout the goon hiding behind the keyboard who composed the initial post?
> 
> Where's the outrage?


I didn't see anyone else suggesting knocking someone across three rooms, toughguy.

I've had to deal with low-functioning baboons who lash out physically when confronted with ideas they don't like. Fortunately, we live in a country with laws against such behaviour, and workplace assault has a rather deleterious effect on one's career; slappin' someone across three rooms gets you nowhere in real life. Threatening to do so online just reveals you as a coward and an imbecile.


----------



## FeXL

Back to work.

Further to my comments about Glaciology 101...

Glacially modeled snow job

All you need is the first two paragraphs, the balance is the article in question.

Sunovagun. Two of us in this world who know how glaciers work and models don't...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds a decrease in extreme weather in China from 1956-2000



> In describing their findings the four researchers report that "annual precipitation has a slightly decreasing trend in central Guangdong and slight increasing trends in the eastern and western areas of the province," but they say that "all the annual trends are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level." In addition, they discovered that "average precipitation increases in the dry season in central Guangdong, but decreases in the wet season," such that "precipitation becomes more evenly distributed within the year." Last of all, they state that "the results of wavelet analysis show prominent precipitation with periods ranging from 10 to 12 years in every [italics added] sub-region in Guangdong Province." *And comparing precipitation with the 11-year sunspot cycle, they find that "the annual precipitation in every [italics added] sub-region in Guangdong province correlates with Sunspot Number with a 3-year lag."*
> 
> Rather than becoming more extreme in the face of 1956-2000 global warming, Liu et al.'s analysis of the pertinent data suggest that precipitation in China's Guangdong Province *has become both less extreme and less variable.* And the temporal precipitation patterns that do emerge upon proper analysis *suggest that the primary player in their determination is the sun.*


Old Sol. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

More on modelling clouds...

The Result is Clear: A Weather Forecast Model has Trouble with Clouds.



> Additionally, it is obvious that if there is a net positive bias in surface shortwave down, it will result in the overestimation of temperatures in the two situations described above and overall. If these parameterizations, or others which produce warm biases, are used in climate models, the impact on generated climate scenarios would be a net surface warming.


Models showing unaccounted for surface warming.

Who knew?

Ya ever notice that models never show unaccounted for cooling? Wonder why...


----------



## FeXL

Further on GRACE:

NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC



> The report compares sea-level rise calculated from two different methods: 1) satellite altimetry and 2) ARGO measurements of the steric [thermal expansion] component + GRACE measurements of ocean mass. The rate of sea level rise using the 2nd method [ARGO + GRACE] shows a sea level rise of only 0.2 {ARGO] + 0.1 [GRACE] = 0.3 mm/yr. *Only by adding on a relatively large and highly questionable GIA adjustment [based on a model] of 0.9 mm/yr to the GRACE data do the two estimates come close to agreement.* Following this questionable GIA adjustment, the ARGO + GRACE estimate is 1.1± 0.8 mm/yr as compared to the satellite altimetry estimate of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm.


Bold mine.

Still a massive error number...


----------



## FeXL

On IPCC predictions from the FAR.



> This current paper shows how desperate they are. They cannot claim that current IPCC practise is capable of *predicting* any future climate, so they grub around in the past to try and pretend it can be done, when their circumstances and conditions were quite different.
> 
> There were four scenarios given in the 1990 report. All have been abandoned as unrealistic. Amongst other things, they all assumed that there would be no efforts to try and reduce greenhouse gases.
> 
> Then, all the models have changed and numerous extra greenhouse gases have been added. There is a generous uncertainty range and they cover themselves because of "the influence of other factors"
> 
> I still amaze myself that so many have confidence in their so-called "mean global temperature" It is simply not possible to measure the mean global temperature by any scientific means. The botch up that they use is based on a miscellaneous non representative, non standardised maximum and minimum actual measurements that are upwardly biased, subjected to multiple averaged, "faked"according the Climategate report by "Harry", subject to huge uncertainties which are never given honestly, and massaged to assist their absurd pretensions


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Please tell me you aren't another one who's so dense that they can't distinguish between topics on which they're qualified to formulate a meaningful opinion and topics they aren't.
> 
> Tell me; do you have strong opinions on the evolution of RNA interference pathways... there's quite a controversy regarding which came first - eukaryotic splicing mechanisms or the RISC-mediated viral silencing mechanism. If you know enough to accuse climatologists of lying, surly you can tell me which group of molecular biologists are lying.


The one who sends his colleagues an e-mail saying that supporting the theory is more important than accurately representing the research.


----------



## FeXL

A few disparate and amusing musings from Mr. Smith:



> the Global Warming Carbon Scam has started to attract the amateur players. Not only has the quality of the Pseudo Science reached new lows, what with The End Of Days being met with The End Of Pasta, but we have officials, real life government officials starting to bust some folks for scamming… though in this case they are staying away from the Big Fish at the UN and just picking off some folks trying to horn in on the Carbon Quatloos Business
> 
> ...
> 
> You see, you can’t sell the worthless kind, only the kind that have “worth-y-ness” in them…
> 
> Though how to tell the difference between the two is left a bit vague… One can only hope the police make a nice haul on this one and realize they can make a whole lot more moving up the Warming Racket Food Chain. “AlGore, Paging Mr. AlGore, you are wanted in the lobby…”





> And they wonder how the ‘added heat’ is going to “escape” from the planet… Here’s a clue: Go about 80 degrees North or South Latitude. Spend the night in a tent without a heater…
> 
> (Slow Learners are invited to do this in Canada, and to make a LOT of bacon for dinner, then leave the pan near the tent entrance. No, don’t clean it…)





> Now that the last few decades of solar rise has turned into a plunge, ozone is back to normal. Gee, must be a coincidence… Couldn’t at all be that higher UV levels were breaking it down at altitude, could it? Nor that the UVB ‘leakage’ to lower levels might have been making some down low and causing all those ‘smog alerts’ on days with clean air? Nah… couldn’t be…


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> The one who sends his colleagues an e-mail saying that supporting the theory is more important than accurately representing the research.


And who sends further emails fully admitting that his research is fraudulent, then commends a colleague for showing him a way to cover it up.


----------



## FeXL

And, some snark:

Climate alarmists prey on ignorance and stupidity.



> Climate change: the Inuit now have words for 'bumblebee; and 'robin'


I realize that there isn't a ton of flowers in the Arctic, but exactly what the hell does Amy Huva think pollinates them? Mebbe it's them there Articfoxes, with the big bushy tails. They backs up to the flowers, have themselves a good scratch, & then flit onto the next unsuspectin' victim...

Heatwaves Peaked In Manhattan During The 1950s

According to the slope on this graph, higher CO2 concentrations lower the chance of heatwaves...

Climate Science Rule #1 : Never Look At Actual data



> "throughout the Western United States, average snow depths could decline by anywhere between 25 and—yep—100 percent.
> 
> These, of course, are just visions of wintertime future produced by climatologists and their computers"​
> Had these geniuses bothered to look at actual data, they would know that winter snow extent is increasing


But of course, this is exactly what we predicted...


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> And who sends further emails fully admitting that his research is fraudulent, then commends a colleague for showing him a way to cover it up.


If you're not a climate scientist, you have no right to criticize their unprofessional and dishonest behaviour. Only the priest clan of climatologists may do that.


----------



## FeXL

Tuvalu’s Gruesome Animal Friends

So, apparently there was a single art "exhibit" approved for display at Doha. Details inside.

Donna's observation?



> Profound, huh? I mean, really. If your kid produced this kind of “art” the school would be calling in psychological counsellors.


That said, she presents a more serious angle to her story.



> The art exhibit press release claims that, in 2009, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that Tuvalu would be “the first country to be submerged” due to rising sea levels.
> 
> That claim is repeated in the news article on the conference website. But when I asked the distributors of the press release to direct me to “the IPCC document that makes this prediction” they were unable to do so.


Despite the fact that she searched at length, she could find no corroborating evidence anywhere supporting the statement.

Her conclusion?



> Perplexed, I’ve conducted some searches of my own on the IPCC’s website. My conclusion? If the IPCC has said Tuvalu will be the first to disappear due to climate change I can find no trace of it.
> 
> *This claim appears to be a total fabrication.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Greenpeace-WWF wind claims blown away

Blurb on wind power and shale gas.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the myths of ocean acidification, a la PBS...



> But PBS wrongly told viewers that reef degradation was due to warmer ocean temperatures and “ocean acidification,” both allegedly caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. Sreenivasan concluded with, “Time that maybe is running out for coral reefs in Florida and elsewhere.”
> 
> ...
> 
> The PBS segment is wrong in several ways. First, while today’s temperatures are the warmest in the last 400 years, oceans were warmer still during the Medieval Warm Period ten centuries ago. Peer-reviewed studies found that both the Gulf of Mexico and nearby Sargasso Sea were warmer about 1000 AD than at present. These warm temperatures were due to natural climatic changes of Earth―not man-made emissions. Caribbean reefs adapted to these warm seas to remain with us today.


----------



## FeXL

On the PDO, AMO & circular reasoning...



> If the aim of VPmK is to provide support for the IPCC model of climate, naturally it would remove all of those things that the IPCC model cannot handle. Regardless, the astonishing level of claimed accuracy shows that the result is almost certainly worthless – it is, after all, about climate.
> 
> ...
> 
> VPmK aimed to show that “multidecadal climate has only two significant components”, AGW and something shaped like a sawtooth. But VPmK then simply assumed that AGW was a component, called the remainder the sawtooth, and had no clue as to what the sawtooth was but used some arbitrary sinewaves to represent it. *VPmK then claimed to have shown that the climate was indeed made up of just these two components.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

When you've lost the International Pack of Climate Crooks, what have you left? The IPCC AR5 draft has been leaked (before all the screeching starts, it has happened in the past and by supporters of the warmist side of the argument...) and there have been some...interesting snippets of text inserted into the second order draft which were not present in the first:



> Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):
> 
> Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). *The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.* We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.​
> The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):
> 
> There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.​


Bold from the link.



> *The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything.* The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but *the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda.* The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. *The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.*


Bold mine.

Methinks that's several nails... 

Since this information was released, the IPCC has released a statement criticizing said release.



> This is why the IPCC drafts are not made public before the final document is approved. These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts of the WGI AR5. Each page of the draft makes it clear that drafts are not to be cited, quoted or distributed and we would ask for this to continue to be respected.


Standard boiler plate. However, that seems to go against what their esteemed chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, reported re: transparency in the past:



> “The objective and *transparent manner* in which the IPCC functions…should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons…” – testimony to a US Senate committee, February 2009
> 
> “[The IPCC's] work is carried out with *complete transparency* and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008
> 
> “So *you can’t think of a more transparent process*…than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.” – newspaper interview, June 2007


And, my favorite:



> “The IPCC is a *totally transparent* organization…Whatever we do is *available for scrutiny at every stage.*” – magazine interview, May 2009


Bold from the link.

Just spitballin' here but...isn't a draft a "stage"?

More reactions...


----------



## FeXL

New paper by Scafetta finds the 'most convincing evidence for a sun-climate connection

Abstract:



> Using thermometer air temperature records for the period 1850 to 2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are discussed with respect to their connections with large-scale climate dynamics, especially a critical relationship with the total meridional poleward energy transport. Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s, resulting in a reduced temperature gradient between the Equator and the Arctic. We suggest that this new interpretative framework, which involves the extrinsic modulation of the total meridional energy flux beyond the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes Compensation rule, may lead to a better understanding of how global and regional climate has varied through the Holocene and even the Quaternary (the most recent 2.6 million years of Earth's history). Similarly, a reassessment is now required of the underlying mechanisms that may have governed the equable climate dynamics of the Eocene (35 to 55 million years ago) and late Cretaceous (65 to 100 million years ago), both of which were warm geological epochs. *This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the “missing link” that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.*


Bold from the link.

It's the Sun, stupid...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, ran across this on my morning blogroll. It's from last year but gives a nice graphical quantification of empirical temps vs GCM (model) output.

Observations?



> As we have seen so often in blogs and print, the models run hot in comparison to observed trends both individually and in aggregate. Again, the difference here is that this paper analyzes the heat buildup region of the tropical troposphere which is a key prediction of climate models. This is different from the result of MMH10 which shows that the model trends are generally high. Instead, this is a clue to the reason as to WHY they are running high.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> It's the Sun, stupid...


Blaming the Sun is a right-wing conspiracy against green jobs!


----------



## FeXL

Found! Another Hockey Stick! Mann's work vindicated!

Not. So. Much.



> USHCN literature claims that adjustments go flat after 1990, but their actual adjustments increase exponentially. They are adding on an additional 0.6 degrees since 1990, which has no justification, and is plain and simple fraud. *The total adjustment since the early 20th century is almost two degrees.*


Bold mine.

Oh, I know, I know. Raw data always needs adjusting. <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, I know, I know. Raw data always needs adjusting. <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>


Scientists always adjust their raw data, I am told. All the better to prove their points! Who can blame them as long as their peers approve?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Scientists always adjust their raw data, I am told. All the better to prove their points! Who can blame them as long as their peers approve?


Never did understand those adjustments. Weather station thermometers are presumably of good quality and no reason to for them to lose accuracy with age. In recent times I would expect them to be calibrated to a standard, and I doubt that the instruments that generated the older data are around for further comparison. 

Seems to me if the data does not fit the model, then it is the model parameters that need adjustment not the data. If the data is so unreliable as to compromise the study then it should be discarded not adjusted.


----------



## FeXL

Further to the AR5 draft leak and related to that post I made yesterday about model vs empirical temps.

The real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell



> Look for the surprise in the graph.


Not only that, but they use Hansen's GISS data, which makes the uncertainty even greater. Pay special attention to the range spread outside the RH side of the graph.

Please, tell me again how accurate the models are(n't)...


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has been tweeting on the draft, too.

A few:



> Pielke Jr.: Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and *AR5 has it presented accurately*
> 
> IPCC AR5 draft *shows almost complete reversal from AR4* on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods *and is now consistent with scientific literature*
> 
> IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have *high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence* in observed/historical TC records"


Bold mine.

Hear that hammering sound in the background? There goes another nail...


----------



## FeXL

Further yet to the draft:

Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor



> My review mainly concerns the role of water vapor, a key component of global climate models. A special concern is that a new paper on a major global water vapor study (NVAP-M) needs to be cited in the final draft of AR5.
> *
> This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor,* a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. *Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred.* Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not.
> 
> ...
> 
> The obvious concern to this reviewer, who has measured total column water vapor for 22.5 years, is the absence of any mention of the 2012 NVAP-M paper. This paper concludes,
> 
> “Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”​
> Non-specialist readers *must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers.*


Bold mine.

Models...<shakes head>

Link to the Abstract.


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

Understanding Whistleblowing



> Publishing fake, stolen and forged documents about Heartland is a good thing.
> 
> Publishing publicly funded drafts of IPCC reports is pure evil.
> 
> ™AGU Ethics Committee


Lemmee see if I can get this <harumph>, sage look, drooping jowls: 'Bout right...


----------



## FeXL

Another "musing", longish, good info.

Again, from the "Things that make you go hmmm..." department.



> Hmmmm…
> 
> We’re starting to get an annoying number of things all lining up. A warm event, the sun suddenly taking a nap and things turning oddly cooler, the Gulf Stream starting to get curly and wandering weakening, a Bipolar See-Saw, and the declining magnetic field with known sporadic compass irregularities near Florida and off of South America.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Roy Spencer pens a piece. Good article.

Our Chaotic Climate System



> The claim that the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age were only regional in extent is countered with considerable published evidence to the contrary. Besides…*why is it that the pundits who claim these historic events were only regional in extent are the same people who place global significance on a U.S. drought or a heat wave in France?* Hmmm?


Good question...


----------



## FeXL

And, just in case there are some out there who have no clue about the International Pack of Climate Crooks and their Annual Reports...

About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance



> Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, *it appointed several people without Ph.D.’s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.* IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
> 
> WWF-affiliated scientists helped craft at least two-thirds of the Fourth Assessment chapters, Laframboise reported. WWF-affiliated scientists actually led one-third of the chapters. One chapter was crafted by at least eight WWF-affiliated scientists.
> 
> Although IPCC officials claim the group relies solely on peer-reviewed material for its assessment reports, Laframboise audited the Fourth Assessment and found *21 of the 44 Fourth Assessment chapters contained at least 40 percent non-peer reviewed reference sources, often taking the form of student theses and advocacy papers published by environmental activist groups.* For the Fourth Assessment Report as a whole, more than 30 percent of the referenced sources were not peer-reviewed.


Bold mine.

There is continuos background noise on this thread about how you have to be a scientist, with years of experience, degrees, post-docs, fellowships, gawd knows what, to even have a conversation about global warming.

How, then, do the bolded passages reconcile?

I know, I know: more cherry picking, out of context, the dog ate my homework.

Whatever...

The best news?



> [Laframboise]...is also writing a follow-up book to document IPCC’s ongoing ignorance and bias regarding its upcoming 2014 Fifth Assessment Report.


Woohoo!


----------



## Macfury

I downloaded that IPPC interim report. MacDoc will never be able to blubber "But the IPPC said..." ever again.


----------



## MacDoc

The frantic braying of denial.










not a shred of climate science per usual, just the usual right wing clap trap droning on while the rest of the planet works to deal with the issue.

I guess Spencer is consistent - doesn't think evolution is valid either



> By Roy Spencer 08 Aug 2005
> 
> Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as “fact,” I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.












quality sources there .....

just hilarious.....

meanwhile in the real world by scientist working their field...

The *Annual Arctic Report* was just released....

a few highlights



> *What's new in 2012?*
> 
> New records set for snow extent, sea ice extent and ice sheet surface melting, despite air temperatures - a key cause of melting - being unremarkable relative to the last decade.
> 
> Multiple observations provide strong evidence of widespread, sustained change driving Arctic environmental system into new state.
> 
> Highlights
> Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.
> 
> Growing season length is increasing along with tundra greenness and above-ground biomass. Below the tundra, record high permafrost temperatures occurred in northernmost Alaska.
> 
> Duration of melting was the longest observed yet on the Greenland ice sheet, and a rare, nearly ice sheet-wide melt event occurred in July.
> 
> *Sources*
> The material presented in Report Card 2012 was* prepared by an international team of 141 scientists from 15 different countries*, assisted by section coordinators and the editorial team. The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group of the Arctic Council solicited essays for the Marine Ecosystem and Terrestrial Ecosystem sections. Independent peer-review of Report Card 2012 was organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council.


Arctic Report Card

But of course the rightwingdings know better.......


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, how can you just sit there and bray when your precious IPCC just kicked you in the face?

No response to having your feet kicked out from under you? No response to those "left wing dings" at the UN attributing most warming to natural causes?


Thought not...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> doesn't think evolution is valid either


After watching you on these boards? Nor do I...



MacDoc said:


> meanwhile in the real world by scientist working their field...


What's your point? That Arctic snow/ice are at a low? No ****e, Sherlock. What's the cause? Checked the other end of the planet? It's at a maximum. It's well known that when one pole is at a maximum, the other is at a minimum. It's yet another *natural cycle.* I've posted the link before, here it is again. Antarctic sea ice extent is practically a 1:1 relationship with the AMO. Coincidentally, (or not) the crossover point was around 1997, about the same time that global temps went flat.

For someone who claims to have such a vast knowledge of how this blue marble we live on runs, you don't have a clew. Perhaps DeSmogBlog isn't the best choice for study buddies...



MacDoc said:


> But of course the rightwingdings know better.......


Why, yes. Yes, we do. And you just go on proving it, every day.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those IPCC Expert Reviewers.

IPCC Declares Its Intent to Circumvent Expert Reviewers



> Here’s the timeline:
> 
> * IPCC personnel wrote the first draft of these leaked 14 chapters (all of which belong to its Working Group 1 section) back in 2011.
> * The draft was circulated. External expert reviewers had eight weeks to submit comments about the draft, the cutoff date being February 10, 2012 (see the schedule on this PDF).
> * IPCC personnel presumably read all of the comments that were submitted and then wrote the second draft.
> * Once again it was distributed to the expert reviewers, and once again there was a deadline. That date, November 30, 2012 has now come and gone.


Straightforward. However,



> It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013).


Huh?



> The external reviewers will see none of this new material. They will be given no opportunity to critique it. Let no one dare say that the final report can be relied on because 800 external expert reviewers gave it their blessing.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Hypocritical psychology professor Lewandowsky: Climate science is, like, super-transparent, only with lots of “confidential” documents; climate science is like gravity



> From Tom Nelson, it was too good not to repost, especially when Lewandowsky hands out moral lessons while being immoral himself with his labeling skeptics as “moon landing deniers” with a gussed up survey and statistical slight of hand that turned out to be a an academic scam used as a tool to dehumanize people that have legitimate doubts about the science.
> 
> Now that Lewandowsky has declared the AR5 draft leak issue “dishonourable” (something not even the IPCC itself said in their statement) I expect we won’t see any use of AR5 draft information by his mouthpiece pawns, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli on “Skeptical Science”, because well, using that new “dishonourably” obtained information would be wrong according to Lew.


The last paragraph sums it up perfectly. Lewandowsky notes:



> For the last few years, my new passion has been rock climbing…Most airlines can handle that, whereas few take sailplanes as check-in luggage


Nelson replies:



> Wait, with the fate of my grandchildren allegedly hanging in the balance, this guy still takes unnecessary fuel-guzzling trips to climb on rocks?!


Sound like any other globe-trotting hypocrites here, MacDoc?


----------



## FeXL

More coming out of that AR5 Second Order Draft.

Alec Rawls responds to Steven Sherwood: “The professor is inverting the scientific method”



> My submitted comments on the First Order Draft of AR5 accused the IPCC of committing what in statistics is called “omitted variable fraud.” As I titled my post on the subject: “Vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5.”
> 
> How vast is the evidence? Dozens of studies have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices going back many thousands of years, meaning that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change (citations at the link above).
> 
> Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1920 to 2000 (Usoskin 2007). Might this explain a substantial part of the unexceptional warming of the 20th century? Note also that, with the sun having since dropped into a state of profound quiescence, the solar-warming theory can also explain the lack of 21st century warming while the CO2-warming theory cannot.


Straightforward. Rawls is explaining his criticisms of one chapter of the report that Sherman co-authored. Later he notes:



> Sherwood is trying to use theory—his dissatisfaction with a particular theory of how solar amplification might work—to dismiss the evidence that some mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The bad professor is inverting the scientific method, which requires that evidence always trump theory. *If evidence gives way to theory it is not science. It is anti-science. It is the exact opposite of science.*


The reason Rawls released the SOD?



> One of the reason I decided to release the SOD was because *I knew that once the Steven Sherwoods at the IPCC realized how the added sentence undercut the whole report they would yank it back out*, and my submitted comments insured that they would indeed realize how the added sentence undercut the whole report. *Now sure enough, as soon as I make the added sentence public Steven Sherwood publicly reverts to the FOD position*, trying to pretend that his argument against one proposed mechanism of solar amplification means that we can safely ignore the overwhelming evidence that some such mechanism is at work.


Bold mine. The FOD didn't include that sentence.

He finishes:



> In any case, it is good to have all of them stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can invert the scientific method and be exact definitional anti-scientists like Steven Sherwood, or they can admit that no one can have any confidence in the results of computer models where the only solar forcing is TSI, not after they have admitted strong evidence for some mechanism of solar forcing beyond TSI.
> 
> That admission is a game changer, however much Sherwood wants to deny it. *He piles on with more of the same at the ridiculous “DeSmog Blog”* (as if CO2 is “smog”), and is quoted front and center by the *even more ridiculous Andrew Sullivan*. Sherwood has become the *go-to guy for the anti-science left.*


Bold mine.

Wait. Wha...? "Anti-Science left"? Isn't that what they are always accusing skeptics of?

Who knew?


----------



## MacDoc

denier clowns....the lot...



> *Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change*
> 
> * 16:59 14 December 2012 by Michael Marshall
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun's variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.
> 
> The report in question is being produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which releases detailed assessments of climate science every few years. The last report came out in 2007, and the next is scheduled to be published, section by section, beginning in September 2013.
> 
> The report was leaked by Alec Rawls, who signed up to be an expert reviewer of the next report – something anyone can do. Rawls posted the latest draft of the report's first section on his website. It was swiftly picked up by bloggers critical of mainstream climate science, such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That and James Delingpole, who writes for the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper.
> 
> Rawls highlights a paragraph on page 43 of chapter 7, which he calls "a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole".
> 
> *Cosmic influence*
> 
> The paragraph discusses the purported effects of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) on Earth's climate. We know that the sun's activity, or solar irradiance, varies on an 11-year cycle, and at its peak it can slightly raise global temperatures. GCRs could, in theory, amplify the effects of the solar cycle and lead to even more warming.
> 
> This is because GCRs, which can in theory trigger cloud formation that cools the planet, are deflected away from Earth when the sun is most active. In the late 1990s it was suggested that changes in the sun's brightness can have a significant influence on the climate once this GCR mechanism is taken into account.
> 
> Rawls highlights this sentence from the IPCC draft report: "The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."
> 
> Essentially, this says that observed changes in the sun's brightness over the last century have been small, and that their apparent effects on Earth's climate have been larger than might be expected. Therefore, you might think that some other mechanism was amplifying the sun's effects – such as the aforementioned cosmic rays.
> 
> Rawls claims this means that the sun's effects on Earth's climate have been much larger than climate scientists have been prepared to admit, and that the sun could therefore be the reason for the warming Earth has experienced in the last century. He writes: "Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing."
> Wishful sceptics
> 
> Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. "They're misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say," says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.
> 
> Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. "They conclude there's very little evidence that it has any effect," she says.
> 
> In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.
> 
> *What the sun does*
> 
> Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. "If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.*" The last three decades have seen continuing warming, with the last decade the warmest on record.*
> 
> Changes in the sun's brightness do have an important effect on the climate, but not in the way climate sceptics would like to think. The sun's brightness changes very little on human timescales, so the amount of heat Earth receives does not change much.
> 
> But the type of radiation the sun puts out changes more significantly, and this has complex effects on atmospheric circulation patterns like the jet streams. As a result, the sun has a significant effect on regional climates. Climatologists anxious to figure out how global warming will affect specific places, particularly Europe, must pay close attention to the sun (see The sun joins the climate club).
> 
> *"The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,"* says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question.
> _ "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."_


Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change - environment - 14 December 2012 - New Scientist

that's an understatement....no better evidence than right here just how stupidly wrong the denier cadre can be....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> denier clowns....the lot...
> 
> 
> Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change - environment - 14 December 2012 - New Scientist
> 
> that's an understatement....no better evidence than right here just how stupidly wrong the denier cadre can be....


You can't undo the damage now, Maccy D... the genie is out of the bottle.


----------



## FeXL

From the hypocrites link:



> Changes in the sun's brightness do have an important effect on the climate, but not in the way climate sceptics would like to think. The sun's brightness changes very little on human timescales, so the amount of heat Earth receives does not change much.


Really. So all those *peer-reviewed papers* I've linked to in the past about significant changes in TSI and associated temperature increases are just so much bunk? Riiiight...

And this:



> But the type of radiation the sun puts out changes more significantly, and this has complex effects on atmospheric circulation patterns like the jet streams. As a result, the sun has a significant effect on regional climates.


Wait. Wha...?

Are you actually admitting here that the sun does have an effect on climate? On any sort of scale? Did you actually read this? 

I'm gobsmacked...

Holy hell, talk about a sea change...


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio muses about the atmospheric absorption bands of CO2 & Water.

CO2 Water Issue



> So what’s my point about all this? Pretty simple. Water vapor is already high. During the Holocene, we pretty much limit on high water vapor. More water in the air just comes down as more rain and snow. To the cold side we have plenty of room to lose water vapor. As the sun has gone quiet, the polar regions have gone back to damn cold. That means damn dry, too. In the midwest of North America, we had a drought. That’s dry. That’s lower water vapor. As we go colder and dryer, even just in regions like the Arctic or Canada or the UK and Scandinavia, we lose water vapor from the air.
> 
> Those closed radiation windows open.
> 
> While we can’t close the already closed CO2 window very much more (more like putting a bit of caulking on a double pane window), we can easily swing wide those water windows. It happens every winter in cold places. We get “hard frosts” and ice on the windshield of the car. It happens every night in the desert, when the place cools dramatically after sundown.
> 
> CO2 is powerless to prevent frost and cold desert nights because it doesn’t cover those windows. It is no protection against downside cold. It can not keep away the next ice age glacial. It can’t even keep winter frost off the windshield.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Another of the many things the IPCC predicts dire consequences from is the increase of atmospheric methane. A quick look at another graph from the AR5 draft shows that the models have about the same accuracy predicting methane as they do the temperature: namely, none.

Another example of clear failure of IPCC models to predict reality in the AR5 draft



> Clearly, nature isn’t cooperating with IPCC science as atmospheric methane trends have fallen well below even the lowest range of all the IPCC scenarios. The First Assesment Report (FAR) projection has methane at 5 times the current value, and each subsequent IPCC report lowered the projection by about half each time, and _they still missed it._ *Once again, observations trump models.*


Italics from the link. Bold mine.

Once again, you don't need a post-doc to read a graph.

The next time you hear someone saying that GCM models are accurate, ask them about what...


----------



## FeXL

With the release of the AR5 draft, Lord Monckton suggests a _few_ edits may be in order, including, but not limited to, adding 450 references to the bibliography that were somehow missed by the _experts..._

Unleashed: Monckton releases his AR5 reviewer comments



> 10. There has been 16 years of no statistically significant warming. The IPCC must stop ignoring this. *(In 2008, modelers said a stasis of 15 years would mean the models were wrong. Ergo…? )*


All emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

Completely unrelated to AGW, but a gentle reminder about "settled science"...

Piltdown Man: A hoaxer still pursued



> It was a shocker, no doubt about it. The Piltdown Man scandal is arguably the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated in the UK.
> 
> When the fake remains of our earliest ancestor were unmasked for what they really were, shame was heaped on the research establishment. But exactly 100 years to the week that this extraordinary hoax was presented to the world, the Piltdown Man "fossils" are back in the lab and the subject of serious study.


and



> although it took 40 years to finally unmask the deceit, the *Piltdown claims were looking ragged long before their eventual collapse because of truly compelling discoveries made elsewhere in the world.*


Bold mine.

Sound like anything from contemporary science? Debunked hockey sticks? A veritable plethora of -gates, all debunked under scrutiny? Missing oceanic heat? Goal post moving? Temperature record adjusting? Faulty models? 16 years of flat-lined temps? Fewer hurricanes? I _could_ go on.

The doom of man is to forget...


----------



## MacDoc

hehe the denier crowd getting laughed at - here's the author of the paper on the CR



> *Pathetic Cherry pick by the Global Warming denialists*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted by Mark on DeIt’s gratifying to see news agencies get it right, when climate change denialists leaked the IPCC draft report and cherry picked a single sentence out to suggest an increased solar component, no one fell for it. To their credit, the journalists have gone to the source who said:
> 
> *He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.*
> 
> 
> “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
> “What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.
> “The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.”
> Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.
> Audio: Mark Colvin speaks to Steve Sherwood and John Cooke (PM)
> “There have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic rays, cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that doesn’t actually work,” he said.
> 
> 
> *“Even the sentence doesn’t say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.”*​


 

any more bits of denier fluff floating about that need the disposal chute??

Pathetic Cherry pick by the Global Warming denialists – denialism blog

••••

oh yeah this

interesting list of things you are wrong about FX..
- care to support any one of them with some published climate science???
What an unreal world of falsehoods you dwell in.....so far from what exists. 
Pathological perhaps.


----------



## Macfury

Pathetic damage control. The report also notes that temperature has stagnated while CO2 has climbed.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> oh yeah this
> 
> interesting list of things you are wrong about FX..
> - care to support any one of them with some published climate science???
> What an unreal world of falsehoods you dwell in.....so far from what exists.
> Pathological perhaps.


A simple challenge, Slim: If I provide you links, are you going to read them?


----------



## FeXL

I thought not...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds sea levels were significantly higher during past interglacials 

From the Abstract:



> The estimates are in agreement with those for MIS 7 made from other localities and indicate that the penultimate interglacial period was a time of significant warmth, on a par with the present interglacial period. The ~ 400 ka (MIS 11) Middle Terrace I on Curaçao, dated by others, may have formed from a paleo-sea level of + 8.3 to + 10.0 m, or (less likely) + 17 m to + 20 m. The lower estimates are conservative compared to previous studies, but still require major ice sheet loss from Greenland and Antarctica


----------



## FeXL

Note: I have noted my reservations about dendroclimatology as a proxy (on either side of the argument) on these boards before. That said, read on.

Another day, another non-hockey-stick 



> A paper published today in Quaternary Research reconstructs June-July air temperature over the past 785 years in British Columbia, Canada. The paper shows that reconstructed temperatures at the end of the record in 2010 were colder than in the 1940's and during at least 6 other periods within the Little Ice Age from 1350-1850 AD. The temperature record shows there is nothing unusual, unnatural, unprecedented, or accelerated about the 20th and 21st centuries.


Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada

Abstract:



> Most glaciers in the British Columbia Coast Mountains reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age. Early- and late-Little Ice Age intervals of expansion and retreat fluctuations describe a mass-balance response to changing climates. Although existing dendroclimatic records provide insights into these climatic fluctuations over the last 400 yr, their short durations prohibit evaluation of early-Little Ice Age climate variability. To extend the duration of these records, submerged coarse woody debris salvaged from a high-elevation lake was cross-dated to living chronologies. The resulting chronology provides the opportunity to reconstruct a regional June–July air-temperature anomaly record extending from AD 1225 to 2010. The reconstruction shows that the intervals AD 1350–1420, 1475–1550, 1625–1700 and 1830–1940 characterized distinct periods of below-average June–July temperature followed by periods of above-average temperature. Our reconstruction provides the first annually resolved insights into high-elevation climates spanning the Little Ice Age in this region and indicates that Little Ice Age moraine stabilization corresponds to persistent intervals of warmer-than-average temperatures. We conclude that coarse woody debris submerged in high-elevation lakes has considerable potential for developing lengthy proxy climate records, and we recommend that researchers focus attention on this largely ignored paleoclimatic archive


----------



## FeXL

Dr. David Whitehouse on the AR5 figure 1.4



> In Chapter 2 the report says that the AR4 report in 2007 said that the rate of change global temperature in the most recent 50 years is double that of the past 100 years. This is not true and is an example of blatant cherry-picking. Why choose the past 100 and the past 50 years? If you go back to the start of the instrumental era of global temperature measurements, about 1880 (the accuracy of the data is not as good as later years but there is no reason to dismiss it as AR5 does) then *of the 0.8 – 0.9 deg C warming seen since then 0.5 deg C of it, i.e. most, occurred prior to 1940 when anthropogenic effects were minimal* (according to the IPCC AR4).


Dr. Whitehouse adresses a number of other issues dealing with Fig 1.4 and summarizes:



> In summary, *the global temperature of the past 16 years is a real effect that in any realistic and thorough analysis of the scientific literature is seen to be a significant problem for climate science,* indeed it may currently be the biggest problem in climate science. To have it swept under the carpet with a selective use of data and reference material supported by cherry-picked data and timescales is not going to advance its understanding, and is also a disservice to science.


All bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

From Bishop Hill, on Matt Ridleys article in the WSJ. More on flatlined temps for the last 16 years.

Climate Sensitivity Is Low



> Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, *the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.*
> 
> In short: *We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on *unproven models.* Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.
> 
> The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: *A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).*


Despite all the screeching and hand waving, the warmists just can't explain away that flatline...


----------



## FeXL

One more from Bishop Hill, a guest post by Nic Lewis on the AR5 SOD.

Why doesn't the AR5 SOD's climate sensitivity range reflect its new aerosol estimates?



> I consider the most significant – but largely overlooked – revelation to be the substantial reduction since AR4 in estimates of aerosol forcing and uncertainty therein. This reduction has major implications for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). ECS can be estimated using a heat balance approach – comparing the change in global temperature between two periods with the corresponding change in forcing, net of the change in global radiative imbalance. That imbalance is very largely represented by ocean heat uptake (OHU).
> 
> ...
> 
> I focussed on this point in my review comments on the SOD. I showed that using the best observational estimates of forcing given in the SOD, and the most recent observational OHU estimates, a heat balance approach estimates ECS to be 1.6–1.7°C – well below the 'likely' range of 2–4.5°C that the SOD claims (in Section 10.8.2.5) is supported by the observational evidence, and little more than half the best estimate of circa 3°C it gives.


He concludes:



> In the light of the current *observational evidence*, in my view 1.75°C would be a more reasonable central estimate for ECS than 3°C, perhaps with a 'likely' range of around 1.25–2.75°C.


Bold mine.

Again, observations trump models.


----------



## FeXL

Of course, the warmists would never do such a thing...

Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking)



> So Perth sea levels haven’t risen by up to 10mm per year since 1993, they aren’t rising three times faster than the global average, land subsidence indicates they’ve been closer to flat and possibly even fallen since 1993, and the leaked IPCC report confirms they’ve been as stable as global temperatures for well over a decade.


----------



## FeXL

Soon & Morner: further on sea level rise, ice & <sigh> models...

Sea-level rise data based on shoddy science



> Even more devastating news is that the observed *Antarctic sea ice extent over the past 30 years is showing an increasing trend, while most climate models produce decreasing sea ice extent.* Such an obvious discrepancy from observed phenomena should once again cast strong suspicion upon rapid sea level change scenarios in the Fifth Assessment Report and render them void for use in public policy.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Just another paper that confirms climate models cannot accurately predict anything...

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data

Abstract:



> We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. *Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections do not correspond to reality any better.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Another analysis of AR5 SOD Chapter 2 Fig 1.4.

An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’

Ira Glickstein summarizes:


> Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the *IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong.* Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded. Looking at the scattershot “arrows” in the graphic, *the IPCC has not learned much about their misguided theories and flawed models or improved them over the past two decades*, so I cannot hold out much hope for the final version of their Assessment Report #5 (AR5).
> 
> Keep in mind that the final AR5 is scheduled to be issued in 2013. *It is uncertain if Figure 1-4, the most honest IPCC effort of which I am aware, will survive through the final cut.* We shall see.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

I think that most of us can agree that the temperature trend since 1880 (including at least two "flats" in the thermometer record, the most recent of which we haven't seen the end of) is rising.

However, did you know that global warming causes cataracts?

Not. So. Much.



> Sadly, this is another case where the Venn diagram of the intersection of the climate science fraternity and the statistical fraternity gives us the empty set …


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds climate models exaggerate predictions of tropical cyclones

Abstract:



> Impacts of tropical temperature changes in the upper troposphere (UT) and the tropical tropopause layer (TTL) on tropical cyclone (TC) activity are explored. UT and lower TTL cooling both lead to an overall increase in potential intensity (PI), while temperatures 70hPa and higher have negligible effect. Idealized experiments with a high-resolution global model show that lower temperatures in the UT are associated with increases in global and North Atlantic TC frequency, but modeled TC frequency changes are not significantly affected by TTL temperature changes nor do they scale directly with PI.
> 
> Future projections of hurricane activity have been made with models that simulate the recent upward Atlantic TC trends while assuming or simulating very different tropical temperature trends. Recent Atlantic TC trends have been simulated by: i) high-resolution global models with nearly moist-adiabatic warming profiles, and ii) regional TC downscaling systems that impose the very strong UT and TTL trends of the NCEP Reanalysis, an outlier among observational estimates. Impact of these differences in temperature trends on TC activity is comparable to observed TC changes, affecting assessments of the connection between hurricanes and climate. Therefore, understanding the character of and mechanisms behind changes in UT and TTL temperature is important to understanding past and projecting future TC activity changes. We conclude that the UT and TTL *temperature trends in NCEP are unlikely to be accurate, and likely drive spuriously positive TC and PI trends, and an inflated connection between absolute surface temperature warming and TC activity increases.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerate wind speeds

Abstract:



> The ability of nine current generation (CMIP-5) coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) to accurately simulate the near-surface wind climate over China is evaluated by comparing output from the historical period (1971−2005) with an observational data set and reanalysis output. *Results suggest the AOGCMs show substantial positive bias in the mean 10-m wind speed relative to observations and the ERA-40, NCEP/DOE and NCEP/NCAR reanalysis.* Given the models generally produce the upper-level geopotential height gradients comparative well, it is postulated that one major reason for the discrepancy between observed and modeled wind fields is the surface characterization used in the AOGCMs. _All models exhibit lower inter-annual variability than reanalysis data and observations, and none of the models reproduce the recent decline in wind speed manifest in the near-surface observations._ The wind speed of individual model runs during the historical period do not exhibit much influence from the initial atmospheric conditions. Output for the current century from seven of the AOGCMs is examined relative to the contemporary wind climate. The results indicate that spatial fields of wind speed at end of the 21st century are very similar to those of the last 35 years with comparatively little response to the precise Representative Concentration Pathway scenario applied.


Bold from the link, italics mine.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> New paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerate wind speeds


The IPCC won't run any models that show no cataclysmic effects. These are thrown out in the first cull.


----------



## FeXL

Paleofloods of the Mediterranean French Alps



> In further discussing their methodology, the thirteen French scientists report that some 160 graded layers of sedimentary deposits over the last 1400 years were compared with records of historic floods; and they indicate that these comparisons "support the interpretation of flood deposits and suggest that most recorded flood events are the result of intense meso-scale precipitation events." *And they make a point of noting that the temporal history of these deposits reveals "a low flood frequency during the Medieval Warm Period and more frequent and more intense events during the Little Ice Age."*
> 
> Once again, we have *another example of climate-alarmist (IPCC) contentions widely missing the mark when it comes to predicting which temperature extreme - hot or cold - produces both more frequent and more intense precipitation events,* as well as the flooding that accompanies them.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Another musing from the Chiefio.

Why A Henge?

He starts out:



> There was an interesting event that happened about 5200 years ago. I’ve mentioned it before. Mostly in the context of Ötzi – the Iceman and a place in the Andes where a retreating glacier has uncovered plants that were suddenly covered with snow and preserved. Both of those events are dramatic proof that it was at least as warm then, as now. This is the first time in 5200 years that those two places have been free of snow and ice; yet they were free of ice then, as well. *It is essential proof that nature gets to the present conditions all on its own.*


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

Jus think; one day, children will grow up no longer remembering the existence of the IPCC.


----------



## FeXL

So, a while back Donna Laframboise put together a piece called "This Is Called Cheating (Part 1)". She completes the process here:

This Is Called Cheating (Part 2)



> I know, this sounds cynical and uncharitable of me. But how’s this for a timeline?
> 
> The names of those selected to write the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report were only announced in June 2010. But nine full months before that, in September 2009, the IPCC’s chairman already knew what this report was going to say.
> 
> Here’s what he told a live audience in New York:
> 
> When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. *People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’*​
> *Long before the authors were selected, years before they’d slaved away at thousands of pages of text, well before they’d taken time from their normal work lives to board flights to meetings in San Francisco, Buenos Aires, Japan, South Africa, and New Zealand, the chairman not only knew what they were going to say, he knew that their conclusions would be so dramatic the public response would be OMG.*
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, the fix is in. The game is rigged.


Bold from the link.

Bold italics mine.


----------



## FeXL

On the lighter side of things...

Too Funny! I send Michael Mann a free WUWT calendar as a Christmas gift, and he goes full conspiracy theory



> “Who paid for production and shipping costs for this flashy (apparently widely distributed) Anthony Watts WUWT climate change denial calendar?”


So, Anthony sends out 4 calendars, paid for out of his own pocket, and Mann goes ballistic.

This guy has seriously got to sit down, have a nice, cold, beer and (wait for it...) CHILL!

(bahahahahaha...sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## FeXL

So, a few days back I posted a link to Matt Ridley's WSJ article. Of course, Joe Romm is all over it, all the while saying absolutely nothing.

Joe Romm demonstrates himself to be an angry know-nothing in his attack on Matt Ridley’s WSJ essay – Ridley responds



> Joe Romm of ThinkProgress described my Wall Street Journal op-ed as:
> 
> _riddled with basic math and science errors_
> 
> Yet he fails to find a single basic math or science error in my piece.
> 
> He says I :
> 
> _can’t do simple math_
> 
> …and then fails to produce a single example of my failing to do simple math.


Italics from the link.

Sound familiar? Does to me...

Further...



> The writing style of Romm is pretty normal angry fare for him, though in this case he’s added some extra levels of angry bloviation, and it suggests Mr. Ridley is right over the target when Romm shoots that much flak. It also should be noted that Mr. Romm is a paid political operative for the Center for American Progress.
> 
> As such, he deals in political hit pieces catering to “low information” political acolytes, whereas Mr. Ridley deals in facts. Romm is so fearful of facts he doesn’t even allow readers to judge for themselves, as there is no link to Ridley’s article in his hit piece.
> 
> Also worth reading is Nic Lewis’ supplement to Ridley’s original WSJ essay, here- Anthony
> 
> Added: In comments below “the duke” writes:
> 
> _Unfortunately, people like Joe Romm don’t debate. They publish posts that deliberately distort clear meanings and precise statements, after which they pontificate foolishly and then go hide behind the barricades of their websites, which either don’t allow comments or censor them if they are heretical to faith-based alarmism._​


Italics from the link.

Again, sound familiar?

There have been a few replies to Ridley's article, from the usual suspects. Interestingly enough, Lewis' supplement barely merits a mention in any of them.

Why? beejacon


----------



## FeXL

NOAA Mixing Their Niños



> In their attempts to disguise the fact that 2012 will likely turn out to be one of the colder years this century, NOAA have made the ludicrous, and frankly dishonest, claim that this year will be the “hottest La Niña” year on record.


"Ya, know, for the coldest year inna dozen, it sure wuz hawt out..." Reminds me of the lyrics from _"Oh! Susanna"_: The sun so hot I froze to death...

Anyway they can phrase it to sensationalize it.



> For NOAA to pretend that 2012 was a La Nina year, and then use temperatures, heavily affected by El Niño conditions throughout the summer, to “prove” that it is the hottest La Nina year *is not something real scientists do.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Alec Rawls speaks to Haigh's _New Scientist_ interview and responds to criticisms of observations he noted in his AR5 SOD leak.



> It’s one psycho-drama or the other: either Haigh’s insinuations about dishonesty are projection, accusing others of what she and her cohorts are actually doing, or she’s just dumber than a box of rocks.


Ummm...yeah. I'll let you pick.



> Haigh claims that the evidence about cloud formation being induced by cosmic rays points to a weak mechanism, then simply ignores the report’s admission of substantial evidence that some such mechanism must be at work:
> 
> _Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says._​
> Rawls says that if Haigh had read the actual sentence itself, she would have realized that it isn’t about galactic cosmic rays, but only mentions GCR-cloud as one possible solar amplifier.


Further:



> As JoNova and I blogged last weekend, this ploy inverts the scientific method, using theory (dissatisfaction with one particular theory of solar amplification) as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Using theory to dismiss evidence is pure, definitional anti-science. Unfortunately, NewScientist gives this slick anti-scientist the last word:
> 
> _“The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”_​
> Sherwood and Haigh are flat lying to the public about what a simple single sentence says, pretending the admission of strong evidence for some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing was never made, then trusting sympathetic reporters and editors not to call them on it. *This is why the report had to be made public. After my submitted comments showed how thoroughly the new sentence undercuts the entire report it was obvious that the consensoids who run the IPCC would take the sentence right back out, and here Sherwood and Haigh are already trying to do exactly that.*
> 
> Too late, anti-scientists. Your humbug is on display for the whole world to see.


Bold mine.

Gonna be hard puttin' that cat back in the box...


----------



## FeXL

Australian ABC Doco “UnCut”: Evans, Nova, Minchin and Rose — the full unedited video

This is another interesting look at how lefty media skews, edits, misrepresents and portrays a documentary, all in the interests of fair & balanced coverage. <gag>



> When the Smith and Nasht came to our house (on behalf of the ABC) to take footage for the “I can change your mind” documentary, David and I asked fellow skeptic and camera-man Barry Corke if he could film them filming us, so we have our own copy of what happened. He agreed — it was obvious to all of us that we needed some insurance against biased edits. We all knew that petty chicanery was possible. James Delingpole had recently given the BBC three good hours of his time, only to find they trimmed all of his clever answers down, waited for him to have a hypoglycemic vague moment and then crowed about how the great James Delingpole was, can you believe, tongue tied (the failure!)
> 
> In the final version that went to air, not only did three of the four key sets of evidence that fuel our skepticism vanish, the editors split and diced sentences to make it appear that David said a sentence he never actually said. He doesn’t think the poorly sited thermometers show the “models were wrong” (we have much better evidence than that); that’s illogical and absurd. Everything I said of any substance was edited out (which I’m kinda proud of). They came all that way to watch me try to convince Anna Rose, then left me with 18 bland words. Perhaps what I discussed (and Anna’s weak replies) was too dangerous, not easy to mock, and they couldn’t ambush Nick Minchin with any experts that could debunk what I said?
> 
> Obviously Smith & Nasht were on a fishing trip here (funded by you and me). They were fishing for ways to discredit skeptics. In the end they had to resort to deleting 75% of the evidence, and 100% of my points. Blind commentators later claimed that the bloggers had no credibility. Easy for them to say when they didn’t see most of what we said or the data we presented.
> 
> We were called paranoid for setting up our own recording, but it took one phone call, cost us nothing, and we have a copy, so now (ok, belatedly) the world can decide. *Did the ABC fairly represent our views? Were Smith and Nasht serving the public?*


Bold mine.

Not by a stretch.

Even if you don't agree with what Evans & Nova had to say, was the end result fair? Balanced? Accurate? Anything but low grade butt-wipe?


----------



## FeXL

So, let's address this post, point by miserable point, shall we?



MacDoc said:


> Love the shrinking circle jerk off nonsense slowly swirling down the drain where it belongs with the other refuse.


A circle jerk? Inna small shower? I wanna party with you, dude. XX) (/sarc)

Pure class, MacDoc.

When you can't contribute to the discussion or defend your argument, on come the ad hom's. Nice. You may have just hit a new low. Something to be proud of, maybe show your children and your Aussie GF. Do they visit these boards? Hope so...

And, reported, not that I expect any kind of response about the Golden Child...



MacDoc said:


> Just a reminder for those not drinking the denier Koolaid


Are there any of those?



MacDoc said:


> why don't you email him FX....tell him the "true story"...
> here you go
> [email protected]
> .


Seeing as you just pulled this out of your address book and are obviously on a first name basis, why don't you send him a quick kite & find out just exactly how much of the current 16 year warming period man is responsible for? 

Would that be the first third, the middle third, or the last third? Of zero?

As to 5 -10 years being a long time... It's no damn wonder that warmists think a 33 year satellite history is enough to set a climate trend.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" How about some numbers, MacDoc? Some empirical measurements of something, anything? Your so sure of yourself that you couldn't even provide a link to the article you quoted. Figgers.

As to the media not presenting AGW to the public...what planet does this guy live on? The MSM does nothing but spread the lies & FUD of AGW. Find me an MSM article anywhere that contradicts AGW.



MacDoc said:


> Tell us....why would the fossil company's own scientists tell them the same thing back in 1995.....is this all a great conspiracy???


Why, MacDoc? Again, stun us with your world view. Inform the unwashed masses. Here's your opportunity to save face, to answer the one question you really have the answer to. No science involved. Hell, a computer salesman could do it. Oh, wait...



MacDoc said:


> No, it's brain dead denial of AGW on part of a few who want to deny responsibility for the consequences.....


First off, there is no physical proof of AGW. No hockey stick, no unprecedented anything, no -gates that have survived scrutiny, no correlation between CO2 & temps, nothing. The whole hypothesis is based on computer models operated by scientists scrambling to save their jobs in the face of actual, empirical evidence. As the truth outs them, they merely move the goalposts. Again. Thing is, that playing field is getting damn small and the coffin is getting stuffy, what with the cover getting nailed down and all.

Global temps have been higher and lower than current in both recent history & going back hundreds of millions of years. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past (on the order of thousands of ppm) than the current 390ppm. What caused that? And, if, in fact, CO2 levels do influence temps, why over the course of the past 16 years have CO2 levels increased by nearly 30ppm and temps flatlined? Where is the correlation?

Brain dead, all right...

Ah, yes, the old responsibility thing. Would that responsibility also extend to those of us who make frequent flyer trips to South Africa & Australia? How do these kind of people figure into your "responsibility" theory? At a nickel a ton?



MacDoc said:


> There IS a conspiracy.....you are a proselytizing part of it.....millions of dollars from Koch and Exxon and the rest of the Heartland idjits and whackos


Yes, the conspiracy. Still waiting for my big oil cheque, as is everybody else who is sceptical. Please, somebody, anybody, send it to FeXL, c/o ehMac...

Oh, the horror! Untold millions! Koch, Exxon, Heartland! Those ee-vil corporations! As opposed to the hundreds of billions of dollars of support that the "Global Warming" cadre has received? Pulease...

Oh, & you have your nouns mixed up. It's rightwingdings & idjits. The fruit loops & whackos are on your side...

Have you ever stopped to ponder how a few sceptics, mostly volunteers with no financial stake in the end result, are so successful? Just asking 'cause it ain't the glory, the media or the money. Perhaps it's because we actually have science, not conjecture or consensus, on our side...



MacDoc said:


> like "Lord" Monckton who is neither a lord, or a scientist or correct.


It doesn't matter to me if Monckton is a Lord or not (Actually, he is & it's pretty easy to search that out. If you can't even get that correct, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?). No, he isn't a scientist but there must be something threatening about what he says or the warmists, yourself included, wouldn't be spending so much time trying to discredit him. If you don't think what he says is correct, prove otherwise. With empirical evidence, of course. Otherwise, carry on with the ad hom's, it just shows ya ain't got nuttin'.

In the mean time, you just hit the shower there, big guy. Enjoy yourself & don't bother telling me how it ends...


----------



## MacDoc

Reality intruding again....



> West Antarctic Ice Sheet warming twice earlier estimate
> Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The data from Byrd Station shows rapid warming on the west Antarctic ice sheet_
> 
> A new analysis of temperature records indicates that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is warming nearly twice as fast as previously thought.
> 
> US researchers say they found the first evidence of warming during the southern hemisphere's summer months.
> 
> They are worried that the increased melting of ice as a result of warmer temperatures could contribute to sea-level rise.
> 
> The study has been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
> 
> The scientists compiled data from records kept at Byrd station, established by the US in the mid-1950s and located towards the centre of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS).
> 
> Previously scientists were unable to draw any conclusions from the Byrd data as the records were incomplete.
> 
> The new work used a computer model of the atmosphere and a numerical analysis method to fill in the missing observations.
> 
> The results indicate an increase of 2.4C in average annual temperature between 1958 and 2010.
> 
> "What we're seeing is one of the strongest warming signals on Earth," says Andrew Monaghan, a co-author and scientist at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
> 
> "This is the first time we've been able to determine that there's warming going on during the summer season." he added.
> Top to bottom
> 
> It might be natural to expect that summers even in Antarctica would be warmer than other times of the year. But the region is so cold, it is extremely rare for temperatures to get above freezing.
> Continue reading the main story
> “Start Quote
> 
> This place has very variable weather, some of it is influenced by human acts and some of it isn't ”
> 
> End Quote Prof David Bromwich Ohio State University
> 
> According to co-author Prof David Bromwich from Ohio State University, this is a critical threshold.
> 
> "The fact that temperatures are rising in the summer means there's a prospect of WAIS not only being melted from the bottom as we know it is today, but in future it looks probable that it will be melting from the top as well," he said.
> 
> Previous research published in Nature indicated that the WAIS is being warmed by the ocean, but this new work suggests that the atmosphere is playing a role as well.
> 
> The scientists say that the rise in temperatures has been caused by changes in winds and weather patterns coming from the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> "We're seeing a more dynamic impact that's due to climate change that's occurring elsewhere on the globe translating down and increasing the heat transportation to the WAIS." said Dr Monaghan.
> 
> But he was unable to say with certainty that the greater warming his team found was due to human activities.
> 
> "The jury is still out on that. That piece of research has not been done. My opinion is that it probably is, but I can't say that definitively."
> 
> This view was echoed by Prof Bromwich, who suggested that further study would be needed.
> Larsen b ice shelf The Larsen B ice shelf collapsed in just a month in 2002
> 
> "The tasks now are to look at the relative contributions of natural variability," he said.
> 
> "This place has very variable weather - some of it is influenced by human acts and some of it isn't. I think its premature to answer that question right now."
> 
> Whatever the source, the researchers are concerned that this warming can lead to more melting and have direct and indirect effects on global sea levels. The direct impacts are the run-off of melting waters into the sea.
> 
> But the scientists say this is unlikely to happen for several decades because much of the water is likely to percolate down the ice sheet and refreeze.
> Glacial pace
> 
> The indirect effect is that it can "pre-condition" the ice shelves that float at the edges of the ice sheet. The scientists say that this is what happened in 2002 on the Antarctic peninsula when the Larsen B shelf collapsed spectacularly in just a month.
> 
> "The melt water went down into the crevasses and filled them up," Dr Monaghan said.
> 
> "Just like a pothole in the road in wintertime, the water will freeze and expand and break it apart."
> 
> He is concerned that a similar situation could now occur on the WAIS.
> 
> "What we saw after the breakup of Larsen was that the glaciers that were buttressed by the ice shelves sped up tremendously, by a factor of eight. That's a potential concern of the enhanced melt in west Antarctica if the warming trend we find in summer continues."
> 
> The authors say they are confident that the data from Byrd Station is representative of the region because the scientific outpost sits on a plateau and conditions are essentially uniform for a considerable distance.


BBC News - West Antarctic Ice Sheet warming twice earlier estimate


----------



## Macfury

From the above article, which the Great One obviously never even took the time to read:



> *But he was unable to say with certainty that the greater warming his team found was due to human activities.
> 
> "The jury is still out on that. That piece of research has not been done."*


Why do I even bother to read the drivel you post?


----------



## FeXL

Well, again, let's analyze this. 

At least you kept your fantasies out of it this time, thankyouverymuch.

Just one nit to start, I realize that warmists are rather dense & don't know how to click on a link, but the rest of us do so there is really no need to copy/paste the whole article, hmmm?

OK, article posted by the BBC. This is the same BBC who had a private meeting, a "high-level" seminar, in Jan 2006 with 28 so-called "climate experts" to determine its climate coverage policy, right? This was the same BBC who immediately refused to release the names of those so-called experts, with the help of 6 lawyers, despite an FOI request. The denial was appealed and lost again.

Unfortunately for the BBC, there's this thing called the Wayback machine and the data for 28 Gate was located online last month. The list of names includes the finest activists the left has to offer:



> Greenpeace, Tearfund, Television for the Environment (one of the companies involved in the BBC free programming scandal), Stop Climate Chaos, Npower Renewables, E3G, and dear old Mike Hulme from UEA. Just the group you'd want guiding climate change coverage.


More on the story.

And here.

So much for the credibility of the BBC as far as climate issues are concerned.

OK, on to the details. Weasel words: "could" is there twice, "might" once, "probable" once. And, despite the fact that they've a temp record since 1958, they still have to infill data with a computer model, and we all know what direction those temps are going to go.

Oh, here's an interesting little segment: 



> *The scientists say that the rise in temperatures has been caused by changes in winds and weather patterns coming from the Pacific Ocean. *


Bold mine.

The PDO? Well, admitting that it's the PDO & not AGW doesn't support the cause much now, does it MacDoc?

And one more:



> *But he was unable to say with certainty that the greater warming his team found was due to human activities.*


Bold mine.

So much for AGW being the cause. The good doctor clarifies:



> *"The jury is still out on that. That piece of research has not been done. My opinion is that it probably is, but I can't say that definitively."*


Bold mine.

First off, it's written by a paper with a well known warmist bias, hardly the sort of paper to have an impartial discussion. Second, the WAIS warming is nothing new & has been dealt with by a number of scientists, not limited to but including RealClimate's Steig just last year. It's well documented that most of the warming occurred from the late 50's to the early 70's and there has been very little warming over the whole continent since then. Third, the article you quoted in its entirety says the [computer modelled] warming is the result of the PDO. Fourth, the researcher states unequivocally there is no established connection with human activities.

So, why did you post this article, MacDoc?

Because an iceberg may break off? That's what they do during interglacials. Even Steig says that's normal.

RealClimate’s Steig: Pacific SST’s influencing Antarctic melt, no link to human causes demonstrated

Steig et al, revisited with UAH satellite data


----------



## FeXL

Read the double speak in the IPCC AR5 SOD as they attempt to cover all bases in a typical warmist CYA scenario.

IPCC Chapter 11 – Bankruptcy Protection



> More amusing however is their repeated (and repeated, and repeated) admonition that their projections may not be detectable due to natural variability. *Given that skeptics were mocked for pointing out that the temperature record to date is well within natural variability, I find it a bit disingenuous that they now want to use that same natural variability to shield their inability to clearly demonstrate the very effects that they have for so long insisted were dominant, urgent, and catastrophic.*
> 
> But the IPCC’s efforts to shroud every projection in a cloak of bankruptcy protection caveats may well be part of their undoing. Their extensive efforts on this range from the amusing, to what may well turn out to be bombshell material. Here’s one example of the amusing side of their efforts:
> 
> _There is high confidence that baseline surface ozone (O3) will change over the 21st century, although projections across the RCP, SRES, and alternative scenarios for different regions range from –4 to +5 ppb by 2030 and –14 to +15 ppb by 2100._​
> *Can you imagine a financial expert getting on a news program and, with a straight face, saying that after exhaustive analysis he is highly confident that in a year’s time the NASDAQ will be either higher or lower?*


Bold mine, italics from the link.

We've seen this before, whereby global warming will cause both more snow & less snow.


----------



## FeXL

The moderate, intellectual, warmist...

Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death



> Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, and though he says these are his “personal opinions” they are listed on his university web site.


More.



> This is the ranting of a person who has become propagandized.
> 
> *Reading Parncutt’s web page at the University of Graz it becomes clear where his delusions originate from. He names the websites “Skeptical Science” and DeSmog blog as his sources.*
> 
> _“For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.”
> 
> “Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog.”_​


Anybody here know anyone who uses SS & DSB? Anyone?

Speaking of pathological...


----------



## FeXL

Further on supplying caveats to CYA...

IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 – Maintaining the Spin



> The models are still projecting reduced ice extent for both the Arctic and Antarctic. For those of us who’ve been following that story line, that’s another indication that the models are deeply flawed. While ice extent in the arctic is down, the Antarctic extent has been setting new records. So how does AR5 Ch11 handle this contradiction?
> 
> _In early 21st century simulations, Antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic in the CMIP5 models, though CMIP3 and CMIP5 models simulate recent decreases in Antarctic sea ice extent compared to slight increases in the observations (Chapter 12, Section 12.4.6.1 and Figure 12.31)._​
> Excuse me? Slight increases? When Hank Aaron hit his 715th home run, putting him ahead of Babe Ruth by just one, I don’t recall anyone calling it a “slight increase”. I remember “record setting” and “history making” and “unprecedented”. Interesting way to spin an extreme event, is it not? But having minimized the record ice extent in the Antarctic by characterizing it as a “slight increase” they just can’t help but throw some alarmist narrative in as well:
> 
> _Periods of rapid summer-time retreat of the Arctic sea ice margin, such as that which occurred in the late 2000s (see Chapter 4) has been noted to occur in a climate model, raising the possibility of abrupt sea ice retreat events sometime in the next 50 years (Holland et al., 2006)._​
> *Oooooh, I’m scared. They’ve got dozens of models that they’ve run thousands of times with all kinds of different initial conditions. They barely agree with each other, they don’t agree with observations on any number of fronts, there’s many pages of excuses in Chapter 11 as to why…. But they have “a model”, yes, just one, that raises the possibility of some sort of “abrupt” event.* One gets the impression they wiggled that one in just so it could be quoted completely out of context in the Summary for Policy Makers.


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Yup. They got them some models...


----------



## FeXL

Here's one for the foodies:

Shroompocalypse Now!



> The end of the world just got serious.
> 
> Global warming, we are told, has taken its toll on the world’s most fabulous fungus.
> 
> On the eve of the winter solstice, as the Mayan calendar ran out, the NY Times reported that yields of that most pungent fungus, the black diamond itself, the $1,200 per pound Périgord truffle is in decline and it’s your fault!
> 
> According to the Times:
> 
> _A team of scientists writing in the British journal Nature says that part of that decline appears to be linked to climate change. They found that the French and Spanish black truffle harvest correlated closely with summer rains, and that the truffle habitat had suffered over the last few decades from hotter summers and less precipitation. That trend is expected to continue, according to most climate models._​


So, climate models are predicting the demise of truffles. <sigh>

Well, I've never had truffles bit I figger if they all die off we'll have a surfeit of truffle hogs we can carve up into ribs and bacon. I really can't see any issue with that...


----------



## FeXL

Mt. Baker Ski Area closed with over 8 feet of global warming in 24 hours...

I know, I know...

The models predicted it.

From the Chiefio:



> Just remember, it’s so cold because of how warm it is, and we have so much snow because it does that when it’s hotter…


----------



## FeXL

Richard Tol on climate models



> All models are wrong, some are useful. Reliability is typically assessed by pedigree and reputation. Terribly imprecise.


----------



## FeXL

And just in case you like your scepticism served up with a goodly helping of snark:

Time Magazine Says That Antarctica Is Getting Hot



> Sea ice extent around Antarctica hit a record high this year, and *has been above normal every day in 2012*. Antarctica is not warming or melting, and only a spectacular lying scumbag would attempt to make the case that it was. The US press corpse is now worse than Soviet Pravda ever was. They never tell the truth about anything.


Bold mine.

Press Corpse.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


----------



## Macfury

B-b-b-b-b-but desmogblog says....


----------



## FeXL

Well, good to see a bit more readership on this thread. Nearly 5500 views since I returned a mere month ago. Nice to see so many around to watch those nails get driven home... 

Onward & upward:

This one is just being proactive. There were tornadoes in the deep south on Christmas day. Before the warmists start their screeching about unprecedented...

Tornadoes at Christmastime – Note to McKibben and Romm – not that uncommon

The Weather Channel:



> The holiday may conjure visions of snow and ice, but twisters this time of year are not unheard of. Ten storm systems in the last 50 years have spawned at least one Christmastime tornado with winds of 113 mph or more in the South, said Chris Vaccaro, a National Weather Service spokesman in Washington, via email.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the supposed meltdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Antarctic warming courtesy of Mr. Fix-it



> The manufactured “record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C.” *That’s a 50% margin of error on the reconstruction* that supposedly corrected the recording errors.


Bold mine.

Further:



> The NASA-GISS data (GHCN & SCAR) for Byrd Station are in two segments: 1957-1975 and 1980-2012. The 1957-1975 series depicts a moderately significant (R² = 0.19) warming trend of about 1.0 °C per decade. The post-1980 series depicts a statistically insignificant (R² = 0.01) trend of 0.3 °C per decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> *But, almost all of that warming took place before 1988. And Byrd Station has seen no warming (actually a slight cooling) since 1991.*
> 
> Furthermore, the *corrected temperature record of Bromwich et al., 2012 appears to actually depict more cooling since 1991 than the uncorrected data*…


Bold mine.

So, if there is a direct correlation between CO2 & temperatures, why was most of the warming in the Antarctic between '57 & '88, when CO2 levels were much lower than now?

And, what about that corrected data showing more cooling than the uncorrected data? That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

So, you probably recall the screeching late this summer about the record low Arctic ice levels. While Arctic ice is is at the low end of its *normal cycle,* it also had some help in the form of a cyclone which created wind and waves that broke up & dispersed the ice pack. As such, satellite measurements concluded that Arctic ice was at its lowest levels since observations began. 

There were a number of news articles at the time about the cyclone & its effects. There's a paper confirming those observations, abstract here.

More:



> “The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012″ arose in Siberia on Aug. 2 and crossed the Arctic Ocean to Canada, lasting an unusually long 13 days. The cyclone hit a pressure minimum of 966 millibars on Aug. 6, the lowest ever recorded for an Arctic storm, professors Ian Simmonds and Irina Rudeva of the University of Melbourne in Australia report in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. *The pressure reading is only 26 mb higher than Hurricane Sandy’s record low of 940 mb.* (A typical low-pressure system usually hits around 1,000 mb.)
> 
> ...
> 
> “[A]nalyses we have conducted indicate *[the storm] caused the dispersion and separation of a significant amount of ice, while its removal left the main pack more exposed to wind and waves associated with [the storm], facilitating the further decay of the main pack*,” they write in their report.


Bold mine.

So, low initial Arctic ice levels? Yep. 

Exacerbated by the Arctic cyclone? Yep.

Global warming? Not. So. Much...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that normal Arctic ice cycle, a paper that draws a connection between Beaufort Sea ice levels & the PDO.

From the abstract:



> Quantitative reconstructions of sea-surface parameters display a series of relatively warm, lower sea ice and saline episodes in surface waters, alternately with relatively cool and low salinity episodes. Variations of dinocyst fluxes and reconstructed sea-surface conditions may be closely linked to large scale atmospheric circulation patterns such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and to a lesser degree, the Arctic Oscillation (AO). Positive phases of the PDO correspond to increases of dinocyst fluxes, warmer and saltier surface waters, which we associate with upwelling events of warm and relatively saline water from Pacific origin. Freshwater palynomorph fluxes increased in three phases from AD 1857 until reaching maximum values in AD 1991, suggesting that the Mackenzie River discharge followed the same trend when its discharge peaked between AD 1989 and AD 1992. *The PDO mode seems to dominate the climatic variations at multi-annual to decadal timescales in the western Canadian Arctic and Beaufort Sea areas.*


Bold mine.

Natcheral cycles, people, not anthropogenic globull warming...


----------



## FeXL

OK, in the past I've made numerous posts about the International Pack of Climate Crook's model's inability to backcast temperatures. Recently I posted about a paper detailing the model's failure to simulate cloud cover. Now, we have a study analyzing the model's ability to simulate precipitation, as opposed to, say, actually measuring rainfall.

How did the models fare? Guess...

Summary:



> 1. The *climate models prepared for the upcoming 5th Assessment Report show no skill whatsoever at being able to simulate satellite-era precipitation* on global or regional bases. The *models simulate an increase in precipitation globally over the past 34 years, but global precipitation decreased.* In other words, the *modelers have wrongly assumed that increases in manmade greenhouse gases will result in more global precipitation.*
> 
> 2. The _primary causes of year-to-year variations in global precipitation are El Niños and La Niñas_—there’s nothing surprising about that. _Until the time that the IPCC’s climate models are able to replicate the ENSO processes and the regional teleconnections of El Niños and La Niñas, climate model projections will have no value._
> 
> 3. There are additional factors that can cause significant multiyear shifts in regional precipitation. _Until the time that climate modelers can anticipate those factors, their projections will have little value._


All emphasis mine.

The bold: This is why I LMAO every time I hear some warmist screeching "we predicted that!" First off, models gave that as output. It's not a product of empirical measurement. Second, the models, and the accompanying screeching, is wrong.

The italics: The current crop of climate models suck.

On the new crop of climate models, based on bigger, faster, stronger computers: Still arriving at the wrong answers, just hundreds of times faster...


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well... Another paper outlining climate models inability to predict anything.

New paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming 

From the Abstract:



> ...we find that in general models with a positive temperature dependent bias tend to have a large projected temperature change, and these tendencies increase with increasing global warming level.


----------



## FeXL

Investments in Green? You may want to run, far away...

Silicon Valley's Green Energy Mistake



> Silicon Valley's investment wizards are fleeing the so-called green economy, and not a moment too soon for American prosperity. As painful as the era of enviro-investing has been for taxpayers and shareholders, there's an emerging silver lining. It's likely that in 2013 fewer people will spend their time trying to turn political projects into companies.


----------



## FeXL

A paper on late Pleistocene & Holocene glacier fluctuations on Mt Baker, WA. 

Link to the Abstract.

Why is this important?



> These findings for a vast region of North America suggest that the coldest portion of the entire Holocene, or current interglacial period, occurred during the latter part of the Little Ice Age; and *it is thus not surprising that there would be a significant subsequent increase in the planet's air temperature, as the most recent upswing of a well-documented millennial-scale oscillation of temperature has made itself felt,* which oscillation - going back in time from the Current Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to the Medieval Warm Period to the Dark Ages Cold Period to the Roman Warm Period and etc. - *has been responsible for bringing the planet into and out of these several-century-long alternating warm and cold periods that (1) continue back in time throughout interglacial and glacial periods alike* (Oppo et al., 1998; Raymo et al., 1998; Bond et al., 2001), and that (2) *occur totally independently of any changes in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. And there is thus no reason to attribute earth's most recent warming to the latter phenomenon.*


Bold mine.

Natural cycles, people. Coming out of a Little Ice Age, you'd expect temps to rise.


----------



## FeXL

Further on natural cycles.



> In describing their results the five Chinese scientists report finding SST anomalies that "generally coincided with previously reported late Holocene climate events, including the Roman Warm Period [120 BC-AD 400], Sui-Tang Dynasty Warm Period [AD 550-790], Medieval Warm Period [AD 900-1300], Current Warm Period [AD 1850-present], Dark Age Cold Period [AD 400-550] and Little Ice Age [AD 1300-1850]," and that "despite an increase since AD 1850, the mean SST in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years." *In addition, they state that climate records from East China (Ge et al., 2004), the North Icelandic Shelf (Patterson et al., 2010) and Greenland (Kobashi et al., 2011) also exhibit "centennial-scale warm periods during the first millennia AD, comparable to or even warmer than mean 20th-century conditions."*


Our current warming is neither unusual, nor unprecedented.

Get used to it...


----------



## FeXL

Some of you may have come across a piece of flak from the NPR masquerading as truth today. Wunnerful stuff, propaganda...

The Record Breaking Hot Summer Of 2012



> NPR told us today that the summer of 2012 was a record breaker in the US. The only thing which broke any records was the level of BS coming from the ministry of truth..
> 
> An apples to apples comparison, shows that the summer of 1936 had five times as many record maximums as the summer of 2012.
> 
> Summertime average temperatures didn’t even crack the top five.
> 
> Summertime maximum temperatures barely cracked the top ten, and were 2.5 degrees cooler than 1936.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Some of you may have come across a piece of flak from the NPR masquerading as truth today. Wunnerful stuff, propaganda...
> 
> The Record Breaking Hot Summer Of 2012


Dammit man! Why must you insist on obscuring the issue with empirical facts. 

Dem dere 'puter models is sacred. The Great Gore, Grand Poohbah of the First Church of Climatology has issued a Poopal Decree which says just that.


----------



## bryanc

For anyone interested in what is being published in peer-reviewed journals by qualified scientists in the real world, rather than the [mis]interpretations of bloggers, check out the latest issue of _Nature Climate Change_.

Two important conclusions: global mean temperatures are just about exactly what the climatologists predicted, despite the limitations of early models.


> In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included.


However, the predictions for sea level changes were not as good; observed sea level change has significantly exceeded predictions.

Apparently, reality is part of the socialist IPCC conspiracy; it probably wants to take your guns too!

Now back to your regularly-schduled blithering climate-change-denier nonsense...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, you clearly haven't read the posts--many reference peer-reviewed journals, not blogs. Against all of these peer-reviewed journals, you expect one article in _Nature_ to sweep it under the rug? How myopic. You're like the Black Knight in_ Monty Python and the Holy Grail_, lying limbless and spouting blood from all orifices—then declaring yourself the winner!


----------



## groovetube

key word there, 'reference' peer reviewed journals.

It seems rather difficult to grasp doesn't it.


----------



## FeXL

For some unknown reason, some poor, uninformed souls still think that the International Pack of Climate Crooks still has a shred of credibility.

Second, what happened here is that these two guys (Frame & Stone, doctors, professors, whatever) threw together a letter on the myriad of successful predictions from the FAR, maybe had it pal-reviewed (I honestly don't know if Letters to Nature require review. It matters not.) and then published. As such, in some eyes it is beyond rebuke, it's been "PEER-REVIEWED", like that's some sort of holy grail granting unassailable status. The funny thing is, there have been many instances in recent climate paper history where the little guys, the ones running blogs, who have been able to shred these hallowed peer-reviewed papers into fodder. Mann's Hockey Stick is the first that comes to mind, as well as Steig's paper on West Antarctic warming. There are others...

The above mentioned paper is one of those...



> Professor David Frame and Dr Daithi Stone have produced a paper claiming the IPCC predictions in 1990 were successful and seem accurate.
> 
> Those who read the actual FAR report and check the predictions against the data know that this is not so.
> 
> * 1. They ignore the main IPCC predictions (the prominent ones, with graphs, in the Summary for Policymakers)
> 2. They don’t measure the IPCC success against an IPCC graph or within IPCC defined “uncertainties”.
> 3. They measure success against a “zero trend” — something they defined as any rise at all beyond what they say are the limits of natural variability (which they got from the very models that aren’t working too well). Circular reasoning anyone?
> 4. Frame and Stone themselves say the IPCC models didn’t include important forcings, and may have been “right” by accident.*
> 
> Why did Nature publish this strawman letter? It’s an award-winning effort in selective focus, logical fallacies, and circular reasoning to be sure, but does it advance our understanding of the natural world? Not so.
> 
> Frame and Stone have produced a Letter to Nature saying that 3 is a lot like 6 (they are both larger than zero). If you ignore the Summary for Policymakers, pick a line from page 177 and add caveats and conditions that nobody mentioned in 1990, then redefine success by using modern unverified models, it’s possible to pretend to verify the unverifiable and slap an A+ on a failed paper.
> 
> Careful, scrutinizing scientists like Matthew England, Stephen Sherwood and Penny Whetton, tossed their scrutinizing in the sea, and leaped to hail the paper. Perhaps they have read the Frame and Stone paper, but it doesn’t appear that they’ve read the IPCC First Assessment Report. To know this paper had flaws, all they had to do was read the IPCC predictions and check them against the temperature records. It’s so easy, even unpaid bloggers can do it.
> 
> ...
> 
> Instead of this study being used to stop critics of the IPCC, it should be used to ask why Nature’s standards have fallen so far, *why specialist climate scientists aren’t familiar with the actual IPCC predictions, and why a real scientist shouldn’t be much more skeptical of a paper that ignores the main predictions of the report it’s supposed to assess, and didn’t use the original graphs or uncertainty margins.*


Yes. Why?

Further...



> The "predictions* apply only to the year 1990. As I have said many times the IPCC ceased making "predictions" altogether after this. The 1990 Report had a Chapter headed "Validation of climate models". In the first draft of the next (1995) Report they also had such a Chapter. I commented that as no model had ever been validated, and no effort to do so is made, the term is inappropriate. So, the next draft changed the word "validate"to ‰valuate" no less than fifty times, and at the same time changed "predict"to "project"
> 
> *This current paper shows how desperate they are.* They cannot claim that current IPCC practise is capable of *predicting* any future climate, so they grub around in the past to try and pretend it can be done, when their circumstances and conditions were quite different.
> 
> *There were four scenarios given in the 1990 report. All have been abandoned as unrealistic.* Amongst other things, they all assumed that there would be no efforts to try and reduce greenhouse gases.


All bold mine.

BTW, the second link I posted in this thread back on Dec 13.

You don't need to be a scientist to ask a salient question, people. The old "You're too stupid to understand" argument holds no water. So you don't like Joanne Nova. Fine. Dispute her argument, not her lack of "credentials". If her argument holds no water, then it should be a fairly simple task.

Why is there so much difference between the Frame & Stone's paper on the FAR & the FAR? It's like reading two different papers. Outside of Hansen's world it is well know that global temps have flat-lined for the last 16 years. Do any of the graphs from the FAR indicate that? Anyone? It's also well known that sea-level rise has decelerated since 1990. Where is that shown in the FAR?

And, if peer-reviewed journalism is, in fact, the be-all & end-all, what about all the peer-reviewed papers I've linked to? The ones that the warmists have been afraid to click on? What about those? As papers drawing conclusions against the warmist meme, perhaps they just don't count, despite having attained that hallowed "peer-reviewed" status...


----------



## groovetube

uninformed souls?

What does that say about the poor hapless souls gullible enough to believe blogs who can't understand the peer reviewed papers they try to disprove?

Macfury admitted it. The blogs reference the papers, but apparently, some take that as gospel.


----------



## bryanc

Having read many (but admittedly not all) of the peer-reviewed papers that have been cited here, and having found that none of them dispute ACC, despite the claims that the bloggers make about them, and furthermore recognizing that for every observation about nature that is not completely consistent with current climate models, there are hundreds of observations that are, and finally, having discussed this at some length with professional scientists who work in this field, I am very confident (but can never be completely certain) that the established ACC paradigm is our best explanation of observable facts, and that the consensus among climatologists is well-founded in good science.

So while there are politically motivated bloggers who cherry pick the papers that (correctly) highlight the aspects of climatology that are still poorly understood and (correctly) point out flaws in the models, that is in no way evidence that the current consensus of climatologists on the issue of ACC is in any way weakening or lacking in empirical support. The fact that the primitive models of 1990 have done so well is nothing short of amazing, and the fact that the past two and a half decades of progress have found nothing but support for the ACC model is disturbing and can only make me wonder at the motivation of those who exert themselves to undermine the efforts of scientists trying to provide the best understanding of our civilizations effects on our planets climate might be. The facts have borne out the predictions of the IPCC climatologists yet again; just like the IPCC climatologists were vindicated every time their scientific integrity was attacked and just like the deniers have been revealed as political/corporate shills every time.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Having read many (but admittedly not all) of the peer-reviewed papers that have been cited here, and having found that none of them dispute ACC, despite the claims that the bloggers make about them, and furthermore recognizing that for every observation about nature that is not completely consistent with current climate models, there are hundreds of observations that are, and finally, having discussed this at some length with professional scientists who work in this field, I am very confident (but can never be completely certain) that the established ACC paradigm is our best explanation of observable facts, and that the consensus among climatologists is well-founded in good science.
> 
> So while there are politically motivated bloggers who cherry pick the papers that (correctly) highlight the aspects of climatology that are still poorly understood and (correctly) point out flaws in the models, that is in no way evidence that the current consensus of climatologists on the issue of ACC is in any way weakening or lacking in empirical support. The fact that the primitive models of 1990 have done so well is nothing short of amazing, and the fact that the past two and a half decades of progress have found nothing but support for the ACC model is disturbing and can only make me wonder at the motivation of those who exert themselves to undermine the efforts of scientists trying to provide the best understanding of our civilizations effects on our planets climate might be. The facts have borne out the predictions of the IPCC climatologists yet again; just like the IPCC climatologists were vindicated every time their scientific integrity was attacked and just like the deniers have been revealed as political/corporate shills every time.


Tsk. You haven't read those posts at all.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Tsk. You haven't read those posts at all.


Ya, know, that's exactly what I thought, too. There is no way a rational, open-minded, objective person can read those pieces and not question the hell out of everything the warmists have to say. You may not be convinced but you gotta ask, WTF?

As to the garbage about "primitive models" being accurate, a broken clock is correct twice a day, too. Either way, they're still models, not empirical evidence and, as has been noted all over the place, said predictions were not accurate by any definition of the word.

I also had to smile about the "politically motivated bloggers" comment. Nobody in this argument is as politically motivated as the progressive warmists.

And, I LMAO at the poor IPCC who had their "scientific" integrity attaaaaacked and were vindicated every time. The doom of man is to forget, so I guess I need to remind people of some of these "vindications"...

Glaciergate



> Dr Pachauri's first response to these revelations was to claim that he had "absolutely no responsibility" for the blunder, that it was "the work of independent authors – they're responsible". *But the IPCC's error was so blatant that last week Pachauri and other senior officials had to put out their remarkable statement, admitting that it had been due to a serious system failure.*
> 
> Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI – and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.


Africagate



> In the name of that "scientific community" which in November 2007 had completed the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) - "the collective effort of almost four thousand of the world's best specialists working tirelessly over five years" – Dr Pachauri larded his speech with examples of impending doom.
> 
> Thus he told the assembly that, by 2020, "in some countries of Africa yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent".
> 
> Crucially, this was not a random statement plucked from one of the working group reports but one highlighted in the "gold standard" Synthesis Report (Section 3.3.2).


Amazongate



> The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication


There are more -gates with the exact same result, but three is enough. I'll finish by posting that Donna Laframboise, a Canadian journalist (and blogger), has been making mincemeat of the IPCC for some time now, including, but not limited to, the fact that well over 30% of the resource materials used in the IPCC AR4 were grey literature, non peer-reviewed and, in many cases, were taken directly from advocate groups like the WWF.


----------



## FeXL

So, in addition to the recent great news that the EPA's Lisa jackson has just resigned amidst the furor caused by a secondary email account used to foil FOIP, Joe D’Aleo has submitted a letter to the EPA challenging them on CO2 regulation.

He lists three points:



> 1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. *But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.*
> 
> 2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. *This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature* and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.
> 
> 3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. *The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat.* This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.


Bold mine.

Questions, questions. I luvs me a good question...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Galactic Cosmic Ray issue. I think Alec Rawls' drinking analogy fails but he makes a good argument otherwise.



> Temperatures have merely flattened out, they haven’t gone down yet, and no _Skeptical Science_ reader will ever learn that this is just what the discovered correlations between solar activity and climate predict. The strongest temperature response to a change in solar forcing is seen with a lag of about ten years (Usoskin et al. 2005), or one solar cycle (Solheim et al. 2012). *The theory that is discomfited by flat 21st century temperatures is the CO2-warming theory, which predicts ever more rapidly increasing temperatures.*


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, in addition to the recent great news that the EPA's Lisa jackson has just resigned amidst the furor caused by a secondary email account used to foil FOIP...


That was the account she used to to communicate with the activists who she was working for. Sweet!


----------



## FeXL

Further on the unassailable IPCC. 

So, the IPCC predicts that warmer temps will increase the frequency and intensity of rain and snowfall, as well as increasing accompanying flooding.

There have been a number of papers with empirical evidence refuting these model-based predictions, predicated on studies of the MWP & LIA. Here's one more...

Abstract



> Investigation of Lake Allos sediments revealed ~ 160 graded layers, interpreted as flood deposits, over the last 1400 yr. Comparisons with records of historic floods support the interpretation of flood deposits and suggest that most recorded flood events are the result of intense meso-scale precipitation events. As there is no evidence for any major changes in erosion processes in the catchment since the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), we interpret the Allos record in terms of repeated intense precipitation events over the last millennium, *with a low flood frequency during the MWP and more frequent and more intense events during the Little Ice Age.* This interpretation is consistent with the pattern of increasingly humid conditions in the northwestern Mediterranean region. This long-term trend is superimposed on high frequency oscillations that correlate with solar activity and autumnal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Finally, a comparison of flood records across the northwestern Mediterranean region showed that intense precipitation events in Allos (east of the Rhône Valley) were out of phase with events in the Cévennes (west of the Rhône) but in phase with events in eastern Spain. Supported by meteorological analyses, this suggests an oscillation in atmospheric circulation patterns over the northwestern Mediterranean.


New paper finds floods and extreme precipitation were more common during the Little Ice Age



> In addition, the paper shows that Total Solar Irradiance sharply increased by about 1 Wm-2 throughout most of the 20th century, *dwarfing the alleged effect of CO2 during the 20th century* [allegedly about 0.35 Wm-2 per the IPCC formula].


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Simple things that make you go hmmmm...

Basic physics shows how the IPCC exaggerates alleged warming from CO2 by 10 times



> An assumed radiative forcing of 4 W/m2 would thus lead to a warming of 4/15 C, which is less than 0.3 C, thus a *factor 10 smaller* than IPCC's *most likely value of 3 C.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little blurb on "record heat", UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) and the truth.

It’s The UHI – Stupid

The Washington Post states that it's a done deal: Washington, DC, 2012 the warmest year on record. Nearby Beltsville, Maryland weather station shows it's the second warmest year on record.

The horror.

However, 



> ...let’s move away from the urban sprawl, to the closest GHCN HCN station in Virginia. *November was the coldest on record, temperatures have been declining for 80 years, and 2012 as a whole was below normal.* The Washington DC temperature record is thoroughly contaminated by UHI, and is completely useless as a climate indicator.


Bold mine.

I checked the distance between DC & Lincoln, VA. Less than 50 miles apart the way a crow flies, but out of the effects of UHI. Which thermometer is giving a more accurate measurement of the actual non-UHI affected temperature?


----------



## FeXL

Just a Musing...

Annoying Lead Time Graph



> Both the Greenland and the Antarctica temperatures are lower than their peaks. They are generally trending downward overall. Antarctica in particular lead on the way up, and is lower than Greenland now. Furthermore, we know that right now ice is accumulating in Antarctica. Greenland is the tail on the Antarctic dog… And our W/m2 line is continuing in a decent downward slope. Harder to see in that Milankovitch Cycles composite graph. ( Inspecting it, I was hoping we were already AT the bottom. We are not.) *So we have a bit more drop in W/m2 before we start back up, and we are below the energy level that pulls us out of a glacial, once one begins.*
> 
> All in all, this graph tells me that *we are on the knife edge of a drop into a cold stage and acceleration into a glacial stage, from which we can not recover.* (This is, in some ways, just a confirmation of the 416 W/m2 or so number from prior plunges – but on a graph showing that our drop in W/m2 is not yet done dropping.)
> 
> So if we are very lucky, and do not have a major volcanic event, nor have a nuclear winter, nor have a rock fall from space in size, nor any other cooling event that causes multi-year ice to start collecting near the north pole, we can maybe stay warm. But if an ‘aw ****’ happens, we fall into a non-recoverable decent into the next glacial. *We can only exit a glacial when there is sufficient energy to prevent multiyear ice from accumulating at the North Pole. We are presently out of that realm for a large ice pack. Essentially, once the Arctic freezes and does not melt for a few years, we’re done.*


Bold mine.

Again, just a Musing, but one that should make you stop & think...


----------



## bryanc

Not really relevant to this thread, but I thought I'd post it here as it seems somewhat apropos


> We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
> 
> —Carl Sagan


----------



## FeXL

Not really relevant to this thread, but I thought I'd post it here as it is definitely apropos



> Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
> 
> -Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## groovetube

There. Just call them, 'elites', and we have our boogieman.

Works for many I suppose.


----------



## FeXL

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4



> What has triggered the furor is my analysis of the seminal 13,000-word report from 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences. The study is often referred to as the Charney Report and was commissioned by the U.S. Government to supposedly explain how carbon dioxide (CO2) will impact future climate. From our modern perspective – 33 years on – it seems incredible that such an in-depth report should fail to mention the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). This is especially incongruous being that climatologists will glibly tell you the theory has unimpeachable provenance stretching back 150 years to the formative era of radiative physics and Arrhenius and Tyndall.


Just read it & think.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Teflon-coated International Pack of Climate Crooks (TIPPC™  ) AR5 SOD Chapter 11.

AR5 Chapter 11; Hiding the Decline (Part II)



> Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning? So I started to focus on the second graph which is presented in a fashion that makes it useful. But in examining it, I noticed that something is missing. I’ll give everyone 5 minutes to go back and see if they can spot it for themselves.
> 
> Tick
> 
> Tick
> 
> Tick
> 
> Did you spot it?
> 
> They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:
> 
> ...
> 
> Well oops. Once on brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios.


<snort>

Further:



> But now it is even worse for the IPCC. To meet the upper bound of their estimated range, the IPCC would need warming that (according to their own data) is _below_ projections for _all_ their models in _all_ emission scenarios to suddenly increase to a rate _higher_ than _all_ their projections from _all_ their models across _all_ emission scenarios. *In brief, the upper range of their estimate cannot be supported by their own data from their own models.*


Italics from the link, bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Don't know how many of you are familiar w/ Weepy Bill McKibben. He's quite the character & is taken down yet another notch here:

Masters, McKibben, and droughting Thomases



> Call me a “doubting Thomas” as to overwrought claims by Masters and McKibben, but the fact is that the 2012 drought isn’t as bad as they would have you believe and won’t show you these other data because they don’t fit their business model.


Yup.


----------



## SINC

Kyoto climate change treaty sputters to a sorry end - Canada - CBC News


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Kyoto climate change treaty sputters to a sorry end - Canada - CBC News


Some good news to start off the New Year!


----------



## MacDoc

some of the usual crap from Forbes 




> ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and* that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass.*"


That is a flat out lie. Typical of the right wing dink heads. They conflate total mass with sea ice and confuse snowfall gains in the east Antarctic ( which is a consequence of AGW increasing moisture content ) with the overall mass loss when the Western Antarctic is included.

This is the relevant all continental mass chart










from this article

Weighing change in Antarctica

which expanded on this article.

RealClimate: Weighing change in Antarctica

The articles are written by the author of the paper



> Our recently published Nature paper (King et al, 2012), used GRACE gravity data to infer the ice mass trends as in previous work, but with an updated estimate of the GIA correction.


just in case anyone was listening to the prattling of the loony denier fringe.

*Yes Virginia it's getting warmer
and we're responsible.*


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> *Yes Virginia it's getting warmer
> and we're responsible.*


This is laughable, considering the temperature record of the past 16 years. Must be terrible when reality bites you in the arse.

However, if your contention that "we're responsible" holds, then your frequent flights to Africa and Australia make you one of the worst climate villains I know,


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> .*Yes Virginia it's getting warmer
> and we're responsible.*


It's the sun, stupid...


----------



## FeXL

Just take another hit on that bong, MacDoc. Global warming is now such a huge issue now that Joe Romm's bosses don't even list it in the top 12 things to watch for in 2013. This after they dissolved his website & integrated it into the main website.

That's gotta smart...

Too funny! Even Joe Romm’s bosses don’t think climate is an issue worth mentioning for 2013



> _This morning, 31 December 2012, Think Progress provided 12 Progressive Resolutions for 2013. From better drug policy to immigration reform to enacting gun safety laws, many interesting (if not outright good) items in this list. Again, however, the telling thing is the absence of a critical set of issues.
> 
> Amid these 12, no (zero, nada, nilch) reference to climate change, the climate cliff, environment, clean energy, green jobs, energy efficiency, fossil fuel impacts on the political system, …​_


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

2012 Had The Least Severe Weather In US History



> _According to the Storm Prediction Center, there was a record low in the number of tornado and severe weather watches issued for 2012. Since moving into their Norman, OK office in 1997, there has never been as few watches as this year’s 697. 2012 will also finish with nearly 400 less tornado reports than the 7 year average. According to NOAA’s NCDC, 2012 will finish nearly 140 less than the 1991-2010 average.​_


Wait for the screeching about "we predicted that" in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## FeXL

Little blurb on how ice cores are used to reconstruct past climate. Also some data on past events. Informative.


Art Horn: Is Weather More Extreme In A Warmer World? The Answer Is In The Ice.



> So what does this remarkable record of temperature frozen in the ice tell us about past climate and weather? The ice says that when the earth has been colder the climate, and therefore the weather, which is what ultimately makes up climate over the long run, was much more extreme than today, wildly so. The ice age temperature variability is enormous. *The Greenland ice core reveals that the temperature range during the ice age was around 40 degrees Fahrenheit! There were periods of time when the temperature would plunge 20 to 30 degrees for thousands of years then suddenly stop falling. After that the temperature would rocket upward in just a few hundred years or just a few decades to where the temperature had been before or even warmer!* These were amazingly wild temperature swings. Only the most robust and adaptable of creatures could have survived these massive gyrations of extreme climate change. *These gigantic roller coaster temperature swings, in very short periods of time, reduce the changes of the last 100 years to irrelevant insignificance.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Jellyfish-gate?

Jellyfish and Global Warming – another busted alarm

Abstract



> A perceived recent increase in global jellyfish abundance has been portrayed as a symptom of degraded oceans. This perception is based primarily on a few case studies and anecdotal evidence, but a formal analysis of global temporal trends in jellyfish populations has been missing. Here, we analyze all available long-term datasets on changes in jellyfish abundance across multiple coastal stations, using linear and logistic mixed models and effect-size analysis to show that *there is no robust evidence for a global increase in jellyfish.*
> 
> Although there has been a small linear increase in jellyfish since the 1970s, this trend was unsubstantiated by effect-size analysis that showed no difference in the proportion of increasing vs. decreasing jellyfish populations over all time periods examined. Rather, the strongest nonrandom trend indicated jellyfish populations undergo larger, worldwide oscillations with an approximate 20-y periodicity, including a rising phase during the 1990s that contributed to the perception of a global increase in jellyfish abundance. Sustained monitoring is required over the next decade to elucidate with statistical confidence whether the weak increasing linear trend in jellyfish after 1970 is an actual shift in the baseline or part of an oscillation.
> 
> Irrespective of the nature of increase, given the potential damage posed by jellyfish blooms to fisheries, tourism, and other human industries, our findings foretell recurrent phases of rise and fall in jellyfish populations that society should be prepared to face.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

I don't like the hyperbole of the title, but:

Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age



> That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.
> 
> Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.
> 
> *In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes.*


Bold mine.

19 of 20 sites seeing cooling. Must be that cherry picking thing...


----------



## FeXL

Warmist screeching would have you believe that higher temps cause increases in the frequency and intensity of rain and snowfall, as well as increasing accompanying flooding. With the concomitant warming the globe has seen up until the past 16 years, you'd think we'd be at the worst of it, no?


New paper finds climate in Tibet was more stable in the 20th century than prior

Not. So. Much.

Abstract



> A tree-ring δ18O chronology of Linzhi spruce, spanning from AD 1781 to 2005, was developed in Bomi, Southeast Tibetan Plateau (TP). During the period with instrumental data (AD 1961–2005), this record is strongly correlated with regional CRU (Climate Research Unit) summer cloud data, which is supported by a precipitation δ18O simulation conducted with the isotope-enabled atmospheric general circulation model LMDZiso. A reconstruction of a regional summer cloud index, based upon the empirical relationship between cloud and diurnal temperature range, was therefore achieved. This index reflects regional moisture variability in the past 225 yr. *The climate appears drier and more stable in the 20th century than previously.* The drying trend in late 19th century of our reconstruction is consistent with a decrease in the TP glacier accumulation recorded in ice cores. An exceptional dry decade is documented in the 1810s, possibly related to the impact of repeated volcanic eruptions on monsoon flow.


Bold from the link.

The sharp among you will notice two things here: dendrochronology and <gasp> models! I've stated in the past that I don't like dendro _prima facie_ on either side of the argument. There are far too many unaccounted for variables. However, if you can find proxies that support the dendro data, there can be utility. As such, a cloud index has been reconstructed & used as a proxy. Interestingly, the modelled 19th century drying trend does correlate with empirically measured glacial ice cores.

That said, take from it what you will.


----------



## FeXL

Anyone who has paid attention for more than 30 seconds on these AGW threads will know of my disdain for models (especially the TIPPC [tipsy]™ GCM's) & their "results". This is solely because the output, thus far, is pure, unadulterated, hogwash.

That said, I don't want models to fail.  I know, I know...

I'd like to be able to punch in a whole ton of what if scenarios & see what happens a month, year, decade, century down the road. Unfortunately, with the current built-in biases, the predetermined outcomes, the politics and the massive information vacuum, it ain't gonna happen in 10 lifetimes, let alone mine.

My point? Any time someone can actually step up to the plate and say, hey, we need to fix some of these problems, it's a good day. I give you this:

Climate model is first to study climate effects of Arctic hurricanes



> Geoscientist Alan Condron at UMass Amherst and Ian Renfrew at the University of East Anglia, U.K., write in the current issue of Nature Geoscience that every year thousands of these strong cyclones or polar lows occur over Arctic regions in the North Atlantic, but none are simulated by the latest climate prediction models, which makes it difficult to reliably forecast climate change in Europe and North America over the next couple of decades.


Further:



> He and Renfrew find that by removing heat from the ocean, polar lows influence the sinking of the very dense cold water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation or "conveyer belt" that is known as the thermohaline circulation. It transports heat to Europe and North America.
> 
> "By simulating polar lows, we find that the area of the ocean that becomes denser and sinks each year increases and causes the amount of heat being transported towards Europe to intensify," Condron points out.
> 
> "*The fact that climate models are not simulating these storms is a real problem," he adds, "because these models will wrongly predict how much heat is being moving northward towards the poles.
> 
> This will make it very difficult to reliably predict how the climate of Europe and North America will change in the near future.*"


Bold mine.

'Kay, now let's see what they do with it. I don't hold much hope, based on their closing statement at the link, but...<crosses fingers>


----------



## FeXL

New paper on TSI. Model based, but I haven't heard anything (good or bad) about the particular models they used.

Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years

From the Abstract:



> Results. Reconstructions of the TSI over the Holocene, each valid for a different paleomagnetic time series, are presented. Our analysis suggests that major sources of uncertainty in the TSI in this model are the heritage of the uncertainty of the TSI since 1610 reconstructed from sunspot data and the uncertainty of the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. The analysis of the distribution functions of the reconstructed irradiance for the last 3000 years, which is the period that the reconstructions overlap, indicates that the estimates based on the virtual axial dipole moment are significantly lower at earlier times than the reconstructions based on the virtual dipole moment. We also present a combined reconstruction, which represents our best estimate of total solar irradiance for any given time during the Holocene.
> 
> Conclusions. We present the first physics-based reconstruction of the total solar irradiance over the Holocene, which will be of interest for studies of climate change over the last 11 500 years. *The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.*


Bold mine.

I'd like to see what that calculates to in degrees of heating, especially after viewing the last 500 years of Fig 11 (in red).

I'd also like to see what changes, if any, the modellers make because of this new data.

This ties in nicely with a paper from two years ago.

New Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) baseline value – solar min measured lower in 2008


----------



## FeXL

Another paper adding to the massive database that our current temps are neither unnatural nor unusual.

Paper finds the Gulf of Maine has cooled ~2°C over past 1000 years



> _"These data indicate that the Gulf of Maine has undergone considerable changes during the last millennium, and *speciﬁcally the shell-derived temperature record suggests that the Gulf of Maine has cooled by ~ 2 °C.*"_​


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity

Abstract



> We report on a sediment record from a small lake within the subarctic wetland complex Stordalen in northernmost Sweden covering the last 1000 years. Variations in the content of minerogenic material are found to follow reconstructed variations in the activity of the Sun between the 13th and 18th centuries. Periods of low solar activity are associated with minima in minerogenic material and vice versa. A comparison between the sunspot cycle and a long instrumental series of summer precipitation further reveals a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960. Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity. *Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima, causing dry conditions with resulting decreased runoff.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

The warmist screeching would have you believe that the MWP was a localized non-event. Adding to the list of over 1100 scientists who have published papers proving its existence, provided evidence to its world-wide extent and that the MWP temps were as warm or warmer than today, is this paper:

New paper finds temperatures in Patagonia warmer than the present during Medieval Warming Period

From the Abstract



> *The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean. Until AD 1900 the temperature values decrease but stay slightly above the 20th century mean.*


Bold from the link.

That's Patagonia as in the southernmost tip of South America: long way away from the supposed local influences in western Europe.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that record-breaking drought of 2012, worst since 1930's.

McKitten/Masters Lying About The Drought



> Complete nonsense. There was a worse drought 10 years ago and in the 1950s. What is wrong with these people which compels them to lie about everything?


----------



## FeXL

On that Greenland warming...

Greenland Ends The Year With Some Of The Coldest Weather Ever Recorded



> On December 29 they hit -78F, five degrees above the coldest temperature ever recorded there.
> 
> NASA is only interested in a couple of days during the summer when temperatures got barely above freezing for a couple of hours.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those natural warming & cooling cycles.


Six Millennia of North Atlantic Temperatures at Reykjanes Ridge



> *What was learned*
> The five researchers - representing Denmark, France, Germany, Norway and the United States - report finding "increasingly colder millennial-scale cooling events," which were centered on 5.6, 3.8, 2.7, 1.3 and 0.3 ka, the latter and coldest of which was the Little Ice Age, while in between the third and fourth of these cold events was the Roman Warm Period, which they describe as the warmest period of the late Holocene.
> 
> *What it means*
> *Climate change is real, just like Al Gore, James Hansen and the world's other climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it's the norm.* And in the most recent manifestation of this change, earth's climate has shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that may still not have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period, as suggested by the study of Moros et al., as well as the many hundreds of other such studies we have reviewed on our website. _And as none of these warm-ups, as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air's CO2 content, there is no compelling data-based reason to believe that the most recent such warming of the globe has been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions._


Italics mine.


----------



## FeXL

A new proxy used to confirm <again> that there was a LIA & MWP.


A Novel Proxy for Continental Mean Annual Air Temperature



> *What was learned*
> The nine Dutch and Swiss researchers report that "major climate anomalies recorded by the MBT/CBT-paleothermometer" were "the Little Ice Age (~14th to 19th century) and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, ~9th to 14th century)," which they say experienced "temperatures similar to the present-day values." And "in addition to the MWP," they state that their "lacustrine paleo T record indicates Holocene warm phases at about 3, 5, 7 and 11 kyr before present, which agrees in timing with other records from both the Alps and the sub-polar North-East Atlantic Ocean."
> 
> *What it means*
> As we have written so many times before, Niemann et al.'s study once again indicates that _there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth's current climate!_ And, therefore, there is no need to invoke anthropogenic-induced increases in the air's CO2 content as the cause of the planet's current level of non-unique warmth.


Italics from the link.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming fast*
> 
> * 02 January 2013
> 
> THE ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming much faster than we thought, suggesting swathes of it could melt and send global sea levels soaring.
> 
> Climatologists have struggled to work out whether Antarctica is warming, and how quickly, because it has few weather stations and the records from some are incomplete.
> 
> David Bromwich of Ohio State University in Columbus and his colleagues filled in the gaps for one key station using statistics and data from a climate model. They conclude that temperatures since 1958 have risen about 0.46 °C per decade - more than twice as fast as previously thought (Nature Geoscience, doi.org/j351).


continues

Ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming fast - environment - 02 January 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

*



David Bromwich of Ohio State University in Columbus and his colleagues filled in the gaps for one key station using statistics and data from a climate model.

Click to expand...

*That's all I need to know. In other words, in the absence of real data, they chose a "model" that gave them the figures they wanted to produce.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> That's all I need to know.


Yes, we all understand this... all you and the other deniers need to know is the answer; if you agree, it's right and if you disagree it's wrong, regardless of the evidence.

Those of us in the reality-based community have to deal with the data; and the vast preponderance of it points in one direction (which makes the few bits that point in other directions interesting and publishable in their own right... hence FeXL's spate of papers that document interesting and informative exceptions to the rule... of course, when you read these papers, none of them dispute AGW... the science has moved beyond that and is focusing on the interesting exceptions in the hopes that they will reveal important facets we are currently ignorant of).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, we all understand this... all you and the other deniers need to know is the answer; if you agree, it's right and if you disagree it's wrong, regardless of the evidence.


Hardly. However, extrapolating temperature data from a model to replace a blank where no temperature readings exist is not much of an achievement. "Step right up, ladies and gents--pick your model here. So many to choose from. Project it high, or project it low. A winnah every time!"


----------



## FeXL

One wonders how many "exceptions to the rule" can be annihilated by empirical evidence before the whole flimsy, model generated, house of cards comes crashing down...


----------



## FeXL

So, sorry about the tardy update, I had far more important things at hand today...

That said, let's get to work:

A study about paleo sea levels & CO2. What I find stunning in this paper is that the authors actually admit that CO2 levels have been as high as 1200ppm in the past. What the hell caused that? Dinos in SUV's?

Second stunning reveal is that 68% is a confidence level we should be spending trillions of dollars worldwide on, especially with numbers like 24 +7/-15. That's the kind of confidence interval Obama economics would have you believe in; it sure as hell ain't science.

Third stunning reveal is what came first? The CO2 or the warming? Empirical evidence indicates the latter. Nice try, kids...

New study documents the natural relationship between CO2 concentrations and sea level

The real story is in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Another paper showing that models can't correctly reproduce anything but the date...

New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce ENSO and other teleconnections

Abstract



> This article evaluates the ability of state-of-the-art climate models to reproduce the low-frequency variability of the mid-tropospheric winter flow of the Northern Hemisphere in terms of atmospheric teleconnection patterns. Therefore, multi-model simulations for present-day conditions, performed for the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have been analysed and compared with re-analysis data sets. The spatial patterns of atmospheric teleconnections are reproduced reasonably by most of the models. The comparison of coupled with atmosphere-only runs confirmed that a better representation of the forcing by sea surface temperatures has the potential to slightly improve the representation of only wave train-like patterns. *Due to internally generated climate variability, the models are not able to reproduce the observed temporal behaviour.* Insights into the dynamical reasons for the limited skill of climate models in reproducing teleconnections have been obtained by studying the relation between major teleconnections and zonal wind variability patterns. About half of the models are able to reproduce the observed relationship. For these cases, the quality of simulated teleconnection patterns is largely determined by the quality of zonal wind variability patterns. Therefore, improvements of simulated eddy-mean flow interaction have the potential to improve the atmospheric teleconnections.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Faint young Sun paradox resolved by assuming CO2 did not control temperature

Abstract



> During the Archean (3.8–2.5 billion years ago), the Sun was up to 25% less luminous than today, yet there is strong evidence that the Earth's ocean surface was not completely frozen. The most obvious solutions to this ‘faint young Sun problem’ demand high concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Here we present the first comprehensive 3-dimensional simulations of the Archean climate that include processes as the sea-ice albedo feedback and the higher rotation rate of the Earth. These effects lead to CO2 partial pressures required to prevent the Earth from freezing that are significantly higher than previously thought. For the early Archean, we find a critical CO2 partial pressure of 0.4 bar in contrast to 0.06 bar estimated in previous studies with 1-dimensional radiative-convective models. Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean.


It ain't CO2, it's the sun. Stupid.


----------



## FeXL

Drifting Along with the CMIP3 Models.



> The seven Australian scientists determined that below 1-2 km in the deep ocean, or for depth-integrated properties, drift generally dominates over any forced trend. In fact, they report that drift in sea level can be large enough to actually reverse the sign of the forced change, "both regionally and in some models for the global average." In addition, because surface drift is spatially heterogeneous, they say that "the regional importance of drift for individual models can be much larger than the global figures suggest." *As an example, they note that "a typical error in calculating a regional forced sea surface temperature trend in the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research Bergen Climate Model, version 2.0 (BCM2.0), CSIRO Mk3.0, and GISS-EH models without accounting for drift would be 30% to 40%." And because this is an average value, still larger errors would be expected at some locations.*


Bold mine.

Further on those teflon coated models...


----------



## FeXL

Nine Decades of Daily Precipitation Over Europe's Central Alps



> In viewing the three portions of the above figure, it can readily be seen that from approximately 1939-2009, there were no significant trends in any of the three precipitation parameters over that _seven-decade interval,_ when the bulk of the global warming most recently experienced by the Earth has been claimed by climate alarmists to have been _unprecedented_ with respect to the past _millennium_ or two. In addition, they note that the most _intense_ events (those over the 90th, 95th and 99th percentiles) have _small_ trends over the full period analyzed, which are _rarely_ significant even on a _local_ scale. And these sets of observations cast a _huge_ amount of doubt upon climate-alarmist predictions of greater precipitation - including more _intense_ precipitation _extremes_ - occurring in tandem with rising temperatures.


Italics from the link.

Wait. Wha...?

You mean to say that empirical evidence, actual physical observations, say that the warmist's modelling garbage about higher CO2 levels and concurrent rising temps causing more snow are crap?

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Eight Decades of Glacial Movements in Southeast Greenland.



> The team of Danish and U.S. scientists report that two recessional events stand out, one that occurred during the 1930s (1933-1943) and another that occurred during the 2000s (2000-2010); and they state that the second of these retreats was "matched in its vigor" during the "period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature." In fact, they say that *"many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s,"* but they indicate that "marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming."
> 
> With respect to the net future status of all of the studied glaciers, however, Bjork et al. write that "the recent high rate of retreat may come to a slowdown when retreating marine-terminating glaciers reach their grounding line and become less sensitive to the influence of ocean temperature (Howat et al., 2008; Moon and Joughin, 2008), or through positive or negative feedback mechanisms relating to the cold East Greenland Coastal Current (Murray et al., 2010)."


Sunovagun. More glaciers retreated during the warmest decade of the 20th century (unless your using the updated Hansen temp charts) than the 2000's. Musta been all those Eskimos trying out their new SUV's in the 30's...


----------



## FeXL

Little bit more on those Cosmic Rays...

Interesting Cosmic Rays Paper



> Recently, it was also shown by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Center and their colleagues, that the *variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover follow the expectations from a cosmic-ray/cloud cover link* (Usoskin et al., 2004). Specifically, it was found that the relative change in the *low altitude cloud cover is proportional to the relative change in the solar-cycle induced atmospheric ionization* at the given geomagnetic latitudes and at the altitude of low clouds (up to about 3 kms). Namely, at higher latitudes were the the ionization variations are about twice as large as those of low latitudes, the low altitude cloud variations are roughly twice as large as well.
> 
> *Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant.* However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? _The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present._


Bold from the link, italics mine.

On the italics? I'm guessing it'll only be a matter of time...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> continues
> 
> Ice sheets of West Antarctica are warming fast - environment - 02 January 2013 - New Scientist


From the hypocritical one's link:



> But Michael Mann at Penn State University in University Park says that warmer ocean water flooding in underneath the sheet poses a greater threat.


Can you please explain to me, MacDoc, just how ice already on the sea, by melting, can raise sea levels?

Small words an' pitchers will suffice...


----------



## FeXL

A very interesting paper on global warming and statistical tests failing to find significant proof of anthropogenic causation. Possible game-changer...


AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing

Abstract



> We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. *We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.* On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.


Bold mine.

Further:



> This is a most interesting paper, and potentially a bombshell, because they have taken virtually all of the significant observational datasets (including GISS and BEST) along with solar irradiance from Lean and Rind, and CO2, CH4, N2O, aerosols, and even water vapor data and put them all to statistical tests (including Lucia’s favorite, the unit root test) against forcing equations. Amazingly, it seems that they have almost entirely ruled out anthropogenic forcing in the observational data, but allowing for the possibility they could be wrong, say:
> 
> _“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; *it might be a false positive*, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. *However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”*_​


Italics from the link, bold mine.



> *Currently, most of the evidence supporting AGW theory is obtained by calibration methods and the simulation of GCMs.* Calibration shows, e.g. Crowley (2000), that to explain the increase in temperature in the 20th century, and especially since 1970, it is necessary to specify a sufficiently strong anthropogenic effect. *However, calibrators do not re- port tests for the statistical significance of this effect, nor do they check whether the effect is spurious*. The implication of our results is that the permanent effect is not statistically significant. Nevertheless, there seems to be a *temporary anthropogenic effect.* If the effect is temporary rather than permanent, a doubling, say, of carbon emissions would have no long-run effect on Earth’s temperature, but it would in- crease it temporarily for some decades. Indeed, the increase in temperature during 1975–1995 and its subsequent stability are in our view related in this way to the acceleration in carbon emissions during the second half of the 20th century (Fig. 2). *The policy implications of this result are major since an effect which is temporary is less serious than one that is permanent.*


Bold mine.

Well, we all know about those teflon-coated GCM's, don't we? So much for that evidence. Then, the author's note that the calibration method has its own flaws. The house of cards shakes further...



> *However, our results challenge the data interpretation that since 1880 global warming was caused by anthropogenic phenomena.*


Bold mine.

What was that comment earlier on about disproving AGW?

Sunovagun...


----------



## FeXL

UAH Global Temperature Report: 2012 was 9th warmest

I'm sure Jimmy Hansen with his bright red crayon will have those numbers doctored up in no time.



> Despite that string of warmer-than-normal years, there has been no measurable warming trend since about 1998.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Craziness of the Week: The Weather Channel on crack



> No, really, they must have been on crack when they came up with this one. I have no other explanation that works.


Any way they can spin non-science (nonsense?) into something that will garner a few more viewers...


----------



## FeXL

Further to my post 1815 from yesterday on paleo sea levels & CO2.

Does The Effect From The Cause Affect The Cause?



> The weakest piece of evidence is the linearity of the relationship. The outgassing of the ocean is a linear function of temperature. Looked at the other way, the temperature of the world is said to relate, not linearly to CO2, but to the logarithm of CO2 to the base 2. In the data above, the R^2 (a measure of correlation) between the temperature and the CO2 is 0.68 … but the R^2 between the temperature and the logarithm of CO2, rather than being better as we’d expect if CO2 were actually driving temperature, is marginally worse for the logarithmic relationship (0.67) than the linear. Weak evidence, as noted, but you’d expect the correlation with log CO2 to be better than linear, if not a lot better, if the relationship were actually logarithmic.
> 
> Second, the agreement with known physics. Given the data above, I calculate that for every 1°C of temperature increase, CO2 goes up by about 15 ppmv. According to this source, for every 1°C of temperature increase, CO2 goes up by about 12.5 ppmv … so the number I calculate from the data is in rough agreement with known physics.
> 
> Third, the lag. Direct correlation of the two datasets is 0.83 (with 1.0 indicating total agreement). The correlation between the two datasets is better (0.86) with a one-point lag, with the change in CO2 lagging the change in temperature. That is to say, first the temperature changes, and then the CO2 changes at some later date. Additionally, correlation is worse (0.79) with the opposite lag (CO2 leading temperature). Again, this is in general agreement with other findings that the changes in CO2 lag the changes in temperature.
> 
> Fourth, the Granger causality. You can’t establish a cause statistically, but you can say whether something “Granger-causes” something else. A Granger test establishes whether you have a better chance of predicting variable A if you know variable B. If you do, if knowing B gives you a better handle on A (beyond random chance), we say that B “Granger-causes” A.
> 
> ...
> 
> Finally, the disagreement with the IPCC values for “climate sensitivity”. If we use the data above, and we assume that the temperature actually is a function of the CO2 level, we can calculate the climate sensitivity. This is a notional value for the change in temperature due to a doubling of CO2. *When we calculate this from the Vostok data given above, we find that to work, the climate sensitivity would have to be 23°C per doubling of CO2 … and not even the most rabid alarmist would believe that.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting post on 70's cooling.

Solar Neutrons and the 1970s cooling period


----------



## FeXL

The Dr. David Viner moment we’ve all been waiting for…a new snow record

It was a mere 12 years ago...



> _ However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
> 
> “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said._


This fruit loop is from the "warming means less snow" camp, as opposed to the whackos who believe the models' "warming means more snow" output. Either way, they've got both scenarios covered and can't be called wrong... 

Oh, back to the link:



> It seems despite the sage advice from that East Anglia CRU scientist, a new record for snowfall has been set for the month of December.
> 
> From the Rutgers University Snow Lab, we have this graph for the Northern Hemisphere for all months of December. December 2012 was a clear winner.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate



> Using new satellite data demonstrating that solar UV varies by a factor that is 4 to 6 times larger than typical previous estimates, the authors find a mechanism to explain the solar effect on these climate oscillations via increased production of ozone in the atmosphere. The authors conclude that these large changes in solar UV can have amplified effects on regional climate and may be useful for predicting seasonal and long term climate change in Europe.


Abstract



> Variability in solar irradiance has been connected to changes in surface climate in the North Atlantic through both observational and climate modelling studies which suggest a response in the atmospheric circulation that resembles the North Atlantic Oscillation or its hemispheric equivalent the Arctic Oscillation. It has also been noted that this response appears to follow the changes in solar irradiance by a few years, depending on the exact indicator of solar variability. Here we propose and test a mechanism for this lag based on the known impact of atmospheric circulation on the Atlantic Ocean, the extended memory of ocean heat content anomalies and their subsequent feedback onto the atmosphere. We use results from climate model experiments to develop a simple model for the relationship between solar variability and North Atlantic climate.


----------



## FeXL

This despite the massive Arctic cyclone back in August.

Bering Sea Ice Was Normal Or Above Every Day In 2012


----------



## FeXL

Just what they predicted. Or not...

Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent Was Greatest On Record In December



> Snow extends all the way to Mexico because of an overheated atmosphere which is melting down the planet.


Oh, sorry, /sarc...

Further.



> Why is it that whenever snow disappears in the Arctic in the late summer, warmists scream bloody climate murder, but when snow reaches record levels in the wintertime, then they get real real quiet. Yoo-hoo media…where are you?


Yes. Why?


----------



## FeXL

Informative article on the history of sunspot counting.

Counting Sunspots and Sunspot Inflation


----------



## FeXL

Lightning-gate?

‘Global warming is to blame,’ says veteran climber Pat Falvey



> Veteran Irish explorer Pat Falvey believes global warming was to blame for the lightning strike which killed Ian McKeever.
> 
> ...
> 
> Mr Falvey told The Ray D’Arcy Show yesterday he believes the world’s changing climate caused the "freak" weather which hit Mr McKeever and his group as they climbed Kilimanjaro amid torrential downpours.


Do these useless idiots ever listen to themselves?


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the iron...

Oily Al



> “Gore’s massive personal cash influx from oil-backed Al Jazeera makes him by far the most lavishly funded fossil fuel player in the global warming debate today. *Will the media now accurately label Gore an industry funded activist every time they report on him?*”


Bold mine.


----------



## groovetube

I suppose then we can conclude that the CBC is also an 'oily backed' news outlet, since it also is funded even more so by our government, which is flush with oil sands cash.


----------



## FeXL

Major change in UK Met Office global warming forecast

Updated on Dec 24. Musta looked like a good day to unobtrusively update a crap forecast. Take a look at the existing temperature trend from '98, add in the new, improved, updated forecast to 2017 and what do you get?

A 20 year flatline. That's gonna make heads explode...

More.

Another take.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that MET teflon coated, platimum plated, forecast...


Met Office Accused Of Misleading Public Over Rainfall Trends



> Suddenly, after a wet year, which naturally the Met Office failed to forecast, they have reversed their customary fiery slogans to “Après nous le deluge”. Their antediluvian joy has given way to postdiluvian melancholy. They appear to have difficulty with the concept of random sequences of events, such as the precise positioning of the jet stream, and the fact that they produce apparent patterns and records. It was primitive man’s inability to envisage an effect without human cause that gave rise to much of religion. Of course it would have been most impressive if they had predicted all this a year ago, but they did not. Their predictions are as changeable as the weather and the only constant is the putative cause. –John Brignell, Number Watch, 3 January 2013


Slingo Pretends She Knows Why It’s Been So Wet!



> So for the seven months between April and December, that forecasts are available for, the Met Office forecast drier than normal conditions in six, and normal in the seventh. They failed to get any month correct, and for the seven months in question, rainfall averaged 36% above normal levels, (which are based on 1981-2010.)
> 
> ...
> 
> *It is very kind of Julia to tell us now that she knew all along it was likely to be wetter. It is just a pity, though, that she forgot to tell us at the time.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, new paper out on ENSO.

The thrust? El Nino Southern Oscillation was unusually strong during 20th century, not unprecedented over the last 7000 years and no hard evidence linked to anthropogenic causes.


----------



## FeXL

Been some news lately about the cold streak in China. Some of us would view this as nothing more than a cold streak. The fruit loops & whackos would have you believe "cold fronts caused...by melting polar ice from global warming."

Whatever your perspective, chill, people: it's weather, not climate...

One.

Two.


----------



## FeXL

To get politics out of science, scientists need to be more scientific, not more political



> Since when was science “political?” Answer: It’s not, but the institutions and bureaucrats who pretend to be scientists are. In the past, partisan scientists would at least try to hide that and keep up the dispassionate persona that marks a seeker of the truth. Now some scientists wear their bias like a badge.


Any body recall the photo of that tired-looking old man, an alleged scientist, getting arrested last summer in the middle of a protest? That's the sort of garbage science does not need...



> *It only makes it worse that academia is also a big-government culture*, and scientists taught in government schools usually graduate from government funded universities (even if they are private, most of the research funding is from government), and go on to work in government funded research, surrounded by other people who’ve traversed exactly the same path. They all sit around in tea-rooms telling each other why “conservatives” are wrong, but they’ve hardly ever met one, let alone had repeated exposure. Some are such political pre-schoolers they think the “Tea Party” is extreme rightwing because they’ve no idea of what a libertarian is. Those who do know keep their mouth shut, lest it give away any politically “incorrect” inclinations. *With few exceptions academia is almost a perfect filter for personality types who don’t compete well in the free market, who have no business experience, are not entrepreneurs, and have little inclination to take risks.*


Ya don't say...



> “Denier” has no place in science, and *praise for “consensus” science is something only a political activist would do, never a scientist.*


Wait. Wha...? (that's gonna leave a mark)



> Roger Peikle Jnr [sic] writes that scientists need a new year’s resolution not to be partisan. *He correctly points out that science associations like “Science” are only concerned about scientific integrity of the White House when the president is a Republican.* What he doesn’t point out is that this demonstrates these institutions have become political first, scientific second — and that means they aren’t “science” associations anymore and therein lies the problem. Is it worth trying to save them?


As scientific associations? Nope...

All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

An optimistic & successful (so far) forecast by an eminent climate scientist



> Today we look at a speech made 23 years ago by a MIT professor. It looks good today, still accurate despite the advances in climate science. Furthermore his forecast of no warming larger than natural variability during the next century has proven accurate so far — after 23 years have elapsed.
> 
> ...
> 
> * “I argue that the greenhouse effect does not seem to be as significant as suggested.”
> * “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.”
> * “And I certainly feel that there is time and need for research before making major policy decisions.”
> * The science of global warming is “a region in which the uncertainty is vast.”
> * “The trouble with many of these {temperature} records is that the corrections are of the order of the effects, and most of us know that when we’re in that boat we need a long series and great care to derive a meaningful signal.”


Compare this forecast to, say, Jimmy Hansen's predictions from the past. Any guess as to who doesn't get it right?


----------



## FeXL

The logical case against climate panic



> LOGIC is the heartbeat of all true learning – the soul of the Classics, the Sciences and Religion. Once everyone studied the Classics, to know that in logic there is a difference between true and false; the Sciences, to discern where it lies; and Religion, to appreciate why it matters. Today, few study all three empires of the mind. Fewer study the ordered beauty of the logic at their heart.


He speaks, amongst other things, on consensus:



> “Consensus” is the New Religion’s central fallacy. Arguing blindly from consensus is the head-count fallacy, the _argumentum ad populum_. Al-Haytham, founder of the scientific method, wrote: *“The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any mere consensus. Instead, he checks.”*


Bold mine.

Always ask the questions, people.


----------



## FeXL

Want to help out?

Crowdsourcing a Temperature Trend Analysis



> Your help is needed in building a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3, 4) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just such an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present an expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular updates. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should be images or images should instead be links, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input.


----------



## FeXL

Does NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keep two separate sets of climate books for the USA?



> _Glaring inconsistencies found between State of the Climate (SOTC) reports sent to the press and public and the “official” climate database record for the United States. Using NCDC’s own data, July 2012 can no longer be claimed to be the “hottest month on record”._


Italics from the link.



> *In almost every instance dating back to the inception of the CONUS Tavg value being reported in the SOTC report, there’s a difference. Some are quite significant*. In most cases, the database value is cooler than the claim made in the SOTC report. Clearly, it is a systemic issue that spans over two years of reporting to the press and to the public.


Bold mine.



> *The State of the Climate reports typically are issued in the first week of the next month. They don’t actually bother to put a release date on those reports, so I can’t give a table of specific dates. The press usually follows suit immediately afterwards, and we see claims like “hottest month ever” or “3rd warmest spring ever” being bandied about worldwide in news reports and blogs by the next day.*
> 
> So basically, NCDC is making public claims about the average temperature of the United States, its rank compared to other months and years, and its severity, based on incomplete data. *As I have demonstrated, that data then tends to change about two months later when all of the B91′s come in and are transcribed and the data set becomes complete.
> 
> It typically cools the country when all the data is used.
> 
> But, does NCDC go back and correct those early claims based on the new data?*


Bold mine.

Guess...


----------



## FeXL

On Greenland snow cover.


Greenland Snow Cover Has Expanded By 1000 Manhattans Since 1974…Clear Rising Trend!



> Greenland is melting? Where? The chart shows there is about 80,000 square km more snow cover today than in 1974.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> He speaks, amongst other things, on consensus:


I agree with this, with an important caveat...


> Always ask the questions, people.


In order to ask the correct question, and more importantly, get the correct answers, you need the necessary expertise, instrumentation, and other resources. You and I don't have these necessities, so your skepticism of the scientific community is impotent.

Since we cannot adjudicate the validity of the science ourselves, we can only observe the fact that a consensus among experts exists. If we were experts in the field, that consensus of our peers should not inhibit us from using our own reasoning to come to our own conclusions. But since we're not experts in the field, we have to either accept the consensus of the experts, refrain from judgment, or become experts ourselves. To dispute the consensus of experts in their feild from a position of ignorance is both stupid and arrogant.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Since we cannot adjudicate the validity of the science ourselves, we can only observe the fact that a consensus among experts exists. If we were experts in the field, that consensus of our peers should not inhibit us from using our own reasoning to come to our own conclusions. But since we're not experts in the field, we have to either accept the consensus of the experts, refrain from judgment, or become experts ourselves. To dispute the consensus of experts in their feild from a position of ignorance is both stupid and arrogant.


So speaks a supporter of the scientist priest clan.

By all means construct yourself to accepting the consensus, refraining from judgment, or becoming an expert. 

However, the opinion of anybody who observes and correctly exposes obvious logical fallacies, errors, or data manipulation in the studies and theories of various scientists is entirely valuable. Simply claiming that one's work is incomprehensible is no defense for these criticisms. It ain't 1880 anymore byranc... scientists have long since been dragged off their collective high horse.


----------



## MacDoc

I'll be sure to let the Aussies know they are imagining that things are getting warmer.
They keep records there...since 1910

Off the charts now 54 degrees !!!!!! 



> The range now extends to 54 degrees – well above the all-time record temperature of 50.7 degrees reached on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport in South Australia – and, perhaps worringly, the forecast outlook is starting to deploy the new colours.
> 
> "The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau's model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees," David Jones, head of the bureau's climate monitoring and prediction unit, said.
> 
> While recent days have seen Australian temperature maps displaying maximums ranging from 40 degrees to 48 degrees - depicted in the colour scheme as burnt orange to black – both Sunday and Monday are now showing regions likely to hit 50 degrees or more, coloured purple.
> 
> Read more: Bureau Of Meteorology Weather Chart | Deep Purple












•••





> David Jones
> 
> Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction Services at Australian Bureau of Meteorology
> 
> *A total fire ban is in place across NSW and the ACT as temperatures soar.*
> 
> *Heatwaves like the one sweeping Australia today will become more common as the globe warms, with record high temperatures already outpacing record lows by a ratio of three to one, *experts said today.
> 
> Temperatures are expected to climb past 40 degrees celsius across the country today, with authorities warning of extreme bushfire risk in NSW. Over 90 bushfires had broken out across that state by early this morning, the NSW Rural Fire Service said.
> 
> Australia had experienced six days in a row of average temperatures above 39 degrees and another two days were expected, the Bureau of Meteorology said. The previous long run of such high average temperatures was four days, set in 1973.
> 
> A long dry spell in inland Australia, fewer cold fronts and the delayed onset of the monsoon in the country’s north had helped create today’s conditions but “the other thing at play here is climate change,” said Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction Services at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
> 
> “We know that inland Australia is a degree and a half hotter than it was 50 to 100 years ago. Every single day we have this background warming trend which effectively means the whole climate system operates on a higher base,” he said.
> 
> “If you look at maximum temperatures, we are now finding that the rate at which we get record high temperatures is three times faster than the rate at which we get record low temperature.”
> 
> In other words, he said, “for every record cold day we see, we get three record hot days.”
> 
> “The climate system is really strongly weighted over Australia now towards record heat… that’s quite a profound shift.”
> 
> Dr Jones said Australia “was now seeing record hot nights five times more frequently than record cold nights.”
> 
> The Bureau of Meteorology released a Special Climate Statement yesterday saying that for the last four months of 2012, “the average Australian maximum temperature was the highest on record with a national anomaly of +1.61 degrees celsius, slightly ahead of the previous record of 1.60 degrees celsius set in 2002 *(national records go back to 1910).*”


As climate warms, heat waves outpace cold snaps three to one

and the denier crowd keep rattling on in their fantasy land....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> I'll be sure to let the Aussies know they are imagining that things are getting warmer.
> They keep records there...since 1910
> 
> Off the charts now 54 degrees !!!!!!


MacDoc, are you playing deliberately dense, or don't you read your own links? The temperature is not 54 degrees, nor is it "off the charts." That number represents the outer edge of the temperature scale used in their colour-coded forecasting maps. 

From your own article:



> Aaron Coutts-Smith, the bureau's NSW head of climate monitoring, though, cautioned that the 50-degree reading is the result of just one of the bureau's models. "The indications are, from the South Australian office, that *we are not looking at getting any where near that (50 degree level).*"


The record temperature for Australia was 50.7 degrees set *on January 2, 1960*.

Is this the best you can do? Skim the online newspapers and vomit out this stuff without reading it?


----------



## MacDoc

> Major Cuts to Surging Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Needed Now, Not Down the Road, Study Finds
> 
> Jan. 7, 2013 — Halting climate change will require "a fundamental and disruptive overhaul of the global energy system" to eradicate harmful carbon dioxide emissions, not just stabilize them, according to new findings by UC Irvine and other scientists.
> 
> In a Jan. 9 paper in Environmental Research Letters, UC Irvine Earth system scientist Steve Davis and others take a fresh look at the popular "wedge" approach to tackling climate change outlined in a 2004 study by Princeton scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow. They had argued that the rise of dangerous CO2 could be stopped -- using existing technologies -- by dividing the task into seven huge but manageable "slices."
> 
> Davis and his co-authors conclude that while the approach has great merit, it's not working, and it's not enough.
> 
> "We have enormous respect for that earlier work," he said. "But almost a decade after 'wedges' made a solution to climate change seem doable, we now know that holding emissions steady, difficult as it would be, is literally a half-measure -- and one that we have yet to take. Our emissions are not being held constant or even slowing; they're growing faster than ever."
> 
> The 2004 plan involved such tactics as doubling the number of nuclear reactors worldwide and increasing automotive fuel efficiency from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. Each "wedge," if accomplished, would after 50 years avoid 1 billion tons of carbon per year -- and seven wedges combined, Pacala and Socolow estimated, would prevent the worst effects of climate change.
> 
> However, Davis and fellow authors of the new paper calculated that as many as 31 wedges could be required to stabilize Earth's climate at safe CO2 levels and that sharp reductions in total emissions would have to begin much sooner than half a century from now.
> 
> "We need new ways to generate the vast quantities of power that we now use worldwide," he said. "Current technologies and systems cannot provide this much carbon-free power quickly enough or affordably enough. We urgently need policies and programs that support the research, development, demonstration and commercialization of new energy."
> 
> Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science,* Long Cao of China's Zhejiang University *and Martin Hoffert of New York University collaborated on the ERL paper.


China gets it.....just the denier community in a fog.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> China gets it.....just the denier community in a fog.


How does one Chinese contributor to a single position paper mean that "China gets it"?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> So speaks a supporter of the scientist priest clan.


Those dozens of peer-reviewed papers that have been posted have gotta be raising hell, then...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> I'll be sure to let the Aussies know they are imagining that things are getting warmer.
> They keep records there...since 1910


So, some questions, oh keeper of all information about this blue marble yer arse sits on:

1) Where's the anthropogenic connection?
2) Is this first time fire bans have been placed?
3) What was the atmospheric CO2 concentration the last time this happened in '72/'73?
4) What caused the '72/'73 heat wave at much lower CO2 levels?
5) Why would Donat specifically cherry pick the data period from 1951-80? Is it because he wants to eliminate the peak of the mid '40s and start in the basement? If they have records since 1910, why don't they use the full set?
6) Why does Donat's conclusion of “extremely high temperatures have become more frequent and more intense, while extremely low temperatures are occurring less frequently than they did in the middle of the 20th century” fly in the face of any number of peer-reviewed papers stating exactly the opposite?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## FeXL

Well, hell... That wedge thing must be working 'cause we haven't any global warming in the last 16 years. All this despite significant increases in CO2 during the same period.

Hoorah!

And, this:



> It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent).


Bold mine.

Hey, it must be right, it's from Phil Jones' home of UEA. And that's just to 2011. Their emissions went up almost another 10% for 2012.

China "gets it", alright...


----------



## FeXL

A paucity of sunspots in the past has usually led to a period of cold weather (eg. Maunder Minimum). This is currently happening during a period in the cycle when we should be seeing a maximum number of sunspots. So far, it's not.

The Sun crashes



> Meanwhile, on January 2 the solar scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center once again lowered their prediction for the upcoming solar maximum, dropping their predicted peak sunspot number from 72 to 69. This is the fifth month in a row that they have changed their prediction, and the fourth in a row in which they have dropped it. Considering that we are now only a few months from when they say maximum should occur, their constant revision of their prediction suggests they really haven’t the faintest idea what causes the solar cycle, and are merely guessing at what they think will happen.


----------



## FeXL

New study questions link between warming and past droughts



> A new analysis of drought conditions over the past 50 years has yielded a nuanced view of global trends. Red areas have experienced increasing levels of drought while blue areas have become less prone to dry conditions. Overall, there has been less of a trend toward drought globally than previously thought, Princeton researchers have found.


----------



## FeXL

Nice blurb on the IPCC, its roots & changes by one of its veteran (& sceptical) reviewers.

Senior Skeptic Scientist Blames Eco Religion for Climate Dogma



> The Authors of Chapter 1 of “Climate Change 2001” signed their professional death warrant when they wrote: “*The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th Century and that other trends have been observed, does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified.* Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”
> 
> *The Fourth Report (2007) took special precautions to ensure that no true statement about the climate like this one could ever appear again.* Chapter 1 was now entitled “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” which dealt exclusively with the FCCC definition of “Climate Science”. It omitted all mention of conventional meteorology and concealed all the many measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide carried out between 1850 and 1975.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the past 5 solar sunspot minima, plus the volcanic effect.


The potential impact of volcanic overprinting of the Eddy Minimum



> When major eruptions are overprinted on a period of cold climate, the effect is far more severe. As John A. Eddy said in reference to the Mount Tambora eruption of 10th April, 1815, “The unusual summer of 1816 is commonly attributed to the increase in atmospheric turbidity that followed the eruption of Mount Tambora. The awesome eruption occurred, in fact, during a span of several decades of colder climate that had interrupted the gradual global warming that followed seventeenth century extrema of the Little Ice Age. These background trends may well explain a particularly severe seasonal response in 1816 to a short-term injection of volcanic dust.”


----------



## FeXL

Announcing the first ever CONUS yearly average temperature from the Climate Reference Network



> *Note also the value from the CRN from July 2012, 75.6°F far lower than what NCDC reported in the SOTC of 77.6°F and later in the database of 76.93°F* as discussed here.
> 
> *Makes you wonder why NCDC never mentions their new state of the art, well sited climate monitoring network in those press releases, doesn’t it?* The CRN has been fully operational since late 2008, and we never here a peep about it in SOTC. Maybe they don’t wish to report adverse results.


Yes. Why?


----------



## FeXL

On Environment Canada weather predictions.


Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It’s Government Climate Science.



> I pointed out years ago that Environment Canada (EC) publishes such information. They expose a similar horrendous story of absolute failure. This likely indicates why it is not done by others, but provides adequate justification for significantly reducing the role of the agency.
> 
> ...
> 
> Initially I thought EC was admirable for publishing results. *Now I realize it only shows arrogance and sense of unaccountability: we fail, but you must listen, act, and keep paying. It underscores the hypocrisy of what they do.* More important, it shows why they and all national weather agencies must be proscribed. It is time to reduce all national weather offices to data collection agencies. When bureaucrats do research it is political by default. The objective rapidly becomes job preservation; perpetuate and expand rather than solve the problem.


Hmmm. Wonder huch much longer they're going to publish their errors...


----------



## FeXL

Well, ya gotta love Secret Santa's. A week before Christmas Donna Laframboise rec'd three thumb drives chock full of draft versions of most of Tippsy's™ (Teflon-coated International Pack of Climate Crooks) upcoming report. What have they learned?

On comments to Working Group 2 by "scientific expert reviewers":



> Most of these comments appear to be constructive, and will likely enhance the quality of the final report. But some of the individuals who took part are activists. Many of their suggestions amount to bald-faced attempts to embed activist source material – and activist perspectives – in a scientific document.


Apparently, nothing.



> All of it, therefore, is activist-generated grey literature – exactly the kind of thing that has caused the IPCC grief in the past.
> 
> What is the IPCC thinking? Why is it rolling out the red carpet for activists, permitting them to directly lobby IPCC authors?
> 
> That is not the way to prevent another Himalayan debacle.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Pacific tropical cyclones coincided with solar activity 

Abstract



> Numerous studies have been conducted to document long term trends in tropical cyclone (TC) activity. However, the eastern Pacific has not received as much attention as other basins. Here we attempt the identification of TC formation in the Mexican eastern Pacific ocean before 1950. Using bibliographical and historical file consultation, we constructed a catalog of events related to intense storms and possible TCs that made landfall in the Mexican Pacific coasts. Between 1536 and 1948 we found a total of 119 events related to TCs. Then, using the Saffir-Simpson scale and the climatology of the region as the criteria to evaluate each event, we found 85 TCs. Furthermore, we constructed a historical time series of TCs between 1701 and 2010. *The spectral analysis showed periodicities of ~2.6, 4, 5, 12, 16, 39 and 105 years, that coincide with some large-scale climatic phenomena and also with solar activity. In particular, the ~12-year cycle is the most persistent periodicity in our study.*


Bold from the link.

Solar activity=tropical cyclones.

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

This. This is what passes for warmist science these days.


Gone Bezerkers. Climate change will turn humans into hobbits



> HUMANS will have to become like Hobbits to survive the rapid climate change facing the world, a report claims today.


This, as opposed to the Jurassic & Cretaceous, when average global temps were mostly in the mid 20's C (10 degrees hotter than today), CO2 concentrations averaged about triple what they are now and all you had was puny 50,000 lb dinosaurs walking around.

Imagine how small they would have been if the temps & CO2 had really gotten out of hand...


----------



## MacDoc

> *It’s Official: 2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.*
> By JUSTIN GILLIS
> Published: January 8, 2013 360 Comments
> 
> The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.
> 
> If that does not sound sufficiently impressive,* consider that 34,008 new daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 new record lows, *according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.
> 
> That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.
> 
> “The heat was remarkable,” said Jake Crouch, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which released the official climate compilation on Tuesday. “It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal.”
> 
> Scientists said that natural variability almost certainly played a role in last year’s extreme heat and drought. But many of them expressed doubt that such a striking new record would have been set without the backdrop of global warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. And they warned that 2012 was likely a foretaste of things to come, as continuing warming makes heat extremes more likely.
> 
> Even so, the last year’s record for the United States is not expected to translate into a global temperature record when figures are released in coming weeks. The year featured a La Niña weather pattern, which tends to cool the global climate over all, and scientists expect it to be the world’s eighth or ninth warmest year on record.
> 
> Assuming that prediction holds up, it will mean that the 10 warmest years on record all fell within the past 15 years, a measure of how much the planet has warmed. Nobody who is under 28 has lived through a month of global temperatures that fell below the 20th-century average, because the last such month was February 1985.
> 
> Last year’s weather in the United States began with an unusually warm winter, with relatively little snow across much of the country, followed by a March that was so hot that trees burst into bloom and swimming pools opened early. The soil dried out in the March heat, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during the warmest July on record.
> 
> The drought engulfed 61 percent of the nation, killed corn and soybean crops and sent prices spiraling. It was comparable to a severe drought in the 1950s, Mr. Crouch said, but not quite as severe as the legendary Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, which was exacerbated by poor farming practices that allowed topsoil to blow away.
> 
> Extensive records covering the lower 48 states go back to 1895; Alaska and Hawaii have shorter records and are generally not included in long-term climate comparisons for that reason.
> 
> Mr. Crouch pointed out that until last year, the coldest year in the historical record for the lower 48 states, 1917, was separated from the warmest year, 1998, by only 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit. That is why the 2012 record, and its one degree increase over 1998, strikes climatologists as so unusual.
> 
> “We’re taking quite a large step above what the period of record has shown for the contiguous United States,” he said.
> 
> In addition to being the nation’s warmest year, 2012 turned out to be the second-worst on a measure called the Climate Extremes Index, surpassed only by 1998.
> 
> Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August; and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy, which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region.
> 
> Among those big disasters was one bearing a label many people had never heard before: the derecho, a line of severe, fast-moving thunderstorms that struck central and eastern parts of the country starting on June 29, killing more than 20 people, toppling trees and knocking out power for millions of households.
> 
> For people who escaped both the derecho and Hurricane Sandy relatively unscathed, the year may be remembered most for the sheer breadth and oppressiveness of the summer heat wave. By the calculations of the climatic data center, a third of the nation’s population experienced 10 or more days of summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
> 
> Among the cities that set temperature records in 2012 were Nashville; Athens, Ga.; and Cairo, Ill., all of which hit 109 degrees on June 29; Greenville, S.C., which hit 107 degrees on July 1; and Lamar, Colo., which hit 112 degrees on June 27.
> 
> With the end of the growing season, coverage of the drought has waned, but the drought itself has not. Mr. Crouch pointed out that at the beginning of January, 61 percent of the country was still in moderate to severe drought conditions. “I foresee that it’s going to be a big story moving forward in 2013,” he said.


Record-Setting Heat Across the U.S. in 2012 - Graphic - NYTimes.com


----------



## MacDoc

and it can get cold too..... China gets it even if some around here don't



> An unusually cold winter across China has some regions hitting their lowest average temperatures in more than 40 years, according to state media reports.* The Chinese national meteorological agency said polar fronts caused by global warming are to blame for the frigid air.*
> 
> The freeze is the coldest winter in 28 years, the English-language newspaper China Daily reported. The national average temperature across China's vast territory was a chilly 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 3.8 degrees Celsius) since late November. In northeast China, which typically has snowy, cold winters, the average temperature was an icy 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 15.3 degrees Celsius), the lowest in 42 years.
> 
> Temperatures have dropped down to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 degrees Celsius) in eastern Inner Mongolia, northern Xinjiang and the Arctic reaches of northeast China. (Mohe, in northeast China, holds China's record low temperature of minus 62.1 F, or minus 52.3 C, set on Feb. 13, 1962.)
> 
> Global warming brings record cold
> 
> *The wintry weather doesn't disprove global warming, however. In fact, an expert a China's National Climate Center blamed rising temperatures for the deep freeze. Global warming is shrinking ice in the Arctic and pushing polar fronts south, Zhou Botao told China Daily.*
> 
> The loss of Arctic ice could affect weather in China in several ways, said Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist specializing in Arctic ice at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. "It's hard to separate out cause and effect, but one of the things we do know is when we have less sea ice, the Arctic atmosphere is a lot warmer," Stroeve told OurAmazingPlanet.
> 
> With less ice cover, the Arctic Ocean absorbs heat and solar energy from the sun that the ice would have reflected back into space. The heating of Arctic sea water can shift weather patterns in the Arctic and also affect the jet stream, Stroeve said. The jet stream is a persistent river of air that circles the planet, and has a strong influence on winter storms and movement of frosty polar air. Dips and troughs created by the shifting Arctic wind patterns could let Arctic air sneak south, studies show.
> 
> November and December also saw a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation, a winter weather pattern that drives colder-than-normal weather, Stroeve said. The NSIDC reported today (Jan. 8) that the Arctic Oscillation is weakening, so relief may be coming to hard-hit areas. "Temperatures aren't quite as cool now as they have been," Stroeve said.
> 
> Putting Asia on ice
> 
> As of last week, about a thousand ships were stuck in ice in Laizhou Bay in the eastern Bohai Sea, according to China Daily. Some 10,500 square miles (27,000 square kilometers) of sea surface has frozen in Bohai Bay, the greatest ice extent since records began in 2008, according to the Chinese Meteorological Association.
> 
> Northern India is also suffering from record cold winter temperatures, Weather Underground reported. In Uttar Pradesh, home to New Delhi, 175 people have died from the cold. The high on Jan. 2 was just 49.6 F (9.8 C), the coldest daily maximum in 44 years.
> 
> Brutal cold is also shattering records across Russia. This winter is the coldest on record since 1938, and temperatures plunged as low as minus 58 F (minus 50 C) in some areas.


China Chill Snaps Weather Records|Extreme Cold in China & India | LiveScience


----------



## FeXL

Really, MacDoc? The Weather Channel? That's like quoting the Goreacle. Or the IPCC. 

As you wish...

That piece of ****e is so full of holes, I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with a quote from John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel:



> As founder of The Weather Channel I am deeply saddened by what has become of my life’s work. I poured everything I had at the prime of my life into creating a basic channel that was focused on a mission to provide accurate and complete weather information for their location and the rest of our nation within a few minutes to everyone who tuned in. *As televsion whiz kids have replaced adults and dedicated meteorologists the channel has been reduced to a hodge podge of silliness.*


Bold mine.

Puts them in their place, no?

However, we will continue to beat this dead horse into hamburger, I heard they like that down under. MacDoc can pack a picnic basket for him an' Julyar an' they can fight over the backside of the cayuse, the part under the tail...

Let's start off with a simple fact: The US encompasses less than 2% of the earth's surface. If, in fact, there was a heat wave there, how does that translate to the other 98% of the globe?

With that perspective in mind, let's go to work...



> If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 new daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 new record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.


Whose records? Which records? How reputable are those records? What adjustments have been made to the raw data & why? Are those records being broken really the daily high or the daily average? Every idiot knows that, due to UHI, night time temps have risen and the daily averages have gone up. That's why there are fewer record lows broken in summertime.

NASA GISS? Pull the other finger. They use NCDC adjusted data. It's well known that Jimmy has adjusted '30s temps down & more recent temps up for a total of 0.7 degrees C. 

USHCN? Nope.



> Problem is, the reality of the old network is that it is fraught with all sort of inconsistencies throughout its record such as multiple station moves, equipment changes, time of observation changes, encroachment by urbanization, and of course faulty station siting which I discovered that only 1 in 10 USHCN stations met the criteria of NOAA’s 100 foot rule, a charge backed up by an investigation done by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). As a result of the most recent research, we found significant positive biases in the raw data


Nope.



> The graph below shows the almost two degree US upwards adjustment trend being applied by USHCN between the raw thermometer data and the published monthly data.


And nope.



> An apples to apples comparison, shows that the summer of 1936 had five times as many record maximums as the summer of 2012.


Further on July being record warmest.



> So the real question is: which 1934 and 1936 is NCDC and Seth Borenstein comparing to? It looks to me like we might not be comparing real temperatures to real temperatures, but rather adjusted ones to highly adjusted ones.


Other references:
July 2012 Hottest Ever in the U.S.? Hmmm….I Doubt It



> As far as daily HIGH temperatures go, 1936 was the clear winner. But because daily LOW temperatures have risen so much, the daily AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936.


From your link:


> *Scientists said that natural variability almost certainly played a role in last year’s extreme heat and drought*. But many of them expressed doubt that such a striking new record would have been set without the backdrop of global warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases.


*How much* natural variability? A percent? 5? 50? 99? As to the second sentence, where's the anthropogenic link? Temps haven't risen significantly in the last 16 years, despite CO2 levels rising. Obviously A isn't causing B. What is?

Back to the hogwash:



> Assuming that prediction holds up, <snip>


Wait. Wha...? I thought we were working off of hard data here, not predicting something. Was 2012 the warmest in US history or not? Read the damn data, either yes or no. WTF?

Further:



> Alaska and Hawaii have shorter records and are generally not included in long-term climate comparisons for that reason.


That, and if they actually included Alaska, which happens to be in a deepfreeze right now, 2012 wouldn't make the hysterics' cut.

More:



> Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August; and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy, which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region.


I wonder how long they'll count. Must be hellish work, trying to turn a half a billion dollar named cloud into a billion dollar "disaster". Gonna take years, ain't it. Yes, we know about the two Cat 1 hurricanes that hit the States. However, I'm really puzzled by that last part. Does that mean that half the US was hit by hurricanes this year? Does it mean that half the states that were hit had damage of $60 billion? Huh?

Spin, spin, spin:



> By the calculations of the climatic data center, a third of the nation’s population experienced 10 or more days of summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.


10 days. How horrible. Let's get a bit more perspective, shall we?

Putting The 2012 Heatwave In Perspective



> Lebanon, Missouri is ground zero for the 2012 heatwave. They have seen five days over 100F this year. *By contrast, during 1936 they had forty-one days over 100F.* During the past decade, they have had 31 days over 100F, compared to 152 days during the 1930s. Extremely hot days were five times more common during the 1930s.
> 
> The 1950s had 58 days over 100 degrees, including the all-time record high of 113 degrees. Bottom line is that the US saw much more severe heatwaves in the past when CO2 was below 320 ppm. Not only was the duration of the heatwaves longer, but the intensity was greater. The climate was hotter in the past.


Bold mine.

More.



> So why is Mike Seidel of the Weather Channel spreading such blatant misinformation? 1936 was much hotter than 2012.


Further-Summer Of 2012 Was Sixteenth Hottest In US History



> USHCN has updated their “raw monthly” data for August, and the summer of 2012 (June-August) was the 16th hottest in the US. The three hottest summers were 1936, 1934 and 1901.
> 
> Even after almost two degrees of upwards adjustments relative to 1901, USHCN was only able to cheat 2012 up to the #4 spot.


Yup.

So, what's the summary?

Was 2012 hot? Yup. Was it the hottest ever? Nope, not without massive adjustments to existing records.

James Taylor notes: Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year

That said, I have one question.

Why doesn't anybody use the newest, updated, no need for adjustments, well-sited USCRN data? What is everyone afraid of? That they'll no longer be able to adjust to suit the argument?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and it can get cold too..... China gets it even if some around here don't


Weather, MacDoc, not climate.

Nothing unprecedented and nothing suggesting an anthropogenic link.



> "It's hard to separate out cause and effect, but one of the things we do know is when we have less sea ice, the Arctic atmosphere is a lot warmer," Stroeve told OurAmazingPlanet.


No ****. When all the ice melts in my gin and tonic, it gets warmer. The air above it, too. Bloody genius.

And wait. What was that? A reference to the jet stream? 2-1/2 years ago you were in denial that the Russian drought had anything to do with the jet stream, it was all due to GHG's. Remember that post? I do.

Now you're quoting the jet stream as a cause? (FeXL's, like elephants, never forget...)

To top it off, just 3 weeks ago, you quoted an article that noted the sun's radiation had an effect on the jet stream and, subsequently, regional climates. Remember that?

Woohoo! We're gonna make a believer outta you yet!

You go, girl!


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

All the screeching about the most broken records in 2012. Yesterday I posted these 3 questions in response to MacDoc's article about the 2012 temperature record:



> Whose records? Which records? How reputable are those records?


Wonder of wonders, there's a problem with the record.

2012 Didn’t Crack The Top Ten For Record Maximums



> *NOAA has inflated the 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of the 1930s.*


Bold mine.

Take a look at the graph. Don't be shy, you don't need a PhD...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Secret Santa reveal. Donna's been emailed a boiler plate cease & desist notice with a curious ending.

IPCC Legal Notice



> If you click the image above it will enlarge and you can read the notice I’ve received. It says that documents released via the Secret Santa leak are “not for public distribution” and requests that I remove them from my website. Which probably means it’s a good idea for those of you who are seeding the torrent to keep your clients open a while longer.
> 
> But really, the cat is out-of-the-bag. The damage is done. Thousands of copies of these documents are now out there. They can’t be recalled.
> 
> Welcome to the 21st century.


Got my copies...

Link to searchable PDF.


----------



## Macfury

Silence. The Great One has retreated to his chambers to find a new study with a Chinese name attached to it.


----------



## FeXL

Are a Third of IPCC Review Editors MIA?



> The Secret Santa leak involves the Working Group 2 section of the upcoming IPCC report. Each of its 30 chapters has a group of authors, plus two or three people who serve as Review Editors (REs).
> 
> REs are supposed to ensure that feedback submitted by outside expert reviewers is addressed, rather than disregarded, by IPCC authors. *A Review Editor isn’t supposed to be chummy with the author team. He or she is supposed to be a disciplinarian.*
> 
> The RE role is one of the few oversight mechanisms built into the IPCC process. *If a third of the overseers are missing in action, something has gone terribly wrong.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *In other words, only 13 out of 30 chapters are receiving the oversight they’re supposed to.*


Bold mine.

The upcoming TIPPC™ report is already looking like a bigger Charlie Foxtrot than its predecessor...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Silence. The Great One has retreated to his chambers to find a new study with a Chinese name attached to it.


He gonna luvs him the one I gots with Germany stamped all over it then...

Leading German Daily Announces: “Global Warming Has Stopped”, Questions IPCC Models



> Global temperatures have stagnated since the new millennium began. To answer that question, the German daily asks (alarmist) professor Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute für Meteorology in Hamburg. He told the Abendblatt: “Such plateaus also show up in our models. *In such periods heat is absorbed more by the depths of the oceans. We can’t explain why this is so.*”
> 
> Maybe plateaus do show up in the models here and there. But none of the models showed a plateau for the last 15 years.
> 
> Marotzke then insists that the record low Arctic sea ice extent measured last summer shows that things are heating up. Yet, strangely, he develops amnesia when it come to the Antarctic record high sea ice extent recorded last fall.


Bold mine.

Gawd, they're still clinging to that whole "Missing Heat" thing...

Wait, wait, I got it...(from the Ivory Tower, harumphing a couple times, mebbe coughing up a hairball or sumthin'...): The Germans get it...


----------



## FeXL

So, on that whole solar influence thing...

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate 



> Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. *This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. *


Bold mine.

Ya don't say.



> Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." *In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.*


Bold mine.

Really.



> In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. *The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.* The Pacific region is only one example.


Sonuvagun. Like, say, the 2% of the earth's surface that the CONUS occupies?



> *Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.* Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. *Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.* (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)


Bold mine.

Can this be?

Old Sol?

Who knew...


----------



## FeXL

So, we all heard the horror stories about Sandy last fall, unprecedented, weather on steroids, blah, blah, blah.

In case you needed it, here's a bit of perspective:



> North America’s northeastern coast has been battered by hurricanes and other major storms throughout history. A 1775 hurricane killed 4,000 people in Newfoundland; an 1873 monster left 600 dead in Nova Scotia; others pummeled Canada’s Maritime Provinces in 1866, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003.
> 
> Manhattan got pounded in 1667 and by the Great Storm of 1693. They were followed by more behemoths in 1788, 1821, 1893, 1944, 1954 and 1992. Other “confluences of severe weather events” brought killer storms like the four-day Great Blizzard of 1888. The 1893 storm largely eradicated Hog Island, and the 1938 “Long Island Express” hit LI as a category 3 hurricane with wind gusts up to 180 mph.


So, what was the real crime regarding Sandy?



> In Hurricane Sandy’s aftermath – with millions freezing hungry in dark devastation – Mayor Bloomberg sidetracked police and sanitation workers for the NYC Marathon, until public outrage forced him to reconsider. While federal emergency teams struggled to get water, food and gasoline to victims, companies, religious groups, charities, local citizens and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie worked tirelessly to raise money and organize countless relief efforts.


Yup.



> Most outrageous of all, though, was how ill-prepared the region was for another major storm – and how many political decisions had virtually ensured that any repeat of the 1893, 1938, 1944 and other storms would bring devastation far worse than would likely have occurred in the absence of those decisions.
> 
> In one of the most obvious, architects, city planners, mayors and governors alike thought nothing of placing generators in the basements of hospitals and skyscrapers built in areas that are barely above sea level. Past storms have brought surges12 to 18 feet high onto Long Island, and studies have warned that a category 3 direct hit could put much of New York City and its key infrastructure under 30 feet of water. Sandy’s 9-foot surges (plus five feet of high tide) flooded those basements, rendering generators useless, and leaving buildings cold and dark. *Perhaps if Mayor Bloomberg had worried less about 32-oz sodas and seas that are rising a mere foot per century, he could have devoted more time to critical issues.*


Bold mine.

Again, yup.



> *No wonder, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo and other politicos prefer to talk about global warming, rising seas and worsening weather – to deflect attention and blame from decisions that have put more people in the path of greater danger.* Indeed, the very notion of packing more and more people into “sustainable, energy-efficient” coastal cities in the NY-NJ area is itself madness on steroids.
> 
> Worst of all, politicians are increasingly and intentionally obscuring and misrepresenting the nature, frequency and severity of storm, flood and surge risks, so that they can promote and permit more construction in high-risk areas, and secure more money and power. *They insist that they can prevent or control climate change and sea level rise, by regulating CO2 emission – while they ignore real, known dangers that have arisen before and will arise again, exacerbated by their politicized decisions.*


Bold mine.

Three times yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, the MET Office has this great little blurb on SSW, Sudden Stratospheric Warming. Serious, it's a good read.

Spot The Deliberate Mistake: What is a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW)? by Met Office



> You may have heard of the jet stream which helps to steer Atlantic weather systems towards the UK. Well there are other jet streams high up in our atmosphere in both the northern and southern hemisphere which circumnavigate the Earth from west to east. One of these, the Polar Night Jet, circles the Arctic.
> 
> Sometimes the usual westerly flow can be disrupted by natural weather patterns or disturbances in the lower part of the atmosphere, such as a large area of high pressure in the northern hemisphere. This causes the Polar Jet to wobble and these wobbles, or waves, break just like waves on the beach. When they break they can be strong enough to weaken or even reverse the westerly winds and swing them to easterlies. As this happens, air in the stratosphere starts to collapse in to the polar cap and compress. As it compresses it warms, hence the stratospheric warming.


However, the article falls somewhat short due to a brief, but essential, part of the story. No, it's not CO2.

It's clarified for you at the bottom of the linked article.


----------



## FeXL

Further on our current solar cycle.

December solar activity in a big slump



> The December data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center is in, and it looks more and more like the peak of solar cycle 24 has been reached, and that we are now past it. Even with documented problems like “sunspot count inflation” the sunspot count for December is quite low:


----------



## FeXL

Further on BBC having to admit global warming static.



> The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.
> 
> The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average – within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.
> 
> By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C – within a range of 0.28-0.59.


Interesting observation from the comments:



> *What is really going on here is that their sophisticated climate models are being continuously tuned so as to “backcast” and agree with past temperature data. There has been no warming for 17 years. As a result the parameters are now showing little AGW at all for the next 10 years.*
> 
> A scientist should ask the following question. If predictions of GCM models from just 2 years ago have now been invalidated by the data, how can we now have any faith in new predictions made with the same models but with various fudge factors added ?


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Latest report from NOAA on SOTC

NOAA SOTC for December 2012

What I found most interesting was the disclaimer:




> _PLEASE NOTE: All of the temperature and precipitation ranks and values are based on preliminary data. *The ranks will change when the final data are processed, but will not be replaced on these pages.* Graphics based on final data are provided on the Temperature and Precipitation Maps page and the Climate at a Glance page as they become available._


Italics from the link, bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on email deletions at East Anglia (man, that's a distant topic, nice to see they're still working on it).

More Tricks from East Anglia



> David Holland’s recent FOI has yielded more unbelievable assertions from the University that inspired the Monty Python sketch on idiocy. The FOI request was directed at untrue evidence given to Parliament by UEA Vice Chancellor Acton in connection with the notorious deletion of emails by Briffa, Jones and associates.


McIntyre summarizes:



> I am struggling to try to figure out an honest explanation of these facts, but thus far, cannot think of one. If anyone can provide an interpretation of this information that is not damning to UEA, I’d appreciate it.


----------



## FeXL

I hesitate to post stuff like this because the next crop of Fruit Loops & Whackos will surely suggest we burn some coal to steer away the cyclones. That & it's model based...

New paper finds global warming weakens tropical cyclones and steers them away from landfall

Abstract



> We examine the change in tropical cyclone (TC) tracks that result from projected changes in the large-scale steering flow and genesis location due to increasing greenhouse gases. Tracks are first simulated using a Beta and Advection Model (BAM) and NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis winds for all TCs that formed in the North Atlantic main development region (MDR) for the period 1950-2010. Changes in genesis location and large-scale steering flow are then estimated from an ensemble mean of 17 CMIP3 models for the A1b emissions scenario. The BAM simulations are then repeated with these changes to estimate how the TC tracks would respond to increased greenhouse gases. As the climate warms, the models project a weakening of the subtropical easterlies as well as an eastward shift in genesis location. This results in a statistically significant decrease in straight-moving (westward) storm tracks of 5.5% and an increase in recurving (open ocean) tracks of 5.5%. These track changes decrease TC counts over the Southern Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean by 1-1.5 per decade and increase TC counts over the central Atlantic by 1-1.5 per decade. Changes in the large-scale steering flow account for a vast majority of the projected changes in TC trajectories.


----------



## FeXL

Following on post 1873 above about NASA's research on Sol's effect on the atmosphere:

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

Abstract



> In this study we investigate the impact of mid- and late Holocene orbital forcing and solar activity on variations of the oxygen isotopic composition in precipitation. The investigation is motivated by a recently published speleothem δ18O record from the well-monitored Bunker Cave in Germany. The record reveals some high variability on multi-centennial to millennial scales that does not linearly correspond to orbital forcing. Our model study is based on a set of novel climate simulations performed with the atmosphere general circulation model ECHAM5-wiso enhanced by explicit water isotope diagnostics. From the performed model experiments, we derive the following major results: (1) *the response of both orbital and solar forcing lead to changes in surface temperatures and δ18O in precipitation* with similar magnitudes during the mid- and late Holocene. (2) Past δ18O anomalies correspond to changing temperatures in the orbital driven simulations. This does not hold true if an additional solar forcing is added. (3) Two orbital driven mid-Holocene experiments, simulating the mean climate state approximately 5000 and 6000 yr ago, yield very similar results. However, if an identical additional solar activity-induced forcing is added, the simulated changes of surface temperatures as well as δ18O between both periods differ. *We conclude from our simulation results that non-linear effects and feedbacks of the orbital and solar activity forcing substantially alter the δ18O in precipitation pattern and its relation to temperature change.*


Bold from the link.

From the paper:



> *A plausible physical mechanism how solar activity might alter the state of the middle atmosphere via UV radiation and how this change is transported to the troposphere is explained by a number of studies* (Gray et al., 2010; Ineson et al., 2011; Kuroda and Kodera, 2002; Shindell et al., 2001; Spangehl et al., 2010). *These studies conclude that an increase of UV radiation during periods of high solar activity heat the middle atmosphere due to photochemical reactions with stratospheric ozone. This leads to an altered stratospheric circulation that propagates pole and downwards to affect tropospheric jet streams and thus atmospheric circulation on a synoptic scale [large scale weather systems]*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Arctic was up to 12.6°C warmer than today 

Abstract



> Here we use δ18O ratios measured in tree rings of crossdated sub-fossil wood to reconstruct an annually resolved record of temperature and δ18O of meteoric water for an interglacial late Pliocene–early Pleistocene fossil forest found on Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada. Our record represents the first crossdated record of Pliocene wood. *Mean annual temperatures determined in this study average − 3.4 ± 3.8 °C, which is 11.4 ± 4.4 °C warmer than present-day Bylot Island (− 14.8 ± 2.2 °C). June–July temperatures average 13.5 ± 1.1 °C, approximately 12.6 ± 1.6 °C warmer than present-day.* Meteoric water δ18O values average − 15.5 ± 2.9‰, ~ 2–6‰ more enriched than present values of precipitation δ18O. Our temperatures are comparable to mid-Pliocene modeled temperatures for the Arctic (3–5 °C warmer than present), suggesting that interglacial warm periods in the late Pliocene–early Pleistocene may have been as warm as the mid-Pliocene warm period. That both the Bylot Island forest deposit and the Kap København deposit represent the remains of northern tree-line vegetation that lived during warm interglacial periods within the overall cool Plio-Pleistocene suggests that forest deposits in the Arctic capture a snapshot of interglacial conditions during the Plio-Pleistocene rather than the average Pliocene climate and may not be suitable records to study Pliocene cooling.


Bold from the link.



> The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that the Arctic has been much warmer than modern times during many periods in the past, and without causing any "tipping points" as claimed by climate alarmists for more than 2°C warming.


Questions, we have questions!

What do you suppose caused all that warming, all those 2-1/2 million years ago?


----------



## FeXL

And in the same vein...

New paper finds New Mexico was warmer than the present during multiple periods in the past

Abstract



> A thick sequence of fine-textured alluvium in central New Mexico has provided an opportunity to reconstruct vegetation type and climate at the western edge of the Great Plains grassland. The analysis of thirty-eight AMS radiocarbon ages, δ13C values, and modern weather data has produced a 12,800 cal yr record of changing C3–C4 vegetation, temperature, and precipitation. The record begins with the Younger Dryas that was characterized by C3 plants and was about 2.4 °C cooler with over 100 mm rainfall than today. After 11,000 cal yrs BP, the climate became less cool and less wet, *reaching present-day conditions by 9000 yrs.* The middle Holocene was C4, warm, and dry although the δ13C record is incomplete for this interval. From 3300 to 1400 cal yrs BP, the climate was cool and wet with C3 plants, averaging 0.5 °C cooler and 22 mm greater rainfall than today, matching other records in the region for a wetter climate. After 1400 cal yrs BP, the local climate became warm and dry, shifting to C4 vegetation. The severe second century drought, first observed in tree-rings in southern Colorado, is supported by the δ13C data and occurred during the interval A.D. 40 to A.D. 180. Hiatuses in the local alluvial and δ13C record extend from 9000 to 6000 cal yrs BP and from 1000 cal yrs BP to present.


Bold from the link.

Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

Further on my perspective about CONUS being 2% of the globe.

(little graph on global temp trend)


----------



## FeXL

Good question.

The American Geophysical Union – can it be saved?

Mann, Gleick, Lewandowsky, Orsekes and Cook attended the 2012 Convention.



> If you are one of the 58,000 members, you could ask yourself if you want to be aligned to an organization that thinks “science” means sometimes you need to impersonate someone else, steal their documents, and hide your own data. Is it AGU science if you use algorithms so badly that you could replace your data with a phone book and produce the same result? What if your data is used upside down? The AGU thinks you should speak twice.
> 
> Is it the AGU’s idea of “rigorous” if you make headlines out of irreproducible results that use flawed samples, fake data, and issue a press release months before your paper is even ready to be published? Is a sample size of ten in a self-selecting internet poll enough to publish a paper? Do you find out the opinions of one group by interviewing the people who hate them, but then present the results as if you surveyed the first group? Is it OK to call people who disagree with you insulting names? John Cook does, and he was invited to speak as well. Does it bother the AGU that neither Cook nor Lewandowsky can provide a scientific definition for their terms, or even an English one? How about a career built on making ad hominem attacks against senior scientists? Naomi Orsekes fits that bill. She is the Merchant of Doubt, seeding doubt about whistleblowing scientists who are doing their damnedest to keep standards of science alive.


She finishes:



> Lest it be thought that I want to silence anyone, let it be known that if the AGU organized open debates with the aforementioned, and their scientific critics, I would think that would be a very useful forum. On past form though, all of the above would run a mile from answering their critics face to face. It’s not that I want to silence anyone, it’s the idea that ad hominem attacks, poor research, tragic statistics, and dismal reasoning have any place at the AGU.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article.

Waste Heat as a Contributor to Observed Warming



> I have never looked into the problem very deeply, and have always assumed that the heat generated through our use of electricity and various fuels was, compared to the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, negligibly small. I have assumed that most of the urban heat island effect is “passive”, due to replacing the cooling effects of vegetation with buildings, streets. etc, which warm up more in the sun.
> 
> Now I’m not so sure….at least for industrialized and economically active countries like the U.S., it looks like waste heat production from our energy use could be a major player.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting quotes from the past by NOAA (Phil Jones) & James Hansen. How do they jive with todays NCDC "adjusted" temps?

The NOAA Fraud Hockey Stick



> _February 04, 1989
> 
> Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings._





> _NASA’s James Hansen wrote this in 1999 :
> 
> in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country_


Italics from the link.



> But that wasn’t going to scare anyone out of their money, so they simply altered the data. The graph below shows the difference between today’s NCDC published US temperatures, and the thermometer data which it is based on.


----------



## MacDoc

what a crock - and in fact there wasn't a lot of warming anywhere in the 70s due to S02 influence. As acid rain was cleaned up the solar shield it represented also disappeared.
You have to dredge the denyosphere for little sound bites to satisfy your angst.

In reality the models produced 30 years ago reflected what actually occurred over time and continues.



> Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols).
> 
> To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, a*t a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious* in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then,* underestimating the observed trend by about 30%,* and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.












try some science instead of the right wing claptrap you swallow.

BTW the continental US is not the centre of universe despite what your repuglie fellow travelers would like to believe. It is however very prone to climate extreme events.
The US remains 61% in drought conditions.



> WASHINGTON -- America set an off-the-charts heat record in 2012.
> A brutal combination of a widespread drought and a mostly absent winter pushed the average annual U.S. temperature last year up to 55.32 degrees Fahrenheit, the government announced Tuesday. That's a full degree warmer than the old record set in 1998.
> 
> Breaking temperature records by an entire degree is unprecedented, scientists say. Normally, records are broken by a tenth of a degree or so.
> 
> "It was off the chart," said Deke Arndt, head of climate monitoring at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which calculated the temperature records.
> 
> Last year, he said, will go down as "a huge exclamation point at the end of a couple decades of warming."
> 
> The data center's figures for the entire world won't come out until next week, but through the first 11 months of 2012, the world was on pace to have its eighth warmest year on record.
> 
> Scientists say the U.S. heat is part global warming in action and natural weather variations. The drought that struck almost two-thirds of the nation and a La Nina weather event helped push temperatures higher, along with climate change from man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She said temperature increases are happening faster than scientists predicted.
> 
> "These records do not occur like this in an unchanging climate," said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. "And they are costing many billions of dollars."
> 
> Global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- which sends heat-trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the air, changing the climate, scientists say.
> 
> What's happening with temperatures in the United States is consistent with the long-term pattern of "big heat events that reach into new levels of intensity," Arndt said.
> 
> Last year was 3.2 degrees warmer than the average for the entire 20th century. Last July was the hottest month on record. Nineteen states set yearly heat records in 2012, though Alaska was cooler than average.
> 
> U.S. temperature records go back to 1895 and the yearly average is based on reports from more than 1,200 weather stations across the Lower 48 states.
> 
> Several environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund, took the opportunity to call on the Obama Administration to do more to fight climate change.
> 
> According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 also had the second-most weather extremes on record after hurricane-heavy 1998, based on a complex mathematical formula that includes temperature records, drought, downpours, and land-falling hurricanes.
> 
> Measured by the number of high-damage events, 2012 ranked second after 2011, with 11 different disasters that caused more than $1 billion in damage, including Superstorm Sandy and the drought, NOAA said.
> 
> The drought was the worst since the 1950s and slightly behind the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, meteorologists said. During a drought, the ground is so dry that there's not enough moisture in the soil to evaporate into the atmosphere to cause rainfall, which leads to hotter, drier air. This was fed in the U.S. by La Nina, which is linked to drought.
> 
> Scientists say even with global warming, natural and local weather changes mean that temperatures will go up and down. But overall, temperatures are climbing. In the United States, the temperature trend has gone up 1.3 degrees over the last century, according to NOAA data. The last year the U.S. was cooler than the 20th-century average was 1997.
> 
> The last time the country had a record cold month was December 1983.
> 
> What has scientists so stunned is how far above other hot years 2012 was. Nearly all of the previous 117 years of temperature records were bunched between 51 and 54 degrees.


but of course you know better.......not.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> what a crock


What part? If you're going to call bull****, MacDoc, at least address what you're referring to.



MacDoc said:


> - and in fact there wasn't a lot of warming anywhere in the 70s due to S02 influence. As acid rain was cleaned up the solar shield it represented also disappeared.


Who the hell said anything about the '70s? Or acid rain? Maybe you took too much bad acid in the '70s and that's why you can't carry on a coherent argument now. Maybe you're still on it.



MacDoc said:


> You have to dredge the denyosphere for little sound bites to satisfy your angst.


I don't even have to bend over, let alone dredge, to draw, quarter, tar, feather & ride on a rail anything you've got to post about AGW. Get used to it...



MacDoc said:


> In reality the models produced 30 years ago reflected what actually occurred over time and continues.


That ain't science, that's statistics. Sooner or later he's gonna win that lottery.

Why haven't the models been able to call the past 16 year flatline if they're so damn good?

Look at the post above & read his statement. Hell, I'll repost for you so you don't pull something reaching for that mouse:



> in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country


Those are his words. You don't like 'em? Take it up with him. He's on your speed dial, isn't he? 

And, if you take a good look at that graph from 1981, the spread he gave was something close to 4/10's of a degree. 99/100 chimpanzees could have won that bet with that kind of a spread, too. All he had to do was draw a line through a graph of temperature data from 1945-1981 to get where he got. Some genius...



MacDoc said:


> try some science instead of the right wing claptrap you swallow.


Click a link and learn something.



MacDoc said:


> BTW the continental US is not the centre of universe despite what your repuglie fellow travelers would like to believe.


Precisely. Which is why a drought covering less than two percent of the earth's surface means sweet FA. That's your boys doing all the screeching about the US drought, not mine. Oh, & I love the excuse to leave Alaska, currently in the midst of a cold streak, out of the equation, despite the fact that a large portion of the CONUS data includes stations that have not been continuously operational from 1925 either.



MacDoc said:


> It is however very prone to climate extreme events.
> The US remains 61% in drought conditions.


Who the hell are you & what have you done with MacDoc?

Once again, precisely. Nothing unnatural nor unprecedented with a drought in the US. Happens regularly. Keep going, MacDoc. Still thick as a brick, but yer learnin'...

As to the 61%, so what? Pretty typical after a drought & no subsequent rainfall to have...wait for it...drought conditions. Not unnatural, nor unprecedented (by your own admission), nor connected to anthropogenic causes.



MacDoc said:


> but of course you know better.......not.


Why, yes, yes I do.

Thankyouverymuch.


----------



## FeXL

Further on NASA's recent stunning admission that Sol actually has something to do with climate. (how the hell did they get that past Hansen...)

Breaking: NASA U-turn Admits Global Warming Bias on Sun’s Key Role



> In one of the biggest body blows to climate alarmism comes an astonishing new u-turn from NASA. In essence, the prestigious American space agency has admitted it has been shackled for decades into toeing a political line over man-made global warming so as to play down key solar factors.
> 
> The astonishing NASA announcement comes in the wake of a compelling new study just published titled, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate.” One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, overturned mainstream climate science thinking by declaring even slight changes in solar output have a considerable impact on climate. *Kopp conceded, "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined."*


Bold mine.



> The full report by Dr. Tony Phillips is available from the National Academies Press. *The news story reveals NASA’s upper management was barred from stopping climate activist, James Hansen, head of NASA’s research on climate, from promoting a political agenda.* The NASA climate retreat signals that a paradigm shift is now in full swing and *the discredited claims of man-made global warming alarmists are being tossed aside at the highest levels of government.*


Bold mine.

Shhh... Hear that? That's another spike being driven into the coffin lid. 

Booyah!


----------



## FeXL

Blurb on solar and CO2 forcings.

Commitment studies belie “consensus” claim that a persistent high level of temperature forcing cannot cause continued warming



> They say it all the time: even if there were some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing it couldn’t be responsible for late 20th century warming because solar activity was roughly constant from 1950 to 2000.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "2012 is the warmest" thing...

Focus moved to the contiguous U.S. states: new warm record



> For years, the same people would be telling us that you should never look at America only which is only 1.6% of the globe, or only on Europe. All the inconvenient data from the regions (such as the warm 1930s in the U.S.) are just regional flukes. But when the global flukes refuse to collaborate, even regional flukes may be helpful.


He sums:



> Look at other regions such as Europe or Asia or Australia or... even the notorious Arctic... and you will see that 2012 wasn't spectacular as far as its temperature went.


----------



## FeXL

More of the above.

The Big Lie Becomes Official At NOAA



> I’ve been warning for months that NOAA was going to claim that 2012 was the hottest year ever, regardless of the actual temperatures. They did it today.
> 
> ...
> 
> I will do a more complete analysis later, but for now I want you to focus on the bold sentence above, which claims that 1998 used to be the hottest year in the US.
> 
> In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934.


----------



## FeXL

Another quote from Hansen about the CONUS only representing 1.5% of the earth's area and a similar quote from Gavin Schmidt.

AGU prize-winning climate hoax communicator Gavin Schmidt: Remember when the U.S. was cold, and I told you that U.S. temperatures weren't meaningful? Now that the U.S. was warm, I just remembered that U.S. temperatures *are* meaningful

Hansen, 2009:



> "Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.


Schmidt, 2010:



> NASA: So what's happening in the United States may be quite different than what's happening in other areas of the world?
> 
> *Gavin Schmidt: Yes, especially for short time periods. Keep in mind that that the contiguous United States represents just 1.5 percent of Earth's surface.*


Bold from the link.

Just so you don't get confused:



> Flashback: It's a rule: During cold snaps, the contiguous US is only 1.5 percent of the Earth's surface, and short time periods are meaningless. During warm spells, both US-only data and short time periods *are* meaningful


Gotcha...


----------



## FeXL

More from Donna on TIPPC™...

Cogs in the Climate Machine



> According to media accounts, the IPCC is a scientific marvel.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the Secret Santa leak of three IPCC data sticks sheds a different light on this organization. *It reveals that the individuals who help write its reports don’t, in fact, evaluate the scientific literature and then record their conclusions in a straightforward manner.*
> 
> *Rather, they’re part of a bureaucracy* – one that spends a lot of time worrying about matters that have nothing to do with science.


Bold mine.

TIPPC™ a bureaucracy? Ya don't say...


----------



## FeXL

More "2012 is Warmest" whitewash.

Another glitch on the NCDC State of the Climate report



> Therefore, *by including landfalling tropical cyclones* in the Climate Extremes Index for 2012, *NOAA lowered the ranking*, but *gives the public the impression that landfalling tropical cyclones contributed to the high ranking*—when, in reality, tropical cyclones lowered the 2012 ranking.


----------



## FeXL

On Oilsands pollution.

“Canadian oil sands pollute nearby lakes. Report is blow to Keystone pipeline.” (Or Not)

The punch line?



> This clearly demonstrates that the PAH “pollution” associated with oil sands development is insignificant. The PAH concentrations in most of lakes in the study area are unremarkable when compared to remote lakes in the boreal forest in the 18th and 19th century and are more similar to modern remote lakes than they are to urban and agriculturally developed areas.


----------



## FeXL

New NASA project may show how the Sun drives climate



> *Water vapor and ozone in the stratosphere can have a large impact on Earth's climate. The processes that drive the rise and fall of these compounds, especially water vapor, are not well understood. This limits scientists' ability to predict how these changes will influence global climate in the future.* ATTREX will study moisture and chemical composition in the upper regions of the troposphere, the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere. The tropopause layer between the troposphere and stratosphere, 8 miles to 11 miles above Earth's surface, is the point where water vapor, ozone and other gases enter the stratosphere.
> 
> *Studies have shown even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have significant climate impacts. Predictions of stratospheric humidity changes are uncertain because of gaps in the understanding of the physical processes occurring in the tropical tropopause layer.* ATTREX will use the Global Hawk to carry instruments to sample this layer near the equator off the coast of Central America.


Bold from the link.

Water vapor & ozone, huh? Not CO2?


----------



## FeXL

News article on Warmest Year Ever. Make of it what you will.

Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data



> "2012 [wasn't] necessarily warmer than it was back in the 1930s ... *NOAA has made so many adjustments to the data it's ridiculous,*" Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
> 
> ...
> 
> "Every time NOAA makes adjustments, they make recent years [relatively] warmer. *I am very suspicious, especially for how warm they have made 2012,*" Spencer said.
> 
> ...
> 
> Spencer says that the data do need to be adjusted -- but not the way NOAA did it. For instance, Spencer says that urban weather stations have reported higher temperatures partly because, as a city grows, it becomes a bit hotter. But instead of adjusting directly for that, he says that to make the urban and rural weather readings match, *NOAA “warmed the rural stations’ [temperature readings] to match the urban stations” -- which would make it seem as if all areas were getting a bit warmer.*





> "Is history malleable? *Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose?* It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported ... changes with the moment," Watts told FoxNews.com.
> *
> "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."*


All bold mine.

Jail, huh? Sounds good to me...


----------



## FeXL

More.

NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1)



> As of 1999, NASA showed that 1934 was more than one degree (Fahrenheit) warmer than 1998, and that 1921, 1931 and 1953 were all warmer than 1998.
> 
> ...
> 
> *They now show that 1934 is about 0.1C or 0.2F cooler than 1998. In other words, the total downwards adjustment of 1934 is almost 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit relative to 1998.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The current NOAA claim is that 2012 is 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998, but 1934 used to be 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998. *This means that prior to adjustment, 1934 was hotter than 2012.*
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA makes bold press releases based on hugely altered data, and makes no mention that the data is altered. Then when called out, they claim that the adjustments are small, when in fact _*the adjustments are larger than the trend.*_ The 1930s used to be by far the hottest decade, before the data was adjusted.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Huh?

Catastrophe-Obsessed Potsdam Climate Institute Logic: “When You Eat More, You Lose Weight!”



> The alarmists at the German Potsdam Climate Institute now claim global warming leads to colder and snowier winters, which lead to accelerated ice melt in Antarctica.


Riiiight. Gotta cover both sides of their butts. Or the argument. Or something...



> Didn’t we learn at school that glaciers grow when it snows more? And when it snows less, then they shrink. Now suddenly this is supposed to no longer apply? Very peculiar.


Peculiar ain't exactly the word I would have chosen...



> In a recent study, Dutch scientists investigated the Antarctic ice sheet for the period 1979 – 2010. Here the entire value was examined for Western and Eastern Antarctica. *The scientists were not able to find any significant trend. Ice mass as a whole hardly changed.* The scientists led by Jan Lenaerts of the University of Utrecht published their results in the Geophysical Research Letters in February 2012. In Januar 2012 the Dutch team had already published a paper on melt in Antarctica for the period 1979-2010 in the Geophysical Research Letters. *Here as well no trend was found.*


Yup.



> And Die Welt was quite enraptured by the computer simulations that looked all the way to the year 2500. *Unfortunately, however, the very same models could not even predict the global warming stop of the last 15 years.*


Again, yup.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Climate change is heating up the U.S., national report warns*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View Photo Gallery — Wild weather of 2012: From wildfires in the West, droughts in the Midwest and storms in the East, 2012 will go down as a memorable year for most Americans. Here are some images of weather both in the United States and abroad.
> 
> By Juliet Eilperin,
> 
> Jan 11, 2013 10:04 PM EST
> The Washington Post Updated: Friday, January 11, 5:04 PM
> 
> A federal advisory panel released a massive draft report Friday saying climate change is already damaging the nation’s infrastructure and poses a risk to human health as well as the natural resources supporting Americans’ way of life.
> 
> The draft of the third National Climate Assessment — more than 1,000 pages compiled by more than 300 experts over the past three years — sums up what has become increasingly apparent: The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.
> 
> It warns that these impacts will intensify in the coming decades, given the current rate of global carbon emissions.
> 
> The report does not include policy recommendations, but is designed to guide decisionmakers on the federal, state and local level on how to prepare for a warmer world. In a joint blog post Friday, White House science adviser John P. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote that it is aimed at Americans “who need information about climate change in order to thrive — from farmers deciding which crops to grow, to city planners deciding the diameter of new storm sewers they are replacing, to electric utilities and regulators pondering how to protect the power grid.”
> 
> The draft was posted online Friday afternoon and will be subject to public comment starting Monday. It is scheduled to be finalized in March 2014, after senior policymakers in the administration sign off on its conclusions.
> 
> While the United States has issued assessment reports twice in the past, in 2000 and 2009, this one was much more ambitious. It involved 10 times as many contributors as the one issued four years ago, and focused more heavily on how to adapt to a changing climate and reduce the emissions that are driving it.
> 
> Climate activists and Democratic lawmakers said the assessment revealed gaps in the country’s effort to cope with global warming’s near-term effects and with future emissions that will exacerbate these problems.
> 
> “This draft report sends a warning to all of us: We must act now in a comprehensive fashion to reduce carbon pollution or expose our people to continuing devastation from extreme weather events and their aftermath,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
> 
> Rick Piltz, who worked as a senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and heads the group Climate Science Watch, said the report offers President Obama a rare opening.
> 
> “He’s said he wants to lead a national ‘conversation’ on climate change,” Piltz said. “He should start the national conversation.”
> 
> But congressional Republicans are sure to oppose any such efforts. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who heads the Republican Study Committee, said in a statement that it is clear that Americans will not tolerate any new policies: "Even President Obama acknowledged that our focus right now should be on putting folks back to work and growing the economy – not climate change."
> 
> The overview tackles subjects from ocean acidification to water scarcity, attributing many of these changes to greenhouse gas emissions released through the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> Its executive summary states that not only have extreme weather and climate events become more frequent in recent years, “there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities.”
> 
> The report adds that these changes are exacting an economic toll: “Infrastructure across the U.S. is being adversely affected by phenomena associated with climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours and extreme heat.”
> 
> It also identifies specific vulnerabilities in the Washington region, such as the Chesapeake Bay, which it called “an example of a critical and highly integrated natural and economic system threatened by changing land use patterns and a changing climate — including sea level rise, higher temperatures, and more intense precipitation events.”
> 
> Virginia Beach ranks among the nation’s “most vulnerable port cities,” according to the assessment, after Miami, Greater New York, New Orleans and Tampa/St. Petersburg.
> 
> Human health is likely to suffer as a result of warmer temperatures, according to the assessment. Studies show that a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature could boost the number of premature deaths by 1,000 annually because of worse smog and fine particle pollution. By 2050, the report notes, there could be an additional 4,300 premature deaths per year, costing $6.5 billion nationwide.
> 
> Some sectors of the economy face less immediate threats from a changing climate, according to the analysis. In the next 25 years U.S. agriculture is expected “to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours,” the report states. Over the next 100 years, however, both crops and livestock are likely to suffer as a result.


Climate change is underway in United States, report says - The Washington Post

so they are all part of this global conspiracy eh???  the whacky world of rightwingdings.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> ...so they are all part of this global conspiracy eh???  the whacky world of rightwingdings.


Never write up to conspiracy what can be explained mendacity for a cause and laziness.

From your link:



> The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.


The country is occasionally hot, and less hot than it was in the 1930s. 

2012 was just an average year for storms and U.S. weather is not unusual by historical standards Rainfall patterns remain within the historical norm. 

Seas have not been shown to be rising, except infinitesimally, and storm surges have always threatened both coasts--the worst examples of such surges occurred decades ago. Only heavy building along both coasts makes the damage worse than it used to be.

Why did you bother posting it? It's not as though they're presenting any new research.


----------



## FeXL

> Here are some images of weather both in the United States and abroad.


Weather, not climate.



> The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.


Horse****. The main (but not only) reason the country is hotter is because of the adjustments made to the temperature record. As to the rain/seas BS, peer-reviewed studies show exactly the opposite.



> It warns that these impacts will intensify in the coming decades, given the current rate of global carbon emissions.


Just like the temps have flat-lined for the last 16 years, despite massive amounts of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere.



> The report does not include policy recommendations, but is designed to guide decisionmakers on the federal, state and local level on how to prepare for a warmer world.


Politicizing the whole issue instead of dealing with the science.



> and focused more heavily on how to adapt to a changing climate and *reduce the emissions that are driving it.*


Emissions aren't driving it. CO2 up, no commensurate increase in temps. Asked & answered. Several times.



> Climate activists...


'Nuf said.



> the report offers President Obama a rare opening.


To screw the American people over even more than he already has.



> The overview tackles subjects from ocean acidification to water scarcity, attributing many of these changes to greenhouse gas emissions released through the burning of fossil fuels.


Can I see some peer-reviewed papers on this, please? Not activist, progressive, clap-trap.



> Its executive summary states that not only have extreme weather and climate events become more frequent in recent years,


Again, peer-reviewed studies show exactly the opposite. Asked & answered.



> “Infrastructure across the U.S. is being adversely affected...including sea level rise,


No ****. Have you seen how some of these cities are constructed, especially NYC? This is a wonderful opportunity for politicians to blame infrastructure shortfalls they've ignored for generations on yet another reason they should just sit on their hands.



> ...could boost..., ...could be...


Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Add 'em all up & you've still got sweet FA. there's some progressive science for ya...

Blah, blah, blah.

Still no science, MacDoc. Wanna try agin?


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> News article on Warmest Year Ever. Make of it what you will.
> 
> Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacDoc

Tell ya what Fxl and anyone else that thinks they have ANY science to deny AGW....... how about you sign up here and tackle the scientists that are engaged there.

[Merged] Global Warming Discussion - Page 186 - JREF Forum

You've not shown one post containing any science to counter AGW FXL .....because there is none. All blather and right wing wishful thinking.



> Can I see some peer-reviewed papers on this, please? Not activist, progressive, clap-trap.


snort

Of all the stupid things to pick....there are dozens upon dozens if not hundreds and the Monaco Declaration was supported world wide by scientists engaged in the field.
Not TV weathermen and the likes of Lord Monckton... 



> Declaration approved by 155 scientists from 26 countries, leaders of research into ocean acidification and its impacts. This document is based on the report Research Priorities for Ocean Acidification
> (available at http://ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/HighCO2World.html along with the Declaration, endorsements, and photo credits).


http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pdf/monacodecl061008.pdf

Here chew on these
BG - Abstract - Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean
and



> Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry*—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.*


The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification

You are trying to counter every significant science body in the world. Get a life. Work on what to do about it not whether it's real which is at this point an hilarious stance.

Why did the fossil companies own scientists say it was incontrovertible....or are they in on the scam too......what joke your position is.

You don't read climate and earth science papers anyways. Why should anyone bother supplying you when the science evidence and the actual reality is all around you.

You're in with the anti-evo and ID crowd. Good company for you.

This is just the American list... go tell them they are all wrong.



> Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
> Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
> 
> Scientific Societies
> 
> Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
> 
> "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)
> 
> American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
> 
> "Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
> 
> American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
> 
> "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
> 
> American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
> 
> "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
> 
> American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
> 
> "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
> 
> Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
> 
> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
> 
> American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
> 
> "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
> 
> National Science Academies
> 
> U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
> 
> "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
> 
> International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
> 
> "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
> 
> International academies: The Science of Climate Change
> 
> "Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)
> 
> Research
> 
> National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices
> 
> "Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
> 
> U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
> 
> "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases." (2005)


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

They are not wrong .....you are.


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> You've not shown one post containing any science to counter AGW FXL .....because there is none.


I've gone to the effort of following up on several of FeXL's posts in the past month; digging through the blog posts to finally get down to the peer-reviewed science that ostensibly refutes ACC. I've only found one or two papers that weren't unequivocal in their support of ACC, and I contacted one of these authors for clarification, asking what they thought of people on the internet using their paper as evidence that ACC was not well supported by emperical evidence. The reply was most informative: "F**king idiots."


----------



## Macfury

MAcDoc, those references are so ancient, they smell like blue cheese!


----------



## MacDoc

Yep that was what Gavin Schmidt had to say as well ( somewhat more polite phrase ).

FXL wants peer review - there are 13,000 to go through












> The chart comes from James Lawrence Powell, a geologist, science-writer, and former professor, via DeSmogBlog. Powell reviewed 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January 1991 and November 9, 2012 that mentioned "global warming" or "global climate change."
> *The grand total of articles that questioned global warming or whether rising emissions are the cause: 24.*
> That's 0.17 percent of all the literature on the topic.


what they don't seem to get is that every single climate scientist on the planet would dearly love to be wrong about AGW - they aren't. 
They know the risks.

At this point in time the climate IS altered.....even if we stopped it would be 3,000 years or more before C02 drifted back down to a Holocene level.

Twice what has already occurred is in pipeline due to hysteresis, again even if we stopped cold.

I see no potential that C02 will be curbed any time soon and any way of avoiding a 4C rise....the only real question is when that point might arrive which some think as early as 2060.

At this point just losing coal in the first world would be a positive step and with shale gas that is a very achievable goal
But with the deniers spewing crap and having far too much influence in the world's largest emitter.....slow progress.

At least Obama gets it.....one reason the rightwingdings hate him so much. Sad cases they are on a variety of fronts.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, seriously--you've presented the same tired material over and over. Each time you've been shown that the studies on the studies are rigged, that the models are so flawed that they are almost useless. You've watched CO2 levels rise as temperature remain flat. 

I agree that shale gas should be exploited as quickly as possible. Obama has not been very positive in that regard. It looks like Obama doesn't get it.


----------



## FeXL

After I picked myself up off the floor from LMFAO, I realized I didn't know where to begin...  If nothing else, you provide a lot of low level comedic entertainment for the masses.



MacDoc said:


> Tell ya what Fxl and anyone else that thinks they have ANY science to deny AGW....... how about you sign up here and tackle the scientists that are engaged there.


Tell ya what MacDoc, why don't you pull your pretty head out of your backside and do the same with a few sceptical scientists? You don't even have to sign up, they're a pretty congenial group. Better yet, what say you get a couple of them good old boyz to set down & debate a sceptic or two. Two sides, equal time, impartial moderator. Let 'em have at each other, see whose standing at the end. 

Oh, I forgot. The warmists case is so fragile that they're afraid to debate sceptics, lest they be left looking like fools at the end...



MacDoc said:


> You've not shown one post containing any science to counter AGW FXL .....because there is none. All blather and right wing wishful thinking.


Tell me you've *ever* clicked on a link I've posted to a peer-reviewed paper & actually read it. Go ahead, lie your backside off.



MacDoc said:


> snort
> 
> Of all the stupid things to pick....there are dozens upon dozens if not hundreds and the Monaco Declaration was supported world wide by scientists engaged in the field.
> Not TV weathermen and the likes of Lord Monckton...


Probably millions, actually. And, if you're going to use that angle, do you really want me to start listing the pedigrees of some warmists? 

The problem with thick sods like yourself is that you fail to recognize that "Climate Science" is very much a multidisciplinary field that can benefit from contributions in many areas: math, physics, chemistry, meteorology, statistics, just to name a few. As scientists narrow their field of study towards a particular specialty, they can benefit from the knowledge of others, especially in a broad-based field like "Climate Science". This should be particularly evident in view of the past statistical deconstruction of a certain "hockey stick" and, more recently, in a study of Antarctic temperatures. Surely you recall both of those. Or are you, in fact, in denial...

Instead, you systematically eliminate the opinions and evidence, scientist or not, grounded in fact or not, peer-reviewed or not, of anybody who hasn't reached the Holy Grail status, the hallowed "Climate Scientist". WTF is that, anyways? Somebody who can create enough hysteria with their latest paper to generate more funding? It certainly appears that way...



MacDoc said:


> Here chew on these
> BG - Abstract - Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean


OMG!!! 

A link to an actual, peer-reviewed paper. Do you see that? Not an Op-Ed from the Post or the Atlantic or garbage from SS or RC. Again, MacDoc, you surprise me. That's what, 3 times in the last month? I gotta go write this on the outhouse wall...




MacDoc said:


> and
> 
> The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification


You don't need to quote geologic records of CO2 levels and temps to me. If you would have clicked on a few of those links in the not too distant past, you would have seen that throughout geologic history, CO2 levels have been both significantly higher & somewhat lower than they are today. In addition, global temps have been significantly higher (nearly 10 degrees C) & lower than today. Nothing unusual nor unprecedented with what we have currently.

Which, BTW, is why the alarmist screeching of a 2 degree increase being a point of no return is just so much more hogwash.



MacDoc said:


> You are trying to counter every significant science body in the world.


Nope. Just the ones with a political agenda.




MacDoc said:


> Get a life. Work on what to do about it not whether it's real which is at this point an hilarious stance.


I have a very nice life, thankyouverymuch. It is the quality of that which makes it easier to deal with the likes of you...



MacDoc said:


> Why did the fossil companies own scientists say it was incontrovertible....or are they in on the scam too......what joke your position is.


Jeezuz...this again? 



MacDoc said:


> You don't read climate and earth science papers anyways. Why should anyone bother supplying you when the science evidence and the actual reality is all around you.


Once again, you display your ignorance. You have no idea what I read. As to your question, to defend your position. Otherwise, it's just so much beer talk. Or, in your particular case, bull****. 

As to "actual reality", whose reality? Here's some reality for you: flat-lined temps for the last 16 years. Flat-lined temps predicted for the next 4 years (making it a total of 20) by your wonderful models. Explain...



MacDoc said:


> You're in with the anti-evo and ID crowd.


I don't even know WTF this means...



MacDoc said:


> Good company for you.


If, by this, you mean asking what's in the kool-aid rather than just emulating the warmists & drinking it, yes, I'd agree.



MacDoc said:


> This is just the American list... go tell them they are all wrong.
> 
> They are not wrong .....you are.


What a joke. I jes' luvs me sum science by consensus...

Most of them scientists thought Piltdown Man was real, too. Then, somebody got sceptical...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Better yet, what say you get a couple of them good old boyz to set down & debate a sceptic or two. Two sides, equal time, impartial moderator. Let 'em have at each other, see whose standing at the end.


Dude, do you have any idea what science *is*? This is exactly what has been going on for the past few decades; there was no consensus to start with, but years and years of argument and accumulating evidence has led to the current situation. It was far more than "a couple of them good ol' boyz"; thousands of researchers debated this for many years and guess who was "left standing." Sure, there are a few fringe types who continue to deny the obvious, but the scientific community has moved on. I'm afraid you are mistaking those fringe types in their echo chamber for the established scientific community. For every one of the dozen or so people with any substantive training in climatology who disputes ACC, you can find literally hundreds of people with comparable or greater expertise who have been convinced by the evidence.


> Most of them scientists thought Piltdown Man was real, too.


Your knowledge of science is astonishing for it's complete lack of congruence with reality.


wikipedia said:


> From the outset, scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[10] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> A link to an actual, peer-reviewed paper. Do you see that? Not an Op-Ed from the Post or the Atlantic or garbage from SS or RC. Again, MacDoc, you surprise me. That's what, 3 times in the last month? I gotta go write this on the outhouse wall...


deSmogBlog reports that hits on their site fell dramatically last week...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> From the outset, scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[10] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.


In he same way, AGW is being taken apart piece by piece. 16 years of failed models and flat temperatures may not be enough for some, but eventually AGW will join the ranks of PIltdown Man as an object of bemusement.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> what they don't seem to get is that every single climate scientist on the planet would dearly love to be wrong about AGW - they aren't.


Once again, the same bull****. Only "climate scientists" know the truth and the truth is singular.



MacDoc said:


> They know the risks.


Yeah, it's called losing your funding... 



MacDoc said:


> ...even if we stopped it would be 3,000 years or more before C02 drifted back down to a Holocene level.


What does this mean, a "Holocene" level? Which part of the Holocene? 'Cause CO2 levels have been all over the place during the Holocene and I'm just wondering which concentration you're talking about.



MacDoc said:


> Twice what has already occurred is in pipeline due to hysteresis, again even if we stopped cold.


Whose prognosis is this? Is this the much vaunted TIPPC™ crew whose best case Scenario C temperatures, based on "...a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.", is higher than current global temperatures despite a business as usual approach from the planet?



MacDoc said:


> I see no potential that C02 will be curbed any time soon and any way of avoiding a 4C rise....the only real question is when that point might arrive which some think as early as 2060.


Jeezuz...2 degrees, 4 degrees, 97 degrees, by noon tomorrow. All modelled, all hysterics, little truth.



MacDoc said:


> At this point just losing coal in the first world would be a positive step and with shale gas that is a very achievable goal


Then tell me, oh wise one, why so many people who are screeching about CO2 levels are also the ones fighting hardest against fracking? Is it basic stupidity or genetics?



MacDoc said:


> But with the deniers spewing crap and having far too much influence in the world's largest emitter.....slow progress.


Yes, it's that big oil funded "deniosphere". Still waiting for my cheque...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> In he same way, AGW is being taken apart piece by piece. 16 years of failed models and flat temperatures may not be enough for some, but eventually AGW will join the ranks of PIltdown Man as an object of bemusement.


The so-called scientist, frequently citing consensus, asking me if I know what science is...

And Wiki, much like TIPPC™, an outstanding, irrefutable, resource.

And Piltdown, despite being recognized as a fraud from the beginning by some, still took 40 years to completely debunk.


----------



## SINC

This was posted over in the religion thread, but sure applies here. Last I checked Dawkins was well respected and knowledgable:


jef said:


> The biblical 10 commandments are outdated and, well, silly, since no one can possibly live by them in today's world.
> 
> Richard Dawkins published these alternatives in his book 'the God Delusion' which make much more sense as they are practical:
> 
> 1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
> 2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.
> 3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
> 4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
> 5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
> 6) Always seek to be learning something new.
> *7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
> 8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.*
> *9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.*
> *10) Question everything.*


Seems to me that 7,8, 9 and 10 fit this thread perfectly and frankly call into question some people's opinions here. Bold mine.


----------



## heavyall

*Global warming stopped 16 years ago*



> On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.
> 
> *This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong.* They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming.





> We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. *The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.*
> 
> There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.
> 
> Yet *the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.*
> 
> Some scientists are revisiting some basic assumptions of climate prediction models, such as the effects of clouds and smoke particles in the atmosphere. They now think that the claim that the warming effect of CO2 is ‘amplified’ by things such as cloud cover have been seriously exaggerated. In their view, doubling CO2 may only warm the world by 1.5 degrees or so, giving us many more decades to develop lower carbon energy sources.


bolds mine.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now? | Mail Online


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> In he same way, AGW is being taken apart piece by piece.


If this were true, I'd be very relieved. But sadly it's not. The data in support of AGW just keeps accumulating.



> 16 years of failed models


The only peer-reviewed science I've seen recently regarding the models was pointing out how surprisingly accurate they were, given the limitations of the computer systems of the 90's. Maybe in your universe science is done differently.


> but eventually AGW will join the ranks of PIltdown Man as an object of bemusement.


If it does, I'll be has happy as anyone. As it's not my feild, I'll have to wait for the climatologists to reach this conclusion, and every indication is that the climatologists are headed in the opposite direction.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If this were true, I'd be very relieved. But sadly it's not. The data in support of AGW just keeps accumulating.


Again, I would be relieved to know the world is warming. However, I no longer have confidence in that.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> This was posted over in the religion thread, but sure applies here. Last I checked Dawkins was well respected and knowledgable:


Yes, I agree with everything in that list.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to develop the expertise on highly technical fields like climatology to necessary to question the consensus among the experts regarding ACC. Given my expertise and experience with the culture of science, it strikes me as wildly implausible that such a consensus could emerge without extraordinarily compelling and consistent evidence from many independent sources. Furthermore, it strikes me as highly implausible that the sudden release of energy and reduced carbon that had been sequestered by global ecosystems over hundreds of millions of years would not have significant climatological impacts. 

While I certainly wish it weren't the case, I have very little reason to doubt the conclusion that thousands of trained experts in the field have reached. And when I find the people claiming otherwise are chronically misquoting, cherry picking and misinterpreting the peer-reviewed science, and that the scientists I know in this and related fields roll their eyes in response to the denier arguments posted here and in various blogs on line, it all adds up to compelling evidence that the climatologists are right and the climate-change-deniers are puppets of the Oil industry and other powerful entrenched interests trying to delay the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels.


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Again, I would be relieved to know the world is warming. However, I no longer have confidence in that.


^^This.^^ 

I spend more money than I can realistically afford every year to escape cold weather even just for a week or two. I sincerely WISH I was wrong. I want it to get a lot warmer.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Yes, I agree with everything in that list.


And if that is the case, (and I thought you would), then those you call deniers are simply following Dawkins suggestions with their questioning the science. How can you fault that given your agreement with Dawkins views?

I am not trying to argue one way or the other, but I do think it is clear that even Dawkins seems to be saying, trust nothing and he certainly, at least by my interpretation makes it clear that point nine: 

*"Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others" *

goes against your theory that we must trust the experts and blindly accept their interpretations of the climate data gathered to date.


----------



## iMouse

Not to spoil your dream, but were that to happen millions of people would be displaced with rising sea levels.

And starvation would result.

In any event, it will not happen quickly enough to affect the life of anyone here very much.

Changing rainfall patterns could, however.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Not to spoil your dream, but were that to happen millions of people would be displaced with rising sea levels.
> 
> And starvation would result.
> 
> In any event, it will not happen quickly enough to affect the life of anyone here very much.
> 
> Changing rainfall patterns could, however.


 In the future, the world could be cooling, warming or staying the same. In the absence of _status quo_, I go with warming. Cold weather kills far more people than heat waves.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> In the future, the world could be cooling, warming or staying the same. In the absence of _status quo_, I go with warming. Cold weather kills far more people than heat waves.


I believe so too, if you check the numbers for the Earth's mantel.

It's one massive heat-sink, and it's getting warmer.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> I believe so too, if you check the numbers for the Earth's mantel.
> 
> It's one massive heat-sink, and it's getting warmer.


The _missing _heat, predicted by the failed models.


----------



## heavyall

iMouse said:


> Not to spoil your dream, but were that to happen millions of people would be displaced with rising sea levels.


Where's the evidence (other than computer models), that the sea levels even would rise by a dangerous amount with a gradual increase in temperature? The ice that's already in the sea wouldn't make levels rise, and the ice that's on land is a drop in a bucket compared to the water in the ocean. The arctic ocean doesn't rise and fall catastrophically every year as arctic ice thaws and refreezes.


----------



## iMouse

heavyall said:


> Where's the evidence (other than computer models), that the sea levels even would rise by a dangerous amount with a gradual increase in temperature?.


Glaziers and ice shelves are calving like nothing before in recorded history.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Glaziers and ice shelves are calving like nothing before in recorded history.


Grab your favorite search engine, read some about Glacier Bay, Alaska. Between 1780 and 1892, the ice retreated 50 miles, all the while CO2 was under 300ppm. That's 8 feet per day for the division challenged.

Tell ya what. I'll even provide the first link.

Then, go find me a current glacier that's anywhere close to that rate. Just one. Anywhere in the world. Fill your boots. Cherry pick away. 

I'll wait...


----------



## iMouse

How does the NG suit you?


----------



## FeXL

2012 Was The Second Hottest Year In The US After 1934



> The final data is in, and an apples to apples comparison (using only the same set of all 821 GHCN HCN stations continuously active since at least 1920) shows that 2012 was slightly cooler than 1934, and that the trend since 1920 is downwards. The US has been cooling for 90 years.
> 
> 2012 was an anomaly, not the new normal.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Met Office dropped prediction.

Skeptic win: UK Met Office quietly drops prediction by 20%, hopes no one notices



> “If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and *it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions*, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility,” said David Whitehouse (of the Global Warming Policy Foundation) .
> 
> “I*t will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track.*”


Bold mine.

By all means, have another pull on that kool-aid, boyz...


----------



## FeXL

Roger Pielke Jr tweets:



> With tabloid fare like this http://nyti.ms/XTJ7Zk the end of NYT enviro desk couldn't come soon enough. Now where did I put that button?


If you know not of what button he speaks, here's some help...


----------



## iMouse

Oh, like Oliver, you want more?


----------



## FeXL

WSJ Op Ed: Global warming lobby discredited by exaggerations & self-righteousness



> Said the New York Times climate blog, in an assertion that was echoed throughout the media: "The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but 2012 blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
> 
> Really? If that were true, then hair-on-fire news should have been the fact that 2012 was 2.13 degrees hotter than 2011. That's a far more dramatic change, and in a single year.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Times article.

NYT pushes crazy claims about “extreme weather” but public interest wanes



> All this recent shift to pushing “extreme weather” in the clueless MSM made me wonder how the public is responding to it. Obviously, the use of the term has been dramatically on the rise, in fact it is a veritable hockey stick:
> 
> ...
> 
> But, I was really surprised at the public response. It seems that the public just might be smarter than the MSM and the AGW doomers think, or maybe they are just fed up with hype. Search trends on Google are flat:


----------



## FeXL

Searchable Secret Santa



> Three days ago, when I announced the Secret Santa leak of nearly 1 gigabyte of internal Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents, I remarked that it would be a marvelous thing if someone had the technical skills to make all of this material searchable online.
> 
> A good IT fairy named Simon Barnett has done just that – and I have been remiss in not sharing this information before now. The address to the search engine is here: IPCC Secret Santa Leak


----------



## iMouse

Hello???

Is anyone home??

Except pundits?


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Oh, like Oliver, you want more?


Tell ya what. I'll give ya a break 'cause yer new here. 

One chance to actually engage in discussion, otherwise you're just a sniper like some of the other idiots here & I could care less. You'll just be ignored. Savvy?

1. It's well known that the poles are on opposing cycles as far as ice coverage is concerned. When the Arctic is high, the Antarctic is low and vice versa. Agreed?

2. Right now the Arctic is on a low. Agreed?

3. At the same time, *every day for 2012*, the Antarctic ice was at or above average levels and actually broke over 20 records (some daily records and at least 2 all time records). Agreed?

As to your NG article, I've read it & a number of others about Shepherd's paper. There may be some issues with the data. I'll leave a link for you to go over. It goes to a sceptic site. If that offends you & you won't go there, then you are not interested in carrying on a discussion, you are interested in "consensus science" & that dog won't hunt.

As to my initial question, still waiting for news of a glacier anywhere that's retreating 8 feet per day...

PS Your snark about Oliver. I give what I get. You treat me with respect, you'll get it back. You wanna go play in the sewer, I've known a sewer rat or two in my life. Your call...

PPS I just previewed this post, only to see you've made another smartass comment. That's strike 2. If you want a response at all, ask the question or make your point, shut the hole under your nose and wait. There isn't a person on this blog that doesn't have far more important things to do than check ehMac every 5 minutes. It may even take a day or two before you get a response, depending on how much else is going on. ehMac stopped being a priority a long time ago.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> And if that is the case, (and I thought you would), then those you call deniers are simply following Dawkins suggestions with their questioning the science. How can you fault that given your agreement with Dawkins views?


Because it's not useful to simply be skeptical of everything and everyone all the time; in a perfect world, yes we would all form our own rational opinions on every subject. But in that perfect world we would all have the opportunity to develop the expertise and have access to the necessary data to form rational opinions on any subject. If thousands of cardiologists all agree that X is the best course of treatment for condition Y, and there are a couple of homeopaths who suggest an alternative remedy, ideally you should read all the relevant research and decide for yourself. But most of us are going to accept the consensus of experts (although a few will go with the homeopaths, and there will be a few of those who wind up doing fine anyway).

WRT climate science, I have always said that I have no objection to someone disputing the consensus among climatologists **once they have the relevant training**. By all means, go and spend a couple of decades doing a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics or some relevant discipline, and then, if you still think ACC is bunk, I'll be happy to listen to you and will take your opinion seriously. But when it's just some guy on the internet citing blog posts, it's not reasonable to presume that dissenting voice has the same credibility as the 98% of climatologists who say otherwise.

It's not just a case of "he said - she said." There are a tiny number of dissenters with relevant training (and I can find similar numbers of people with Ph.D.s in biological sciences who dispute evolution; there will always be oddballs who go against the flow, regardless of evidence), and thousands and thousands of climatologists who agree on the ACC interpretation. In science, it's extraordinary to get 50% of researchers agreeing on an given explanation for a set of data. To have this level of agreement is nothing short of astounding.


----------



## SINC

That's pretty much what I figured the response would be. You're right and Dawkins is wrong.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> That's pretty much what I figured the response would be. You're right and Dawkins is wrong.


Having met and talked with Dr. Dawkins, I have no doubt that he would agree with me. The list of ideals you are making reference to are necessarily oversimplifications. You can't reasonably expect to be able to apply them to all circumstances without caveats (unless you're the religious type that believes in perfect divine laws that can be mindlessly applied to all problems).

So I don't think I'm right and Dawkins is wrong; I think we're both right, and one has to "think for oneself" about what one is qualified to think for oneself about. We can't all be experts on everything, and recognizing the limits of one's own expertise is a central aspect of intelligence.


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming?……. It was warmer in Sydney in 1790



> For while the mercury peaked at 42.3 C last Tuesday at Observatory Hill in Sydney – more than 222 years ago at 1.00pm on the 27th Dec 1790 (measured at a location just stones-throw from Observatory Hill) the mercury hit 108.5 F (42.5 C) before peaking at 109 F (42.8 C) at 2.20pm.


Not. So. Unprecedented.


----------



## FeXL

Yup. That global warming sure makes weather events more extreme...

Not.

Preliminary Tornado Report for 2012: a low year



> Although they rather grudgingly comment that “tornado activity during 2012 was below average”, the impression is clearly given that tornado numbers in recent years, and even 2012, are much higher than in earlier decades. And, of course, many readers will simply look at the graph, read the first paragraph, and walk away with that very impression.


In summary:



> Given the misleading data recently issued by other bodies, such as the UK Met Office, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that NOAA deliberately took the decision to publish this particular graph, rather than the more relevant strong tornadoes version, in order to promote their message that “extreme weather” is increasing.
> 
> *For the second time this week, I am forced to ask the question - “ Is this really what “science” has come down to?"*


Unfortunately, for many, yes.


----------



## FeXL

On EPA's Lisa Jackson's (Richard Windsor's?) multiple email accounts.

Today is D-Day — Delivery Day — for Richard Windsor’s Emails



> Specifically, EPA owes us a cache of identified emails to or from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson *(by pure coincidence, that’s now “outgoing Administrator Jackson”…)*, using one or more of four keywords: coal, climate, endanger/endangerment and/or MACT (“war on coal” emails).


Bold mine.

Most interested in this outcome.


----------



## FeXL

On Scientific American's blog censorship.

Note to Scientific American’s Bora Zivkovic: “If you want to practice censorship, at least learn to spell the name of this blog correctly”



> Even funnier, Bora has now removed the comment at his blog noting the comment has been removed! I saw it earlier, noting 5 comments including that one, and I refreshed to see if other commenters had weighed in only to discover it vanished.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Acton & Russell's FOIA legislation tribunal.

Acton and Muir Russell at Tribunal



> David will have an extremely difficult time pinning down either Acton or Russell. The transcripts of the Science and Technology Committee show that both are prone to give lengthy and unresponsive answers, thereby running out the clock.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds European temperatures are not unusual or unprecedented

Abstract.



> The heat of summer 2003 in Western and Central Europe was claimed to be unprecedented since the Middle Ages on the basis of grape harvest data (GHD) and late wood maximum density (MXD) data from trees in the Alps. This paper shows that the authors of these studies overlooked the fact that *the heat and drought in Switzerland in 1540 likely exceeded the amplitude of the previous hottest summer of 2003*, because the persistent temperature and precipitation anomaly in that year, described in an abundant and coherent body of documentary evidence, severely affected the reliability of GHD and tree-rings as proxy-indicators for temperature estimates. *Spring–summer (AMJJ) temperature anomalies of 4.7 °C to 6.8 °C being significantly higher than in 2003 were assessed for 1540 from a new long Swiss GHD series (1444 to 2011).* During the climax of the heat wave in early August the grapes desiccated on the vine, which caused many vine-growers to interrupt or postpone the harvest despite full grape maturity until after the next spell of rain. Likewise, the leaves of many trees withered and fell to the ground under extreme drought stress as would usually be expected in late autumn. It remains to be determined by further research whether and how far this result obtained from local analyses can be spatially extrapolated. *Based on the temperature estimates for Switzerland it is assumed from a great number of coherent qualitative documentary evidence about the outstanding heat drought in 1540 that AMJJ temperatures were likely more extreme in neighbouring regions of Western and Central Europe than in 2003.* Considering the significance of soil moisture deficits for record breaking heat waves, these results still need to be validated with estimated seasonal precipitation. It is concluded that biological proxy data may not properly reveal record breaking heat and drought events. Such assessments thus need to be complemented with the critical study of contemporary evidence from documentary sources which provide coherent and detailed data about weather extremes and related impacts on human, ecological and social systems.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Whew! That was close...

Obama Granted Last Minute Reprieve!



> Four years ago, the world’s greatest climatologist gave Obama until January 17, 2013 to save the planet.
> 
> ...
> 
> Obama was down to his last few hours, but MIT has come through with a last minute reprieve.
> 
> ...
> 
> The CO2 gods are truly merciful and benevolent.


----------



## FeXL

The 1930s Were The Hottest And Driest Years In The US



> NCDC says that 1930s were the driest years, much drier than the present.
> 
> ...
> 
> The EPA says that the 1930s were the hottest years
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA used to say that the 1930s were the hottest years, before they altered their data.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hansen used to say that the 1930s were the hottest and driest years.
> 
> ...
> 
> People who lived in the 1930s didn’t have any doubt.


----------



## FeXL

TIm Ball: Remember a few months ago, when NCDC told us that the July 1936 temperature was 77.4 degrees? They just remembered that the actual July 1936 temperature was 76.4 degrees



> Strangely, NCDC changes temperature data even from the distant past without notification. For example, NCDC now asserts that the average temperature in July 1936 was 76.4 degrees, a full degree cooler than the 77.4 degrees that they claimed for the month in the July 2012 SOTC report. This allows them to continue to say that July 2012 set a record.


----------



## heavyall

FeXL said:


> TIm Ball: Remember a few months ago, when NCDC told us that the July 1936 temperature was 77.4 degrees? They just remembered that the actual July 1936 temperature was 76.4 degrees


This is the part that really makes me angry. The warmists keep bleating about ignoring science, but is it science if they keep making up their own facts? If you go back and change past data to make it fit your hypothesis, that's not science, that FRAUD.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> This is the part that really makes me angry. The warmists keep bleating about ignoring science, but is it science if they keep making up their own facts? If you go back and change past data to make it fit your hypothesis, that's not science, that FRAUD.


bryanc will tell you that they're changing the past record for honourable reasons.

Remember that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## FeXL

heavyall said:


> This is the part that really makes me angry. The warmists keep bleating about ignoring science, but is it science if they keep making up their own facts? If you go back and change past data to make it fit your hypothesis, that's not science, that FRAUD.


The thing that bothers me most about the adjustments to the early record is that they're always down. Then, as the temperature record becomes more recent, suddenly the adjustments are upwards, creating a graph with a (more) positive trend.

In addition, how about letting people know why the adjustments are being made? And when? And why are some organizations making the adjustments and some not? There is no consistency whatsoever and you're not sure who to believe. "None of the above" comes to mind...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc will tell you that they're changing the past record for honourable reasons.


On the contrary, I completely agree that data fabrication or alteration is unacceptable. I also know that this is the standard in any quantitative field, but that there are routinely well-documented and well-understood corrections to almost any kind of empirical data. I have no reason to doubt that these standards are being adhered to in climatology, and I am confident that if systematic fraud were occurring, there would be many researchers eager to pounce on it for their own benefit.

It is also obviously the case that no one here is qualified to judge wether any untoward data manipulation has occurred or not. You don't know what is being done to the data, you don't know why, you don't know how data is normally processed, you don't know how data has been processed in the past; basically, you don't know jack.

Come back and tell us about how this is all fraudulent after you've earned your Ph.D. in the field and actually have something of substance to contribute.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> On the contrary, I completely agree that data fabrication or alteration is unacceptable. I also know that this is the standard in any quantitative field, but that there are routinely well-documented and well-understood corrections to almost any kind of empirical data. I have no reason to doubt that these standards are being adhered to in climatology, and I am confident that if systematic fraud were occurring, there would be many researchers eager to pounce on it for their own benefit.
> 
> It is also obviously the case that no one here is qualified to judge wether any untoward data manipulation has occurred or not. You don't know what is being done to the data, you don't know why, you don't know how data is normally processed, you don't know how data has been processed in the past; basically, you don't know jack.
> 
> Come back and tell us about how this is all fraudulent after you've earned your Ph.D. in the field and actually have something of substance to contribute.


This condescending attitude is really getting tiresome. People are entitled to their opinions in spite of your efforts to tell us we are not. Some DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE. Try and get over it and stop with the pompous, over the top, science based, know it all stuff.


----------



## Macfury

I could have written that post for bryanc with a high degree of accuracy. Another homily from the scientist priest clan.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> People are entitled to their opinions


Of course they are; but they are not entitled to their own facts. And they can't call their opinions science unless they follow the rules of science, which includes peer-review.


> Some DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE.


Sure, there are people who deny evolution, plate tectonics, the heliocentric solar system, and anthropogenic climate change. Lots of people are too invested in their world view to accept the evidence of science and reason; we do try to treat them with some respect, because it's not nice to laugh at idiots.



> Try and get over it and stop with the pompous, over the top, science based, know it all stuff.


That's a deep vein of irony you've found there SINC. The whole point of my argument here is that I **don't** know it all, and neither does anyone else here. And, from such a position of ignorance, to suggest thousands of professional scientists who have Ph.D.s in relevant fields are making trivially obvious errors or are engaged in massive fraud is the height of hubris.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Of course they are; but they are not entitled to their own facts. And they can't call their opinions science unless they follow the rules of science, which includes peer-review.
> 
> Sure, there are people who deny evolution, plate tectonics, the heliocentric solar system, and anthropogenic climate change. Lots of people are too invested in their world view to accept the evidence of science and reason; we do try to treat them with some respect, because it's not nice to laugh at idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a deep vein of irony you've found there SINC. The whole point of my argument here is that I **don't** know it all, and neither does anyone else here. And, from such a position of ignorance, to suggest thousands of professional scientists who have Ph.D.s in relevant fields are making trivially obvious errors or are engaged in massive fraud is the height of hubris.


:clap:


----------



## FeXL

Prepare yourself...

Hansen and Karl to put on a “worse than we thought” event



> From a press release, apparently the writer has no clue that the NASA GISS data is a derivative of the NOAA data, and thus the claim of “NASA and NOAA each independently produce a record of Earth’s surface temperatures…” is untrue. They then go on to talk about “how much agreement there is”. Only government climate science could be this ridiculous. – Anthony


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows sunshine on the Balkan Peninsula significantly increased over past 50 years

Abstract.



> We present the first summer sunshine reconstruction from tree-ring data for the western part of the Balkan Peninsula. Summer sunshine is tightly connected with moisture stress in trees, because the moisture stress and therefore the width of annual tree-rings is under the influence of the direct and interactive effects of sunshine duration (temperature, precipitation, cloud cover and evapotranspiration). The reconstruction is based on a calibrated z-scored mean chronology, calculated from tree-ring width measurements from 7 representative black pine (Pinus ***** Arnold) sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). A combined regression and scaling approach was used for the reconstruction of the summer sunshine. We found a significant negative correlation (r = −0.54, p < 0.0001) with mean June–July sunshine hours from Osijek meteorological station (Croatia). The developed model was used for reconstruction of summer sunshine for the time period 1660–2010. We identified extreme summer events and compared them to available documentary historical sources of drought, volcanic eruptions and other reconstructions from the broader region. All extreme summers with low sunshine hours (1712, 1810, 1815, 1843, 1899 and 1966) are connected with volcanic eruptions.


Once again, posted with my usual reservations about dendro- work. Take from it what you will.

Edit: That said, the conclusion does support other papers who have arrived at the identical solution via other methods.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 63% less than IPCC claims 

Abstract.



> *Climate sensitivity is a crucial parameter in global temperature modelling.* An estimate is made at the time 33.4 Ma using published high-resolution deep-sea temperature proxy obtained from foraminiferal δ18O records from DSDP site 744, combined with published data for atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) from carbonate microfossils, where δ11B provides a proxy for pCO2. The pCO2 data shows a pCO2 decrease accompanying the major cooling event of about 4 °C from greenhouse conditions to icecap conditions following the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (33.7 My). During the cooling pCO2 fell from 1150 to 770 ppmv. The cooling event was followed by a rapid and huge increase in pCO2 back to 1130 ppmv in the space of 50 000 yr. *The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C. Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter is 1.1 ± 0.4 °C (66% confidence) compared with the IPCC central value of 3 °C.* The post Eocene-Oligocene transition (33.4 Ma) value of 1.1 °C obtained here is lower than those published from Holocene and Pleistocene glaciation-related temperature data (800 Kya to present) but is of *similar order to sensitivity estimates published from satellite observations of tropospheric and sea-surface temperature variations*. The value of 1.1 °C is grossly different from estimates up to 9 °C published from paleo-temperature studies of Pliocene (3 to 4 Mya) age sediments. The range of apparent climate sensitivity values available from paleo-temperature data suggests that either feedback mechanisms vary widely for the different measurement conditions, or additional factors beyond currently used feedbacks are affecting global temperature-CO2 relationships.


Bold from the link.

One more thing the models are getting wrong...


----------



## FeXL

New paper confirms findings of Lindzen & Spencer of very low climate sensitivity to CO2

Abstract.



> Top-of-the-Atmosphere (TOA) net radiative flux anomalies from Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy Systems (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) and surface air temperature anomalies from HadCRUT3 were compared for the time interval September 2000–May 2011. In a phase plane plot with the radiative flux anomalies lagging the temperature anomalies with 7 months the phase plane curve approached straight lines during about an eight months long period at the beginning and a five year period at the end of the interval. Both of those periods, but more clearly the latter one, could be connected to the occurrence of distinct El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episodes. This result is explained by using a hypothesis stating that non-radiative forcing connected to the ENSO is dominating the temperature changes during those two periods and that there is a lag between the temperature change and the radiative flux feedback. According to the hypothesis the slopes of the straight lines equal the value of the climate feedback parameter. By linear regression based on the mentioned five year period the value of the climate feedback parameter was estimated to *5.5 ± 0.6 W m−2 K−1* (± two standard errors).


Bold from the link.

From the paper:



> This corresponds to a very low climate sensitivity *that disagrees with the majority of the other estimations of the climate sensitivity...*
> 
> ...
> 
> *the value found here agrees with the report by Spencer and Braswell (2010)*
> 
> ...
> 
> The value found in this study *also agrees with Lindzen and Choi (2011*) who also considered the eﬀects of lead-lag relations."


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Ryan Maue, a meteorologist, explains to warmists how to eliminate those troublesome 30's temps.



> To increase record highs vs. lows ratios, make sure to include stations w/periods-of-record of 30-35 years, start off in 1976-77 if possible
> 
> ...
> 
> This avoids the inconvenient 1930s which may contain all-time highs for some stations. Just throw them out or correct them for something.


Let's see if I can get this:

<sniff> "'Bout right..."

That'll do.


----------



## FeXL

Australia – was hot and is hot. So what? This is not an unusual heat-wave



> The media are in overdrive, making out that “the extreme heat is the new normal” in Australia. The Great Australian Heatwave of January 2013 didn’t push the mercury above 50C at any weather station in Australia, yet it’s been 50C (122F) and hotter in many inland towns across Australia over the past century. See how many are in the late 1800′s and early to mid 1900′s. You can’t blame those high records on man made global warming.


No, but it will be only a matter of time before those temps start getting adjusted downwards...


----------



## MacDoc

and the heat goes on...



> *Ocean Heat Came Back to Haunt Australia*
> Posted on 15 January 2013 by Rob Painting
> 
> Over the last 50 years an enormous amount of energy, equivalent to two Hiroshima bombs per second, has gone into heating the global oceans. Because of their much greater mass, the oceans have a thermal capacity roughly one thousand times greater than the atmosphere. This means that despite this huge increase in accumulated energy, the change in upper ocean temperature is small compared to that of global surface air temperatures.
> 
> Upper ocean heat buried beneath the surface layers doesn't necessarily remain in the ocean though. For instance, the largest year-to-year fluctuation in global temperature generally occurs in response to the Pacific Ocean phenomenon called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Variation in ocean circulation and surface winds typically expose warmer-than-average sea surface water to the atmosphere during El Niño, and cooler-than-average sea surface water during La Niña episodes (check out this brilliant animation to understand the fundamental process). The resultant ocean-to-atmosphere heat exchange has a major influence on global surface temperature in any given year, and this works to obscure the long-term surface global warming trend when viewed at short intervals.
> 
> Due to the huge difference in heat capacities between the ocean and atmosphere, what may in fact be a small amount of ocean heat transforms into a major bout of atmospheric warming when this heat is transferred from the ocean to atmosphere. A poignant example is the record-breaking heat wave which has recently enveloped all of Australia.
> 
> A heat wave requires a number of 'weather fluctuation stars to align', so-to-speak, but the role of the ocean in this heat wave is demonstrated in the animation below - where a pulse of oceanic heat rapidly accumulates in the surface Indian Ocean around Western Australia and propagates eastward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 1 -_ Global sea surface temperature anomalies (departures from the average) for the period 17th December 2012 to 10th January 2013. The maps are from the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The temperature bar is in °C and the anomalies are relative to the long-term average at each location for that time of year._
> 
> The marine heat wave which contributed to this record-breaking Australian heat wave, may (hopefully) have been of short enough duration to prevent a mass mortality of marine life in the oceans around Australia, unlike a long-ish marine heat wave off Western Australia in early 2011, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, the vast accumulation of heat in the ocean going on right now may be "out of sight, out of mind" for many, but the extra heat being added to the upper levels of the ocean will have consequences for humanity, as this Australian heat wave amply demonstrates.
> 
> Like the giant European, Russian, and United States heat waves before this, the Australian heat wave will slowly fade in the collective memory of the public consciousness, but it may not be too long before another rears its head to inflict suffering. We have seen a historic increase in record-breaking temperatures globally (Hansen [2012]) and, due to the well-understood physically-based scientific foundation (weather fluctuations operating within a warmer background climate state), we have to expect more frequent and more intense heat waves in the future (although their proximate causes are likely to differ).
> 
> *On our current trajectory, these extreme record-breaking summer temperatures are set to effectively become the norm by around mid 21st century (Anderson [2011])*. If this occurs it will present a formidable challenge, not only to human society in the form of wildfires and such, but to human agriculture and the many natural ecosystems that afford us our current lifestyles and feed 7 billion people. It might prove useful for our global society to act in order to prevent this scenario from becoming reality, something not even attempted thus far. Our children and grandchildren might think it was very useful of us.


Ocean Heat Came Back to Haunt Australia


----------



## MacDoc

> 15 January 2013 Last updated at 12:59 ET
> 
> *Climate change: Soot's role underestimated, says study*
> Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wood fire The burning of wood is a major source of black carbon the world over.
> 
> Black carbon, or soot, is making a much larger contribution to global warming than previously recognised, according to research.
> 
> Scientists say that particles from diesel engines and wood burning could be having twice as much warming effect as assessed in past estimates.
> 
> They say it ranks second only to carbon dioxide as the most important climate-warming agent.
> 
> The research is in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.
> 
> Black carbon aerosols have been known to warm the atmosphere for many years by absorbing sunlight. They also speed the melting of ice and snow.
> 
> "The large conclusion is that forcing due to black carbon in the atmosphere is larger," lead author Sarah Doherty told BBC News.
> 
> "The value the IPCC gave in their 4th assessment report in 2007 is half of what we are presenting in this report - it's a little bit shocking,"
> 
> The researchers say black carbon emissions in Europe and North America have been declining due to restrictions on emissions from diesel engines. But they have been growing steadily in the developing world. However as these type of particles don't last very long in the atmosphere, cutting their number would have an immediate impact on temperatures.
> diesel engine Cutting emissions from diesel engines could have a big effect
> 
> "Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer as there are tandem health and climate benefits," said Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds.
> 
> "If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming, or a couple of decades of respite," he added.
> 
> The report warns that the role of black carbon is complex and can have cooling and warming effects.
> 
> "Mitigation is a complex issue because soot is typically emitted with other particles and gases that probably cool the climate," said Prof Forster,
> 
> "For instance, organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning likely has a cooling effect. Therefore the net effect of eliminating that source might not give us the desired cooling," he added.
> 
> Black carbon is said to be a significant source of rapid warming in the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia. The particles are also said to have an impact on rainfall patterns in the Asian monsoon.
> 
> Last year a six nation coalition of countries began a combined effort to curb the impact of short lived climate agents such as black carbon.
> 
> The authors say that while cutting back on soot is important, cutting carbon dioxide emissions is the best way to address climate change in the long term.


BBC News - Climate change: Soot's role underestimated, says study


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and the heat goes on...





> Like the giant European, Russian...heat waves before this


Which were caused by the jet stream, not CAGW...



> Like the...United States heat waves before this


Of which the worst were in the 1930's and, again, not caused by CAGW...



> the Australian heat wave will slowly fade in the collective memory of the public consciousness,


Much like the worst ones in Australian history, those from the 1800's & 1900's, did. Oh, BTW, they weren't caused by CAGW either...



> (Hansen [2012])


Hansen, Hansen, I know that name from somewhere. Got it! He's the guy that keeps changing the temperature record! All the temps from the 30's get lowered and all the temps from the 90's get raised! I remember him now!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> BBC News - Climate change: Soot's role underestimated, says study





> They say it ranks second only to carbon dioxide as the most important climate-warming agent.


Well, as the link between CO2 & CAGW has been severed, and soot is less of an issue yet, what the hell do we have to worry about? Gonna go fire up that wood-burning stove, crank up the telly, crack a cold one & bask in the pleasure.

Thx for the tip!


----------



## Macfury

Unbelievable. Soot is a worse contributor to AGW than thought and yet the temperature remains flat. That knocks CO2 back to the negligible level. Kind of fun to see the canny MaccyD set traps, then walk into them.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and the heat goes on...


Further to this garbage:

Weather, not climate...


----------



## FeXL

Warming Rate in the US Slowed during the Recent Warming Period



> The linear trend of the early warming period (1917 to 1934) was 0.997 Deg F/ Decade. The linear trend for the recent warming period with the start year of 1979 is far below it, at 0.537 Deg F/Decade. See Figure 2. *If we start the recent warming period in 1993 (Figure 3), the rate of warming is a little higher at 0.674 Deg F/Decade, but that’s still far less than the warming rate of the early warming period.*


This after using NOAA's already maladjusted data. Imagine what the slope would look like using real data?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Lisa Jackson/Richard Windsor email account thing.

EPA Doubles Down on ‘Richard Windsor’ Stonewall



> In EPA’s first production of Lisa Jackson’s secondary or “alias” email account traffic in what is now known as the “Richard Windsor” FOIA lawsuit, EPA has apparently decided to not search Richard Windsor account(s).
> 
> That is, EPA seemingly is pretending — to the court, as well as Congress and the American taxpayer — that the Windsor account doesn’t exist. That’s the one they previously acknowledged exists. The one they claimed was used for internal correspondence (at least, certain internal correspondence).


More.

Senator Vitter calls EPA FOI release “fishy”



> “This strikes me as incredibly fishy and begs a number of important questions,” Vitter said.
> 
> “The EPA needs to honor the President’s pledge of transparency and release these documents without redaction of the Administrator’s email address – a big first step toward removing the blanket of secrecy in this agency.”


----------



## FeXL

Further on the results of that Black Carbon (soot) paper.

New paper could imply IPCC climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated



> A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres claims "black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W m-2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate-forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing." This is a large increase from the IPCC AR4 estimates [~ +0.1 Wm-2] of black carbon forcing. *However, the IPCC best estimate of the total of all anthropogenic [man-made] climate forcings since 1750 AD is +1.6 Wm-2. Therefore, IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' [a total of 2.43 Wm-2] would have to decrease significantly, or negative climate forcings would have to increase significantly, in order to keep the sum of positive and negative forcings at the IPCC best estimate of +1.6 Wm-2.*


Bold mine.

Abstract at the link.

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Flashback--Hansen on touting individual years as hottest: 'As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical' 



> Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet’s surface). “In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years,” he said in an e-mail message.


Wait. Wha...?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the BS that global warming causes more frequent & more extreme weather events.

Extreme Misrepresentation: USGCRP and the Case of Floods



> Here I explain that in an area where I have expertise on, extremes and their impacts, *the report is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites* and conclusions of the IPCC. Questions should (but probably won't) be asked about *how a major scientific assessment has apparently became captured as a tool of advocacy via misrepresentation of the scientific literature -- a phenomena that occurs repeatedly in the area of extreme events.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen on the ‘standstill'



> _The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing._ - James Hansen et al.


Italics from the link.

Did you read that, MacDoc? One of your gods actually admits to a flatlined temp.

Jeezuz, that must have hurt. Even worse, in the following paragraph, he actually admits to solar forcings.



> The irradiance change associated with the 10-13 year sunspot cycle is about 0.1%.


Later he notes:



> The largest climate forcing is caused by increasing greenhouse gases, principally CO2...


Wonder how that soot thing works into this theory now. If the effects of black carbon are up, then the effects of CO2 must come down. There are only so many forcings...


----------



## FeXL

Further confirmation of the *global* effects of the Medieval Warm Period.

The MWP on Maui.



> *Background*
> As many other researchers have expressed before them with respect to other locations around the world, the authors write that "the response of the tropical Pacific to climate variability such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (also known as the Medieval Warm Period) ... is an important analogy for understanding projected future climate change." And so they set out to see what they could learn about the well-known global phenomenon on the Hawaiian Island of Maui.





> *What it means*
> In the case of the early inhabitants of Maui, Pau et al. write that "an increase in forest resources during this wet climate interval coincided with rapid Polynesian population growth," which suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity for them, especially when compared with the Dark Ages Cold Period and Little Ice Age that preceded and followed it, much as has also been found for many other places around the world.


The MWP was not, as warmists claim, a small, localized non-event.


----------



## FeXL

Visualizing Heidi Channel Fraud



> Here is what is actually going on. Temperatures peaked in the 1930s and plummeted until the 1980s. They rose again somewhat until 2006, and have started plummeting again.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Tisdale's warming rates in CONUS.

Yet Even More Sleight of Hand from Tamino



> I illustrated in my post the warming periods as they obviously present themselves in the data, and Tamino has presented a 30-year time span of his own choosing for his trend analysis. If we look at the Contiguous U.S. Surface Air Temperatures, Figure 1, the data starts with a cooling period, and that cooling period ended when the surface temperatures reached their minimum at 1917. Looks pretty obvious to me. Surface temperatures then warmed, and they peaked in 1934. Again, it’s obvious. If I had selected other start and end years for that warming period, I would have received numerous complaints. There was then a multidecadal cooling period that started in 1934 and ended when the data reached their second minimum at 1979. After 1979, temperatures warmed.


----------



## FeXL

Some good info regarding the overall effects of raised CO2 concentrations.

2013: The Year To Strike a Blow Against Climate Alarmism



> In reality, the impact of increasing CO2 is analogous to putting coats of black paint on a window. The first coat of paint blocks most of the light from passing through the window. A second coat reduces light only fractionally more, and further coats accomplish even less.
> 
> ...
> 
> _The degree to which increasing CO2 levels affect temperature drops rapidly as CO2 concentration rises. In other words, climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration, until, at today’s level of nearly 400 parts per million, climate sensitivity approaches zero. *Note that the first 20 ppm of CO2 has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm combined.*_


Italics from the link, bold mine.



> The AGW hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidence, either. Measurements taken from Antarctic ice cores show CO2 rise tends to occur centuries after temperature rise, not before it, *so it could not possibly have caused the onset of warming.*
> 
> The hypothesis also fails between 1940 and 1980, when human-produced CO2 rose quickly after World War II yet global temperatures declined; fears of a coming glacial period dominated. Catastrophists blame the increase in sulphates from industry for reducing sunlight, therefore causing cooling. *But they ignore the fact that temperatures rose after 1980 with no decrease in sulphate levels.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

On the stratospheric temperature record. In a nutshell, there are significant differences between the UK Met Office figures and NOAA's. There is little to no record of the changes made to the Met figures and, unfortunately, the complete dataset is now NFG. As such, all subsequent research based on those figures (including, but not limited to, climate models), is now also NFG.

Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong



> Scientists have been launching instrument packages into the upper portions of Earth's atmosphere for a long time. Instruments used for such research were standardized decades ago and programs to collect such data on a world wide basis put into place. If any part of atmospheric science was considered well in hand, if not actually “settled” *(a phrase seldom used by real scientists)* it would be the long term monitoring of global stratospheric temperatures. However, a report in the 29 November 2012 issue of Nature, “The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends,” says that things are not so.


Bold mine.

Note to potential scientists: Read that? Real scientists don't use the term "settled". Nor do they allude to it by using obfuscating words and hand waving...



> How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there's the rub. You see, the *methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.”* Evidently the boffins at the Met didn't bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. *Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired.*
> 
> “The methodology used to generate the original Met Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here,” Thompson et al. summarize. *And the damage doesn't stop there.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that James Hansen admission thing.


James Hansen Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real



> This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives.


Quote of the week – Hansen concedes the age of flatness



> Here is the money quote, which pretty much ends the caterwauling from naysayers about global temperature being stalled for the last decade.
> 
> The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.​
> Gosh, I thought Hansen had claimed that “climate forcings” had overwhelmed natural variability?


"Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade"


----------



## FeXL

Further on Black Carbon.

More on Black Carbon from Univ of Washington



> I trust Anthony won’t mind if I highlight their interesting estimate of the total black carbon forcing from all sources since 1750:
> 
> When open burning emissions, which emit high levels of organic matter, are included in the total, the best estimate of net industrial-era climate forcing by all black-carbon- rich sources becomes slightly negative (-0.06 W m-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of -1.45 to +1.29 W m-2).​
> In other words, black carbon forcing from all emissions is zero ± one W/m2 …


----------



## FeXL

Michael Mann gets SLAPPed



> As I predicted last month, Michael Mann’s suit against the National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute and two of their contributors, has resulted in an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the defendants, along with a companion Rule 12(b)(6) motion.


In addition, on Mann's revenue hypocrisy:



> Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees...


----------



## FeXL

On PODEX, new technology to capture data about aerosols & clouds.

PODEX Experiment to reshape future of Atmospheric Science by getting a handle on aerosols and clouds



> NASA scientists and engineers are working now to lay the groundwork for the Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem (ACE) mission, a satellite that “will dramatically change what we can do from space to learn about clouds and aerosols,” said ACE science lead David Starr of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.


Hopefully this knowledge can fill some of the gaps regarding aerosols & clouds, providing they haven't already arrived at a conclusion.

Damn, was that my quiet voice asking that?


----------



## FeXL

More on carbon trading.

The carbon trading money tree



> There is a type of South African cactus called Spekboom, which translates as “bacon tree.” The connection between cactus and bacon is not clear. It’s easy to plant. You just break off a soft branch, push it into the ground, and it grows – normally to about a meter tall, but sometimes to 3m over many years. Spekboom grows in arid areas like weeds and is generally useless. But it apparently absorbs much more CO2 than normal plants. *So Europeans pay South Africans tidy sums to plant fields of the stuff. The Europeans then claim “carbon credits” and feel righteous, while South Africans get rich watching weeds grow.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Some questions on the "noise" El Nino/La Nina introduce into the temperature record.

Why El Niño and not the AMO?



> The theory, as I have heard it propounded, is that the temperature of the Earth is “signal”, whereas the El Nino cycles are natural swings and as such are just “noise”. So if you remove the El Nino swings from the temperature, the theory goes, then we can see more of the underlying temperature signal by removing the noise.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Settled Science...

Settled science update: New paper finds aerosols cause 24 times more cooling than estimated by the IPCC



> A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics finds that aerosols have a very significant cooling effect upon the Earth surface that is 24 times greater than estimated by the IPCC. According to the authors, the global, annual aerosol radiative effect is -12 Watts per square meter at the Earth surface, or 24 times more negative than "the current estimate of the global mean radiative forcing due to all anthropogenic aerosols given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of (−0.5 ± 0.4) W m−2." Meanwhile, as Tom Nelson notes today, "consensus" climate scientists are saying "the impact of aerosol emissions could end up being either significantly positive or negative" and “It’s not over yet.”
> 
> By way of comparison, the IPCC alleges doubled CO2 levels would cause 1 Wm-2 positive forcing at the surface, much more than offset by an aerosol negative forcing of -12 Wm-2 at the surface.


Abstract at the link.

This must be "Super-settled science" now...


----------



## FeXL

It's the Sun, stupid...

Paper finds the Sun controls climate & 'gives no support to theory of anthropogenic climate change'

Abstract.



> Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. *Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly.* Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. *The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. *The global average stratospheric temperature anomaly proceeds like a 1-dim random walk at least up to 11 years, allowing good presentation by means of the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for monthly series.


Bold from the link.

From the paper:



> *Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth atmosphere appeared to produce too weak forcing in order to dominate in the Earth climate system.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *The observed global warming in surface air temperature series [Jones et al., 1999] is more likely produced due to overall nonstationary variability of the Earth climate system under anti-persistent solar forcing.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Sun, stupid.

New paper finds increase in US sunshine has had 4.4 times more effect than greenhouse gases since 1996

Abstract.



> Sixteen years of high-quality surface radiation budget (SRB) measurements over seven U.S. stations are summarized. *The network average total surface net radiation increases by +8.2 Wm−2 per decade from 1996 to 2011. A significant upward trend in downwelling shortwave (SW-down) of +6.6 Wm−2 per decade dominates the total surface net radiation signal. This SW brightening is attributed to a decrease in cloud coverage, and aerosols have only a minor effect. Increasing downwelling longwave (LW-down) of +1.5 Wm−2 per decade and decreasing upwelling LW (LW-up) of −0.9 Wm−2 per decade produce a +2.3 Wm−2 per decade increase in surface net-LW, which dwarfs the expected contribution to LW-down from the 30 ppm increase of CO2 during the analysis period. The dramatic surface net radiation excess should have stimulated surface energy fluxes, but, oddly, the temperature trend is flat*, and specific humidity decreases. The enigmatic nature of LW-down, temperature, and moisture may be a chaotic result of their large interannual variations. Interannual variation of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) ONI index is shown to be moderately correlated with temperature, moisture, and LW-down. Thus, circulations associated with ENSO events may be responsible for manipulating (e.g., by advection or convection) the excess surface energy available from the SRB increase. *It is clear that continued monitoring is necessary to separate the SRB's response to long-term climate processes from natural variability* and that collocated surface energy flux measurements at the SRB stations would be beneficial.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on natural cycles.

Global Warming: A Geological Perspective



> The paper notes that if
> 
> "the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable to that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago"​
> and that
> 
> "Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence."​
> Sadly, most climate scientists fail to study or understand the geologic history of climate, which has led to countless false claims that today's climate is unnatural, extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.


----------



## FeXL

Yet another link to Sol & further debunking of that "20th century extreme drought" thing.

Paper finds Midwest US droughts were less extreme during 20th century & linked to solar activity 

Abstract.



> Paleorecords are key for evaluating the long-term patterns and controls of drought. We analyzed calcite in annually laminated sediments from a Minnesota lake for oxygen-isotopic composition (δ18O). *The δ18O [precipitation proxy] record of the past ∼3100 years reveals that droughts of greater severity and duration than during the 20th century occurred repeatedly, especially prior to 300 AD. Drought variability was anomalously low during the 20th century; ∼90% of the variability values during the last 3100 years were greater than the 20th-century average. δ18O [the precipitation proxy] is strongly correlated with the index of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) during the past 100 years, and periodicities of the late-Holocene δ18O record are similar to those of the PDO. Furthermore, time series of δ18O and atmospheric Δ14C [the solar activity proxy] are generally coherent after 700 AD. Both the Pacific climate and solar irradiance probably played a role in drought occurrence, but their effects were non-stationary through the late Holocene.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on current Australian heat.

William Kininmonth: Is it Extreme Weather or Climate Change?



> A pattern of extreme weather should not be confused with climate change.
> 
> The recent heat wave across much of Central Australia and its occasional extension east and south is a pattern of extreme weather. Climate is the recurring patterns of weather that inure us to such extremes. The climate of Alice Springs is exemplified by 1887, the previously hottest January with an average maximum of 40.7°C. The extreme, nearly 5°C above the long term January average, was made possible by a spell of 11 days over 40°C, a brief respite then another 10 days over 40°C.
> 
> Climate change, of course, is a persisting significant departure from the experienced pattern of weather. The current pattern of extreme weather is not outside the envelope of experience that describes Central Australian climate.


----------



## FeXL

Warmist DeSmogBlog on the National Climate Assessment: "The 1146-page report reads less like a government assessment and more like the Old Testament" 

Well, when your whole theory is faith-based, I guess the religious similes tend to fall into your lap, no?


----------



## FeXL

Couple of opinions from guys who have no business even speaking about the issue... (/sarc)

Veteran German Meteorologist Calls Climate Science “A Fairy Tale That’s Rich In Fantasy…Spook Watching”

Part the first.



> Of course heat records have been recorded in various regions of the world over the last 10 – 12 years. Yet temperatures during this period have neither risen in Germany nor globally; rather they have fallen slightly. Moreover, a number of cold records have occurred. In your press release you completely ignore these cold records and avoid mentioning them. What follows is a chart of Germany’s temperature over the last 15 years:
> 
> ...
> 
> Over the same time period, global CO2 emissions have increased. The increase in CO2 has had no warming effect. Indeed there has been a light cooling. These are the facts. Your press release is simply not honest.


Part the second.



> ...Dr. Wolfgang Thüne aims harsh criticism at warmist science. The article is titled: The Greenhouse: A House of Bondage. As the title suggests, Thüne describes a science that has run amok, and now threatens to take over the lives of every citizen on the planet – how we behave, think, and what we eat.
> 
> He reminds us that *attempting to control “weather and climate” by controlling human behavior is an utter folly*, and there are other *far more powerful factors at play in dominating weather and climate – like the sun.*


Bold mine.



> Thüne concludes at the end of his commentary: *“The statement that CO2 concentration, whether natural or man made, is the main factor in driving air temperature is a scientific fairy tale that’s rich in fantasy. Making climate forecasts is spook-watching!”*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Link to a video by Dr. Nir Shaviv on 20th century climate change.

Video Lecture: Solar vs. Anthropogenic—Better Understanding of 20th Century Climate Change

The vid is 37 minutes long, lots of good info.


----------



## FeXL

On TIPPC™

The IPCC's fatal founding flaw



> The IPCC is under no obligation to report on all fields of climate research. Indeed, it would be stepping beyond its remit were it to do so. It is not required to report on research that refutes the IPCC's position *nor, like most lobbyist groups, does it seem keen to provide information that undermines its own argument.* The second Draft of the Working Group I contribution to AR5, (due for release in 2014) took until Chapter 8 before mentioning that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1997.
> 
> *The mistaken belief that the IPCC is an authority on all aspects of climate occurs in part because its charter directs it to present material that supports a highly publicised hypothesis*, and because, even 25 years after the establishment of the IPCC, there exists no single global agency that deals with all aspects of climate variability, its consequences and counter strategies.


Bold mine.

TIPPC™=Lobbyist Group.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

On 2013's ENSO sex.

We’re Expecting: Will it be a Boy, a Girl, or ENSO-Neutral in 2013?

Good info. Also, a plug for his excellent book.


----------



## FeXL

MICHAELS: Global warming apocalypse canceled 



> What commonly occurs when weather forecasts begin to go bad? As every child knows, if the forecast starts out calling for a foot of snow, and then is cut to six inches, that usually results in about three.
> 
> ...
> 
> People are beginning, cautiously, to dial back 21st century warming because there has been none. Because dreaded sea-level rise is also proportional, those estimates are going to have to come down, too.
> 
> One of these years, the upcoming end of the world from global warming is going to be officially canceled, to be replaced by a new apocalypse, which I predict will be called “acid oceans,” or something like that.


----------



## FeXL

The article I bring your attention to is the one dated Jan 16, 2013. It's about that whole NOAA FUBAR on July 2012's real temp: was it 77.6 F or 76.9 F. Further news on the Climate Reference Network (and its July temp of 75.6 F, two full degrees below NOAA's original post).



> To summarize: NOAA, on incomplete data from an outdated, ill-sited, poorly-maintained network, stated in August 2012 that the July 2012 temperature in the contiguous U.S. had been 77.6 F. The temperature in July 1936, the previous record, had been 77.4 F. By the end of 2012, corrections to the NOAA dataset, but still based on the outdated network, showed that the July 2012 temperature in the contiguous U.S. had been 76.9 F, half a degree below the July 1936 record.
> 
> Also, the new Climate Reference Network shows that the July 2012 temperature in the contiguous U.S. had been 75.6 F, two full degrees Fahrenheit below the erroneous value the NOAA had erroneously trumpeted as a new July record.


Why NOAA isn't using data from the CRN, which has been operating since 2008, is beyond me.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temp adjustments @ Hansen's GISS

Hansen’s NASA GISS – cooling the past, warming the present



> It must be remembered that these are only changes made by GISS since 2008. As I pointed out, prior to 2008, other adjustments of about 0.03C had already been added to the numbers originally declared just a few years earlier. These adjustments must, therefore, also be added on to the adjustments made since.
> 
> An adjustment of 0.10C or so may not seem a lot, but the latest GISS anomaly, against the baseline of 1951-80, is 0.44C. These adjustments make up about a quarter of this figure.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that Australian heatwave.

There have been some noises made that the older temperature records were inaccurate & unreliable. This should erase that concern.

A follow up on the ‘it was warmer in 1790 in Sydney’ story



> Firstly, it appears *the measurements were taken in a purpose built observatory* which stood at location of the current pylons of the Sydney Harbor Bridge. The Observatory was built and run by William Dawes.
> 
> There is a detail description of the Observatory in letter sent back to England. *The Observatory had two thermometers not one.* These were loaned to the First Fleet by the Board of Longitude.
> 
> One was made by Nairne & Blunt and the other one by Ramsden.
> When the First Fleet stopped at Cape Town on the way to Sydney, Dawes refers to calibrating the instruments. William Dawes’ journal actually mentions making a comparison between the two thermometers, noting;
> 
> *‘‘I observe when the thermometers have been long at nearly the same height that they agree.’’*​
> When both Dawes and Tench returned to England at the end of 1791 (after having their requests to stay denied) they took the thermometers with them and returned them to the Board of Longitude.
> 
> Both Tench and Dawes were remarkable men, they would have done everything in their power to ensure the measurements were as accurate a possible. *Gergis et al. (2009) has stated that William Dawes’ data is commensurate with present-day meteorological measurements.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Old Sol, again...

New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature

Abstract.



> In this paper we analyze the geographical distribution of the climate response to external forcing (solar, volcanic and geomagnetic) on the periods of 11 and 22 years. As a climate characteristic we use the data of the air-surface temperature (regional data sets). The analysis is performed by the wavelet phase/coherence technique which is applied to the solar (sunspot numbers), volcanic (Dust Veil Index), geomagnetic (C9-index) activities and the temperature data on interannual timescales for the common time interval covering most of the 20th century. Besides, we analyze the statistics of the temperature response to the solar and geomagnetic factors on the periods of 11 and 22 years for different geographical sectors. In particular, *we find the existence of a combined forcing of solar and volcanic activity on the Earth temperature on the 11-year period in the second half of the 20th century over the globe, whereas a set of stations (mostly in North Atlantic) shows a coherence between solar activity and the Earth temperature on the 11-year periodicity even in absence of the combined effect;* it was found that the maximal number of stations demonstrating statistically significant amplitudes of wavelet spectra corresponds to the wavelet cross coherence between geomagnetic activity and the Earth air-surface temperature on the periods about 22 years during the time interval without intensive volcanic eruptions capable to change significantly the level of DVIGlobal.


Bold from the link.



> Once again, the claim by climate alarmists that small variations in solar activity cannot control temperature or climate has been debunked by observations.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

We've already seen what passes for science from the warmists, this is what passes for debate...

By applying inappropriate techniques, Bob Ward can prove that right is wrong



> So, when David Whitehouse says there has been a global temperature standstill since 1997, Bob says this is "flawed". Why? Because the OLS trend is above zero, and that this trend is "statistically significant". He then notes that in fact OLS is inappropriate for calculating trends in temperature series. In other words, the trend cannot be shown to be statistically significant using this technique.
> 
> Which means that David Whitehouse's analysis was correct.


----------



## FeXL

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity of the Past Five Thousand Years



> "one of the most striking aspects of these records is they all display extended alternating periods (centuries to millennia) of relative quiescence and heightened intense TC activity irrespective of both the resolution and type of long-term TC record."


So, with CO2 levels low for 4900 years, and raising for the last 100, what caused the cyclical behaviour for the previous 4900 years? 

Hint: Twerent CO2 and neither was the last century...


----------



## FeXL

Aussies have weathered nature’s extremes before



> NSW hit a high of 48.3 degrees on Saturday at Bourke, according to the Bureau of Meteorology, and Sydney hit 42.3 degrees last Tuesday.
> 
> But we haven’t come close to the highest state temperature on record, (BoM records have been kept since 1910) which was 49.7 degrees in Menindee on January 10, 1939.
> 
> Or even to the 48.9 recorded at Brewarrina on December 9, 1912.
> 
> And in the 19th Century, long before BoM took notice, there were hot days recorded in Sydney, and elsewhere, by Sir John Henniker Heaton in his 1879 Australian Dictionary of Dates.


Neither unprecedented, nor unusual.


----------



## FeXL

This sounds as hypocritical as the yearly parade of jets bringing in all the Fruit Loops & Whackos to attend the next climate meeting...

300 to 600 private jets expected to arrive at Dulles for the First Green President's second inauguration? 



> Officials at Dulles International may close the airport’s westernmost runway to accommodate hundreds of private planes expected to descend on the region over the next few days.
> 
> After all, those Gulfstreams and Learjets will need a place to park while their passengers are in town for the inaugural festivities.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little chart mapping global temps vs CO2 levels. How do you s'pose they correlate?

NASA Climate Research: Human CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Climate Change



> The adjacent chart is not one likely to be publicized by the green-sharia scientists at NASA's GISS; nor will "journalists" at the NY Times and Washington Post report on it. To do so would make them apostates to the anti-CO2 religion jihad.
> 
> Regardless, the empirical temperature observations that NASA documents clearly indicates that the monotonous increase in atmospheric CO2 levels have had little impact on long-term (30 years) temperature change.
> 
> *As the chart depicts, 30-year temperature changes resemble a sine wave (oscillation) that has nothing to do with human CO2 - instead, that sine wave pattern is natural, and easily overwhelms any CO2 impact.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Satellites Confirm: Atmospheric Global Cooling Reigns, Not The IPCC's Predicted CO2 "Global Warming"



> Clearly, as CO2 levels have monotonously increased over the last 17-years (why 17?), global temperatures have not increased with any significance. By year 2100, this "warming" trend would produce a projected increase of one-third of a single degree - rather insignificant and hardly noticeable.
> 
> The UN's IPCC's catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which the vast majority of empirical-based scientists now reject, demands that ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to rapidly warm. This accelerated, man-made atmosphere warming would then significantly warm the globe's oceans and land surfaces, quickly making Earth inhospitable from incredibly high temperatures and horrific climate change disasters.
> 
> Contrary to the United Nation's "science" though, global temperatures have morphed over the last 30 years from a warming trend to a cooling trend despite the huge increase in CO2 levels.


More:



> Likewise, claims that global warming is "rapid," "accelerating," "irrefutable," "unprecedented," "incontrovertible," and/or "irreversible" are outright known falsehoods.
> 
> Finally, any journalist, scientist, politician or bureaucrat using such terminology to describe global temperatures is an unequivocal liar - that is the simple, empirical truth.


I'm good with that...


----------



## FeXL

On the US Global Change Research Program's ties to the IPCC.

Authors of ‘Extreme Misrepresentation’



> _A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)_


Italics from the link.

No conflict of interest here...


----------



## FeXL

A climate of scepticism



> Where the sceptic differs from many other scientists is in ascribing the warming to human activities – specifically, the burning of fossil fuels and the concomitant rise in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. The hypothesis is that the carbon dioxide traps infra-red radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This means that some of the energy received from the sun is not lost, and the trapped energy leads to a warming of the globe.
> 
> The physics of how carbon dioxide traps infra-red radiation is well known[6]. But there are other molecules in the atmosphere that also trap infra-red radiation. Water vapour is the predominant “greenhouse gas”[7]. What is not so clear is the extent to which the trapping of energy causes heating. There are wonderful mathematical models that claim to show how heating occurs. Unfortunately, all the models suffer from identifiable flaws, a point considered later.


Lots of info, a good read.

From the comments:



> It is always pleasing to read a well constructed argument based on sound common sense backed up by data.


----------



## FeXL

Further on black carbon and Arctic ice.

Dust in the wind: Melt ponds in the Arctic hasten overall melting


----------



## FeXL

Further on Acton's joke loosely termed as an investigation.

More on Acton’s “Investigation”



> More news on Acton’s supposed “investigation” of the deletion of emails. New documents show that Acton did not even meet with Briffa or Jones in his supposed “investigation” of the deletion of emails. Acton sent Briffa a letter asking him whether he had “knowingly” deleted emails subject to FOI. Briffa wrote back that he hadn’t. That appears to be the entire extent of Acton’s “investigation”. *Sort of like Penn State.*


Bold mine.

More.



> Everybody, but everybody knows that staff at UEA were systematically withholding emails subject to FOI. Acton knew, or if he didn't, he knows now. Which then raises the awkward question of why nobody at UEA has lost their job.


----------



## FeXL

I have major issues with numbers like "+0.30±1.10".

That said, something to think about...

Models have it wrong again: New paper finds clouds act as a negative feedback

Abstract.



> The cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations is estimated from cloud measurements combined with off-line radiative transfer calculations. The cloud measurements are made by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite and cover the period 2000-2010. Low clouds provide a strong negative cloud feedback, mainly due to their impact in the shortwave (SW) portion of the spectrum. Mid-level clouds provide a positive net cloud feedback that is a combination of a positive SW feedback partially canceled by a negative feedback in the longwave (LW). High clouds have only a small impact on the net cloud feedback due to a close cancellation between large LW and SW cloud feedbacks. Segregating the clouds by optical depth, we find that the net cloud feedback is set by a positive cloud feedback due to reductions in the thickest clouds (mainly in the SW) and a cancelling negative feedback from increases in clouds with moderate optical depths (also mainly in the SW). The global average SW, LW, and net cloud feedbacks are +0.30±1.10, -0.46±0.74, and -0.16±0.83 W/m2/K, respectively. The SW feedback is consistent with previous work; the MODIS LW feedback is lower than previous calculations and there are reasons to suspect it may be biased low. Finally, it is shown that the apparently small control that global mean surface temperature exerts on clouds, which leads to the large uncertainty in the short-term cloud feedback, arises from statistically significant but offsetting relationships between individual cloud types and global mean surface temperature.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mann's $10,000 appearances.

Mann Backtracks, Admits Charging Up to $10,000 for Speaking Appearances



> Controversial global warming alarmist Michael Mann on Thursday evening backtracked from public statements he made earlier in the day claiming Media Trackers Florida falsely claimed he charged $10,000 for a speaking event. On Thursday evening, Mann admitted on his Facebook page that his agent does charge up to $10,000 for speaking appearances by Mann.


Is that denial? <snort>



> *Carducci was astonished at Mann’s speaking fee of $10,000 plus travel costs.* Having already looked into speaker fees for scientists who are skeptical of the asserted global warming crisis, Carducci expected Mann to speak merely for the cost of travel and perhaps a small honorarium of $1,000 or less. *When Carducci came across incendiary public statements by Mann claiming scientists who disagree with him are doing so simply for money, she decided to write her article documenting Mann’s exorbitant speaking fee.*


Bold mine.

Yep, only in it to "further the science".



> That accusation from Mann, however, formed the foundation of his screed against the original Media Trackers article. His Facebook post accused Media Trackers of “immediately promot[ing] a pure falsehood in an attempt to smear me.” Earlier in the same post, he wrote that he “would not complain” if people were paying him $10,000 to speak at events. *As a result, it is unclear how citing the $10,000 figure, which Mann later acknowledged to be what his agent charges for Mann’s speaking appearances, constitutes a smear.*


It's not. 

Per the norm, he doesn't have any facts to back up his argument, his false bravado also fails and he immediately switches to whining mode. I'm surprised he hasn't already threatened a lawsuit...


----------



## FeXL

Why hasn't NOAA released the temperature data for the last 4 days of 2012?

The Big NOAA 2012 Cheat Continues



> In order to determine if 2012 was warmer than 1934, the last four days of the year are critical.
> 
> *Of the 821 GHCN HCN stations continuously active since 1920, only 27 have any data for those days, and only 3 have complete data. By contrast, all 821 have January 2013 data.*
> 
> The last four days of 2012 were very cold. *How did NOAA determine the 2012 temperature to .01 degrees, when they are missing 1% of the data which averaged at least five degrees below normal?*


Bold mine.

Yes, how?


----------



## FeXL

Put a mark on the wall...

The NYT corrects a global temperature mistake



> Kudos to both Harold Ambler and Andrew Revkin for working to fix this bit of unwarranted alarmism. *I have to laugh though, reading the article, because it clearly links climate alarmism and religion together. The photo that was widely distributed of the “pray in” march is hilariously iconic, worthy of some of the parades seen in San Francisco.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on thermometer siting.

Via experiment, NOAA establishes a fact about station siting: ‘nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory’



> Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes about the the first results of this experiment presented at the recent AMS meeting in Austin, TX. The early results confirm what we have learned from the Surface Stations project. *Nighttime temperatures are affected the most.*


Bold mine.

First off, d'uh!

Secondly, further confirmation of why there are fewer colder temperature records: it's the UHI, stupid!

More:



> One, by John Kochendorfer of NOAA at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, *is a direct test of the importance of siting.* They’ve installed four temperature sensors at varying distances across a field from the laboratory complex. The experiment has only been running since October, but already they’ve found out a couple of interesting things. *First, the nighttime temperatures are indeed higher closer to the laboratory. Second, this is true whether the wind is blowing toward or away from the laboratory.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## MacDoc

the deniosphere in full howl


















•••

Meanwhile outside of the right wingdings fantasy land.



> *Climate Change's Effects On Temperate Rain Forests Surprisingly Complex*
> 
> Jan. 18, 2013 —* Longer, warmer growing seasons associated with a changing climate are altering growing conditions in temperate rain forests,* but not all plant species will be negatively affected, according to research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station.
> 
> Research featured in the January 2013 issue of Science Findings -- a monthly publication of the station -- reveals a complex range of forest plant responses to a warming climate.
> 
> " Although the overall potential for growth increases as the climate warms, we found that plant species differ in their ability to adapt to these changing conditions," said Tara Barrett, a research forester with the station who led the study.
> 
> Barrett and her colleagues explored trends in forest composition in southeastern and south-central Alaska, home to the bulk of the world's temperate rain forests. The researchers found an uptick in growth in higher elevations of the region over the 13-year period, with an almost eight-percent increase in live-tree biomass, a measure of tree growth. Individual species within the rain forest, however, differed -- western redcedar biomass increased by four percent, while shore pine declined by almost five percent.
> 
> As forest managers consider climate impacts like these in the management of their forests, scientists, including Barrett and research biologist David L. Peterson, are communicating climate change science within the agency, helping managers -- in Alaska and beyond -- to meet this challenge.
> 
> In another research effort, featured in the December 2012 issue of Science Findings, Peterson summarized the scientific basis for climate change adaptation. He and his colleagues across the country have conducted case studies that revealed the critical role of science-management partnerships in adaptation planning and have produced a climate change guidebook and Web portal for climate science information.
> 
> " The main objective is to get science in the hands of managers so that they have the basic information, but also have access to the documentation they need to do their jobs," said Peterson.
> 
> Further information: Tangled trends for temperate rain forests as temperatures tick up


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Spiegel...

Warmist Spiegel/Euro-Media Concede Global Warming Has Ended…Models Were Wrong…Scientists Are Baffled!



> We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that _“The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”._ He poses the question: _“How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”_
> 
> _"15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large._"


Italics from the link.



> In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book- one year ago – by a pair of scientists: *Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt* and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Last year much of the media massively ostracised them for floating “crude theories”. *A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.*


Bold mine.

"Die kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), anyone?

<hack> <cough, cough> <harumph>

"The Germans get it...


----------



## FeXL

A long musing on a 

CO2 warm dry vs cold wet hypothesis



> So it looks to me like one of the largest sources of CO2 is being ignored in the whole “CO2 balance” and fuels discussion.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, why are you posting illustrations of the windmills that the eco-kooks wants us to rely on for energy?

Meanwhile, what does that rainforest study say except that our climate continues to change? You are failing at Logic 101.


----------



## FeXL

A Reasoned Rejection of Science, Explaining the Tragedy of Data to the Experts



> So there you have it, an explanation for the authors results which requires zero irrational thought on anyone’s behalf. It explains the huge discrepancy between the different political viewpoints on climate change, without resorting to making decisions that are not in their own best interest. It also employs the fact that “climate science™” sits at the extreme end of the risk spectrum, despite having literally zero evidence of any damage to date and substantial evidence of models running too hot. It does all that while providing a rationale for political bifurcation on nuclear power being closer together than climate.
> 
> Adding irrationality to explain why people don’t converge on the most extreme end of climate change opinion, makes no sense whatsoever, and shows a form of irrationality by the authors of this paper. A loose and irrational(adjective) variable called “irrationality”, added to a paper to create a perceived data fit, without messing up the authors world-view.
> 
> And this concludes another episode of communitarian climate change insanity brought to you by the “experts” of the crazy world we live in.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> the deniosphere in full howl
> 
> Meanwhile outside of the right wingdings fantasy land.


Denying what? Global warming? Temps have shown an upward trend since the Little Ice Age. There have been periods of warming and periods of cooling (such as the last 16 years which even your climate god Hansen has acknowledged, as well as the 40's & 70's). That's common knowledge, pretty much universally accepted and known as part of the natural cycle of things. Like the Medieval Warming Period, the Vandal Minimum, Roman Warming Period and who knows how many before.

Natural. Warming. And. Cooling. Cycles. Long before increasing anthropogenic CO2 concentrations could have any effect. See, that's just one of the many things that warmists can't explain so they build hockey stick graphs that falsely eliminate the MWP...

That said, about the cute little article you linked to. Got no truck with any of it. It gets warmer, plant life grows better. That ain't rocket surgery. All they did was quantify it. Fine.

However, I do have one great, big, fat, niggling question for you: Where, in the paper, is any anthropogenic connection made?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> However, I do have one great, big, fat, niggling question for you: Where, in the paper, is any anthropogenic connection made?


Damn! now MaccyD will have to go back and actually read it!


----------



## MacDoc

for some it takes a sledge hammer for a wake up call.











> Tim Flannery sees possible catastrophy in Australia's future. (Credit: AAP/Lukas Coch)
> THIS SUMMER, LIFE here in Australia has resembled a compulsory and very unpleasant game of Russian roulette. A pool of hot air more than 1600km wide formed across the inland. It covered much of the continent, and has proved astonishingly persistent.
> 
> Periodically, low pressure systems spill the heat towards the coast, where most Australians live. At Christmas it was Perth. Then the heat struck Adelaide, followed by Tasmania, Victoria, and southern New South Wales and Canberra. The second weekend in January, it was southern Queensland and northern New South Wales that faced the gun. On Friday, Sydney experienced its hottest day ever recorded, with a high of 45.8ºC.
> 
> And with every heatwave, the incidences of bushfires and heat-related deaths and injuries spike.
> 
> Australians are used to hot summers. We normally love them. But the conditions prevailing now are something new. Temperature records are being broken everywhere. At Leonora, in the Western Australian interior, it reached 49ºC two weeks ago – the national high – and just one record temperature among many. The nation's overall temperature record was set on 7 January. Then the following day that record was exceeded, by half a degree celsius.
> 
> Australia's shifting climate
> 
> The breaking of so many temperature records indicates that Australia's climate is shifting. This is supported by analysis of the long-term trend. Over the past 40 years we've seen a decline in the number of very cold days, and the occurrence of many more very hot days.
> 
> All of this was predicted by climate scientists decades ago, and is consistent with the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere
> 
> The new conditions have seen the Bureau of Meteorology add two new colour categories to Australia's weather prediction maps. Temperatures of 48-50ºC used to be the highest, and where such extremes were anticipated, the weather map was marked black.
> 
> Over the last few weeks, purple patches have begun to appear on some maps. They mark temperatures above 50ºC. Pink, which is yet to be deployed, will denote temperatures above 52ºC.
> 
> Climate extremes have a way of stacking up to produce unpleasant consequences. Two years ago, the ocean temperature off northwestern Australia reached a record high, and evaporation of the warm seawater led to Australia's wettest year on record. This was followed, in central Australia, by the longest period without rain on record. The vegetation that had thrived in the wet now lies dried and curing, a perfect fuel for fires.
> 
> Catastrophic bushfire risk
> 
> With abundant fuel and increased temperatures, the nature of bushfires is changing. Australians have long rated fire risk on the MacArthur index. On it, a rating of 100 – the conditions that prevailed in the lead-up to the devastating 1939 bushfires – represents "extreme" risk.
> 
> But after the 2009 fires a new level of risk was required. "Catastrophic" represents a risk rating above 100. Under such conditions fires behave very differently. The Black Saturday fires of 2009, which killed 173 people, were rated at between 120 and 190. They spread so fast, and burned so hot, that the communities they advanced upon were utterly helpless.
> 
> The superheated air currently monstering the continent is fickle. Earlier in the month, Sydneysiders watched in relative thermal comfort as those living just 100km to the south endured scorching heat, blustering winds, and unstoppable fires.
> 
> The unprecedented conditions of recent weeks have seen many Australians rethinking their attitude to climate change.
> 
> A good friend of mine farms just outside Canberra. A few years ago the drought was so severe that his 300 year-old gum trees died of thirst. Then the rains came on so violently that they stripped the precious topsoil, filling his dams with mud and sheep droppings. This week he watched as his cousin's property at Yass was reduced to ashes.
> 
> Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
> 
> When I called he was trying to secure his own historic homestead and outbuildings from fire. He asked me if I thought the family would still be farming the area 50 years from now. All I could say was that it depended upon how quickly Australia, and the world, reduced their greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> Australia's average temperature has increased by just 0.9 of a degree celsius over the past century. Within the next 90 years we're on track to warm by at least another three degrees. Having seen what 0.9 of a degree has done to heatwaves and fire extremes, I dread to think about the kind of country my grandchildren will live in.
> 
> Even our best agricultural land will be under threat if that future is realised. And large parts of the continent will be uninhabitable, not just by humans, but by Australia's spectacular biodiversity as well.
> 
> The extreme conditions have once again raised the political heat around climate change. The Greens party condoned an anti-coal activist who created a false press release claiming that the ANZ bank had withdrawn support for a major coal project, causing its share price to plunge. Meanwhile the acting leader of the opposition, Warren Truss, said it was simplistic to link the hot spell to climate change, and "utterly simplistic to suggest that we have these fires because of climate change".
> 
> Race against time in Australia
> 
> Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, and the mining lobby is exceptionally strong. As calls to combat climate change have increased, the miners have argued that "mum and dad investors" will lose out if any effort is made to reduce the export or use of fossil fuels.
> 
> But the smart money is no longer backing fossil fuels. In South Australia, wind energy has gone from 1% to 26% of the mix in just seven years, and nationally solar panel installations are 13 years ahead of official projections. Last year, in fact, Australia led the world in terms of number of individual solar installations.
> 
> And finally, with a carbon price in place, Australia's emissions curve is beginning to flatten out. Despite these efforts, Australians are already enduring the kind of conditions they'd hoped to avoid if strong, early action had been taken. Now, more than ever, we're in a race against time to avoid a truly catastrophic outcome.
> 
> Professor Tim Flannery is a scientist at Macquarie University, a writer, government advisor and former Australian of the Year. This opinion piece was first published by the Guardian newspaper.


Australia's heatwave: a taste of things to come - Australian Geographic


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> for some it takes a sledge hammer for a wake up call.


For some of you, yes, it does.

Addressed a number of times above. Click a link & learn something.

For the final time, you want to see record high temps? Check the 1700's & 1800's. Twerent no AGW then, either.

Yet another of those niggling little details that the warmists don't want you to know about/can't explain with their "science".


----------



## Macfury

This was the part that made me laugh the most:



> When I called he was trying to secure his own historic homestead and outbuildings from fire. He asked me if I thought the family would still be farming the area 50 years from now. All I could say was that it depended upon how quickly Australia, and the world, reduced their greenhouse gas emissions.


Yep folks, just stop with the CO2 and that old debbil fire will stop burning down your houses.

Flannery, of course, has no climate credentials at all. He's a mammologist and "global warming activist."

Remember a few years back when Flannery predicted that Australia's dams would never be full again? Wrong!

Or 2001, when Flannery revealed his loony theory that all giant marsupials were destroyed by humans--_46,000 years ago_.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Flannery, of course, has no climate credentials at all. He's a mammologist and "global warming activist."


Credentials don't matter for warmists. As long as they support the argument, their vocation can be potheads, floor sweepers, mammologists, whatever. 

It's only the skeptics that have to have gen-u-wyne, bone-a-fied, climatology degrees. Even then, well, they're just deniers whose science doesn't count, the cherry-pickin' SOB's. They're s'pose ta sit down & reconcile as to why their empirical evidence doesn't match the "consensus" of the models...


----------



## MacDoc

Just keep repeating that denier mantra - 

*winter average temps up 3.2 degrees*...the world is moving on - the denio-sphere is stuck in the shrink cycle



> *Dramatic temperature increases could threaten Canadian health, infrastructure*
> ANNA MEHLER PAPERNY
> The Globe and Mail
> Published Monday, Jan. 21 2013, 9:37 PM EST
> 
> Every community in the country is getting a new definition of “normal” weather.
> 
> Environment Canada is rolling out updated benchmarks to reflect a rapidly changing climate. These adjusted figures for precipitation, temperature and other factors change the calculations for anyone trying to build a bridge, insure a house or predict mosquito season. In a best-case scenario, the adaptive cost is incremental and can be factored into planning; at worst, it could mean expensive cleanups as sewers back up and power lines fail.
> 
> MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
> 
> WEATHER Canada 2012: ‘Wacky warm’ in the land of ice and snow
> Toronto breaks heat record as Newfoundland digs out from snowstorm
> SKATING Cooling systems keep Montreal rinks open despite thaw
> 
> INFOGRAPHIC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Winter temperatures across Canada_
> 
> *While applying new normals at Canada’s weather stations is not unusual (the 30-year rolling average is updated every decade), the degree of change this time is notable: Average temperatures are rising across the board, during winter most of all. In the past 65 years, Canada’s national average winter temperature has risen 3.2 degrees.*
> 
> This reaffirms what many suspected.* Canada is getting hotter faster than ever before and at a faster rate than almost any other country. *Rain, snow, sleet and hail storms are becoming more erratic. What were once considered exceptional weather patterns – the kind researchers reject to avoid skewing their data – are becoming common.
> 
> “We’ve had an awful lot of those ‘exceptionals,’” said Robert Tremblay, research director at the Insurance Bureau of Canada. “What used to be happening every 50 years is now happening every five, seven years. … There’s obviously a sense of urgency.”
> 
> Canada’s infrastructure wasn’t built for this kind of climate. And much of the burden falls on municipal governments, with road, sewer and transit systems that can barely cope with existing weather conditions, let alone future vagaries.
> 
> “There’s a very large gap in terms of the current health of municipal infrastructure in Canada and where we should be right now,” said Paul Kovacs, University of Western Ontario economist and executive director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, a group established by Canada’s insurance industry to research the costs of natural disasters and how to mitigate them. “Incrementally, the cost of filling that gap is getting larger.”
> 
> Building codes across Canada require new high-rises and government structures to take into consideration the “normal” temperature at the time of construction, Mr. Kovacs said. Residents have sued cities – and won – over weather-related damage that courts ruled the municipalities should have planned for. In 2010, Stratford, Ont., paid $7.7-million to more than 800 homeowners in a class-action suit over damage from a flood in July, 2002.
> 
> Local public health officials are also paying close attention to vulnerable populations as extreme heat and cold become more frequent. They use climate projections to plan West Nile virus prevention – milder winters and springs can mean more mosquitos carrying the disease.
> 
> It’s a big deal for businesses, too, although many don’t know it yet. “Or they don’t want to know: They see it as a kind of capitulation,” said Blair Feltmate, who runs Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation Project.
> 
> “Traditionally, in the whole area of climate change, almost 99 per cent of the discussion has focused on mitigating,” Mr. Feltmate said. But “climate change is a done deal. There’s nothing we can do to turn it off. … How do we adapt to that new reality?”
> 
> Take tailings impoundment areas – the ponds used to store mine waste. Mr. Feltmate said many of the ponds in northern areas were designed “with the idea that permafrost will be in the ground permanently.” In many regions, that isn’t the case.
> 
> The effects of erratic weather patterns became very real for Ontario’s apple farmers last year: An early thaw followed by an unexpected frost wiped out 82 per cent of the province’s crop. Now, the industry – worth about $100-million in Ontario alone – is trying to figure out how to weatherproof itself. Potential fixes are wind breaks, hail nets, frost fans and sunscreen for apples to prevent damage from sunlight and heat. It’s expensive and uncertain, especially when the weather becomes tougher to predict. Leslie Huffman, Ontario’s apple production specialist, is working with the province on evaluating new techniques.
> 
> It’s a big deal for insurance companies: Claims for sewage backups alone have doubled in 11 years, Mr. Tremblay said. Companies are including weather variables in their risk calculations that they wouldn’t have factored in before, such as how much wind a garage door can withstand.
> 
> If insurance costs go up, rates may rise. “We’re not at that stage yet,” Mr. Tremblay said.
> 
> While actuaries and engineers factor these new normals into their formulas, some people studying Canada’s climate change argue that’s not satisfactory.
> 
> “New normals are better than old data,” Mr. Kovacs said. “But for most of us, what we’re ideally hoping is that people will start looking further ahead.”


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc;1248801B said:


> winter average temps up 3.2 degrees[/B]...the world is moving on - the denio-sphere is stuck in the shrink cycle


I think something is stuck in the shrink cycle, MaccyD, but your big posts won't compensate for it.

Your article contains no sources for climate data, and no data linked to AGW.

Are you feeling OK?


----------



## FeXL

Jeezuz...that article is so full of holes I wouldn't know where to begin. For that matter, I'm not going to go over it point by bleeding point but I will make a few comments:

1) Canada is getting hotter faster than ever before. Pure, undiluted, horse****...
2) Rain, snow, sleet and hail storms are becoming more erratic. See above...
3) Insurance Bureau of Canada? No conflict of interest there...
4) Stratford's payout? Poor municipal planning, not CAGW...
5) Blair Feltmate? Won't have a job in a couple years, when flat temps for two decades vitiate the need...
6) Melting permafrost tailings ponds? How about an example or two...
7) Sewage backup claims have doubled? How many people have added that particular coverage during the same period...
8) Erratic cold weather patterns wiped out ON apple crop? Weather, not climate...
9) Sunscreen for apples? On top of freeze-outs? Mebbe ON climate isn't right for apples. Oh, weather, not climate...

I could go on...


----------



## FeXL

Further on UHI.

Station bias – an old problem



> A number of readers have commented about the story from Sunday about NOAA’s experiment at Oak Ridge Laboratory to determine the warming effects of siting suggesting that the experiment was long overdue. many found it surprising that it has taken NOAA this long to get serious about the issue that Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and I have been working on since 2007. You may find it even more surprising that that issue goes back even further than that.
> 
> Well before the current debate over the value of the near surface temperature record and its many possible biases, and well before David Parker’s non empirical UHI studies sought to minimize the effect based on windy -vs- non windy days (which now appear to be falsified by the new NOAA experimental work), J. Murray Mitchell published a paper in 1952 titled: _On the Causes of Instrumentally Observed Secular Temperature Trends._


----------



## FeXL

NOAA SOTC Claim that 2012 Was Warmest La Nina Year is Wrong



> In the 2012 State of the Climate Report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated (my boldface):
> 
> 2012 ranked as the warmest “La Niña year”, surpassing the previous record set in 2011. Two of the three warmest years on record (2010 and 1998) are “El Niño years”. A La Niña (El Niño) year is defined here as occurring when the first three months of a calendar year meet the La Niña (El Niño) criteria as defined by the CPC.​
> Nonsense!!!


In a word, yes...


----------



## FeXL

Here's some solid science...

University of New Hampshire invertedly overheats soil, and pronounces a climate change result



> From the University of New Hampshire comes this press release that made me recoil when I read the methodology involved because it is Mannian-Tiljanderish in the approach. Instead of doing top down heating (as occurs in Nature), they do bottom up heating with electric cables. In the photo below, note how they’ve warmed the soil enough to melt snow, which suggests to me that they’ve not only got the thermal process of nature backwards in the experiment, they have overdone the energy input outside the bounds of reality. For example, what sustained increase in air temperature (from global warming) would be needed to produce a permanent 5 degree warming in the soil they tested? How much efficiency difference of the mass transfer function form air to soil versus the underground cables is there?
> 
> A*nd the result of the study? Microbes become more active with warmer temperatures and release more CO2, up to a point. Sheesh, any bread or beer maker can tell you this. The temperature increases CO2 production until the food runs low. It amazes me that this project got funded when it seems to be little more than rehashed grade school science. Maybe they should have modeled it first, but that wouldn’t keep the funding going for 18 years I suppose.* – Anthony


----------



## FeXL

Further on "settled science"...

Challenging the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



> Consensus is often cited in support of scientific paradigms, including anthropogenic climate change. *Australian physicist Tom Quirk has neatly dissected the consensus argument for the human role in climate change* in an article in Quadrant Online entitled “Of climate science and stomach bugs.” This curiously entitled piece begins with the story of how Australians *Barry Marshall and Robin Warren revolutionized the treatment of stomach ulcers in 1982 when they discovered that peptic ulcers are mainly caused by a bacterium.*
> 
> *While their claim was stubbornly rejected by drug companies and surgeons who profited handsomely from treating ulcer patients, in the end truth prevailed over dogma and Marshall and Warren received the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.*
> 
> Quirk’s article then compares the conflicts of interest, money and pseudoscience of the stomach bugs story with the ongoing debate over climate change. *His account reinforces the sometimes neglected but essential role of skepticism in all of science* and is well worth reading.


Bold mine.

Nope, "consensus" never gets it wrong...


----------



## FeXL

On carbon trading.

Oh that’s gonna leave a mark – EU carbon trading ‘worthless’



> I called it “end times for carbon trading“. The US CCX Carbon market collapsed two years ago, it was only a matter of time for the EU market. Today, there was a new record low according to Reuters “point carbon” where the price closed .10 lower than Friday.
> 
> ...
> 
> Watch the stampede to sell tomorrow.
> 
> ...
> 
> BTW, the EU Carbon Price is now in “charcoal briquette” territory, which is what happened just before the Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed. *A ton of EU carbon is worth less than the smallest bag of charcoal briquettes*


Bold mine.

Yup. Chicago closed @ a nickel a ton, which is why MacDoc claims to buy carbon offsets for his globe-trotting...


----------



## FeXL

Another nutty geoengineering idea – Olivine dust



> “If this method of geoengineering was deployed, *we would need an industry the size of the present day coal industry to obtain the necessary amounts of olivine.* To distribute this, we estimate that 100 dedicated large ships with a commitment to distribute one gigatonne of olivine per year would be needed.
> 
> “Taking all our conclusions together – mainly the energy costs of the processing line and the projected potential impact on marine biology – we assess this approach as rather inefficient. *It certainly is not a simple solution against the global warming problem.*” said Köhler.


Bold mine.

No, it isn't. Wait, remind me how much warming there has been in the last 16 years?

From the comments:



> And if this tips us into an ice age what then?


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows Greenland has cooled ~2.5C over past 8,000 years 

Abstract.



> Ice core records were recently used to infer elevation changes of the Greenland ice sheet throughout the Holocene. The inferred elevation changes show a significantly greater elevation reduction than those output from numerical models, bringing into question the accuracy of the model-based reconstructions and, to some extent, the estimated elevation histories. A key component of the ice core analysis involved removing the influence of vertical surface motion on the δ18O signal measured from the Agassiz and Renland ice caps. We re-visit the original analysis with the intent to determine if the use of more accurate land uplift curves can account for some of the above noted discrepancy. To improve on the original analysis, we apply a geophysical model of glacial isostatic adjustment calibrated to sea-level records from the Queen Elizabeth Islands and Greenland to calculate the influence of land height changes on the δ18O signal from the two ice cores. This procedure is complicated by the fact that δ18O contained in Agassiz ice is influenced by land height changes distant from the ice cap and so selecting a single location at which to compute the land height signal is not possible. Uncertainty in this selection is further complicated by the possible influence of Innuitian ice during the early Holocene (12–8 ka BP). Our results indicate that a more accurate treatment of the uplift correction leads to elevation histories that are, in general, shifted down relative to the original curves at GRIP, NGRIP, DYE-3 and Camp Century. In addition, compared to the original analysis, the 1-σ uncertainty is considerably larger at GRIP and NGRIP. These changes reduce the data-model discrepancy reported by Vinther et al. (2009) at GRIP, NGRIP, DYE-3 and Camp Century. A more accurate treatment of isostasy and surface loading also acts to improve the data-model fits such that the residuals at all four sites for the period 8 ka BP to present are significantly reduced compared to the original analysis. Prior to 8 ka BP, the possible influence of Innuitian ice on the inferred elevation histories prevents a meaningful comparison.


So much for the warmist screeching about a 2 degree "tipping point"...


----------



## FeXL

US Energy Information Administration says a carbon tax would cost avg family $1,400 per year, lead to loss of > 1 million jobs



> *The economic, environmental, and political realities surrounding a carbon tax are clear indications that this is bad policy.* Recently, two bipartisan resolutions publicly denounced the possibility of a carbon tax, highlighting the crushing economic and minimal environmental effects of the tax. One resolution, sponsored concurrently by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and a second by Representative David McKinley (R-WV) and co-sponsored by five other Republicans and three Democrats expressed their disapproval of the idea.[8]
> 
> *Whether the American economy is booming or heading off a fiscal cliff, the right time for a carbon tax is never.*


Bold mine.

Sounds like just the kind of program BO could get behind...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> US Energy Information Administration says a carbon tax would cost avg family $1,400 per year, lead to loss of > 1 million jobs
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Sounds like just the kind of program BO could get behind...


Interesting the last time the Chicken Little Crowd posted a number it was $600/family and they were horrified when I said it would be at least double that, for the simple reason that the bottom end of the fiscal spectrum is already living as efficiently as possible and therefore the cost would have to be higher in order to impact more affluent members of society. 

I believe the same argument still holds and $2500-3000/family would be a more accurate guess.


----------



## Macfury

Statistician William M. Briggs appears to be talking directly to MacDoc here, on two points in particular:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1417




> * The Earth’s climate has never been static It has always changed. And nobody—not a soul—knows what an ideal climate is. How can you say it will be bad if you don’t know what is good?
> * AGW is not the only theory of climate change Something caused climate the change, but it may not have been AGW. There are many rival theories, but you have never heard of them. One, or even none, of them might instead be true and could be useful in predicting future climates.
> * The accuracy of historical temperatures is questionable and is in flux We do not have direct measurements for most of the Earth’s history, and have to rely on statistics—-God help us!—to impute the missing records. The records used to compute past temperatures are ever changing, too; thus, so are the imputations. This process is fraught with error and uncertainty—uncertainty which is rarely or never carried through climate analyses, meaning we are too sure of the results.
> * Historical temperature changes are not good evidence of AGW Because it was cooler, or hotter, in the past is not complete evidence that AGW is true. All historical temperature observations are consistent with all known rival climate change theories. Past temperatures are, at best, indirect evidence for many different climate change theories, and not just AGW.
> * *Statements of what happens when it is hot outside are not evidence that AGW is true If you heard that a glacier melted when it was exposed to hot air, you have learned what you already knew: ice melts when it is hot.* Absolutely no observation of any plant, mineral, or animal is direct evidence of AGW. Thus, every horror story you have heard about small fish whose native waters got uncomfortably warm, about a species of grass that was stressed under the harsh sun, are not direct evidence that AGW is true. They are only statements of what happens when it gets hot out or when it rains or fails to.
> * *Every statement about what might happen if AGW were true is worthless as evidence for AGW Horror stories about the evil, wretched future that awaits us once the “tipping point” has been breached are not evidence for AGW. The statements are empty of any kind of proof. *“Studies” that claim future awfulness due to AGW are inappropriately and disingenuously used to hint that AGW is true. This naughty behavior is equivalent to the Tokyo scientist who solicits his government for a Godzilla “studies” grant because of the havoc the nuclear-fire breather could cause if he were real. That his grant is awarded is not evidence of Godzilla’s existence. Nor are the string of papers published on crushed bodies, burnt cities, and the like evidence for Godzilla’s existence.
> * The best indirect evidence for AGW is the fit of climate models to historical data AGW climate models can reproduce some of the historical data in some regions fairly well, but only in a statistical sense; they cannot fit data in all times or areas. However, many of those rival climate change theories fit the historical data equally well. Thus, the ability to reproduce historical data to an arbitrary level of goodness is not especially strong evidence in favor of AGW.
> * There does not exist good direct evidence for the truth of AGW The only possible direct evidence would be if the AGW models skillfully predicted future climate data (skill means an improvement over a naive forecast such as persistence or rival theory). These skillful predictions would tell us that the theory underlying the models is likely to be true. AGW climate models do not skillfully predict new data. A forecast of doom is not proof of doom.
> * The level of uncertainty in horrors caused by AGW is higher than thought A scientist writes a paper which states a horror is likely but not certain to occur if AGW is true and if a string of other conditions are met. This announcement is falsely taken as direct proof the horror will certainly occur. But the chance that the horror and AGW are both true and the string of conditions are true is necessarily less. Exaggerated example: it is 60% likely bee stings will increase if AGW true. But there is only (say) 10% chance AGW true. Therefore, there is only 60% x 10% = 6% chance we will see increased bee stings in the presence of AGW.
> * The bandwagon effect is strong Isn’t it odd that researchers predict that warm, fuzzy, cuddly, photogenic species all face extinction risk if AGW is true, but they also say that species that bite, stick, pester, and plague will thrive if AGW is true?


----------



## FeXL

Greenpeace gets some right & some wrong.

Greenpeace report puts oilsands midway among climate villains



> A new Greenpeace report on the world's top climate villains places Alberta's oilsands midway down the pack.
> 
> The report ranks the world's 14 largest energy development proposals in terms of how much greenhouse gases they would ultimately generate.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The oilsands don't appear until fifth spot, which it shares with projects in Iraq and the United States.*


Bold mine.

Even Greenpeace admits the oilsands isn't that bad.

However, then they go on to spout some claptrap about two degrees of AGW which ends up making them sound like the political activists they are...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Greenpeace.

Greenpeace’s Vision for America: Unemployed, Broke, Miserable


----------



## FeXL

Unprecedented Glacial Chutzpah – just in time for IPCC AR5



> From the European Geosciences Union comes some unprecedented chutzpah with this statement from one of the authors at the end of the press release:
> 
> “This study has been conducted with scientific motivations, but if the insight it provides can motivate political decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impact on climate and glacier retreat, it will be an important step forward,”​
> He even talks about how “Our study is important in the run-up to the next IPCC report”.
> 
> Sheesh, what an ego. I’m guessing this kid is linked with some activist NGO, such as Donna Laframboise has pointed out about the IPCC. *Meanwhile, it seems some non ego driven science suggests that Andean glacier advance and decline is linked to Pacific ocean cycles: 10,000 years of Andean glacier melt explained*


Bold mine.

Nope. No political agenda here. Just the science...



> In their comprehensive review of Andean glaciers, *the scientists synthesised data collected over several decades*, some dating as far back as the 1940s.


Bold mine.

OK, maybe not so much science...

From the comments:



> With some data as much as 73 years old the researchers were able to conclude that the glaciers are retreating faster than at any time in the last 300 years. Only in climate science is it possible to draw conclusions about data you don’t have.


Yup...


----------



## MacDoc

Nice to have a heavy weight in this finally.....we'll see how he does against entrenched interests.



> *Barack Obama promises US action on climate*
> 
> * Updated 16:46 23 January 2013 by Andy Coghlan
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change and US national issues Topic Guides
> 
> President Barack Obama yesterday vowed to put the fight against global warming at the heart of his next four-year term in office.
> 
> Sweeping aside years of American prevarication on whether to act on emissions, Obama promised the US would lead the world in its efforts to curb global warming, and in the development of the technologies to achieve this goal.
> 
> "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said on Monday in his inaugural address to the nation.


more

Barack Obama promises US action on climate - environment - 22 January 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

If Obama is twice as effective as his first term of office, he will do nothing but drive the nation deeper into unsupportable debt. Congress will never pass this nonsense.


----------



## FeXL

New study: Ocean-driven warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula needs to be considered as part of a natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability



> Now research led by Cardiff University published in Nature Geoscience has used a unique 12,000 year long record from microscopic marine algae fossils to trace glacial ice entering the ocean along the western Antarctic Peninsula.
> 
> *The study has found that the atmosphere had a more significant impact on warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula than oceanic circulation in the late Holocene (from 3500-250 years ago).*
> 
> This was not the case prior to 3500 years ago, and is not the case in the modern environment. *The study has also shown that this late Holocene atmospheric warming was cyclic (400-500 year long cycles) and linked to the increasing strength of the El Niño – Southern Oscillation phenomenon (a climate pattern centred in the low latitude Pacific Ocean) demonstrating an equatorial influence on high latitude climate.*


Bold mine.

Natural cycles. Not AGW.

Further:



> *The implications of our findings are that the modern observations of ocean-driven warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula need to be considered as part of a natural centennial timescale cycle* of climate variability, and that in order to understand climate change along the Antarctic Peninsula, we need to understand the broader climate connections with the rest of the planet.”


Bold mine.

Natural cycles. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Nice to have a heavy weight in this finally.....we'll see how he does against entrenched interests.


A heavyweight would have talked about this during his campaign. BO did nothing of the sort. He knew that if he brought up global warming he would have had his ass handed to him on a platter.

As such, he's a spineless wimp...


----------



## FeXL

Speigel’s stunning 8 part series – Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research



> If you have not read this yet, now is the time. In Germany, there’s a revolution going on. That revolution is that they are backing away from the global warming issue, and taking on much more pragmatic outlook on it an many things “green”. Below is one excerpt from the series, describing the David and Goliath story of Steve McIntyre. Links to all eight articles of the series follow. I suggest sharing this far and wide, because it tell the skeptic story quite well. – Anthony


More:



> *McIntyre put the Mann curve to the arithmetic test. He accuses Mann of having filtered out the hockey stick graph more or less arbitrarily from the fluctuation noise of his tree-ring data. To prove his contention, McIntyre programmed his computer using Mann’s methodology and entered completely random data into the program. The results, says McIntyre, “was a hockey stick curve.”*
> 
> Then the Canadian rebel turned his attention to the far more important temperature curves of the recent past, those of Phil Jones and of his comrade-in-arms at NASA, James Hansen. All things considered, the blunders he discovered at first were not particularly significant, but they were all the more embarrassing. *For instance, scientists had long claimed that 1998 was the warmest year in the United States since temperatures were first recorded — until McIntyre discovered that it was even warmer in 1934.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on late 20th Century solar activity.

Paper finds solar activity at end of 20th century was at highest levels of past 9,000 years



> The paper confirms other peer-reviewed publications indicating that the Sun was particularly active during the 20th century in comparison to the past several millenia In addition, the authors find good agreement between solar activity and the Asian climate as determined from stalagmites in the Dongge cave, China.


Abstract.



> Understanding the temporal variation of cosmic radiation and solar activity during the Holocene is essential for studies of the solar-terrestrial relationship. Cosmic-ray produced radionuclides, such as 10Be and 14C which are stored in polar ice cores and tree rings, offer the unique opportunity to reconstruct the history of cosmic radiation and solar activity over many millennia. Although records from different archives basically agree, they also show some deviations during certain periods. So far most reconstructions were based on only one single radionuclide record, which makes detection and correction of these deviations impossible. Here we combine different 10Be ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica with the global 14C tree ring record using principal component analysis. This approach is only possible due to a new high-resolution 10Be record from Dronning Maud Land obtained within the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica in Antarctica. The new cosmic radiation record enables us to derive total solar irradiance, which is then used as a proxy of solar activity to identify the solar imprint in an Asian climate record. Though generally the agreement between solar forcing and Asian climate is good, there are also periods without any coherence, pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks. The newly derived records have the potential to improve our understanding of the solar dynamics and to quantify the solar influence on climate.


----------



## FeXL

Further to above.

Paper finds tiny changes in solar activity explain N Hemisphere temps over past millennium 



> Climate alarmists often claim that tiny changes in solar activity cannot explain the temperature changes of the past millennium. However, a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds tiny changes in solar activity of .07% or less can account for changes in Northern Hemisphere [NH] temperature over the past 1,000 years. The paper examines 4 reconstructions of solar activity, each of which show a 'hockey stick' of solar activity in the 20th century. *The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that tiny changes in solar activity can account for climate and temperature changes on Earth.*


Bold mine.

Abstract.



> Estimates for the total solar irradiance (TSI) during the 17th-century Maunder Minimum published in the last few years have pointed towards a TSI difference of 0.2–0.7 W m−2 as compared to the 2008/2009 solar minimum. Two recent studies, however, give anomalies which differ from this emerging consensus. The first study indicates an even smaller TSI difference, placing the Maunder Minimum TSI on the same level as the 2008/2009 minimum. The second study on the other hand suggests a very large TSI difference of 5.8 W m−2. Here I use coupled climate simulations to assess the implications of these two estimates on Northern-hemisphere surface air temperatures over the past millennium. Using a solar forcing corresponding to the estimate of the first study, simulated Northern-hemisphere temperatures over the past millennium are consistent with reconstructed surface air temperatures. The large TSI differences between times of high and low solar activity as suggested by the second study, however, yield temperatures during all past grand solar minima that are too low, an excessive variance in Northern-hemisphere temperature on timescales of 50–100 years as compared to reconstructions, and temperatures during the first half of the 20th century which are too low and inconsistent with the instrumental temperature record. In summary this suggests a more moderate TSI difference of less than 1 W m−2 and possibly as low as 0–0.3 W m−2.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Speigel’s stunning 8 part series – Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research


The Germans get it!


----------



## FeXL

Team of Former NASA Scientists Conclude: 'There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis' 



> *A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.*


Bold mine.



> *1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.*
> 
> *2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. *The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.
> 
> *3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers.* Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.
> 
> 4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.
> 
> 5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth's habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.
> 
> 6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently "greening" significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.
> 
> 7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

The changing climate of climate change



> Scientists know that only logic and evidence apply. *The evidence causing great grief is the refusal of the global temperature to increase for the past 15 years.* It sloshes back and forth as one would expect on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in equilibrium, but does not warm as some claimed it would with slowly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. *Consequently, cracks are developing in the scientific facade supporting the dogma.*


Bold mine.



> The previous warm periods (Medieval, Roman and Minoan) likely had the same natural origin as the present one. Hence, we should expect a century of cooling that essentially reverses the warming of the 20th century. This is what the Greenland ice core temperature reconstructions show happened previously.


----------



## FeXL

Strong Tornadoes Hitting Half As Often As They Did 40 Years Ago



> On Monday, the community disorganizer in chief told us that storms are getting stronger.
> 
> In fact, violent tornadoes are becoming much less frequent, and 2012 was an historic minimum.


Major Hurricanes Hitting Half As Often As They Did Eighty Years Ago



> Yesterday, the community disorganizer in chief told us that hurricanes are getting stronger.
> 
> In fact, major hurricanes (sustained winds greater than 111 MPH) are becoming much less frequent and are currently at an historic minimum. The US used to get a major hurricane on average once a year, and now we only get hit about once every two years. The current stretch of eight years without a major hurricane strike is unprecedented in modern times.


So much for increased frequency & intensity of "extreme" weather events...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The Germans get it!


Dem rascally krauts...


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> Bold mine.


I believe it is now safe for you to dispense with this notation.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> I believe it is now safe for you to dispense with this notation.


It is necessary to differentiate between the emphasis of the original author and the poster. In some cases, the original web version includes bold text.


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Dem rascally krauts...


I'm half rascally kraut. Even born there!

I just drove from the south end all the way through to the north in Germany on tour last month, and I've never seen so many solar panels (and wind power) anywhere. There were tons and tons of towns with many many houses with solar on the roof, and many solar farms, everywhere.

And that's just the glimpse I got off the autobans.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Dem rascally krauts...


Yep. The U.S. should watch the imminent collapse of the German's insanely subsidized wind and solar panel program. That's the same road they're embarking on.


----------



## FeXL

Further on aerosols.

The low-down on aerosols



> In other words, the finding that aerosols have a smaller-than-expected shading effect makes the higher-sensitivity/higher-aerosol explanation for the slow warming much less plausible than the lower-sensitivity/lower-aerosol shading case. With the continuing rise in greenhouse gases producing no apparent rise in temperatures in recent years, the case for low climate sensitivity only looks stronger. This is unequivocally good news.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Greenland was much warmer in the past & is less vulnerable to thaw than previously thought



> In the last millions years the Earth's climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that *the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.*
> 
> "Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that *the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period*," says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.


Bold mine.



> During the warm Eemian period there was increased melting at the edge of the ice sheet and the dynamic flow of the entire ice mass caused the ice sheet to lose mass and it was reduced in height. The ice mass was shrinking at a very high rate of 6 cm per year. *But despite the warm temperatures, the ice sheet did not disappear and the research team estimates that the volume of the ice sheet was not reduced by more than 25 percent during the warmest 6,000 years of the Eemian.*


Again, bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

New paper notes long-term climate change may be 'inherently unpredictable'

Abstract.



> *The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) has a large uncertainty among models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and has recently been presented as “inherently unpredictable”. One way to circumvent this problem is to consider the Transient Climate Response (TCR). However, the TCR among AR4 models also differ by more than a factor of 2.* We argue that the situation may not necessarily be so pessimistic, because much of the inter-model difference may be due the fact that the models were run with their oceans at various stages of flux adjustment with their atmosphere. This is shown by comparing multi-millennium long runs of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies coupled model (GISS-EH) and the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4) with what were reported to AR4. *The long model runs here reveal the range of variability (~30%) in their TCR within the same model with the same ECS.* The commonly adopted remedy of subtracting the “climate drift” is ineffective and adds to the variability. The culprit is the natural variability of the control runs, which exists even at quasi-equilibration. Fortunately, for simulations with multi-decadal time horizon, robust solutions can be obtained by branching off thousand-year-long control runs that reach “quasi-equilibration” using a new protocol, which takes advantage of the fact that forced solutions to radiative forcing forget their initial condition after 30-40 years and instead depends mostly on the trajectory of the radiative forcing.


Bold from the link.

Quelle surprise...


----------



## groovetube

actually the US's differs than the German one, but you probably knew that, or ignored it.

One wonders what would have happened to the oil and gas industries here that continue to receive insane subsidies. If the answer is they'd be fine, then why are taxpayers still saddled with it?


----------



## FeXL

So, as a test, how many of you have heard anything in the MSM about cold records being broken anywhere in the US this month?

Me neither...

Global warming update: US sets 662 all-time low temperature records over past 22 days


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds solar & lunar forcing regulated Mediterranean temperature & precipitation over past 500 years

Abstract.



> The deposition of varved sedimentary sequences is usually controlled by climate conditions. The study of two late Miocene evaporite successions (one halite and the other gypsum) consisting of annual varves has been carried out to reconstruct the paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental conditions existing during the acme of the Messinian salinity crisis, ∼ 6 Ma, when thick evaporite deposits accumulated on the floor of the Mediterranean basin. Spectral analyses of these varved evaporitic successions reveal significant periodicity peaks at around 3–5, 9, 11–13, 20–27 and 50–100 yr. A comparison with modern precipitation data in the western Mediterranean shows that during the acme of the Messinian salinity crisis the climate was not in a permanent evaporitic stage, but in a dynamic situation where evaporite deposition was *controlled by quasi-periodic climate oscillations with similarity to modern analogs including Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, El Niño Southern Oscillation, and decadal to secular lunar- and solar-induced cycles. Particularly we found a significant quasi-decadal oscillation with a prominent 9-year peak that is commonly also found in modern temperature records and is present in the contemporary Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index. These cyclicities are common to both ancient and modern climate records because they can be associated with solar and solar-lunar tidal cycles.*
> 
> During the Messinian the Mediterranean basin as well as the global ocean were characterized by different configurations than at present, in terms of continent distribution, ocean size, geography, hydrological connections, and ice-sheet volumes. The recognition of modern-style climate oscillations during the Messinian suggests that, although local geographic factors acted as pre-conditioning factors turning the Mediterranean Sea into a giant brine pool, external climate forcings, regulated by solar–lunar cycles and largely independent from local geographic factors, modulated the deposition of the evaporites.


Bold from the link.

Sol & Luna. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

New book finds at least 63% of global warming was due to the Sun

From the Conclusions:



> The sudden increases of solar activity that occurred after the 1724 and 1924 solar dynamo transitions, has been accompanied by a sudden increases of average surface temperature of 0,2ºC, and 0.34º after 1724 and 1924, respectively. Therefore, of the total increases of the average temperature level, that was of ~ 0.8ºC along the last 400 years, less than 0.3 º may be of non solar origin, in agreement with previous results


That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Donna is interviewed by Fox.

The FoxNews Interview


----------



## FeXL

So, a month ago Marc Morano (of Climate Depot fame) debated Bill Nye (The Unscience Guy). A repeat was planned last night and, six minutes before the debate was to start, CNN revealed that Nye had backed down & they had substituted some guy from the Sierra Club. It wasn't nearly as much a debate as it was a smear campaign, filled with the usual warmist crap about settled science, big oil, etc.

Programming note Morano vs. Nye (but Nye backs out at last minute)


----------



## FeXL

On Anthony's interview with Fox a few days back.

A question for Zeke Hausfather



> Without getting into semantics, I’d like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
> 
> 1. What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
> 2. What was it a year ago?
> 3. What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
> 4. What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
> 
> We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43°F and 77.4°F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
> 
> The answers to these questions will be telling, and I welcome them. We don’t need broad analyses or justifications for processes, just the simple numbers in Fahrenheit will do.


----------



## FeXL

On the lighter side of stupidity...

Hilarious climate science fail by the warmists at GRIST (and now CNN)



> Jeez, there’s no excuse for this spectacular failure to understand one of most basic principles about the Earth’s weather and climate.


Yup. That said, here's another from CNN, with the vid clip. Anthony addresses it at the above link, too.

CNN Meteorologist Declares The Ice-Free Arctic

Listen to the blonde climb on the hobby horse at the end...


----------



## FeXL

Global Temperature Updates – 2012



> While Obama is imploring us to stop the global warming that is bringing us “the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms”, it would seem to be a good idea to see exactly what global temperatures have been doing in the last year.
> 
> ...
> 
> Perhaps the President might care to tell us what global warming he is talking about!


Don't be mocking BO, now. From his inauguration speech, he's got God on his side...


----------



## FeXL

Tropical Cyclones Of The Lesser Antilles



> In a new paper, Chenoweth and Divine (2012) examine their earlier record in more detail, including an update through 2009, using various statistics "to describe the climatology of tropical cyclones since 1690 and for hurricanes since 1638." In addition, they determined the maximum estimated wind speed for each tropical cyclone for each hurricane season to produce a seasonal value of the total cyclone energy of each storm along various transects that pass through the 61.5°W meridian, which parameter they identify as the annual Lesser Antilles Cyclone Energy (LACE).
> 
> In describing their findings, the two researchers say that their *"record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no trends in LACE in the best-sampled regions for the past 320 years."* Likewise, they report that "even in the incompletely sampled region north of the Lesser Antilles there is no trend in either numbers or LACE," which results they say are similar to those reported on tropical cyclone counts by Chenoweth and Divine (2008). And they add that "LACE is positively correlated with basin-wide Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)."


Bold mine.

No trend. So much for higher concentrations of CO2 being a trigger for more "extreme" weather...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Marc Morano/Sierra Club debate, from Lubos Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic. I've linked to his blog before.

CNN: Marc Morano on extreme weather trends



> I think that Marc Morano couldn't be a full-fledged scientist – I mean to actually calculate various things from the observed data, including confidence levels, and other things. It's my understanding he doesn't have the technical background for that.


Fine. No truck with that.



> However, when it comes to his ability to localize the relevant literature and data for a question, to figure out their implications for some general enough questions, to memorize all these things, and to clearly present them, he would probably beat a vast majority of scientists and non-scientists on both sides of the dispute about the climate change.


Agreed.



> A significant part of the scientific research – even in climatology – is complex enough so that the laymen can't really understand it or reproduce it and they may end up with wrong conclusions if they use their inadequate approximate methods to think and their not really solid and verified "idiosyncratic theories of physics" – and they should know that these methods aren't rigorous.


Again, agreed.

Now, my favorite part:



> *On the other hand, I believe that there exists a certain elementary layer of all these scientific questions that even a layman, assuming his or her basic intelligence, should be able to follow. When a layperson is actually told some data about some question, he or she should be able to deduce the right conclusions.*


Bold mine.

BINGO!!!!

So, the next time some "scientist" from a totally unrelated field tells you, in coy terms and with much hand waving, that you're too stupid too understand, that you should accept some sort of mysterious "consensus", tell him to get stuffed.

After reading material on both sides of this topic nearly daily for over 5 years, I may not be a climate scientist, but I'm at least an informed layperson. I've said it before & I'll say it again: you don't need a bloody Piled Higher & Deeper to read a graph...


----------



## FeXL

So, ran across a post at Watts Up With That this morning that had what I perceived as a very poor graphical representation of the non-correlation between CO2 levels and temps. From my view it looked like the same kind of crap that the warmists typically use. Later in my morning blogroll I ran across a post by the Chiefio speaking of this same issue.

He has used a different graph which, in my estimation, effectively gets the point across without using the visual trickery I viewed in the original post.

Temperature vs CO2 non-correlate

Either way:



> Pretty clear, isn’t it? Temperatures just not doing much at all. CO2 on a log ramp. Disconnected.


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio also has another Musing about weather & influences from Luna.

Why Weather has a 60 year Lunar beat



> I think it is the case that the reason the PDO/ AMO swaps on a quasi-3-Saros basis is that it takes 3 periods for the lunar tidal forces to be back over the same ocean at the same point in the Saros cycle. I think it likely that other resonances with lunar tidal cycles will be found. The Antarctic Circumpolar Wave looks to be running on about 1/2 a Saros frequency.
> 
> It looks likely that recognition of lunar tidal cycles longer than “the month” is an important thing to weather and ocean changes. Depth, mixing, current, precipitation; all those and more can be shifted, shaped, and modified by tidal force.


Good read, another one of those things that makes you go Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

The timing of this couldn't be any better. Julyar's head just exploded...

Breaking: Major shale oil find in South Australia (geopolitical shift coming?)



> Near Coober Pedy, Linc Energy has confirmed the Arckaringa Basin has lots of shale oil, so much that it could possibly shift us back to being an oil exporter.


MacDoc, when you headin' down under? Perhaps you can take your cute little scooter out there & protest...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, the next time some "scientist" from a totally unrelated field tells you, in coy terms and with much hand waving, that you're too stupid too understand, that you should accept some sort of mysterious "consensus", tell him to get stuffed.
> 
> After reading material on both sides of this topic nearly daily for over 5 years, I may not be a climate scientist, but I'm at least an informed layperson. I've said it before & I'll say it again: you don't need a bloody Piled Higher & Deeper to read a graph...


.


----------



## FeXL

So, couple interesting things in this article. First off, it's about a model that's s'pose to be more accurate than current GCM's. That's not what I found interesting but that fact that the programmers *do not include CO2 concentrations* as a major climate driver. Secondly, I knew that the GCM's were off, but never by how much. Numbers in the article quantify that.

Finally, a climate forecast model that works?



> This model describes a non-linear dynamic system of the atmosphere consisting of 5 major climate drivers: *Ozone concentration, aerosols, radiative cloud fraction, and global mean temperature as endogenous variables and sun activity (sunspot numbers)* as exogenous variable of the system.


Bold mine.



> Verifying the prediction skill of the system model from April 2011 to December 2012, *the accuracy of the most likely forecast* (solid red line) r*emains at a high level of 75%, and the accuracy relative to prediction uncertainty* (pink area) *is an exceptional 98%.* Given the noise in the data (presumably incomplete set of system variables considered, noise added during measurement and preprocessing of raw observation data, or random events, for example), this clearly confirms the validity of the system model and its forecast.
> 
> _In comparison, the IPCC AR4 A1B projection currently shows a prediction accuracy of 23% (September 2007 – December 2012, 64 months) and just 7% accuracy for the same forecast horizon as applied for the system model (April 2011 – December 2012, 21 months)._


Bold from the link, italics mine.

Fine, it's more accurate than previous GCM's, at least in the medium term. Let's see how they do long term. I remain sceptical. 

In addition, with predicted accuracy's of 23% & 7%, that's a helluva system to build an hypothesis on...



> The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…


Theoretical science vs empirical science. And empirical is kicking butt. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Ya know all those adjustments to the temperature record? Seems they have company...

Sea level rate of rise shown to be partially a product of adjustments | Watts Up With That?



> 2012 release #1 has 628 entries up to January of 2011 so I had Excel’s slope function calculate the rate of sea level rise for that time series of 628 entries across all nine releases.
> 
> What I found is that the rate of sea level rise has been bumped up twice since then, once in 2011 and the the latest in the current release.
> 
> ...
> 
> Coupled with the GIA increase of 0.3 mm/yr that was made prior to these nine releases *the rate of sea level rise has been bumped up 0.43 mm/yr in the last few years.*
> 
> This sort of thing *has been going on more or less regularly and it seems to go only one. way.*


Bold mine.

Settled, unquestionable, "science".

And they wonder why minds from laypeople to PhD's are sceptical?


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds why weather & climate models are so often wrong 



> But BYU mechanical engineering professor Julie Crockett doesn't get mad at meteorologists. She understands something that very few people know: it's not the weatherman's fault he's wrong so often.
> 
> According to Crockett, forecasters make mistakes because the models they use for predicting weather can't accurately track highly influential elements called internal waves.


Forecasters use the same GCM models as climate "researchers", run for shorter periods. That said, one other reason forecasts fail relate to the post two above: relying on CO2 concentrations as a climate driver.


----------



## FeXL

Further on aerosols & climate (un)sensitivity.

New study finds low climate sensitivity



> But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9°C. [from 3.7]​


More:



> "We are most likely *witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades* – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now."​


Bold mine.

Natural cycles. Who knew?

In closing:



> I wonder how much more evidence we need of low climate sensitivity before policymakers are forced to take notice?


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Good article on erroneous statistical methodology.

Uniform priors and the IPCC



> [Steve Jewson:] Yes, using a flat prior for climate sensitivity doesn’t make sense at all. Subjective and objective Bayesians disagree on many things, but they would agree on that. The reasons why are repeated in most text books that discuss Bayesian statistics, and have been known for several decades. The impact of using a flat prior will be to shift the distribution to higher values, and increase the mean, median and mode. So quantitative results from any studies that use the flat prior should just be disregarded, and journals should stop publishing any results based on flat priors. Let’s hope the IPCC authors understand all that.
> 
> Nic (or anyone else)…would you be able to list all the studies that have used flat priors to estimate climate sensitivity, so that people know to avoid them?​


A list of papers using this method is subsequently detailed.

The replies go back & forth, with Steve closing:



> Sorry to go on about it, but this prior thing this is an important issue. So here are my 7 reasons for why climate scientists should *never* use uniform priors for climate sensitivity, and why the IPCC report shouldn’t cite studies that use them.
> 
> It pains me a little to be so critical, especially as I know some of authors listed in Nic Lewis’s post, but better to say this now, and give the IPCC authors some opportunity to think about it, than after the IPCC report is published.​


He then lists his reasons. As sceptics are smart enough to click a link, I won't bore the warmists by posting the list. 

Good read, lots of info.


----------



## FeXL

Something rotten in Sweden? A blurb on the accuracy of infra-red thermometer calibrations relying on a faulty WMO standard.

World Meteorological Organization Exposed in Shocking Greenhouse Gas Fraud



> Sweden’s leading math professor has uncovered what appears to be a major scientific deception perpetrated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concerning a device that supposedly "proves" the greenhouse gas effect of global warming is real. Professor Claes Johnson has discovered that *infrared thermometer manufacturers have been calibrating their devices to a WMO measure known to have little reliability and may even be bogus.* Johnson calls the device a “fabricated product.”


Bold mine.

Whoops!



> By using the CGR4 thermometer it is possible to see a warming effect from DLR of about 4 W/srm2 per micrometer at a wavelength of 15 micrometer where the trace gas CO2 is emitting/absorbing.
> 
> However, after carefully crunching the numbers Johnson has spotted a monumental error. *The pyrometer has been calibrated using a bungled calculation of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law.* The Swedish math professor from RTH claims, “The consequences for climate alarmism, and Kipp&Zonen are far-reaching.”


Bold mine.

Hate when that happens...



> Digging deeper Johnson found that the S-B numbers Kipp&Zonen (and other manufacturers) used were taken from Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation issued by the World Meteorological Organization (section 7.4.3 formula (7.17). However, the Swedish math genius uncovered that “No scientific reference to (7.17) is given by WMO. *So Kipp&Zonen uses a formula issued by WMO without scientific support.*”


Bold mine.

More "settled science"?

I await the results of an investigation into this little "transgression"...


----------



## eMacMan

So why do I say that AGW looks, feels and smells like a scam?

Quite simple. The "Sky is falling" rhetoric and the proposed solutions which are to:
1) Funnel lots of money to Al Gore, in exchange for Carbon Credits, that are neither audited, verifiable or real.

2) Steal even more money from those that can least afford it in the form of Carbon taxes. 

Neither "solution" will have any impact on global warming. If they do accomplish anything it will be pushing a significant portion of the population from: "Almost getting by" to "Starving and/or freezing". Beyond that neither system has any provision or mechanism intended to reduce carbon emissions.

If the proposed solutions offer no solution other than to steal capital, then that is a very big warning flag that AGW is a monumental scam, especially when coupled with the doom scenarios being used to push it.


----------



## MacDoc

but of course it's okay funnelling $7 trillion per annum to the fossil fuel interests.....you have not got a clue just how much Koolaid Koch and co have fed you and you just swallow it up and regurgitate crap like your post.

Fellow traveller...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> but of course it's okay funnelling $7 trillion per annum to the fossil fuel interests.....you have not got a clue just how much Koolaid Koch and co have fed you and you just swallow it up and regurgitate crap like your post.


I have not come to expect much from your posts lately, MacDoc, but this scraping the bottom even for you. Did you drop by just to hurl an insult at eMacMan, then post a meaningless dollar figure that has no reference point? 

My advice? Wait until you get over this case of the heebie-jeebies before posting again.


----------



## iMouse

Free advice is worth every penny.

For someone with Fury in their handle, you seem content on restricting someone else using that emotion.

MacDoc may not be a wordy as FeXL, but he is still entitled to his view.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> MacDoc may not be a wordy as FeXL, but he is still entitled to his view.


For a second I thought you said "worthy" and was ready to agree. 

What do you suppose MacDoc's view was in that post, iMouse? To which $7 trillion was he referring?


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> What do you suppose MacDoc's view was in that post, iMouse?
> 
> To which $7 trillion was he referring?


Well, perhaps we'll find out, in due course, if he chooses not to follow your advice below.



Macfury said:


> My advice?
> 
> Wait until you get over this case of the heebie-jeebies before posting again.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Well, perhaps we'll find out, in due course, if he chooses not to follow your advice below.


Thanks for your insight into the post.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Well, perhaps we'll find out, in due course, if he chooses not to follow your advice below.


Don't hold your breath. MacDoc doesn't justify anything on this thread. Ever...


----------



## FeXL

Meet ‘One of the World’s Foremost Climate Scientists’



> Andrew Weaver is a climate modeler.


I know, I know... I rolled my eyes, too. However, let's cut him a bit of slack.



> While we might wish otherwise, Weaver is not the sort of scientist who stays above the fray, who leaves politics to the politicians. Rather he is, himself, an overt political actor. At the moment he is deputy leader of British Columbia’s Green Party. Ostrov’s post here includes a Twitter screen capture of Weaver, last October, accepting that position and telling the world how honoured he is.


Wait. Wha...?



> Earlier this week, Ostrov penned a post about Weaver titled IPCC Lead Author is Greenpeace PR Agent? pointing out that he recently promoted a new Greenpeace publication via Twitter.
> 
> With the oh-so-understated title, Point of No Return: The massive climate threats we must avoid, this publication talks about an “unfolding global disaster” and “catastrophic climate change.”


Well, that didn't last long...



> So why is “one of the world’s foremost climate scientists” and “a leading expert on global warming” promoting it]? Can he not tell the difference between solid data and green propaganda?


'Parently not...


----------



## FeXL

And they wonder why skeptic blogs get more traffic…



> As WUWT closes in on a million comments…
> 
> ...
> 
> …I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller





> As the climate debate heated up in the early 2000′s a number of activists, scientists and commenters started up their own weblogs.


Yup.



> However, the worst tactic in evidence is the censorship of comments and commenters. The ‘moderators’ of these blogs will cheerfully trash your comments, or delay them so the conversation has moved on by the time they appear, or worst of all, ‘edit’ them.


Yup.



> Weblogs that practice these tactics on a routine basis include Real Climate, Rabett Run, Stoat, the spectacularly misnamed Open Mind and Skeptical Science and Planet 3.


Yup.



> For some reason the operators of these blogs seem to feel that censoring conversations in some way advances the debate.


Yup.

Or, rather, nope...


----------



## FeXL

Mann overboard! Pot, kettle, conspiracy edition



> A climate scientist who says he has been subjected to a vitriolic hate campaign has denounced the way that *American billionaires have been able to secretly finance the climate-sceptic organisations that have attacked him.*


Bold mine.

Jeezuz, talk about conspiracy theories...

Just for the fun of it, let's talk money:



> On the subject of the Koch Brothers and funding of sceptic organizations, Dr. Mann might recall that his criminal acquaintance, Dr. Peter Gleick’s document theft was helpful it putting that issue to rest once and for all. From Junkscience.com
> 
> _As this page shows, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation only gave *$25,000* to Heartland in 2011 (about 0.5% of Heartland’s budget) *for a health care project.* Heartland only hoped to get $200,000 from the Foundation in 2012 — again for its health care project. But Dr. Mann would never talk about such adverse results._​


Bold mine.

Now, let's talk real money:



> Nor does Dr. Mann like to talk about the millions he has received in grants at Penn State.
> 
> _For those keeping score, that’s almost *$6 million* total for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years by Mann and his playmates._​


Bold mine.

Damn, I wish that big oil cheque would hit the mail soon. Either that or my online degree so I can cash in on some of that global warming cash...


----------



## FeXL

So, two papers here that seems to walk hand in hand with each other.

New paper finds sea levels in Uruguay have been falling for 6000 years

Abstract.



> A curve of the relative sea level during the Holocene in Uruguay was constructed based on data from beach storm deposits. The error envelope was too great to register small but significant oscillations, but the number of points used and the coincidence between our data and those from the literature show that *in Uruguay the sea level was above the present level approximately 6000 yr BP and has been declining since then.* The non-parametric smoothing technique used favours a smooth declining sea level curve similar to that proposed for the coast of Brazil (different slope).


Bold mine.

And:

New paper finds Antarctic sea ice has markedly increased over past 7000 years

Abstract.



> The West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly sensitive to global warming and its evolution and impact on global climate over the next few decades remains difficult to predict. In this context, investigating past sea ice conditions around Antarctica is of primary importance. Here, we document changes in sea ice presence, upper water column temperatures (0–200 m) and primary productivity over the last 9000 yr BP (before present) in the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) margin from a sedimentary core collected in the Palmer Deep basin. Employing a multi-proxy approach, we derived new Holocene records of sea ice conditions and upper water column temperatures, based on the combination of two biomarkers proxies (highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) alkenes for sea ice and TEXL86for temperature) and micropaleontological data (diatom assemblages). The early Holocene (9000–7000 yr BP) was characterized by a cooling phase with a short sea ice season. During the mid-Holocene (~ 7000–3000 yr BP), local climate evolved towards slightly colder conditions and a prominent extension of the sea ice season occurred, promoting a favorable environment for intensive diatom growth. *The late Holocene (the last ~ 3000 yr)* was characterized by more variable temperatures and increased sea ice presence, accompanied by reduced local primary productivity likely in response to a shorter growing season compared to the early or mid-Holocene. *The stepwise increase in annual sea ice duration over the last 7000 yr might have been influenced by decreasing mean annual and spring insolation despite an increasing summer insolation.* We postulate that in addition to precessional changes in insolation, seasonal variability, via changes in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies and upwelling activity, was further amplified by the increasing frequency/amplitude of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). However, between 4000 and 2100 yr BP, the lack of correlation between ENSO and climate variability in the WAP suggests that other climatic factors might have been more important in controlling WAP climate at this time.


Bold from the link.

Now, doesn't this just make sense? Antarctic sea ice levels have been increasing for just about the same period of time that sea levels have been dropping in Uruguay.

And not a drop of CAGW to be seen anywhere...


----------



## FeXL

Settled science: New paper finds where winds come from

Abstract.



> Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth's climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 °C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. *The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds.* Our estimates suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. *We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics.*


Bold from the link.

Why is this important?

'Cause it adds to the veritable litany of major factors not programmed into the GCM's (global circulation models) and why they continue to miserably fail at their job...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds China was warmer than the present 1100 & 1700 years ago

Abstract.



> In this paper, we use principal components and partial least squares regression analysis to reconstruct a composite profile of temperature variations in China, and the associated uncertainties, at a decadal resolution over the past 2000 yr. Our aim is to contribute a new temperature time series to the paleoclimatic strand of the Asia2K working group, which is part of the PAGES (Past Global Changes) project. The reconstruction was developed using proxy temperature data, with relatively high confidence levels, from five locations across China, and an observed temperature dataset provided by Chinese Meteorological Administration covering the decades from the 1870s to the 1990s. *Relative to the 1870s–1990s climatology, our two reconstructions both show three warm intervals during the 270s–390s, 1080s–1210s, and after the 1920s; temperatures in the 260s–400s, 560s–730s and 970s–1250s were comparable with those of the Present Warm Period.* Temperature variations over China are typically in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) after 1100, a period which covers the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and Present Warm Period. *The recent rapid warming trend that developed between the 1840s and the 1930s occurred at a rate of 0.91° C/100 yr [but has since flatlined].* The temperature difference between the cold spell (−0.74° C in the 1650s) during the Little Ice Age, and the warm peak of the Present Warm Period (0.08° C in the 1990s) is 0.82° C at a centennial time scale.


Bold & colour from the link.

Natural. Cycles.


----------



## FeXL

So, good blurb on Bayesian statistics & their misuse in climatology. A link to the original article inside. I've kept the first because, as always, some of the story is in the comments.

Bayesians on Bayes



> ...the Bayesian approach is much less helpful when there is no consensus about what the prior probabilities should be.​
> That will be a bust for the climatologists then.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the 2012 heatwave.

NOAA Deception Over 2012 Heatwave



> Clearly, the heatwave was much longer and more intense in both 1934 and 1936, and even 1980 [in Kansas]. The hottest day last year was 106F, but these sort of temperatures were commonplace in previous years. Indeed, in 1934, the temperature reached 111F on three separate days, while two years later there were two days which were even hotter, at 112F.
> 
> Nobody is denying that the summer last year was unusually warm, both in Kansas and the rest of the US. However, for NOAA to publish the information, that they have, without putting it into context, is misleading and dishonest.


Yup.



> NOAA, it seems, are making a habit of this. Jane Lubchenko’s claim that _“Scientific integrity is at the core of producing and using good science. *By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust”*_ rings rather hollow these days.


Italics from the link, bold mine.

For me, therein lies the rub. I just don't trust any of these buggers any further than I could throw them.


----------



## FeXL

More on 2012 heatwave.

Summer Of 2012 Was Average For 110 Degree Days



> The NOAA _hottest summer ever_ of 2012 was about average for very hot days in the US.
> 
> The summer of 1936 had more than six times as many 110 degree readings as the summer of 2012 – which didn’t rank in the top twenty for hot summer afternoons.


Italics from the link.

A little perspective goes a long way...


----------



## FeXL

Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change”



> *1. It’s the long term trends that matter — not a few weeks of hot weather*
> 
> As climate scientists keep telling us (except when they have a heatwave to milk), ”weather is not climate”. It’s the long term trends that matter. One short four week period is not a long term climate trend, but it is an excellent opportunity to create hype and scaremongering in the newspapers. Scientists with little scruple and low standards are making the most of this.


Yup.

The balance of the list follow.


----------



## FeXL

Stunning Glacial Retreat During The Coldest Year Ever



> During Hansen’s coldest year ever, Alaskan glaciers were retreating at a record rate of one inch every eight minutes, or almost five metres per day.


From a newspaper article in 1912.



> Glaciers were retreating much faster during the coldest year ever than they are during the hottest year ever. James Blalog of course doesn’t bother to mention this to his audiences, because his whole story would fall apart if he told his audiences the truth.


Yup.

Unprecedented, awright...


----------



## FeXL

Further on ENSO from Tisdale. 

Untruths, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Misrepresentations



> I’ve written this post for a number of reasons. Obviously, it was prepared to show the untruths listed above are, in fact, untruths. It was also written for persons new to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO); it provides fundamental information about:
> 
> - ENSO processes
> 
> - How ENSO is responsible for the warming of sea surface temperatures over the past 30+ years and
> 
> - How ENSO is responsible for the warming of tropical ocean heat content since 1955.


Lots of info, good read.


----------



## FeXL

What's this? The Sierra Club on the Big Oil dole? Over $25 million? Hypocrites...

The Sierra Club’s Broken Moral Compass



> Let us stop right there. Morano says his website isn’t funded by Chevron or Exxon. If the Sierra Club has evidence to the contrary, there has been ample time since that CNN broadcast to produce it.
> 
> So where is it? If none is available that means the head of the Sierra Club said something patently untrue on national television. There was nothing accidental about this untruth. It was intended to smear Morano, to diminish his credibility with CNN viewers.
> 
> In other words, the head of the Sierra Club chose to falsely accuse Morano of behaviour that his organization is, itself, outrageously guilty of. That’s Michael Brune’s idea of debate.
> 
> These people have no shame.
> 
> Dear Sierra Club. Until you return every last cent of that dirty money, you lack the moral authority to criticize anyone. About anything.


Yup.

C'mon, MacDoc. Where's the indignity? Where's the screeching?


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lord Stern's math...

Lord Stern’s Mathematical Malapropisms

In summary:



> Every single claim that Lord Stern made about how things are getting worse is untrue.
> 
> • There have been no surprises on the emissions front. The average annual increases in the CO2 emissions are basically unchanged since he wrote his report in 2006. In fact, despite his claim of rising emissions, the increases are somewhat smaller than expected in 2006, due to the drop in emissions from the global financial crisis.
> 
> • The amount of CO2 sequestered by the planet has stayed quite constant at about 55% of the total emissions. There has been no decrease in sequestration as he claims, and there is no evidence that the carbon sinks are losing their ability to sequester CO2.
> 
> • Finally, although he says “the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought”, the earth placidly continues along with no statistically significant warming or cooling over the last 15 years, and there is no sign of any increase in extreme events … so exactly which effects of CO2 are “coming through”, quickly or not?


----------



## iMouse

Wheels don't screech when they have been adequately greased.


----------



## FeXL

Expert predicts ‘Monsoon Britain’



> A study, by Professor Stuart Lane of Durham University back in 2008, appears to have been remarkably percipient. Written just after the extremely wet summer of 2007, the study suggests that, far from summers in the UK becoming drier as most climate models predict, they are likely to become wetter.
> 
> Lane makes the following points.
> 
> * The wetter weather in 2007, and which he forecasts will continue to be the pattern, is the result of the movement of the jet stream onto a more southerly track. (This, of course, is exactly what happened in 2012).
> * The period 1960-90 was an unusually dry one, especially compared to the 19th and early 20thC.
> * Three-quarters of our flood records start in the flood-poor period that began in the 1960’s. As a result, the frequency of flooding has been underestimated, leading to building on flood plains, etc.
> * Examining seasonal rainfall data and river flow patterns back to 1753, suggests many other “flood-rich periods” in the past which are comparable to now.
> * We have forgotten “just how normal flooding is in the UK”.
> * Linking heavier rainfall to global warming was wrong.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, a while back I posted a link by Dr. Roy Spencer speculating that waste heat may be an overlooked contributor to higher global temps (link to his post inside).

This paper supports the concept but, be warned, models involved... XX)

Waste heat – a bigger climate effect than once thought



> Led by Guang Zhang, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, the scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the extra heat given off by Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) of warming in winter. *They added that this effect helps explain the disparity between actual observed warming in the last half-century and the amount of warming that computer models have been able to account for.*


Bold mine.

We could add another half dozen missing parameters to help that out, as well as delete one, couldn't we...

From the comments:



> So we have “black carbon”, natural cycles, aerosols not lowering temperatures by as much as the computers said and now UHI warming “rural” areas over 1000 miles away.
> 
> Please tell me what CO2′s role is?


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

New FOIA filed against the EPA for dogging the last two...

New FOIA lawsuit filed against the EPA



> Today, the Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on behalf of the American Tradition Institute (ATI) in federal district court in Washington, DC. ATI seeks to compel EPA to end its eight-month stonewall of two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding EPA’s close working relationship with two pressure groups with which EPA has uncomfortably close ties, at great taxpayer expense.


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate models.

New paper finds climate models offer little beyond simulating a random walk

Abstract.



> The suitability of an empirical multivariate red noise (AR1) model, or linear inverse model (LIM), as a benchmark for decadal surface temperature forecast skill is demonstrated. Constructed from the observed simultaneous and one-year lag covariability statistics of annually-averaged sea surface temperature (SST) and surface (2m) land temperature global anomalies during 1901-2009, the LIM has hindcast skill for leads 2-5 and 6-9 years comparable to and sometimes even better than skill of the CMIP5 model hindcasts initialized annually over the period 1960-2000, and has skill far better than damped persistence (e.g., a local univariate AR1 process). Over the entire post-1901 record, the LIM skill pattern is similar but has reduced amplitude. Pronounced similarity in geographical variations of skill between LIM and CMIP5 hindcasts suggests similarity in their sources of skill as well, supporting additional evaluation of LIM predictability. For forecast leads above 1-2 years, LIM skill almost entirely results from three non-orthogonal patterns, one corresponding to the secular trend and two more, each with about ten year decorrelation time scales but no trend, that represent most of the predictable portions of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) indices, respectively. As found in previous studies, the AMO-related pattern also contributes to multidecadal variations in global mean temperature, and the PDO-related pattern has maximum amplitude in the west Pacific and represents the residual after both interannual and decadal ENSO variability are removed from the PDO time series. *These results suggest that current coupled model decadal forecasts may not yet have much skill beyond that captured by multivariate red noise.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Good blurb on a sea-borne temperature proxy confirming the cyclic nature of the PDO & NAO. Supported by various land proxies.

Coralline Algae and the Case for Natural Climate Change



> From Hetzinger abstract, “Here we present an annually-resolved record (1818–1967) of Mg/Ca variations from a North Pacific/ Bering Sea coralline alga that extends our knowledge in this region beyond available data. It shows for the first time a statistically significant link between decadal fluctuations in sea-level pressure in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. The record is a lagged proxy for decadal-scale variations of the Aleutian Low. It is significantly related to regional sea surface temperature and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index in late boreal winter on these time scales. Our data show that on decadal time scales a weaker Aleutian Low precedes a negative NAO by several years. This atmospheric link can explain the coherence of decadal North Pacific and Atlantic Multidecadal Variability, as suggested by earlier studies using climate models and limited instrumental data.”


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Wheels don't screech when they have been adequately greased.


So who is greasing him? Big Oil?


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> So who is greasing him? Big Oil?


Well, someone is surely getting lubed-up real good. 

That would serve to at least reduce the screeching.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Just a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, back from a better place...


I'm curious about this "better place." Was the climate not affected by human activity there? Must've been a much bigger planet (how did you deal with the gravity?), or a planet on which there were far fewer humans.


----------



## MacGuiver

David Suzuki: Money for Nothing and the chicks for free!:yikes:

In case there was ever any doubt that the big money is in warmist scare mongering. Profit$ of doom Suzuki charged $30,000 to a small publicly funded school for an hour of his wisdom plus expenses and other Rock Star frills to the tune of $41,000. Not to mention setting the creep-o-meter off the charts with his rider for choice female body guards.

Sun News : EXCLUSIVE: Suzuki's latest scandal involves $30,000 and female bodyguards


----------



## iMouse

MacGuiver said:


> David Suzuki: Money for Nothing and the chicks for free! :yikes:


Maybe the old fart wanted to finally play real "Barbie", but chickened out at the last moment?

Hell, he's old. Let him have his fun. beejacon

Pickles must be in season right about now.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I'm curious about this "better place." W


Fewer idiots...


----------



## FeXL

Some interesting speculation about El Nino/La Nina.

The Tao of El Nino



> I was wandering through the graphics section of the TAO buoy data this evening. I noted that they have an outstanding animation of the most recent sixty months of tropical sea temperatures and surface heights. Go to their graphics page, click on “Animation”. Then click on “Animate”. When the new window comes up, click on “60 months”, and then click on the play button. Figure 1 shows a couple of screen captures of different points in time, an El Nino in early 2010 and the succeeding La Nina half a year later.


----------



## FeXL

Settled science: New paper questions usefulness of core IPCC radiative forcing concept

Abstract.



> The seasonal cycle of the heating of the atmosphere is divided into a component due to direct solar absorption in the atmosphere, and a component due to the flux of energy from the surface to the atmosphere via latent, sensible, and radiative heat fluxes. Both observations and coupled climate models are analyzed. The vast majority of the seasonal heating of the Northern extratropics (78% in the observations and 67% in the model average) is due to atmospheric shortwave [solar] absorption. In the southern extratropics, the seasonal heating of the atmosphere is entirely due to atmospheric shortwave absorption in both the observations and the models, and the surface heat flux opposes the seasonal heating of the atmosphere. The seasonal cycle of atmospheric temperature is surface amplified in the northern extratropics and nearly barotropic in the southern hemisphere; in both cases, the vertical profile of temperature reflects the source of the seasonal heating.
> 
> We examine the change in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric heating in 11 CMIP3 models due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-industrial concentrations. We find the seasonal heating of the troposphere is everywhere enhanced by increased shortwave [solar] absorption by water vapor; it is reduced where sea ice has been replaced by ocean which increases the effective heat storage reservoir of the climate system and thereby reduces the seasonal magnitude of energy fluxes between the surface and the atmosphere. As a result, the seasonal amplitude of temperature increases in the upper troposphere (where atmospheric shortwave absorption increases) and decreases at the surface (where the ice melts).





> Our work demonstrates that the atmospheric response to heating is localized in the vertical and further suggests that the net radiative forcing at the tropopause (i.e. the Solomon et al. 2007, definition of radiative forcing) is *not a useful concept on short timescales because it fails to distinguish between energy absorbed within the atmospheric column and energy absorbed at the surface.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *This work begs the question: on what timescales and regimes is the radiative forcing at the tropopause a useful concept and when is the response of the system contingent on the vertical structure of the atmospheric forcing?*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Remember Polarbear-gate? Further...

Latest Uphere magazine: Polar bear invasion; "There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears" 



> In 2012, the Nunavut government conducted a long-awaited census of western Hudson Bay polar bears and came up with 1,013 animals, or about twice as many as the number projected by environment Canada. Dr. Mitch Taylor, a lifelong polar bear scientist who, at times, has been ostracized by his peers for insisting that polar bear populations are generally stable, took some satisfaction from the results. “The Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”


Damned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...


----------



## FeXL

More settled science...

Cloud forming bacteria?



> The upper troposphere is apparently teeming with particles of bacteria and fungi, surprising researchers.* Proving that life is tenacious and that microbes can survive just about anywhere, a team at Georgia Institute of Technology have discovered that quite a bit of what we assumed was dust and sea-salt may be bacteria aloft. Some of the little critters made it as high as the upper troposphere which is 10km up (where commercial flights cruise). No one is quite sure if the microbes “live” up there, or were just visiting.
> 
> ...
> 
> * While these researchers were surprised. Lank points out in comments that an Asian study found something similar in July 2012.


----------



## FeXL

A Musing on sea levels.

Is there A sea level?



> So in reality, there is no one true ‘sea level’. There can not be. Averaging many measurements of different sea levels at different places and times gives an interesting number, but one that hides more than it reveals.


Agreed.



> So 7000 years before present ‘sea level’ might have been lower, or higher by a meter, than at present? Then it fell after 2000 BP to end up where we are now. We had sea level changes of up to 1 m at a go, and at 4800 and 3000 BP *(gee, 1800 years apart… that’s a familiar number…)* and those changes were similar to present rates of sea level change.
> 
> Oh, and they have no idea why, but will trot out the list of ‘usual suspects’ anyway. _I note in passing that geology and lunar / tidal are NOT on their list…_


Bold & italics mine.



> 7 meters difference for 7000 BP. And someone wants me to get worked up over a few millimeters?


Bold mine.

Yup.



> We’ve got 5 meter range fluctuations over 1000 years. So if the present ‘sea level’ rose by 5 meters, it would be *back where it was in 1000 A.D.!*


Bold from the link.



> I have no idea if that bit of history is due to global shifts of ‘sea level’ or local geology shifts. Nor does anyone else. That there are similar dated ports and harbors in Turkey and Italy, now found well inland, implies to me that ‘sea level’ was higher, and has been dropping, and that any recent ‘rise’ is likely just due to a normal cycle of rise / fall on a 1000 to 2000 year basis.
> 
> Pointing at present sea level changes as evidence of human induce[d] warming is folly.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

Further on UHI & the temperature record.

UHI Has Huge Effects, But Is Unimportant



> _A study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that the heat thrown off by major metropolitan areas on America’s east coast caused winter warming across large areas of North America, thousands of miles away from those cities.
> 
> Winter warming was detected as far away as the Canadian prairies. *In some remote areas, temperature rose by as much as 1 degree C (1.8F) under the influence of big cities,* which produced changes in the jet stream and other atmospheric systems, the study found._​


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Yet:



> _no specific urban correction is applied in HCN version 2_​


Italics from the link.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unprecedented" drought...

Canadian and U.S. Droughts of the Medieval Warm Period



> In introducing a study of theirs that was recently published in Global Change Biology, Laird et al. (2012) write that "future extreme droughts, similar to or more extreme than the 'dust-bowl' 1930s, could be the most pressing problem of global warming," citing Romm (2011) and noting, for comparison, that "droughts of unusually long duration" or mega-droughts that occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) [= Medieval Warm Period] "lasted for several decades to centuries thus dwarfing modern-day droughts," as reported by Seager et al. (2007) and Cook et al. (2010).


Summation:



> These impressive and temporally-coherent findings have several important implications; but the one that is most germane to _climatology_ is that if future extreme droughts, such as those that occurred during the MCA, could indeed be the "most pressing problem" of projected _future_ global warming, as many climate alarmists contend, then it logically follows that (1) the Medieval Warm Period must have been _far more extreme_ in terms of both high temperature _values_ and their _duration_ than anything yet experienced during the Current Warm Period, and (2) the preceding observation is strong evidence that warming considerably in excess of what has been experienced to date in our day and age can readily occur _without any help from rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations,_ which were more than 100 ppm _less_ during the Medieval Warm period than they are today, as is additionally - and convincingly - demonstrated by the great multitude of quantitative and qualitative findings of a host of scientists who have studied both the Medieval and Current Warm Periods throughout the entire world, which findings further suggest that (3) the development of the planet's Current Warm Period may be due to something that is _totally unrelated_ to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


Italics from the link.

Yup.


----------



## Lawrence

I tend to believe that the poles are just doing some shifting,
Won't be long before Toronto has the climate of Tennessee.

HowStuffWorks "Are the Earth's poles shifting in 2012?"


----------



## iMouse

Lawrence said:


> Won't be long before Toronto has the climate of Tennessee.


I won't wait-up. :yawn:



> Research shows that during the last 200 million years a total true polar wander of some 30° has occurred, but that no super-rapid shifts in the Earth's pole were found during this period.[2]


Pole shift hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lawrence

iMouse said:


> I won't wait-up. :yawn:


Well, It would explain the melting patterns in the Arctic Ocean
But, The way the shifting appears to be going is more like a cyclic shift
Like, The West coast is going North and the East coast is going South

But, Don't take my word for it.


----------



## iMouse

I won't. 

But will you settle for Kentucky?

I'd love to see blue grass everywhere.


----------



## FeXL

Further on EPA transparency, also more questionable email accounts.

Vitter, Issa Investigate EPA’s Transparency Problem, More Suspicious E-mail Accounts



> In documents obtained by Senate EPW and House OGR committees, Administrator Martin used a non-official, me.com, e-mail account, which may have been an attempt to circumvent the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and Congressional oversight.


----------



## FeXL

Really good article about common ground and the multiple-failed AGW hypothesis...

Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?



> The general public finds it very hard to understand how such strong disagreement can exist between two equally qualified persons on a scientific topic, a disagreement that is manifest also on the wider scene by the existence of equivalent groups of scientists who either support or oppose the views of the IPCC about dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (DAGW).
> 
> In this article I shall try to summarize what the essential disagreement is between these two groups of scientists, and show how it has come to be misrepresented in the public domain.


Common ground:



> · that climate has always changed and always will,
> 
> · that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
> 
> · that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
> 
> · that a global warming of around 0.5C occurred in the 20th century, but
> 
> · that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years.


Points of dispute:



> · the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,
> 
> · whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and
> 
> · whether the IPCC’s computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future.


The hypothesis:



> _“that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”._ To be “dangerous”, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.


Italics from the link.

Summary:



> *The current scientific reality is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails.* Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date *no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.*
> 
> In contrast, *the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven.* As summarised in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), *literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: model based.

Paper finds El Niño acts as a mediator of the solar influence on climate

Abstract.



> Using a climate model of intermediate complexity, we simulate the response of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system to solar and orbital forcing over the Holocene. Solar forcing is reconstructed from radiocarbon production rate data, using various scaling factors to account for the conflicting estimates of solar irradiance variability. *As estimates of the difference since the Maunder Minimum range from 0.05% to 0.5% of the solar “constant,” we consider these two extreme scenarios, along with the intermediate case of 0.2%.* We show that for large or moderate forcings, the low-pass-filtered *east-west sea surface temperature gradient along the equator responds almost linearly to irradiance forcing, with a short phase lag (about a decade). Wavelet analysis shows a statistically significant enhancement of the century-to-millennial-scale ENSO variability for even a moderate irradiance forcing.* In contrast, the 0.05% case displays no such enhancement. Orbitally driven insolation forcing is found to produce a long-term increase of ENSO variability from the early Holocene onward, in accordance with previous findings. When both forcings are combined, the superposition is approximately linear in the strong scaling case. *Overall, the sea surface temperature response is of the magnitude required, and is persistent enough, to induce important climatic perturbations worldwide. The results suggest that ENSO may plausibly have acted as a mediator between the Sun and the Earth's climate. A comparison to key Holocene climate records, from the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and midlatitudes, shows support for this hypothesis.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows 20th century solar activity was at highest levels of past 9,400 years

Abstract.



> _Context._ Understanding the Sun’s magnetic activity is important because of its impact on the Earth’s environment. Direct observations of the sunspots since 1610 reveal an irregular activity cycle with an average period of about 11 years, which is modulated on longer timescales. Proxies of solar activity such as 14C and 10Be show consistently longer cycles with well-defined periodicities and varying amplitudes. Current models of solar activity assume that the origin and modulation of solar activity lie within the Sun itself; however, correlations between direct solar activity indices and planetary configurations have been reported on many occasions. Since no successful physical mechanism was suggested to explain these correlations, the possible link between planetary motion and solar activity has been largely ignored.
> 
> _Aims._ While energy considerations clearly show that the planets cannot be the direct cause of the solar activity, it remains an open question whether the planets can perturb the operation of the solar dynamo. Here we use a 9400 year solar activity reconstruction derived from cosmogenic radionuclides to test this hypothesis.
> 
> _Methods._ We developed a simple physical model for describing the time-dependent torque exerted by the planets on a non-spherical tachocline and compared the corresponding power spectrum with that of the reconstructed solar activity record.
> 
> _Results._ We find an excellent agreement between the long-term cycles in proxies of solar activity and the periodicities in the planetary torque and also that some periodicities remain phase-locked over 9400 years.
> 
> _Conclusions._ Based on these observations we put forward the idea that the long-term solar magnetic activity is modulated by planetary effects. If correct, our hypothesis has important implications for solar physics and the solar-terrestrial connection.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Sol & climate.

New paper finds solar cycle affects climate of Northern Hemisphere

Abstract.



> Here we present a study of the 11-yr sunspot cycle's imprint in the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, using three recently developed gridded upper-air data sets which extend back to the early twentieth century. We find a r*obust response of the tropospheric late-wintertime circulation to the sunspot cycle,* independent from the data set. This response is *particularly significant over Europe,* but results show that it is not directly related to a North Atlantic Oscillation modulation; instead, it reveals a significant connection to the more meridional Eurasian pattern. *The magnitude of mean seasonal temperature changes over the European land areas locally exceeds 1 K in the lower troposphere over a sunspot cycle. *
> 
> We also analyse surface data to address the question whether the solar signal over Europe is temporally stable for a longer 250 yr period. The results increase our confidence on the existence of an influence of the 11-yr cycle on the European climate, although the signal is much weaker in the first half of the period compared to the second half. The last solar minimum (2005 to 2010), which was not included in our analysis, shows anomalies that are consistent with our statistical results for earlier solar minima.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Another model failure...

Cloud Ice Water Content & Cloud Ice Water Path in CMIP5 GCMs



> *What was learned*
> Unfortunately, the eleven U.S. scientists report that "for annual mean CIWP, there are factors of 2-10 in the differences between observations and models for a majority of the GCMs and for a number of regions," additionally noting that "systematic biases in CIWC vertical structure occur below the mid-troposphere where the models overestimate CIWC." And in light of these and other shortcomings they identify, they ultimately conclude that "neither the CMIP5 ensemble mean nor any individual model performs particularly well," adding that "there are still a number of models that exhibit very large biases," and this "despite the availability of relevant observations." What is more, even in cases where they indicate "the models may be providing roughly the correct radiative energy budget," they state that "many are accomplishing it by means of unrealistic cloud characteristics of cloud ice mass at a minimum, which in turn likely indicates unrealistic cloud particle sizes and cloud cover."


----------



## FeXL

Further on drought duration & intensity.

A History of Drought in the Southern United States Since 1895



> *What was learned*
> The nine researchers say they found "no obvious increases in drought duration and intensity during 1895-2007." In fact, they say they actually found "a slight (not significant) decreasing trend in drought intensity." And they emphatically state that "although reports from IPCC (2007) and the U.S. Climate Report (Karl et al., 2009) indicated that it is likely that drought intensity, frequency, and duration will increase in the future for the SUS, we did not find this trend in the historical data." And in like manner they write that although "the IPCC (2007) and U.S. Climate Report predicted a rapid increase in air temperature, which would result in a higher evapotranspiration thereby reducing available water," they also say they "found no obvious increase in air temperature for the entire SUS during 1895-2007."


----------



## FeXL

Record Arctic Ice Growth In 2012-2013



> Arctic ice area growth since mid-September has shattered the previous record, growing 175,000 Manhattans of new ice over the last four months.


----------



## FeXL

40% Of US All-Time Record Maximums Were Set During The 1930s



> There are 824 GHCN HCN stations which have been continuously active since at least 1920.
> 
> Forty percent of those stations set their all-time record maximum temperature during the 1930s. Twenty-one percent set their all-time record maximum temperature in the year 1936 alone.
> 
> By contrast, only one percent of those stations set their all-time record maximum temperature in the current decade. Eighty-nine percent of those stations set their all-time record with CO2 below 350 ppm.


----------



## FeXL

So, Gavin Schmidt links us to a temperature graph containing Japanese Meteorological Agency data, noting that they agree with each other. However, take a look at the far RH side of the graph, the JMA line...

Linky.

You say, what, a tenth of a degree, more or less? Then why do all the agencies make such a fuss over which year was hottest, going down to hundredths of a degree to make their point...


----------



## FeXL

Climate cycles and political alarmism

Before, warmists said that a 15 year flatline in temps would disprove modelled global warming, Now that we're past that, Rahmstorf notes:



> “if the system (is cyclic), we’d expect the opposite. In 30 years’ time we will know for sure.”


Huh? Why not look back to previous 30 year half cycles? From the comments:



> It is a fact that the earth’s climate changes cyclically. We will not need to wait 30 years to determine if solar magnetic cycle changes affect planetary temperature and to determine the true magnitude of AGW.


Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds potential glacier contribution to sea levels is 43% less than IPCC claims

Abstract.



> I asses the feasibility of multi-variate scaling relationships to estimate glacier volume from glacier inventory data. I calibrate scaling laws against volume observations of optimized towards the purpose of estimating the total global ice volume. This is applied individually to each record in the Randolph Glacier Inventory which is the first globally complete inventory of glaciers and ice caps. I estimate that the total volume of all glaciers in the world is 0.35 ± 0.07 m sea level equivalent. This is substantially less than a recent state-of-the-art estimate. Area volume scaling bias issues for large ice masses, and incomplete inventory data are offered as explanations for the difference.


Why is this important?



> This new paper, along with other recent papers demonstrating that Greenland is resistant to warming, and that ice mass gain in Antarctica is reducing sea levels, collectively demonstrate that *IPCC projections of sea level rise are greatly exaggerated*.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Taking a cue from Hillary's whitewash comments bag ("What difference does it make?"), errors in the latest Hockey Team paper methodology "don't matter"...

A new hockey team paper



> Results presented here for the CSM model using multiple pseudoproxy noise realizations show that the quantitative differences between the incorect [sic] and corrected results are within the expected variability of the noise realizations.


----------



## FeXL

220 days without a tornado related death: new record.



> Today's fatality ends the longest continuous stretch without a tornado death ever recorded in the U.S.--220 days. The last time the U.S. saw a tornado death was at Venus in Highlands County, Florida, from an EF-0 tornado associated with Tropical Storm Debby on June 24, 2012. The previous record was 197 straight days without a tornado death, which ended on February 28, 1987. Part of the reason for the long stretch without a tornado death during 2012 - 2013 was the relative lack of tornadoes. According to NOAA's Storm Prediction Center (SPC), the total number of tornadoes during 2012 was just 936. *This is the first time since 2002 that fewer than 1000 tornadoes have been recorded.*


Bold mine.

Further confirmation of the disconnect between CO2 & more extreme weather events.


----------



## FeXL

EU Carbon Trading ‘death spiral’ continues



> Carbon has closed below $4 a ton in a new record low while Deutsche Bank bails


Further:



> Two board members at Deutsche Bank, including the lender’s co-chief executive, have been drawn into a police investigation into tax evasion related to the group’s carbon trading business.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Japanese Meteorological Agency data.

Japan’s ‘Cool Hand Luke’ moment for surface temperature



> NASA GISS uses a 1951-1980 average for the anomaly baseline, Japan’s Meteorological agency uses a 1981-2010 baseline, and that explains the offset difference between 0.48 and ~ 0.23 C, however, *it doesn’t explain the divergence when all of the data is plotted together using the same anomaly 1951-1980 baseline as NASA did*, which is explained in more detail at the link provided in the NASA 365 post to NASA’s Earth Observatory study...


Bold mine.

More:



> So, it appears that Japan’s Meteorological agency is using adjusted GHCN data up to the year 2000, and from 2001 they are using the CLIMAT report data as is, without adjustments. To me, this clearly explains the divergence when you look at the NASA plot magnified and note when the divergence starts.


----------



## Lawrence

Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift


Published: Friday, February 1, 2013 - 05:34 in Earth & Climate

.


----------



## FeXL

Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming 



> The effect follows the cause; the cause does not follow the effect. Short-term global temperature changes precede CO2 levels by about 1 year as shown by observations, and by 800+ years in ice core data.


Key points:



> ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
> 
> ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
> 
> ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
> 
> ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
> 
> ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
> 
> ► *CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Inconvenient truth: Sea level rise is decelerating 

Abstract.



> As an island nation with some 85% of the population residing within 50 km of the coast, Australia faces significant threats into the future from sea level rise. Further, with over 710,000 addresses within 3 km of the coast and below 6-m elevation, the implication of a projected global rise in mean sea level of up to 100 cm over the 21st century will have profound economic, social, environmental, and planning consequences. In this context, it is becoming increasingly important to monitor trends emerging from local (regional) records to augment global average measurements and future projections. The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. *The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.* Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

On climate sensitivity.

James Annan on climate sensitivity



> James Annan has a must-read post on climate sensitivity today, picking up on the Norwegian study, Nic Lewis's work and the contents of the leaked IPCC report.


Link to Annan's post.



> But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle.
> 
> ...
> 
> It looks rather like the IPCC authors have invented this meme as some sort of talismanic mantra to defend themselves against having to actually deal with the recent literature.


----------



## FeXL

So, you've got a couple dozen models that spew output which graphs all over the place. Then, when one of them hits what today's weather is, you shout "Eureka!!! We predicted it!!!". That's not science, that's hitting the odds...

Yellow Science…Renowned Climate Modeller Now Claims Temperature Stagnation Is Actually Evidence Of Warming!



> It wasn’t long ago that climate scientists were claiming things were “worse then we thought” and that the climate was careening out of control. Now that the climate is not changing at all, they are suddenly saying they aren’t surprised at all, and are even starting to claim their models had projected it.
> 
> Knutti even takes it a step further. In his piece he even tries to have us believe that the stagnation is actually evidence of warming! *You see, from dozens of models, he managed to find one or two that foresee periods of stagnation interrupting the overall warming.*


Bold mine.

More:



> One scientist has pointed out to me that there’s even a model that doesn’t show any warming until 2050. He wrote in an e-mail: _”There is even one model curve which has hardly any warming until 2050. That must be their fall-back rescue anchor. If temperatures in 2050 are like today’s, then they will still claim they were right.”_


Italics from the link.

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Your Tax Dollars At Work : Global Warming Video Game For Adolescent Girls



> *A new video game featuring a black alien female superhero delivered to Earth to fight global warming is about to hit the market thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Obama administration.*


Bold from the link.

Jeebus...

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry...


----------



## FeXL

Oops: After Alaska cooled 2.4 degrees F. last decade, new NWF propaganda claims that "Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States "

From the National Wiidlife Federation report:



> ...Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States


Huh? More like:



> “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit..."


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Norway report.

Climatologists Retrench As Climate Refuses To Warm



> Ice core analysis shows that the ice sheet at the NEEM site did not get much thinner than its present 2.5 kilometers. This was indicated by the air content in the core, which the team correlated with elevation. Before the Eemian warming began, the Greenland ice sheet was some 200 meters thicker than it is today. But after six millennia of strong warming the ice sheet lost just over one-tenth of its thickness, dropping to 130 meters below its present height. It then remained steady until the end of the Eemian. The NEEM core implies that Greenland’s ice sheet lost at most one-quarter of its volume, and contributed no more than 2 meters of sea-level rise.
> 
> *The bottom line on this report is that Greenland's ice sheet, even when subjected to significantly warmer temperatures than today, did not melt rapidly and disappear as some alarmists would have us believe.* Those who point to Greenland's melting ice and predict massive sea-level rise are in for some disappointment. And need I point out that those higher Eemian temperatures occurred when what few humans existed had only campfires to contribute to their carbon footprints.


Bold mine.

More:



> Once again we see that the predictions of those who expect the worst are most likely wrong. The lack of sea-level rise over the last half century, the missing spread of drought, the stubborn refusal of major storm frequency to rise, and, most noticeably, the lack of increasing temperatures have conspired to force the climate alarmists back to their models.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Yet another paper shows the hot spot is missing



> The graphs from this recent paper show once again that the models are wrong, the observations lie far outside most of the models. No matter how many ways they reassess the same data and rejig the models, they aren’t getting a match.
> 
> The problem in a nutshell: If they drop the assumptions about amplification by upper tropospheric water vapor, the models will match reality but they won’t predict a crisis.
> 
> The weather balloons produced the dramatic images showing just how “missing” the hot spot is. But people have been searching with satellites too. The satellites don’t have the vertical resolution of the weather balloons, because they measure large thick bands of sky. So while researchers won’t find the “hot spot” exactly with a satellite, they hope to find the right ratio of trends in the upper atmosphere compared to trends in lower bands.


Good info.


----------



## FeXL

Comments from Bob Tisdale.



> Looks like it’s time for you to move along, David. You have no credibility here. None whatsoever.
> 
> Adios.


----------



## FeXL

Hiding The 1930s



> NOAA and NASA have been working feverishly to make the 1930s disappear in the US. Hansen used to know that it was hot and dry during the 1930s, but he somehow forgot over the last decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA and NASA also have been trying to tell us that it was just the US, but in 1975 the National Academy Of Sciences showed us that the entire Northern Hemisphere was hot during the 1930s.
> 
> ...
> 
> NCAR showed the same thing.


----------



## FeXL

Greenland Is Not Warming



> The graph below plots all of the CRUTEM4 records for Greenland. It was just as warm or warmer during the 1940s.


----------



## FeXL

Lawrence said:


> Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift
> 
> 
> Published: Friday, February 1, 2013 - 05:34 in Earth & Climate
> 
> .


Ran across that this morning. The thing I didn't like about it was all the models involved.


----------



## kps

Hey FeXL, need any help? LOL

Thought I share anyway, there just might me something to this....

I know the source will be 'poo, poo-ed' by the elites, but here goes anyway:

Over-heated hysteria : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery


----------



## FeXL

If you can stomach it, a week of the Goracle...

The week in Gore


----------



## FeXL

Willis is playing with the TAO buoy data again. Interesting speculations...

A Tropical Oddity



> I have no big conclusions out of this, other than to note that once again we see a strong thermostatic temperature governing mechanism in action. It is not simple feedback. It adds more energy to the surface in the morning when it is cool, and it reflects more energy to space in the afternoon when it is warm … just one of the many homeostatic mechanisms that keep the planet from overheating. It is a fairly powerful mechanism. *As a measuring stick, 22 W m-2 is the expected change in forcing from CO2 increasing from its present value (~390 ppmv) to about 24,000 ppmv … just providing a sense of scale here …*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, yesterday I posted a link about James Annan's climate sensitivity observations. Anthony expands.

BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC



> UPDATE 2: Annan also speaks about lying as a political motivator within the IPCC, I’ve repeated this extraordinary paragraph in full. Bold mine.
> 
> Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved  Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a “small private opinion poll” is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. *The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.*​


And the warmists wonder why, when stuff like this comes out, sceptics question their credibility?

Now, I'm not saying that all warmists are this disreputable. However, when you read about models that are based on parameters that are proven to have little effect and are missing parameters that are shown to be key indicators, the grey, non-peer reviewed references the IPCC uses, all the temperature adjustments, fruit loops & whackos like the Goracle & Fruit Fly Guy, blatant politicking like the above, gawd knows what else, how the hell is anyone ever expected to separate the wheat from the chaff?

I know, I know: the science is "settled"... <shakes his head>


----------



## FeXL

You go, Mr. Holland...

Tenacious sceptic clings to Climategate

Article opens:



> What drives a man to spend his retirement trying to refute the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet?


From the comments:



> The truth!


Can't say it any clearer than that.



> "I'm a very bad loser. They chose the wrong guy to screw," explained David Holland, a climate sceptic who has taken the University of East Anglia to an information tribunal in the Climategate saga's most recent twist.


I'm liking the hell outta this guy already...



> But Mr Holland does not believe in a "conspiracy" by climate scientists as such. They are true "believers" who, he thinks, have staked their professional lives on the existence of man-made climate change and cannot go back on this belief.


I've been accused of believing in a conspiracy on this thread before. I don't. The above quote sums up quite nicely where I'm at.



> "There was a time when we were all hippies and Greens but some of us grow out of it," he added.


Well, I've never been a hippy or a green, but certainly understand that some of these guys need to grow up...



> Why then do scientists continue to claim man is warming the planet? Mr Holland's explanation is a common one among sceptics: researching climate change helps them to win grants.


Bingo! Some of these guys have spent years on this one topic. They simply do not know anything else & are extremely reluctant to let go. The bottom falls out of their climate change funding and the bottom drops out of their lives.


----------



## Lawrence

FeXL said:


> Ran across that this morning. The thing I didn't like about it was all the models involved.


I found the article interesting and informative,


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> I found the article interesting and informative,


Ozone depletion is also one of those issues in which it's fairly easy to find agreement. I was never 100% convinced about what might have caused the hole in the ozone layer, but I had little trouble with placing a bet on switching out CFCs for other refrigerants to see what would happen. This is entirely different from the AGW crowd, which expects draconian lifestyle changes in exchange for imagined benefits.


----------



## FeXL

Further on post #2100 about water vapour & winds.

Do forests drive wind and bring rain? Is there a major man-made climate driver the models miss?



> A new paper is causing a major stir. The paper is so controversial that many reviewers and editors said it should not be published. After two years of deliberations, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics decided it was too important not to discuss.
> 
> The physics is apparently quite convincing, the question is not whether it happens, but how strong the effect is. Climate models assume it is a small or non-existent factor. Graham Lloyd has done a good job describing both the paper and the reaction to it in The Australian.


If (yes, big if...) this pans out, it is ground-breaking on any number of levels.



> If the paper is right, it’s a reason to plant many more trees, but it diminishes the role of CO2, shows the climate models are [even more] pathetically inadequate and is another reason why a carbon market, giant windfarms, and solar panels are a waste of time and money.


The authors are answering questions on Judith Curry's site.

They note:



> It’s official: our controversial paper has been published. After a burst of intense attention (some of you may remember discussions at Climate Etc., the Air Vent and the Blackboard), followed by nearly two years of waiting, our paper describing a new mechanism driving atmospheric motion has been published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
> 
> It’s been an epic process – most papers get published (or rejected) in less than a tenth of that time. The paper is accompanied by an unusual Editor Comment (p. 1054) stating that in the paper we have presented a view on atmospheric dynamics that is both “completely new” and “highly controversial”. They accept that we have made a case to be answered: they clarify that “the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.” That’s not exactly an endorsement but it is progress.


Further down the authors note:



> *Thanks to help from blog readers,* those who visited the ACPD site and many others who we have communicated with, our paper has received considerable feedback. Some were supportive and many were critical. Some have accepted that the physical mechanism is valid, though some (such as JC) question its magnitude and some are certain it is incorrect (but cannot find the error).


Bold mine. I'd love to rub certain noses into this but I'll leave it as it is. The phrase says far more in 5 words than I could say in a hunnert...

Lots of good info, some technical, very good read. Kudos to the authors for pushing the envelope.


----------



## FeXL

Coldest January In Utah Since 1979



> In December, NRDC warned of ten degrees winter temperature rise in Utah, and the end of skiing.


The reality?



> January was the eleventh coldest on record in Utah, and the coldest since 1979. There is no evidence that winter temperatures in Utah are increasing or that snowfall is decreasing


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

The yearly lukewarm report



> The bottom line remains the same as what I wrote last year, with additional evidence of support.
> 
> Here is what I wrote then:
> 
> _ So what I have documented is a collection of observations and analysis that together is telling a story of relatively modest climate changes to come. Not that temperatures won’t rise at all over the course of this century, but that rather than our climate becoming extremely toasty, it looks like we’ll have to settle (thankfully) for only lukewarm.
> 
> My guess is that 2012 will hold more good news for lukewarmers, both in terms of supportive scientific findings, and also in a migration of folks towards the middle of this issue. As the being lukewarm becomes a bit more comfortable, I imagine that more folks will be drawn in._​
> I was right for 2012. I imagine that I will be right for 2013 and beyond.
> 
> Happy lukewarming to everyone!


----------



## FeXL

Further on that pesky polar bear population problem...

NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?



> In 2008, reports of polar bears’ inevitable march toward extinction gripped headlines. Stories of thinning Arctic ice and even polar bear cannibalism combined to make these predators into a powerful symbol in the debate about climate change.
> 
> The headlines caught Zac Unger’s attention, and he decided to write a book about the bears.
> 
> ...
> 
> In the end, he came away with something totally different, Unger tells NPR’s Laura Sullivan.


----------



## FeXL

Further on <sigh> models...

ARMSTRONG: Climate seers as blind guides



> In 2009, Mr. Green, Willie Soon of the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics and I conducted a forecasting validation study using data from 1850 through 2007. *We showed that a simple model of no trend in global mean temperatures for horizons of one to 100 years ahead provided forecasts that were substantially more accurate than the IPCC’s 0.03 degrees Celsius per year projections. For horizons of 91 to 100 years, the IPCC’s warming projection had errors 12 times larger than those from our simple model.* Our own forecasting procedures violated only minor evidence-based principles of forecasting, and it did not rely on expert judgment about the trend. Scientific forecasts since that 2009 paper, described in our latest working paper, assess those minor deviations from the principles, and the results support our earlier findings.


Bold mine.

Further:



> Policy on climate change rests on a three-legged stool of forecasts. First, it is necessary to have valid and reliable scientific forecasts of a strong, persistent trend in temperatures. Second, scientific forecasts need to show that the net effects of the trend in temperatures will be harmful. Third, scientific forecasts need to show that each proposed policy (e.g., a policy that polar bears require special protection because of global warming) would provide a net benefit relative to taking no action. A failure of any leg invalidates policy action.
> 
> *Since 2007, we have searched for scientific forecasts that would support the three-legged stool of climate policy. We have been unable to find a single scientific forecast for any of the three legs — the stool currently has no support.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on that pesky polar bear population problem...
> 
> NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?


Funny quote from the article:



> *On trick-or-treating when polar bears might be lurking around the corner*
> 
> “Halloween is when you’re supposed to go up with lots of food and run around with your kids. So we were up there for Halloween … and so what they do is when you go out trick-or-treating you go out with somebody who has a gun — whether it’s a police officer, or a volunteer or someone from the military. They all come out and they help you go trick-or-treating. Now, they have one rule, which is that kids can’t dress in anything white — no princesses, no ghosts — because you don’t want to be dressed as something white in the darkness when there’s a bunch of guys with guns looking for polar bears.”


----------



## FeXL

They're finally "getting" it...

The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity



> Lower climate sensitivity is getting some mainstream discussion. Last week at WUWT, we had this story: BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC which is now the most read story on WUWT in the past week.


----------



## FeXL

More "Global Weirding"?

A New Kind Of Rain



> _Last year taught us that weather patterns are getting more extreme,” says Lord Smith. “If you’d said to me a decade ago that we’d have a year in which the first three months would be facing a serious prospect of very severe drought, but we’d then have nine months of the wettest period since records began, I’d have just said, ‘No, that sort of extreme weather does not happen here in Britain.’ Increasingly, it does.
> 
> The weather is highly unpredictable and presents new challenges, he says, adding: “We are experiencing a new kind of rain.” _​


Nope, no "Global Weirding". Just another politician with his head in places most of us can't replicate...

In summary:



> * Even though the wettest June occurred last year, June 1860 and 1768 were almost as wet.
> * Although wetter than average, July and August 2012 were by no means exceptional months, when placed in the historical context.
> * In none of the months is there any indication that rainfall in recent years has been unusually high, or is exhibiting any particular trend.
> * The summer, as a whole, was the wettest since 1912. However, this has occurred largely because all three months were wetter than normal, with no really dry interludes in between. This simply reflects the inherent variability of English weather, the coincidence of events and the workings of the jet stream, rather than any deep climatic changes.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on (and why I don't like) treemometers...

New paper finds tree-ring studies underestimate climate extremes of the past 

Abstract.



> External forcing and internal dynamics result in climate system variability ranging from sub-daily weather to multi-centennial trends and beyond1, 2. State-of-the-art palaeoclimatic methods routinely use hydroclimatic proxies to reconstruct temperature (for example, refs 3, 4), possibly blurring differences in the variability continuum of temperature and precipitation before the instrumental period. Here, we assess the spectral characteristics of temperature and precipitation fluctuations in observations, model simulations and proxy records across the globe. We find that whereas an ensemble of different general circulation models represents patterns captured in instrumental measurements, such as land–ocean contrasts and enhanced low-frequency tropical variability, the tree-ring-dominated proxy collection does not. The observed dominance of inter-annual precipitation fluctuations is not reflected in the annually resolved hydroclimatic proxy records. Likewise, temperature-sensitive proxies overestimate, on average, the ratio of low- to high-frequency variability. These spectral biases in the proxy records seem to propagate into multi-proxy climate reconstructions for which we observe an overestimation of low-frequency signals. Thus, a proper representation of the high- to low-frequency spectrum in proxy records is needed to reduce uncertainties in climate reconstruction efforts.


Further:



> The scientists learned that these proxy archives provide *an incomplete record of climate variation*. The annual width or density of tree-rings is not only influenced by temperature while the ring is developing, but also from the climate of the past years and other factors like tree age. *This makes it difficult to extract pure temperature signals* from these natural archives. Importantly, the researchers found out that proxy data *underestimate climate fluctuations of, for example, air temperature* over the land surface where large year-to-year variability is common. In contrast, *long-term trends in precipitation tend to be exaggerated by the proxy records.* These findings indicate that the proxy data often result in a “blurry picture” of climate variation. The researchers were able to conclude from their work that *short-term extreme climate events, such as individual years with hot summers, are not well captured by the proxy reconstructions.*


Bold from the link.

One more reason for Mikey Mann to head back to the drawing board...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that melting Greenland ice cap...

New paper finds Greenland Istorvet icecap was smaller than the present 1000 years ago

Abstract.



> The Greenland Ice Sheet is undergoing dynamic changes that will have global implications if they continue into the future. In this regard, an understanding of how the ice sheet responded to past climate changes affords a baseline for anticipating future behavior. Small, independent ice caps adjacent to the Greenland Ice Sheet (hereinafter called “local ice caps”) are sensitive indicators of the response of Greenland ice-marginal zones to climate change. Therefore, we reconstructed late Holocene ice-marginal fluctuations of the local Istorvet ice cap in east Greenland, using radiocarbon dates of subfossil plants, 10Be dates of surface boulders, and analyses of sediment cores from both threshold and control lakes. During the last termination, the Istorvet ice cap had retreated close to its maximum Holocene position by ∼11,730 cal yr BP. Radiocarbon dates of subfossil plants exposed by recent recession of the ice margin indicate that *the Istorvet cap was smaller than at present from AD 200 to AD 1025.* Sediments from a threshold lake show no glacial input until the ice cap advanced to within 365 m of its Holocene maximum position by ∼AD 1150. Thereafter the ice cap remained at or close to this position until at least AD 1660. The timing of this, the most extensive of the Holocene, expansion is similar to that recorded at some glaciers in the Alps and in southern Alaska. However, in contrast to these other regions, the expansion in east Greenland at AD 1150 appears to have been very close to, if not at, a maximum Holocene value. Comparison of the Istorvet ice-cap fluctuations with Holocene glacier extents in Southern Hemisphere middle-to-high latitude locations on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Andes and the Southern Alps suggests an out-of-phase relationship. If correct, this pattern supports the hypothesis that a bipolar see-saw of oceanic and/or atmospheric circulation during the Holocene produced asynchronous glacier response at some localities in the two polar hemispheres.


Bold from the link.

So, what do you s'pose caused that...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models involved. Make of it what you will.

New paper finds natural variability controls CO2 levels, not man

Abstract.



> Tropical explosive volcanism is one of the most important natural factors that significantly impact the climate system and the carbon cycle on annual to multi-decadal time scales. The three largest explosive eruptions in the last 50 years - Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo - occurred in spring/summer in conjunction with El Niño events and left distinct negative signals in the observational temperature and CO2 records. However, confounding factors such as seasonal variability and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) may obscure the forcing-response relationship. We determine for the first time the extent to which initial conditions, i.e. season and phase of the ENSO, and internal variability influence the coupled climate and carbon cycle response to volcanic forcing and how this affects estimates of the terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks. Ensemble simulations with the Earth System Model CSM1.4-carbon predict that the atmospheric CO2 response is ~60% larger when a volcanic eruption occurs during El Niño and in winter than during La Niña conditions. Our simulations suggest that the Pinatubo eruption contributed 11 ± 6% to the 25 Pg terrestrial carbon sink inferred over the decade 1990-1999 and -2 ± 1% to the 22 Pg oceanic carbon sink. In contrast to recent claims, trends in the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon cannot be detected when accounting for the decadal-scale influence of explosive volcanism and related uncertainties. Our results highlight the importance of considering the role of natural variability in the carbon cycle for interpretation of observations and for data-model intercomparison.


Further:



> "In contrast to recent claims, trends in the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon [dioxide] cannot be detected when accounting for the decadal-scale influence of explosive volcanism and related uncertainties." In other words, after accounting for the large effect of volcanic eruptions, ENSO, and other uncertainties upon natural CO2 sinks, trends in the man-made fraction of atmospheric CO2 "cannot be detected."


----------



## FeXL

So, don't know how many of you heard about the bomb that a certain Lewandowsky et al submitted for publication last summer, called _“NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”_. It was a stinker of the highest quality & was immediately attacked by anyone in their right mind for flaws in methodology.

Jo Nova wrote about it extensively here.

Steve McIntyre wrote about it here.

There were many other criticisms.

Well, for some reason, the paper was never published...



> We might reasonably be allowed to speculate what the reasons for the paper not making it to print were. One reason may be that it was, as has been widely observed, utter BS. Even Lewandowsky’s own colleagues pointed out its many flaws in methodology, and its naked attempt to diminish Lewandowsky’s opposites in the climate debate — climate bloggers.


...and apparently Lewandowsky has decided to respond to his critics with a non-peer reviewed paper in an open access journal.


Blognitive Dissonance



> It’s all the more remarkable that the reaction to the first, unpublished paper (referred to in the new paper as ‘LOG12′) should be the subject of a second paper, published in a journal with arguably far less credibility. Indeed, there is not even a link to LOG12 in the new paper, other than the citation...


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Revkin's low climate sensitivity.

Revkin does low climate sensitivity, updated.


----------



## MacDoc

At least some understand it....and now have to deal with the consequences



> *Warm Weather Forces Changes Ahead of Iditarod Race*
> Published: February 5, 2013


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/s...ces-changes-ahead-of-iditarod-race.html?_r=2&

more extremes more often - get used to it .....

Meanwhile down under....

Australia is on the front lines on this as well for different reasons - both to do with climate extremes as more energy and moisture enters the geo-physical systems

Maybe climate change is closer than we think - The Drum - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> more extremes more often - get used to it .....


On Iditarod:

Weather, not climate. And it was warm in 2003 as well. In between, there have been a number of years with severe blizzards. That's known as weather in Alaska in March. And, if you'd have taken the time to click the links on a few dozen peer-reviewed studies, you'd know just how wrong you are about extremes. It's a crock. Get used to it...



MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile down under....


As to your wunnerful, wunnerful disjointed story from down under, Australia's flooding is also weather, not climate and is part of normal cycles. Once again, click a link, learn a bit, then come back & post something intelligent.

Jakarta's issues have nothing to do with either climate or weather, but about their own stupidity.

As to the other Pacific locations noted in the article, once again, weather, not climate.

Do try to keep up, hmmm?

And what, pray tell, does climate change have to do with Beijing's smog problem?

Leave it to the ABC to hysterically headline a non-issue article.

You gonna love the ABC, they could be the CBC's twin sister...

Do you have some actual science to bring to the table MacDoc or are you now relegated to posting crap newspaper articles from lefty newspapers? 

PS Say hi to Julyar for me, let her know how disappointed I am she's not going to make it a second term...


----------



## Macfury

Yep FeXL--remember when Australia would never see enough water ever again. A permanent drought? 

*Bawwwwwww! It's raining too hard now!!!!*

Earth to MacDoc! 15 years have passed and none of your predictions have come true. It ain't 1998 anymore.


----------



## iMouse

Gnats know dick-all, and that what we all are.


----------



## MacDoc

almost 120 years of AGW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI



> Ray’s talk spanned 120 years of research on climate change. The key message is that science is a long, slow process of discovery, in which theories (and their predictions) tend to emerge long before they can be tested. We often learn just as much from the predictions that turned out to be wrong as we do from those that were right. But successful predictions eventually form the body of knowledge that we can be sure about, not just because they were successful, but because they build up into a coherent explanation of multiple lines of evidence.
> 
> Here are the successful predictions:
> 
> 1896: Svante Arrhenius correctly predicts that increases in fossil fuel emissions would cause the earth to warm. At that time, much of the theory of how atmospheric heat transfer works was missing, but nevertheless, he got a lot of the process right. He was right that surface temperature is determined by the balance between incoming solar energy and outgoing infrared radiation, and that the balance that matters is the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere. He knew that the absorption of infrared radiation was due to CO2 and water vapour, and he also knew that CO2 is a forcing while water vapour is a feedback. He understood the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and surface temperature. However, he got a few things wrong too. His attempt to quantify the enhanced greenhouse effect was incorrect, because he worked with a 1-layer model of the atmosphere, which cannot capture the competition between water vapour and CO2, and doesn’t account for the role of convection in determining air temperatures. His calculations were incorrect because he had the wrong absorption characteristics of greenhouse gases. And he thought the problem would be centuries away, because he didn’t imagine an exponential growth in use of fossil fuels.
> 
> Arrhenius, as we now know, was way ahead of his time. Nobody really considered his work again for nearly 50 years, a period we might think of as the dark ages of climate science. The story perfectly illustrates Paul Hoffman’s tongue-in-cheek depiction of how scientific discoveries work: someone formulates the theory, other scientists then reject it, ignore it for years, eventually rediscover it, and finally accept it. These “dark ages” weren’t really dark, of course—much good work was done in this period. For example:
> 
> • 1900: Frank Very worked out the radiation balance, and hence the temperature, of the moon. His results were confirmed by Pettit and Nicholson in 1930.
> 
> • 1902-14: Arthur Schuster and Karl Schwarzschild used a 2-layer radiative-convective model to explain the structure of the sun.
> 
> • 1907: Robert Emden realized that a similar radiative-convective model could be applied to planets, and Gerard Kuiper and others applied this to astronomical observations of planetary atmospheres.
> 
> This work established the standard radiative-convective model of atmospheric heat transfer. This treats the atmosphere as two layers; in the lower layer, convection is the main heat transport, while in the upper layer, it is radiation. A planet’s outgoing radiation comes from this upper layer. However, up until the early 1930′s, there was no discussion in the literature of the role of carbon dioxide, despite occasional discussion of climate cycles. In 1928, George Simpson published a memoir on atmospheric radiation, which assumed water vapour was the only greenhouse gas, even though, as Richardson pointed out in a comment, there was evidence that even dry air absorbed infrared radiation.
> 
> 1938: Guy Callendar is the first to link observed rises in CO2 concentrations with observed rises in surface temperatures. But Callendar failed to revive interest in Arrhenius’s work, and made a number of mistakes in things that Arrhenius had gotten right. Callendar’s calculations focused on the radiation balance at the surface, whereas Arrhenius had (correctly) focussed on the balance at the top of the atmosphere. Also, he neglected convective processes, which astrophysicists had already resolved using the radiative-convective model. In the end, Callendar’s work was ignored for another two decades.
> 
> 1956: Gilbert Plass correctly predicts a depletion of outgoing radiation in the 15 micron band, due to CO2 absorption. This depletion was eventually confirmed by satellite measurements. Plass was one of the first to revisit Arrhenius’s work since Callendar, however his calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2 were also wrong, because, like Callendar, he focussed on the surface radiation budget, rather than the top of the atmosphere.
> 
> 1961-2: Carl Sagan correctly predicts very thick greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Venus, as the only way to explain the very high observed temperatures. His calculations showed that greenhouse gasses must absorb around 99.5% of the outgoing surface radiation. The composition of Venus’s atmosphere was confirmed by NASA’s Venus probes in 1967-70.
> 
> 1959: Burt Bolin and Erik Eriksson correctly predict the exponential increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of rising fossil fuel use. At that time they did not have good data for atmospheric concentrations prior to 1958, hence their hindcast back to 1900 was wrong, but despite this, their projection for changes forward to 2000 were remarkably good.
> 
> 1967: Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that warming in the lower atmosphere would be accompanied by stratospheric cooling. They had built the first completely correct radiative-convective implementation of the standard model applied to Earth, and used it to calculate a +2 °C equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, including the water vapour feedback, assuming constant relative humidity. The stratospheric cooling was confirmed in 2011 by Gillett et al.
> 
> 1975: Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that the surface warming would be much greater in the polar regions, and that there would be some upper troposphere amplification in the tropics. This was the first coupled general circulation model (GCM), with an idealized geography. This model computed changes in humidity, rather than assuming it, as had been the case in earlier models. It showed polar amplification, and some vertical amplification in the tropics. The polar amplification was measured, and confirmed by Serreze et al in 2009. However, the height gradient in the tropics hasn’t yet been confirmed (nor has it yet been falsified—see Thorne 2008 for an analysis)
> 
> 1989: Ron Stouffer et. al. correctly predict that the land surface will warm more than the ocean surface, and that the southern ocean warming would be temporarily suppressed due to the slower ocean heat uptake. These predictions are correct, although these models failed to predict the strong warming we’ve seen over the antarctic peninsula.
> 
> Of course, scientists often get it wrong:
> 
> 1900: Knut Ångström incorrectly predicts that increasing levels of CO2 would have no effect on climate, because he thought the effect was already saturated. His laboratory experiments weren’t accurate enough to detect the actual absorption properties, and even if they were, the vertical structure of the atmosphere would still allow the greenhouse effect to grow as CO2 is added.
> 
> 1971: Rasool and Schneider incorrectly predict that atmospheric cooling due to aerosols would outweigh the warming from CO2. However, their model had some important weaknesses, and was shown to be wrong by 1975. Rasool and Schneider fixed their model and moved on. Good scientists acknowledge their mistakes.
> 
> 1993: Richard Lindzen incorrectly predicts that warming will dry the troposphere, according to his theory that a negative water vapour feedback keeps climate sensitivity to CO2 really low. Lindzen’s work attempted to resolve a long standing conundrum in climate science. In 1981, the CLIMAP project reconstructed temperatures at the last Glacial maximum, and showed very little tropical cooling. This was inconsistent the general circulation models (GCMs), which predicted substantial cooling in the tropics (e.g. see Broccoli & Manabe 1987). So everyone thought the models must be wrong. Lindzen attempted to explain the CLIMAP results via a negative water vapour feedback. But then the CLIMAP results started to unravel, and newer proxies demonstrated that it was the CLIMAP data that was wrong, rather than the models. It eventually turns out the models were getting it right, and it was the CLIMAP data and Lindzen’s theories that were wrong. Unfortunately, bad scientists don’t acknowledge their mistakes; Lindzen keeps inventing ever more arcane theories to avoid admitting he was wrong.
> 
> 1995: John Christy and Roy Spencer incorrectly calculate that the lower troposphere is cooling, rather than warming. Again, this turned out to be wrong, once errors in satellite data were corrected.
> 
> In science, it’s okay to be wrong, because exploring why something is wrong usually advances the science. But sometimes, theories are published that are so bad, they are not even wrong:
> 
> 2007: Courtillot et. al. predicted a connection between cosmic rays and climate change. But they couldn’t even get the sign of the effect consistent across the paper. You can’t falsify a theory that’s incoherent! Scientists label this kind of thing as “Not even wrong”.
> 
> Finally, there are, of course, some things that scientists didn’t predict. The most important of these is probably the multi-decadal fluctuations in the warming signal. If you calculate the radiative effect of all greenhouse gases, and the delay due to ocean heating, you still can’t reproduce the flat period in the temperature trend in that was observed in 1950–1970. While this wasn’t predicted, we ought to be able to explain it after the fact. Currently, there are two competing explanations. The first is that the ocean heat uptake itself has decadal fluctuations, although models don’t show this. However, it’s possible that climate sensitivity is at the low end of the likely range (say 2 °C per doubling of CO2), it’s possible we’re seeing a decadal fluctuation around a warming signal. The other explanation is that aerosols took some of the warming away from GHGs. This explanation requires a higher value for climate sensitivity (say around 3 °C), but with a significant fraction of the warming counteracted by an aerosol cooling effect. If this explanation is correct, it’s a much more frightening world, because it implies much greater warming as CO2 levels continue to increase. The truth is probably somewhere between these two. (See Armour & Roe, 2011 for a discussion.)
> 
> To conclude, climate scientists have made many predictions about the effect of increasing greenhouse gases that have proven to be correct. They have earned a right to be listened to, but is anyone actually listening? If we fail to act upon the science, will future archaeologists wade through AGU abstracts and try to figure out what went wrong? There are signs of hope—in his re-election acceptance speech, President Obama revived his pledge to take action, saying “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”


Successful Predictions of Climate Science « Azimuth


----------



## MacDoc

*This is a warning.*

This Post has been edited due to inappropriate language and or behaviour.

Please note that we encourage all present and future participants of the ehMac community to keep there Posts *"polite and respectful at all times"*.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> You know nothing at all MF - just another pawn of the fossil XXXXXXs. You especially know nothing about Australia.
> 
> ou don't understand how big it is or how varied the climate is north to south or you wouldn't make such stupid comments - but then that's all we ever see from you.....ignorance of the physical world you live in and denial of the human engendered change we have brought about.


I understand Australia quite well--and its varied climate. I have relatives and friends who have lived their most of their lives, and they laugh at the likes of these fairy tales you're spinning.

The climate and geography of Australia, however, are not some sort of esoteric knowledge available only to Captain Cook and Abel Tasman--a little thing called the Internet had happened since then,.

The AGW ninnies have predicted all sorts of dire results for Australia and all we have is weather that is easily explainable by normal variation,



MacDoc said:


> xtreme weather is getting more extreme...


Extreme weather _reporting_ is getting more extreme, as are the consequences of building on flood plains and deserts. Look at the overall world reports on floods, hurricanes, temperatures and tornadoes. Despite the squawking of Chicken Little, these are not only within the norm in recent years, they are underperforming the average.



MacDoc said:


> Australia had to increase it's temperature scale up to 54 this year at the same time as dealing with another massive flood a few thousand KM away.


I remember you screaming about this 54 degree number because you actually believed that the temperature in Australia had reached 54 degrees. That's how informed you are about what is happening in Australia. In fact, this was just part of a temperature variability range placed on a map. The authorities were careful to caution Australians that the temperature would not be 54 or even come close to breaking a record from the 1960s, yet you crowed that a 54-degree record had already been achieved.



MacDoc said:


> The world must be strange and frightful to the close minded like you.


Frightful? Of the two of us, who is posting about killer hurricanes, searing temperatures, chaos, collapse and the downfall of humanity? One of us is clearly frightened, MacDoc and it's clear that it's you.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> almost 120 years of AGW


What I find funny about this is the assertions that these observers throughout history were correct. In fact, many of the conclusions they arrived at were incorrect or are currently crumbling.

What difference does it make what someone in 1888 said, if temperatures are now flat?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> almost 120 years of AGW


What. A. Crock. The temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 was indistinguishable from that of natural CO2 until the 50's. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, at least become informed. Read. Learn. Then post. You'll look less a fool...

As to the rest of the post, what's the point? Some predictions came true, others didn't. So what? That's called science. Is there s'pose to be some correlation between successful predictions of the past & the failed ones of today? Like the disconnect between significantly rising CO2 levels & flatlined temps for the past 16 years? Like the disconnect between GCM predictions and empirical evidence (at 7% to 24% accuracy, you can hardly call them accurate)? All these small, tiny, niggling details...

As to the 1995 Christy & Spencer calculation, the numbers were correct for the original data. Of course the answer is going to change when the satellite data changes. Duh...

As to the connection between cosmic rays & climate, two things: 1) There is significant recent research (post 2007) showing a connection. Once again, if you read something besides SS or TSB you'd know that; 2) That's rich, criticizing getting the sign wrong in the paper when Mann's four sets of Tiljander treemometer data were used upside down. Pot, meet kettle...

In addition, according the that wunnerful list you posted in its entirety (once again, proving that warmists don't have the common sense to click a link), the last time a climate scientist got something correct was 1989.

No disagreement there...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> In addition, according the that wunnerful list you posted in its entirety (once again, proving that warmists don't have the common sense to click a link), the last time a climate scientist got something correct was 1989..


If you received direct bulletins from desmogblog too, you could be just as informed.


----------



## FeXL

So, couple days ago Donna commented on the head of TIPPC™ receiving funding from the WWF. She follows up:


Why Taking WWF Money Matters



> Over the past few years, a great deal of concern has been expressed about the role that organizations such as the WWF play in the IPCC. That concern is not hypothetical or theoretical. *The Himalayan glacier incident is a real-life, concrete example of why activist literature is bad news for the IPCC.*
> 
> Nevertheless, this body cannot bring itself to ban activist literature. Moreover, as I’ve explained elsewhere, it still permits employees of activist groups to pose as “scientific expert reviewers.”
> 
> And now, mere months from the release of Part One of the IPCC’s brand new report, an institute run by its chairman is found to be funding its activities with activist money.


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lewandowsky's rebuttal of critiques of his unpublished paper.

More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team



> Making up data to support your claims is about as counterfactual as one could possibly imagine, but this seems to be just another case of “anything for the cause” I suppose. They must _really_ hate climate skeptics to stoop this low, that’s about the only thing that makes sense, because this surely isn’t about science, but is clearly an emotional issue for them. *Meanwhile, rational thinkers stand back and laugh at the show.*


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Yup. As a matter of fact, ROTFLMAO...


----------



## FeXL

Low information opinion: weather rules, climate drools



> From the University of British Columbia , and the _“weather is not climate, except when we say it is”_ department comes the reason why alarmists are trying to make people fear “extreme weather” events – it helps their cause. Paid political operative Brad Johnson of “forecast the facts” has long been big on this line of propaganda, as has his buddy, Joe Romm of Climate Progress, and Bill McKibben of 350.org. *But Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS was the original practitioner of the concept, when he and his sponsor increased the temperature in the Senate hearing room in June 1988 for the effect it brought.*


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Classy guy. If your theory requires turning off the AC to support it, that tells me ya ain't got much of a theory in the first place...


----------



## FeXL

So, ya had to know that the Fruit Loops & Whackos would be blaming the heavy snowfall on Moscow on global warmming. Sure 'nuf...

Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow – WWF has logic fail

From the WWF:



> “The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia. “In the summer, we will probably see stronger bursts of rain.”​


Unfortunately...



> Seriously though, the logic fail here by the WWF spokesman is typical for clueless zealots. If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.


Yup.

The argument:



> The popular warmist theory is that reduced summer sea ice causes the enhanced snow effect, and that sea ice reduction is caused by global warming, but it isn’t cut and dried proof. Then there is the months-long lag problem between reduced sea ice and weather.


There is also "the models predicted it" meme. Of course, those of us who know that climate models can't predict science (or little other, for that matter...) we have a few graphs to examine at the link. Don't worry, you don't have to be a PhD to read a graph.



> I’m not going to say a whole lot about this graph. It is clear that in general the arctic ice area has been decreasing for twenty years or so. It is equally clear that the northern hemisphere snowfall has not been increasing for the last twenty years. Finally, *it is clear that there is no statistical relationship between decreased ice and increased snow.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Well worth a read – self damning words of alarmists

From page one of an article @ Forbes:



> Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: _“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”_ (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
> 
> Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: _“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”_
> 
> In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: _“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”_


Italics from the link.

And they wonder why people are sceptical?


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "2012 is the warmest" thing...

NOAA corrects ‘State of the Climate’ – offers no credit

Tisdale notes:



> With as little fanfare as possible, NOAA has corrected their erroneous claim in their 2012 State of the Climate Report that of 2012 as the warmest “La Niña year” on record.


Of course, they credited him:



> At the end of my post linked above, which called the error to their attentions, I asked following Figure 3:
> 
> _NOAA: If you make the correction to your State of the Climate report, please provide a link to this post. Thank you._​
> Well, it would have been nice.


Not. So. Much.

Better luck next time, Bob.

At least they fixed the temps...


----------



## FeXL

Further on GCM model shortcomings...

Model Simulations of Climatic Effects of Volcanic Eruptions.



> Hoping to find some improvement in more recent versions of the models, Driscoll et al. repeated the analysis of Stenchikov et al. (2006), using 13 model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) - an overview of which is given by Taylor et al. (2011) - while focusing their analysis on the regional impacts of the largest volcanic eruptions on the Northern Hemisphere (NH) large-scale circulation during the winter season. So what did they find?


Why is it that every time is see CMIP5 I subconsciously read "chimp"?



> In the words of the five researchers, "the models generally fail to capture the NH dynamical response following eruptions." More specifically, they say *the models "do not sufficiently simulate the observed post-volcanic strengthened NH polar vortex, positive North Atlantic Oscillation, or NH Eurasian warming pattern, and they tend to overestimate the cooling in the tropical troposphere."* They also state that *"none of the models simulate a sufficiently strong reduction in the geopotential height at high latitudes,"* and that, correspondingly, "*the mean sea level pressure fields and temperature fields show major differences with respect to the observed anomalies."* In addition, they note that *"all models show considerably less variability in high-latitude stratospheric winds than observed,"* and they say that "none of the models tested have a Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in them."


Bold mine.

'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

Canadian and U.S. Droughts of the Medieval Warm Period

Yet another paper describing warmer than current temperatures causing lower lake levels during the MWP. Once again, the currently used terms "unprecedented" & "extreme" get blown out of the water, so to speak...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the frequency & intensity of US drought during the past 115 years. 

A History of Drought in the Southern United States Since 1895



> Climate alarmists have long claimed that global warming leads to more frequent and severe episodes of various types of extreme weather phenomena. In the case of drought, for example, Chen et al. (2012) write that "the IPCC (2007) and the U.S. Climate Report (Karl et al., 2009) predicted a rapid increase in air temperature, which would result in a higher evapotranspiration thereby reducing available water," with the result that "it is likely that drought intensity, frequency, and duration will increase in the future for the Southern United States," which hypothesis *the authors test using real-world data from the past century.*


Bold mine.

So what did they find, MacDoc?



> According to the nine researchers, there were *"no obvious increases in drought duration and intensity during 1895-2007."* In fact, they say they actually found *"a slight (not significant) decreasing trend in drought intensity."* And they emphatically state that "although reports from IPCC (2007) and the U.S. Climate Report (Karl et al., 2009) indicated that it is likely that drought intensity, frequency, and duration will increase in the future for the SUS, we did not find this trend in the historical data." And in like manner they write that although "the IPCC (2007) and U.S. Climate Report predicted a rapid increase in air temperature, which would result in a higher evapotranspiration thereby reducing available water," they also say they *"found no obvious increase in air temperature for the entire SUS during 1895-2007."*


Here, let me bold some of that for you. 

Why don't you send this to yer buds, let them chaw on it for a while...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the left is gonna luv this...

Study: Global Warming Can Be Slowed By Working Less



> Want to reduce the effects of global warming? Stop working so hard. Working fewer hours might help slow global warming, according to a new study released Monday by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The Center for Economic Policy and Research is a liberal think tank based in Washington.*


Bold mine.

Comments on the above piece.



> What's really serious is that US News reporter Koebler either got co-opted by statist de-growth advocates into presenting an important element of their agenda in a favorable light, or served as a willing accomplice.


----------



## FeXL

On Antarctic ice extent.

Antarctic Ice Extent Still Well Above Normal



> Following the records set last September, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent continues to run well above normal. The average for January was similar to last year, and continues the increasing trend since 1979.
> 
> Sea Ice Area is also much higher than normal. As at the 4th February, it was 27% above normal.


So, how is the Arctic doing?



> Meanwhile, Arctic Ice Extent has been running above last year’s figures for the most of last month.


Further:

Larsen-B Update



> Remember when the Antarctic Peninsula was the fastest warming place on Earth, and a crack in the Larsen-B ice shelf proved that the world was doomed?
> 
> This summer, sea ice extends a few hundred extra miles in that region – green circle below.


Helluva thing, empirical evidence...


----------



## FeXL

Models... <shakes his head>

Modeling the Link Between ENSO and North Australian SSTs



> *What was done*
> In the words of Catto et al. (2012b), "the link between ENSO and north Australian SSTs has been evaluated in the models participating in CMIP5 with a view to comparing them with the CMIP3 models evaluated in Catto et al. (2012a)."
> 
> *What was learned*
> The three Australian researchers report that: (1) *"the CMIP5 models still show a wide range in their ability to represent both ENSO events themselves, and their relationship to north Australian SST,"* that (2) *"most of the models fail to capture the strong seasonal cycle of correlation between the Niño-3.4 and north Australian SSTs,"* and that (3) *"the models in general are still missing some underlying process or mechanism."*


Bold mine.

Chimp 5 vs Chimp 3. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Spencer talks about the possibility of lower windspeeds contributing to global warming. Something to think about.

Decreased Surface Wind as a Contributor to Warming



> Over the last 40 years, there has been an observed decrease in near-surface wind speeds of about 0.7 meters per second, which is about 1.5 mph,


More:



> ...[C]onvective heat loss is made up of both dry and moist convective air currents. For example, dry convection would dominate over the desert; moist convection dominates over the ocean. Together, it is estimated that surface convective heat loss over the Earth averages around 100 Watts per sq. meter….much higher in the tropics, lower toward the poles.
> 
> Now, it is well known that convective heat loss is roughly proportional to surface wind speed. A wind decrease of 1.5 mph since the 1970s would represent about a 10% reduction in convective heat loss, which is about 10 W/m2 (all back-of-the-envelope, mind you, taking into account that there is still convective heat loss even when the wind goes to zero on a sunny day…it’s complicated).


Further:



> I don’t have a strong opinion regarding how much decreased surface winds (or waste heat production) have contributed to U.S warming in recent decades. Maybe a little, maybe most of it. We just don’t know.
> 
> *But I do have a strong opinion about scientists who have a tendency to interpret every change they see in nature as some sort of response to increasing CO2.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

This'll outta get the hair on a few necks standing up...

The Tragic Tautology of the Greenhouse Gas Effect



> In a series of articles we saw that the idea of a GHE driven by carbon dioxide was re-invented in the late 1970’s after being widely accepted in science as having been refuted before 1950.
> 
> After decades this re-invented “theory” finally gained acceptance during the 1980’s as the field of government-funded climatology grew. We were given no reason why mainstream science had got it wrong in dismissing it so unequivocally for more than a generation. There were certainly no new discoveries in the 70's suddenly proving carbon dioxide did "trap" heat after all. Moreover, despite all the inward investment in climate research no time, let along any rigor was applied to providing any standard definition of what this newly re-born "greenhouse effect" actually was.


Further:



> Please take no one’s word on this. Just do your own Google search; most definitions of the "greenhouse effect" either overtly assert or at least imply that downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere adds additional heat to the ground/ocean.
> 
> But nowhere will you be told where the extra heat generated by the atmosphere goes, because all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight. So, within the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis all that “additional” thermal energy that the atmosphere generates disappears as mysteriously as it appeared in the first place (see diagram).


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, the left is gonna luv this...


It's this comment that gets at the heart of much the GHG crowd's agenda:



> What's really serious is that US News reporter Koebler either got co-opted by statist de-growth advocates into presenting an important element of their agenda in a favorable light, or served as a willing accomplice.


They don't need to be convinced of the science, since stopping/curbing imaginary global warming will result in their primary goal—deindustrialization, and/or a dismantling of the capitalist economy.


----------



## FeXL

This, hair standing on necks, two.

Correcting GHG Theory: Black Body Assumption Changes GHE from 33C to Nothing



> In 1981, James E Hansen assumed Earth radiates as a theoretical black body, with emissivity = em = 1.0.
> 
> ...
> 
> Emissivity of different materials varies between near zero (0.022) for polished silver to near 1.0 (0.98) for lamp black. Measuring or estimating emissivity of the whole radiating globe; ocean, land, ice, desert, jungle, mountains and atmosphere, is not easy, so Hanson made his simplifying black body assumption, em = 1.0. *But it surely is not black. em < 1.0.*
> 
> ...
> 
> We now know Earth’s emissivity is much less than 1.0, so its corresponding radiating temperature to emit at 239 w/m2 must be higher than -18C.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The GHE collapses to zero when the black body assumption is abandoned for colorful Earth, within any margin of error. It doesn’t exist!*


Bold mine.


----------



## Lawrence

...HAARP




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those IR thermomters (radiometers)...

Greenhouse Gas Confusion Magnified by Misuse of Infrared Thermometers



> For example, if you took one of these instruments down into a wine cellar and allowed it to assume room temperature and then measured the IR radiation flux coming from room’s walls and ceilings it would say that ~300 W/m2 is coming from each surface. In reality, the actual “heat flux density” within a wine cellar in W/m2 would be 0.00 since the entire room is in thermal equilibrium and there is no heat flowing from anywhere to anywhere. From where then does the ~300 W/m2 number on the radiometer readout come from? It is the calculated amount of IR radiation that the thermopile would emit if it were in a vacuum opposite a blackbody at 0 °K. In reality a radiometer in a wine cellar whose temperature has equilibrated with that environment should read 0.00 W/m2, because the amount of heat that is actually flowing from one wall to the other within a wine cellar is nil.


Further:



> Let’s move then to the outside world. Again, neither the DLWR number 333 W/m2 nor that the ULWR number 396 W/m2 seen on the K-T Earth Energy Budget chart’s are measurements of actual radiant energy fluxes. *Rather they are instead mathematical estimates of what the upward or downward flux would be if the other were absent.* This is like measuring the wind speed to be 10 mph from the west, but calculating that there is actually a 20 mph wind coming from the east that is being opposed by a 30 mph wind coming from the west to yield a net 10 mph wind from the west! Just as wind only flows in one direction so to does thermal energy. Again, the empirical evidence that DLWR is completely extinguished by ULWR is the very radiometer that presumes to measure its presence. *These radiometers detect 0.00 W/m2 downward heat flux; what they do sense is an upward radiant energy flux and then calculate what the DLWR would have been had it not been extinguished.*


More things to make you go hmmm...

That's it, I'm outta here. It's well past beer o'clock, I'm going to add a little CO2 to the atmosphere...


----------



## FeXL

Damn, I was so close... OK, one more on Lewandowsky's rebuttal.

Lewandowsky’s bear-baiting behavior



> I encountered Professor Lewandowsky last year when he used a horribly constructed push poll to gather opinions from skeptics about their belief in various conspiracies. Unfortunately, the opinions he received were from climate activists, many recruited from his current co-author John Cook’s weblog Skeptical Science, who took the poll while pretending to be skeptics and posted fraudulent responses. As Professor Lewandowsky discussed the poll with potential respondents while it was still active, it’s possible that he effectively encouraged fraudulent responses and hence may be guilty of academic misconduct.
> 
> Sadly, much of Lewandowsky et al’s current paper references that project and a paper that details it. *The paper is described as ‘in press.’ Perhaps a more accurate description is dead and buried, never to see the light of day.*


Bold mine. <snort>

More:



> As a non-skeptic I feel the strong desires to a) defend skeptics as not fitting Lewandowsky’s description and b) *slap him across the face for contributing to the cheapening of the already debased nature of climate conversations.*


The line behind you would be long and distinguished...

Further:



> I get that Lewandowsky is a committed climate activist and regards skeptics as a mortal threat to his belief system. What I don’t get is why a publication would allow his personal therapy to appear on its pages.


Yup.

Now, it's beer time...


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> ...HAARP...


is the stuff of nutty conspiracy theories about weather control. Why are you posting this here?

At any rate, Norway is operating one of these rigs... the Norwegians get it.


----------



## Lawrence

Macfury said:


> is the stuff of nutty conspiracy theories about weather control. Why are you posting this here?
> 
> At any rate, Norway is operating one of these rigs... the Norwegians get it.


That explains a lot then

...


----------



## Lawrence

Sources for this article include:

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP). Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: General Information

Weather Control: HAARP. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: Want to know the truth? Reliable information for those who want to know the truth on banking, health, energy, media, war, elections, 9/11, more

“Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change” by Michel Chossudovsky, University of Ottawa, Global Research, January 4, 2002. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: HAARP
Destructive weather patterns and HAARP – Scientists investigate a possible connection




> “H.A.A.R.P. It’s not only greenhouse gas emissions: Washington’s new world order weapons
> have the ability to trigger climate change” Dr. Michel Chossudovsky. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: H.A.A.R.P.
> 
> “Hurricane Sandy: Divine Wind for Obama” Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, October 26, 2012. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: » Hurricane Sandy: Divine Wind for Obama Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
> 
> “The Military’s Pandora’s Box” Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from: HAARP.net - The Military's Pandora's Box by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning
> 
> HAARP HF Active Auroral Research Program, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory and Navy Office of Naval Research. Retrieved on November 12, 2012 from:HAARP Exceutive Summary


Source: Destructive weather patterns and HAARP – Scientists investigate a possible connection | True Activist

...


----------



## FeXL

Pacific Locked in 'La Nada' Limbo



> "This past spring, after two years of La Niña, the expected El Niño was a no-show," says Bill Patzert, climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "La Niña faded and 'La Nada' conditions locked in."
> 
> "This absence of El Niño and La Niña, termed 'neutral' by some, has left long-range climate forecasters adrift," Patzert added. "Seasonal, long-range forecasting works best when signals like El Niño and La Niña are strong."


It's also difficult to generate panic about global temps...



> "For me 'normal' is the cycle on a washing machine," Patzert said. "I never say the word 'normal' when it comes to winter weather in the American West. *For instance, in the last 100 years, we've only had a total of six 'normal' years of rainfall in Los Angeles, meaning about 15 inches of rain per winter in downtown L.A*. Historically, La Nadas have delivered both the wettest and driest winters on record. For long-range forecasters, La Nada is a teeth grinder."


Bold mine.

What? Extreme has always been the new norm? NASA is admitting this? That's gonna break a lotta hearts...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the whole hooey connection between decreased ice (=global warming) & more snowfall. I know, I know, the models predicted it. Well, quelle surprise, they're wrong, again...

Michael Tobis has bupkis



> It really is rather hard to make a claim that “global warming did it” when data says otherwise.
> 
> So other than an angry rant basically saying “global warming caused it cuz we say it does”, what has Tobis got in the way of a factual argument? Where is his supporting data? And he didn’t answer the question: “If global warming caused this snowfall event, what caused the heavy snow 100 years ago when CO2 levels were below Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm?”
> 
> His two commenters didn’t answer the question either. They also offered no supporting data.
> 
> They and Tobis (and the WWF zealot with the original comment) have _bupkis_.


Damn that empirical evidence!



> The only reason this is an issue now is that you and others are losing the climate sensitivity argument due to lack of observed warming, and you and others are looking for linkages where there are none to be had. If you have something of substance (data, graphs, etc) to prove your point, you are welcome to post them here.


I'm thinking all we'll hear are crickets...


----------



## FeXL

Observations on the 1909 RW Wood greenhouse gas effect experiment.

The R. W. Wood Experiment



> Pushed by a commenter on another thread, I thought I’d discuss the R. W. Wood experiment, done in 1909. Many people hold that this experiment shows that CO2 absorption and/or back-radiation doesn’t exist, or at least that the poorly named “greenhouse effect” is trivially small. I say it doesn’t show anything at all. Let me show you the manifold problems with the experiment.


Good read, lots of food for thought.


----------



## FeXL

Next chapter in the Lewandowsky debacle...

Lewandowsky’s latest smear paper gets pulled from the journal website



> Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect. – Anthony


Jeff Condon (The Air Vent blog):



> So Dr. Lewandowsky did it again. He, and his coauthors, falsely used my name in order to support some kind of psychology paper on climate skeptic bloggers titled – “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.” There were a lot of false (and funny) claims against bloggers on the internet, however, the Lewandowsky team chose to again single out my name in particular regarding specific false attributions of beliefs regarding the global temperature record.


Further on a member of Lewandowsky's "team":

Lewandowsky’s “research team”. Who is Mike Hubble-Marriott?



> Mike commented on this blog in March 2010 as “Mike” on this thread, but in the end failed the logic and accurate English bar, and his right to comment was retracted indefinitely until he could improve. He couldn’t curb his reflexive use of the word “denier”, nor could he justify it. His whole blog is named after it. _Watching the deniers._ It’s not possible to have a polite open-minded science discussion with someone who thinks they are talking to a “denier”. After all, a denier has a defective brain, they can’t think, can’t reason, and it doesn’t matter what a denier says. Lewandowsky, Cook and Hubble-Marriott, _know_ they are right. It’s unscientific.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

An idea that seems fraught with problems, even before it starts.

Citizen driven PressureNet offers real time barometer network



> The next advance in weather forecasting may not come from a new satellite or supercomputer, but from a device in your pocket. University of Washington atmospheric scientists are using pressure sensors included in the newest smartphones to develop better weather forecasting techniques.
> 
> “With this approach we could potentially have tens or hundreds of thousands of additional surface pressure observations, which could significantly improve short-term weather forecasts,” said Cliff Mass, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.


Further:



> “I think this could be one of the next major revolutions in weather forecasting, really enhancing our ability to forecast at zero to four hours,” Mass said


From the comments:



> Hmmmm… I assume a “zero hour forecast” is the same as looking out the window, yes?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WTF? They can't forecast what's going to happen in four hours, but they can predict, to a hundredth of a degree, what the Earth's climate is going to be a century down the road...

Once again, they wonder why sceptics?


----------



## FeXL

Settled science: New study 'shows that atmospheric gases can help clouds form in a way no one had ever considered'

There's a podcast from Scientific American at the link.

Abstract of the paper SA adresses.



> Clouds, a key component of the climate system, form when water vapor condenses upon atmospheric particulates termed cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Variations in CCN concentrations can profoundly impact cloud properties, with important effects on local and global climate. Organic matter constitutes a significant fraction of tropospheric aerosol mass, and can influence CCN activity by depressing surface tension, contributing solute, and influencing droplet activation kinetics by forming a barrier to water uptake. We present direct evidence that two ubiquitous atmospheric trace gases, methylglyoxal (MG) and acetaldehyde, known to be surface-active, can enhance aerosol CCN activity upon uptake. This effect is demonstrated by exposing acidified ammonium sulfate particles to 250 parts per billion (ppb) or 8 ppb gas-phase MG and/or acetaldehyde in an aerosol reaction chamber for up to 5 h. For the more atmospherically relevant experiments, i.e., the 8-ppb organic precursor concentrations, significant enhancements in CCN activity, up to 7.5% reduction in critical dry diameter for activation, are observed over a timescale of hours, without any detectable limitation in activation kinetics. This reduction in critical diameter enhances the apparent particle hygroscopicity up to 26%, which for ambient aerosol would lead to cloud droplet number concentration increases of 8–10% on average. The observed enhancements exceed what would be expected based on Köhler theory and bulk properties. Therefore, the effect may be attributed to the adsorption of MG and acetaldehyde to the gas–aerosol interface, leading to surface tension depression of the aerosol. *We conclude that gas-phase surfactants may enhance CCN activity in the atmosphere.*


Bold mine.

If not every day, then every week or every month, new research shows us how truly ignorant we are of the natural systems surrounding us. "Settled Science" my hairy, unwashed, backside...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yup, you guessed it, paper on models...


New paper finds climate models exaggerate global warming compared to historical data 

Abstract.



> We utilize energy budget diagnostics from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) to evaluate the models' climate forcing since preindustrial times employing an established regression technique. The climate forcing evaluated this way, termed the adjusted forcing (AF), includes a rapid adjustment term associated with cloud changes and other tropospheric and land-surface changes. We estimate a 2010 total anthropogenic and natural AF from CMIP5 models of 1.9 ± 0.9 W m−2 (5–95% range). The projected AF of the Representative Concentration Pathway simulations are lower than their expected radiative forcing (RF) in 2095 but agree well with efficacy weighted forcings from integrated assessment models. The smaller AF, compared to RF, is likely due to cloud adjustment. Multimodel time series of temperature change and AF from 1850 to 2100 have *large intermodel spreads throughout the period.* The intermodel spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095. We find no significant relationship between the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of a model and its 2003 AF, in contrast to that found in older models where higher ECS models generally had less forcing. Given the *large present-day model spread, there is no indication of any tendency by modelling groups to adjust their aerosol forcing in order to produce observed trends. Instead, some CMIP5 models have a relatively large positive forcing and overestimate the observed temperature change.*


Bold mine.

Chimp 5 models...BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry.

Really, though, I think we should throw a ton more cash at these guys, until they get the models straight. No, really...


----------



## FeXL

OK, another paper based on model output. Interestingly, the model used isn't one of the GCM's but a simple multivariate one. What are they modelling? Global warming causes more snowfall. What did they find? Horse feathere & bull pucky, same as empirical evidence...

New paper finds warming causes less snow

Abstract.



> This study assesses the ability of a newly developed high-resolution coupled model from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory to simulate the cold-season hydroclimate in the present climate, and examines its response to climate change forcing. Output is assessed from a 280-yr control simulation based on 1990 atmospheric composition and an idealized 140-yr future simulation where atmospheric CO2 increases at 1% yr−1 until doubling in year 70 and then remains constant.
> When compared to a low-resolution model, the high-resolution model is found to better represent the geographic distribution of snow variables in the present climate. In response to idealized radiative forcing changes, *both models produce similar global-scale responses where global-mean temperature and total precipitation increase while snowfall decreases.* Zonally, snowfall tends to decrease in the low to mid latitudes and increase in the mid to high latitudes.
> At the regional scale, the high and low-resolution models sometimes diverge in the sign of projected snowfall changes; the high-resolution model exhibits future increases in a few select high altitude regions, notably the northwestern Himalaya region and small regions in the Andes and southwestern Yukon. Despite such local signals, *there is an almost universal reduction in snowfall as a percent of total precipitation in both models.* Using a simple multivariate model, *temperature is shown to drive these trends by decreasing snowfall almost everywhere* while precipitation increases snowfall in the high altitudes and mid to high latitudes. Mountainous regions of snowfall increases in the high-resolution model exhibit a unique dominance of the positive contribution from precipitation over temperature.


Bold from the link.

Sounds like somebody has their model parameters figured out. Mebbe they should talk to the boyz running the GCM's...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all the hysteria down under about 50 degree temps last month & new colors on the temp charts.

How well did that 50 degree forecast work out for the BOM?



> On Jan 7th the BOM models forecast 50 spanking hot degrees across hundreds of square kilometers in central Australia. But it was a whole week ahead, the prediction itself cooled with a day or two, and in the area under the “purple searing spot” the result on Jan 14th ended up being around 40C instead. That’s fine in itself — predictions are difficult. What’s not fine is the PR storm that ensued, which is still being used, as if somehow the very fact that our faulty climate models predicted a record temperature (but failed) is evidence of man-made global warming. *How many thousands of people all around the world now think that Australia had a 50C plus day this January? Did anywhere hit the fifty mark? No report of one so far.* Watch the loop of Australia’s January temperatures here. The highest brown bar on that graph is 45 – 48C, and those hot spots are a thousand kilometers from the purple patch.


Bold mine.

Further:



> That said, it was awfully hot for a couple of weeks. Birdsville got to 49C on Jan 13th. Moomba 49.6C on the 12th. But even these temperatures are not “a new climate”. How many people around the world realize that 50C plus days have occurred many times before across Australia? *Even if it had got to 51C, there are many approximate equivalents in the last 180 years. It’s like trying to rewrite history. The BOM were probably 100 years too late in adding colors to the scale. They should have been there all along.*


Bold mine.

Yup.



> Those temperatures were not considered “off the scale” in the 1800s. Australia was hot then and it’s hot now.


An' just what d'ya s'pose caused dem +50 degree temps in the 1800's, hmmm?


----------



## FeXL

Another thing to make you go hmmm...

GISS No Longer Provides Free Access to Peer-Reviewed Papers



> As the rest of the world is moving toward open access to scientific publications via the internet, GISS has moved in the other direction.


More:



> A lot of work went into changing the links on the existing GISS webpages. Because it would be a high priority for GISS to have links available to the documentation of its research efforts, this change might be caused by the recent problems with the GISS server. If that’s the case, why is a copy of a draft available from GISS? Has anyone seen a notice from GISS advising why their papers are no longer available for free from the GISS website? Is this a temporary response to a webserver problem or permanent change in policy?


I'm not going to call conspiracy, yet...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that flatline.

IPCC Confirms CO2 Is Not A "Thermostat" & Global Warming Is Not "Dangerous"



> #2. The chart's thin black line is a plot of the monthly changes in CO2 levels. The correlation between monthly temperature and CO2 changes ranges from slim to none - *this supposed thermostat relation of CO2 to temperatures has a ludicrously low R2 of 0.01.* CO2 is not only not a "thermostat," it's likely not even a major climate forcing, per the actual data.


I don't like the hyperbole at the end of the article, it stoops to the same levels many warmists use. Read the article for the data.


----------



## Lawrence

I fail to see the point in this thread, Is it a thread about flooding?

...


----------



## FeXL

Enlightenment...


----------



## Lawrence

FeXL said:


> Enlightenment...


Thanks

...


----------



## FeXL

De nada.


----------



## MacDoc

Just more crap from the deniers....the IPCC said no such thing. 










one of the denier spheres prize possessions is also a creationist 



> Roy Spencer - SourceWatch
> www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer"One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a ... 4.1 July 2011 Spencer & Braswell paper in Remote Sensing (not a climate journal) ....* As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the* ...


and the bedfellows they keep...



> *Climate Denier Lord Monckton Teams Up With Anti-Islam Creationist Pastor*
> By Climate Guest Blogger on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
> by Graham Readfearn, via DeSmogBlog
> Pastor Daniel Nalliah, president of the fringe political party Rise Up Australia, has what you might politely describe as some fairly interesting views on matters of science, the climate, abortion and religious tolerance.
> In the pulpit-driven eyes of Melbourne’s Pastor Nalliah, humans didn’t appear on Earth until 6000 years ago, when his god put us there. That same god was also behind Australia’s most devastating bushfires, but only because laws are in place to allow abortion.
> Pastor Danny, as he is known, doesn’t like Islam much either. He’d also like to see school principals given the power to hit pupils with bits of wood (but only with parental consent).
> But more of all this later, because Pastor Danny has announced the name of the man to give the keynote speech at the official launch of his Rise Up Australia political party.
> Step forward Lord Christopher Monckton – climate science mangler extraordinaire, Tea Party favourite, birther and head of the Scotland branch of the UK’s new “third force” in politics, the UK Independence Party.
> Lord Monckton’s three-month-long speaking tour of Australia starts at the end of this month. The country is currently experiencing its worst heatwave in recorded history with high temperature records tumbling and homes and property burning from bushfires.
> Bureau of Meteorology climate expert David Jones told the Sydney Morning Herald the unprecedented heatwave was on the back of a long-term warming trend and climate change would serve up more extremes in the future.
> So just who are Rise Up Australia? The party has booked a room at the National Press Club in Canberra for the “launch”, yet papers filed at the Australian Electoral Commission show the party was registered almost a year ago, in February 2012. Pastor Nalliah also “launched” the party way back in May 2011 and posted a clip on YouTube.
> With a certain nationalistic fervour, Nalliah launched the party again a few weeks later on the steps of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Rights Tribunal.
> So why Lord Monckton? Well, he and Pastor Danny are old friends. In January 2012, Nalliah and his Christian evangelical Catch the Fire Ministry hosted Lord Monckton for a lecture as part of his nationwide speaking tour that year – one which was prefaced by a scandal surrounding Monckton’s use of Nazi swastikas.
> But before introducing Lord Monckton, Pastor Danny took the time to warn the congregation against multiculturalism. “If you embrace multiculturalism then you are compelled to embrace Islamic sharia law,” he said. “That’s how they got into Britain and Europe and that’s what they want in Australia.”
> While Nalliah’s party manifesto claims to advocate freedom of religion, this obviously doesn’t extend to Islam. Nalliah is currently fighting plans to build a mosque on the same street in Melbourne where his Catch the Fire Ministry is building a new HQ.


real quality there

C3 is just another climate change denier blog compendium from the usual suspects.

But you can choose to swallow their AGW denial nonsense or read the actual science behind climate change and draw your own conclusions.

The link between the the anti-evolution whackos evolution and AGW is easily seen - this is just one



> Bill That Encouraged Creationism And Denial Of Climate Change In ...
> www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/.../bill-that-encouraged-crea_n_2624.*..A Republican bill that would have paved the way for creationism to be taught in Colorado schools as well as encouraged teachers to deny the science of climate chang*e was


the cartoon got it correct. 

BTW the C02 source...



> Craig Idso is the chairman and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Co2Science.org). The center's claimed mission is to "separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change."
> 
> The Center's publication is CO2 Science, a weekly magazine that features articles questioning the science behind man-made climate change. Craig's father Sherwood B. Idso is currently the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide on Global Change, while his brother, Keith Idso, is the Center's Vice President.
> 
> Craig Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy from 2001-2002 in St. Louis, MO. According to ExxonSecrets, Craig and Keith Idso produced a report for the Western Fuels Association titled "The Greening of Planet Earth Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory" in January, 1998. [2]
> 
> *According to documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso has been receiving $11,600 a month from the Heartland Institute through his Center for the Study of CO2 & Global Change*
> 
> 
> Desmogblog (Craig Idso | DeSmogBlog)


There is no science involved - only blatant sowing of confusion to protect the fossil fuel industry from taking responsibility for the consequences of their free use of the atmosphere a sewer.
That's over.


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^
This from the guy who was supplying links to conspiracy theories about the HAARP project, Tesla and mad scientist weather control? Warmist theory certainly attracts strange bedfellows.

...and true to form, Maccy D is sniffing deeply once again from "desmogblog." So much for accusing people of using blogs to back up their statements.


----------



## MacDoc

> AT JAN 26, 2013 AT 02:28 PM PST
> *Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism*
> bygregladenFollow
> 
> It has become increasingly difficult to understand the motivation behind climate science denialism. The Earth’s climate is changing, mainly in the form of increased temperatures of the oceans and the atmosphere, because of the release of copious amounts of previously trapped Carbon through the burning of fossil fuels. There is no longer a question that this is happening, and every year, the various details that one might like to see worked out, regarding the mechanisms or effects of climate change, are increasingly known. To state, with a straight face, that the jury is still out, or that we can’t separate natural variation from human caused changes, or that the earth has stopped warming for the last decade, or any of the other things we constantly hear from climate change denialists* is exactly the same thing as standing there with a big sign that reads “I am a moron.”*
> 
> Politicians, who by and large remain ignorant of all sorts of science, have become aware of this over recent years and many now couch their phraseology in cautious terms, if they happen to be running there campaigns, as many are, on the Oil Teat. Even more amazing, principled Libertarians have stopped denying the reality of climate change, taking a different tact to avoid any responsibility or action: Yes, the climate change we’ve been busy denying the reality of for the last 30 years is real, they agree, but it is too late to do anything about it now so let’s just move inland as the sea level rises and buy lighter jackets.
> 
> So why is climate change denialism still a thing at all? And it is a thing. There are individuals on the lecture circuit, bloggers, and a handful of scientists who continue to peddle what can only be understood as willfully ignorant or evasive, incomplete or cherry picked, or in some cases, just plain dishonest ‘analyses’ or interpretations of data suggesting that climate change is not real, or is not human caused if it is real. There is so much of this out there that some of it even gets published now and then. For example, a recent paper in a mid-level general science journal made a very good argument that “natural variation” explains about 40% of the putative warming in recent decades on this planet, as opposed to the release of fossil Carbon Dioxide by burning of fuels. Unfortunately, the “good argument” in that paper systematically ignored a rather impressive literature that had already addressed the same issues, found problems with an entire methodological approach and interpretation, leaving the just-published interpretation not only impossible, but actually rather embarrassing to others in the climate science community that someone would still be saying it. (You’ve not heard about this yet, but I guarantee it will be in the news and on the blogs over the next few weeks.) Most times, though, the science-denialism comes from a handful of very active blogs, from those charismatic lecture circuit denizens such as “Lord” Christopher Monkton, and a very large number of commenters and their probable sock puppets who show up at every on line newspaper and blog to spew the same exact lines again and again even though every single remark they make … without exception … has long ago been discredited with science and reason.
> 
> *It turns out that there is a fairly straight forward explanation for this continued craziness. $500,000,000 dollars.*
> 
> We’ve known for some time that Big Oil channels money to Big Denailism to support a variety of efforts, including projects to ruin science education in schools, to pay people to show up at demonstrations, to fund “research” that confuses, if not attempts (unsuccessfully) to throw false wrenches in the intricate and vital scientific machine. And now, we learn that some of these connections are more direct than previously thought, and involve much larger sums of money than most had imagined.
> 
> According to Steve Conner at The Independent,
> 
> 
> A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate “counter movement” to undermine the science of global warming…
> 
> The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funnelling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> Conner documents a link between billionaire Charles Koch and Donors, via another organization called the “Knowledge and Progress Fund,” which is a Koch Family run non-profit. This organization gave $1.25 million each in 2007 and 2008, $2 million in 2012 to Donors, and appears to have made no other donations to anyone or any thing. According to Conner,
> 
> 
> The Donors Trust is a “donor advised fund”, meaning that it has special status under the US tax system. People who give money receive generous tax relief and can retain greater anonymity than if they had used their own charitable foundations because, technically, they do not control how Donors spends the cash.
> 
> This is a general pattern among Big Oil, but the Koch Brothers seem to have been competing with the more traditional players for the role of Big Daddy to the climate science deniers. During the period from 2005 to 2008, inclusively, ExonMObil supplied the science denying community with just under 9 million dollars, while the Koch Brothers kicked in something closer to 25 million dollars to the effort to discredit climate science and climate scientist. One of these well funded efforts is known to most people as “Climate Gate,” a bought and paid for attempt to defame Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, and climate science in general, by Watergating a large number of emails and cherry picking them to make it appear, falsely, that climate scientist were up to no good. (source)
> 
> According to Drexel University sociologist, Robert Brulle,
> 
> 
> … approximately $500m has been donated to groups dedicated to casting doubt on the science of climate change, with a large proportion of this money arriving via third party organisations. … “We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate counter-movement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.”


Daily Kos: Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism


----------



## Macfury

Excuse me? $500 million against the multi-billions spent EACH YEAR on global warming studies, promotion and propaganda? Sounds like the GHG establishment is just a wee willow in the wind if it can be bowled over by that picayune fund, spread out over a decade. 

I've got news for you. BIG oil doesn't care whether you want to pay more for a barrel of oil or a litre of gas because you're afraid that the Earth will burn you up. Their profit margins will likely be better. I suspect the Koch brothers are just weighing in on the correct scientific view here.

Special interests? Why should a special-interest group like the WWF be funding an IPCC report while contributing to it? Not a problem for you Maccy D? Thought not.

Nice essay though. Loved this phrasing:



> So why is climate change denialism still a thing at all? And it is a thing.


Brilliant!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ... the Koch brothers are just weighing in on the correct scientific view here.


:lmao:

The Koch bros; purveyors of "scientific correctness" since 1982. I can't believe even you would post such a thing in seriousness.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> 
> The Koch bros; purveyors of "scientific correctness" since 1982. I can't believe even you would post such a thing in seriousness.


They happened to have picked well in this debate!


----------



## bryanc

As anyone keeping up with the science knows, this 'debate' was over back in the mid-80's. We've moved on to figuring out how much of global climate change is caused by human activity, how rapidly the change is happening, how much it is going to change, and how we may best mitigate and prepare for what we can't mitigate


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As anyone keeping up with the science knows, this 'debate' was over back in the mid-80's. We've moved on to figuring out how much of global climate change is caused by human activity, how rapidly the change is happening, how much it is going to change, and how we may best mitigate and prepare for what we can't mitigate


Sure, bryanc. Kyoto is dead. You move on and build a dam around your own house. For the rest of the world, it's business as usual.


----------



## minstrel

I didn't realize the "debate" on any scientific theory could be "over"!

I guess I've been teaching my students incorrectly about how the scientific method works. Sorry about that.


----------



## Macfury

minstrel said:


> I didn't realize the "debate" on any scientific theory could be "over"!
> 
> I guess I've been teaching my students incorrectly about how the scientific method works. Sorry about that.


bryanc has become the arbiter of whether debates are over or not. Please pass this knowledge along to your students. Check back frequently for updates!


----------



## bryanc

minstrel said:


> I didn't realize the "debate" on any scientific theory could be "over"!


While new evidence can always be uncovered that opens previously 'closed' debates, once sufficient evidence has accumulated that supports a given theory well enough, science moves on to more interesting problems. So while the details of evolutionary history and some of the mechanisms are still under active investigation, the "debate" regarding wether or not evolution by natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life on earth is effectively over. Similarly, the debate over plate tectonics, the heliocentric solar system, and anthropogenic climate change, are all essentially settled. There remains lots to learn about geology, astrophysics and climatology, but there is not currently a problem with fitting observable data into any of these scientific paradigms, so there is no debate over wether they are correct.

It is obviously not up to me to decide when the debate is over, despite MFs predictably trollish suggestion; it is up to the data. The data fits ACC, if data that does not fit ACC comes to light, I'm sure some climatologists will be delighted to publish it in high-impact peer-reviewed papers, because that's what happens when you find out an established paradigm is flawed.


{edit to add: when Koch brothers funded climate change deniers publish "data" that appears to contradict ACC on their blogs, this will continue to be ignored by the scientific community, because that is not how science is done.}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The data fits ACC, if data that does not fit ACC comes to light, I'm sure some climatologists will be delighted to publish it in high-impact peer-reviewed papers, because that's what happens when you find out an established paradigm is flawed.



That humans have some tiny effect on climate is ACC. Not much disagreement there.

The data no longer fits AGW. It did so for only a very brief period, within carefully selected paradigms.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Just more crap from the deniers....the IPCC said no such thing.


The IPCC's data did. Look at the graph. Or are you, in your blind rage, unable to perform such a basic function?



MacDoc said:


> one of the denier spheres prize possessions is also a creationist


First of all, ad hom, second, who cares?




MacDoc said:


> and the bedfellows they keep...


First of all, ad hom, second, who cares?




MacDoc said:


> C3 is just another climate change denier blog compendium from the usual suspects.


They don't deny climate change any more than you or I do. Thing is, they're waiting for proof that it's anthropogenic. So far, there is little to no evidence of that from anybody.




MacDoc said:


> But you can choose to swallow their AGW denial nonsense or read the actual science behind climate change and draw your own conclusions.


I have. That's why I'm here nearly every day, illustrating the other side of the coin.



MacDoc said:


> The link between the the anti-evolution whackos evolution and AGW is easily seen - this is just one


Once again, another ad hom deflecting from the topic at hand.




MacDoc said:


> the cartoon got it correct.


Perhaps. But far better than having your head up your backside like some warmists here...




MacDoc said:


> BTW the C02 source...


Maybe they do, maybe they don't. (I'd hardly call DSB a reputable source of anything except high quality fertilizer...) So what? The IPCC takes money & information from WWF. Just another ad hom 'cause ya ain't got nuttin' to refute them with.



MacDoc said:


> There is no science involved - only blatant sowing of confusion to protect the fossil fuel industry from taking responsibility for the consequences of their free use of the atmosphere a sewer.
> That's over.


This, coming from the guy who puts more CO2 into the atmosphere in a given year than most of us do in a decade.

That's rich.

If it wasn't for the fossil fuel industry, your backside would be on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific, looking for land.

Hypocrite...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Daily Kos: Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism


Once again, a news article? About Big Oil funding? Again? Jeezuz, they say sceptics are conspiracy theorists...

Pages and pages and pages of opinion pieces aren't gaining you any credibility here. Forget the ad homs, where's the science, MacDoc? 

And don't forget where to send that big oil check, c/o FeXL @ ehMac...


----------



## FeXL

Longish article, good info.

Emergent Climate Phenomena



> Emergence is a very important concept. Systems with emergent phenomena operate under radically different rules than those without. Today I want to take about emergent systems, and why they need to be analyzed in different ways than systems which do not contain emergent phenomena.
> 
> Examples of natural emergent phenomena with which we are familiar include sand dunes, the behavior of flocks of birds, vortexes of all kinds, termite mounds, consciousness, and indeed, life itself. Familiar emergent climate phenomena include thunderstorms, tornadoes, clouds, cyclones, El Ninos, and dust devils.


----------



## FeXL

So, some time ago I posted a piece about 1/2 of warmists say that global warming is going to increase snow and 1/2 say it will decrease it. In the last day or two we've seen empirical evidence showing the the first half don't have a clew. This post further supports that evidence but also deals with the second half, who, apparently, don't have a clew either...

No Correlation Between US Snow Depth And CO2



> Depending on the current weather, climate experts try to blame either more or less snow on CO2, in order to get more funding. *There is no correlation either way – as there has been no trend in US snowfall.*


Bold mine.

That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> That humans have some *difficult to quantify* effect on climate is ACC. Not much disagreement there.


T,FTFY.

You are correct that there is essentially no disagreement among climatologists that humans affect the climate. The question is "how much?" Thousand of people with relevant expertise have been and continue to work on this problem, and the consensus is "enough to be worried about."

But regardless of the ACC issue, all of the other damages our dependence on fossil fuels do to our environment, our society, our health, etc. should really make this a non-issue. Even with out ACC, we have ample reason to convert our economy from its dependence on fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible. But the fossil fuel industry is so wealthy and so entrenched in our political system that it's going to be a tough transition, regardless of what reason(s) we use to motivate it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But regardless of the ACC issue, all of the other damages our dependence on fossil fuels do to our environment, our society, our health, etc. should really make this a non-issue. Even with out ACC, we have ample reason to convert our economy from its dependence on fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible. But the fossil fuel industry is so wealthy and so entrenched in our political system that it's going to be a tough transition, regardless of what reason(s) we use to motivate it.


I disagree entirely. The sudden de-fossilization of the economy would cause far more harm than good. If GHG theory is unsound--as many now believe it is--then the equation further favours the status quo.


----------



## FeXL

Yup. The big NE blizzard is caused by (wait for it) global warming...

Bob Tisdale shows how ‘Forecast the Facts” Brad Johnson (and now Dr. Heidi Cullen) are fecklessly factless about ocean warming and the blizzard



> Global warming alarmists are predictable. If they see elevated sea surface temperature anomalies on a map anywhere close to a weather event, they immediately claim manmade global warming contributed, or will contribute, to the weather. They erred that way with Hurricane Sandy—sea surface temperatures along Sandy’s storm track haven’t warmed in 70+ years—and they’ve done it again with the blizzard threatening New England today. Refer to the WattsUpWithThat post Propagandist Brad Johnson of ‘Forecast the Facts’ tries to make the pending East Coast blizzard about the ocean ‘warming’ – Fails.
> 
> Anyone who has followed my posts over the past 4 years about the natural warming of satellite-era sea surface temperatures understands there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. *That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years. The same holds true for ocean heat content data.*


Yup.

In closing:



> *It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.*
> 
> Alarmists will take any opportunity to claim manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, and now the upcoming New England Blizzard. It’s often easy to illustrate the errors in their claims. Another example is the Russian heat wave of 2010 which Trenberth and Fasullo tried (and failed) to attribute to the warming of sea surface temperatures. Refer to the post here.
> 
> *Alarmists, of course, will continue to make unfounded claims, and I will be happy to show how ridiculous those claims are.*


All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Something to think about.

Slow Drift in Thermoregulated Emergent Systems



> In my last post, “Emergent Climate Phenomena“, I gave a different paradigm for the climate. The current paradigm is that climate is a system in which temperature slavishly follows the changes in inputs. Under my paradigm, on the other hand, natural thermoregulatory systems constrain the temperature to vary within a narrow range. In the last century, for example, the temperature has varied only about ± 0.3°C, which is a temperature variation of only about a tenth of one percent. I hold that this astonishing stability, in a system whose temperature is controlled by something as fickle and variable as clouds and wind, is clear evidence that there is a strong thermostatic mechanism, or more accurately a host of interlocking thermostatic mechanisms, controlling the temperature.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Greenland surface melt was due to natural variability 

Abstract.



> Since 2007, there has been a series of surface melt records over the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS), continuing the trend towards increased melt observed since the end of the 1990's. The last two decades are characterized by an increase of negative phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) favouring warmer and drier summers than normal over GrIS. In this context, we use a circulation type classification based on daily 500 hPa geopotential height to evaluate the role of atmospheric dynamics in this surface melt acceleration for the last two decades. Due to the lack of direct observations, the interannual melt variability is gauged here by the summer (June–July–August) mean temperature from reanalyses at 700 hPa over Greenland; analogous atmospheric circulations in the past show that ~70% of the 1993–2012 warming at 700 hPa over Greenland has been driven by changes in the atmospheric flow frequencies. Indeed, the occurrence of anticyclones centred over the GrIS at the surface and at 500 hPa has doubled since the end of 1990's, which induces more frequent southerly warm air advection along the western Greenland coast and over the neighbouring Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA). These changes in the NAO modes explain also why no significant warming has been observed these last summers over Svalbard, where northerly atmospheric flows are twice as frequent as before. *Therefore, the recent warmer summers over GrIS and CAA cannot be considered as a long-term climate warming but are more a consequence of NAO variability affecting atmospheric heat transport.* Although *no* global model from the CMIP5 database projects subsequent significant changes in NAO through this century, _we cannot exclude the possibility that the observed NAO changes are due to global warming._


Bold from the link, italics mine.

Nor, however, are they confirmed.


----------



## FeXL

And they talk about "Big Oil" funding...

Your funding bonanza for greens



> European heads of state and government have agreed to commit at least *20 percent of *the entire European Union budget over the next seven years to climate-related spending. The seven-year budget was agreed at *960 billion euros.*​


Bold mine.

More:

EU promises 20% of its whole budget to stop storms, rain, etc.

How much dya s'pose sceptics are gonna get?

'Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

Ya don't say...

Global warming overestimated by factor of two



> After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that *the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.*


Bold mine.

Really...



> Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, *accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.*


Bold mine.

Who knew?

Link to PNAS paper.


----------



## speckledmind

:d


----------



## FeXL

As if we needed it, but further on the "unassailability" of the Goreacle...

Watch the Al Gore Machine Manufacture Scientific ‘Facts’



> But the activists over at the Climate Reality Project have jumped the gun. There must be way too much money and far too many people on the payroll over there, because they’ve actually gone to the trouble of producing nine – count ‘em – “Fact Sheets” about what this draft says. Point number one on the Alaska fact sheet reads:
> 
> Climate change is happening now, and is primarily caused by carbon pollution from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. How much the climate changes in the future is up to us.​
> “Fact Sheets” based on a draft document that is months away from being finalized. “Fact Sheets” produced by people who believe that we puny humans – who remain incapable of predicting either earthquakes or volcanoes – actually have the power to determine how the climate behaves.
> 
> This is the process by which the Al Gore machine manufactures scientific “facts.”


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Going back two years, but further on that whole global warming causing more/less snow thing. Oh, and that whole "settled science" meme...

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall



> Regardless of whether global warming is causing more heavy snow events, the alarmists’ about-face on snowfall calls to mind other alarmist global warming assertions that were supposedly “settled science”, but that were subsequently refuted by real-world climate conditions. The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing more hurricanes, but real-world data show hurricanes have fallen to historically lows levels.
> 
> The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion. IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.
> 
> *For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Well, when was the science settled? When global warming would allegedly cause Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, or now that it won’t? When global warming would allegedly cause fewer heavy snow events, or now that it will allegedly cause more frequent heavy snow events?*


Bold mine.

Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

More on global warming = more snow/less snow.

Global Warming To Bring Colder/Warmer Winters



> It seems to me that these these theories, that global warming will lead to colder winters, need to pass three tests before they can even cross the starting line:-
> 
> *1) Explain how winters were as colder, or colder, and as snowy or snowier, in earlier periods such as the 1960’s and 70’s, when the NH was cooling, and Arctic ice expanding.
> 
> 2) Explain how winters grew milder in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, at a time when the earth was warming, and Arctic ice was declining.
> 
> 3) Prove what was wrong with earlier models that predicted milder winters.*
> 
> Until these tests are passed, the theories really don’t get off the ground.


Bold mine.

More questions...


----------



## FeXL

I post this not to portray the numbers as any sort of appeal to authority (that's a tactic that warmists use & is, in fact, a logical fallacy, eg. 97% of scientists say...), but to illustrate that most earth scientists, engineers & meteorologists are sceptical of AGW.

Most Geoscientists and Engineers are Global Warming skeptics



> When researchers Lianne M. Lefsrud and Renate E. Meyer asked geoscientists and engineers their opinion about global warming, they discovered that two thirds of them think that the current warming is mostly due to nature.
> 
> They also found out that skeptics are scientifically informed and in positions of power and influence. What they didn’t figure out is why this is bleedingly obvious once you start with correct assumptions. Even though the skepticism of well respected scientists matches the skepticism of meteorologists (think about that) the researchers assume the skeptics are “deniers”.


My question is thus: What is it, in the training of these people, that makes them sceptical?


----------



## FeXL

Further on adjusted temps...

NASA Disappears The Cooling Trend



> During the 1970s, everyone knew that the world was cooling. NASA has since erased the record of this event.


----------



## FeXL

About those "unprecedented" snowstorms...

NOAA : Five Worst Snowstorms In US History All Occurred Before 1960



> Climate experts say that heavy snow is caused by global warming, because they are completely incompetent.


Yup.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on adjusted temps...
> 
> NASA Disappears The Cooling Trend


How dare you question a scientist, FeXL? If they eliminated the record, they did so for their own very good reasons.


----------



## FeXL

What do I know?

I'm just a knuckle-dragging troglodyte...


----------



## eMacMan

One more illustration where the facts and the claims are in direct opposition. Essential the Chicken Little Crowd blaming AGW for a decline in the Minnesota Moose population. 

Is Global Warming Killing the Moose in Minnesota? I don’t think so. | Minnesotans For Global Warming



> ....
> 
> As you can see there doesn’t seem to be any significant warming during the years that the moose population crashed. *In order for a global problem to effect a local population you would still need to see that problem show up locally for it to be a problem.*
> 
> Using logic you would think there need to be warming in order to blame warming?


----------



## Macfury

Interesting to see that the supposed paradigms of GHG avoidance--Norway--is becoming increasingly involved in the Alberta Oil Sands:

Promoting local opportunities

The Norwegians get it.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The Norwegians get it.


Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Really good read on several different temperature data sets, the trends they illustrate & some of the statistical methods used. Much of the story is in the comments.

Has Global Warming Stalled?



> In order to answer the question in the title, we need to know what time period is a reasonable period to take into consideration. As well, we need to know exactly what we mean by “stalled”. For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 in order to be able to claim that global warming has stalled? Or do we mean that we have to be at least 95% certain that there indeed *has* been warming over a given period?
> 
> ...
> 
> Below we present you with just the facts and then you can assess whether or not global warming has stalled in a significant manner. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2012 ended up in comparison to other years. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and tables will be used to illustrate the data.


----------



## SINC

Perhaps another indicator?

Ozone on the Path to Recovery over Antarctica? - ParityNews.com: ...Because Technology Matters


----------



## FeXL

So, occasionally you'll hear screeching about "Big Oil" & Big Tobacco" funding here. Wonder if the same screechers will be lodging their protests about this...

About Those Tobacco Connections…

Donna asks the questions:



> Where’s the scholarly press release highlighting Al Gore’s “longstanding ties to tobacco companies?” Where’s the study announcing that WWF’s tobacco connections extend back to the 1960s?


More:



> The WWF is the largest and wealthiest green lobby group on the planet. One of its founders was a tobacco baron.
> 
> Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change activism. He has been intimately linked to tobacco for most of his life.
> 
> Will Professor Glantz be writing a paper about these facts? Will he be declaring, in a press release, that both Al Gore and the WWF have “longstanding ties to tobacco companies”?


Further:



> Finally, will the hired-gun, public relations professionals posing as activists over at DeSmogBlog tweet about how the WWF “was created by Big Tobacco and Billionaires”?


Not. Frigging. Likely.


----------



## FeXL

So, another treemometer record, going back to 138 BC. What's different about this one is that it has been calibrated against existing thermometer records dating back to 1876. As such, I believe it has far more credibility than one which has not been calibrated against another proxy. It shows that portions of both the Roman Warm Period & the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than the Current Warm Period.

Northern Sweden and Finland



> Finally, and most importantly, the four researchers state that their new temperature history "provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, *larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth*." More specifically, they identify the Medieval Warm Period as occurring between approximately AD 700 and 1300; and they identify the warmest 30-year interval of this period as occurring from AD 918 to 947, *during which time June-August temperatures were approximately 0.3°C warmer than those of the warmest 30-year interval of the Current Warm Period.*


Bold mine.

Further evidence against the warmist "unprecedented" meme...


----------



## FeXL

Normally, I consider lawyers & litigation as the last refuge of a scoundrel. In this case, I hope they sue his backside off. You may recall, nearly a year ago, when Peter Gleick stole Heartland documents under false pretenses. Hopefully, that's coming back to bite him on the backside...

Heartland to release Gleick prosecution file



> _On February 14, 2012 – one year ago – Fakegate began. Like Climategate, it was a scandal revealing the dishonesty and desperation of those who claim man-made global warming (alias “climate change”) is a crisis. Fakegate involved criminal activity, repeated lying, and outright theft by a high-ranking scientist in the global warming movement. How the mainstream media covered the incident spoke volumes about how liberal bias pervades media today._​


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, the unscientific phrase, "settled science", has been mentioned more than once on these boards and especially in the GHG threads. Although unrelated to GHG, the following links should prove just how unsound and false such assumptions are anywhere in science, including CAGW...

Settled science update – of mice and men



> For decades, mice have been the species of choice in the study of human diseases. But now, researchers report stunning evidence that the mouse model has been totally misleading for at least three major killers — sepsis, burns and trauma. As a result, years and billions of dollars have been wasted following false leads, they say.


Dollars which could have been used in actual research, instead of just chasing ghosts.



> The paper, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps explain why every one of nearly 150 drugs tested at huge expense in patients with sepsis has failed. The drug tests all were based on studies in mice. And mice, it turns out, have a disease that looks like sepsis in humans, but is very different from the human disease.


Further:



> “They were so used to doing mouse studies that they thought that was how you validate things,” he said. *“They are so ingrained in trying to cure mice that they forget we are trying to cure humans.”*


Sound anything like warmists? They are so ingrained in trying to pin anthropogenic CO2 on global warming with models that they don't see any of the empirical evidence illustrating otherwise, staring them right in the face.

Jo Nova blogs about the peer-review process trying to get this paper published in Nature & Science.

Peer Review failure: Science and Nature journals reject papers because they “have to be wrong”



> The editors must be kicking themselves now. But what a classic case study of the way the peer-review-establishment responds to a contentious idea. Here was information that could potentially save lives that was dismissed and delayed for the most unscientific of reasons.
> 
> The study’s investigators tried for more than a year to publish their paper, which showed that there was no relationship between the genetic responses of mice and those of humans. They submitted it to the publications _Science_ and _Nature,_ hoping to reach a wide audience. It was rejected from both.​
> The data was described as persuasive, robust, and stunning. Yet both prestigious journals tossed the drafts out. The best excuse they can give is that they reject lots of papers. Oh, well that’s ok then…
> 
> _Science_ and _Nature_ said it was their policy not to comment on the fate of a rejected paper, or whether it had even been submitted to them. But, Ginger Pinholster of _Science_ said, the journal accepts only about 7 percent of the nearly 13,000 papers submitted each year, so it is not uncommon for a paper to make the rounds.
> 
> Still, Dr. Davis said, reviewers did not point out scientific errors. Instead, he said, _“the most common response was, ‘It has to be wrong. I don’t know why it is wrong, but it has to be wrong.’ ”_​


Italics from the link.

Further:



> If researchers had questioned their assumptions twenty years ago, how many lives might have been saved? Perhaps it would only have made a few years difference — because genetic techniques were used (and they were so basic 20 years ago) and the study took ten years in any case. But for twenty years money and brain-power were used to study drugs that were never going to work. Imagine what else we could have learnt?
> 
> It’s a reminder that the wrong assumptions can kill despite years of hard work, good intentions and honest research. What is science if is not constantly testing the base assumptions? It’s a faith-based-project.
> 
> *Anyone who claims peer-reviewed research is rigorous has some kind of delusional faith that humans aren’t human.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, a few days back, the BBC aired the final episode of David Attenborough's "Africa" series. In the film, he made some interesting observations about 3.5 degrees of localized warming in the last 20 years. There was a certain amount of clamour raised about these numbers and, interestingly enough, on Sunday's re-air, said comments were excised. Can't imagine why...

BBC edits out climate warming data in climbdown



> A BBC spokesman said: ‘There is widespread acknowledgement within the scientific community that the climate of Africa has been changing as stated in the programme.
> ‘We accept the evidence for 3.5 degrees increase is disputable and the commentary should have reflected that.
> 
> ‘Therefore that line has been removed from Sunday’s repeat and the iPlayer version replaced.’


So, where did the number come from in the first place?



> The BBC initially defended the claim, saying it was taken from a report by Oxfam and the New Economics Foundation, but in turn this report *suggested the figure had come from a report by Christian Aid.*


Well, of course! That last bastion of science, Christian Aid...


----------



## FeXL

A Musing about season length, normal cycles and what keeps us out of the next ice age...


Interesting Change of Season Length



> There are several interesting things about this chart. The first one is just that at the “zero” point (now) we have summer (the red line) getting steadily longer in the N. Hemisphere while winter ( blue line) is steadily getting shorter. *Think that might, just maybe, have something to do with the N. Hemisphere getting warmer?*


Bold mine.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Hansen's adjustments.

Hansen’s Magic Eraser



> A couple of days ago I showed how Hansen had erased the global cooling scare. Mosher complained that I was comparing Hansen’s global temps with National Academy of Sciences northern hemisphere temperatures.
> 
> So here is the comparison which Mosher wanted, which shows how Hansen tampered with Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Black is the 1975 National Academy of Sciences version, and red is Hansen’s version. *Hansen cooled the 1930s by about 0.3C, and cooled the entire period from 1895-1960. He wiped out half of the warming from 1880 to 1940.*


Bold mine.

Why do you s'pose he does that...


----------



## FeXL

On Glacier National Park's Glaciers... (beautiful country, BTW, if you've never been, just go)

The Neoglacial Record of Montana's Glacier National Park

What did they do?



> In a study designed to provide more information regarding this important topic, the seven U.S. scientists developed what they describe as "the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park." This they did via analyses of "sedimentary properties sensitive to the extent and activity of upstream glacier ice, including: water, organic matter, carbonate, and biogenic silica content; bulk density; mass accumulation rate; phosphorus fractionation; magnetic susceptibility; L*a*b* color values; and grain size distributions."


What did they find?



> First of all, Munroe et al. say that all but one of the records they developed contain evidence for glacier advances during the last millennium, corresponding with the Little Ice Age," which latter period they describe as "the most extensive event" of the entire Neoglacial, and which they further note is "strongly expressed globally," citing Davis et al. (2009). But even more impressive is their finding that the Little Ice Age maximum advance was the most recent in a series of advance/retreat cycles during the past several millennia, and that retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum "was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years."


What caused this?



> Climate alarmists like to think that the Little Ice Age's demise was brought about by CO2-induced global warming. But if that were the case, one has to ask: what brought the planet into the Little Ice Age? Munroe et al. adhere to the theory that both the birth and the death of the Little Ice Age were promoted by one and the same phenomenon: solar irradiance variability.


Supporting evidence?



> [T]hey add that *"the IRD variability features a quasi-periodic cycle of ~1500 years,* and *has been connected to glacier fluctuations in Europe* (Holzhauser et al., 2005; Matthews et al., 2005; Nussbaumer et al., 2011)," *which also helps to explain the occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the Little Ice Age, the prior Dark Ages Cold Period, the still earlier Roman Warm Period*, and so forth, over which oscillating global temperature history the air's CO2 content has varied hardly at all, *and nothing like what has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, from the start of which the atmosphere's CO2 content has risen by some 40%, while global air temperature is no higher now than it was during the peak warmth of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.*


Bold mine.

Natcheral cycles. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the leaked TIPPC™ report.

UV shift in the leaked IPCC report: more inversion of the scientific method



> I used my leak of the draft report to publicize an important new admission by the IPCC: that solar-climate correlations found in the geologic record seem to imply a substantially stronger solar effect on climate than can be accounted by the very slight variation in TSI (the only solar forcing that is included in current IPCC models). Chapter 7, page 7-43:
> 
> _The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link._​
> This is huge. The authors admit broad evidence (“many results”) indicating that some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work. They mention one theory of what that mechanism might be (GCR-cloud), and then comes the crude trick of evasion.
> 
> They proceed to judge (very prematurely) that the evidence regarding the GCR-cloud mechanism indicates a weak effect, and they use this as an excuse to ignore the already admitted evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification. The evidence is never mentioned again and it is never taken into account anywhere else in the report.


Closing



> In sum, the IPCC authors do pretty much exactly the same thing with solar UV in chapter 11 as they do with GCR in chapter 7. They look at one snapshot of how the UV shift might affect climate and very prematurely declare that it would only have a negligible effect on global temperature. In the process there is no mention of the IPCC’s earlier admission of strong paleo-evidence for some substantial mechanism of solar amplification and they proceed as if this evidence does not exist, making no attempt to give it any weight in their predictive scheme.
> 
> *Theory (their truncated theory of UV-shift effects) is used to dismiss evidence. That is not science, it is anti-science, and the IPCC has been very consistent about it.*


Bold mine.

Sad thing is, they're not the only ones (CHIMP models, anyone?)...


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of models (see how I did that?), here are a couple of papers using models to reach their conclusions. First one actually uses a few CHIMP variants. As always, I recommend taking with a grain of salt...

New paper predicts a global decrease in cyclones over 21st century 

Abstract.



> A novel TC detection technique designed for coarse resolution models is tested and evaluated. The detector, based on the Okubo-Weiss-Zeta parameter (OWZP) is applied to _a selection of CMIP3 models_ (CSIRO-Mk3.5, MPI-ECHAM5, GFDL2.0 and GFDL2.1) and the combined performance of the model and detector is assessed by comparison with observed TC climatology for the period 1970—2000. Preliminary TC frequency projections are made using the three better performing models by comparing the detected TC climatologies between the late 20th and the late 21st centuries. Very reasonable TC formation climatologies were detected in CSIRO-Mk3.5, MPI-ECHAM5 and GFDL2.1 for most basins, with the exception being the North Atlantic where a large under-detection was present in all models. The GFDL2.0 model was excluded from the projection study due to a systematic under-detection in all basins. The above detection problems have been reported in other published studies, which suggests model rather than detector limitations are mostly responsible. This study demonstrates that coarse resolution climate models do in general produce TC-like circulations with realistic geographical and seasonal distributions detectable by the OWZP TC detector. The preliminary projection results are consistent with the published literature, based on higher resolution studies, of a *global reduction of TCs [Tropical Cyclones] between about 6—20%*, with a much larger spread of results (about +20 to -50%) in individual basins.


Italics mine, bold from the link.

Yes, the conclusion does agree with empirical data.

New paper finds Greenland less vulnerable to thaw than previously thought 

Abstract.



> As pointed out by the forth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC-AR4 (Meehl et al., 2007), the contribution of the two major ice sheets, Antarctica and Greenland, to global sea level rise, is a subject of key importance for the scientific community. By the end of the next century, a 3–5 °C warming is expected in Greenland. Similar temperatures in this region were reached during the last interglacial (LIG) period, 130–115 ka BP, due to a change in orbital configuration rather than to an anthropogenic forcing. Ice core evidence suggests that the Greenland ice sheet (GIS) survived this warm period, but great uncertainties remain about the total Greenland ice reduction during the LIG. Here we perform long-term simulations of the GIS using an improved ice sheet model. Both the methodologies chosen to reconstruct palaeoclimate and to calibrate the model are strongly based on proxy data. We suggest *a relatively low contribution to LIG sea level rise from Greenland melting, ranging from 0.7 to 1.5 m of sea level equivalent*, contrasting with previous studies. Our results suggest an important contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to the LIG highstand.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Analysis finds no increase in floods or flood damage throughout Europe 



> "Using a longer time scale than human collective memory, paleoflood studies can put in perspective the occurrences of the extreme floods that hit Europe and other parts of the world during the summer of 2002. And that perspective clearly shows that even greater floods occurred repeatedly during the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period of the current interglacial."
> 
> "In summary, and in spite of climate-alarmist claims to the contrary, there do not appear to have been any increases in either floods or properly-adjusted flood damages throughout all of Europe over the past few decades, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest of the past thousand or more years. In fact, real-world data indicate that in many instances, just the opposite has occurred."


Link to pdf inside.


----------



## FeXL

Further on all that melting Antarctic ice...

Antarctic Sea Ice 24% Above Average



> Antarctic Sea Ice today (Feb 12 2013) is 24% above average (770,000 sq km) and and only 8300 sq km short of a record.
> 
> There is a chance of an all-time record of the highest minimum ever in the coming days. The record is from 2008 - 3.69176 million sq km – on day 51.


That was yesterday. Link inside for data on new record set today.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unusual, unnatural and unprecedented"

A Two-Millennia Record of the South American Summer Monsoon



> The authors write that "the South American summer monsoon (SASM) is one of the major monsoon systems in the Southern Hemisphere, yet it has received relatively little attention, due to the fact that it has only been considered a proper monsoon system for little more than a decade." They also report that the "monsoon characteristics on which society relies today have undergone considerable fluctuations in the past," citing Bird et al. (2011); and they say "there is considerable concern that the SASM dynamics will be significantly affected by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the 21st century."


Findings?



> The nine researchers report that these data show "a very coherent behavior over the past two millennia with significant decadal to multi-decadal variability superimposed on large excursions during three key periods: the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the current warm period (CWP)," which they interpret as "times when the SASM's mean state was significantly weakened (MCA and CWP) and strengthened (LIA), respectively."


Meaning?

Natcheral cycles, no link to CO2...


----------



## FeXL

Hansen made some forecasts in 1988. The predictions fell flat like a pancake & recently, NASA "disappeared" them. Steven appeals to the masses & comes up with a copy.

NASA Disappears Hansen’s 1988 Forecasts

From the comments:



> You can give it a permanent new home here. NASA loves it when you do that…


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Hansen's failed forecasts...


Another Massive Hansen Fail



> Hansen predicted peak ice loss in the Weddell Sea of Antarctica.
> 
> ...
> 
> Gaia did the exact opposite of what Hansen forecast, and has instead produced peak ice gain in the Weddell Sea – during the summer, when albedo actually affects the climate.


----------



## FeXL

Stupidest President In History?



> _the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late._​


Making Jimmy Carter look like a genius, one teleprompter screen at a time...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Arctic ice & reactions by acolytes of CAGW.  Observations by Lubos Motl...


Goddard, Watts vs Tamino: Arctic ice



> Grant Tamino Foster funnily and angrily reacted to an innocent observation by Steven Goddard and (later) Anthony Watts.
> 
> ...
> 
> They pointed out, without too much ado, the innocent fact that since the beginning of the observations in 1979, the year 2013 has seen the greatest increase of the Arctic sea ice area relatively to the previous year's summer minimum.
> 
> That drove Tamino up the wall! Some people – deniers – can't be reasoned with, we learn.


He goes on:



> Some temperature or ice differences are positive, some of them are negative, some of them are greater or smaller than other temperature or ice differences, there are lots of data. *But what is important is that there's no evidence that something "stunning" is going on.* There has clearly been some quasi-periodic behavior as well as noise in the Arctic sea ice evolution over the recent million of years and what we've observed in the recent 34 years is quite certainly "rather representative" of the behavior that has existed for a much longer time.


Bold mine.

Yup.

More:



> In fact, if you look at the Cryosphere Today and if you find the sea ice anomalies, you will notice that the current global sea ice anomaly is almost exactly zero. The Arctic sea ice is –0.694 million square kilometers below the normal while the Antarctic sea ice is +0.676 million square kilometers above the normal. *Up to the sign, these numbers are pretty much equal so the total global sea ice anomaly is close to zero.* A week ago or so, it was positive.


Bold mine.

Yup.

Further:



> Even if the Arctic or global sea ice area remained below the normal for many years without an interruption, it would still fail to imply that there is something spectacular going on. It just means that there has been change at a decadal (or centennial) time scale. This change could have had many causes and it could have been more or less similar to other decadal (or centennial) changes in the past (and in the future). *Whatever the causes are, a change isn't equal to a catastrophe.*


Bold mine.

Yup.

Good, rational, read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that 3.5 degree temp thing in Africa. Apparently the source wasn't even as untenable as Christian Aid. It was worse...

The Workshop Presentation that Never Was



> The BBC now has egg on its face. As Leo Hickman at the Guardian explains, a television show narrated by David Attenborough recently claimed that:
> 
> Some parts of the [African] continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years.​
> Hickman is no climate skeptic, but even his radar went off. After some investigation he discovered that, in 2006, a collection of pressure groups had published a report titled Africa – Up in smoke 2. It relied on another, 48-page document, titled Climate of Poverty produced by the UK charity, Christian Aid.


----------



## FeXL

Just a few things to think about...

30 failures written by John Dunn MD JD 



> (1) Warming not global – is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
> (2) Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in 1998
> (3) GHC Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated
> (4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record – producing exaggerating warming.
> (5) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control


----------



## FeXL

Wouldn't hurt my feelings at all...

New bill to limit IPCC funding from USA



> Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).


The money currently wasted on global warming advocacy by political groups like TIPPC™ would be better spent on actual, real-life problems.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's a bunch of screeching in the blogosphere by the usual suspects about a new paper.

Preliminary comments on Hausfather et al 2013



> I myself have only skimmed it, as I’m just waking up here in California, and I plan to have a detailed look at it later when I get into the office. But, since the Twittersphere is already demanding my head on a plate, and would soon move on to “I’m ignoring it” if they didn’t have instant gratification, I thought I’d make a few quick observations about how some people are reading something into this paper that isn’t there.
> 
> 1. The paper is about UHI and homogenization techniques to remove what they perceive as UHI influences using the Menne pairwise method with some enhancements using satellite metadata.
> 
> 2. They don’t mention station siting in the paper at all, they don’t reference Fall et al, Pielke’s, or Christy’s papers on siting issues. So *claims that this paper somehow “destroys” that work are rooted in failure to understand how the UHI and the siting issues are separate.*
> 
> 3. *My claims are about station siting biases,* which is a different mechanism at a different scale than UHI. *They don’t address siting biases at all in Hausfather et al 2013,* in fact as we showed in the draft paper Watts et al 2012, homogenization takes the well sited stations and adjusts them to be closer to the poorly sited stations, essentially *eliminating good data by mixing it with bad.*


Bold mine.

Just a heads-up, more to come.


----------



## FeXL

Jimmy Hansen in the joint again...

Keystone XL: NASA’s James Hansen risks arrest…. again

Some interesting Tweets from Ryan Maue...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unprecedented" floods.

New paper finds largest floods in China occurred when CO2 was 'safe' 

Abstract.



> The Hanjiang River, a major tributary of the Yangtze River in China, is noted for the current national South-to-North Water Diversion project. Palaeo-hydrological investigations were carried out along the upper reach gorges of the Hanjiang River that drains the Qinling and the Dabashan Mountains. A set of palaeoflood slackwater deposit beds (SWDs) was identified in Holocene pedo-stratigraphy of the riverbanks along the valley. These SWDs are interbedded in the eolian loess-soil profiles in the cliffy riverbanks and they thin out towards the upper slopes. The palaeoflood SWDs were differentiated from eolian loess and soil by the sedimentary criteria and analytical results. The *minimum* flood peak discharges were estimated to be 65,400−65,830m3 s- 1 by using palaeo-hydrological methods. *They are about twice of the largest gauged flood (34,300 m3 s- 1) that has ever been measured. They represent the largest flood events in the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River over the Holocene.* These extraordinary flood events were dated to 1810−1710 a (AD 200−300) with the optically stimulated luminescence method and checked by archaeological dating of the human remains retrieved from the profiles. This indicates that the extraordinary floods occurred during the dynasties of Eastern Han to Western Jin (AD 25−316) in Chinese history, during which severe droughts and floods were recorded in documents. In the reconstructed 2000-year temperature time series based on high-resolution climatic proxies from tree-rings, stalagmites, ice-cores and lake sediments from over the world, these extraordinary palaeoflood events are correlated with an increased climatic variability characterized by cooling and drying during the period AD 150−350. This result is important for understanding the effects of global change on river system dynamics.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unprecedented" temperatures.

The Middle and Late Holocene in Central European Russia



> In their current paper, Novenko et al. (2012) discuss "new pollen and plant macrofossil evidence, backed by radiocarbon dates, resulting from the study of the key section 'berezovskoye mire' within the Kulikovo battlefield area, as well as the reconstruction of landscape and climate for the time span ranging from the mid-Atlantic period [7.2-5.7 cal. kyr B.P.] to the present." In doing so, the four Russian researchers report that *temperatures during the mid-Atlantic period "were warmer than the present, mainly due to the higher winter temperatures," while noting that mean January temperatures were "about 3-5°C higher than the present climatic conditions."* They also state that in the late Atlantic period, *"the mean July and the mean annual temperatures rose to about 2°C higher than the present," after which, in the middle and late Subboreal period, they indicate that summer temperatures were "about 1-3°C higher than present values," while noting that that period's "mean annual temperatures could have been 1-2°C higher."*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yup, further on CHIMP models.

Modeling the Link Between ENSO and North Australian SSTs



> In describing their results, the three Australian researchers report that: (1) "the CMIP5 models still show a wide range in their ability to represent both ENSO events themselves, and their relationship to north Australian SST," that (2) *"most of the models fail to capture the strong seasonal cycle of correlation between the Niño-3.4 and north Australian SSTs," and that (3) "the models in general are still missing some underlying process or mechanism."*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Caution! PhD required...

Arctic Ice Almost Identical To 1984



> Warning!!!! David Appell and Tamino say that lay people are not permitted to look at this image.


----------



## FeXL

Just one today. With temps predicted at 11, time to dust off the Hawg & go riding...

Further on temperature record adjustments.

The Big Picture Of USHCN Adjustment Fraud



> They document that they do 0.5F tampering to the data, and that their tampering goes flat after 1990.
> 
> ...
> 
> But they actually do 1.5F tampering, and it increases exponentially after 1990.
> 
> ...
> 
> The graph below overlays the actual tampering on top of the documented adjustments. USHCN actual tampering is almost 300% of their documented adjustments.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The whole NCDC US temperature record is a complete fraud. The thermometer data shows no temperature increase since 1900.*


Bold mine.

Have a nice, warm, day...


----------



## FeXL

What's this? Weepy Bill gets Big Oil Funding?

Bill McKibben is not what he seems to be – I catch him in a lie



> But, even though the amount of compensation McKibben received is small. I have to wonder why Bill took exception to being called a “paid political activist” in this WUWT post and went to the trouble to email me a statement that he’s an “unpaid political activist” and never took any money from “any other environmental group”?


Ummm, 'cause he's a liar?


----------



## iMouse

Always remember, the bigger the crook the bigger the lie.

Then they advance on to politics, where underlings say/do things they don't tell you about, but that they know you would want done.

In this manner they can maintain their 'deniability status'.


----------



## FeXL

On the state of misinformation from the head of the American Meteorological Society.

A Case for Playing it Straight 



> Shepherd's remarks are of interest because he is the President of a major scientific society. He was not at the briefing to present his personal opinions, but rather in his role as a leader and representative of the scientific community. Thus, in my view of the obligations of such a role, he had a duty to play it straight.


Agreed.

Further:



> *The science on climate change, extreme events and disaster costs is clear and unambiguous.* You don't need to take my word for it, you can find the science well summarized in the IPCC SREX. And if you don't like the IPCC you can find an array of peer-reviewed literature.


Bold mine.

More:



> * US floods have not increased over a century or longer (same globally).
> * US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer).
> * US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in the longest drought (7 years+) ever documented.
> * US tornadoes, especially the strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950.
> * US drought has decreased since the middle of the past century.
> * US East Cost Winter Storms show no trends (here also).
> * Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally).
> * Trends in the costs of disasters are not a proxy for trends in climate phenomena.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole Arctic/Antarctic ice extent thing...

Fond Memories From NSIDC



> A few years ago, Walt Meier lectured me that excess Antarctic ice isn’t important to the climate – because it occurs during the winter when the sun is low.
> 
> Well …. Antarctic ice has been above normal for the past five seasons – including the last two summers.
> 
> This summer, we have *excess ice well to the north of 60S* – which has a significant impact on Earth’s SW radiative budget.
> 
> ...
> 
> Contrast this with the alarmist obsession over Arctic September sea ice *north of 80N* – which has almost no impact on Earth’s SW radiative budget.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, couple weeks back there was some screeching from one of the usual suspects quoting a NYT article about global warming forcing changes to the Iditarod.

Called BS then, call BS now.

New York Times : “All The BS That Is Unfit To Print”



> _Race Marshal Mark Nordman returned my phone call. “*Trail’s great, lots of snow, all the way to Nome.* In fact, we might have more than average on the south side of the Alaska Range (check out the Iditarod trail map and note Skwetna, Finger Lake, and Rainy Pass checkpoints). The only place that could be short is by Rohn checkpoint, and that’s always a place with little snow.”_​


Bold mine.


----------



## MacDoc

Still immersed in denier tripe? Picking the north to fight your lost cause on is NOT a good idea as that is where the impacts are the most obvious.




> *Alaska ignores climate change, so Iditarod dogs will just need to evolve thinner coats*
> 
> By Philip Bump
> 
> I’ll start with the weirdest part of this story: Alaska has a global warming task force that was started by none other than Sarah Palin. You probably remember Sarah Palin; her environmental streak is probably not what you remember best.
> 
> It doesn’t matter anyway, because the task force doesn’t meet anymore. From the Guardian:
> 
> The taskforce was established by Sarah Palin during her time as governor, in an effort to protect a state that is acutely vulnerable to climate change.
> 
> Alaska, like other Arctic regions, is warming at a much faster rate than the global average. Last summer saw record loss of Arctic sea ice.
> 
> However, the rapid-response team has not met since March 2011 and its supervisory body, the Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change, has gone even longer without meeting. …
> 
> The state government, in a letter from 1 February, said the sub-cabinet had produced three strategy documents since that February 2010 meeting, but declined to release them.
> 
> This requires snow.This requires snow.
> 
> Eh, no bigs. Why would Alaska need to worry about the warming climate? It’s not like the state’s signature sporting event is threatened by warmer weather. Now, an excerpt from “Warm Weather Forces Changes Ahead of Iditarod Race”:
> 
> * Several Iditarod qualifying events have been postponed, rerouted or canceled because of a lack of snow. The John Beargrease sled dog race, a trek of some 400 miles in northern Minnesota, postponed its start to March 10 from Jan. 27. In Alaska, the Don Bowers Memorial 200/300, the Sheep Mountain Lodge 150 and the Knik 200 have been canceled. The Copper Basin 300 in Glennallen, Alaska, had to cut its trail for several teams by 25 miles because there was not enough snow at the finish line; the mushers finished the race with their hats and gloves off and jackets unzipped.*
> 
> “That was crazy with the warm weather,” said Zack Steer, one of the race’s organizers. “It was such a drastic change from last year, but the trail at the end was dirt. It wasn’t safe.”
> 
> That’s not the craziest quote. This is.
> 
> “It definitely has us concerned,” Erin McLarnon, a musher and spokeswoman for the Iditarod, said of the long-term effects of the weather. She is among the mushers breeding dogs with thinner coats, more suitable for warmer weather.
> 
> *She is breeding new dogs to deal with climate change. We live in a world in which it is easier to breed new types of animals than it is to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.*
> 
> The Iditarod is the least of the state’s problems. It is seeing tropical disease outbreaks, epic storms, rising oceans, and thawing permafrost. You can breed dogs with thinner coats and put wheels on sleds. It’s trickier to stop the ocean from flooding 6,500 miles of coast.


Alaska ignores climate change, so Iditarod dogs will just need to evolve thinner coats | Grist

BTW MORE snow is a characteristic of a warmer climate as last time I checked the earth still tilts and when there is no sunlight and a warmer atmosphere carries more moisture.....it's that damn physics again you keep running into.
It's the same reason there is glacier growth in the middle of the Antarctic and some small percentage of glaciers elsewhere that have maritime influences that support more snow pack. That growth does not offset the losses elsewhere. Alaska is on the front lines of change due to it's particular geography.

But of course you know better than the people living it. 



> ARCTIC:
> *Alaska Natives try to flee climate change impacts but find little help*
> 
> Elizabeth Harball, E&E reporter
> 
> ClimateWire: Thursday, January 31, 2013
> 
> Superstorm Sandy was a dramatic preview of what cities on the Eastern Seaboard might expect as climate change intensifies, but 12 small, indigenous communities on Alaska's coast provide the most extreme example of how global warming can wreak havoc.
> 
> Flooding, building collapses due to erosion and severe water pollution are only some of the many problems that have troubled these villages.
> Inukshuk
> 
> An inukshuk, a stone cairn left as a mark by the Inuit, Inupiat and other people native to North America's Arctic region. Photo by Sadi Junior, courtesy of Flickr.
> 
> But according to Alaskan human rights attorney Robin Bronen, the situation is worsened by the lack of government framework to help communities so battered by climate change that they must relocate entirely. Because such a move is unprecedented, several communities' relocation attempts have been stalled for up to 10 years.
> 
> Speaking at a Brookings Institution panel on Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Displacement and Climate Change yesterday in Washington, D.C., Bronen presented a paper on the challenges Alaskan indigenous communities face as they try to move to higher, drier ground. Many of these efforts have been stalled because there is little government support, on both the state and federal level, for the difficult and expensive task of relocating an entire town.
> 
> Three communities "have been desperately trying to relocate for decades," she said. "I'm just stunned by how challenging the relocation effort is."
> Shrinking Arctic sea ice spells disaster
> 
> In her presentation, Bronen explained that global warming has had a more dramatic effect on Alaska than in the contiguous United States. *Over the past 50 years, warming in the state has been double the global average, and by 2030 temperatures there could rise by up to 3 degrees Celsius*.


Arctic: Alaska Natives try to flee climate change impacts but find little help -- 01/31/2013 -- www.eenews.net

You won't win on the science ....you may win on the chew toy of the year awards.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Still immersed in denier tripe? Picking the north to fight your lost cause on is NOT a good idea as that is where the impacts are the most obvious.


Was that obvious you said, or oblivious? I always get them confused thinking about you...

At any rate back to that first wunnderful article you posted. Grist? Seriously? And ends up quoting the original NYT newspaper article? I know you warmists use a lot of circular logic but at least try to quote some science instead of a pop culture website that requotes the original, erroneous article.

So, some science pertaining to Alaska.

One.) Peer reviewed paper concluding that:



> We looked at the temperature trend of the first decade of the 21st century for the 20 first order stations in Alaska and found that 19 of the 20 stations showed a cooling trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> The...extreme was King Salmon, which gave a strong cooling trend for the same decade of 2.9°C.


The only site which did not show warming, Barrow, is isolated from the rest of the state by the Brooks Range.

So much for Alaska warming...

Two.) Just a tiny, small, niggling detail about glaciers melting >8 feet/day. Back in the 19th century, when all the Eskimos were tearing up the state in their SUV's...



> Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was barely an indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4000 ft. thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St.Elias Range of mountains.
> 
> By 1879 naturist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth.


So much for AGW causing glaciers to melt.



MacDoc said:


> BTW MORE snow is a characteristic of a warmer climate as last time I checked the earth still tilts and when there is no sunlight and a warmer atmosphere carries more moisture.....it's that damn physics again you keep running into.


Actually, it's not a sign of a warmer climate. It's a prediction from the CHIMP 3 and CHIMP 5 models and we all have a pretty good idea how reputable those precious model predictions aren't... 

There is no trend in US snowfall over at least the last 90 years, despite rising temps & rising CO2 levels.

No Correlation Between US Snow Depth And CO2



MacDoc said:


> It's the same reason there is glacier growth in the middle of the Antarctic and some small percentage of glaciers elsewhere that have maritime influences that support more snow pack.


Of course it is...



MacDoc said:


> Alaska is on the front lines of change due to it's particular geography.


It may be. Wherever it is, it's fact that Alaska has cooled since 2000, despite worldwide temperatures flatlining and CO2 skyrocketing over the same period.



MacDoc said:


> But of course you know better than the people living it.


Anecdotes mean squat. I had a grandfather, bless his soul, who walked to school uphill through 3 feet of snow, both ways, in the summer time, too. Makes for a great story but not much science. And thx for dem rollin' eyes... It wouldn't be a gen-u-wine MacDoc post without 'em.

Now, on to your little article about relocating Alaska natives, sourcing a bloodsucking human rights lawyer as some sort of unbiased authority on climate change.

I really only want to address one bit, as most of it is nothing more than activist BS. Lessee, where is it... Ah:



> According to a 2003 report by the Government Accountability Office, 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and erosion.


I found this most interesting. Why? Where do you s'pose most Native villages are constructed? Nearby water, no? So they don't have to pack water or drill for water, no? Say, right on a river bank? Lemme letcha in onna little secret, city boy: You build onna floodplain, yer gonna get flooded out at some point in yer life, 100% guaranteed. That's not science, that's math.

Some proof of global warming and some genius research...



MacDoc said:


> You won't win on the science ....you may win on the chew toy of the year awards.


Oh, that's rich. 

First, I'm the only one in this conversation that has science. You have models, adjustments, hockey sticks, the Goreacle, TIPPC™, Weepy Bill & hysteria. 

Second, this from someone who couldn't read a tourist map of Cooktown or figger it might take more than a small water bottle to satisfy two people on a half day trip at 33 degrees.

Priceless...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, I was ready to pick the low-hanging fruit you presented, which made possibly the weakest case possible for the non-existent Alaska warming. Thankfully FeXL set you straight, so I didn't have to do the work this time.


----------



## FeXL

So, after being cruelly pummelled by empirical data for 5 years, warmist German meteorologist turns sceptic... 

Meteorologist Dominik Jung Turns Skeptical After Germany Sets Record 5 Consecutive Colder-Than-Normal Winters!

He notes:



> _With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. *Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.*”_​


Bold mine.

Yup.

More:



> Jung did his homework, and also checked to see how the earlier models have been doing for the summers (JJA). Jung writes:
> 
> _By the way, according to many climate projections, also summers in Germany were supposed to get increasingly drier and hotter. Over the last 10 summers, only one summer was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003. Otherwise all summers were either average or much too wet.”_​
> The models got the summers wrong 9 consecutive years in a row! So expect the Latif and the other hapless scientists to roll out new models soon. Jung continues:
> 
> _The earlier climate projections and prognoses of the 80s and 90s are more or less way off, at least for Germany and Europe. Because of the current situation with the facts, they simply no longer fit and must be urgently revamped, *otherwise we will wind up with credibility problems here.”*_​
> Too late.


Bold mine.

Too late, indeed...


----------



## FeXL

Das ist verboten!

Message From The Climate Vatican



> Cardinals Tamino and Appell warn you again, that there are only two points in the Arctic ice graph (marked in yellow) which you are allowed to look at. Do not look at any other portion of this graph.


More:



> And you are absolutely forbidden to ever look at the Ozone-hole trained Antarctic graph. Avert your eyes. If lay people realized that the total amount of sea ice on earth is right at the 30 year mean, they might quit allowing us to steal their money.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I jes luvs me a little snark onna Sunday mornin'...


----------



## iMouse

> at least for Germany and Europe.


I seem to recall that GW would cause some cold zones to move about, as the Earth, oceans/ice fields and atmosphere react to the change.

For me it's more of a curiosity, for the scant few years that I have left, in the grand scheme of things.

Future generations would probably have a different view.


----------



## MacDoc

> The earlier climate projections and prognoses of the 80s and 90s are more or less way off, at least for Germany and Europe. Because of the current situation with the facts, they simply no longer fit and must be urgently revamped, otherwise we will wind up with credibility problems here.”


Regional models are still in their infancy with the possible exception of some of the monsoon models China is working with.

In the case of Germany and mid Europe the arctic dipole is a clearly understood phenomena 
You've been told this before but you persist in offering up puerile and unsupported crap from the fossil fuel funded AGW denier blogs.



> *Warm Arctic, Cold Continents*
> Changes in the Arctic Are Hitting Closer to Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The low Arctic pressure field is shown by purple colors in the figure for December 1968–1996. Strong Polar Vortex winds circle this pressure field, trapping cold air in the Arctic regions. In December 2009, this pattern broke down, Polar Vortex winds weakened (green colors) and cold Arctic air (which parallels the color contours) flowed southward.
> Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
> It’s a puzzle: How could warmth in the Arctic produce frigid conditions elsewhere?
> 
> NOAA scientists may have a clue.
> 
> Extremely cold winds have swept down through the Northern Hemisphere recently, reaching as far south as the state of Florida and causing record low temperatures in January. The unusually cold winter of 2009–2010 – which saw massive snowstorms dubbed “Snowpocalypse” and “Snowmageddon” — and the frigid start to 2011 in the eastern United States and Europe have scientists talking about what might be influencing the weather.
> 
> Dr. James Overland, a scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle, has been studying the changing conditions in the Arctic for 30 years. He explains why the deterioration of the Polar Vortex could be leading to some of these extreme winter weather events.
> 
> 
> “When the Polar Vortex — a ring of winds circling the Arctic — breaks down, this allows cold air to spill south, affecting the eastern United States and other regions,” says Dr. Overland. “This can result in a warmer-than-average Arctic region and colder temperatures that may include severe winter weather events on the North American and European continents.”
> 
> A Polar Vortex link to Winter 2009-2010?
> 
> The Polar Vortex is a strong wind flowing around a low-pressure system normally present over the Arctic in winter. Average December values from 1968–1996 show the Polar Vortex remaining strong and helping to keep the cold air in the Arctic region. During winter of 2009–2010, this normal pattern broke down, and a weakened Polar Vortex allowed cold Arctic air to move southward.
> 
> “In December 2009, the Arctic was 9 degrees F warmer than normal, and mid-latitude continents were 9 degrees F cooler than normal, with record cold and snow conditions in northern Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America,” says Dr. Overland. “This is the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern. The winter of 2009–2010 had especially extreme weather in the U.S. as moisture from El Nino hit cold air from the Arctic.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A map of the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern for December 2010 shows warmer than usual air temperature (red) in the Arctic, especially for regions that were sea-ice-free in summer — north of Alaska, Hudson Bay and in the Barents Sea. Cold continents (purple) are seen where Arctic air has penetrated southward.
> Download here. (Credit: NOAA)
> Why are we seeing these changes now?
> 
> According to the 2010 Arctic Report Card, there is reduced sea summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases, and record temperatures. Could these changes be linked to the weakened Polar Vortex and extreme winter weather events?
> 
> Many factors, including natural climate variability, can produce extreme weather events. But, there also is a potential impact from Arctic regions, where solar heat absorbed by recently ice-free regions of the ocean warms the atmosphere during autumn, impacting the winds. More research is needed to study the causes and extent of the recently observed Warm Arctic-Cold Continent pattern.
> 
> “Some scientists are beginning to suspect that the lack of sea ice allows the oceans to pump heat into the atmosphere in the Arctic in a way that could impact weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “The idea is still very much in its infancy, but it’s worth looking into. If it turns out to be right, it could help to explain the frigid winters the eastern United States and Europe have experienced these past two years.”
> 
> The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a natural climate pattern that is the dominant mode of winter climate variability for the region, which ranges from central North America to Europe and into Northern Asia. A strongly negative NAO can indicate a breakdown of the Polar Vortex. Last winter, there were two extreme cold continent events — and the breakdown of the Vortex, as measured by the NAO, was the most extreme on record for the past 145 years.
> 
> Undoubtedly, changes in the Arctic are being felt near and far. The winters of 2009 and 2010 serve as a jumping off point for more research to determine potential linkages between Arctic changes and continental weather to help predict if the Northern latitudes will witness colder winters in the future as more summer sea ice is lost.


NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet


----------



## MacDoc

From international scientists - prepared annually



> The material presented in *Report Card 2012 was prepared by an international team of 141 scientists from 15 different countries,* assisted by section coordinators and the editorial team. The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group of the Arctic Council solicited essays for the Marine Ecosystem and Terrestrial Ecosystem sections. Independent peer-review of Report Card 2012 was organized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council.


but you know better ....what a joke.


> Highlights
> *Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.*
> 
> Growing season length is increasing along with tundra greenness and above-ground biomass. Below the tundra, record high permafrost temperatures occurred in northernmost Alaska.
> *Duration of melting was the longest observed yet on the Greenland ice sheet, and a rare, nearly ice sheet-wide melt event occurred in July.*
> 
> 
> Massive phytoplankton blooms below summer sea ice suggest previous estimates of ocean primary productivity might be ten times too low.	Arctic fox is close to extinction in Fennoscandia and vulnerable to further changes in the lemming cycle and the encroaching Red fox.
> 
> *Severe weather events included extreme cold and snowfall in Eurasia, *and two major storms with deep central pressure and strong winds offshore of western and northern Alaska.


why don't you learn something from actual scientists working in the field instead of spewing debunked crap from retired weathermen and clowns like Monckton with nothing to offer to the science.

Arctic Report Card - About

Coping with the changes present a major challenge in most nations - some short term some long term. How best to go about that is up for much discussion as to "best practice"
Denying the reality of these changes at this point is simply pathetic.....
Trying to hang on to the denial from a self proclaimed "science" stance verges on pathological denial of reality.

What next? PInk elephants....

.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Regional models are still in their infancy with the possible exception of some of the monsoon models China is working with.
> 
> In the case of Germany and mid Europe the arctic dipole is a clearly understood phenomena
> You've been told this before but you persist in offering up puerile and unsupported crap from the fossil fuel funded AGW denier blogs.
> 
> 
> 
> NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet


MacDoc, this is just NOAA's stab at explaining the failure of the models--*in February, 2011!!* So you're looking at theories two years old, to attempt to explain why the models were already failing back then? And not even taking into consideration an additional two years of failing models?



> Undoubtedly, changes in the Arctic are being felt near and far. The *winters of 2009 and 2010* serve as a _jumping off point_ for more research to determine potential linkages between Arctic changes and continental weather to help predict if the Northern latitudes will witness colder winters in the future as more summer sea ice is lost.


Emphasis mine.

Welcome to 2013, sir!


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> From international scientists - prepared annually
> 
> but you know better ....what a joke.
> 
> 
> why don't you learn something from actual scientists working in the field instead of spewing debunked crap from retired weathermen and clowns like Monckton with nothing to offer to the science.
> 
> Arctic Report Card - About


Already a year old, isn't it MacDoc? What we have here is a record low in Arctic sea ice since records have been kept--for 30 years. However, the recent reports completely ignore the influence of the Arctic cyclone of 2012 which separated--but did not melt--vast tracts of ice. As of mid-February 2013 we also have a massive rebound in Arctic ice.

Meanwhie back in 1922, courtesy of the Pittsburgh Press we have an article on the _unprececdented _melting in the Arctic and on the continent of Greenland. 

Enjoy the read, MacDoc.


----------



## Macfury

duplicate post


----------



## MacDoc

It's not only the atmosphere ...which is relatively transient...it's the ocean environment and biome that is being impacted.



> *Battling oceanic climate change February 18, 2013 Battling Oceanic Climate Change *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The predominant dense cells in the photo, studied by Avery Tatters, a Ph.D. student in Dave Hutchins’ laboratory, are of Lingulodinium polyedrum — a common dinoflagellate along the southern California coast that often blooms, producing red tides. Credit: California Department of Public Health.
> 
> Changes to the temperature and chemistry of Earth's atmosphere are causing fundamental changes to the ocean, too. The water is getting warmer and more acidic, and those changes may reconfigure the microbial communities that create the foundation of marine ecosystems.


Read more at: Battling oceanic climate change


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> ...it's the ocean environment and biome that is being impacted.


As much as sea level rise, extreme weather and other aspects of climate change worry me, I'm fairly confident we can adapt to those. It's the rapid change of ocean pH and ecology that really disturbs me. If the shift were occurring gradually, over thousands and thousands of years as it has in the past, I'm sure the ocean ecology would adapt as it has in the past. But the rate of change we're causing with the sudden release of millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 is unprecedented, and may cause massive die-offs in the oceans. Given that primary productivity in the ocean is the foundation for all of earth's biological systems, that could have devastating knock-on effects.

How people can say 'oh well, it's just some plankton... what's the big deal?' is beyond me.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> As much as sea level rise, extreme weather and other aspects of climate change worry me, I'm fairly confident we can adapt to those. It's the rapid change of ocean pH and ecology that really disturbs me. If the shift were occurring gradually, over thousands and thousands of years as it has in the past, I'm sure the ocean ecology would adapt as it has in the past. But the rate of change we're causing with the sudden release of millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 is unprecedented, and may cause massive die-offs in the oceans. Given that primary productivity in the ocean is the foundation for all of earth's biological systems, that could have devastating knock-on effects.
> 
> How people can say 'oh well, it's just some plankton... what's the big deal?' is beyond me.


I'm quite amazed at how some people who mock 'progressive blogs' can simply take their 'progressive blogs' at face value without any question.

Some blogger looking to be famous on teh internets, vs the consensus of world scientists. WHatever should I do. 

As far as people dismissing plankton, well, haven't we made such similar colossal errors in the past, greatly underestimating the impact of affecting a few items in nature, only to see the devastating effects years later? Seems a lesson some never learn.


----------



## bryanc

We're not very well adapted to think in terms of very large or very small scales. Our ancestors never really had to think about things that were smaller than they could see, further away than they could walk, or occurred on time scales longer than their short lives. So there was never any selective advantage to developing brains that were good at dealing with such abstract scales, and consequently, most of us really suck at it (even if we're otherwise quite clever). We've developed math and science and various other tools to help us, but even people who are good at these things have to sort of 'trust' what their results are saying, because we can't really conceptualize the 'three thousand years' it will take for the '37 billion tons of carbon dioxide' to be captured and reduced to organic molecules by photosynthesis.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But the rate of change we're causing with the sudden release of millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 is unprecedented....


Here we go again with the use of such terms as "unprecedented." Is that what you really mean?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> It's not only the atmosphere ...which is relatively transient...it's the ocean environment and biome that is being impacted.


Um hmmmm. And this article has what to do with AGW again?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Here we go again with the use of such terms as "unprecedented." Is that what you really mean?


Yes, that is what I mean. The rate of change in ppCO2, and in directly related indexes such as the pH of ocean water is greater now than at any time in earth's history, as far as we are able to tell from empirical data.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Um hmmmm. And this article has what to do with AGW again?


Not much; it's another consequence of our release of vast amounts of CO2, dramatically altering the carbon cycle of the planet.


----------



## MacDoc

> Um hmmmm. And this article has what to do with AGW again?


actually it does as it directly impacts the carbon balance of the oceans.



> Before the industrial age, the ocean vented carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in balance with the carbon the ocean received during rock weathering. However, since carbon concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, the ocean now takes more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. Over millennia, the ocean will absorb up to 85 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, but the process is slow because it is tied to the movement of water from the ocean’s surface to its depths.


Perhaps read the whole article to understand how your one and only planet works.
The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

The ocean has been acting as a brake on our emissions so lowering the impact of AGW - that brake may be loosening off.



> Is the ocean carbon sink sinking?
> Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Oceans — david @ 1 November 2007 - ()
> The past few weeks and years have seen a bushel of papers finding that the natural world, in particular perhaps the ocean, is getting fed up with absorbing our CO2. There are uncertainties and caveats associated with each study, but taken as a whole, they provide convincing evidence that the hypothesized carbon cycle positive feedback has begun.
> 
> Of the new carbon released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, some remains in the atmosphere, while some is taken up into the land biosphere (in places other than those which are being cut) and into the ocean. The natural uptake has been taking up more than half of the carbon emission. If changing climate were to cause the natural world to slow down its carbon uptake, or even begin to release carbon, that would exacerbate the climate forcing from fossil fuels: a positive feedback.


RealClimate: Is the ocean carbon sink sinking?

In addition - it is a critical reason to reduce C02 emissions as the damage to the ocean biome by increasing acidification affects the ocean food chain.

You cannot separate out the ocean and atmosphere and cryosphere as unconnected systems - they are all impacted by release of fossil carbon which is the heart of AGW.

BTW for the reading challenged ...the rather iffy thread title is GHG thread...not AGW thread.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Regional models are still in their infancy with the possible exception of some of the monsoon models China is working with.


All GCM's are in their infancy. Period. And, until they lose CO2 as a primary contributor, they will continue to stay in their infancy. Period. The complete & utter disconnect between CO2 & rising temperatures has even been acknowledged by many of your global warming gods. Why do you, as an acolyte, refuse to follow the religion?



MacDoc said:


> You've been told this before but you persist in offering up puerile and unsupported crap from the fossil fuel funded AGW denier blogs.


Time and time and time again (ad nauseum, XX) ), you bring up this line. 

Two things: 1) Easy enough to write off opinion pieces and newspaper articles (which, BTW, I do to yours all the time, as that is the lion's share of what you post) but I see a distinct lack of response to anything that I post which is peer-reviewed (which, BTW, is the lion's share of my posts). Even though what I choose to post is from skeptical sites, most of that is peer-reviewed science. In your blind rage, you see nothing but the name of the blog, throw an ad hom. at it & refuse to address the actual, peer-reviewed science the link contains. This tells me that you are not interested in a discussion about anything, but are only interested in bullying your way through the topic. Each & every time you do that, you look more the fool than you did the day before. Please, continue. It's my pleasure... 

2)Again, I ask, where's the proof? If this is such a well known fact, surely you can hit speed dial to one of your buds at SS or DSB and actually find some proof of your accusations of "BIG OIL FUNDIN'...". The only ones that come to mind are the Goreacle and Weepy Bill, both on your side of the argument.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> why don't you learn something from actual scientists working in the field instead of spewing debunked crap from retired weathermen and clowns like Monckton with nothing to offer to the science.


Typical ad hom. Attack the person, not the science. Click a link, learn something.



MacDoc said:


> Coping with the changes present a major challenge in most nations - some short term some long term. How best to go about that is up for much discussion as to "best practice"


Yes, I can see it being a quandary: "How are we going to spend all the money we save by not pissing it away on useless things like carbon taxes or further global warming research?" They could spend spend it on some lefty social programs, they could pay down the debt, they could invest in infrastructure, they could try some job creation, perhaps even some employment insurance for all those suddenly unemployed "climate scientists".




MacDoc said:


> Denying the reality of these changes at this point is simply pathetic.....
> Trying to hang on to the denial from a self proclaimed "science" stance verges on pathological denial of reality.


What changes, oh Great One? Flatlined temps? Decelerating sea level rises? Fewer tornadoes & hurricanes? I don't doubt any of those... 

Ya wanna see pathological? Take a look in the mirror...




MacDoc said:


> What next? PInk elephants....


Nope. "Stupid tourist" stories...



MacDoc said:


> .


There they are! Thank you...


----------



## groovetube

Not everyone will take the word of a retired weatherman or bloggers looking for attention over scientists.

As far as using money to pay down the debt, well we all know how good our current government is with spending money, paying debts? Not so much.

That's a joke.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> It's not only the atmosphere ...which is relatively transient...it's the ocean environment and biome that is being impacted.


First, the whole premise of the title is false: "Battling oceanic climate change". The oceans have been changing since day one. Higher temps, lower temps. Higher CO2 levels, lower CO2 levels. More basic, less basic. What is considered the "normal" for today has little to do with the "normal" from 200 years ago, the "normal" for 2000 years ago, the "normal" for 20,000 years ago, the "normal" for 200,000 years ago, the "normal" for 2,000,000 years ago... Do you want me to go on? 

There is nothing currently going on in the oceans that time has not seen before.

Second, you lost me at models...

Third, look at the weasel words: may, could, might.

Fourth, the only ray of sunshine in the whole project: "You have to be cautious about interpreting short term experiments as fully predictive of long term trends," Hutchins said.

Finally, this article supports your argument how?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> All GCM's are in their infancy.


No argument; that does not mean we can't learn something from the outputs they produce.



> 1) Easy enough to write off opinion pieces and newspaper articles (which, BTW, I do to yours all the time, as that is the lion's share of what you post) but I see a distinct lack of response to anything that I post which is peer-reviewed


Good; let's avoid posting links to blog posts or the interpretations of bloggers and stick to the peer-reviewed science. While some of the science you have posted discusses interesting anomalies and a great deal of what is currently going on in climate research is focused on understanding how and why some data does not fit predictions (as it should be), I have yet to find anything in any of the science you have linked to that suggests that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the ACC paradigm. I have gone so far as to contact some of the authors of papers you have linked to, to ask their opinion of your interpretation that their work somehow refutes ACC. The response I got was that only a "f*cking idiot" would interpret it that way.

So it would seem that your collecting of science 'refuting' ACC is rather like a creationist collecting current evolutionary research and getting all worked up about biologists admitting that it's difficult to understand how some specific organism's biochemistry evolved; you find this sort of stuff posted all over creationist web pages, but it isn't evidence that biologists have any doubt about evolution... we know things evolved, but we don't know the details in most cases so we argue and chip away at each other's data trying to figure it out.



> 2)Again, I ask, where's the proof?






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

Back to conspiracy theories involving the Koch Brothers? This irrational focus is starting to remind me of _1984_ and the boogeyman of Emmanuel Goldstein.


----------



## bryanc

Hardly a conspiracy theory; well documented facts by now. But the Koch's are just one of many examples. A multi-trillion dollar industry doesn't just sit around while new upstarts eat their lunch. The knives have been out for quite some time, and, not surprisingly, the Fossil Fuel industry has been winning most of the fights. But the genie is out of the bottle; it's obvious that we have to transition from fossil fuels and it's obvious that there will be big money to be made in the technologies that facilitate that, so the tide has turned. I have no doubt that the same evil bastards that run the oil companies will wind up running the solar/wind/tidal/whatever energy companies; that's how a free market generally works. But the important thing will be that our civilization won't be running a massive energy deficit.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> In addition - it is a critical reason to reduce C02 emissions as the damage to the ocean biome by increasing acidification affects the ocean food chain.


Why? While I'm not suggesting that reducing pollution overall isn't a good thing, why are we at a "critical" point now?

How did the ocean food chain manage when atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4 times greater (1700 ppm, as opposed to our current <400) during the Jurassic, more than a hundred million years ago? By the abundance of both macro & microfossils from those eras (many genera which are extant today), it's pretty obvious that the oceanic biosphere was thriving.

It's all these tiny, niggling, annoying details from earth science that you studiously ignore (or remain remarkably ignorant of) which overthrow your argument.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But the genie is out of the bottle; it's obvious that we have to transition from fossil fuels and it's obvious that there will be big money to be made in the technologies that facilitate that, so the tide has turned. I have no doubt that the same evil bastards that run the oil companies will wind up running the solar/wind/tidal/whatever energy companies; that's how a free market generally works. But the important thing will be that our civilization won't be running a massive energy deficit.


What is obvious now is that we will be transitioning to a natural gas economy. This has nothing to do with the Koch brothers or any other oil company--they simply don't care if you want to tax yourself to death while paying for their product.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> How did the ocean food chain manage when atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4 times greater (1700 ppm, as opposed to our current <400) during the Jurassic, more than a hundred million years ago?


Good question; but rather than just assuming that scientists don't know the answer and therefore they're OMG!!!LYING!!! and trying to cause a panic, why don't you look into it.

As I understanding it, when atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than present, several other things were different as well. Firstly the rate at which the atmospheric CO2 rose was orders of magnitude slower than the rate at which it is currently rising, so the carbonate chemistry had a lot longer to equilibrate to the higher CO2 and therefore the net effect on pH was significantly less. Secondly, and again because the rate of change was so much lower, there was enough time for biological adaptation to these conditions. It is not clear that extant marine life will be able to adapt fast enough to keep up with the rate of change (indeed there is evidence to the contrary), and there is also reason to be concerned that the rate of carbonate formation is so slow relative to the rate of CO2 increase that we'll see an unprecedented pH shift in marine waters. The latter could be devastating to calcarious species, ranging from reef-building corals to phytoplankton.

Ocean acidification is of far greater concern to me than global temperature or sea level. We can survive either of the latter, but if we cause a dramatic die off of marine phytoplanton, we're really phucked.

{edit to add: here's a link on the problem with the rate of change in ocean pH. The ocean is already 30% more acidic than it was only a hundred years ago, and changing faster than it ever has in 300 million years}


----------



## FeXL

bryanc:

I will not engage you on this thread, for one single, solitary reason: Your position on this topic is "the science is settled, consensus tells me so".

You are not interested in debate. You are not interested in discourse. You are not interested in discussion. You are not interested in "beer talk". In my view, that position is untenable from any perspective and, as such, I won't waste my time.

I will, however, clarify one small thing. The original GHG thread was created to discuss CAGW, not merely ACC. It's sons & daughters follow in that same vein.

So, post at will, you'll receive little response from me.


----------



## groovetube

Reading your posts Fexl, you have even less interest in 'debate'. 

I see far less snorting and stamping from bryanc's posts than yours, and that has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not.

His position isn't merely "the science is settled, consensus tells me so"... far from it, he has posted a lot of reasonable arguments, you just don't like them.

As I said, you either like bloggers, or scientists. I prefer the latter, as I don't by the tinfoil hat BS that all scientists in this world are out to get me.


----------



## bryanc

I openly admit that I am not qualified to debate the climatological science; but I also question wether you or any other poster here is. From what I can tell, the papers you have linked to do not say what you think they do, and the authors find your interpretations ludicrous. I have checked several of the articles you have linked here, to verify that they said what you claimed. They either did not say what you claimed, or were not peer-reviewed science, or were behind paywalls.

If no one here is qualified to critique that aspect of the science, there is not much point in our discussing it, is there? All we can do is agree with the consensus of the experts or refrain from forming an opinion. However, I understand the biology and the chemistry well enough to be able to read the literature and come to my own conclusions. I have yet to see anything saying that athropogenic CO2 is not a serious problem; have you?

I conclude that you are receiving your 'science' as selected and edited by agenda-driven bloggers in the climate-chainge denier camp, and that it is you who are not really interested in a discussion, but are rather cheerleading for a hopelessly anti-science, industry driven PR campaign. I have no idea why.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ocean acidification is of far greater concern to me than global temperature or sea level. We can survive either of the latter, but if we cause a dramatic die off of marine phytoplanton////


Looks like that isn't much of a concern as phytoplankton volumes are on the upswing.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/nature09950.html


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Looks like that isn't much of a concern as phytoplankton volumes are on the upswing.


Read the paper; they're looking at total chlorophyl, which doesn't even show total cellular abundance (although it's a pretty good proxy for that), and it certainly shows nothing regarding species biodiversity or any other important ecological measures of planktonic ecosystem health.

There's no reason to think that the 30% increase in ocean acidity would affect non-calcarious species significantly, and increased CO2 is predicted to increase growth rates of most photosynthetic organisms (CO2 is the carbon source for photosynthesis, after all). So a total increase of mass is expected. As is a loss of diversity as the calcarious species decline.


----------



## groovetube

That's what happens when you just google for headlines you don't quite comprehend.

But it makes for good forum retorts


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Read the paper; they're looking at total chlorophyl, which doesn't even show total cellular abundance (although it's a pretty good proxy for that), and it certainly shows nothing regarding species biodiversity or any other important ecological measures of planktonic ecosystem health.
> 
> There's no reason to think that the 30% increase in ocean acidity would affect non-calcarious species significantly, and increased CO2 is predicted to increase growth rates of most photosynthetic organisms (CO2 is the carbon source for photosynthesis, after all). So a total increase of mass is expected. As is a loss of diversity as the calcarious species decline.


Yes, but your concern was a massive die-off. The ever-moving target is offered once again.


----------



## MacDoc

> Are Oysters Doomed?
> *Don’t believe in climate change? Talk to a clam digger.
> *
> By Maria Dolan|Posted Monday, Feb. 18, 2013, at 1:20 PM
> 
> 
> Behind the counter at Seattle’s Taylor Shellfish Market, a brawny guy with a goatee pries open kumamoto, virginica, and shigoku oysters as easily as other men pop beer cans. David Leck is a national oyster shucking champion who opened and plated a dozen of them in just over a minute (time is added for broken shells or mangled meat) at the 2012 Boston International Oyster Shucking Competition. You have to be quick, these days, to keep up with demand. The oysters here were grown nearby in Taylor’s hundred-year-old beds, but the current hunger for pedigreed mollusks on the half shell stretches to raw bars and markets across the country.
> 
> A similar oyster craze swept the United States in the 1800s, when the bivalves were eaten with alacrity in New York, San Francisco, and anywhere else that could get them fresh. Development of a fancy new technology, canning, meant there was money in preserved oysters, too. Gold miners in Northern California celebrated their riches with an oyster omelet called hangtown fry. New Yorkers ate them on the street; late at night they ate them in “oyster cellars.” Walt Whitman had them for breakfast.
> 
> That wave crashed. By the early 1900s, oysters were disappearing because of overharvesting and water pollution. Today’s revival is possible because oyster farms are better managed, and regulations have improved water quality. But a modern threat looms for ice-chilled fruits de mer platters, although it’s hard to tell with oyster juice on your chin. This time it’s a worldwide problem, affecting marine ecosystems everywhere. Ocean waters are turning corrosive, and it’s happening so quickly scientists say there may not be any oysters left to eat in coming decades.
> 
> Ocean acidification, as scientists call this pickling of the seas, is, like climate change, a result of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide humans have pumped into the atmosphere. Oceans have absorbed about a quarter of that output, and ocean chemistry has changed as a result. Surface water pH has long been an alkaline 8.2, not far from the pH of baking soda, but it now averages about 8.1. That doesn’t look like much, but since pH is a logarithmic scale, that means a 30 percent increase in the acidity. By the end of this century, surface water pH could further lower to 7.8 or below.
> 
> We don’t yet know who the ocean’s winners and losers will be in the more corrosive world. Jellyfish and some seagrasses may thrive under more acidic conditions. On the other hand, calcifiers—organisms that make calcium carbonate shells and skeletons, such as shellfish and corals—appear to be in trouble. In the United States, scientists have seen dissolving clam larvae in Maine, corroded oysters in Washington state’s hatcheries, and mussels with thinned shells off the Pacific Northwest coast.
> 
> Taylor Shellfish first saw what this pH shift could do to its business in 2006, when the company noticed that two- and three-day-old oyster larvae in its hatcheries were dying. In itself, this wasn’t news. “Hatcheries have a lot of different variables,” says Bill Dewey, Taylor’s spokesperson. “There are a host of reasons your larvae can die.” But this time, none of the usual fixes—filtering out harmful bacteria, for instance—made a difference. By 2009, hatchery production was down 60 to 80 percent, and others in the region were reporting similar problems. Oyster larvae outside of hatcheries were dying, too. In Willapa Bay, an estuary off the southwest Washington coast where a quarter of the nation’s oysters are harvested, many growers rely on natural sets—free-spawning larvae that swim around until they attach themselves to oyster shells placed by growers. Those natural sets stopped producing, and the Willapa growers turned to the struggling hatcheries for oyster seed.
> 
> The industry finally pulled out of its tailspin in 2010, when NOAA scientists determined that what was killing the oyster larvae was corrosive water that entered the hatchery at certain times of the year—usually in summer, and specifically on days when winds from the northwest caused upwelling of deeper water, which is more acidic than surface water. With federal money, hatcheries were able to install sophisticated pH monitors and CO2 monitors. When waters are becoming too corrosive, hatchery operators can now close off the seawater intake, and, Dewey says, “pray that the winds change soon.”
> 
> Monitoring is not a permanent fix, however, so scientists are exploring adaptation strategies. At NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Center, research ecologist Shallin Busch and colleagues are studying the possibility of raising oysters in eelgrass beds, since the plants naturally take up carbon and bury it in sediment, perhaps making their immediate environment less acidic. In Maine, Mark Green of St. Joseph’s College is looking for ways to restore clam populations by raising alkalinity in shellfish beds using crushed shells. “It’s like putting a layer of Rolaids down,” he says. Other possibilities being studied include lowering pH by adding sodium carbonate to hatchery water. Selective breeding may lead to oysters that survive better in these new conditions. Nitrogen runoff from land also contributes to acidification, so reducing water pollution can boost shellfish survival.


Ocean acidification and oysters: Shellfish are already suffering. - Slate Magazine

tanstaafl


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Ocean acidification and oysters: Shellfish are already suffering. - Slate Magazine
> 
> tanstaafl


What was the pH of the ocean before the Industrial Revolution, MacDoc?

And how much CO2 can the ocean absorb before it belches it back out to the atmosphere in search of equilibrium?

Easy questions for you to answer.

In the meantime, oyster harvests are growing by 20 per cent per year:

Small U.S. Oyster Farms Are on the Rise - Businessweek


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes, but your concern was a massive die-off.


... of calcarious species... if a significant proportion of calcarious algae die, it may destabilize the ecosystem and have knock-on effects on non-calcarious species as well, but I don't know enough about phytoplanton ecology to predict that.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> What was the pH of the ocean before the Industrial Revolution, MacDoc?


Depends where you look; different regions of the ocean have different salinities, osmolarities, ionic composition and pH. But off Woods Hole it was pH 8.107 (it is currently 7.833, i.e. about 1.9 times more acidic!)



> And how much CO2 can the ocean absorb before it belches it back out to the atmosphere in search of equilibrium?


It doesn't 'belch' back out; it precipitates as carbonates (lime stone). But that process takes thousands of years. Consequently the pH of the ocean has dropped precipitously since we started pouring CO2 into the system, and it is now 30% more acidic than it was in the 1800's. More importantly, the *rate* at which the ocean pH is changing is far greater than at any time in the past 300 million years.



> Easy questions for you to answer.


Not too hard; given that the research has already been done. Of course, Harper et al., propose to solve the problem by stopping the research. 



> In the meantime, oyster harvests are growing by 20 per cent per year:


Yes, the aquaculture technology is coming along nicely; as long as the pH doesn't drop too far, there's no reason we can't increase oyster production (one of the few sustainably harvested sea foods in the world). But the pH issue is not a trivial one. The chemistry bivalves use to ppt calcium from sea water is hugely pH sensitive; it becomes massively more endergonic as the pH moves down, and will become impossible below about pH 7.


----------



## iMouse

Oh boy, something to read when I come home.

Must remember to pick-up some Orville Redenbacher.


----------



## heavyall

I wish the hysterians would at least pick an impending disaster that isn't so transparently ridiculous. Much like the deliberately deceptive dropping of the medieval warm period and the dirty thirties for the hockey stick graph, this "the ocean is getting more acidic" garbage is only going to fool people who slept through high-school chemistry, and have no idea what acidic even means.

The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?



> *In reality, it’s quite the opposite.* The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or *more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive*, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity. That is the problem with the term “acidify”, and it is why I use and insist on the more accurate term “neutralize”.* Using “acidify”, is both alarmist and incorrect. The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2*.


----------



## eMacMan

heavyall said:


> I wish the hysterians would at least pick an impending disaster that isn't so transparently ridiculous. Much like the deliberately deceptive dropping of the medieval warm period and the dirty thirties for the hockey stick graph, this "the ocean is getting more acidic" garbage is only going to fool people who slept through high-school chemistry, and have no idea what acidic even means.
> 
> The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?


There you go again trying to intrude on a religious discussion with facts. For that you get the big MD


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> I wish the hysterians would at least pick an impending disaster that isn't so transparently ridiculous. Much like the deliberately deceptive dropping of the medieval warm period and the dirty thirties for the hockey stick graph, this "the ocean is getting more acidic" garbage is only going to fool people who slept through high-school chemistry, and have no idea what acidic even means.


:lmao:

One really does have to step back and admire the colossal arrogance of the deniers; telling people with Ph.Ds. in chemistry that they must've "slept through high school chemistry" because some "facts" they read on the internet don't seem to agree with what they're saying.

Why don't you tell us, mister Heavyall, how is it that CO2 makes a solution more alkaline? Perhaps you'd like to hold your breath while you tell us and watch your own blood pH as the CO2 accumulates... anyone want to hazzard a guess as to the direction in which it will change?

To summarize for those who *did* sleep through high school chemistry, carbon has a much lower electronegativity than oxygen, so the carbon nucleus in CO2 is electron-depleted... this makes it an attractive target for nucleophilic attack by things like hydroxyl ions (which are produced spontaneously in water by this reaction: 2(H2O) ⇌ H3O+ + OH-). When a hydroxyl reacts with CO2, it forms a bicarbonate anion (HCO3-) (which is the conjugate base of carbonic acid H2CO3). Carbonic acid ionizes with pKas of 10.33 and 6.35, which means that at around pH 8 it will exist primarily in its singly ionized state (HCO3-) (for extra points, use the Henderson-Hasseblach equation to determine the exact ionization state). Thus, in a nutshell, the CO2 reacts with water to produce bicarbonate and an excess proton, thereby acidifying the solution.

Any questions?

Anyone not understand that a blog saying that CO2 _raises_ the pH of water (i.e. makes it more alkaline) is simply WRONG? Anyone surprised that a denier blog would have the science completely bass-ackwards? Anyone surprised that deniers will continue to ignore the science as it conflicts with their religiously held fantasy that human activity can't change the climate?


----------



## bryanc

I won't go through the math for calculating the molar solubility of metal salts here (I will leave that as an exercise for the student), however the relevant relationship is illustrated graphically here:










Note that the molar solubility of calcium carbonate increases by more than an order of magnitude as you go from pH 8 to pH 6 (note log scales on both axes).

Now think about the fact that all the reef-building corals, shellfish, crustaceans, etc., not to mention many of the phytoplankton and zooplankton that form both the base of the food chain and represent the major producers of oxygen on our planet rely on the production of calcium carbonate and other calcium salts that have similar solubility curves, and ask yourself wether noting that the ocean is 30% more acidic today than a hundred years ago (and changing faster than ever) is really something we shouldn't worry about.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Oh boy, something to read when I come home.
> 
> Must remember to pick-up some Orville Redenbacher.


mouse do you have any of that popcorn to share?

The backside whoopin' is getting interesting.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments"...

Sea Level Data Tampering



> Essentially all climate data has been tampered with and inflated over the last decade.
> 
> In the 1990 IPCC report, they showed 10 cm rise in sea level over the previous century.
> 
> ...
> 
> But recent propaganda shows almost double that rise over the same time period.


----------



## bryanc

I've generally tried to stay away from the discussions of climate modelling, because I lack the background in non-linear dynamics, chaos-theory, etc. to critically assess the data myself. I know a significant number of scientists who work either directly in that feild, or in related disciplines, and I trust their judgement that the support for ACC has gone well beyond 'significant' and that there is essentially no argument about wether human GHG emissions have or are changing the climate, it's just a question of how much and what can we do to mitigate?

I am frustrated that certain individuals here with even less understanding than I have persist in posting utter rubbish on the subject, but whatever; you can't cure stupid.

I can, and will take people to task on the science when it pertains to fields in which I do have some expertise; specifically biology and chemistry. This latest BS about CO2 and oceanic pH being an example.


----------



## FeXL

On cherry picking satellite data.

NSIDC : Pretending That The Satellite Era Began in 1979



> NSIDC wants us to believe that satellite measurements began in 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> But satellite records go back much further, and showed ice gain in the 12 years prior to 1979. Paul Homewood found this quote from the CRU Director HH Lamb
> 
> _Kukla & Kukla (1974) report that the area of snow and ice, integrated over the year across the Northern Hemisphere, was 12% more in 1973 than in 1967, when the first satellite surveys were made._​
> ...
> 
> From 1974 to 1979, the IPCC showed another large gain, based on satellite data which NSIDC ignores.
> 
> ...
> 
> If NSIDC showed the complete satellite data set, people would know that Arctic behavior was cyclical, as we can see in the original GISS temperature graph from Iceland


----------



## FeXL

Further on disappearing the MWP.

Mann Made Climate Change – Disappearing The MWP



> In the 1990 IPCC report, there was a strong Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age
> 
> ...
> 
> The data didn’t support the idea of catastrophic global warming, so they simply altered it for later reports.


----------



## FeXL

On the new GISS temperature index.

A Look at the New (and Improved?) GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index Data



> GISS prepares the land surface air temperature data for their Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) dataset, and they use sea surface temperature data from other sources. GISS recently switched to ERSST.v3b data from a combination of HADISST and Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature datasets. The change was first reported by Paul Homewood at NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat in his post More on GISS Tampering. Paul’s follow-up post was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat on January 16th.
> 
> I decided to run a few comparison graphs to see if I could determine why GISS made the change. I’ll let you decide.


----------



## bryanc

What's with the links to blog posts; I thought we agreed to post only peer-reviewed science?

(here, btw, is the link to the Nature paper about dissolving shells that MacDoc should've linked rather than the popular press article earlier).


----------



## FeXL

Further on extreme weather events and the BS that warmer temps bring more snow.

Whac-a-moling Seth Borenstein at AP over his erroneous extreme weather claims



> It’s like playing whac-a-mole. After every major storm or unusual (or even slightly interesting) weather event, some non-investigative reporter gets hold of the usual suspects to write an article about how it’s all due to global warming. Then it’s up to knowledgeable folk like Joe D’Aleo, Anthony Watts, Bill Gray, James Taylor, Steve Goddard, and many, many others to write a data-based rebuttal to “whac” the nonsense back down into its hole. But then, as in the game, it always pops up again. Today I’ll draw the short straw and try to whac the mole back down once more.


More:



> Simple plots of winter temperature and snowfall data for Philadelphia snow two obvious things:
> 
> 1. Colder winters have more snow and more big snow storms, in contradiction to the warming hypothesis. This would be obvious to most folk, but the warmers have a way for denying the obvious with clever theories.
> 
> 2. Over the past 125 years there has been little or no trend in either winter temperatures or snowfall.


Further:



> Less obvious, but apparent in closer scrutiny of the charts, is a small 60-year cycle in snow and temperature. These correspond well with the “Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation” (AMO), a huge oceanic cycle enveloping the entire Atlantic Ocean from the equator to Iceland.


Yup.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Further on extreme weather events


.... politically motivated blog post; where's the science?


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unprecedented" warming.

New paper shows Arctic temperatures were warmer than the present multiple times over past 1357 years 



> A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs temperatures from shells in the North Iceland region of the Arctic Sea over the past 1357 years. The paper demonstrates that temperatures at the end of the record in the year 2000 were not unusual or unprecedented, and were warmer than the present during at least 4 periods over the past 1357 years. Despite claims of climate alarmists that the Arctic should be the first to display a 'fingerprint' of alleged man-made global warming, this new paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented regarding present temperatures in the Arctic.


Abstract.



> A multicentennial and absolutely-dated shell-based chronology for the marine environment of the North Icelandic Shelf has been constructed using annual growth increments in the shell of the long-lived bivalve clam Arctica islandica. The region from which the shells were collected is close to the North Atlantic Polar Front and is highly sensitive to the varying influences of Atlantic and Arctic water masses. A strong common environmental signal is apparent in the increment widths, and although the correlations between the growth increment indices and regional sea surface temperatures are significant at the 95% confidence level, they are low (r ~ 0.2), indicating that a more complex combination of environmental forcings is driving growth. Remarkable longevities of individual animals are apparent in the increment-width series used in the chronology, with several animals having lifetimes in excess of 300 years and one, at 507 years, being the longest-lived non-colonial animal so far reported whose age at death can be accurately determined. The sample depth is at least three shells after AD 1175, and the time series has been extended back to AD 649 with a sample depth of one or two by the addition of two further series, thus providing a 1357-year archive of dated shell material. The statistical and spectral characteristics of the chronology are investigated by using two different methods of removing the age-related trend in shell growth. Comparison with other proxy archives from the same region reveals several similarities in variability on multidecadal timescales, particularly during the period surrounding the transition from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age.


----------



## FeXL

Different authors, same species, same location, confirming results.


New paper demonstrates Arctic temperatures are not unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented 

Abstract.



> Pronounced decadal climate oscillations are detected in a multi-centennial record based on shell growth rates of the marine bivalve mollusk, Arctica islandica, from Iceland. The corresponding analysis of patterns in sea level pressure and temperature exhibit large-scale teleconnections with North Atlantic climate quantities. We find that the record projects onto blocking situations in the northern North Atlantic. The associated circulation shows a low-pressure signature over Greenland and the Labrador Sea and a high-pressure system over Western Europe associated with northeasterly flow towards Iceland and weakening in the westerly zonal flow over Europe. It can be speculated that such circulation affects food availability controlling shell growth. On multidecadal time scales, the record shows a pronounced variability linked to North Atlantic temperature. In our record, we find enhanced variability of the shell growth rates on multidecadal time scales, and it appears that this oscillation has high amplitudes in the 16th to 18th century also consistent with marine alkenone data. It is conceivable that these climate oscillations, also linked to sea ice export and enhanced blocking, are a more pronounced feature during times when the climate was relatively cold.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> What's with the links to blog posts; I thought we agreed to post only peer-reviewed science?


"We" never agreed to anything.

If you don't like what I post, I see several options:
1) Read them & say nothing;
2) Read them & comment;
3) Don't read them.

Frankly, I don't care which of the above you choose. If you wish to add to the list, feel free.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Further on "unprecedented" warming.
> 
> New paper shows Arctic temperatures were warmer than the present multiple times over past 1357 years


I just went and read the paper. It does not say what the blog post you are linking to claims.



Butler said:


> growth increment chronologies from A. islandica are neither a strong nor a consistent recorder of seawater temperatures *and cannot be used to reconstruct them*


(my bold)

This is why you cannot use pre-digested blog posts to get your science; go to the original sources.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc I don't think they are at all interested in being questioned or having any sort of discussion. Once you present them with reasonable thought, they'll just get mad and flood more blog posts of retired weathermen looking for notoriety with plenty of foot stomping and snorting.

Very useful intelligent stuff.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> "We" never agreed to anything.
> 
> If you don't like what I post, I see several options:
> 1) Read them & say nothing;
> 2) Read them & comment;
> 3) Don't read them.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care which of the above you choose. If you wish to add to the list, feel free.


You are simply regurgitating the interpretations of selected research as fed to you by agenda-driven bloggers. This is either intellectually dishonest, or inexcusably lazy.

Stick to the real science and we may be able to have a discussion.


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> Stick to the real science and we may be able to have a discussion.


Is this thread really about 'discussion' bryanc?

Whatever it is, it seems to have lost it's way as many of the threads here have.


----------



## iMouse

A soliloquy on either side hardly makes for a conversation either.


----------



## MacDoc

The thread is entirely about defusing the disinformation campaign the right wing caters to around the planet funded by Koch and Exxon et al.
Well worth watching iMouse if you've not seen it

RealClimate: PBS: Climate of Doubt

The discussion. should it occur, would be about policy to deal with the issue of AGW as there are numerous approaches and no clear "best method" beyond getting rid of coal asap.

The denier crowd hasn't got there yet and it suits the fossil fuel companies just fine as it preserves their $7 trillion stranglehold.


----------



## iMouse

MacDoc said:


> The thread is entirely about defusing the disinformation campaign the right wing caters to around the planet funded by Koch and Exxon et al.
> 
> Well worth watching iMouse if you've not seen it.


Tabbed for later, but took a peek first.










Whoops. 

Thanks for the thought though.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> A soliloquy on either side hardly makes for a conversation either.


but let's face it, the flooding of blog posts hardly compares to the research done by scientists. Somehow, the cons have completely demonized scientists (hiiiisssss... ssssssciiiiiientiiissssssstssss! they're sssssserpents out to get youuuuuuuu) and believe that the entire worldwide scientific community is out to fleece everyone of their hard earned cash.

Certainly I can be onboard with the criticisms of the proposed solutions, I'm no big fan of Al Gore either. But to simply flood us with misinformation from these attention seeking mouthpieces who have a blog, and howl if suggested that we stick to scientific research? Well that says it all really.

I recall there being some insistence of this big defection of many scientists away from climate change theories, the best was the false ad campaign naming many scientists who didn't agree to even being on this, they stop at nothing to further the misinformation campaign. Even more telling, is that even though the deniers insist (recall the fury's constant attempts at using ridiculous attempts at comparing the consensus today to the global cooling in the 70s? No one can be that delusional...) that there are so many scientists who are not agreeing with the consensus, they seem to have a lot of trouble finding peer reviewed findings that support their misinformation campaign, beyond cherry picking corrections, changes in conclusions of findings etc., all of which are quite normal in research, and -should- happen in the first place.

And that speaks volumes to me. The more they flood this crap, the more it makes it clearer, the level of fud they shovel.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> Tabbed for later, but took a peek first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.
> 
> Thanks for the thought though.



You can access it here.

Nothing we don't already know; the climate-change deniosphere is a well-funded PR campaign that has essentially no scientific support. I was initially transparently funded by the Koch bros., Exxon etc., and when that got too politically compromising, they went underground through anonomized money laundering outfits like Donor's Trust.

And it's worked; despite the scientific support for ACC and the consensus among climatologists getting stronger and stronger, the FUDmeisters (the same great folks who carried the bag for the Tobacco industry, back in the day) have managed to significantly weaken the public's understanding of the issues, and erode political will to do anything about it.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> You can access it here.


Danke.

"*The following is a 2012 Election special presentation!*" Very authoritative voice there. 

Perhaps after dinner, so as to not put-off my appetite.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The thread is entirely about defusing the disinformation campaign the right wing caters to around the planet funded by Koch and Exxon et al.


Oh, so you're a mind reader now? Well, your prognostication abilities run at a par with your knowledge about CAGW.

I started GHG1. I think I can recall why.

And, despite your hatred of these individuals, you are more than willing to use their bastard products on a daily basis...



MacDoc said:


> Well worth watching iMouse if you've not seen it


Ah, yes, RealClimate. That bastion of truth & objectivity...



MacDoc said:


> The discussion. should it occur, would be about policy to deal with the issue of AGW as there are numerous approaches and no clear "best method" beyond getting rid of coal asap.


More "settled science". Sorry, big, guy, ain't no such thing and sure as hell ain't no proof...



MacDoc said:


> The denier crowd hasn't got there yet and it suits the fossil fuel companies just fine as it preserves their $7 trillion stranglehold.


See the above part about using their products every day...


----------



## FeXL

New paper from NOAA demonstrates that El Niño has more impacts than climate on winter weather in the USA



> Weather forecasters have long known that El Niño events can throw seasonal climate patterns off kilter, particularly during winter months. Now, new research from NOAA and the University of Washington suggests that a different way to detect El Niño could help forecasters predict the unusual weather it causes.


Abstract.



> This study shows that, since 1979 when outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) observations became reliably available, most of the useful U.S. seasonal weather impact of El Niño events is associated with the few events identified by the behavior of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) over the eastern equatorial Pacific (“OLR–El Niño events”). These events produce composite seasonal regional weather anomalies that are 95% statistically significant and robust (associated with almost all events). Results also show that there are very few statistically significant seasonal weather anomalies, even at the 80% level, associated with the non-OLR–El Niño events. A major enhancement of statistical seasonal forecasting skill over the contiguous United States appears possible by incorporating these results. It is essential to respect that not all events commonly labeled as El Niño events lead to statistically useful U.S. seasonal forecast skill.


----------



## FeXL

Another EPA resignation, another hidden email account.

BREAKING: ‘Richard Windsor’ EPA scandal spreads, EPA Administrator James Martin resigns over hidden email accounts



> U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), today released findings from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) second tranche of Richard Windsor emails. The release shows that acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe used a private email account to conduct official business, similar to Region 8 Administrator, James Martin, who is the subject of an ongoing investigation launched by Vitter and U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).


----------



## FeXL

Finally, some honesty from Hansen...

Quote of the Week – NYT on James Hansen & Bill McKibben’s ‘boneheaded’ efforts



> Hansen on the highly inflated 350.org Keystone XL protest this weekend, in an email to NYT’s Joe Nocera:
> 
> “*Yes, I know, the merits of this continuing activity may be dubious*, but Bill is working his butt off so hard that I can’t refuse.”


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX) Yup, models.

New paper finds climate models are 'inconsistent with past warming' 



> Climate models predict a large range of possible future temperatures for a particular scenario of future emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings of climate. Given that further warming in coming decades could threaten increasing risks of climatic disruption, it is important to determine whether model projections are consistent with temperature changes already observed. This can be achieved by quantifying the extent to which increases in well mixed greenhouse gases and changes in other anthropogenic and natural forcings have already altered temperature patterns around the globe. Here, for the first time, we combine multiple climate models into a single synthesized estimate of future warming rates consistent with past temperature changes. We show that the observed evolution of near-surface temperatures appears to indicate lower ranges (5–95%) for warming (0.35–0.82 K and 0.45–0.93 K by the 2020s (2020–9) relative to 1986–2005 under the RCP4.5 and 8.5 scenarios respectively) than the equivalent ranges projected by the CMIP5 climate models (0.48–1.00 K and 0.51–1.16 K respectively). Our results indicate that for each RCP [Representative CO2 Concentration Pathway] *the upper end of the range of CMIP5 climate model projections is inconsistent with past warming.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Another temperature reconstruction, another missing hockey stick.

Another day, another non-hockey-stick 



> A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs ocean temperatures from corals in the South Pacific and shows temperatures at the end of the record in the year 2000 were not unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented over the past 350 years, and were as warm or warmer in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age.


Have a look at the graph.


----------



## groovetube

sigh.

As if flooding more blog posts or more crap is going to come close to stacking up to worldwide consensus.

All the yelling kicking and screaming don't change what just about every scientist in the world has found. As madoc said, it isn't a question of if it's true at this point, it's now a question of what to do about it. That's the discussion that really should be had.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds IPCC models fail to simulate the most important natural weather patterns 



> A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.


Abstract.



> The climate change experiments under the fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely the twentieth century simulations (20C3M) and Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B, are revisited to study whether these models can reproduce the ENSO and ENSO Modoki patterns as the gravest two modes from statistical linear analysis as observed. The capability of the models in simulating realistic ENSO/ENSO Modoki teleconnections with the Indian summer monsoon, and also the implications for the future is also explored. Results from the study indicate that only ~ 1/4th of the models from 20C3M capture either ENSO or ENSO Modoki pattern in JJAS. Of this 1/4th, only two models simulate both ENSO and ENSO Modoki as important modes. Again, out of these two, only one model simulates both ENSO and ENSO Modoki as important modes during both summer and winter.
> 
> It is also shown that the two models that demonstrate ENSO Modoki as well as ENSO associated variance in both 20C3M and SRESA1B represent the links of the ISMR with ENSO reasonably in 20C3M, but indicate opposite type of impacts in SREA1B. With the limited skills of the models in reproducing the monsoon, the ENSO and ENSO Modoki, it is difficult to reconcile that the teleconnections of a tropical driver can change like that. All this indicates the challenges associated with the limitations of the models in reproducing the variability of the monsoons and ENSO flavors, not to speak of failing in capturing the potential impacts of global warming as they are expected to. *More research in improving the current day simulations, improving model capacity to simulate better by improving the Green House Gases (GHG) and aerosols in the models are some of the important and immediate steps that are necessary.*


Bold mine.

Of course, all we need is more money...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Nothing we don't already know; the climate-change deniosphere is a well-funded PR campaign that has essentially no scientific support. I was initially transparently funded by the Koch bros., Exxon etc., and when that got too politically compromising, they went underground through anonomized money laundering outfits like Donor's Trust.
> 
> And it's worked; despite the scientific support for ACC and the consensus among climatologists getting stronger and stronger, the FUDmeisters (the same great folks who carried the bag for the Tobacco industry, back in the day) have managed to significantly weaken the public's understanding of the issues, and erode political will to do anything about it.


There's that sweet conspiracy theory again. Love to see scientists reduced to dipping in that well!


----------



## bryanc

It's not a conspiracy theory when it's well documented and publicized. We don't know that the Koch bros. and Exxon are continuing to fund this PR campaign, because now it's funded through Donor's Trust, which keeps the source of the money anonymous. But we do know it *was* funded by the Koch bros and Exxon until a few years ago, and since then the funding has shifted to Donor's Trust.


----------



## FeXL

So, a while back James Annan blogged about a climate scientist who openly admitted to lying in order to shore up political support for the "cause".

He follows up with a post addressing "detection & attribution", blame.

From Bishop Hill:

Detection, attribution, disintegration

Annan's post:

The inevitable failure of attribution 



> Gillett et al present their results primarily in terms of a better constrained estimate of the transient response. What they don't point out is that they cannot actually attribute the warming to anthropogenic forcing. As conventionally portrayed (eg by the IPCC here), attribution requires that the observed changes are consistent with the modelled estimate. However, the Gillett et al estimate of the scaling factor on the anthropogenic (GHG) component is about 0.7, with a confidence interval that clearly excludes 1. The figure below is the relevant one from their paper, and the critical point to note is that the left-most red coloured bar (which represents their main analysis) does not reach 1 on the y-axis. In fact the only way they can get a result which is consistent with the model is to limit their analysis to 100y of data. *So, according to the standard definition their analysis simply cannot attribute the recent warming to GHGs.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory when it's well documented and publicized. We don't know that the Koch bros. and Exxon are continuing to fund this PR campaign, because now it's funded through Donor's Trust, which keeps the source of the money anonymous. But we do know it *was* funded by the Koch bros and Exxon until a few years ago, and since then the funding has shifted to Donor's Trust.


are they still clinging to this 'conspiracy theory' thing again? Seriously? ALL the world's scientists are out to get us?



FeXL said:


> So, a while back James Annan blogged about a climate scientist who openly admitted to lying in order to shore up political support for the "cause".
> 
> He follows up with a post addressing "detection & attribution", blame.
> 
> From Bishop Hill:
> 
> Detection, attribution, disintegration
> 
> Annan's post:
> 
> The inevitable failure of attribution
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Yup.


and omg a scientist was found possibly doing something dishonest? So that means ALL of them are?

Come on, that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory when it's well documented and publicized. We don't know that the Koch bros. and Exxon are continuing to fund this PR campaign, because now it's funded through Donor's Trust, which keeps the source of the money anonymous. But we do know it *was* funded by the Koch bros and Exxon until a few years ago, and since then the funding has shifted to Donor's Trust.


Uh-huh. And this fund is what's responsible for the failure of AGW theory to resonate with countries around the world, never mind the billions poured into promoting AGW dogma.


----------



## FeXL

XX) You guessed it...

CMIP5 Model Representations of Cloud Vertical Structure



> *What was learned*
> In the words of Cesana and Chepfer: (1) "low- and mid-level altitude clouds are underestimated by all the models (except in the Arctic)," (2) "high altitude cloud cover is overestimated by some models," (3) "some models shift the altitude of the clouds along the ITCZ by 2 km (higher or lower) compared to observations," (4) "the models hardly reproduce the cloud free subsidence branch of the Hadley cells," (5) "the high-level cloud cover is often too large," (6) "in the tropics, the low-level cloud cover (29% in CALIPSO-GOCCP) is underestimated by all models in subsidence regions (16% to 25%)" and (7) "the pronounced seasonal cycle observed in low-level Arctic clouds is hardly simulated by some models."


----------



## FeXL

XX) More...

Low-Level Liquid-Containing Arctic Clouds



> *What was learned*
> The five researchers report that their evaluation of climate models participating in the most recent Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (Taylor et al., 2012) revealed that "most climate models are not accurately representing the bimodality of FLW,NET in non-summer seasons." In fact, they indicate that even when advanced microphysical schemes that predict cloud phase have been used, such as those currently employed in the fifth version of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5, Neale et al., 2010), "insufficient liquid water was predicted."


----------



## FeXL

Another German meteorologist "gets it"...

German Meteorology Professor Expects Cooling For The Decades Ahead…"Climate Protection Is Ineffective"



> The sun is currently at the start of a quiet phase of activity and will likely reach the critical mean value of 50 sunspots during the current cycle, or even fall below it, i.e. the boundary value between a warm and a cold period. Analogous to the climate conditions during the time of the Dalton Minimum of 200 years ago, we have to expect a climate cooling for the decades ahead.
> 
> Only the “fickle“ sun will decide the general extent of the expected cooling and when the temperature again will gradually start to increase. The latter is expected to occur in the second half of the 21st century, when the sun returns to a more active phase.
> 
> Both the 200-year De Vries cycle and the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg solar activity cycle point to an imminent drop in solar activity that will have consequences for global climate and food supply.


More:



> For the politically motivated IPCC and its followers, it is now time to give up the dogma of CO2′s climate dominance and the marginalization and branding of those who differ with climate science. *Just because one belongs to the mainstream does not mean he automatically has a better knowledge of the science.*


Bold mine.

GASP! 

Further:



> Compared to the integral solar climate effect, with all its complex, non-linear interactive mechanisms (ocean, clouds, albedo, biosphere, cosmic rays,…), *the anthropogenic greenhouse/CO2 effect is only of subordinate significance.*


Bold mine.

Heretic!


----------



## FeXL

From the "things that make you go hmmm" department.

Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board 



> Five days ago I critiqued a shoddy paper by Brysse et al. 2013 which appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change. Today I received notice from the editor-in chief and executive editor that I have been asked to "step down from the journal." They say that it is to "give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties."


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "canary in the coal mine" thing.

Alaskan Sea Ice Normal Or Above For More Than A Year



> Like Antarctica, sea ice off the Alaskan coast has been running normal or above for more than a year, and both have hit record highs during the past year.


There are some who would screech, "It's not peer reviewed science!!!"

There are others who would state the obvious, "It's a graph of their data points. Observe. Learn."


----------



## groovetube

whenever someone yells and stomps their feet even harder, you can generally take it with a grain of salt.

You know you've won once that happens.


----------



## FeXL

Another canary.


More Polar Devastation



> Arctic sea ice is almost identical to 1989, *except that there is a lot more ice around Alaska now than there was 24 years ago.* Climate experts say that Alaska is the fastest warming place on the planet, and the canary in the coal mine.


Bold mine.

Same observations, except this time it's their map, not a graph.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> .... politically motivated blog post; where's the science?


You sounded just like MacDoc there: This is not a direction you really want to head, is it?

Your continuous litany on this thread is that only an "expert", a "climate scientist" is able to expound on the subject. Fine. I'm thinking that:



> Guest post by Dr. Richard Keen,
> *Meteorologist Emeritus, University of Colorado,* Boulder


qualifies him to speak, even by your lofty standards.

And, what politics? That he uses the term "global warming apologists"? Said terminology is far less pejorative than "deniers", used by warmists regularly. That, on the last paragraph, he notes as a taxpayer he's tired of supporting what he believes to be inferior work? OMG! Throw out the data, the charts, the links, all the evidence he has provided. The dottering old fool is obviously on the take from the Koch brothers!

Perhaps you don't like the vehicle he used to make his point. A mere <blech> blog. Should be low hanging fruit, no? Address what he said instead of using the MacDoc technique of ad homs, distract from the article, a quick dismissal & then move on 'cause you don't have a response. At least you didn't roll your eyes. Thank you.

And, further down the page, you say you want to discuss the topic?

Despite the fact that you actually discovered your spine and you feel you can comment on at least some ares of the multifaceted topic (kudos, BTW) and your sudden so-called willingness to discuss the topic, this short post you made illustrates to me that absolutely nothing has changed.

You've made your bed, Mr. C., now sleep in it...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Your continuous litany on this thread is that only an "expert", a "climate scientist" is able to expound on the subject. Fine. I'm thinking that:
> 
> 
> 
> qualifies him to speak, even by your lofty standards.


Sure. And his positions will be critically analyzed by other experts in the feild (not by you or me). If his position is scientifically supportable, other scientists will have no choice but to accept it. If not, science will reject it.



> Perhaps you don't like the vehicle he used to make his point. A mere <blech> blog.


Ah... a blog... well, he must not be serious about having his position considered by his peers; science does not run on blogs.



> Address what he said instead of using the MacDoc technique of ad homs,


Check your irony meter there FeXL; you're using ad homs to try to make your argument.

I'm not going to address what your old meteorologist said on his blog because A) it looks like a political rant, not science and B) what little science is there relates to a feild outside of my domain of expertise. Only a complete idiot would think that they could rationally criticize science that they lack the necessary training to understand. I'm not an idiot; are you?



> Despite the fact that you actually discovered your spine and you feel you can comment on at least some ares of the multifaceted topic (kudos, BTW) and your sudden so-called willingness to discuss the topic, this short post you made illustrates to me that absolutely nothing has changed.


You're right; nothing has changed... I have always been willing to discuss the aspects of the science regarding which I'm qualified to analyze the data. I know enough chemistry and biology to discuss some of these things, such as the completely hair-brained idea that CO2 does not cause acidification. It does.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Sure. And his positions will be critically analyzed by other experts in the feild (not by you or me). If his position is scientifically supportable, other scientists will have no choice but to accept it. If not, science will reject it.


The point is, you've already dismissed the article as so much chaff. If you are able to do that, then tell us what's wrong with it. Otherwise, don't comment at all.



bryanc said:


> Ah... a blog... well, he must not be serious about having his position considered by his peers; science does not run on blogs.


Really? Well, then RealClimate, DeSmogBlog and their greatest fan, MacDoc, will be saddened by said news. And why, when the above science-less blogs are used as references by others here, do you not address them? Science-less is science-less, no matter what side of the argument, no? And does that same concept not extend to WaPo, The Atlantic & other newspaper articles recently quoted here? Double standard for warmists, much?



bryanc said:


> Only a complete idiot would think that they could rationally criticize science that they lack the necessary training to understand.


Then why did you? "politically motivated blog post" comes across less as a ringing endorsement and more as criticism...



bryanc said:


> ...such as the completely hair-brained idea that CO2 does not cause acidification. It does.


I never said it did. 

If, in fact, you are referring to the article that heavyall linked to, I've gone through it several times & can't find anywhere your accusation of "CO2 _raises_ the pH of water". As a matter of fact, the author is quite specific in saying the exact opposite:



> *The ocean is not getting acidified by additional CO2. It is getting neutralized by additional CO2.*


Bold from the article.

You may not agree with his use of the term "neutralized" (which he clearly defines) as opposed to "acidified", but I'm more than willing to have you point out the passage where he notes CO2 raises pH. 

However, it was a very nice diatribe & I'm sure someone got something out of it...


----------



## FeXL

This presents far more questions than it answers, but interesting nonetheless.

Now what is ‘death train’ Hansen going to do? Clean coal process developed to extract energy without burning or CO2



> When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren’t pulling the typical college “all-nighters.”
> 
> Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.
> 
> For 203 continuous hours, they operated a scaled-down version of a power plant combustion system with a unique experimental design–one that chemically converts coal to heat while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.


----------



## FeXL

Further on CO2 levels following global temp increases, rather than leading.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Abstract.



> Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. *The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.* The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further data supporting the LIA as a global event.

The Little Ice Age in Antarctica: Conditions in the Ross Sea



> In discussing the rationale for their work, authors Rhodes et al. (2012) write that "increasing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that the Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global climate change event." But they say that "understanding the forcings and associated climate system feedbacks of the LIA is made difficult by the scarcity of Southern Hemisphere paleoclmate records."
> 
> Hoping to reduce this scarcity, Rhodes et al. used "a new glaciochemical record of a coastal ice core from Mt Erebus Saddle, Antarctica, to reconstruct atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the Ross Sea sector of Antarctica over the past five centuries," wherein they observed that "the LIA is identified in stable isotope (δD) and lithophile element records."


----------



## groovetube

this facebook screenshot kinda reminds me of what happens here on science related stuff.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The point is, you've already dismissed the article as so much chaff.


This is probably the core of our misunderstanding. I have not dismissed the article as 'chaff'. I have recognized the topic of the article is beyond my expertise to rationally analyze, and therefore, as any limited rational mind must, recognized that I have to either trust the experts in this field, or refrain from forming any opinion whatsoever.

Because there is an astounding consensus of expert opinion on this subject, this choice is easy.



> Really? Well, then RealClimate, DeSmogBlog and their greatest fan, MacDoc, will be saddened by said news. And why, when the above science-less blogs are used as references by others here, do you not address them?


I am certainly not impressed by postings from these blogs either. The only difference is that these re-hashes of the science are consistent with what the scientists themselves are saying. But it's still not peer-reviewed and should not be used as the basis for a rational argument.

So, if you're going to agree with the experts on the basis of a non-authoritative source like a blog, that's a bit lazy. But if you're going to disagree with the experts on the basis of a non-authoritative source like a blog, that's a complete failure.



> If, in fact, you are referring to the article that heavyall linked to, I've gone through it several times & can't find anywhere your accusation of "CO2 _raises_ the pH of water".


I was responding to Heavyall's suggestion that anyone who thinks CO2 acidifies water slept through high school chemistry.

When I went and read the article, it doesn't actually say CO2 raises the pH, but rather plays semantic games with words like 'neutralize' designed to confuse laypeople into thinking that CO2 does not cause acidification. This is typical of the abuse of science we see in the denier blogosphere; while it may not be technically incorrect, it is clearly constructed to give naive readers the wrong idea.

The key points to understand is that CO2 _does_ acidify seawater, the pH of the ocean _is_ changing at an unprecedented and alarming rate, and the pH of sea water _has profound effects_ on the marine ecosystems on which all life on earth depends.


----------



## FeXL

And, once again, we return to the beginning of the circle, the scientific fallacy known as "consensus".

Once again, so much for "discussion"...


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Pachauri...

Global Temperature Standstill Gains IPCC Support



> The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) welcomes that Dr Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures.


Of course, he has a codicil:



> The GWPF points out that Dr Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of “30-40 years at least” to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis.


And, once the flatline reaches 30 yeas, the goalposts will need to be moved yet again...


----------



## FeXL

Pot, Kettle, James Hansen, censorship, NASA and EPA



> Readers may recall this _oh so terrible_ squashing of free speech by the White House limiting NASA public employee Dr. James Hansen’s ability to talk to the media. It seems that the issue has been repeated today, but there’s a twist.


Further:



> I’m sure the same people like CBS’s Scott Pelley, NYT’s Andrew Revkin, Democracy Now, and others who jumped on the censorship bandwagon of that “limit to ensure agency employees must funnel through the press office” will jump right on this new revelation with the EPA.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> And, once again, we return to the beginning of the circle, the scientific fallacy known as "consensus".


If you want to discuss chemistry or biology, and the evidence for ACC arising from those disciplines, I'm more than happy to discuss the science, as I am well-qualified to do so. However, if you want to discuss the mathematical models of atmospheric or other geophysical processes, neither you nor I are qualified to do so, so it is a waste of time.

The fact that there exists a well-documented and nearly unanimous consensus among those people who are experts in this feild is very compelling evidence that the findings of the climatological research over the past three decades is unequivocal, but neither of us, nor anyone else on this board, are qualified to investigate that ourselves. I really do wish that someone here was a trained climatologist who would be able to address your questions about this topic, but alas, I am not, and none of the climatologists I know are interested in getting involved here.

I will continue to restrict my discussion of the science to topics on which I have sufficient expertise to offer an educated opinion. I do wish others would refrain from pontificating on technical issues on which they are ignorant as well.


----------



## SINC

I must say that I find your oft-repeated argument patently absurd. We have a thread on movies and people shouldn't critic them because they are not employed in the movie industry? People have threads on automobiles and express their thoughts and opinions, yet they are not automotive engineers, nor mechanics? Many comments in the gun control thread are made by folks who have neither owned, nor fired a weapon, so their comments are invalid? People who are not politicians do the same in political threads? Your position in this regard makes little sense, to me at least.


----------



## groovetube

I think there is a very large difference between people expressing their opinion on products and getting directly involved in scientific discussions. VERY large. I don't often see people get deep into the engineering aspects of vehicle design beyond a surface level (unless someone -is- an engineer in that field...) , certainly not to the level of the scientific subjects brought up here. There's nothing absurd about suggesting that if one doesn't posses the scientific background to be able to understand if the blog post is actually correct or not it's useless. Beyond someone googling an opinion that matches their own preconceived notion.

If someone is going to post an article that someone qualified was able to easily debunk, but continue to stamp their feet about it, when clearly they don't understand the basics of the subject themselves, it makes for a useless thread.

What -is- absurd, is this idea that somehow, all the world's scientists are out to get us and dupe us into the overwhelming consensus. Absurd, doesn't even do it justice actually.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that there exists a well-documented and nearly unanimous consensus among those people who are experts in this feild is very compelling evidence that the findings of the climatological research over the past three decades is unequivocal, but neither of us, nor anyone else on this board, are qualified to investigate that ourselves.


It's pretty shocking to see you backtrack. Several weeks ago you told us that demonstrating empirically that there was a consensus was too difficult a proposition. I wish you wouldn't waver like this.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I must say that I find your oft-repeated argument patently absurd. We have a thread on movies and people shouldn't critic them because they are not employed in the movie industry? People have threads on automobiles and express their thoughts and opinions, yet they are not automotive engineers, nor mechanics? Many comments in the gun control thread are made by folks who have neither owned, nor fired a weapon, so their comments are invalid? People who are not politicians do the same in political threads? Your position in this regard makes little sense, to me at least.


This is a reasonable question, so it deserves a reasonable answer.

The distinction revolves around the technical requirements for becoming rationally engaged in a discussion.

If we're discussing the entertainment value of the Hobbit movie, one does not need a degree in Film Studies to formulate a reasoned opinion (although someone with such training may have significantly more insight, and could likely contribute more to such a discussion than the rest of us). Fundamentally, if you can articulate what you enjoyed or did not enjoy about the film, you opinion has as much value as anyone else's.

However, if we're discussing different approaches to open heart surgery, my opinions and those of other lay people are essentially worthless. Unless you have the requisite training and experience, you can't formulate a reasoned opinion on the subject.

So, for highly technical disciplines, such as cardiac surgery, climate research, molecular biochemistry, etc. it's not the case that everyone's opinions are equally valuable. If you don't have the training, your opinion is essentially worthless.

I have literally decades of training in molecular biology and biochemistry (B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., years of postdoctoral experience, and finally years of experience as an independent researcher and university professor in the field), so I can offer an expert opinion on those subjects. That does not, however, qualify me to effectively criticize research in atmospheric physics, modelling of convective ocean currents, or any of thousands of other fields that pertain to climate research. So it would be both arrogant and stupid of me to infer from my reading of papers in climate research journals that something I don't understand or disagree with is evidence that the researchers have done it wrong; it's far more likely that there is something I don't understand or there's a large body of evidence that I'm unaware of that makes my inference incorrect.

So, just like you may disagree with your cardiologist about sports, movies or politics, you have to trust her with respect to the highly technical topic in which she is an expert (or if you disagree, you get a second opinion... but when 98% of the cardiologists agree, you'd be stupid to disagree even if you found there were some bloggers on the internet who figured they're all in cahoots). If it's a highly technical feild, like climatology, expertise matters. If you're talking about movies or cars, expertise still matters, but an interested layperson can pick up enough knowledge on their own that you don't really need to require graduate degrees in the subject to have confidence that someone knows what they're talking about.

Does that make sense?


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> You sounded just like MacDoc there: This is not a direction you really want to head, is it?
> 
> Your continuous litany on this thread is that only an "expert", a "climate scientist" is able to expound on the subject. Fine. I'm thinking that:
> 
> *Quote:
> Guest post by Dr. Richard Keen,
> Meteorologist Emeritus, University of Colorado, Boulder
> 
> *
> qualifies him to speak, even by your lofty standards.
> 
> And, what politics? That he uses the term "global warming apologists"? Said terminology is far less pejorative than "deniers", used by warmists regularly. That, on the last paragraph, he notes as a taxpayer he's tired of supporting what he believes to be inferior work? OMG! Throw out the data, the charts, the links, all the evidence he has provided. The dottering old fool is obviously on the take from the Koch brothers!
> 
> Perhaps you don't like the vehicle he used to make his point. A mere <blech> blog. Should be low hanging fruit, no? Address what he said instead of using the MacDoc technique of ad homs, distract from the article, a quick dismissal & then move on 'cause you don't have a response. At least you didn't roll your eyes. Thank you.
> 
> And, further down the page, you say you want to discuss the topic?
> 
> Despite the fact that you actually discovered your spine and you feel you can comment on at least some ares of the multifaceted topic (kudos, BTW) and your sudden so-called willingness to discuss the topic, this short post you made illustrates to me that absolutely nothing has changed.
> 
> You've made your bed, Mr. C., now sleep in it...


It's my understanding that weathermen are meteorologists. I thought this was a different area than climatology, but perhaps this can be cleared.

Otherwise, are all weather forecasters now all qualified to be part of the scientific community studying climate change?


----------



## bryanc

It's a bit like a police officer offering an opinion on the law; they're probably more knowledgeable than your average layman, but they're not lawyers.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Does that make sense?


It does not, if the agreement does not exist. We now no longer even have a consensus on whether it is getting warmer, let alone the finer points of climate theory.

Cardiology is also a poor comparison, considering cardiologists are working with empirically tested procedures that provide concrete and predictable results. They're not making dozens of scattered predictions based on flawed models and expecting people to stake their cardio health on them


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> It's a bit like a police officer offering an opinion on the law; they're probably more knowledgeable than your average layman, but they're not lawyers.


That's precisely what I thought.

I'm simply interested in the info, but it's just tiring to see the flood of 'weathermen blog posts', as if it's the final word compared to overwhelming consensus of people around the world actually qualified in this area, not to mention the constant nonsense of misinformation on there not being a consensus.

They really really want there to bot be a consensus because it completed deflates their argument, so that can only really be the reason for such noise. I suppose that's where the ignore feature helps


----------



## eMacMan

An interesting google search is trying to figure out what percentage of the atmospheres .038% CO2 is the result of human activity.

At one end of the scale we have the US Department of Energies guess of 3% for just over .001% of the atmosphere being manmade CO2. At the other end The Great Goreacle's absurd figure of 50%.

Best guess seems to be around 10% even though this comes from some the more rational Chicken Little sources. 

IOW a manmade variation of less than .004% of the atmosphere of a greenhouse gas that has negligible impact on its own, but seemingly has a magical multiplying factor when processed through various computer models that cannot predict, past or current conditions is going to cause the sky to fall and the oceans to rise. Squishing mankind in between.

Of course all of this provides a wonderful diversion from oceanic and groundwater pollution. Why tackle real poisons, if you can conjure up a CO2 boogeyman to steal from the poor and give to the rich?

Further the proposed solutions of Carbon Taxes and the Great Gore Diversion are not intended to do anything to actually reduce current levels or even reduce the rate of increase. With most nations wallowing in red-ink, the only thing we can be sure of is that the Carbon taxes would go directly to Banksters. It would be incredibly naive to think that even a tiny portion would be used in any positive manner. The Gore Diversion does not even try to pretend to do anything but move money into the vaults of Al Gore and his cronies.

Indeed the only way these two methods would accomplish their goals is by impoverishing enough people to the point that they have no homes or transportation and can't even afford to buy food. In Canada that is a deadly formula.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> At one end of the scale we have the US Department of Energies guess of 3% for just over .001% of the atmosphere being manmade CO2. At the other end The Great Goreacle's absurd figure of 50%.
> ...
> IOW a manmade variation of less than .004% of the atmosphere of a greenhouse gas that has negligible impact on its own, but seemingly has a magical multiplying factor when processed through various computer models


The fact that you would use a phrase like "The Great Goreacle" indicates that you are not interested in a rational discussion. However, if someone were interested in how these apparently small numbers can have such large effects, they could read a 2nd year university textbook on climate science, or simply ask a climatologist. The scientific basis for this is very well understood and not at all contentious.



> Of course all of this provides a wonderful diversion from oceanic and groundwater pollution.


On the contrary, the exact same strategies proposed to reduce the release of athropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere will also reduce the accumulation of CO2 and other pollutants in the ocean. These are mutually supportive arguments.


> Why tackle real poisons, if you can conjure up a CO2 boogeyman to steal from the poor and give to the rich?


Strangely, it is the rich (and in particular the rich who's wealth is generated by the oil industry) that are most adamantly opposed to such measures.

The rest of your argument appears to be something between a reasonable concern about how CO2 reduction strategies may affect our economy and a paranoid rant. If you can A) accept the irrefutable scientific fact that anthropogenic CO2 production _is_ a problem and B) dial back the paranoia, we may be able to discuss different mitigation strategies rationally.


----------



## MacDoc

Apparently he'd much rather the oil companies steal from the poor and pollute the planet without carrying the costs of that.

I just wonder who he thinks pays out the $7 trillion in fossil fuel bills the the industry sucks out each year. He hasn't checked the world's most profitable companies list obviously.

or the $4 billion in additional healthcare costs that coal use in the US costs the healthcare system in Ontario. 

These crocodile tears over the poor are sooooo misplaced.....guess he likes being an Exxon pawn.


----------



## bryanc

Like the Republicans, the oil industry has mastered the technique of keeping enough people sufficiently ignorant or confused that they will vote against their own best interests.


----------



## groovetube

Not to mention our conservative government, who thinks that despite the taxpayer footing the bill, they can prevent the scientists from speaking to the public. And their supporters actually think this is ok!

Unbelievable how people actively support being controlled by government this way!


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> The fact that you would use a phrase like "The Great Goreacle" indicates that you are not interested in a rational discussion. However, if someone were interested in how these apparently small numbers can have such large effects, they could read a 2nd year university textbook on climate science, or simply ask a climatologist. The scientific basis for this is very well understood and not at all contentious.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the exact same strategies proposed to reduce the release of athropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere will also reduce the accumulation of CO2 and other pollutants in the ocean. These are mutually supportive arguments.
> 
> Strangely, it is the rich (and in particular the rich who's wealth is generated by the oil industry) that are most adamantly opposed to such measures.
> 
> The rest of your argument appears to be something between a reasonable concern about how CO2 reduction strategies may affect our economy and a paranoid rant. If you can A) accept the irrefutable scientific fact that anthropogenic CO2 production _is_ a problem and B) dial back the paranoia, we may be able to discuss different mitigation strategies rationally.


Ummm those continent sized islands of floating garbage would not be in the least impacted by reductions in CO2. Ditto Mercury from all those landfilled fluorescent bulbs which though in effect mandated, are still not being properly recycled. The absurdity here is when a light bulb that burns ten minutes a year (think attics) burns out it will have to be replaced by light bulbs that are more expensive and contain honest to God toxins such as lead, mercury and phosphorous.

More importantly the people hit hardest by Carbon Taxes and trading are those who have already cut their so called footprint to the bone because they are living at the low end of the income scale. 

The concept that Exxon will reduce its profits as Carbon Taxes and Gore Diversions are enacted is ludicrous. They will sell less at a higher price, their profits will not be affected in the slightest. It's the little guy trying to make ends meet who will be pushed out onto the ice-floes.

Want to take a serious bite out of Exxon and the rest of the MIC, bring the troops home and keep them here. Will have the added benefit of reducing the sea of red-ink that are drowning our various governments.

The only way that carbon taxes or trading can reduce consumption is by reducing the consumers available income. One major impact has to be increased prices, AKA inflation.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If you can A) accept the irrefutable scientific fact that anthropogenic CO2 production _is_ a problem and B) dial back the paranoia, we may be able to discuss different mitigation strategies rationally.


This is delivered in much the tone of a mugger with a pistol aimed at your forehead:

"If you can accept the irrefutable fact that I am going to steal your money, then we can get down to a rational discussion of how quickly you are going to hand over the bills."

Artificial crisis. No carbon mitigation strategies are necessary. Thankfully, Canada is preparing none.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Apparently he'd much rather the oil companies steal from the poor and pollute the planet without carrying the costs of that.
> 
> I just wonder who he thinks pays out the $7 trillion in fossil fuel bills the the industry sucks out each year. He hasn't checked the world's most profitable companies list obviously.
> 
> or the $4 billion in additional healthcare costs that coal use in the US costs the healthcare system in Ontario.
> 
> These crocodile tears over the poor are sooooo misplaced.....guess he likes being an Exxon pawn.



You seem to turn this argument on and off like a light switch, tooling as you do by air to Africa and Australia, then putting around on a motorcycle. Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## iMouse

MacDoc said:


> Well worth watching iMouse if you've not seen it.


Finally got around to watching it.

A chilling look at a depressing situation.

An individual's vote has depreciated since the Industrial Revolution, with guys like John D. et al around, and flourishing.


----------



## MacDoc

Oddly John D's family was leading the charge that derailed the worst of Exxon's disinformation campaign. They almost toppled the chairman and forced the company to alter it's approach.



> *Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change ...*
> Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | guardiannews.com | The Guardian › Business › Exxon MobilMay 19, 2008 – A shareholder revolt at ExxonMobil led by the billionaire Rockefeller family has ... Exxon is facing a rebellion from its investors over its hardline ..


Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change | Business | guardian.co.uk

Unfortunately no such white knights at Koch and company and Exxon has still been funding the denidiots tho to a lesser degree.



> *Top Oil Giants Exxon And Shell Earn $54 Billion So Far In 2012 ..*.
> thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/.../exxon-shell-profit-2012/
> 
> by Rebecca Leber
> Nov 1, 2012 – ... environment and public health protections, while also funding climate denier candidates. ... In 2012 alone, Exxon spent $12.7 million lobbying Congress, according to the latest ... They will still have enough to eat well.


Yet our fossil fuel proponents, to use too polite a word, thinks curbing these predators will be disastrous for the poor.....
........NOT curbing predation like this will be disastrous for all.....see below.....and is already. Every year the industrial nations wait to get serious about it, it will cost more year after year after decade after decade.
Meanwhile a move to carbon neutral as Sweden has done will provide a huge number of dispersed employment opportunities as the $7 trillion on fossil fuel business is sliced away for carbon neutral situations.
Too many politicians in big coal and big oil's pockets. Too many loud purveyors of climate denial nonsense as the PBS docu shows.

Ontario for all it's on occasion flaky government has at least come to the edge of ditching coal this year :clap:
The US to it's credit has prevented a large number of new coal plants from opening and older ones are being retired. Small steps but needed.

The tundra/taiga may have the final say in the situation .....and methane has twenty times the impact of C02 in retaining warmth. 

••••••

Once this occurs....we are just spectators

Ouch



> *Major methane release is almost inevitable*
> 
> 19:00 21 February 2013 by Michael Marshall
> 
> We are on the cusp of a tipping point in the climate. If the global climate warms another few tenths of a degree, a large expanse of the Siberian permafrost will start to melt uncontrollably. The result: a significant amount of extra greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and a threat – ironically – to the infrastructure that carries natural gas from Russia to Europe.


more
Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

Hilarious--the attack of last resort. Oh my heavens, the oil companies are earning a profit!!


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Major methane release is almost inevitable
> 
> 19:00 21 February 2013 by Michael Marshall
> 
> We are on the cusp of a tipping point in the climate. If the global climate warms another few tenths of a degree, a large expanse of the Siberian permafrost will start to melt uncontrollably. The result: a significant amount of extra greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and a threat – ironically – to the infrastructure that carries natural gas from Russia to Europe.


I heard predictions that in the failure to demonize CO2, methane was going to be the next BIG SCARE! Looks like they were right--one-tenth of a measly degree and then hellfire and brimstone will rain down.

These guys put the revival tent preachers to shame.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Oddly John D's family was leading the charge that derailed the worst of Exxon's disinformation campaign. They almost toppled the chairman and forced the company to alter it's approach.


Why is that a surprise? The Rockefellers have been big time statists for decades.



MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile a move to carbon neutral as Sweden has done will provide a huge number of dispersed employment opportunities as the $7 trillion on fossil fuel business is sliced away for carbon neutral situations.


This is pure nonsense. Why would you need more people to produce the same amount of energy?



MacDoc said:


> Ontario for all it's on occasion flaky government has at least come to the edge of ditching coal this year :clap:
> The US to it's credit has prevented a large number of new coal plants from opening and older ones are being retired. Small steps but needed.


Fraccosaurus is coming!


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Oddly John D's family was leading the charge that derailed the worst of Exxon's disinformation campaign. They almost toppled the chairman and forced the company to alter it's approach.
> 
> 
> Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change | Business | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Unfortunately no such white knights at Koch and company and Exxon has still been funding the denidiots tho to a lesser degree.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet our fossil fuel proponents, to use too polite a word, thinks curbing these predators will be disastrous for the poor.....
> ........NOT curbing predation like this will be disastrous for all.....see below.....and is already. Every year the industrial nations wait to get serious about it, it will cost more year after year after decade after decade.
> Meanwhile a move to carbon neutral as Sweden has done will provide a huge number of dispersed employment opportunities as the $7 trillion on fossil fuel business is sliced away for carbon neutral situations.
> Too many politicians in big coal and big oil's pockets. Too many loud purveyors of climate denial nonsense as the PBS docu shows.
> 
> Ontario for all it's on occasion flaky government has at least come to the edge of ditching coal this year :clap:
> The US to it's credit has prevented a large number of new coal plants from opening and older ones are being retired. Small steps but needed.
> 
> The tundra/taiga may have the final say in the situation .....and methane has twenty times the impact of C02 in retaining warmth.
> 
> ••••••
> 
> Once this occurs....we are just spectators
> 
> Ouch
> 
> 
> more
> Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist


the writing is on the wall. I see now many deniers spinning their wheels hunting for anything on google that will match their position, no matter who it is, a retired weatherman or oil company shill. Or blast the response or proposed solutions.

Perhaps if the denier camp doesn't spend boatloads of cash sewing misinformation and if everyone gets on board, we can come up with better solutions that doesn't always involve filling someone's pockets (though there's always going to be someone who will try... it's called *cough*... capitalism...).

Here's a fixed link since your's didn't work, in case someone wants to actually read it before commenting 

Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change | Business | guardian.co.uk


----------



## FeXL

On weak solar cycles & cooling periods.

Solar Cycle 24...Story so far indicates the world is heading for either a Cool or Cold period, NOT Warm and Hot!



> Two areas are well known, the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum, these two sections can be regarded as being historically COLD, however there was another period that was regarded as a COOL period (1880 - 1905), and as you can see from my modified chart it also fits in with the similar level of Solar Activity as we have at this present moment of time.


----------



## FeXL

Snowfalls just a thing of the past...

Snowjobs are just a thing of the past…er, present



> While we have a major winter snowstorm barreling through the USA Midwest, we know that the usual suspects will jostle for position to tell the media that this is just another signature of global warming climate change climate disruption extreme weather caused by global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Hey! A new model! XX)

New model says more snow at poles, less elsewhere due to CO2



> A new climate model predicts an increase in snowfall for the Earth’s polar regions and highest altitudes, but an overall drop in snowfall for the globe, as carbon dioxide levels rise over the next century.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds climate models exaggerate warming in Australia by 'almost double'

From the Abstract.



> The observed annual temperature trend is +0.007 °C/yr, while both the median and mean [modeled] values are +0.013 °C/yr, which is almost double the observed magnitude


Why?

Dr. John Christy explains why climate models greatly exaggerate global warming 



> A guest post today at a Dutch climate blog by Dr. John Christy notes that climate "models, on average, depict the last 34 years as warming about 1.5 times what actually occurred" and that the model predictions diverge from observations by even more [2.5 times] in the atmospheric layers most affected by greenhouse gases [the missing 'hot spot']. According to Dr. Christy, "Since this increased warming in the upper layers is a signature of greenhouse gas forcing in models, and it is not observed, this raises questions about the ability of models to represent the true vertical heat flux processes of the atmosphere and thus to represent the climate impact of the extra greenhouses gases we are putting into the atmosphere" and "models, on average, have been overly sensitive" to the effect of greenhouse gases.


Christy's original response.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Pachauri's moving goalposts...

Pachauri quietly blows goalposts away, pretends to like skeptics. It’s all PR to keep the gravy train running.



> In 1990 the IPCC told global policymakers that even if they stabilized emissions, the world would warm by at least 0.2C per decade for the next few decades. That was their “low estimate”. Emissions didn’t remotely stabilize, so the warming trend “should” have been even more than that (they thought 0.3C per decade, maybe up to 0.5C per decade). Instead it warmed less.
> 
> The pause became noticeable. The goalposts started shifting as the pause got longer. Nothing disproves a climate model (that’s a tautology, by the way).
> 
> In 2008 NOAA said that pauses of 15 years or more didn’t fit with climate simulations (so if it went longer, the models would be wrong). Likewise James Hansen was caught in ClimateGate saying that ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ When the pause got a bit longer still, Ben Santer said in a paper it really was 17 years we needed to see. That was 2011.
> 
> By 2013, instead of admitting failure, changing the theory and thanking the skeptics, Pachauri now says we’ll need 30 -40 years of the IPCC being wrong before we can say they are wrong.


----------



## FeXL

Further on adjustments.


Another NOAA Smoking Gun



> I have been comparing published NCDC US temperatures to the raw HCN temperatures which they are supposed to be derived from. The graph below plots the difference between NCDC published US temperatures and HCN temperatures for all stations which have been continuously active since at least 1920. Note that the 1930s have suffered about 1.4F tampering relative to 2012.
> 
> ...
> 
> Paul Homewood has approached this from a different angle. He compared the original weather bureau documents of published temperatures to the current NCDC temperatures, and found the same thing.
> 
> ...
> 
> This tampering is almost 3X larger than the USHCN documented tampering, and is clearly fraudulent.


----------



## groovetube

more blog posts.

Useless.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> more blog posts.
> 
> Useless.












Nice sandals there.


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha.

Yeah.


----------



## SINC

^ 

Top three posts.

Bullying.


----------



## groovetube

I don't think saying that I think these blog posts are useless is bullying.

However, calling someone a drug addict to try to win an argument? That, is bullying. 

Badgering someone in 3 different threads endlessly over a detail? That might also, be bullying.

Perhaps what the problem is, is understanding what bullying actually is.


----------



## iMouse

Is ridicule bullying?

This isn't a playground, and he isn't some 115 pound weakling, getting sand kicked in his face.

He has been called many times for posting blogs as scientific "proof". it just won't wash here.


----------



## SINC

Now you are getting git. But do you understand?


----------



## iMouse

I understand a fair bit, not as much as you and Flexible, but I get by.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Is ridicule bullying?
> 
> This isn't a playground, and he isn't some 115 pound weakling, getting sand kicked in his face.
> 
> He has been called many times for posting blogs as scientific "proof". it just won't wash here.


Never mind mouse, he has an axe to grind which is really what this is about.

He is a known bully here (with posts in threads easily shown to back it up) and dislikes having been called out on it.

As you said, FeXL has been called out on flooding blog posts as scientific fact here, but continues to do so. Now he's free to continue to, just as we are also free to express our opinion on the value of these blog posts.

If I were to begin calling FeXL names and follow him around in several other threads (which Sinc has done, even recently), now -that-, would be bullying.

Also, I'd say if he thinks it's bullying, then report it. :lmao:


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> Never mind mouse, he has an axe to grind which is really what this is about.


Excuse me???  I think you mean "Never mind, mouse...." Thank you. tptptptp



groovetube said:


> If I were to begin calling FeXL names ....


Oh oh, guilty Your Honour. 

"Flexible", as used previously, was positively sopping-wet with sarcasm.

beejacon


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Oddly John D's family was leading the charge that derailed the worst of Exxon's disinformation campaign. They almost toppled the chairman and forced the company to alter it's approach.
> 
> 
> Exxon facing shareholder revolt over approach to climate change | Business | guardian.co.uk


Of course, the resolution failed to receive the minimum support necessary to make any changes at Exxon, and Tillerson maintained his leadership. How this can be cast as some sort of success for the Gaia Warmism is beyond me.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ... science does not run on blogs.


I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it brings to mind something that should be patently obvious to even the thickest around here. Having read some of the stunningly informative contributions the snipers have made to the thread topic, apparently this needs a bit of clarification...

Blogs can be & are used to disseminate scientific information. Blogs can be & are used to discuss & argue science. Blogs can be & are used to criticize science. Blogs can be & are a legitimate a form of communication. As a matter of fact, some scientists now are even using blogs to subject papers to a kind of "pre-" peer-review before submission, simply because of the exposure many blogs can provide. Blogs have exposed science to the world.

Anybody who cannot comprehend the contribution and value of blogs to science is truly a "useless" "idiot". Are there any useless idiots out there?

That said, I've never posted a link to a blog stating it was science. It may be an opinion piece relative to the thread topic, noted for no other reason than it may be interesting. It may be a link to a chart or graph compiled from legitimate data related to the topic showing a trend or lack thereof. It may be information posted by someone with extensive knowledge of the topic (eg., someone who has published a paper on the topic) addressing a particular area of interest or debate. Just because the information does not come out of a peer-reviewed, scientific journal doesn't mean it's not legitimate. However, if peer-reviewed science is the only thing that floats your boat, frequently there are links to peer-reviewed papers at the blog sites. Read away...

You disagree with what's been posted? Fine. All that low-hanging fruit should be easy picking. Go ahead, use whatever resource you like to refute. If you are unable to find any information to refute the topic or simply choose to be silent for any of a myriad of reasons, also fine. 

However, don't bother shining the spotlight on your ignorance (take that either way) with nothing more than a snide, childish comment.

Thank you & have a nice day...


----------



## groovetube

no but you have posted blogs over and over again as absolute fact, and that's what I and a couple others are addressing.

No need to call others a "useless idiot" now is there. It doesn't help win any arguments here.


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> I'm not sure exactly what this means,


It means everyone has opinions, but Science has facts.

OK?


----------



## BigDL

.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> It means everyone has opinions, but Science has facts.
> 
> OK?


bingo. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> It means everyone has opinions, but Science has facts.
> 
> OK?


Correct conclusions are what counts, not the facts.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> Correct conclusions are what counts, not the facts.


:lmao: But correct for who? There's the rub. 

Facts can neither be correct, or they are not facts.

Ergo, if facts are correct, there is no need for correct conclusions, only a single conclusion.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> Ergo, if facts are correct, there is no need for correct conclusions, only a single conclusion.


Not at all! Facts can support different conclusions of different sorts.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> :lmao: But correct for who? There's the rub.
> 
> Facts can neither be correct, or they are not facts.
> 
> Ergo, if facts are correct, there is no need for correct conclusions, only a single conclusion.


you must be bored


----------



## BigDL

iMouse said:


> :lmao: But correct for who? There's the rub.
> 
> Facts can neither be correct, or they are not facts.
> 
> Ergo, if facts are correct, there is no need for correct conclusions, only a single conclusion.


Fact Hummmhp. Facts could be used to logically prove anything, what's the good of facts. 

Opinion, now, that's where the passion comes in. Passionately debating your opinions that exactly why the World Wideblog Webs were invented. 

Never mind the impracticality of it all.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Fact Hummmhp. Facts could be used to logically prove anything, what's the good of facts.
> 
> Opinion, now, that's where the passion comes in. Passionately debating your opinions that exactly why the World Wideblog Webs were invented.
> 
> Never mind the impracticality of it all.


Why would you say such a thing? What does passion have to do with it?


----------



## groovetube

I see the quicksand getting wider.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> you must be bored


Just lashing out, as I am missing a good party right now.

As you may remember.

tptptptp


----------



## groovetube

ah, it's tonight. Too bad it's too far away. I would have gone, wasn't sure if you were going. They should hold them in better weather, like summer.


----------



## iMouse

That's why the blues element is included. February Blues = Winter Blues.

I though you were working tonight, or was that for the weather-delayed date?


----------



## groovetube

no shows rest of the month. Hard to believe, but I take the break when I can get them.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> He has been called many times for *posting blogs as scientific "proof".*


Bold mine.

Show me where. Show me any post that I've made on this topic where I've noted anything even remotely close to "See this here blog post? It's *proof* that CAGW doesn't exist" *and there wasn't a link to a paper inside or some reference to recognized data, ie. HADCRUT temps or something along those lines.* 

I may imply a disconnect to CAGW in linking to non peer-reviewed science but that's a far cry from stating outright "This is scientific proof".

Take the troll with you & start searching...


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> Show me any post that I've made on this topic where I've noted anything even remotely close to "See this here blog post? It's *proof* that CAGW doesn't exist" *and there wasn't a link to a paper inside or some reference to recognized data, ie. HADCRUT temps or something along those lines.*


So, you just like posting Internet opinions about CAGW, without committing yourself to your personal thoughts?

"You don't need their voice, you have your own."

With apologies to Tori Amos.


----------



## groovetube

there are looooots of posts that include blog post links as some sort of proof that people are fools for believing in man made climate change, with plenty of attacks on those who believe in the world scientists conclusions that there is climate change from man's use of fossil fuels.

A whole threads worth.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> A whole threads worth.


As for me, I'm waiting for The Fourth Official, Authoritative GHG Thread.

Perhaps 'Authoritative' will make a guest appearance in that one?

Stay tuned for the sound of one hand clapping.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> So, you just like posting Internet opinions about CAGW, without committing yourself to your personal thoughts?


My views are quite clear.

Still waiting for that list...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> if peer-reviewed science is the only thing that floats your boat, frequently there are links to peer-reviewed papers at the blog sites. Read away...


Have done. And as I've pointed out, the actual science linked from your blogs falls into three categories:
1) Does not say what the blog says it does.
2) Does say what the blog says it does, but that point is taken out of context (i.e. a paper may say that the climate models are inaccurate with respect to a certain class of empirical observations, but the papers are usually about why that is the case and how the models can be improved to better predicts that class of data, not about why modelling is bad or why ACC is flawed)
3) Behind paywalls that I can't get through from an academic institution, which leads me to suspect you haven't read these papers either, and are just trusting the climate change denial PR campaign regarding what the research actually says.

I have even gone so far as to personally contact researchers who have published papers your blogs have linked to to ask for clarification of their position; when asked if their paper in any way refutes ACC, they've replied that only a "fu*king idiot" would interpret it that way.


> Go ahead, use whatever resource you like to refute.


Have done; with respect to fields I am expert in, I have easily pointed out flaws in the interpretations of blogers and climate change denialists. In every case that I have been able to rationally analyze the science, it has been unequivocally supportive of ACC. In every case that I have been able to converse with a qualified scientist regarding this subject, they have said that the science is so one-sided on this issue that it's not really an open question anymore, but that they've long ago given up discussing it with people outside their field because it's become so politicized that the actual science is irrelevant.

Like evolution, ACC is something that is now well-established science, but still an active topic of research. There are plenty of things we don't know about evolution, and there are plenty of things we don't know about how human activity affects the climate. The only way we'll find out is to continue to do research, and therefore there will continue to be lots of papers that report that this aspect of our understanding of evolution is wrong, or that aspect of our understanding of ACC is wrong. Neither of these in any way refutes evolution or ACC; we're now in the phase of refining the models, not overturning them and replacing them with something different.

From a societal point of view, we can therefore be confident that human activity is affecting the global climate (and, more pressingly, things like ocean pH), and start trying to address the problem. Climatologists, oceanographers, physicists, chemists and biologists will continue to refine our understanding of the issue, and, hopefully provide some insights into how we may best mitigate the damage we've done, and what efforts will likely be most successful in reducing further harm.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I have even gone so far as to personally contact researchers who have published papers your blogs have linked to to ask for clarification of their position; when asked if their paper in any way refutes ACC, they've replied that only a "fu*king idiot" would interpret it that way.


Since you've brought this up so many times, why don't you tell us how many times this has happened?



bryanc said:


> we're now in the phase of refining the models, not overturning them and replacing them with something different.


We should be in the process of scrapping them, because they're non-functional.



bryanc said:


> From a societal point of view, we can therefore be confident that human activity is affecting the global climate (and, more pressingly, things like ocean pH), and start trying to address the problem. Climatologists, oceanographers, physicists, chemists and biologists will continue to refine our understanding of the issue, and, hopefully provide some insights into how we may best mitigate the damage we've done, and what efforts will likely be most successful in reducing further harm.


Hopefully they will come to the conclusion that the cures are far worse than the disease.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Have done. And as I've pointed out, the actual science linked from your blogs falls into three categories:
> 1) Does not say what the blog says it does.
> 2) Does say what the blog says it does, but that point is taken out of context (i.e. a paper may say that the climate models are inaccurate with respect to a certain class of empirical observations, but the papers are usually about why that is the case and how the models can be improved to better predicts that class of data, not about why modelling is bad or why ACC is flawed)
> 3) Behind paywalls that I can't get through from an academic institution, which leads me to suspect you haven't read these papers either, and are just trusting the climate change denial PR campaign regarding what the research actually says.
> 
> I have even gone so far as to personally contact researchers who have published papers your blogs have linked to to ask for clarification of their position; when asked if their paper in any way refutes ACC, they've replied that only a "fu*king idiot" would interpret it that way.
> 
> Have done; with respect to fields I am expert in, I have easily pointed out flaws in the interpretations of blogers and climate change denialists. In every case that I have been able to rationally analyze the science, it has been unequivocally supportive of ACC. In every case that I have been able to converse with a qualified scientist regarding this subject, they have said that the science is so one-sided on this issue that it's not really an open question anymore, but that they've long ago given up discussing it with people outside their field because it's become so politicized that the actual science is irrelevant.
> 
> Like evolution, ACC is something that is now well-established science, but still an active topic of research. There are plenty of things we don't know about evolution, and there are plenty of things we don't know about how human activity affects the climate. The only way we'll find out is to continue to do research, and therefore there will continue to be lots of papers that report that this aspect of our understanding of evolution is wrong, or that aspect of our understanding of ACC is wrong. Neither of these in any way refutes evolution or ACC; we're now in the phase of refining the models, not overturning them and replacing them with something different.
> 
> From a societal point of view, we can therefore be confident that human activity is affecting the global climate (and, more pressingly, things like ocean pH), and start trying to address the problem. Climatologists, oceanographers, physicists, chemists and biologists will continue to refine our understanding of the issue, and, hopefully provide some insights into how we may best mitigate the damage we've done, and what efforts will likely be most successful in reducing further harm.


It's clear to me the couple here are just looking for headlines and links that appear to support their positions. As I said, I'm always interested in other points of view, from credible sources, and generally without the post ending in the feet stamping, or in some cases out and out trolling. But I have those on ignore so that helps.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> Hopefully they will come to the conclusion that the cures are far worse than the disease.




I know some that feel that way about treatment being worse, but if a cure is a result they would be quite happy.

Unfortunately it frequently is not, so some say "stop, hold, enough". :-(


----------



## FeXL

Just to clarify, in case some don't get it:

My posts are not about ACC. They are, always have been and will continue to be, about refuting CAGW. 

Period...


----------



## FeXL

More "global warming"...

Over 650 snow records set in USA this week – another wonky surface station located



> While pundits spin attempts at linking snowfall in the Northeast USA to AGW, much like they do in the summer during heat waves, we find that Nature is just taunting them with snow as far south as the Mexican border in Arizona. And there is more to come, in the next week, we may see snow into Florida. During the last week, 652 new snow records were set in the CONUS


On that surface site:



> So given the sunny dry weather with a lack of nearby comparable temperatures or new records, heat sinks all around, the parking lot, the building, the low albedo of dry grass under the sensor, *it seems entirely likely to me that this is a false high temperature record.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> why don't you tell us how many times this has happened?


The phrase "Fu*king idiot" was only used in one reply, but I certainly got a similar impression from other researchers with whom I have discussed this particular interpretation of their results.


> We should be in the process of scrapping them, because they're non-functional.


If you had any expertise in this feild, you opinion on the subject might be worth the electrons that were inconvenienced in its transmission. In this case, it's not.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> f you had any expertise in this feild, you opinion on the subject might be worth the electrons that were inconvenienced in its transmission. In this case, it's not.


How much more worthless must be the electrons used to respond to it.


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I posted a link to an article about a "new" way to burn coal for electricity. I stated then that it posed far more questions than answers. The story is fleshed out:

The Power of Underpants



> In a nutshell, rather than some great technological leap forward, the process is a convoluted way to transport the oxygen to burning coal. I can’t find anything of revolutionary properties that cannot already be achieved with other technologies. Separating gasses from the H20 in the emission stream of a standard coal plant and compressing it into a tank, is not technologically challenging. The emission fraction of CO2 from a standard coal plant is already 99ish percent and if you are putting the Co2 gas into a tank, why not put all of it except the water into it? Other technologies already produce a more pure CO2 stream than most coal plants (if that is actually important) and do it at a high temperature more standard process.


----------



## FeXL

Finally, an ice free winter on the Weddell Sea in Antartica!

Holdren Was Right About Ice Free Winters!



> Another reason why NSIDC doesn’t talk about pre-1979 satellite data, is that during the winters of 1974-1976, Antarctic sea ice never froze over completely. A huge hole in Weddell Sea ice formed during the winter.


Further:



> The really amazing thing is that *right now – at the end of the Antarctic summer – there is ice in places where there was none during the winters of 1974-1976.*
> 
> According to NASA, this area of massive ice gain is the fastest warming place on earth. You can’t make up BS like the climate science world does.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Climate Models: Modeled Relationship between Marine Air Temperature and Sea Surface Temperature Is Wrong



> As you will see, observations indicate the sea surface temperatures warm at a faster rate than marine air temperatures, while the models have the relationship backwards. Not too surprising, *since the models simulate very little properly.*


Bold mine.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> My posts are not about ACC. They are, always have been and will continue to be, about refuting CAGW.


{note: I'm assuming ACC == "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and CAGW == "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming"}

This is not clear from your posts; your litany of blog posts span the gamut of reasonable and rational (if often incomplete and/or otherwise well-addressed) criticisms of the science, to personal attacks on the scientists, to political rants regarding the organizations and or policies responding to the science. How is one to discern your acceptance of the well established scientific paradigm of ACC from the observation that you apparently maintain a staunch disbelief in essentially all the climatological research that has given rise to this theory?

If what you're skeptical of is that the consequences of ACC will be catastrophic, there may be hope for you yet. I too, am somewhat skeptical that the consequence of global warming will be truly catastrophic; although I have no difficulty believing that increased extreme weather, changed patterns of precipitation, rising sea level, etc will have significant and dire effects if we don't prepare for them, I don't see them as likely causes of our extinction as a species or even the end of our civilization; we can and will adapt - the sooner we do so the less it will cost. I do have more serious concerns about the rapid ocean acidification, as we have put the marine ecosystem under extreme stress through other activities (pollution, over-fishing, etc.) and the unprecedented rise in CO2 is now causing an unprecedented drop in ocean pH, which could very well cause a catastrophic ecosystem collapse and global extinction event.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...there may be hope for you yet.


Gee, bryanc, that didn't sound condescending at all. For the record, I don't want or need yours or anyones else's approval, for anything, thankyouverymuch.

And, as to the unlikely implication that we may share common ground on this topic, forget it. Our views are as polarized as possible, for one reason: "consensus".


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> {note: I'm assuming ACC == "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and CAGW == "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming"}
> 
> This is not clear from your posts; your litany of blog posts span the gamut of reasonable and rational (if often incomplete and/or otherwise well-addressed) criticisms of the science, to personal attacks on the scientists, to political rants regarding the organizations and or policies responding to the science. How is one to discern your acceptance of the well established scientific paradigm of ACC from the observation that you apparently maintain a staunch disbelief in essentially all the climatological research that has given rise to this theory?
> 
> If what you're skeptical of is that the consequences of ACC will be catastrophic, there may be hope for you yet. I too, am somewhat skeptical that the consequence of global warming will be truly catastrophic; although I have no difficulty believing that increased extreme weather, changed patterns of precipitation, rising sea level, etc will have significant and dire effects if we don't prepare for them, I don't see them as likely causes of our extinction as a species or even the end of our civilization; we can and will adapt - the sooner we do so the less it will cost. I do have more serious concerns about the rapid ocean acidification, as we have put the marine ecosystem under extreme stress through other activities (pollution, over-fishing, etc.) and the unprecedented rise in CO2 is now causing an unprecedented drop in ocean pH, which could very well cause a catastrophic ecosystem collapse and global extinction event.


Well it was a worthwhile attempt, but, not a total surprise.


----------



## Lawrence

The good news about global warming is that the middle east will get flooded again.
(Now where's Moses)

...


----------



## bryanc

.


----------



## Macfury

Oh, gosh... Trudeau has really lost his edge. 20 years ago he could have pulled it off slyly.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> .


I think that sums up a great deal of this thread in a few frames.


----------



## FeXL

Yesterday I posted a link to an article about 650 snowfall records & at least one anomalous temp record. Followup on a second temp anomaly & poor siting.

NWS station at Corinna, Maine: same old problems, now with global impact



> The Maine dot turned out to be in a town of 2100 people or so, Corinna. Never heard of it, but they probably never heard of the even smaller town I live in, so that’s okay. The record they set was 49°F on 2/16. That day the NWS station in Bangor reported 31°F and a private weather station in Corinna just a mile to the east that seems pretty reasonable reported 33°F. Clearly that 49 is wrong. Corinna is an important enough site so the NWS has older data for it, and several other data look just as bad, like the 59°F on 2/1. (Bangor 29°F, Wunderground 24°F.)


----------



## FeXL

Informative article on recent solar data.

Solar Update February 2013

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

On global temperature predictions to 2100.

Global Warming Prediction Error: January 2013



> There continues to be many news outlets that are pushing the idea that the Earth will warm up 4 °C by the year 2100. Back in December I initially addressed the issue here, but a thought has percolated with me about how to really deal with this propaganda. The idea is simple enough, I am going to start tracking the prediction error that exists from the warming that will have to take place in order to reach 4 °C of warming by the year 2100. This is a way to see how realistic the projections for the next 87 years are.


In summary:



> The global, NH and SH errors are all negative indicating that we are not on track to hit 4 °C by the year 2100. If the current trend continues, the temperature in the year 2100 will be: [1.0 C]


----------



## FeXL

Another German Meteorology site questions the consensus...

Collapsing Consensus – Another German Meteorology Site Wonders About The Global Temperature Stagnation



> And just days ago, yet another German meteorology site questioned global warming in a piece titled: “Global Warming Stagnates – Guessing The Causes“. The report begins:
> 
> _"Since 1998 the global mean temperature has not risen significantly. While the global temperature rose by about 0.5°C from the 1970s until the end of the 1990s, it has stagnated for the last 15 years, though at a high level. [...] The stagnation surprised a lot of experts, who are now searching for possible causes for this development.”_​


They end:



> _"The climate system of the Earth is very complex. *There are still many interrelationships, factors, and feedbacks affecting the climate that are not known or still not adequately researched. Thus a combination of the above factors is possible for explaining the stagnation in worldwide temperature.* But also a completely unknown phenomenon that climate science knows nothing about is possible. Even a natural variation of the climate cannot be excluded."_​


Bold mine.

"Settled", "Consensus" science, alright.

There are people on these boards who would have you not read news such as this, because it's not "peer-reviewed"...


----------



## FeXL

Time for a smile...

The Russian Meteor and Global Warming 



> Scientists indicate that the recent meteor strike in Russia may have been connected to global warming.
> 
> In comments sent to reporters, NCAR Distinguished Senior Scientist and Nobel Prize winner Kevin Trenberth stated that the 4% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere can lead to up to a 10% increase in precipitation, and probably even more if it all converges on one spot. "If this is not massive precipitation, then I don't know what is" said Trenberth. When pressed by reporters on the magnitude of the effect, Trenberth was reluctant to give an answer, noting only that it undoubtedly made the impact worse.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> I think that sums up a great deal of this thread in a few frames.


Damn it Tim, I was on a run when I read that. tptptptp

Oh well, you saved me the effort. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> There are people on these boards who would have you not read news such as this, because it's not "peer-reviewed"...


The problem is that some people, once they enter the priest clan of academia, can lose all sense of reality. The information echo-chamber effect just enhances the isolation.


----------



## MacDoc

Nice bit of science



> *Weather Extremes Provoked by Trapping of Giant Waves in the Atmosphere*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meridional windfield over four different timespans. (Credit: Image courtesy of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK))
> 
> Feb. 25, 2013 — The world has suffered from severe regional weather extremes in recent years, such as the heat wave in the United States in 2011 or the one in Russia 2010 coinciding with the unprecedented Pakistan flood. Behind these devastating individual events there is a common physical cause, propose scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The study will be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and suggests that man-made climate change repeatedly disturbs the patterns of atmospheric flow around the globe's Northern hemisphere through a subtle resonance mechanism.
> 
> "An important part of the global air motion in the mid-latitudes of the Earth normally takes the form of waves wandering around the planet, oscillating between the tropical and the Arctic regions. So when they swing up, these waves suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the US, and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic," explains lead author Vladimir Petoukhov.
> 
> "What we found is that during several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks. So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays. In fact, we observe a strong amplification of the usually weak, slowly moving component of these waves," says Petoukhov. Time is critical here: two or three days of 30 degrees Celsius are no problem, but twenty or more days lead to extreme heat stress. Since many ecosystems and cities are not adapted to this, prolonged hot periods can result in a high death toll, forest fires, and dramatic harvest losses.
> 
> Anomalous surface temperatures are disturbing the air flows
> 
> Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not mean uniform global warming -- in the Arctic, the relative increase of temperatures, amplified by the loss of snow and ice, is higher than on average. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe, yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans. "These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected," says Petoukhov. "They result in an unnatural pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow synoptic waves get trapped."
> 
> The authors of the study developed equations that describe the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere and show under what conditions those waves can grind to a halt and get amplified. They tested their assumptions using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves -- like "wave seven" (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) -- was indeed observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns, which is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.
> 
> The probability of extremes increases -- but other factors come in as well
> 
> "Our dynamical analysis helps to explain the increasing number of novel weather extremes. It complements previous research that already linked such phenomena to climate change, but did not yet identify a mechanism behind it," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of PIK and co-author of the study. "This is quite a breakthrough, even though things are not at all simple -- the suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability." Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.
> 
> Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and human-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.


Weather extremes provoked by trapping of giant waves in the atmosphere


----------



## Macfury

Interesting that these "waves" are producing "extremes" well within historical norms.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The problem is that some people, once they enter the priest clan of academia, can lose all sense of reality. The information echo-chamber effect just enhances the isolation.


Well... there goes another irony meter...

The big difference between the scientists and the deniers of the blogosphere is that the _scientists_ are the ones that have to deal with reality. You know; data... reproducibility... math... all that annoying stuff that disagrees with the right-wing-worldview and gets ignored or defunded whenever right wing politicians make policy decisions.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The big difference between the scientists and the deniers of the blogosphere is that the _scientists_ are the ones that have to deal with reality. You know; data... reproducibility... math... all that annoying stuff that disagrees with the right-wing-worldview and gets ignored or defunded whenever right wing politicians make policy decisions.


Even such simple matters as statistical significance are often malleable, when faced with a delectable theory. Numbers are hard and immutable, while scientists can be soft.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Well... there goes another irony meter...
> 
> The big difference between the scientists and the deniers of the blogosphere is that the _scientists_ are the ones that have to deal with reality. You know; data... reproducibility... math... all that annoying stuff that disagrees with the right-wing-worldview and gets ignored or defunded whenever right wing politicians make policy decisions.


yes. Somehow retired weathermen are less politically motivated than scientists with experience in the field.

Irony meter, off the scale. Some people will believe anything.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Nice bit of science


Questions, questions...



> The authors of the study developed equations that describe the wave motions


Read: models used.



> Our dynamical analysis helps to explain the increasing number of novel weather extremes.


I have linked to multiple peer reviewed studies noting that there is absolutely no proof of increased "extreme weather events". As a matter of fact, those studies indicate exactly the opposite.

Who is correct?



> It complements previous research that already linked such phenomena to climate change,


Whaddya s'pose caused the worst heat wave on US record, in 1936, when CO2 was <300 ppm and 1/4 of American stations set their all time record maximim temperatures...



> but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.


Ya don't say...



> Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.


So, really means squat.

And I get accused of interpreting results to suit my argument. Waiting for the hue & cry in 3, 2, 1...

Not...


----------



## FeXL

US Winter Temperatures Plummeting Over The Last 15 Years



> Huffington Post calls this sharp cooling trend a warming trend


----------



## FeXL

On ocean heat.

Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too



> Hmmm, if _“…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…”_ I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?


----------



## FeXL

Further on unprecedented temps in Antarctica.

Lake highstands in the Pensacola Mountains and Shackleton Range 4300–2250 cal. yr BP: Evidence of a warm climate anomaly in the interior of Antarctica

Abstract.



> We surveyed and dated the former shorelines of one lake in the Shackleton Range and two lakes in the Pensacola Mountains, situated inland of the Weddell Sea embayment Antarctica between 80° and 85°S. These are amongst the highest latitude lakes in the Antarctic and are located in areas where there is little or no Holocene climate and hydrological information. *Surveys of the lake shorelines show that past water levels have been up to 15.7, 17.7 and 69.5 m higher than present in the three study lakes.* AMS radiocarbon dating of lake-derived macrofossils showed that *there was a sustained period of higher water levels from approximately 4300 and until sometime after 2250 cal. yr BP.* This is interpreted as being the result of an increased number of meltwater events and/or degree-days above freezing, relative to the present. The closest comparable ice cores from the Dominion Range in the Transantarctic Mountains (85°S, 166°E) and the Plateau Remote ice core on the continental East Antarctic Ice Sheet (84°S, 43°E) also provide some evidence of a warmer period beginning at c. 4000–3500 yr BP and ending after 2000–1500 yr BP, as does a synthesis of oxygen isotope data from five Antarctic ice cores. This suggests that the well-documented mid- to late-Holocene warm period, measured in many lake and marine sediments around the coast of Antarctica, extended into these regions of the continental interior.


Bold mine.

You don't s'pose they're talking about the Minoan & Roman Warm Periods, do you...


----------



## FeXL

Bit of early history on TIPPC™, 2nd AR.

The price of life: the IPCC's first and forgotten controversy



> Mostly on the blogs we give our attention to the corruption of climate science by the politics of climate change. However, beyond the physics of climate and its physical impact, recently there has been a small revival of interest in the economic damages climate change is expected to cause, and how the costings of these damages is weighed against the costings of various mitigation efforts.
> 
> Such cost/benefit analysis should be the ultimate instruction to policy action, yet it introduces whole new layers of uncertainty that render such assessments even less tolerable to sceptics. This analysis is no more tolerable, or tolerated, even where the results present sober and moderate, even when they all but call off the alarm. This hit home hard with the recent treatment of work by a reader and commenter on this site: Richard Tol might be one of the most vocal and scathing expert critics of the Stern Review, but he still had to weather the onslaught against his own sobering damage assessment when it was posted on WUWT.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen, interrogated, fails.

Robert W. Endlich: A visit to Santa Fe and James Hansen



> I attended a talk by Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Sciences on effects of climate change on 21 Feb 2013.
> 
> ...
> 
> One item after another struck me as being completely at odds with measurements.
> 
> ...
> 
> It has been 34 years since I have been in Graduate School. I was disappointed that a world-renowned researcher could not provide a cogent, coherent answer to a pertinent question regarding accuracy of the forecast which brought him to prominence. “How has this guy passed his candidacy exam or prelims?” I thought.


In summary:



> Hansen says the science is settled and there are no data which contradicts the alarmist view of imminent catastrophic temperature change and tipping points.
> 
> Who is the “denier?”
> 
> Hansen can’t accept the fact that measurements, observations, facts and data show that present temperatures are quite ordinary and that the rates of temperature change are among the smallest of the past 10,000 years, despite present CO2 concentrations.


Yup.

So who the hell is Robert W. Endlich?



> Robert W Endlich served as Weather Officer in the USAF for 21 Years. From 1984-1993 he provided toxic corridor and laser propagation support to the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range. He has published in the technical literature and worked as software test engineer. He was elected to Chi Epsilon Pi, the national Meteorology Honor Society, while a Basic Meteorology student at Texas A&M University. He has degrees in Geology and Meteorology from Rutgers University and the Pennsylvania State University, respectively.


Just another retired meteorologist...


----------



## Lawrence

...exchange


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Hansen, interrogated, fails.
> 
> Robert W. Endlich: A visit to Santa Fe and James Hansen
> 
> 
> 
> In summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> So who the hell is Robert W. Endlich?
> 
> 
> 
> Just another retired meteorologist...


an old retired weatherman from the army with incorrect info?

Yeah. Next to practically every qualified scientist in the world you'll have to do a little better than that.

Sorry.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Just another retired meteorologist...


I'm sure he'll be demonized as a weatherman from here on in, never mind a resume that should humble his harshest critics.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I'm sure he'll be demonized as a weatherman from here on in, never mind a resume that should humble his harshest critics.


Apparently I needed the /sarc tag...


----------



## groovetube

> Robert W Endlich served as Weather Officer in the USAF for 21 Years. From 1984-1993 he provided toxic corridor and laser propagation support to the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range. He has published in the technical literature and worked as software test engineer. He was elected to Chi Epsilon Pi, the national Meteorology Honor Society, while a Basic Meteorology student at Texas A&M University. He has degrees in Geology and Meteorology from Rutgers University and the Pennsylvania State University, respectively.


Oh my, he has a degree in geology and meteorology. And, he was a weather officer for the USAF!

My god, that alone would wipe out every qualified scientist who is part of the consensus on climate change. However, what truly seals the deal, is the software engineer thing. That, and he supports the denialist beliefs! All that in one go!!!

I can hear the thunderclap from over here.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: opinion piece. If that initiates hyperventilating, causes you to break out in hives & compels you into troll-like behaviour, don't bloody click on the link... 

The author addresses "consensus".

Peter C. Glover: Climate Consensus? What Climate Consensus?



> The myths of popular science have a nasty habit of running ahead of the real story by a decade or two. They are difficult to dislodge. It has always been thus. Take the myth that global warming (GW) is today a feature of current global climate activity. Whatever the reason for it, GW hasn’t been happening for 16 years – and not a single computer model predicted it. Then there is the breaking news that the global sea ice area is above normal – and that in the midst of the Antarctic summer. Not exactly been mainstream news has it? But then, as both stories run counter to the prevailing consensus and popular myth, that’s not surprising.


He also talks further about the paper where engineers & geoscientists are typically sceptical about AGW.



> A new peer-reviewed paper surveying over 1,037 engineers and geoscientists that are actually categorized under the “Comply with Kyoto” banner, confirms that while most believe global climate change is happening, only 36 percent believe the alarmist Grand Narrative that man is the chief cause. Further, the survey researchers also found that “scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains” among many actual climate scientists. *They found that while 75 percent of papers published between 1993 and 2003 explicitly endorsed AGW, between 2004 and 2008 that figure had fallen to 45 percent.*


Bold mine.

As I noted in my earlier post about this study, the 64% sceptics number (100% sample size - 36% warmists) means nothing to me. I flatly do not believe there is any room in science for "consensus" on either side of the argument, period.

However, the bolded portion is very...revealing.


----------



## FeXL

Hump day smiles...

Here’s a chance for Michael Mann to get his own Nobel Prize medal

There's one for sale!


----------



## FeXL

More hump day smiles. 

So, as some of you may recall, Kenji, Anthony Watts' dog, is a card carrying, dues paying member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. He received some propaganda recently...

Kenji sniffs out stupid claims by the Union of Concerned Scientists

Summary:



> Even my dog can see through the charlatans at UCS; they aren’t in it for the science, they are in it for the money when they use slimeball tactics like this for fundraising drives.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Analysis of Raw temperature data from Boulder, CO.

The NOAA USHCN RAW Data from Boulder, Colorado Restore the Beginning and End of the Modern Warming Regime

Abstract.



> After noticing the strange time dependent behavior of the difference between the NOAA USHCN Average Annual Temperature data in the unadjusted RAW data. The RAW data was plotted for the 1965-2011 time period. The RAW data plot revealed the start and end of the Modern Warm Regime, which lasted from 1976 (the base of the “hockey stick”) until the onset of the 21st Century. The footprint of the regime in the area is validated by mean annual geothermal data from 3 boreholes along Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park.


Conclusions:



> The footprint of the Modern Warming Regime that was recovered in the RAW data from the Boulder Weather Station is the probable result of the heavy handed uncritical adjustment of the AAT data set. Hurst Rescaling is a powerful method for detecting regime transitions in climatic data. However, the method is also sensitive to uncorrected site moves and adjustment artifacts. *The alteration of the Boulder RAW data set was so severe that it masked and attenuated both the onset and end of the Modern Warming Regime.*
> 
> Another aspect of Hurst Rescaling is the difficulty of introducing false regime inflections into serial climate data. One must first alter the data integral and differentiate the integral to a synthetic data set. *However, the differential would probably not remotely resemble the initial data.* The perpetrator would then be faced with nearly infinite iterations to fine tune the data.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on unprecedented sea level rise.

A probabilistic assessment of sea level variations within the last interglacial stage

Summary.



> The last interglacial stage (LIG; ca. 130–115 ka) provides a relatively recent example of a world with both poles characterized by greater-than-Holocene temperatures similar to those expected later in this century under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Previous analyses inferred that LIG mean global sea level (GSL) peaked 6–9 m higher than today. Here, we extend our earlier work to perform a probabilistic assessment of sea level variability within the LIG highstand. Using the terminology for probability employed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, we find it extremely likely (95 per cent probability) that the palaeo-sea level record allows resolution of at least two intra-LIG sea level peaks and likely (67 per cent probability) that the magnitude of low-to-high swings exceeded 4 m. Moreover, it is likely that there was a period during the LIG in which GSL rose at a 1000-yr average rate exceeding 3 m kyr−1, but unlikely (33 per cent probability) that the rate exceeded 7 m kyr−1 and extremely unlikely (5 per cent probability) that it exceeded 11 m kyr−1. These rate estimates can provide insight into rates of Greenland and/or Antarctic melt under climate conditions partially analogous to those expected in the 21st century.


From the conclusions:



> Satellite altimetry data indicate that, over the last twenty years, global mean sea surface height has risen by 3.1 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 (Nerem et al. 2010); *it is therefore likely that sub-millennial intervals of faster GSL rise occurred during the LIG.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, last month Paul Nurse gave a talk @ Melbourne University. He made some interesting observations re: Lord Lawson. Lawson replies.

Lord Lawson’s Letter To Sir Paul Nurse



> My attention has been drawn to a speech you gave last month at Melbourne University, in which you chose to criticise me by name in terms which bear no relation to the truth. In the interests of accuracy, I have obtained a full transcript. I recognise that, as a distinguished geneticist, you are not a climate scientist, and may therefore feel ill at ease discussing the complex issue of climate policy. But that is no excuse for wanton misrepresentation both of the issues involved and of my own position.


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio muses about the Weather Channel.

Weather Channel finds Summer warmer than Winter – due to Global Warming…

He sums:



> Dismissing Antarctic ice growth as human caused and overriding human caused global warming is just a fantasy, on both counts. Assigning less snow in the South Shetland Islands to global warming while assigning more snow in the USA to global warming is just schizophrenic. (All, IMHO, of course).
> 
> Just wrong and stupid on so many levels. The worst, of course, being to compare an island having long summer days to continental USA in mid winter. They have, in essence, discovered that summer is warmer than winter, but didn’t notice… Instead they find that South Shetland Islands in summer are warmer than the US “Pick City” in winter due to Global Warming…


----------



## FeXL

US February Temperatures In Sharp Decline For Over 20 Years



> Note that the trend would be much steeper, except for the cold years in 1993 and 1994 after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> I can hear the thunderclap from over here.


You must have struck a nerve Tim, for I can see eight, count 'em 8, hidden posts in a row.

I guess that's not frowned on in these parts? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> I can see eight, count 'em 8, hidden posts in a row.
> 
> I guess that's not frowned on in these parts? :lmao:


It's not frowned on to hide posts--however, it's considered somewhat gauche to admit you do it.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> You must have struck a nerve Tim, for I can see eight, count 'em 8, hidden posts in a row.
> 
> I guess that's not frowned on in these parts? :lmao:


Nw, par for the course, but amusing at times to see something 'light up' at times.


----------



## bryanc

iMouse said:


> You must have struck a nerve Tim, for I can see eight, count 'em 8, hidden posts in a row.


I'll repost it if he comes up with something relevant to the science of climate change so you don't miss it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'll repost it if he comes up with something relevant to the science of climate change so you don't miss it.


It may be difficult for you to recognize, given your "consensus" bias.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It may be difficult for you to recognize, given your "consensus" bias.


Not at all; it just has to be peer reviewed research that conflicts in some significant way with the established ACC paradigm. For example, FeXL just posted a link to a nice paper on sea level variation during the last interglacial period. I went and read it. I does not make any claims that are in any way in contradiction with the ACC model; on the contrary, it starts with the premise that because ACC is true, we need to know more about how sea level changes during periods of rapid icecap melting. Like the vast majority of the science FeXL posts, it is in no way contradictory to the ACC paradigm nor can it be interpreted as evidence that climatologists are starting to doubt ACC. The confidence climatologists have in the ACC paradigm is increasing as more and more data fits into the model.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> I'll re-post it if he comes up with something *relevant* to the science of climate change so you don't miss it.


My one remaining good eye says thank you. :lmao:

Spared grey matter are also thankful, but less so for some of them that are about to die a glorious death right now.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Not at all; it just has to be peer reviewed research that conflicts in some significant way with the established ACC paradigm. For example, FeXL just posted a link to a nice paper on sea level variation during the last interglacial period. I went and read it. I does not make any claims that are in any way in contradiction with the ACC model; on the contrary, it starts with the premise that because ACC is true, we need to know more about how sea level changes during periods of rapid icecap melting. Like the vast majority of the science FeXL posts, it is in no way contradictory to the ACC paradigm nor can it be interpreted as evidence that climatologists are starting to doubt ACC. The confidence climatologists have in the ACC paradigm is increasing as more and more data fits into the model.


You're punching at a straw man again. The intention in posting it is to show that current claims of future sea level rise can not be billed as "unprecedented."


----------



## bryanc

Don't think I've seen any claims that sea levels are unprecedented. There may be claims that the *rate* of sea level rise is unprecedented, but I'm not sure we have good enough data on the rates of sea level change in the past to make that claim (not my feild, so I may simply be unaware of the facts here). We do have good data on the pH of sea water in the recent and distant past, and we do have good data on the rates of change in that parameter, so we can say that ocean acidification is occurring at an unprecedented rate.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yup, you guessed it...

CMIP5 Model-Data Comparison: Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies



> *As we’ve seen in numerous model-data comparisons, there are few similarities between modeled and observed surface temperatures and precipitation.* See here, here, here, here, and here for examples. We’ve compared satellite-era sea surface temperature to model outputs in past posts (examples here, here and here), but we used model outputs from climate models stored in the CMIP3 archive, which was prepared for the 2007 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC. In this post, we’re using the outputs of newer CMIP5 models, prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5th Assessment Report. Scenario RCP6.0 for the CMIP5 models is presented because it most closely matches the climate forcings of the scenario called SRES A1B, which was widely cited in the past.


Bold mine.

In closing:



> About 70% of the planet Earth is covered by water: oceans, seas and lakes. As illustrated in this post, the manmade greenhouse gas-forced component (the multi-model mean) of the climate models prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5th Assessment Report shows no similarity to the warming of the sea surface temperatures exhibited by those oceans over the past 31 years. *In other words, the models show no skill at being able to simulate the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans for the past 3+ decades—and since the start of the 20th Century, that’s the period when climate models perform at their best.*


Bold mine.

Yes, there is something we can learn from GCM's & I think it can be summed up rather nicely thus: They do not work.


----------



## FeXL

Searching for an anthropogenic signal in current sea level trends.

In Search of a CO2-Induced Increase in the Mean Rate-of-Rise of Global Sea Level



> In a study of inter-annual and decadal variability in Pacific Ocean sea level trends, Zhang and Church (2012) drive another nail into the coffin of the climate alarmists' untenable contention. They begin by noting that "many sea level studies have an _underlying purpose_ [italics added] of detecting and quantifying sea level change _due to anthropogenic climate change_ [italics added]," but they note that "on a regional scale, such a signal is mixed with that due to natural climate variability," and "as a result, it is extremely difficult to separate the natural and anthropogenic signals, especially when they have comparable amplitudes and the available time series is short relative to the period of the natural variability."


Further:



> In light of their illuminating findings, the two Australian researchers thus conclude that "it is tempting to use current-day altimeter-based regional sea level linear trends as a reference for future climate change projections." However, they say that "such practice needs to be treated with caution as regional sea level linear trends derived over the short altimeter era can be greatly affected by low-frequency climate variability."


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Further model failures...

Low-Level Liquid-Containing Arctic Clouds



> Against this backdrop, Cesana et al. employed real-world Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) data to document cloud phases over the Arctic basin (60-82°N) during the five-year period 2006-2011, after which they used the results they obtained "to evaluate the influence of Arctic cloud phase on Arctic cloud radiative flux biases in climate models." In doing so the five researchers report that their evaluation of climate models participating in the most recent Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (Taylor et al., 2012) revealed that *"most climate models are not accurately representing the bimodality of FLW,NET in non-summer seasons." In fact, they indicate that even when advanced microphysical schemes that predict cloud phase have been used, such as those currently employed in the fifth version of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5, Neale et al., 2010), "insufficient liquid water was predicted."*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Some history of the CRU email leak.

It’s Time For The Person Who Leaked the CRU Emails To Step Forward



> The public are increasingly aware of the inaccurate science and failed projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Those promoting the false science are pushing even harder as they lose ground, but a final disclosure would expose the full extent of the deceptions. This would force leaders to abandon policies already causing serious social and economic harm and develop policies based on proper science.
> 
> The IPCC failures are no surprise and inevitable because of the political rather than scientific agenda exposed in the first 6000 emails. Evidence from leaked information from AR5, the next IPCC Report, indicate they have not changed. Equally important, the people involved at the CRU and the IPCC think they’ve escaped responsibility with the release of the Norfolk Police Report. It was the engineered response they wanted and in its own way is deceptive.


Interesting speculation re: Briffa's possible involvement plus, his criticism of Mann's hockey stick:



> On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann, _“I have just read this letter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data against any other_ “target” series, _such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage_ (sic) _he has produced over the last few years, and … (better say no more)”_Cook responds; _“We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon_ (reconstruction), _particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”_


Bring on the next 200,000 emails...


----------



## FeXL

So, couple days back there was some screeching from one of the usual suspects about "frozen" weather patterns being caused by AGW. I enquired about what may have caused the one in 1936 &, of course, received no response.

Further on that.

Blockheaded thinking on well known weather patterns and ‘extreme weather’



> Gosh,”frozen patterns” like Rex blocks have been known for decades.
> 
> ...
> 
> *One of the hottest summers the USA ever experienced in 1936 was due to a blocking high*
> 
> ...
> 
> *The 1936 blocking ridge happened several times in that year & had occurred in 1934, as well.* By comparison, record-breaking warmth occurred in March 1986, only to return in mid April with 88-93 setting records.


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Not something yer gonna see in the MSM. Further proof of "global warming"...

Northern Hemisphere Sets New, All-Time Record Cold Temperature: -96.1°F In Oymyakon Siberia !!

Some speculation on whether it's actually a record, either way, damn cold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "unprecedented" Australian January heat wave.

Australian Heatwave? Not So Unusual After All



> It is only a few weeks since we were being told how the heatwave in Australia was unprecedented, and proof of global warming. Now the GISS systems are up and running again, we can check just how hot it really was last month down under.
> 
> ...
> 
> In none of the examples is the January temperature a record, or even close to being so, and in most cases higher temperatures were recorded 50 years or more ago.


----------



## FeXL

Further on melting Antarctic sea ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Trend Climbing at 140,000 sq km per decade! 



> Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Trend is climbing at 140,000 sq km per decade!
> 
> After declaring Antarctic had the 2nd highest minimum of all time I thought I should graph the trend.


----------



## bryanc

*Source of error identified; climate science progresses*

One of the long standing problems in climate research has been that the atmospheric [CO2] in ice core samples appeared to lag the rise in temperatures as measured by other proxies by up to a century. This is a relatively small error, but it was consistent in one direction (i.e. increasing [CO2] following, rather than leading or tracking temperature as would be predicted). While the margin of error is small enough that it does not really cast much doubt on the paradigm of the greenhouse effect (which is well supported by other empirical data), it has been a source of vexatious uncertainty for climate scientists, and has delighted climate-change deniers for decades.

A paper published this week in Science has determined the cause of this systematic error. It turns out that it takes about 100-200 years for air to become trapped in ice (because there is continuous gas exchange between the air in surface snow/ice and the atmosphere), so the bubbles of air in an ice core are about a century older than the ice in which it is trapped. When this phenomenon is taken into account, the observed [CO2] in ice cores tracks temperature records almost perfectly.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> A paper published this week in Science has determined the cause of this systematic error. It turns out that it takes about 100-200 years for air to become trapped in ice (because there is continuous gas exchange between the air in surface snow/ice and the atmosphere), so the bubbles of air in an ice core are about a century older than the ice in which it is trapped. When this phenomenon is taken into account, the observed [CO2] in ice cores tracks temperature records almost perfectly.


In fact, it has not "determined the cause" but proposes an explanation.

I don't have access to the paper. How much of a lag do they claim for CO2 in ice bubbles and within what margin of error?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't have access to the paper. How much of a lag do they claim for CO2 in ice bubbles and within what margin of error?


I can send you a PDF if you PM-me your email. The lags depend on the rate of snow accumulation, wind, and a number of other variables, but are on the order of a few centuries; entirely consistent with the apparent lag in [CO2] trapped in bubbles in ice cores and the temperature record constructed from various proxies. As for the error margins, they are functions of stable nitrogen and oxygen isotopes in the water-ice and trapped gasses as well as convective zone thicknesses, so they very depending on the sample. But they are small enough that the variation in atmospheric [CO2] is now nicely in phase (or slightly leading) global temperature changes as predicted.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Further on models underestimating Arctic cloud cooling.


New paper finds IPCC models underestimate cooling effect of clouds 

Abstract.



> Sensitivity of Arctic clouds and radiation in the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 to the ice nucleation process is examined by testing a new physically based ice nucleation scheme that links the variation of ice nuclei (IN) number concentration to aerosol properties. The default scheme parameterizes the IN concentration simply as a function of ice supersaturation. The new scheme leads to a significant reduction in simulated IN number concentrations at all latitudes while changes in cloud amount and cloud properties are mainly seen in high latitudes and middle latitude storm tracks. In the Arctic, there is a considerable increase in mid-level clouds and a decrease in low clouds, which result from the complex interaction among the cloud macrophysics, microphysics, and the large-scale environment. The smaller IN concentrations result in an increase in liquid water path and a decrease in ice water path due to the slow-down of the Bergeron-Findeisen process in mixed-phase clouds. *Overall, there is an increase in the optical depth of Arctic clouds, which leads to a stronger cloud radiative forcing (net cooling) at the top of the atmosphere.*
> 
> The comparison with satellite data shows that the new scheme slightly improves low cloud simulations over most of the Arctic, but produces too many mid-level clouds. Considerable improvements are seen in the simulated low clouds and their properties when compared to Arctic ground-based measurements. Issues with the observations and the model-observation comparison in the Arctic region are discussed.


Bold from the link.

The erudite among you will note the improvements observed in the second paragraph. This is a good thing. However, there are tradeoffs. Read my next post for observations there.


----------



## FeXL

An honest description of modelling behaviour.

Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?



> A recent issue of Nature had a very interesting article on what seems to be a wholly paradoxical feature of models used in climate science; as the models are becoming increasingly realistic, they are also becoming less accurate and predictive because of growing uncertainties.


Why?



> *Including more real-life factors in the models does not mean that all those factors are well understood or tightly measured.* You are inevitably introducing some known unknowns. Ill-understood factors will introduce more uncertainty. Well-understood factors will introduce less uncertainty. Ultimately the accuracy of the models will depend on the interplay between these two kinds of factors, and currently it seems that *the rate of inclusion of new factors is higher than the rate at which those factors can be accurately calculated or measured.*


Bold mine.

Bingo!


----------



## FeXL

Further on higher CO2 levels causing more extreme weather events.


Reconstructing tropical cyclone frequency using hydrogen isotope ratios of sedimentary n-alkanes in northern Queensland, Australia

Abstract.



> A peat record from Quincan Crater (Queensland, Australia), spanning the past 200 years, was used to test if hydrogen isotope ratios of leaf wax long-chain n-alkanes derived of higher plants can be used to reconstruct past tropical cyclone activity. Queensland is frequently impacted by tropical cyclones, with on average 1–2 hits per year. The most abundant n-alkanes in the peat are C29 and C31. Possible sources for long chain n-alkanes in the peat core are ferns and grasses, which grow directly on the peat layer, and the tropical forest growing on the crater rim. Hydrogen isotope ratios of C27, C29 and C31n-alkanes vary between − 155 and − 185 ‰ (VSMOW), with the largest variability in the upper 30 cm of the record. For the period 1950–2000 AD the variability in δD of C29 alkanes resembles a smoothed record of historical tropical cyclone frequency occurring within a 500 km radius from the site. This suggests that the high number of tropical cyclones occurring in this period strongly impacted the δD signal and on average resulted in more depleted values of precipitation. In the period before 1900 AD, the variability in the hydrogen isotope record is relatively small compared to the period 1950–2000 AD. This might be the result of lower variability of tropical cyclones during this time period. More likely, however, is that it results from the increasing age span per sampled interval resulting in a lower temporal resolution. Average δD values between 1900 and 2000 AD are around − 167‰, which is similar to average values found for the period between 1800 and 1900 AD. *This suggests that on average tropical cyclone frequency did not change during the past 200 years.* This study demonstrates the potential of stable hydrogen isotope ratios of long chain n-alkanes for the reconstruction of past tropical cyclone frequency.


Bold mine.

Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Antarctic sea ice melt.

Antarctic Sea Ice Starts Growing Again 5 Days Early



> It appears that the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has now hit its minimum for the year, and has begun growing again.
> 
> It reached the low point of 3.650 million sq km on 19th Feb, and currently stands at 3.736 million sq km.
> 
> *Standard climatology, based on 1979-2000, suggests a minimum of 2.782 million sq km would normally be expected on 24th Feb, so this year’s minimum was 31% above normal.*
> 
> Last year, the minimum arrived on 23rd Feb, at 3.116 million sq km.
> 
> ...
> 
> *This continues the trend for the last 12 months,when ice extent has been consistently and significantly above the long term mean.*


Bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> One of the long standing problems in climate research has been that the atmospheric [CO2] in ice core samples appeared to lag the rise in temperatures as measured by other proxies by up to a century. This is a relatively small error, but it was consistent in one direction (i.e. increasing [CO2] following, rather than leading or tracking temperature as would be predicted). While the margin of error is small enough that it does not really cast much doubt on the paradigm of the greenhouse effect (which is well supported by other empirical data), it has been a source of vexatious uncertainty for climate scientists, and has delighted climate-change deniers for decades.
> 
> A paper published this week in Science has determined the cause of this systematic error. It turns out that it takes about 100-200 years for air to become trapped in ice (because there is continuous gas exchange between the air in surface snow/ice and the atmosphere), so the bubbles of air in an ice core are about a century older than the ice in which it is trapped. When this phenomenon is taken into account, the observed [CO2] in ice cores tracks temperature records almost perfectly.


Maybe it's because I don't drink coffee anymore but I am having trouble wrapping my noggin around this one. A free exchange of air molecules with newly forming ice should mean that the air trapped in ice is a century or two newer than the ice trapping it. Yet somehow that has magically transformed to a century or two older. A time warp of 200-400 years.

The claims made here might be better made in a thread postulating the possibility of a time machine.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Maybe it's because I don't drink coffee anymore but I am having trouble wrapping my noggin around this one. A free exchange of air molecules with newly forming ice should mean that the air trapped in ice is a century or two newer than the ice trapping it. Yet somehow that has magically transformed to a century or two older. A time warp of 200-400 years.


I thought the same thing yesterday when I read the post. However, not having read the paper, I didn't comment.

That said, the next question that comes to mind is the interval itself. There is much peer-reviewed literature noting that the interval between increasing temps and the subsequent increase of CO2 ranges between 400 and 1100 years. At best, a two hundred year shift is still only halfway there. At worst...


----------



## MacDoc

> *Australia breaks hottest summer record*
> By Tim Jeanes and Lexi Metherell, Friday March 1, 2013 - 22:08 EDT
> 
> The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.
> 
> The bureau says the previous hottest summer - measured by average day and night figures from across the nation - was in 1997-98.
> 
> Climate monitoring manager Dr Karl Braganza says a particularly hot spell in January has helped towards the new record.
> 
> "That's certainly contributed to it being the hottest summer on record, but it has been hot in December and February as well," he said.
> 
> "Both of those months right around Australia have been warmer than average and it's extending a real six-month period, so the last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February."
> 
> Overall, Australia's average summer temperature came in at 28.6 degrees Celsius.
> 
> *Fourteen of the weather bureau's 112 long-term climate stations recorded their hottest days on record, including one in Sydney, where the temperature hit 46 degrees in the middle of January.*
> 
> "Certainly there's a background trend of warming temperatures and there's also a trend in our rate of setting records particularly in the last decade," Dr Braganza said.
> 
> "Now we're setting daytime and night-time records around Australia at a very (much) more frequent rate than we were in the past and they outnumber cold records by five to one in some instances."
> 
> And he says this summer is likely to be a taste of what is to come in future decades.
> 
> "By about mid-century, so in about 40 years, you're actually talking about conditions like this becoming normal," he said.
> 
> "It depends on what emissions trajectory we go down, but on those mid to high scenarios, then this certainly would be a taste of things to come."
> 
> *Extreme heatwave*
> 
> Blair Trewin, a climatologist at the bureau, says the hot weather was experienced across almost all parts of the country.
> 
> "Most hot summers it's very hot in the east and cool in the west, or it's hot in the south but cooler than normal in the north, but this year it's been hotter than normal almost everywhere," he said.
> 
> "We had an extreme heatwave through the first half of January which affected much of the country and that was the peak of the summer heat.
> 
> "But even if you take out that first half of January, it was still a summer which was very much warmer than normal."
> 
> The flood disasters may give the impression that it has been not only a hot, but a wet summer, but the bureau says average national summer rainfall was at a nine-year low.
> 
> "If you look at the areas that have had above average rainfall, you are really only looking at two areas," Dr Trewin said.
> 
> "One is the east coast and adjacent ranges, from probably about Mackay southwards in Queensland and most of coastal New South Wales, and also the western half of WA. So those two regions had a wet summer but almost everywhere else it was a dry summer."
> 
> *No El Nino
> *
> Normally, a hot summer like the one just gone would be accompanied by hotter than normal temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean - an El Nino summer, in other words.
> 
> But Dr Trewin says this year ocean temperatures were average.
> 
> "That's quite unusual for a summer like this," he said.
> 
> "If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years.
> 
> *"So the fact that we've got such a hot summer without having an El Nino makes it in some ways even more exceptional."
> *
> *Penny Whetton, a senior climate research scientist with the CSIRO, says the fact that it was not an El Nino year is significant.*
> 
> "It just underlines that it's much easier, so to speak, for the climate to give us a hot year than what it used to be in the past," she said.
> 
> "It really just shows that the potential for us to get really warm conditions has increased.
> 
> "The effect of that is that we can get very warm years now without one of the factors that can contribute to warmth being in place, and that is El Nino conditions. I think that is actually quite significant. "


Weather News - Australia breaks hottest summer record

and no El Nino in the picture...Enso neutral.



> The bureau says the previous hottest summer - measured by average day and night figures from across the nation - was in 1997-98.


and that WAS an exceptional El Nino outlier year - to surpass that in a neutral year!!! :yikes: ouch

New categories added to the extreme heat scale as well 52 and 54 degrees.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I thought the same thing yesterday when I read the post. However, not having read the paper, I didn't comment.


I read only the summary of the article at Ars Technica, as I had neither the time nor the expertise in isotopic chemistry to read the whole article myself.. I understand your confusion, and I think the problem is that there are several confounding effects being analyzed. Here is the abstract of the paper; I'll try to work through the whole thing this week and see if I can grasp the details of the science.



> Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Weather News - Australia breaks hottest summer record
> 
> and no El Nino in the picture...Enso neutral.
> 
> and that WAS an exceptional El Nino outlier year - to surpass that in a neutral year!!! :yikes: ouch
> 
> New categories added to the extreme heat scale as well 52 and 54 degrees.


What twaddle...

First off, where's the connect with AGW?

Second, 3 of the hottest nine years occurred in non El Nino years. That's fully a 33% chance that a record year occurred during a neutral ENSO year, hardly inestimable odds.

Third, they added new colours to the temp map that they never ended up using. So what? That's like putting a 300 mph speedometer on your scooter. It may look real pretty but it means bugger all in the big picture...


----------



## Macfury

Oz has seen the hottest temperchures in A HUNDRED years, me lads. Me bush kangaroo is gettin' the heebie-jeebies.



> ... but the bureau says average national summer rainfall was at a nine-year low.


No cooling rains and temperatures incrementally warmer than... many other summers. Simply astounding, because record temperatures aren't allowed to occur in modern times.

I remember, MacDoc, that you were crying that Australian temperatures had ALREADY hit 54, when they had only changed the colours on the map.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Volcanic Aerosols, Not Pollutants, Tamped Down Recent Earth Warming*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder indicates emissions from moderate volcanoes around the world like the Augustine Volcano in Alaska, shown here, can mask some of the effects of global warming. (Credit: Image courtesy U.S. Geological Survey)
> 
> Mar. 1, 2013 — A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder looking for clues about why Earth did not warm as much as scientists expected between 2000 and 2010 now thinks the culprits are hiding in plain sight -- dozens of volcanoes spewing sulfur dioxide.
> 
> The study results essentially exonerate Asia, including India and China, two countries that are estimated to have increased their industrial sulfur dioxide emissions by about 60 percent from 2000 to 2010 through coal burning, said lead study author Ryan Neely, who led the research as part of his CU-Boulder doctoral thesis. Small amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth's surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the planet.
> 
> Neely said previous observations suggest that increases in stratospheric aerosols since 2000 have counterbalanced as much as 25 percent of the warming scientists blame on human greenhouse gas emissions. "This new study indicates it is emissions from small to moderate volcanoes that have been slowing the warming of the planet," said Neely, a researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, a joint venture of CU-Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> A paper on the subject was published online in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Co-authors include Professors Brian Toon and Jeffrey Thayer from CU-Boulder; Susan Solomon, a former NOAA scientist now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Jean Paul Vernier from NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.; Catherine Alvarez, Karen Rosenlof and John Daniel from NOAA; and Jason English, Michael Mills and Charles Bardeen from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.
> 
> The new project was undertaken in part to resolve conflicting results of two recent studies on the origins of the sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, including a 2009 study led by the late David Hoffman of NOAA indicating aerosol increases in the stratosphere may have come from rising emissions of sulfur dioxide from India and China. In contrast, a 2011 study led by Vernier -- who also provided essential observation data for the new GRL study -- showed moderate volcanic eruptions play a role in increasing particulates in the stratosphere, Neely said.
> 
> The new GRL study also builds on a 2011 study led by Solomon showing stratospheric aerosols offset about a quarter of the greenhouse effect warming on Earth during the past decade, said Neely, also a postdoctoral fellow in NCAR's Advanced Study Program.
> 
> The new study relies on long-term measurements of changes in the stratospheric aerosol layer's "optical depth," which is a measure of transparency, said Neely. Since 2000, the optical depth in the stratospheric aerosol layer has increased by about 4 to 7 percent, meaning it is slightly more opaque now than in previous years.
> 
> "The biggest implication here is that scientists need to pay more attention to small and moderate volcanic eruptions when trying to understand changes in Earth's climate," said Toon of CU-Boulder's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. "But overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect. Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gas emissions from human activity just continue to go up."
> 
> The key to the new results was the combined use of two sophisticated computer models, including the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, or WACCM, Version 3, developed by NCAR and which is widely used around the world by scientists to study the atmosphere. The team coupled WACCM with a second model, the Community Aerosol and Radiation Model for Atmosphere, or CARMA, which allows researchers to calculate properties of specific aerosols and which has been under development by a team led by Toon for the past several decades.
> 
> Neely said the team used the Janus supercomputer on campus to conduct seven computer "runs," each simulating 10 years of atmospheric activity tied to both coal-burning activities in Asia and to emissions by volcanoes around the world. Each run took about a week of computer time using 192 processors, allowing the team to separate coal-burning pollution in Asia from aerosol contributions from moderate, global volcanic eruptions. The project would have taken a single computer processor roughly 25 years to complete, said Neely.
> 
> The scientists said 10-year climate data sets like the one gathered for the new study are not long enough to determine climate change trends. "This paper addresses a question of immediate relevance to our understanding of the human impact on climate," said Neely. "It should interest those examining the sources of decadal climate variability, the global impact of local pollution and the role of volcanoes."
> 
> While small and moderate volcanoes mask some of the human-caused warming of the planet, larger volcanoes can have a much bigger effect, said Toon. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it emitted millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere that cooled Earth slightly for the next several years.
> 
> The research for the new study was funded in part through a NOAA/ ESRL-CIRES Graduate Fellowship to Neely. The National Science Foundation and NASA also provided funding for the research project. The Janus supercomputer is supported by NSF and CU-Boulder and is a joint effort of CU-Boulder, CU Denver and NCAR.


Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming


----------



## Macfury

How is this different from saying that volcanic emissions shield the planet from the sun?


----------



## eMacMan

Concisely put together. Worth the 12 minutes it tales to watch.

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic’s Case


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Volcanic aerosols, not pollutants, tamped down recent Earth warming


So, lemme git this straight...

Results based on models based on results based on models. Is that the thrust?


----------



## FeXL

So, about that global cooling during the 70's...

The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today



> During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause.
> 
> Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls. This media hype was found in newspapers, magazines, books and on television;


From the comments:



> It’s amazing how the solutions to global cooling are almost identical to the solutions for global warming.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Just a wee bit more on that Australian summer (which, BTW, was WEATHER, not CLIMATE)...

Not the hottest ever summer for most Australians in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Not “extreme” heatwaves either.



> There is no denying it was hot in some parts of Australia this summer, and may have been extreme, though that is certainly not true for the parts where most Australians live. But whether the nation as a whole experienced record heat depends on how its measured, and as I’ll post tomorrow, the “average” of a whole continent can be measured many different ways with many different data-sets.
> 
> Why is the BOM seeking headlines and declaring records, when the data-set and methods are so unfinished they have not been released publicly? (Plenty of errors and flaws and mysterious adjustments have been found in past sets.) Why is the BOM focused on one season, or a few weeks of heat, when it’s only the long term trends that matter (as they remind us whenever it’s cold)? Why won’t the BOM announce how temperatures are averaged and measured before they announce the records?
> 
> Why are the BOM seeding the idea that this summer “felt” hot to Australians when it’s not just unscientific, but incorrect?
> 
> Why do they focus on one hot day in Moomba, when the records there are so short they would have missed all the previous hot spells? Those previous hot spells broke the Moomba records over and over and a long time ago.
> 
> In the end, even if it was a record hot summer, that doesn’t mean CO2 caused any of it. The world has been warming for 300 years. The world has been warmer before. None of that was connected to CO2 levels.


Why, indeed...


----------



## iMouse

Some thread statistics.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Just a wee bit more on that Australian summer (which, BTW, was WEATHER, not CLIMATE)...
> 
> Not the hottest ever summer for most Australians in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Not “extreme” heatwaves either.


Much of this is about perception. I recently read some articles written in the 1950s, in which people were positing that the "extreme" weather they were facing may be caused by nuclear testing.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting discussion of CO2 levels.

Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural Sources



> The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre discovers another Mannian "trick"...

Mike’s AGU Trick



> In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the illustration in Mann’s AGU presentation, an illustration that gave an entirely different impression than the figure in the IPCC draft report. The reason for the difference can be traced to what I’ve termed here as “Mike’s AGU Trick”.


Further:



> There were two components to Mann’s AGU trick. First, as in Mann and Kump, Mann compared model projections for land-and-ocean to observations for land-only. In addition, like Santer et al 2008, Mann failed to incorporate up-to-date data for his comparison. The staleness of Mann’s temperature data in his AGU presentation was really quite remarkable: the temperature data in Mann’s presentation (December 2012) ended in *2005!* Obviously, in the past (notably MBH98 and MBH99), Mann used the most recent (even monthly data) when it was to his advantage. So the failure to use up-to-date data in his AGU presentation is really quite conspicuous.


Bold from the link.

Some lovely cherry-picking going on there...


----------



## FeXL

Lots of good information on the NAO & AO, as well as the impact of solar minimums.

Impressive negative NAO and AO producing hemispheric cold…links to solar



> The AO and NAO has been predominantly negative this winter continuing a trend sine the 1990s. It has produced a brutal winter in Russia, especially Siberia into northern and sometimes central China with cold spells and snow in Europe and the United States.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Australian heat & methodology for the "hottest" ever record.

Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records

The problem stems from a paucity of long term weather stations and a further shortage of weather stations in areas not arranged around the perimeter of the continent where most of the population resides.



> The new “area daily average” comes from 700-800 records which sounds impressive. But as far as the independent audit team can tell, more than half of these have been operating for only 30 to 50 years. Our last major heatwave was 1939, not 1972, so many of those thermometers weren’t even recording temperatures the last time Australia got seriously hot.
> 
> *How many thermometers have 100 year records? Just 16.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on Australian heat & methodology for the "hottest" ever record.


Even if they had plenty of 100-year thermometers and these were not affected by the expansion of urban heat islands, what is so remarkable about a record being set?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> ...what is so remarkable about a record being set?


Because it's "proof"...


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale addresses (at length) the upcoming NCADAC Climate Assessment Report. Good read.

Blog Memo to Lead Authors of NCADAC Climate Assessment Report



> The draft of your upcoming NCADAC Climate Assessment Report was recently released for comment. Thank you for the time, effort and taxpayer dollars you’ve expended preparing that document. Unfortunately, in many parts, it appears simply to be a rehashing of your previous reports. And it contains numerous problems and inconsistencies.


----------



## FeXL

Some philosophy in your climate debate?

Categorical Thinking and The Climate Debate



> We often hear this disconnect in the climate debate: sceptic Joe says “human impacts are small and likely not harmful”; alarmist Arthur says “humans are affecting the climate, therefore we must act now”. It is not possible to get the alarmist to answer the claim of the skeptic that the impacts are likely to be small. I believe the disconnect results because the alarmist is using categorical thinking. In this mode, if something is bad, it is bad. Water is either clean or not clean. Forest is either wilderness or it is defiled. This conversation cannot progress because the world views of the sceptic and the alarmist are incompatible. The words they use do not mean the same thing. If the sceptic admits we are having a small impact on climate, the alarmist says “aha! You see? We are doomed!” This is not a conversation.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Another paper showing GCM's exaggerate warming.

Inter-model variability and mechanism attribution of central and southeastern U.S. anomalous cooling in the 20th century as simulated by CMIP5 models

Abstract.



> Some parts of the U.S., especially the southeastern and central portion, cooled by up to 2°C during the 20th century, while the global mean temperature rose by 0.6 °C (0.76 °C from 1901-2006). Studies have suggested that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) may be responsible for this cooling, termed “warming hole (WH)”, while other works reported that regional scale processes like the low-level jet and evapotranspiration contribute to the abnormity. In phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), only a few of 53 simulations could reproduce the cooling. This study analyzes newly available simulations in CMIP5 (phase 5 of CMIP) experiments from 28 models, totaling 175 ensemble members. We found that (i) *only 19 out of 100 all-forcing historical ensemble members simulated negative temperature trend (cooling) over the southeast U.S. with 99 members under-predicting the cooling rate in the region,* (ii) the missing of cooling in the models is likely due to the poor performance in simulating the spatial pattern of the cooling rather than the temporal variation, as indicated by a larger temporal correlation coefficient than spatial one between the observation and simulations. (iii) *the simulations with greenhouse gases (GHG) forcing only produced strong warming in the central U.S. that may have compensated the cooling,* and (iv) the all-forcing historical experiment compared with the natural-forcing-only experiment showed a well-defined WH in the central U.S., suggesting that land surface processes, among others, could contributed to the cooling in the 20th century.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "unprecedented" warming.

Late Holocene climate and environmental changes in Kamchatka inferred from the subfossil chironomid record

Abstract.



> This study presents a reconstruction of the Late Holocene climate in Kamchatka based on chironomid remains from a 332 cm long composite sediment core recovered from Dvuyurtochnoe Lake (Two-Yurts Lake, TYL) in central Kamchatka. The oldest recovered sediments date to about 4500 cal years BP. Chironomid head capsules from TYL reflect a rich and diverse fauna. An unknown morphotype of Tanytarsini, Tanytarsus type klein, was found in the lake sediments. Our analysis reveals four chironomid assemblage zones reflecting four different climatic periods in the Late Holocene. *Between 4500 and 4000 cal years BP, the chironomid composition indicates a high lake level, well-oxygenated lake water conditions and close to modern temperatures (∼13 °C). From 4000 to 1000 cal years BP, two consecutive warm intervals were recorded, with the highest reconstructed temperature reaching 16.8 °C between 3700 and 2800 cal years BP. Cooling trend, started around 1100 cal years BP led to low temperatures during the last stage of the Holocene.* Comparison with other regional studies has shown that termination of cooling at the beginning of late Holocene is relatively synchronous in central Kamchatka, South Kurile, Bering and Japanese Islands and take place around 3700 cal years BP. From ca 3700 cal years BP to the last millennium, a newly strengthened climate continentality accompanied by general warming trend with minor cool excursions led to apparent spatial heterogeneity of climatic patterns in the region. Some timing differences in climatic changes reconstructed from chironomid record of TYL sediments and late Holocene events reconstructed from other sites and other proxies might be linked to differences in local forcing mechanisms or caused by the different degree of dating precision, the different temporal resolution, and the different sensitive responses of climate proxies to the climate variations. Further high-resolution stratigraphic studies in this region are needed to understand the spatially complex pattern of climate change in Holocene in Kamchatka and the surrounding region.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

On the definition of "stalled" global warming.

Has Global Warming Stalled? (Now Includes January Data)



> In order to answer the question in the title, we need to know what time period is a reasonable period to take into consideration. As well, we need to know exactly what we mean by “stalled”. For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 in order to be able to claim that global warming has stalled? Or do we mean that there has to be a lack of “significant” warming over a given period? With regards to what a suitable time period is, NOAA says the following:
> 
> _”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” To verify this for yourself, see page 23 here​_
> Below, we will present you with just the facts and then you can decide whether or not global warming has stalled in a statistically significant manner.


----------



## FeXL

Warmists furnish tailor-made responses a la Al Gore and John Cook to SPAM comment sections... <shakes head>

Lucia drops some reality on the Gorebots – Update: The astroturfing is from Skeptical Science



> The Money Quote from Press Room | Climate Reality (see Feb 28th release):
> 
> _*Developed through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science*, Reality Drop curates hundreds of online news articles daily for articles that demand a response—whether it’s a misleading quote from a climate denier or a heated debate raging in the comments section._​
> So, it seems John Cook is not only in the conspiracy theory business, but also now in the comment spamming business for websites worldwide. Not only that, but it appears they were trying to involve the Met Office through a “Special Thanks” statement, though the Met Office says they’d _never heard of it._


----------



## FeXL

Further on solar cycles. Interesting back & forth in the comments on predictability.

How long to the 24/25 solar minimum?



> Climate has real world consequences, and those operating in fields that will be affected by changing climate bring a different perspective to the problem of predicting what will happen. Bill Fordham, advising the grain industry in the Midwest, kindly sent me a copy of the advice he provides to his clients.


----------



## FeXL

Observations on Scientific American.

The ScAm Gets Worse—An Open Letter To Bora Zivkovic



> I know, I know, like many people I didn’t think it was possible for Scientific American magazine to sink any lower. I loved Scientific American as a kid, the “Amateur Scientist” column was a godsend on the ranch. But then, slowly your magazine morphed, first into less-science, then non-science, then non-sense, and then finally anti-science. I (like many people) quit reading the magazine years ago. Your hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg, for example, was disgraceful. For me these days Scientific American is known by its shortened name, ScAm.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Alaska being the canary in the coal mine.

‘Ground Zero for Global Warming’? State of Alaska temperatures in 2012 refused to cooperate



> *The mean average annual temperature in 2012 for the twenty stations was 30.0°F, a substantial negative departure of 2.9°F from the 30-year normal of 32.9°F.*
> 
> This is in stark contrast to the lower 48 states where record high temperatures were observed. There was only one station with a positive deviation, specifically Barrow in Northern Alaska with a deviation of +1.3°F, continuing the trend of warming observed on the North Slope over the last decades (Wendler, Shulski and Moore 2010). All other stations were below normal, continuing the cooling trend of Alaska seen in the 21st century (Wendler, Chen and Moore 2012). The largest negative deviations were observed in the Bering Sea area, with both Bethel and King Salmon reporting a deviation of -5.0°F, a very substantial value for the extent an entire year.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

One more on solar cycles.

February solar data shows the Sun to still be slumping – but NASA says ‘twin peaks’ may happen



> The data from SWPC is in, and it is lethargic at best. Sunspot numbers took a hit, down to about 42, a delta of ~50 lower compared to the red prediction line.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

100% of models indicate a wet/dry California in 2060.

The key role of heavy precipitation events in climate model disagreements of future annual precipitation changes in California

Abstract.



> Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change. This disagreement is explored in terms of daily precipitation frequency and intensity. It is found that divergent model projections of changes in the incidence of rare heavy (> 60 mm/day) daily precipitation events explain much of the model disagreement on annual timescales, yet represent only 0.3% of precipitating days and 9% of annual precipitation volume. Of the 25 downscaled model projections we examine, 21 agree that precipitation frequency will decrease by the 2060s, with a mean reduction of 6-14 days/year. This reduces California’s mean annual precipitation by about 5.7%. Partly offsetting this, 16 of the 25 projections agree that daily precipitation intensity will increase, which accounts for a model average 5.3% increase in annual precipitation. *Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter.* These results are obtained from sixteen global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods (WRF, RSM, and RegCM3) and statistical methods (BCSD and BCCA), although not all downscaling methods were applied to each global model. Model disagreements in the projected change in occurrence of the heaviest precipitation days (> 60 mm/day) account for the majority of disagreement in the projected change in annual precipitation, and occur preferentially over the Sierra Nevada and Northern California. When such events are excluded, nearly twice as many projections show drier future conditions.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been fair speculation as to whether current marine genera would be affected by the movement of pH towards neutral, as in less basic, caused by higher CO2 concentrations. I've posted a few links in the past to articles addressing the topic. Here is one more.


Sea anemones may thrive in a high CO2 world

Abstract.



> Increased seawater pCO2, and in turn ‘ocean acidification’ (OA), is predicted to profoundly impact marine ecosystem diversity and function this century. Much research has already focussed on calcifying reef-forming corals (Class: Anthozoa) that appear particularly susceptible to OA via reduced net calcification. However, here we show that OA-like conditions can simultaneously enhance the ecological success of non-calcifying anthozoans, which not only play key ecological and biogeochemical roles in present day benthic ecosystems but also represent a model organism should calcifying anthozoans exist as less calcified (soft-bodied) forms in future oceans. *Increased growth (abundance and size) of the sea anemone (Anemonia viridis) population was observed along a natural CO2 gradient at Vulcano, Italy. Both gross photosynthesis (PG) and respiration (R) increased with pCO2 indicating that the increased growth was, at least in part, fuelled by bottom up (CO2 stimulation) of metabolism.* The increase of PG outweighed that of R and the genetic identity of the symbiotic microalgae (Symbiodinium spp.) remained unchanged (type A19) suggesting proximity to the vent site relieved CO2 limitation of the anemones' symbiotic microalgal population. Our observations of enhanced productivity with pCO2, which are consistent with previous reports for some calcifying corals, convey an increase in fitness that may enable non-calcifying anthozoans to thrive in future environments, i.e. higher seawater pCO2. Understanding how CO2-enhanced productivity of non- (and less-) calcifying anthozoans applies more widely to tropical ecosystems is a priority where such organisms can dominate benthic ecosystems, in particular following localized anthropogenic stress.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little blurb about Tim Flannery, Chief Climate Commissioner of Australia.


Tim Flannery: We predicted everything. There is no “pause in global warming.



> The three main Archaean cratons of Australia formed the greater Australian land mass around 2 billion B.C. We started recording the temperature about 1,999,999,850 years later (give or take a few hundred million years). At best, we have 150 years of temperature records. Most of our thermometers have only been recording for 50 years (many for less). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) dominates our climate and one cycle of the PDO is about 60 years long. What part of that suggests we have the data to pronounce that events are extraordinary and outside of “normal”? Which part suggests we can calculate the odds to 2 decimal places? Who is kidding who here?
> 
> What’s the standard error on our flood record?


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm... Very interesting story about Hansen's early work & the CIA.

How CIA Evidence Exposes the Greatest Climate Change Error



> When contrasting and comparing the CIA study from 1974 with the 'science' of NASA's lead climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, a mere seven years later (1981), we see a very abrupt and inexplicable switch around from fears of global cooling and no mention of any 'greenhouse gas effect' (GHE) to a scenario of runaway global warming all attributed to a human-accelerated 'greenhouse gas effect.' [3]
> 
> Hansen's dominant position as a leader of the “hot earth” alarmists was achieved after an inexplicable flip flop in intellectual reasoning by Hansen over the roles of dust particles and carbon dioxide. For the earlier part of his career Hansen was touting concerns over dust and aerosol pollution and never made any link with CO2 and the GHE. Most scientists at that time held the view that from at least 1950 no credence was given to the long-discredited GHE as disproved independently by Swedish physicist, Knut Johan Ångström and American professor, R W Woods. What marked Hansen out from the crowd was his belief that an increase in dust particles (not carbon dioxide) could generate a 'greenhouse effect.'


----------



## bryanc

A couple of you asked reasonable questions regarding the recent Science paper showing that the apparent 4-800 year lag of atmospheric CO2 (aCO2) behind increases in atmospheric temperature (AT) was due to incorrect estimation of the depth of gas mixing in snow packs forming the ice.

I've now gone through the paper and think I understand it better, but I'd be hard pressed to explain all the subtle physical and chemical complexities arising from reading isotopic data from ice cores. I have the PDF, so any one who can't access the data can PM me with an email address and I'll be happy to send it.

But the punchline is:


> Our chronology and the resulting aCO2-AT phasing strengthens the hypothesis that there was a close coupling between aCO2 and AT on both orbital and millennial time scales. The aCO2 rise could contribute to much of the AT change during TI, even at its onset, accounting for positive feedbacks and polar amplification (21), which magnify the impact of the relatively weak rCO2 change (Fig. 4) that alone accounts for ~0.6°C of global warming during TI (21).


----------



## iMouse

Now yer talkin' FeXL language.

I can't wait to not see his response to this one.

:lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

I'm not even sure why that lag is an issue....C02 is a feedback under that scenario not a forcing as it is now.



> *CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System*
> 
> A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.
> 
> _It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks._
> 
> In the geologic past, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases acted primarily as feedbacks to external climate forcings.
> 
> Our current and basically unprecedented experience is that we as humans are directly emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that affect climate change.
> 
> That distinction – greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks – is critical in understanding the behavior of these gases in the paleoclimatic and present periods.


CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

•••••

nothing to see here












> *Guide to a Sizzling Planet*
> 
> Not everyone is a pessimist when it comes to predicting the impact of climate change. Too bad the optimists aren’t nearly as convincing.


New Books on Climate Change: 'Overheated' and 'A New World')


----------



## bryanc

*It seems Mann, et al were not quite right...*

The hockey stick was close, but not quite right; it has a much longer handle. Here's a link to the paper in the current issue of _Science_.



Marcott said:


> Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.


----------



## bryanc

Apparently that bastion of leftist ideology and radical environmentalism, the World Bank, is starting to panic about ACC.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Apparently that bastion of leftist ideology and radical environmentalism, the World Bank, is starting to panic about ACC.


Not exactly. Someone says the World Bank is panicking about the result of some model that predicts some dire consequences.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Now yer talkin' FeXL language.
> 
> I can't wait to not see his response to this one.
> 
> :lmao:


What's really funny about this whole situation, mouse, is that you accused me of something, I asked for verification & your immediate response was to put me on ignore. Typical reaction when you ain't got nuttin' in the first place. Feel free to prove me wrong, however...

As to my response, there won't be one until I read the paper. Without that, everything is out of context & means nothing.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> I'm not even sure why that lag is an issue....C02 is a feedback under that scenario not a forcing as it is now.


Quote from the article MacDoc linked to:



> *The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations …*


Bold mine.

Did you read this article in its entirety before you linked to it?

Old Sol is the main driver, _not_ CO2? Since when did you start endorsing this position?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The hockey stick was close, but not quite right; it has a much longer handle.


Surely you don't believe that Mann's Hockey Stick had any validity, whatsoever...

Seeing as the topic was brought up, let's take a closer look at that Marcott _et al_ paper. The paper makes some remarkable claims, but the main thrust is that temps of the past 10 years are greater than 72-85% of the Holocene (the last 12,000 years or so).

Validity of “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”



> The paper consists entirely of complicated computer manipulations of data (definitely not light reading for anyone but computer modelers) and conclusions. As Andy Revkin (Dot Earth) points out, *“This work is complicated, involving lots of statistical methods in extrapolating from scattered sites to a global picture, which means that there’s abundant uncertainty.”*


Bold from the link.

Further, and of the utmost importance:



> *If a hypothesis (conclusion) disagrees with observations or experiments, it is wrong. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful the hypothesis (conclusion) is, how smart the author is, or what the author’s name is, if it disagrees with data, experiments, or observations, it is wrong. *


Bold from the link.

OK, ground rule established, what does Easterbrook have to say...



> First, let’s test the Marcott et al. 11,300 year temperature curve against the GISP2 Greenland ice core oxygen isotope record (Alley, 2000) (Figure 1 below). The Greenland ice core data is widely considered to be the ‘gold standard’ of quantitative paleo-temperature measurements with thousands of accurately dated analyses covering many thousands of years. *From the Alley (2000) curve, it is readily apparent that temperatures during virtually all of the period from 10,000 to 1,500 years ago were warmer than at present and 85% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than present.* The curve extends to 95 years ago, but even if we add 0.7°C for warming over the past century (dashed line), temperatures were still dominantly warmer than present.


Bold from the link.

More:



> The Marcott et al. conclusion is totally at odds with the Greenland ice core data. But why should we believe the ice core data rather than the Marcott et al. computer generated curve? Well, the ice core curve is based on thousands of isotope measurements that reflect paleotemperatures and the chronology is accurate to within about 1-3 years, whereas the Marcott et al. curve is essentially based on computer-manipulated data with multiple data types using different technologies with varying accuracy and chronology accurate only within hundreds of years.


And that's just the start. More forthcoming.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale has a lengthy article on ocean heat data, missing humps and XX) models.

Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?



> Ocean Heat Content data represents the heat stored of the oceans to specified depths. As such, it is an important global warming metric. The Introduction to Levitus et al (2005) begins:
> 
> _Based on the physical properties and mass of the world ocean as compared to other components of Earth’s climate system, Rossby [1959] suggested that ocean heat content may be the dominant component of the variability of Earth’s heat balance._​


He sums:



> With all of the problems with the ocean heat content data, they still indicate the oceans warmed naturally. And the recent plateau was not anticipated by climate modelers, so there is a growing disparity between the ocean heat content observations and models.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models involved. Make of it what you will.

Quantification of the Greenland ice sheet contribution to Last Interglacial sea level rise

Abstract.



> *During the Last Interglacial period (~ 130–115 thousand years ago) the Arctic climate was warmer than today, and global mean sea level was probably more than 6.6 m higher.* However, there are large discrepancies in the estimated contributions to this sea level change from various sources (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller ice caps). Here, we determine probabilistically the likely contribution of Greenland ice sheet melt to Last Interglacial sea level rise, taking into account ice sheet model parametric uncertainty. We perform an ensemble of 500 Glimmer ice sheet model simulations forced with climatologies from the climate model HadCM3, and constrain the results with palaeodata from Greenland ice cores. Our results suggest a 90% probability that Greenland ice melt contributed at least 0.6 m, but less than 10% probability that it exceeded 3.5 m, a value which is lower than several recent estimates. Many of these previous estimates, however, did not include a full general circulation climate model that can capture atmospheric circulation and precipitation changes in response to changes in insolation forcing and orographic height. *Our combined modelling and palaeodata approach suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is less sensitive to orbital forcing than previously thought,* and it implicates Antarctic melt as providing a substantial contribution to Last Interglacial sea level rise. Future work should assess additional uncertainty due to inclusion of basal sliding and the direct effect of insolation on surface melt. In addition, the effect of uncertainty arising from climate model structural design should be taken into account by performing a multi-climate-model comparison.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol's influence.

Sun reveals its full climate power: Equator-pole temperature gradient fluctuates in sync with the sun



> The geological factual basis is clear: Fluctuations in solar activity significantly influenced the development of the climate throughout the history of the Earth.


Refers to a paper by Soon & Legates.
Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales

Abstract.



> *Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG).* Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation. Physical bases for the TSI-EPTG relationship are discussed with respect to their connections with large-scale climate dynamics, especially a critical relationship with the total meridional poleward energy transport. *Overall, evidence suggests that a net increase in the TSI, or in the projected solar insolation gradient which reflects any net increase in solar radiation, has caused an increase in both oceanic and atmospheric heat transport to the Arctic in the warm period since the 1970s, resulting in a reduced temperature gradient between the Equator and the Arctic.* We suggest that this new interpretative framework, which involves the extrinsic modulation of the total meridional energy flux beyond the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes Compensation rule, may lead to a better understanding of how global and regional climate has varied through the Holocene and even the Quaternary (the most recent 2.6 million years of Earth's history). Similarly, a reassessment is now required of the underlying mechanisms that may have governed the equable climate dynamics of the Eocene (35–55 million years ago) and late Cretaceous (65–100 million years ago), both of which were warm geological epochs. *This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the “missing link” that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

More smoking Hockey Sticks.

Another Hockey Stick Smoking Gun



> The hockey stick shows a sudden unprecedented warming starting about 150 years ago, which is implicitly blamed on humans.
> 
> ...
> 
> The only problem is – nothing humans did 150 years ago could have caused this. CO2 didn’t start rapidly rising until much later. Phil Jones has attributed the 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 warming to natural causes, like the sun.
> 
> ...
> 
> Jones says that most of the rise since 1860 was due to natural causes – which can mean only one of two things
> 
> 1. Something radically changed in the climate system around 150 years ago.
> 2. The hockey stick temperature reconstruction is garbage
> 
> The first possibility is absurd, which leaves only #2 – the hockey stick is garbage. There is no reason to believe that the last third of the warming is any different than the first two thirds.


Smoking Gun That The New Hockey Stick Is Junk Science



> Ten thousand years ago, most of Canada was covered with ice. This would have reflected most of the summer sunlight received there back into space, and would have had a huge cooling effect on the planet. The 1990 IPCC report correctly showed this, with temperatures about 4C cooler than the Holocene Maximum.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the new hockey stick shows temperatures 10,000 years ago within 0.1C of the Holocene Maximum. This is nonsensical and impossible.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper shows next IPCC report may project ~35% more global warming 



> Despite evidence that the IPCC models have greatly exaggerated global warming in comparison to observations showing no warming over the past 17 years, a paper published today in the Journal of Climate indicates that the latest generation of models for the next IPCC report will project more warming and sea ice loss than those of the last IPCC report. According to the authors, "Equilibrium climate sensitivity of [the latest models] is 4.10°C, which is higher than the [prior models] value of 3.20°C [an increase of 28%]. The transient climate response is 2.33°C, compared to the [prior models] value of 1.73°C [an increase of 35%]." However, multiple peer-reviewed studies with real-world observations demonstrate that climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated in these models by at least a factor of 10. In addition, multiple papers demonstrate the failure of climate models to predict known temperatures of the past, much less the future, as well as an inability to even agree on the sign of future precipitation, the effect of clouds, ocean oscillations, solar activity, winds, internal waves, land use changes, etc.


Yup.


----------



## MacDoc

The biome doesn't care what the deniers are smoking - they just deal with the changes that in progress.












> Global greening as plant life moves northwards
> 17:33 11 March 2013
> 
> Douglas Heaven, reporter
> (Image: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio)
> 
> Across the entire northern hemisphere, ice and snow are retreating in front of an invading green army as warmer climates turn once-freezing tundras into temperate shrublands.
> 
> A new analysis of satellite data collected since 1982 has revealed a vigorous increase in vegetation growth between the 45th parallel north and the Arctic Ocean over the past 30 years. Based on NASA's Vegetation Index, this map shows areas where plant growth has increased in green and blue and areas where it has decreased in orange and red. Green quite clearly wins.
> 
> Vegetation in these regions now covers 9 million square kilometres, roughly the size of the US and over a third of the 21 million square kilometres that were analysed. In many places,* the climate has shifted north by as much as 4 to 6 degrees of latitude and now resembles what was found 400 to 700 kilometres to the south in 1982*. The researchers predict that by the end of this century northern Sweden could get temperatures more common to southern France, making it warm enough to grow grapes.
> 
> But the global greening might be only temporary, with the future looking brown. If temperatures continue to rise there could be a greater risk of fires, pest infestations, and drought. Indeed, the march of the plants may already be slowing - the researchers report more vigorous growth between 1982 and 1992 than between 1992 and 2011.


Short Sharp Science: Global greening as plant life moves northwards


----------



## FeXL

On increasing frequency of heatwaves.

Historical Response of Heat Waves to Global Air Temperature

(from the PDF)



> Based on the criteria above, the three Chinese researchers report that over the course of their study period (1958-2007), their study area did indeed experience a mean annual warming trend, but with slight decreasing trends in spring and summer temperatures. They also say that extreme high temperature events showed a U-shaped temporal variation, decreasing in the 1970s and remaining low in the 1980s, followed by an increase in the 1990s and the 21st century, such that "the frequencies of HWs [heat wave] and LHWs [long heat wave] in the recent yeas were no larger than the late 1950s and early 1960s." In fact, they indicate that "coupled with the extreme low frequency in the 1980s, HWs and LHWs showed a slight linear decreasing trend in the past 50 years." Put another way, they say that the most recent frequency of heat waves "does not outnumber 1959 or 1961," and that "none of the longest heat waves recorded by the meteorological stations occurs in the period after 2003."


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The biome doesn't care what the deniers are smoking - they just deal with the changes that in progress.


1) That there has been a northward movement of plant life in the NH should come as a surprise to no one. After all, we only recently left the Little Ice Age (ended ~1850 AD). Temperatures rise after leaving an ice age behind, even a small one. No argument.

2) Where's the connect with AGW? Don't bother: ain't one...

3) From your link: "If temperatures continue to rise..." Therein, as they say, lies the rub. Global temps haven't seen a statistically significant rise in at least 16 years.

4) Also from your link: "...the researchers report more vigorous growth between 1982 and 1992 than between 1992 and 2011." Wait, see 3) above.

Keep on foundering, MD and, hey, you have a great day down under.


----------



## MacDoc

More crap from the usual suspects FX.....I guess you like being a shill......



> Heartland Institute — Listed as a "Global Warming Expert" by the Heartland Institute.
> 
> Cato Institute — Speaker at a Cato-sponsored event on global warming.
> 
> Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — "Contributor."
> 
> Independent Institute — On Institute's "Panel on Global Warming." [7]


John Christy | DeSmogBlog

and your does your hero worship of Spencer include his ID views???/ How cute?.....



> Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist. | The Way Things Break
> thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/.../yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationi...Jul 28, 2008 – [UPDATE: For those who are unaware, Roy Spencer is a vocal climate ... believes that Spencer is merely advocating the teaching of ID as a ..


Here's a good summary of your "science sources"



> *Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?
> By Joe Romm on May 22, 2008 at 11:52 am*
> 
> I don’t. But should you?
> You can’t read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it.
> But some of the more than 360 (!) comments in my recent post “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up the satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.
> 
> In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of this blog, let’s see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday:
> 
> *We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. *
> 
> They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
> 
> Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“).
> 
> I*n their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis.*
> 
> RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr. [Insert your editorial comment here, or here.]
> 
> As for Christy, what can you say about somebody who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that is/was funded by ExxonMobil?
> 
> In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:
> 
> There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.
> 
> Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.
> Christy is (mostly) a delayer these days, now that his denier disanalysis has been dissed and the real science is well verified by real observation.
> 
> Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.
> You go, judge!
> 
> In December 2003, Christy said in a debate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t see danger. I see, in some cases, adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee, at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and a more fertile atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> Restained glee. Yes, that’s going to be the reaction to widespread desertification, loss of the inland glaciers, sea level rise for century after century, mass extinction….
> 
> *So, if you have time to burn, and a planet to burn, these are the guys to listen to. Otherwise I’d look elsewhere*.
Click to expand...

lovely company you keep - keep swallowing their Koolaid...I hope you re getting paid for it.

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? | ThinkProgress


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> More crap from the usual suspects FX.....I guess you like being a shill......


Aw, c'mon. A shill? Is that all you got? Please, may I have another?



MacDoc said:


> and your does your hero worship of Spencer include his ID views???/ How cute?.....


No, MacDoc, the only hero I worship on these boards is you, big guy. :love2:

Just another ad hom, detracting from the argument. I don't know if Spencer believes in ID and, frankly, for the purposes of this discussion, I could care less. He could believe the moon is blue cheese & it wouldn't have a bearing on his climate expertise.

That said, surely I can't be the only one laughing uproariously at you using Romm (that last bastion of truth & honour on the subject) & Hoggan's DSB (a PR guy and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation) to rebut anything related to science.




MacDoc said:


> ...I hope you re getting paid for it.


As a matter of fact, I get paid about the same as most sceptics get paid: absolutely nuttin'.

The reward is burying warmist bull**** artists under mounds of empirical evidence, one coffin lid nail at a time...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models involved. Draw from it what you will.

Study: Black carbon aerosol forcing may be an important factor affecting the snow & ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere



> While this paper is based on a modeling of black carbon interaction with the atmosphere and albedo, the premise is fairly straightforward, and wouldn’t likely have as many variables as many long term climate models. I think it is worth considering because unlike some long term climate models, we also have observational feedback that suggests black carbon is a real problem. The good news is that is a much easier problem to solve as conventional pollution control is a mature technology.
> 
> In the recently published Fahey et al, from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where they did atmospheric sampling over a four year period, the lead author said, “This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of methane.”
> 
> Then there was Lau et al from NASA, another modeling study which suggests that Soot is having a big impact on Himalyan temperature – as much or more than GHG’s
> 
> This new paper from Lee and Kim says similar things using different methods.


----------



## FeXL

I'll bet his mom is proud...

Quote of the Week – blaming Nature for poor model performance



> The context of this quote is article on the bust of a forecast that was to be “snowquester”. You can cut the disappointment in the air with a steak knife. Achenbach muses:
> 
> _Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up._​
> I hope he escapes from his alternate reality soon, people must be looking for him.


----------



## FeXL

What's this?! Actual physics in a climate model? Who knew?

Statistical physics applied to climate modeling



> Scientists are using ever more complex models running on ever more powerful computers to simulate the earth’s climate. But new research suggests that basic physics could offer a simpler and more meaningful way to model key elements of climate.


----------



## FeXL

On Alaskan weather, not climate.

When Alaska Was Cold

He sums:



> PS—don’t bother telling me that weather is not climate … because that’s exactly what I’m pointing out, isn’t it. *My main issue is that if January 2012 in Alaska had been 14°F above the average, we’d never have heard the end of it … but 14°F below average attracted little notice at all.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on CO2 lagging behind temps.

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Abstract.



> Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. *We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.* The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

There's frequently screeching from the usual suspects about the Koch Bros finances. Interestingly enough, Weepy Bill McKibben and 350.org apparently has stalwart financial support behind him...

McKibben’s 350.org exposed - Rockefellers behind ‘scruffy little outfit’



> The next time McKibben pens an article or gives a speech, he should acknowledge the US$10-million that his campaigns have received from the Rockefellers, the Schumann Center and other sources.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Surely you don't believe that Mann's Hockey Stick had any validity, whatsoever...


I believe the climatologists know what they're doing, and their data lines up with Mann's quite nicely.



> Bold from the link.


Link from a blog; irrelevant in a scientific discussion.



> More forthcoming.


More links from blogs ignored. More links to scientific research that do not dispute ACC noted.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I believe the climatologists know what they're doing, and their data lines up with Mann's quite nicely.
> 
> 
> Link from a blog; irrelevant in a scientific discussion.
> 
> 
> More links from blogs ignored. More links to scientific research that do not dispute ACC noted.


Only irrelevant if wrong. Get off your not very-high horse once in awhile!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Only irrelevant if wrong. Get off your not very-high horse once in awhile!


Who's on their high horse; I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't do the analysis to determine if most of this stuff is valid or not - it's not my field. I've been trying to get you deniers to admit your limitations in this regard for years. You don't know if these criticisms are valid any more than I do. You're not a climatologist.

The real scientist publish their findings in the most rigorously reviewed scientific journals; that's how science works. Peer-review, not blog posts, is the quality control process. If you want to criticize this stuff, go and spend a decade or two earning the credentials that will separate your opinion from the ravings of a crazy guy on the street. If you've got the CPU power, you can earn the degrees. But until you do, your opinion on these technical issues isn't worth squat.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Who's on their high horse; I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't do the analysis to determine if most of this stuff is valid or not - it's not my field. I've been trying to get you deniers to admit your limitations in this regard for years. .


bryanc, we have accepted your self-admitted lack of ability to enter the discussion on this basis many times now. Are you making yet another public confession?


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> But until you do, your opinion on these technical issues isn't worth squat.


Ouch!! :clap:


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> bryanc, we have accepted your self-admitted lack of ability to enter the discussion on this basis many times now. Are you making yet another public confession?


Funny, his lack of expertise doesn't seem to slow him down from posting constantly in the religion thread and he doesn't seem to take issues with misinformed comments posted by his fellow evangelical atheists either.
I think as long as you agree with Bryan your opinion is "relevant".


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Funny, his lack of expertise doesn't seem to slow him down from posting constantly in the religion thread and he doesn't seem to take issues with misinformed comments posted by his fellow evangelical atheists either.
> I think as long as you agree with Bryan your opinion is "relevant".


You need to agree with either him or the priest clan ceremony of "peer review" in which they buck each other up before declaring themselves infallible.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Are you making yet another public confession?


No, I'm making a public accusation; *you* don't know what you're talking about. *You* don't have the expertise to analyze the data, and _*you*_ don't have the common sense to recognize that a blog post is not scientifically credible.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Funny, his lack of expertise doesn't seem to slow him down from posting constantly in the religion thread


I have considerable expertise on the topic of religion and philosophy*, as I have previously explained. Furthermore, these topics are generally not nearly so technically complex, so it does not require the same level of expertise to formulate a rational opinion. Finally, with respect to the technically complex details of specific theologies, I admit my ignorance and refrain from discussing those details.

(edit to add: * as part of my minor in Philosophy I completed the following courses: Western Religious Thought, Comparative Religion, Eastern Religions, two courses in Epistemology, and one course in Metaphysics. I also took two courses in Philosophy of Mind, two courses in Ethics, an advanced course in Symbolic Logic, and one on the philosophy of aesthetics, but they are less relevant).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, I'm making a public accusation; *you* don't know what you're talking about. *You* don't have the expertise to analyze the data, and _*you*_ don't have the common sense to recognize that a blog post is not scientifically credible.


_You_ have admitted it, bryanc. I'm perfectly capable.

And simply because a blog post has not been blessed by the peer review priest clan does not make it either wrong or irrelevant. It isn't the 1950s anymore, and the ivy covered walls have long fallen down.

I will defer to you regarding any matter involving zebrafish embryos--unless you are caught manipulating data.


----------



## iMouse

Bryan, take your pick.

Not being a biblical scholar, I just discovered the last one, but it might be handy in the Religion thread.



> Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. —Greg King
> 
> Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain
> 
> Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. —Proverbs 26:4 (King James version)


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I believe the climatologists know what they're doing, and their data lines up with Mann's quite nicely.


Well, in that case (and seeing as you're such a big fan of "consensus" science), here's a link to a database containing links to 1150 scientists from 663 research institutions in 46 countries who have published papers contending that there was a MWP, it was worldwide in extent and the temps were as warm as or warmer than today, contrary to the graph in the Marcott _et al_ paper.

In addition, Mann's Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked by multiple studies. Therefore, if this latest research lines up with his, then it's garbage, too.


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol & the CO2 lag.

Clear Solar Impact On Climate Shown By New Study – German Meteorologist Calls Parrenin et al Paper “The Latest Gag”



> Is CO2 the main driver behind climate?
> 
> Warmist scientists would have us believe it is. One recent European study claims that CO2 and temperature rose simultaneously at the end of the last ice age, implying CO2 is a real driver. However, one prominent German meteorologist dismissed it and bluntly called the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement study by Parrenin et al ”the latest gag“.
> 
> Now yet another new study published at Quaternary Science Reviews shows in no uncertain terms that the sun, the source of almost all of the Earth’s thermal energy, drives the climate and that the climate naturally swings in cycles.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al_.

For those of you who have not been following this, what it boils down to is they took 73 proxies for temperature over the last 11ky & recreated a new temp graph. Then for the last few dozens of years they spliced on thermometer data, much the same as Mann did to his treemometer work.

Even under the basest of examinations, the paper fails scrutiny. The biggest issue is the resolution of the proxies, the average of which is 160 years and the median 120. Imagine the past 120 years of thermometer data reduced to a single data point (the warmists would be screaming blue murder...). All the peaks & valleys flattened. This is why the MWP on the Marcott _et al_ graph is nearly nonexistent; it's 300 year extent is reduced to about 2 data points.

Read, learn. You don't need a PhD...

The Hockey Stick Resurrected By Marcott et al. 2012

Let’s play hockey – again

The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe….. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcott’s HS Blade ……. Mikey? What’s That About A Dagger?

A Simple Test of Marcott et al., 2013


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Even under the basest of examinations, the paper fails scrutiny.


Sounds like these bloggers should write a strongly worded letter to the Editor of Science. If the most prestigious and rigorously reviewed scientific journal in the world is publishing such obviously flawed studies, something is seriously wrong. Or, could it be that these bloggers either don't know what they're talking about, or are promoting a particular political agenda.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Sounds like these bloggers should write a strongly worded letter to the Editor of Science. If the most prestigious and rigorously reviewed scientific journal in the world is publishing such obviously flawed studies, something is seriously wrong. Or, could it be that these bloggers either don't know what they're talking about, or are promoting a particular political agenda.


Could be that _Science_ only peer-reviews the papers to ensure that they agree reasonable care was taken in the preparation of the paper. It doesn't attempt to duplicate their findings, or assess conclusions. 

Although the "Editor of Science" is a mystic, powerful figure in the halls of academia, in the real world--not so much.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Could be that _Science_ only peer-reviews the papers to ensure that they agree reasonable care was taken in the preparation of the paper. It doesn't attempt to duplicate their findings, or assess conclusions.


Nope; read the instructions to reviewers.


Science said:


> _Science_ seeks to publish those papers that are most influential in their fields and that will significantly advance scientific understanding. Selected papers should present novel and broadly important data, syntheses, or concepts. They should merit the recognition by the scientific community and general public provided by publication in Science, beyond that provided by specialty journals.


Conclusions are closely scrutinized, as are methodology, and data quality. You don't get published in Science because the reviewers said 'yeah, I guess that's okay.' The editorial board and the the reviewers have to be convinced that "this is a major advancement; a real breakthrough. It's done as well as anyone in the world could've done it, and their conclusions are absolutely supported by their data."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Although the "Editor of Science" is a mystic, powerful figure in the halls of academia, in the real world--not so much.


You're mixing up the meanings of words again; _Science_ deals with the real world. Global warming deniers -- not so much.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Further on Marcott _et al_.


PM me if you ever find anything published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to refute this work; I'll likely miss it in among all the blog posts here.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> PM me if you ever find anything published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that claims to refute this work; I'll likely miss it in among all the blog posts here.


Don't flatter yourself. Your opinion isn't that important to me...


----------



## bryanc

Of course not; I should've realized that someone who can't tell the difference between bloggers and scientists wouldn't be interested in an honest discussion of the facts.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...wouldn't be interested in an honest *discussion* of the facts.


Nice try. You established long ago you were not interested in discussing anything related to CAGW. It's "consensus". That don't leave much room for talk...


----------



## FeXL

Winter ranked # 4 snowiest, November to February #2 for the Northern Hemisphere!



> Rutger’s monthly snow data is in. November was 5th snowiest, December was the snowiest ever, January the 6th snowiest and February 16th snowiest. The winter as a whole was 4th snowiest.


And just before the screeching arrives about how the models predicted it...



> By the way, to counter the alarmist knee jerk claims that this is due to warm air which means more moisture which means more snow, here is the mean precipitable water for the northern hemisphere since February 1, when it turned snowy in the U.S. As you would expect when it gets cold, (necessary for snow), the amount of water vapor in the air drops. Blues are below normal, yellows and reds above.


----------



## FeXL

It’s Always Something (the 1924 edition)



> Drama queen scientists have been around for at least 89 years.


Yup. Probably longer.



> Scientists, as physicist Freeman Dyson has observed,
> 
> are neither saints nor devils but human beings sharing the common weaknesses of our species. [The Scientist as Rebel, p. 15]​
> Among these weaknesses is a propensity for drama. For some people, daily life isn’t exciting enough. Dwelling on potential disasters, claiming to be in possession of special and dreadful knowledge, adds a certain zing to their existence. It’s also a way of calling attention to themselves. Hey, Ma, look at me!


Yup.



> Such proclamations were not, said the newspaper, the ravings of an imbecile, but:
> 
> the firmest conviction of a group of *serious scientists of established reputation, who have devoted their lives to a dispassionate and careful examination of geological and astronomical evidence.*


Bold from the link.

Any of this sound familiar?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You established long ago you were not interested in discussing anything related to CAGW.


Rubbish. I established long ago that I'm not interested in the blathering of bloggers. If you've got real science to discuss I'm absolutely interested. But everything you've posted that purports to dispute ACC is either not peer-reviewed science, or doesn't actually dispute ACC. And I'm not interested in what you think may be catastrophic, I am interested in what people who have some expertise in the field think may or may not be catastrophic.

I don't see much about "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" in the scientific literature; I see a lot about "Anthropogenic Climate Change". I've never claimed there was any consensus among climatologists about CAGW, but that there is an extraordinary consensus about ACC. If you want to continue to whack away at your straw man, knock yourself out; just clean up when your done.


----------



## Macfury

There isn't even consensus on AGW, except to the degree that we accept the Butterfly Effect.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> There isn't even consensus on AGW


Let us know if you still believe this when you finish your degree in climatology.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Let us know if you still believe this when you finish your degree in climatology.


I'm not that interested... you have repeatedly self-disqualified yourself, regarding the value of your opinions on this matter.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm not that interested... you have repeatedly self-disqualified yourself, regarding the value of your opinions on this matter.


You seem to have a lot of difficulty with reading comprehension; I'm not qualified to analyze climatological data, this does not disqualify me from judging whether others are better qualified than I. You aren't.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You seem to have a lot of difficulty with reading comprehension; I'm not qualified to analyze climatological data, this does not disqualify me from judging wether others are better qualified than I. You aren't.


Clawback time?


----------



## minstrel

Language police here. I can't take this anymore. Its "whether", not "wether" (At least according to my high school English teacher and Oxford anyway). "Wether" concerns livestock, specifically sheep.

Sorry about that...carry on.


----------



## Macfury

minstrel said:


> Language police here. I can't take this anymore. Its "whether", not "wether" (At least according to my high school English teacher and Oxford anyway). "Wether" concerns livestock, specifically sheep.
> 
> Sorry about that...carry on.


Thank you, officer. I was champing (not chomping) at the bit over this one.


----------



## bryanc

minstrel said:


> Its "whether", not "wether"


Fixed; thanks.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al._

The Science of Deception



> There are, however, a number of problems with that assertion. First among them is the methodology used to generate the global temperature history and the comparison of proxy data with instrument data from recent times. *This may be science but it is being used to deceive the public into believing that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a crisis on an unprecedented scale.*


More:



> The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years,” they authors state. How did they compensate for differences in their datasets? *“We account for chronologic and proxy calibration uncertainties with a Monte Carlo–based randomization scheme.” they explain.*
> 
> “In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, *we also implemented the RegEM algorithm to statistically infill data gaps* in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which is particularly important over the past several centuries.” It seems that *their complete record of Holocene temperature contains a lot of gaps and uncertainties that have been filled with estimates and randomness.* Far from the conclusive record of global temperatures trumpeted by the media.


Further:



> *“Because the relatively low resolution and time-uncertainty of our data sets should generally suppress higher-frequency temperature variability,* an important question is whether the Holocene stack adequately represents centennial- or millennial-scale variability,” the authors confess. *What this means is that sudden excursions in temperature during times past would be totally undetectable from the proxy data.* To merge modern data with historical proxy data in this manner is disingenuous to say the least and, given the tone of the abstract, might even be construed as intentionally misleading.


Finally:



> While this study is interesting and useful in its results, *it is clear that the authors tried to spin the results into a prop for the failed AGW theory.* It certainly had the intended result, news outlets around the world announced the new conclusive proof of AGW causing an unprecedented temperature increase—none of them realizing, or perhaps caring, that the comparison was invalid. *This may be science, but it is science distorted, it is the science of deception.*


All bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## bryanc

Not at all surprising that the denier-blogosphere is riled up about this; let us know if there's any scientific refutation of this analysis, rather than some guys on the internet with opinions.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Not at all surprising that the denier-blogosphere is riled up about this; let us know if there's any scientific refutation of this analysis, rather than some guys on the internet with opinions.


Yes we are all well aware that you are quite comfortable having scientists interpolate missing data. 

In my mind interpolated data is quite similar to interpolated pixels in a photo. When you look closely the detail is of necessity lacking. Makes it all too easy to deny a major cooling or warming period and bend the final conclusions into a hockey stick.

The sky is not going to fall. If Al Gore really believed the oceans would rise and swallow the coast lines he would not buy ocean front property. 

The $Trillion$ the Chicken Little Cluck would steal from those that have the least to give, and give to the Banksters, would be better spent mitigating climate change whichever way it goes. 

While warming has historically been a slow steady trend, often lasting several hundred years at a time, cooling seems to be of the very sudden, dramatic, the sky really is falling brand. It seems that concentrating our efforts on preventing warming while ignoring the possibility of cooling could prove a very costly error. Still such discussions are quite pointless given that the proposed solutions are all merely different methods of diverting even more of the world's wealth into the pockets of the Super-elite.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Yes we are all well aware that you are quite comfortable having scientists interpolate missing data.


I'm quite comfortable with experts in their field using the techniques that have been established in their field in ways that are deemed acceptable by their peers in their feild.


> Makes it all too easy to deny a major cooling or warming period and bend the final conclusions into a hockey stick.


If that were true, someone should be able to use the same statistical smoothing to 'bend' the temperature graph in to whatever other shape they want, and get that published. No one would be able to stop them from publishing such a thing in the peer-reviewed literature, because the reviewers would have to accept that the same acceptable statistical methods were used. (As a reviewer for scientific journals, I can't just reject a manuscript because I don't like the conclusions; I have to be able to show where the analysis is flawed - mathematically, logically or technically - and explain how it could be corrected... peer-review is not an old-boys-club that allows us to keep undesirable ideas out of the literature).

However, that is not the case. Anyone using valid statistical methods gets the same sharp upward trend as Mann did back in 2004. This is why Mann's "Hockey stick" has become so well established; it is reproducible from many different data sets using many different and independent approaches based on different assumptions. This is how science works; when you get the same answer using many different empirical approaches, you become increasingly confident of that answer.



> If Al Gore really believed the oceans would rise ...


Who gives a rat's a$$ what some washed up politician believes? It's the climatologists who have informed opinions on this issue, and their opinions are astoundingly consistent: the climate is warming up and human activity is a significant contributor to that phenomenon.



> The $Trillion$ the Chicken Little Cluck...



This has nothing to do with the validity of the science.


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> The $Trillion$ the Chicken Little Cluck would steal from those that have the least to give, and give to the Banksters, would be better spent mitigating climate change whichever way it goes.





bryanc said:


> I
> This has nothing to do with the validity of the science.


Absolutely everything to do with it. The guys that lust after those $Trillion$ are directing the funding. We have all seen how science loses its objectivity when the funding source demands a particular conclusion. Something the Al Gore Wackos routinely claim is skewing skeptic side science.

Also those supporting the Chicken Little "Sky is falling scenario" are assuming that the monies diverted will be going to fighting that man caused 1/1000% of increased atmospheric CO2 content, which will supposedly lead to earths destruction. Truth is; with every government in the world drowning in red ink, those monies will go to directly to the super elitists who own that debt. When you look at the proposed solutions; no relief is either intended or found, however a great deal of misery is promised for those who are already the most financially vulnerable.

Climate does change. As a general rule things get warmer, until there is a sudden and sometimes brutal reversal. Draining valuable resources to try to make static, something nature has designed to be dynamic is an incredible waste of resources.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> We have all seen how science loses its objectivity when the funding source demands a particular conclusion.


If you have evidence that the publicly funded climate research is biased, or that the public agencies that provide funding are biased, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're in tinfoil hat territory.


> Draining valuable resources to try to make static, something nature has designed to be dynamic is an incredible waste of resources.


Nature "designed" it to be dynamic?!? 

No one is trying to make the climate static; scientists have unequivocally identified the sudden massive release of fossil CO2 (carbon that had been sequestered over millions of years by very slow ecological and geological processes, which we have released into the atmosphere effectively instantaneously) as an important effector in the dynamics of the global climate. Our admittedly limited, but rapidly improving understanding of the mechanisms of the global climate strongly indicates that this release of CO2 may have consequences that are significantly deleterious to us (not to mention other species, like corals etc.). It is therefore obvious that we should do what we can to A) reduce any further damage, and B) prepare for and mitigate what damage we have already done.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It is therefore obvious that we should do what we can to A) reduce any further damage, and B) prepare for and mitigate what damage we have already done.


It is therefore obvious that YOU do something to salve your own fears.


----------



## FeXL

Been waiting for this...

Climategate 3.0 has occurred – the password has been released



> A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment.


Everyone have their coffin lid fasteners ready?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Been waiting for this...
> 
> Climategate 3.0 has occurred – the password has been released


:lmao: 
Have you _read_ those emails? There's nothing even remotely incriminating. The only people this looks bad on are the snoopy a$$holes who've broken into people's private communications and exposed a bunch of perfectly reasonable, but private discussion between professionals.

This looks like another case of "climatologists stalked by deniers; climatologists vindicated yet again."


----------



## iMouse

Deniers don't "do" in-depth reading, and they dislike those that do.

It gets in the way of their truth.


----------



## chimo

Based on post density, the title of this thread is very mis-leading. 

No pun intended initially, however.....


----------



## bryanc

Indeed, it should be titled "the official collection of unauthoritative blog posts comprising weak attempts to discredit established science."


----------



## bryanc

Climate change deniers make a big splash in the science world:


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> Have you _read_ those emails? There's nothing even remotely incriminating. The only people this looks bad on are the snoopy a$$holes who've broken into people's private communications and exposed a bunch of perfectly reasonable, but private discussion between professionals.
> 
> This looks like another case of "climatologists stalked by deniers; climatologists vindicated yet again."


Yes, as a matter of fact I have read a number of the emails from the first & second release. Very revealing, both in and out of context. The third, none. Reading from people who have perused from the last, there is little of note so far. This does not surprise me, as the most damning emails were revealed in 1 & 2.

As far as snoopy a$$sholes are concerned, surely you must be referring to Gleick and his illegal impersonation of Heartland staff and subsequent theft of materials, no?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Not at all surprising that the denier-blogosphere is riled up about this; let us know if there's any scientific refutation of this analysis, rather than some guys on the internet with opinions.


You don't have to be a PhD to figger there are issues with the methodology of this paper. Even with my undergrad paleontology & geology courses it didn't pass the sniff test.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Even with my undergrad paleontology & geology courses it didn't pass the sniff test.


Apparently your nose is more discerning than the editorial board of _Science_. You should start your own journal; with such a discerning nose I'm sure you'd be able to quickly surpass the measly Impact Factors of such shoddy journals as _Science_ (I.F. 31.201) and _Nature_ (I.F. 36.280), and set a new standard for rigorous peer review and scientific integrity. 

Knock yerself out.

(For those not detecting the sarcasm above, the Impact Factor is a measure of the relative significance of an average publication in a given journal, and is generally pretty closely related to the rigour of the review process submissions are subject to. A good, high impact journal like Developmental Biology, or the Journal of Cell Science is around 7. Getting published in _Science_ or _Nature_ is something many researchers will never accomplish in their whole careers... doing so is a remarkable accomplishment, and to have a paper accepted in one of these top-tier journals means you've not only discovered something very important, you've met and exceeded all reasonable standards of evidence).


----------



## FeXL

Alright, further on Marcott _et al._ This is gonna be a long one...


Easterbrook follows up on his Part 1 (my post #2572), analyzing the statement from Marcott _et al_ noting: 

_“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”_​
He notes:



> Both the Greenland GISP2 temperature curve (Figure 1B) and the oxygen isotope curve (Figure 1C) clearly show that except for the Little Ice Age and Dark Ages Cool Period, temperatures for all of the past 4,000 years have been warmer than the end of the ice core (1950 AD). The Medieval Warm Period was 1.1° C warmer than the top of the core (1950) and at least four other warm periods of equal magnitude occurred in the past 4,000 years; four other warm periods were ~1.3°C warmer; two other warm period were 1.8-2.0°C warmer; and one warm period was 2.8°C warmer. At least a dozen periods more than 1°C warmer than 1950 occurred, clearly contradicting the Marcott et al. conclusions.


He concludes:



> *The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., it is...wrong.*


Bold from the link.

Willis delves into the proxies.



> I’m sorry, guys, but I’m simply not buying the claim that we can tell anything at all about the global temperatures from these proxies. We’re deep into the GIGO range here. *When one proxy shows rising temperatures for ten thousand years and another shows dropping temperatures for ten thousand years, what does any kind of average of those two tell us?* That the temperature was rising seven degrees while it was falling nine degrees?


Bold mine.

On the Marcott _et al_ proxy criteria:



> ...more than ten percent of the proxies don’t meet the very first criterion, they don’t have sampling resolution that is better than one sample per 300 years. Nice try, but *eight of the proxies fail their own test.*


Bold mine.

McIntyre takes on Marcott _et al_ in the next 6 links.

Marcott Mystery #1



> *A number of commenters have observed that they are unable to figure out how Marcott got the Stick portion of his graph from his data set. Add me to that group.*
> 
> The uptick occurs in the final plot-point of his graphic (1940) and is a singleton. I wrote to Marcott asking him for further details of how he actually obtained the uptick, noting that the enormous 1920-to-1940 uptick is not characteristic of the underlying data. Marcott’s response was unhelpful: instead of explaining how he got the result, *Marcott stated that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”.* I agree that the 20th century portion of their reconstruction is “not robust”, but do not feel that merely describing the recent portion as “not robust” does full justice to the issues. Nor does it provide an explanation.


Bold mine.

No Uptick in Marcott Thesis



> Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.
> 
> However, as Jean S alertly observed, *the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science.* Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.


Bold mine.

Marcott’s Zonal Reconstructions



> The zonal (NHX, SHX and tropics) reconstructions were illustrated in Marcott Figure 2I,J,K, but *Marcott et al conspicuously did not compare their zonal reconstructions with previous NH and SH reconstructions*, instead comparing them to proxies often considered to be precipitation proxies.


More:



> According to Marcott, NHX temperatures *increased by 1.9 deg C between 1920 and 1940,* a surprising result even for the most zealous activists.


Bold mine.

How Marcottian Upticks Arise



> Marcottian uptricks upticks arise because of proxy inconsistency: one (or two) proxies have different signs or quantities than the larger population, but continue one step longer. This is also the reason why the effect is mitigated in the infilled variation. In principle, downticks can also occur – a matter that will be covered in my next post which will probably be on the relationship between Marcottian re-dating and upticks.
> 
> I have been unable to replicate some of the recent features of the Marcott zonal reconstructions. I think that there may be some differences in some series between the data as archived and as used in their reported calculations, though it may be a difference in methodology.


The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service



> Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, *instead substituting their own dates.*


Bold mine.



> As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates.


More:



> However, the re-dating described above is SUBSEQUENT to the Marcott thesis. (I’ve confirmed this by examining plots of individual proxies on pages 200-201 of the thesis. End dates illustrated in the thesis correspond more or less to published end dates and do not reflect the wholesale redating of the Science article.
> 
> I was unable to locate any reference to the wholesale re-dating in the text of Marcott et al 2013.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> However, something more than this is going on. In some cases, Marcott et al have re-dated core tops indicated as 0 BP in the original publication. (Perhaps with justification, but this is not reported.) In other cases, *core tops have been assigned to 0 BP even though different dates have been reported in the original publication.* In another important case (of YAD061 significance as I will later discuss), *Marcott et al ignored a major dating caveat of the original publication.*


Bold mine.

Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421



> As noted in my previous post, Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix disappeared two alkenone cores from the 1940 population, both of which were highly negative. In addition, they made some surprising additions to the 1940 population, including three cores whose coretops were dated by competent specialists 500-1000 years earlier.


More:



> By blanking out the three most recent values of their proxy #23, the earliest dated value was 10.93 BP (1939.07 AD). As a result, the MD01-2421+KNR02-06 alkenone series was excluded from the 1940 population. I am unable to locate any documented methodology that would lead to the blanking out of the last three values of this dataset. Nor am I presently aware of any rational basis for excluding the three most recent values.
> 
> *Since this series was strongly negative in the 20th century, its removal (together with the related removal of OCE326-GGC30 and the importation of medieval data) led to the closing uptick.*


Bold mine.

From Jo Nova:

The Marcott Hockey-stick: smoothing the past and getting a spike from almost no data?



> Robert Rohde (of the BEST Project) points out that so much of the variance is lost that it is equivalent to smoothing the series with a 400 year running average, saying *“it will completely obscure any rapid fluctuations having durations less than a few hundred years.”*
> 
> It may be necessary to sacrifice the variance, and blend and blur those past peaks (given the uncertainties) but after doing so, how can Marcott et al say anything at all, even a squeak, about the rate of warming in the last 100 years?


From S. Fred Singer:

Another Hockey Stick?



> The four authors, three from OSU and one from Harvard, are quite fuzzy in defining the word "recent." Their analysis takes 1950 as "present." But then they add a humongous temperature increase by using all of the 20th century. That's really the crux of their claim, but also their weakest point: *The only warming that's sure is from 1910 to 1940. Although that warming is certainly genuine, only a few fanatic scientists believe that it is human-caused. Not even the IPCC considers the warming up to 1940 as anthropogenic.*


Bold mine.

He sums:



> This whole episode is one more illustration of once distinguished scientific journals hyping an upcoming article by sending out early press releases to selected journalists who will write a sensationalized story. *It may impress laymen but it will have no significant impact on the real science debate about AGW.* Its impact on policy is nil - or should be.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Apparently your nose is more discerning than the editorial board of _Science_.


That's the funny thing, bryanc. The same question is being asked all over the place. Even with it's warmist bent, Science is (was?) a very prestigious journal. How could they let a piece of this calibre pass peer-review? It doesn't make sense.

Two more interesting things: 1) The paper just fit under the cutoff date for the next International Pack of Climate Crooks Annual Report; 2) There is some speculation that Mann was one of the reviewers...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Alright, further on Marcott _et al._


Let us know when you've got something other than blog posts... this is supposed to be the "authoritative" GHG thread, ya know.


----------



## FeXL

> IPCC personnel are not the world’s “leading climate scientists.” They were chosen partly due to gender, age, and geographic considerations.


Australia Misleads the World About the IPCC



> When the IPCC released the first version of that author list back in June 2010, its own press release told us that:
> 
> In selecting the author teams the IPCC stressed the need for *regional and gender balance* and recognized the importance of involving *new and younger authors.*
> 
> …About 30% of authors will come from *developing countries* or economies in transition. The proportion of female experts, has significantly increased since the [2007 report], reaching approximately 25% of the selected authors. *More than 60% of the experts chosen are new to the IPCC process,* which will bring in new knowledge and perspectives.​
> IPCC authors are either the world’s leading climate scientists or they’re a group of people chosen partly because they are of the right gender and age, and come from the right geographic location. Those two things are not the same. The UN cannot have it both ways.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Leading International Geologist Peter Ziegler: “Sun Is Driving Climate, Not CO2.”



> Labohm writes at the Dutch Standaard blog here that Arthur Rörsch and Peter Ziegler have been busy lately with the editors of a special issue of Energy & Environment, where a number of prominent climate skeptics are sharing their views on the factors that determine climate. This publication will be communicated to the members of the UN climate panel (IPCC) in due course.


The article goes on to list over 20 main points from the publication.


----------



## FeXL

NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming



> In the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?, we discussed and illustrated, for the depths of 0-700 meters, that the NODC’s pentadal ocean heat content had a significantly higher warming trend than the annual data. Refer to the discussions of Figures 5 to 7 under the heading of PENTADAL DATA IS NOT THE SAME AS DATA SMOOTHED WITH A 5-YEAR FILTER. For 0-700 meters, the pentadal data warms at a rate that’s about 19% higher than the annual data.
> 
> ...
> 
> In this post, we’ll present the same comparisons, but for the depths of 0-2000 meters. *Somehow, the pentadal data adds about 36% to the warming trend of global ocean heat content above the warming trend of the annual data for the same depths.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

NOAA’s Ever-Changing Definition of La Niña Years



> There have been two changes in NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index over the past year—not one—in addition to their monthly updates.
> 
> NOAA redefined their Oceanic NINO Index (ONI) last year. Prior to the change, they had used their ERSST.v3b-based NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies with their standard base years 1971-2000. For the Oceanic NINO Index, the monthly NINO3.4 anomaly data is then smoothed with a 3-month filter and rounded to the closest 0.1 deg C value.


Closing:



> First NOAA redefined how sea surface temperature anomalies should be calculated to account for a fictitious global warming signal in the NINO3.4 region. Then they conveniently forgot about their redefinition of La Niña years in the 2012 State of the Climate Report—then corrected the mistake long after the mainstream media has moved on to other ways to misinform the public about human-induced global warming. Now NOAA can’t seem to figure out how to determine El Niño and La Niña events based on their new definition.
> 
> If NOAA wants to stop confusing themselves, maybe they should switch back to the old version and forget this nonsensical new version of their Oceanic NINO Index.


----------



## FeXL

4th record day in a row for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 7th record for 2013 



> 2013 Day 71 was the 7th daily record for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. And the 4th in a row.
> 
> If you look at the 2008 record setting run ice extent was so far ahead of previous years it was hard to believe any of those records would be broken.
> 
> Yet 2013 is doing it.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Australia's "hottest summer evah!"

Hottest summer record in Australia? Not so, says UAH satellite data



> Summer here was so scorchingly awful it was Angry. But a funny thing happened on the orbit overhead. Check out the UAH satellite data on summers since the UAH records began. The graph below (thanks to Ken) is the temperature data from the NASA satellites, processed by UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville). Strangely there is a disparity between what the satellites recorded and the BOM.
> 
> The satellite data shows that the summer of 2012-2013 was close to ordinary, compared with the entire satellite record going back to 1979. Not a record. Not even extreme?


----------



## bryanc

I wonder why all these obvious problems with the published science aren't getting published in reputable scientific journals... could it be that these data _are_ being taken into account? Nah... it's far more likely that there's a global conspiracy of scientists and Al Gore's the ring leader!


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> I wonder why all these obvious problems with the published science aren't getting published in reputable scientific journals... could it be that these data _are_ being taken into account? Nah... it's far more likely that there's a global conspiracy of scientists and Al Gore's the ring leader!


Now you're thinking straight. Took you a while.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Now you're thinking straight. Took you a while.


I may be a little slow, but I get there in the end


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Model predicts more storm surge, but they use what appears to be a fake photo in the press release:



> The *statistical models* are used to predict the number of hurricane surges 100 years into the future. How much worse will it be per degree of global warming? How many ‘Katrinas’ will there be per decade?
> 
> Since 1923, there has been a ‘Katrina’ magnitude storm surge every 20 years.


Bold mine.



> “We find that 0.4 degrees Celcius warming of the climate corresponds to a doubling of the frequency of extreme storm surges like the one following Hurricane Katrina. With the global warming we have had during the 20th century, we have already crossed the threshold where more than half of all ‘Katrinas’ are due to global warming,” explains Aslak Grinsted.
> 
> “If the temperature rises an additional degree, the frequency will increase by 3-4 times and if the global climate becomes two degrees warmer, there will be about 10 times as many extreme storm surges. This means that there will be a ‘Katrina’ magnitude storm surge every other year,” says Aslak Grinsted and he points out that in addition to there being more extreme storm surges, the sea will also rise due to global warming. As a result, the storm surges will become worse and potentially more destructive.​


Just one small niggling issue...

The empirical evidence shows exactly the opposite.


----------



## FeXL

Further info on ENSO.

Why Do El Niño and La Niña Events Peak in Boreal Winter?



> In December 2012, I had begun a series of posts about El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This post starts the return to them.


----------



## FeXL

Cease & desist on Climategate 3.

Real Dangers of Dissent



> Well folks, some of you were wondering why nobody touched the publication of that CG3 password, I have been contacted by a UEA law firm regarding the recently released Climategate password.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Let us know when you've got something other than blog posts... this is supposed to be the "authoritative" GHG thread, ya know.


Anybody who thinks you can't learn something substantial from a blog post is an idiot.

Are you an idiot, bryanc?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Cease & desist on Climategate 3.
> 
> Real Dangers of Dissent


It occurs to me that CG 1 & 2 contained more than sufficient evidence that the science was being manipulated to create the desired conclusion.

I am old enough and have seen enough scams to recognize the; "The sky is falling and the oceans rising up to meet it." hue and cry is intended to stampede a population into accepting something that is straight up evil. 

A carbon tax that will divert $Trillion$ straight into the Banksters Vaults and $Billion$ into the Al Gore Warchest via Carbon credit trades.

Anyone that doubts that Banksters are capable of such evil planning need look no further than Cyprus. Their banks were forced to buy Greek debt, with money borrowed from the Banksters, lost a good deal and now, under orders from the Banksters, attempting to steal up to 10% of their depositors accounts to make up the shortfall.

The long and the short of it is that AGW is being used as part of a huge con to steal from those that can least afford to pay. To make matters worse neither Carbon Taxes or Carbon Credit Trading is intended to or will lead to any reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The only way reductions can possibly happen is if the extortion becomes so onerous that it results in death of a sizable percentage of the planets population.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Anybody who thinks you can't learn something substantial from a blog post is an idiot.
> 
> Are you an idiot, bryanc?


Anyone who thinks they can learn something from any blog post is equally an idiot. One of the first principles of critical thinking is to understand the limits of your knowledge and expertise. With my expertise and knowledge I can easily distinguish well-supported rational arguments about biology from bull****, so I need not worry that some politically or otherwise ideologically motivated blogger is misleading me about biology. However, I know far less about climatology than I do about biology, so reading some blog post about climate science puts me (and you) in a position where we cannot apply our critical thinking capacities **because we don't know the field**. Consequently, if we want to be informed on the subject, we are far better off using authoritative sources for complex scientific subjects regarding which we lack advanced education.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Anyone who thinks they can learn something from any blog post is equally an idiot. One of the first principles of critical thinking is to understand the limits of your knowledge and expertise. With my expertise and knowledge I can easily distinguish well-supported rational arguments about biology from bull****, so I need not worry that some politically or otherwise ideologically motivated blogger is misleading me about biology. However, I know far less about climatology than I do about biology, so reading some blog post about climate science puts me (and you) in a position where we cannot apply our critical thinking capacities **because we don't know the field**. Consequently, if we want to be informed on the subject, we are far better off using authoritative sources for complex scientific subjects regarding which we lack advanced education.


I didn't say "any" blog post. I noted "a" blog post. In this particular case I was referring to the ones that you so blithely wrote off with "Let us know when you've got something other than blog posts". One of the authors of one of those blog posts is Dr. Don Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications. A gen-u-wyne "authoritative source". He has forgotten more about geology than freshly minted PhD Marcott has yet learned.

In addition, I included links to posts by Steve McIntyre who, with Ross McKitrick, proved Mann's Hockey Stick to be the statistical Charlie Foxtrot it was. I believe he qualifies as a gen-u-wyne "authoritative source".

Robert Rohde was another I listed in that post, he is the lead scientist of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. He commented on the misleading statistical methodology. I think he qualifies as another gen-u-wyne "authoritative source".

S. Fred Singer is one more I quoted. He is "an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project." He, too, qualifies as one more gen-u-wyne "authoritative source".

However, in your bone-headed perspective, you automatically disallow anything hosted on a blog as "politically or otherwise ideologically motivated". Why? Where's your proof? "A" does not automatically equal "B".

As to your stunning biological knowledge, good for you. Unfortunately, little of the Marcott paper is about biology. Nor has it much to do with climatology. It is partially about geology/paleo (reading the proxies) & largely about math (statistics, reconstructing the proxy data). I have a number of geology/paleontology courses under my belt and one less math course than my bride who happens to be a math teacher. As such, I can say with some confidence that there are issues with the methodology in this paper. As I noted, it just didn't pass the sniff test. I could care less if the thing got published in Science, Nature, PNAS or on a roll of butt wipe. The paper is getting crucified online & I wouldn't be surprised to see it retracted. Just because the analysis isn't being conducted in that most hallowed of places, the "peer-reviewed" paper, doesn't mean the criticism isn't legit.

On the topic of criticism, you want to make a criticism about "authoritative sources"? Fine. Open season, no bag limit. However, at least read the damn post, click the links and find out who it is you are being critical of before you start writing off (& shooting your mouth off about the illegitimacy of) "blog posts".


----------



## FeXL

The role of the AMO in global temps.

Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records

Abstract.



> The observed global-warming rate has been nonuniform, and the cause of each episode of slowing in the expected warming rate is the subject of intense debate. To explain this, nonrecurrent events have commonly been invoked for each episode separately. After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), possibly caused by the thermohaline circulation variability. The perspective of a long record helps in quantifying the contribution from internal variability, especially one with a period so long that it is often confused with secular trends in shorter records. Solar contribution is found to be minimal for the second half of the 20th century and less than 10% for the first half. The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. *Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.*


Bold mine.

Graphs here:

40% of the warming we have seen the past 50 years can be ascribed not to man-made global warming but the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al._

1. Bent Their Core Tops In



> In today’s post, I’m going to show Marcott-Shakun redating in several relevant cases. The problem, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, has nothing to do with the very slight recalibration of radiocarbon dates from CALIB 6.0.1 (essentially negligible in the modern period in discussion here), but with Marcott-Shakun core top redating.


He sums:



> Both types of example result in serious errors, though of different types.
> 
> At this stage, I can more or less see what they did in the MD95-2043 class of examples. As noted above, if this was done intentionally and with knowledge of the effect of the re-dating on coretop dates, this should have been disclosed with red letter caveats, showing the effect of the redating on affected cores and relevant specialists should have been asked to review the reasonableness of the methodology. (I do not believe that a properly informed specialist would have signed off on this redating, let alone with no caveats.) Nor do I believe that the actual calculations are consistent with the methodological statement “core tops are assumed to be 1950 AD unless otherwise indicated in original publication”, since core tops were re-dated to 1950 regardless of what was indicated in the original publication. This seems just as serious to me as the problem with Gergis et al.
> 
> The problems with the cores with actual modern values are over and above this. I don’t think that they manually blanked out modern values (I hope not for their sakes.) I presume that some algorithm went awry, but right now I can’t picture what sort of algorithm would yield the observed truncations. I’m sure that we’ll find out in due course. As noted above, I’ve requested an explanation from Marcott and hopefully he will clarify things.


2. Uh oh, there be grafting in Marcott et al



> Hah! There is some additional fun in Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A). Mann’s hockey stick there is the global EIV-CRU from Mann et al. (2008), which means that there is no actual reconstruction post 1850, since it’s the Reg-EM produced EIV reconstruction! *So they have now essentially “grafted the thermometer record onto” Mann’s reconstruction.*


----------



## FeXL

Further on the success of Hansen (1988).

How well did Hansen (1988) do?



> The graphic from RealClimate asks “How well did Hansen et al (1988) do?” They compare actual temperature measurements through 2012 (GISTEMP and HadCRUT4) with Hansen’s 1988 Scenarios “A”, “B”, and “C”. The answer (see my annotations) is “Are you kidding?”


He sums:



> Hansen 1988 is the keystone of the entire CAGW Enterprise, the theory that Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming will lead to a near-term Climate Catastrophe. RealClimate, the leading Warmist website, should be congratulated for publishing a graphic that so clearly debunks CAGW and calls into question all the Climate models put forth by the official Climate Team (the “hockey team”).


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows Greenland was warmer during the 1930's and 1400's than the present

On the origin of multidecadal to centennial Greenland temperature anomalies over the past 800 yr

Abstract.



> The surface temperature of the Greenland ice sheet is among the most important climate variables for assessing how climate change may impact human societies due to its association with sea level rise. However, the causes of multidecadal-to-centennial temperature changes in Greenland temperatures are not well understood, largely owing to short observational records. To examine these, we calculated the Greenland temperature anomalies (GTA[G-NH]) over the past 800 yr by subtracting the standardized northern hemispheric (NH) temperature from the standardized Greenland temperature. This decomposes the Greenland temperature variation into background climate (NH); polar amplification; and regional variability (GTA[G-NH]). The central Greenland polar amplification factor as expressed by the variance ratio Greenland/NH is 2.6 over the past 161 yr, and 3.3–4.2 over the past 800 yr. The GTA[G-NH] explains 31–35% of the variation of Greenland temperature in the multidecadal-to-centennial time scale over the past 800 yr. *We found that the GTA[G-NH] has been influenced by solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation patterns such as those produced by the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO).* Climate modeling and proxy temperature records indicate that the anomaly is also likely linked to solar-paced changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and associated changes in northward oceanic heat transport.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions

Abstract.



> A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollen zone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene (Preboreal pollen zone). *The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa.* A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered.


Bold mine.

More:

New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age



> According to the authors, "The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination," with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al._, specifically the differences between his thesis & _Science._


Playing hockey – blowing the whistle



> This instantly ‘famous’ 2013 Science hockey stick paper derived from Marcott’s 2011 Ph.D thesis at Oregon State University, available here. His thesis doesn’t show a hockey stick ‘blade’ projecting above its anomaly baseline NCDC 1961-1990. H/T to Jean S, posted at Climate Audit. Something changed after the thesis was published to produce the new ‘blade’ in Science. That something was significant, since the Science paper’s Supplementary Information discussion said it did not enable discriminating such a temperature variation (i.e. a ‘blade’) on such a short a time scale.


My two biggest issues with the paper right now are the hockey stick blade and the smoothing of the data (eliminating peaks & valleys) due to the poor resolution of the proxies. Now, while Marcott has noted in the paper that the blade is not robust...:

(from the comments)



> So the Author’s knew the blade was not robust, knew the blade did not exist in the thesis, knew the method could not capture high frequency information, yet included it anyway for exactly what reason? Dramatic effect, academic suicide, 15 minutes of fame or to trash Science mags reputation?


Exactly. Chop the graph off at 1950 (depending on his proxies) and avoid all the what-if scenarios.


----------



## FeXL

Winter Snow Melt in Greenland Grossly Over-Estimated



> Back in February, satellite observations indicated that snow was melting — in the dead of winter — across large portions of Greenland’s eastern coast. (I wrote about it here.) But now, *it looks like the algorithm used to process data coming from the satellite was grossly over-estimating the melt.*


XX)

Computer models...

The news is in the first 4 paragraphs. Unfortunately, after calling this error to our attention, the article goes to garbage...


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale teaches ENSO at SS.

On Dana1981’s Meaningless ENSO Exercise at SkepticalScience



> Dana Nuccitelli (Dana1981) of SkepticalScience has redefined El Niño and La Niña years in a meaningless exercise to show that the warming trends of El Niño, La Niña and ENSO-neutral years are comparable. It confirms his limited understanding of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its impacts on global surface temperatures, or his willingness to misrepresent them, or a combination of the above. Dana also made some flawed assumptions with his new definitions of El Niño, La Niña and ENSO-neutral years. “Flawed assumptions” is the nicest way I can phrase that.


----------



## MacDoc

Tisldale is an idiot and ENSO is a closed system that has nothing to do with climate forcing.
Enso conditions affect regional short term climate and weather conditions around the planet....Australia, South America and North America notably.

Which you would know if you actual read the science instead of the deniosphere blogs and quoting trash.

That you continue to trot out no warming since 1998 shows 
a) how little you understand of ENSO
b) how much denier koolaid you've swallowed.

ENSO events whether cool or warm would of course generally track AGW as the base is the ocean temp.









ENSO occurs *within* this framework of a warming ocean

They are NOT a forcing - if LaNina's are becoming more frequent then it buys time as it sequesters heat....it does nothing to change the reality.

it's getting warmer
We're responsible.
We need to deal with the unfolding consequences and reduce carbon to mitigate future increases in global heat retention.

this just about sums up Tisldale



> AUGUST 22, 2012 · 8:23 AM ↓
> *Bob Tisdale – wilful ignorance personified?*
> Yesterday I made one of Bob’s comments my denier comment of the day and it occurred to me that I should revisit it briefly because I think it highlights what it takes to be a WIG.
> 
> Bob’s blog entitled “Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations” has the nice little description “Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, and Other Climate Change Discussions” which is all great except when you read his comment from yesterday that, “I don’t pay attention to Arctic sea ice…” Why not? Isn’t the Arctic affected by sea surface temperature and ocean heat content? Surely it fits under the banner of “other climatic discussions”? Maybe this is why Bob doesn’t like to talk about it.


Bob Tisdale – wilful ignorance personified? | uknowispeaksense

Wonderfully informed fellow travellers you hang with...NOT!..

Get over the denier crap...there are lots of contentious issues in dealing with the reality ....what does it take....*.3.2 degrees C warmer winters in Canada over 60 years..*..what the hell do you THINK is going on.....

just how "wilfully ignorant" are you?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc found the hidden heat that doesn't exist! A little model whispered in his ear...


----------



## iMouse

MacDoc said:


> Wonderfully informed fellow travellers you hang with...NOT!..


I admire your persistence about the same strength that I abhor his.

I say let him have his thread, and let him wallow in whatever it is that he's wallowing in.

Discussion has died a horrible death here some time ago, so leave him be.


----------



## MacDoc

While ENSO, PDO and NAO are not forcings they do have decadal + impacts on local climate/weather such as the monsoons.



> *Natural Climate Swings Contribute More to Increased Monsoon Rainfall Than Global Warming*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a three-layered cloud structure in a developing Madden-Julian Oscillation during the Indian Ocean DYNAMO field experiments (November 2011). The photo won first place in the DYNAMO photo contest. (Credit: Owen Shieh, University of Hawaii)
> 
> Mar. 20, 2013 — Natural swings in the climate have significantly intensified Northern Hemisphere monsoon rainfall, showing that these swings must be taken into account for climate predictions in the coming decades, a new study finds.
> 
> The findings are published in the March 18 online publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
> 
> Monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere impacts about 60% of the World population in Southeast Asia, West Africa and North America. Given the possible impacts of global warming, solid predictions of monsoon rainfall for the next decades are important for infrastructure planning and sustainable economic development. Such predictions, however, are very complex because they require not only pinning down how humanmade greenhouse gas emissions will impact the monsoons and monsoon rainfall, but also a knowledge of natural long-term climate swings, about which little is known so far.
> 
> To tackle this problem an international team of scientists around Meteorology Professor Bin Wang at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, examined climate data to see what happened in the Northern Hemisphere during the last three decades, a time during which the global-mean surface-air temperature rose by about 0.4°C. Current theory predicts that the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulation should weaken under anthropogenic global warming.
> 
> Wang and his colleagues, however, found that over the past 30 years, the summer monsoon circulation, as well as the Hadley and Walker circulations, have all substantially intensified. This intensification has resulted in significantly greater global summer monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere than predicted from greenhouse-gas-induced warming alone: namely a 9.5% increase, compared to the anthropogenic predicted contribution of 2.6% per degree of global warming.
> 
> Most of the recent intensification is attributable to a cooling of the eastern Pacific that began in 1998. This cooling is the result of natural long-term swings in ocean surface temperatures, particularly swings in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or mega-El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has lately been in a mega-La Niña or cool phase. Another natural climate swing, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, also contributes to the intensification of monsoon rainfall.
> 
> "These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic predictions of monsoon rainfall and of other climate features in the coming decades," says Wang. "We must be able to determine the relative contributions of greenhouse-gas emissions and of long-term natural swings to future climate change."


Natural climate swings contribute more to increased monsoon rainfall than global warming


----------



## Macfury

From the above report:



> Most of the recent intensification is attributable to a cooling of the eastern Pacific that began in 1998. This cooling is *the result of natural long-term swings in ocean surface temperatures*, particularly swings in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or mega-El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has lately been in a mega-La Niña or cool phase.* Another natural climate swing*, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, also contributes to the intensification of monsoon rainfall.


Thank you.


----------



## bryanc

No one has ever questioned the well-understood facts that factors _other_ than GHG affect climate. Indeed, the climatologists who discovered and characterized these natural causes of climate change are the ones who are now telling us that anthropogenic GHGs are a serious problem.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> From the above report:
> 
> Thank you.


Exactly. Typical warmist mantra. Is/isn't a forcing, hot/cold temps, more/less rainfall, more/less snow. 

Jeezuz, he wants to know how ignorant I am?

And, mouse, any time you want to discuss, turn me off ignore & feel free. BTW, still waiting for some substantiation of your accusation. Is that why you put me on ignore? Because I called your bluff? Jes' askin'...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Exactly. Typical warmist mantra. Is/isn't a forcing, hot/cold temps, more/less rainfall, more/less snow.


Warmism is the gift that keeps on giving, because ALL outcomes, no matter how contrary, are placed in a file marked "supporting evidence."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> ALL outcomes, no matter how contrary, are placed in a file marked "supporting evidence."


I got a laugh out of this, because I just had to deal with this exact criticism of evolution coming from a Creationist. Unfortunately, if you don't understand the science, you can't understand what data supports a theory and what data undermines it; so when the scientists say "all the data we've got fits our theory" you think, "they claim that about everything." Ignorance of the science is what allows the deniers of any well supported scientific theory to keep denying it's validity. If there weren't strong evidence supporting any given scientific theory, scientists wouldn't believe it. Scientists have no choice but to believe things that are empirically and logically demonstrable, so when a large number of scientists agree on something, it follows that it is empirically and logically demonstrable.


----------



## FeXL

Piltdown Man...


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> And, mouse, any time you want to discuss, turn me off ignore & feel free. BTW, still waiting for some substantiation of your accusation. Is that why you put me on ignore? Because I called your bluff? Jes' askin'...


No, I took you off Ignore some weeks ago, to watch you squirm.

And, frankly, I don't have the time to invest in feckless arguments such as this.


----------



## FeXL

More's the pity...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I got a laugh out of this, because I just had to deal with this exact criticism of evolution coming from a Creationist. Unfortunately, if you don't understand the science, you can't understand what data supports a theory and what data undermines it; so when the scientists say "all the data we've got fits our theory" you think, "they claim that about everything." Ignorance of the science is what allows the deniers of any well supported scientific theory to keep denying it's validity. If there weren't strong evidence supporting any given scientific theory, scientists wouldn't believe it. Scientists have no choice but to believe things that are empirically and logically demonstrable, so when a large number of scientists agree on something, it follows that it is empirically and logically demonstrable.


Oddly enough, it's hard-line Creationists who see all evidence as supporting their theory.


----------



## iMouse

I don't know what you said MF, as you are now all alone on my list.

FeXL is only annoying on one level.


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Oddly enough, it's hard-line Creationists who see all evidence as supporting their theory.


No, they don't need evidence; they've got faith. Scientists don't get to choose what they believe; they are compelled to believe by reason and evidence. Unfortunately, one cannot be sufficiently expert in all fields to be able to participate in the scientific discourse on all topics; there are topics on which we have to either refrain from forming an opinion, or trust the consensus of experts. Any rational adult should be able to self-assess accurately enough to know when they're out of their depth, and should therefore refrain from contradicting the experts. But apparently some of you haven't yet developed this skill.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, they don't need evidence; they've got faith. Scientists don't get to choose what they believe; they are compelled to believe by reason and evidence.


In theory, but not in practice, ant more than lawyers are bound by the law. Confirmation bias runs rampant through warmism.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> No, they don't need evidence; they've got faith. Scientists don't get to choose what they believe; they are compelled to believe by reason and evidence. Unfortunately, one cannot be sufficiently expert in all fields to be able to participate in the scientific discourse on all topics; there are topics on which we have to either refrain from forming an opinion, or trust the consensus of experts. Any rational adult should be able to self-assess accurately enough to know when they're out of their depth, and should therefore refrain from contradicting the experts. But apparently some of you haven't yet developed this skill.


You keep repeating this, and every time you do, you look less intelligent. You're counting as "experts", people who have been caught flat out lying many times and who are continuing to repeat the same lies today. Who is or is not an expert is irrelevant. What matters is 'are they telling the truth?'

The people who peer reviewed the approval for Vioxx were experts. The scientists who did the approval studies doctored the data (lied), and got away with it for years until people started dying. The people who peer reviewed the MMR-autism connection paper were experts. The scientist who did the paper doctored the data (lied), and got away with it until outside interests forced a review. 

Michael Mann's hockey stick was peer reviewed by experts. Mann doctored the data (lied), and large political movements were based on those lies. Mann, Jones, Hansen, and a whole host of their cronies have been caught doctoring data (lying), and admitting that they are lying many times over. They have no credibility, and neither do any of the journals who peer reviewed them.


----------



## eMacMan

Beyond that AGW science is based entirely on computer models. Models that assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will produce a certain level of warming and that positive feedback factors will amplify this warming effect by a factor of three. The models discount all other factors. They also fail to take into account negative feed back, even though there is more than ample evidence that feed back is anything but entirely one sided. Indeed it seems extremely unlikely that the equal and opposite reaction concept can be magically suspended for the convenience of the AGW crowd.

When the model fails to predict either the past or the future, the data is conveniently massaged to create the illusion of a working model.

Talk about deniers. There was no Medieval Warming, even though there is ample evidence that the NorthWest Passage was indeed open at that time. Nor was there a Maunder Minimum even though Newfoundland/Labrador was iced over at the time along with other currently habital parts of our nation.

The entire structure of the AGW campaign is aimed squarely at robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. While I can see MF supporting this as part of the process of natural selection, it irritates me that supposedly well educated and intelligent individuals fail to see the scam aspect that dominates the AGW approach to science.

Personally if I wanted to tithe a large chunk of everything I have taken a lifetime to earn, I would find much worthier recipients than either Al Gore or the Banksters. At the moment I am absolutely certain that what I have is much better managed by myself than by those low-life scumbags.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Personally if I wanted to tithe a large chunk of everything I have taken a lifetime to earn, I would find much worthier recipients than either Al Gore or the Banksters. At the moment I am absolutely certain that what I have is much better managed by myself than by those low-life scumbags.


Yes, but bryanc's vision doesn't allow you to deny what he knows to be true deep in his heart. However, you will be delighted to know that by participating willingly in his vision of reduced economic expectations and compromised wealth, you will have an early say in how your expropriated savings are spent on combating the climate!


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> I don't know what you said MF, as you are now all alone on my list.
> 
> FeXL is only annoying on one level.


Dayum. Gonna hafta try harder...


----------



## FeXL

Further support for Svensmark (basically, he established a connection between cosmic rays & low level clouds).

The relationship between thunderstorm and solar activity for Brazil from 1951 to 2009

Abstract.



> The goal of this article is to investigate the influence of solar activity on thunderstorm activity in Brazil. For this purpose, thunder day data from seven cities in Brazil from 1951 to 2009 are analyzed with the wavelet method for the first time. To identify the 11-year solar cycle in thunder day data, a new quantity is defined. It is named TD1 and represents the power in 1-year in a wavelet spectrum of monthly thunder day data. The wavelet analysis of TD1 values shows more clear the 11-year periodicity than when it is applied directly to annual thunder day data, as it has been normally investigated in the literature. The use of this new quantity is shown to enhance the capability to identify the 11-year periodicity in thunderstorm data. Wavelet analysis of TD1 indicates that six out seven cities investigated exhibit periodicities near 11 years, three of them significant at a 1% significance level (p<0.01). Furthermore, wavelet coherence analysis demonstrated that the 11-year periodicity of TD1 and solar activity are correlated with an anti-phase behavior, three of them (the same cities with periodicities with 1% significance level) significant at a 5% significance level (p<0.05). The results are compared with those obtained from the same data set but using annual thunder day data. Finally, the results are compared with previous results obtained for other regions and a discussion about possible mechanisms to explain them is done. *The existence of periodicities around 11 years in six out of seven cities and their anti-phase behavior with respect to 11-year solar cycle suggest a global mechanism probably related to a solar magnetic shielding effect acting on galactic cosmic rays as an explanation for the relationship of thunderstorm and solar activity, although more studies are necessary to clarify its physical origin.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Skill and reliability of climate model ensembles at the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene

Abstract.



> Paleoclimate simulations provide us with an opportunity to critically confront and evaluate the performance of climate models in simulating the response of the climate system to changes in radiative forcing and other boundary conditions. Hargreaves et al. (2011) analysed the reliability of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project, PMIP2 model ensemble with respect to the MARGO sea surface temperature data synthesis (MARGO Project Members, 2009) for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21 ka BP). Here we extend that work to include a new comprehensive collection of land surface data (Bartlein et al., 2011), and introduce a novel analysis of the predictive skill of the models. We include output from the PMIP3 experiments, from the two models for which suitable data are currently available. We also perform the same analyses for the PMIP2 mid-Holocene (6 ka BP) ensembles and available proxy data sets.
> 
> Our results are predominantly positive for the LGM, suggesting that as well as the global mean change, the models can reproduce the observed pattern of change on the broadest scales, such as the overall land–sea contrast and polar amplification, *although the more detailed sub-continental scale patterns of change remains elusive.* In contrast, *our results for the mid-Holocene are substantially negative, with the models failing to reproduce the observed changes with any degree of skill.* One cause of this problem could be that the globally- and annually-averaged forcing anomaly is very weak at the mid-Holocene, and so the results are dominated by the more localised regional patterns in the parts of globe for which data are available. The root cause of the model-data mismatch at these scales is unclear. If the proxy calibration is itself reliable, then representativity error in the data-model comparison, and missing climate feedbacks in the models are other possible sources of error.


Bold mine.

That would be referring to the Holocene Climatic Optimum, a period warmer than today.

Back to the drawing board...


----------



## FeXL

Further on unprecedented, unusual drought.


Monsoon Failure Key to Long Droughts in Southwest



> Long-term droughts in Southwestern North America often mean failure of both summer and winter rains, according to new tree-ring research from a University of Arizona-led team.
> 
> The finding contradicts the commonly held belief that a dry winter rainy season is generally followed by a wet monsoon season, and vice versa.
> 
> The new research shows that for the severe, multi-decadal droughts that occurred from 1539 to 2008, generally both winter and summer rains were sparse year after year.


More:



> "Monsoon *droughts of the past were more severe and persistent than any of the last 100 years*," he said. "These major monsoon droughts coincided with decadal winter droughts."


Bold mine.

As Gosselin noted, "I’d like to see how the precipitation patterns match up with solar activity."


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Marcott _et al_ proxies.


Introducing the Marcott 9



> Far more troublesome to the conclusion of the paper is the dating of the proxies. Other sites have some excellent write-ups on the re-dating in the paper itself and I will touch on it, but my more immediate concern is *how recent most of the proxies are based on the published data of the proxies.*


Bold mine.

More:



> *What is most interesting about all of these proxies is that none of them show the warming result the paper ended up with. Not a single one.*


Bold mine.

Questions, questions.


----------



## FeXL

Further on failed predictions.

GISS February Is In!

See that blue dot in the lower part of the graph? The one below Hansen's zero emissions "C" prediction line? Yup. That's us...


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> You're counting as "experts", people who have been caught flat out lying many times and who are continuing to repeat the same lies today.


My understanding is that the climate researchers accused of misconduct have all been vindicated, repeatedly, by multiple independent panels.

Hence their credibility is intact. Unlike the blogers that make up the deniosphere.



> Michael Mann's hockey stick was peer reviewed by experts. Mann doctored the data (lied)


Mann was vindicated. You have been misinformed.


> Mann, Jones, Hansen, and a whole host of their cronies have been caught doctoring data (lying)


All vindicated. You are misinformed.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Beyond that AGW science is based entirely on computer models.


That's strange; the stuff I've been reading is based on isotopic analysis of gas trapped in ice cores, the types of pollen grains found in lake bed sediments, satellite data, ocean chemistry and temperature data, tree ring widths, distributions of volcanic ash, migration timings of innumerable species of animals, flowering dates, etc. etc. etc. I had no idea I was living in The Matrix, and all this empirical data is just a computer model.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Scientists have no choice but to believe things that are empirically and logically demonstrable, so when a large number of scientists agree on something, it follows that it is empirically and logically demonstrable.


There are any number of issues I have with "consensus" science, but the one that creates the biggest blister, the one that rubs me most raw, is thus:

Where would mankind be if no one ever asked the question? 

Seriously. Would the conversation have gone something like this?

"Well, it would be stupid to pursue that topic, that line of thought any further, as the science is already 'settled'. Ptolemy beat that dead horse into hamburger 1500 years ago. Just last month Joe Schmo figgered out the first thing and last week my wife set me straight on t'other. Now what?"

"What say we wend down to the local pub, draw a couple of pints and wait for something 'unsettled' to drop in our laps? First round's on me"

"You're on!"

Heliocentric solar system, continental drift, untold numbers of discoveries would never have occurred if someone, somewhere, didn't sit back one day and say, "Wait. Wha...?"

Sure, some of these may have been discovered purely by happenstance, chance, mere accident. However, the real pioneers in science are the ones who would not accept the consensus, who questioned everything and went on to make discoveries both small & huge. The ones who shook their heads and said, "Something's not right here."

Every time I hear you cite "consensus", whether directly or through some artful wordplay, I swallow down the rising gorge, shake my head & ask myself, how the hell can this guy claim to be a scientist?

Yes, there are fundamental laws and numbers in science that we can accept as universal truth. However, everything else is either a theory, a hypothesis, speculation or SWAG. As such, they are subject to question. Climatology is not above question. 

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one interested in answers. Regular as clockwork, this thread averages around 150 views/day. Sure, some come for the freak show but there are also any number of silent visitors who are clicking on links, reading, pondering, scratching their chins. As I've noted before, if I get just a single, solitary individual to sit back and say, "Wait. Wha...?", I win.

That is the role I am playing on the GHG threads. I am asking the question. "Consensus" science says this. Empirical evidence shows otherwise. _Dire Straits_ noted, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong." 

Thus far, I'm getting a fair amount of flack and damn few answers. I'm a big boy, I can deal with the flack just fine. The dearth of answers is telling, however...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> My understanding is that the climate researchers accused of misconduct have all been vindicated, repeatedly, by multiple independent panels.


You understanding is incorrect. They were subject to three kangaroo courts who asked nothing, learned nothing & therefore could conclude nothing.



bryanc said:


> Unlike the blogers that make up the deniosphere.


You're sounding like MacDoc. Of all the people on these boards, that is the one you least want to emulate.



bryanc said:


> Mann was vindicated. You have been misinformed.


Where? The IPCC doesn't even use his paper anymore. McIntyre & McKitrick, in two published papers, proved his methodology was flawed. This affirmation was independently confirmed in a follow up report to congress.


----------



## eMacMan

A few years ago we had a promoter come to our small town. Bought a sizeable chunk of real estate on credit. Did huge amounts of advertising on the Rutherford Radio show promising all sorts of fabulous returns to those who invested. 

The operation is now bankrupt, considerable ground torn up but no development. The town took it all in for taxes and sold it for about a nickle on the dollar. Most of the promoters have their ill gotten gains safely stashed in either cocaine or the Bahamas.

Those of us who have seen promoters in action quickly realized that the entire intent was to steal money. No real development was ever intended and for most locals no money stolen.

I am seeing the same thing with the AGW religion. The intent is clearly to steal from those who cannot afford it. Unlike the promoter scam though, I am to be left with no choice about giving my hard earned money to Al Gore and/or the Big Banksters.

BTW whatever the whitewash types may say, Mann and most of the rest clearly manipulate data to meet their needs and even so consistently fail in their attempts to make their models match reality. CG1 and CG2 produced more than ample gun smoke to confirm these suspicions. Claiming that eMails meant other than what they said is an incredibly weak defense.


----------



## FeXL

NOAA decadal scale rainfall trends found to be ‘wildly wrong’



> I have good news and bad news. The good news is that USA rainfall is, according to NOAA, rising at 6.5 inches per century. The bad news is that this number is wildly wrong. I also have some observations about temperature


He sums:



> This degree of error is not exactly comforting. *The precipitation trend plot and map is simply impossible to believe and does not match the underlying data provided by NOAA. So something is very wrong there.* These maps and trend estimates are crucial to discussions of future impacts on agriculture, forestry, and ecosystems and contradict claims of impending droughts (either with or without the errors). The extreme values for precipitation and warming trends in certain regions surely would suggest that reexamination of the data or methods is warranted. Bar charts of trend for a national database site should really point to specific documentation of methods and data, and include confidence limits.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Lewandowsky conspiracy theory.

1. Some thoughts on the recent Lewandowsky-Cook conspiracy theory



> This paper was based on an internet survey so bad that it beggars belief. Invitations were posted on the websites of climate activists and Lewandowsky and John Cook of Skeptical Science discussed the survey and nudged activists to go over there and phony up the results. They did.
> 
> Lewandowsky is a charlatan. His latest paper, co-authored by John Cook, is a flight of fantasy that ignores the fact that most of the comments that he labels ‘recursive fury’ were polite mentions of the fact that he Cooked the books in his survey–a survey he claims is published, but is not.


2. Priceless Entertainment from SKS



> John Cook continued his path of self destruction at “Skeptical Science”. I’ve often wondered if the blog title was meant as a sarcasm. Today, we know neither word can apply accurately to their work in any other sense. When others noticed that Richard Betts of the met office Climate Impacts was accidentally included in their recent paper’s SI, John tried to play it off as just raw data on that list in a tweet on Dr. Betts twitter account. Interesting considering the title of the comment section in the SI was “Excerpt Espousing Conspiracy Theory”, and the fact that Richard Betts, wasn’t identified as Dr. Betts in the SI or by any other means that would associate him with the met office. Is it possible that they didn’t know the famous scientist?


In closing:



> A friendly note to Cook, The boat is sinking!!! Stop drilling holes. Nope, Nope, strike that. KEEP GOING!! The entertainment is priceless.


----------



## FeXL

On global sea ice areas & anomalies.

Cryosphere at the Air Vent



> The Antarctic had the second highest sea ice area minimum summer level in 35 years while the Arctic set a record lowest sea ice area minimum this year.


From the comments:



> So, there is a slight downward global trend (Offset by Average Area) based on a starting point that was at the end of a known cold period.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the relationship between Old Sol & global temperatures.

Discovery of Holocene millennial climate cycles in the Asian continental interior: Has the sun been governing the continental climate?

Abstract.



> We conducted a high-resolution study of a unique Holocene sequence of wind-blown sediments and buried soils in Southern Siberia, far from marine environment influences. This was accomplished in order to assess the difference between North Atlantic marine and in-land climate variations. Relative wind strength was determined by grain size analyses of different stratigraphic units. Petromagnetic measurements were performed to provide a proxy for the relative extent of pedogenesis. An age model for the sections was built using the radiocarbon dating method. The windy periods are associated with the absence of soil formation and relatively low values of frequency dependence of magnetic susceptibility (FD), which appeared to be a valuable quantitative marker of pedogenic activity. These events correspond to colder intervals which registered reduced solar modulation and sun spot number. Events, where wind strength was lower, are characterized by soil formation with high FD values. *Spectral analysis of our results demonstrates periodic changes of 1500, 1000 and 500 years of relatively warm and cold intervals during the Holocene of Siberia. We presume that the 1000 and 500 year climatic cycles are driven by increased solar insolation reaching the Earth surface and amplified by other still controversial mechanisms.* The 1500 year cycle associated with the North Atlantic circulation appears only in the Late Holocene. *Three time periods — 8400–9300 years BP, 3600–5100 years BP, and the last ~ 250 years BP — correspond to both the highest sun spot number and the most developed soil horizons in the studied sections.*


Bold mine.

The Highlights:



> •A complete Holocene sequence of loess and buried soils has been studied in Siberia
> • Climatic cycles of 1000 and 500 years are revealed using petromagnetic parameters
> • *Such periods correspond to variations in solar insolation and sun spot activity*
> • Climatic cyclicity in the continental interior contains also oceanic cycle of 1500 years


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on ocean heat.

Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat



> I find the title of the paper somewhat odd. The paper is based on the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Ocean Reanalysis ORAS4. That reanalysis is described in detail in the Balmaseda et al (2012) paper (submitted) Evaluation of the ECMWF Ocean Reanalysis ORAS4. *Basically, the reanalysis is the product of a climate model that has data rolled into it. Since volcanic aerosols and sea surface temperatures are used as inputs, it should therefore come as no surprise that the reanalysis will include the “distinctive climate signals” associated with El Niños and volcanic eruptions.*


Bold mine.

In closing.



> Ocean heat content is at best a make-believe dataset. Refer again to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? Even with all of the adjustments to the NODC’s ocean heat content data, the data still indicates the warming resulted from natural factors, as shown in that linked post.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate models aren’t good enough to hindcast, says new study



> “The results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China between 1961 and 2000,” he says. “Only half of the 21 analysed climate models analysed were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China. Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change.”


----------



## FeXL

Mann's arrogance is palpable...

A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way?

Tweet from Michael Mann:



> No @FoxNews, I'm not interested in "debating" #climatechange & #evolution denier Roy Spencer (Roy Spencer - SourceWatch …) on your "news" network


Nice.



> Some days you have to wonder how supposedly rational and intelligent people who are considered professional scientists allow themselves to behave like this.
> 
> ...
> 
> A simple “no” would suffice, but Dr. Mann seems determined to denigrate people that have different views than him such as Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. How unprofessional.


I might add that one of the usual suspects around here feels that it's fine to mock Dr. Roy Spencer's religious beliefs, but remains mute on John Cook's. Double standard, much?

Wait, let me guess. He didn't know...


----------



## FeXL

Flagship Daily DIE WELT Stuns Germany: “Scientists Warn Of Ice Age”, Cites New Peer-Reviewed Russian Study



> "It’s probably no coincidence that ever louder scientific opinions warning of an imminent ice period are coming also from Russia. Vladimir Baschkin and Rauf Galiulin have recently recognized the ice age possibility in a study. Both biogeochemists – a discipline that also includes the study of the Earth’s atmosphere – have written a study for the Research Institute Vniigaz of the Gazprom concern, an address of course that cannot be said is free of lobbyists. However, their arguments are underpinned by findings that are gaining more and more acceptance from independent science: *solar activity is weakening considerably - to an extent that was last seen several hundred years ago, the Little Ice Age,* according to scientists.”​


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> That's strange; the stuff I've been reading is based on isotopic analysis of gas trapped in ice cores...


Funny that. There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing that there is a 400 to 1000 year delay between rising temps & increased CO2 concentrations. Along comes a single paper disputing that time period and suddenly "consensus" science falls by the wayside. Convenient, much?

Curiouser & curiouser...


----------



## iMouse

We better stay on top of this latest development. 



> Therefore it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun's surface. Estimates of the photon travel time range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.[57]


Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing that there is a 400 to 1000 year delay between rising temps & increased CO2 concentrations. Along comes a single paper disputing that time period and suddenly "consensus" science falls by the wayside. Convenient, much?


You clearly don't understand the idea of a scientific consensus as it applies to established theories like ACC and Evolution. This is very much like what we see in biology with respect to evolutionary theory: there is a very strong consensus among biologists that evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life on earth we observe. There are nevertheless many details about the specific phylogenetic relationships between organisms, and the details of how evolution works in specific circumstances that are still unknown. So it is not just possible, but quite common and desirable for a paper to come along that unravels some longstanding puzzle about some aspect of evolution. This does not weaken the consensus among biologists that evolution is fundamentally correct (obviously, as these little breakthroughs inevitably strengthen the support for evolution).

In this case, ACC is a well established paradigm that is accepted as the best explanation for the data, but there are still clearly lots of things we don't understand. The apparent lag between changes in atmospheric CO2 and the temperature was one of them. That little puzzle has now been solved. This is called scientific progress. And not surprisingly, it increases the level of support for theories, if they are correct, and weakens their support if they are false. Essentially all the progress that has been made in climatological research for the past few decades has strengthened the support for ACC. Hence the consensus.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> You clearly don't understand the idea of a scientific consensus as it applies to established theories like ACC and Evolution. This is very much like what we see in biology with respect to evolutionary theory: there is a very strong consensus among biologists that evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life on earth we observe. There are nevertheless many details about the specific phylogenetic relationships between organisms, and the details of how evolution works in specific circumstances that are still unknown. So it is not just possible, but quite common and desirable for a paper to come along that unravels some longstanding puzzle about some aspect of evolution. This does not weaken the consensus among biologists that evolution is fundamentally correct (obviously, as these little breakthroughs inevitably strengthen the support for evolution).
> 
> In this case, ACC is a well established paradigm that is accepted as the best explanation for the data, but there are still clearly lots of things we don't understand. The apparent lag between changes in atmospheric CO2 and the temperature was one of them. That little puzzle has now been solved. This is called scientific progress. And not surprisingly, it increases the level of support for theories, if they are correct, and weakens their support if they are false. Essentially all the progress that has been made in climatological research for the past few decades has strengthened the support for ACC. Hence the consensus.


Looked more like the lag had been reduced from 400+ years to 300+ years and was done by increasing the uncertainty of the measuring process. AKA smoke and mirrors.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> You clearly don't understand the idea of a scientific consensus ...


You clearly don't understand that the word consensus has no place in science.

Period.


----------



## FeXL

First off, credit where credit is due.

Gavin Schmidt agreed to be interviewed by Fox with Roy Spencer. It will be interesting to see the finished product.

Stossel Show: Schmidt, Spencer, & Ridley on Global Warming



> John Stossel interviewed me and Gavin Schmidt yesterday at the FoxNews studios in Manhattan, and I’m told he will interview Matt Ridley today, for tomorrow nights Stossel Show (9 p.m. EDT Thursday, March 28, Fox Business Channel) entitled “Green Tyranny”. As is often the case, the show might air on FoxNews Channel once or twice this weekend.
> 
> Looking for a global warming debate, Stossel said they asked 10 natural climate change deniers (sorry, my term, I couldn’t help myself), and only Gavin took them up on it. Scott Denning was also willing, but unavailable.


----------



## FeXL

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt:



> "For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position."


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You clearly don't understand that the word consensus has no place in science.


Guess we're all wrong then. I've never met a biologist who didn't agree that evolution by natural selection was the best (and now only) theory to explain the diversity of life on earth. That's a consensus. But I guess every biologist is wrong, eh?


----------



## bryanc

Actually, now that I think of it, you may be confusing what role I see consensus having here. I completely agree with you that scientists should not be convinced by consensus _within their feild_, because, within their field of expertise, they have the capacity to rationally analyze the data and come to their own independent conclusions, which is what we should all be doing. But for non-experts in the field, the emergence of a consensus among scientists is evidence that the experts in a given field have been compelled, independently, by the evidence to reach a given conclusion.

So you're right that scientists shouldn't really care about a consensus or lack thereof within their field, but non-experts should.

Given that no one here is an expert in climatology, we can only interpret the consensus of the experts in that field, as we lack the expertise to critically evaluate the data ourselves.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Guess we're all wrong then. I've never met a biologist who didn't agree that evolution by natural selection was the best (and now only) theory to explain the diversity of life on earth. That's a consensus. But I guess every biologist is wrong, eh?


It is simply "a" theory. Nothing greater, nothing less. It may even be "the" theory. But there is certainly no such thing as a "consensus" theory.

"Consensus" is a logical fallacy used by those who can't shore up their argument with facts. Your credibility will immediately increase the second you stop using the damn word. 

Try it. Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as consensus in science." Breathe deep: in through the nose, out through the mouth. Rinse, repeat.

There, wasn't that cathartic?


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Actually, now that I think of it, you may be confusing what role I see consensus having here. I completely agree with you that scientists should not be convinced by consensus _within their feild_, because, within their field of expertise, they have the capacity to rationally analyze the data and come to their own independent conclusions, which is what we should all be doing. But for non-experts in the field, the emergence of a consensus among scientists is evidence that the experts in a given field have been compelled, independently, by the evidence to reach a given conclusion.
> 
> So you're right that scientists shouldn't really care about a consensus or lack thereof within their field, but non-experts should.
> 
> Given that no one here is an expert in climatology, we can only interpret the consensus of the experts in that field, as we lack the expertise to critically evaluate the data ourselves.


So Gallileo and Copernicus were indeed wrong as the scientific consensus at that time was that the sun goes around the earth.

Bottom line is that far from being a mature field climatology is very much in its infancy, with more variables being proposed every time we turn around. 

How much impact do suboceanic volcanoes have? Longer duration solar cycles? Solar cosmic radiation? Galactic and extra galactic radiation. Variations in the earths magnetic field? Is negative feedback equal to, greater than or less than positive feedback? How far down the list is CO2 itself in terms of being a climate driver? If the science is so well proven why the data manipulation to eliminate or reduce the various warming and cooling periods that are a matter of record?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Given that no one here is an expert in climatology, we can only interpret the consensus of the experts in that field, as we lack the expertise to critically evaluate the data ourselves.


<sigh> Back to this again. We were so close...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> It is simply "a" theory. Nothing greater, nothing less. It may even be "the" theory. But there is certainly no such thing as a "consensus" theory.


No, but there is a consensus among experts that the theory is the best explanation of the facts. For non-experts, that is the best evidence they can get that the theory is correct, as they have no way of analyzing the facts for themselves.



> "Consensus" is a logical fallacy used by those who can't shore up their argument with facts.


It most certainly is not a logical fallacy. It is a description of a state of agreement between people. When the people with the expertise necessary to analyze a certain type of esoteric data come to a consensus on the meaning of that data, it is rational for a non-expert to accept that as evidence that the conclusion is correct.


> Your credibility will immediately increase the second you stop using the damn word.


My credibility with someone so obviously ignorant of the workings of science is of no concern to me.



> Try it. Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as consensus in science."


As a professional scientist, I am surrounded by obvious and unequivocal evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of topics on which scientists are in consensus, and if you are not an expert on those topics, you'd be a fool to disagree with the consensus of the experts.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> So Gallileo and Copernicus were indeed wrong as the scientific consensus at that time was that the sun goes around the earth.


Galileo and Copernicus were experts in their field, and made great contributions within their feild by producing evidence and logical arguments that changed the paradigm of their fields. If Galileo or Copernicus had disputed the consensus among weavers regarding which dye to use on a given type of wool, and they did so on the basis of having heard from a goat herder that the weavers were part of a global conspiracy, they'd have been rightly derided as fools.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> We were so close...


I have been 100% consistent and have never wavered from my original position in this thread; Climatology is a complex field, and criticism of climatology research therefore requires advanced training in the subject mater. If you lack that expertise, you cannot form a rational opinion by analyzing the data yourself, but you can use the fact that thousands of people who do have that expertise have reached a consensus on its meaning. Thus, a non-expert in climatology must either accept the consensus of experts, or refrain from forming an opinion.

Again: consensus among experts is informative to non-experts, but not relevant to experts.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Again: consensus among experts is informative to non-experts, but not relevant to experts.


It is relevant to you--only you seem to be impressed by it.


----------



## chimo

Macfury said:


> It is relevant to you--only you seem to be impressed by it.


Not just bryanc, count me in as well. Otherwise, you should be prepared to apply your same principles to other areas:

Let's say your doctor told you that you had a complex, life-threatening medical condition that needed treatment. In order to be certain, you seek a 2nd, 3rd, 4th,....., 99,999th opinion. In the end, 99.99% of them agree with the first doctor but 10 doctors disagree and suggest you have no problem at all. Would you take the advice of the 99,990 doctors or go with the other 10? Would you make the same choice if you were making it for a family member? For the purposes of this example, let's assume you are not a doctor.


----------



## Macfury

chimo said:


> Not just bryanc, count me in as well. Otherwise, you should be prepared to apply your same principles to other areas:
> 
> Let's say your doctor told you that you had a complex, life-threatening medical condition that needed treatment. In order to be certain, you seek a 2nd, 3rd, 4th,....., 99,999th opinion. In the end, 99.99% of them agree with the first doctor but 10 doctors disagree and suggest you have no problem at all. Would you take the advice of the 99,990 doctors or go with the other 10? Would you make the same choice if you were making it for a family member? For the purposes of this example, let's assume you are not a doctor.


I would be impressed with the doctors, because their diagnosis would be based on real-world information and verifiable and replicable results. 

On the other hand, if a group of doctors told me I needed my spleen removed and then told me that their diagnosis was a consensus based on a computer model, I would demand to see proof that this computer model produced consistently accurate results. The same would hold with a family member. If the removed spleens of those identified by a single computer model were consistently biopsied and shown to be diseased, I would accept their consensus.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> It most certainly is not a logical fallacy. It is a description of a state of agreement between people. When the people with the expertise necessary to analyze a certain type of esoteric data come to a consensus on the meaning of that data, it is rational for a non-expert to accept that as evidence that the conclusion is correct.


Consensus most certainly _*is*_ a logical fallacy. I would have thought that someone with your so-called knowledge in philosophy would have learned that most basic of facts in the 101 class. In the 1500's most people, scientific "experts" & laymen alike, thought the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously, we know now that those scientific "experts" & laymen alike were 100% wrong.

What is rational for scientific "experts" & laymen alike is to question everything, especially in a topic as freshly minted as climatology, especially in a field fraught with so much blatant deception, lies & politicization and especially in a field with so little empirical evidence to support the argument.


----------



## heavyall

Consensus absolutely is a logical fallacy. It's also the opposite of science.



FeXL said:


> In the 1500's most people, scientific "experts" & laymen alike, thought the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously, we know now that those scientific "experts" & laymen alike were 100% wrong.


I can give a more modern example. Stomach ulcers. Consensus was that stress and increased acidity caused them. The guys who discovered that they were caused by bacteria were vilified, the "consensus of the experts" was cited, rather that any breakdown of the actual facts they presented. Eventually, they were able to prove that the old guard were just a bunch of navel gazing idiots, and ended up winning a Nobel prize for their research.




> What is rational for scientific "experts" & laymen alike is to question everything, especially in a topic as freshly minted as climatology, especially in a field fraught with so much blatant deception, lies & politicization and especially in a field with so little empirical evidence to support the argument.


That's the biggest problem. The ones being hailed as the experts, the ones holding that consensus, are the very ones who have been caught lying time and time again. They also openly admit to blocking for peer-review any paper that doesn't line up with their official position. That is not science AT ALL. That means that those people, the institutions the represent, and the papers they publish in, are the least reliable sources there are on this subject.

That's why it's important to discuss actual facts on this subject. It's why dissecting the released data and statements is critical. If your main arguments include the words "consensus" or "peer-review", it means one of two things:

a) you have no idea what you're even talking about, or

b) you do know, and you're lying too.


----------



## chimo

Macfury said:


> I would be impressed with the doctors, because their diagnosis would be based on real-world information and verifiable and replicable results.
> 
> On the other hand, if a group of doctors told me I needed my spleen removed and then told me that their diagnosis was a consensus based on a computer model, I would demand to see proof that this computer model produced consistently accurate results. The same would hold with a family member. If the removed spleens of those identified by a single computer model were consistently biopsied and shown to be diseased, I would accept their consensus.


Well, your condition is in a relatively newly explored field of medicine. 99,990 doctors have all came to the same conclusion based on: their study in the field, the current state of knowledge of the workings human body and their examination of you (or your loved one). Yet you have decided to follow the advice of the 10 doctors who say the other 99,990 doctors are wrong and take 2 aspirin and call them in the morning. 

If that's still your position, it does not make much sense to me.


----------



## Macfury

chimo said:


> Well, your condition is in a relatively newly explored field of medicine. 99,990 doctors have all came to the same conclusion based on: their study in the field, the current state of knowledge of the workings human body and their examination of you (or your loved one). Yet you have decided to follow the advice of the 10 doctors who say the other 99,990 doctors are wrong and take 2 aspirin and call them in the morning. .


They would have come to that conclusion through replicable studies and actual operations and treatments that showed repeated success. This is something climate scientists have not demonstrated an ability to do.

The so-called scientific consensus regarding climate change seems to rely on the butterfly effect--i.e., most scientists agree that humans have some effect on the climate, no matter how small. By the same token, beavers also have some effect on the climate. This is nothing to build policy on.


----------



## iMouse

chimo said:


> If that's still your position, it does not make much sense to me.


Logic is terrible to wield. :clap:


----------



## chimo

Macfury said:


> They would have come to that conclusion through replicable studies and actual operations and treatments that showed repeated success. This is something climate scientists have not demonstrated an ability to do.



This opinion seems to be nothing more than simply re-iterating the position of the 10 dissenting doctors, rather than relying on the advice of the majority. 

Unless, of course, you feel you personally have enough knowledge and understanding of physiology and medicine to come to the same conclusion based on your self-examination (or examination of your loved one). Otherwise you are just agreeing with the "consensus" of the 10 dissenting doctors.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Consensus most certainly _*is*_ a logical fallacy. I would have thought that someone with your so-called knowledge in philosophy would have learned that most basic of facts in the 101 class.


Dude, I _teach_ that class.

What you are failing to recognize, and your persistence in this failure is nothing short of astounding, is that the consensus of the experts arose independently. If 98% of experts in a field come to the same conclusion, and you, as a non-expert who cannot understand the reasoning the experts have used to reach this conclusion, choose to go with the 2%, you're choosing based on ideology and not logic.



> especially in a topic as freshly minted as climatology, especially in a field fraught with so much blatant deception, lies & politicization and especially in a field with so little empirical evidence to support the argument.


This is your rationalization for your illogical position. You don't like the consensus of the experts, so you pretend they're part of some secret conspiracy. Whatever floats yer boat, but don't try to pass it off as rational scepticism.

Skeptic Magazine, of all sources, has recently dedicated two full issues to debunking the "skeptics" of the climate change denial movement. You can wrap your irrational fantasies in the language of skepticism all you want, but you don't have a logical case, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see it.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Dude, I _teach_ that class..


:lmao:


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> Dude, I _teach_ that class.


I feel sorry for your students, because you clearly don't understand it.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> I feel sorry for your students, because you clearly don't understand it.


Watch out for your doctors then, many of them were my students


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> What you are failing to recognize,


Dood, what you fail to acknowledge is that the "consensus" has been proven wrong in the past many times. Whether arrived at independently or not is a red herring. Consensus is a logical fallacy. Period.

What you fail to recognize in your arrogance is that other people on this planet, besides climatologists and yourself, possess knowledge enough to be able to question much of what is going on around us. We may not have the answers but we certainly have enough common DF to ask the question. Get over yourself.



bryanc said:


> You don't like the consensus of the experts, so you pretend they're part of some secret conspiracy.


I don't believe in consensus in science outside of a very few well established laws. On any topic, on either side of the argument. Period. It has nothing to do with whether I like the conclusion or not. I think anybody who believes in consensus in science is a charlatan, a fool, an idiot. And no, I don't believe this is a conspiracy, either, thanks for putting words in my mouth. 

Flat out, I believe the data has been interpreted incorrectly, plugged into computer models with that bias and the resultant accuracy of 7%-21% is the product of those initial input errors. And, as most of the warmist argument is based on those same erroneous assumptions, data and output, well, QED...




bryanc said:


> ...but you don't have a logical case...


Questioning consensus is the most logical thing I can be doing.

But, hey, you go on proselytizing to those impressionable young minds, reminding them to never question the establishment, the status quo, the hallowed "consensus" because they're too stupid to know the difference...


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost _The Economist_...

A sea-change on climate sensitivity at The Economist



> After years of being pro-warming, I was shocked to see this headline as a “pick”. It seems a change in editorial position may be afoot.
> 
> ...
> 
> The article is quite blunt, and quite interesting for its details...


In closing:



> All in all, I think this is tremendous progress. Kudos to The Economist for embracing this maxim:
> 
> _When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?
> 
> - John Maynard Keynes​_


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read. Global warming has slowed due to increased coal use. I know, I know...

Hansen's mea culpa? Says global warming has slowed due to surge in coal use 



> A paper published today by James Hansen has some startling admissions, including
> 
> 
> * the effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections
> * the growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has "remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios (figure 5)."
> * the airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions] has decreased over the past 50 years [figure 3], especially after the year 2000
> * Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from "the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal."
> * "the surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is 'fertilizing' the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2."
> * "the rate of global warming seems to be less this decade than it has been during the prior quarter century"


----------



## FeXL

The Trend in Global Drought Over the Past Six Decades



> Sheffield et al. explain themselves by first noting that "the simplicity of the PDSI, which is calculated from a simple water-balance model forced by monthly precipitation and temperature data, makes it an attractive tool in large-scale drought assessments," but they say that it "may give biased results in the context of climate change," citing the work of Roderick et al. (2009) and going on to show that *"the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades."*
> 
> Performing what they describe as "more realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed," they thus derive results that suggest *"there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years,"* which may help, in their words, "to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years," as revealed by the work of Fang et al. (2009) and de Grandpre et al. (2011).


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

From the "You can't have it both ways" department, once again, which is it...

1978 : US Coldest Winter Had Peak Arctic Ice



> Climate geniuses are telling us that the cold and snow in 2013 is due to missing Arctic ice.
> 
> The historical record shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. The coldest winter and second snowiest winter in US history was 1978-1979, and was also the year when the Arctic had the most ice ever recorded.


Yup.


----------



## eMacMan

Was just leafing through a 40 year old text book on Continental drift. At the time it was published, continental drift was finally graduating from crackpot non-conformist theory to the recognized dominant geological theory. Claiming climate science is completely established and settled even though the science is very much in its infancy, then presenting catastrophic claims of doom as motivating factors for a huge fiscal heist is beyond obscene.

We have climatologists trying to present man-made CO2 emissions as the primary driver of climate today. They completely ignore other drivers and then try to massage the data to fit their theory rather than the reverse. After that they propose cures that will not have any impact on CO2 emissions but will divert huge amounts of cash from the poor to the rich.

One group of climate scientists that are in total disagreement are the Russians. They have a huge stake in this. Global warming could bring huge benefit to Russia, yet they are quite clear that they believe the world may be slipping into a mini ice-age. The past several winters in Russia and much of Europe lends more than a little credence to this groups claims.

Seems to me that the odds of the Russian science, based on an examination of several cycles including long term solar cycle variations, then proposing theories that match the data, could prove to be more accurate than AGW catastrophe claims. If countries like Canada were faced with having to move some cities and towns or even resort to domes to protect some of the populace from a climactic cold snap, diverting much of our nations wealth to the Gore Gang or the IMF in the name of preventing Global Warming would prove to be a very costly mistake.

Even if ocean levels rise and Canada were faced with having to evacuate some low lying areas, money diverted to the Gore Gang and the IMF would still prove a very costly mistake.


----------



## FeXL

Further on all that rigorous, high quality science coming out of TIPPC™...

Job Offer: Students Wanted To Be IPCC Climate Change Reviewers



> The Risk-Monger was astonished to receive an advertisement from one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members (the government of the Netherlands) to recruit students “who have an affinity with climate change” to review the 30 chapters of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report – Working Group II (WG II). For students, this surely is exciting and the Dutch government offers: “the opportunity to be part of an important, ambitious and unique project and develop your analytical and review skills”.


More:



> Maybe I am jumping to conclusions, but with all of the mess of the last IPCC Assessment Report (including a non-scientific WWF campaign document predicting the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers getting through the review process and becoming one of the IPCC’s main conclusions), *shouldn’t they try to do a more rigorous review process this time around?* Students, working for free, are not perhaps the ideal choice of reviewers needed to challenge the experts.
> 
> ...
> *
> Talk about a tough review process.*


Bold mine.

Jo's take:

Unpaid students to review AR5. This is rigorous expert science right?



> Now don’t get me wrong, I’m the one who says there are no Gods in Science, and scientific truth lies in evidence and reasoning, not in qualifications — perhaps an unpaid student will straighten out the IPCC and stop them from making more embarrassing mistakes? *But note the contradiction that hiring unpaid students provides compared with the IPCC promotion that they only use expert peer review.*


Bold mine.

Questions, questions.


----------



## FeXL

Some interesting video of polar sea ice movement.

Cryosphere – Sea Ice Video



> I wanted to see the 2012 ice loss in the Arctic so I updated the video’s. The first video is full length, the second is just a clip of more recent years. I repeated the result for the Antarctic which has seen increases in sea ice.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Dood, what you fail to acknowledge is that the "consensus" has been proven wrong in the past many times.


Certainly, but not by politically motivated bloggers. If there are serious flaws in the ACC theory, rigorous science will reveal them. Not bloggers.


> Consensus is a logical fallacy.


Consensus is an observation, not an argument (although, ideally it is also the result of an argument). I have observed there is a consensus among experts in physics that quantum mechanics is the best explanation for the data they have regarding the behaviour of subatomic matter. I am not a physicist, so I am not qualified to analyze their data and determine the validity of their conclusions for myself, so I accept the consensus of the experts. I do so even knowing that there is a problem with standard model of quantum mechanics (i.e., that it is incompatible with general relativity), so clearly the experts have not got this entirely figured out. I wish them well in resolving the remaining puzzles, and the inconsistencies in physics suggests that we may still have somethings fundamentally wrong. That does not entitle me, as a non-physicist, to proclaim that the experts in quantum mechanics are all idiots, and anyone with a 2nd year text book can come up with a better explanation, or that they're all part of a global conspiracy to enrich themselves through their lucrative research grants.


> What you fail to recognize in your arrogance is that other people on this planet, besides climatologists and yourself, possess knowledge enough to be able to question much of what is going on around us.


What I, in my humility, recognize is that I lack the expertise to rationally criticize most of the climate research published. It is you who are so arrogant as to believe that you know better than all the thousands of Ph.D.s who you disagree with (about their own field of expertise, no less).

However, in principle, you're right. If you have the data and the evidence, you can prove they're all wrong and you're right. Fly at 'er. But it's the climatologists you have to convince; not me. It's the people with Ph.D.s in the relevant field who decide if any given explanation adequately explains the data.



> Get over yourself.


Back atcha.


> I believe the data has been interpreted incorrectly


You go right ahead believing whatever you like. But until you get it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you have zero credibility. You're just part of the deniosphere echo chamber.



> hey, you go on proselytizing to those impressionable young minds, reminding them to never question the establishment, the status quo, the hallowed "consensus" because they're too stupid to know the difference...


On the contrary, I encourage questioning... especially questioning oneself; are you sufficiently sophisticated to understand a given line of reasoning or evidence? If not, you'd do well to learn more before suggesting that the work of others more sophisticated than yourself is incorrect. The arrogance that makes you think you're so much smarter than others is what makes you stupid.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> But you can keep trying.


Obviously I've impressed you enough for you to internet-stalk me and post my last name on a public forum; very classy.


----------



## iMouse

Some people have to fill their day any way they can.









EDIT: Oh, a little late, but Reported.


----------



## speckledmind

:d


----------



## FeXL

Out of my information comfort zone, but two sides to the story.

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere



> NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.


and

A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds



> They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere”


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Fox News interview. Apparently Gavin refused to be on stage when Spencer was there. Rather boorish...

Spencer, Ridley, and Gavin on Fox tonight



> After watching the Stossel show on Fox Business Channel, I was disappointed at how Dr. Schmidt behaved. Stossell interviewed Spencer first, then Gavin Schmidt, who came across as being afraid of debate, and unfortunately he made arrangements that he would not stay on the podium when Spencer came up. This in my opinion, lost his entire case with the public in one childish appearing action.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Lewandowsky debacle.

Lewandowsky Doubles Down

Second Lewandowsky conspiracy theory paper delinked from journal

Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link


----------



## FeXL

So last year there was a bunch of screeching about a ratio of one cold temperature record being broken by three hot temperature records (1:3). This March we have 35 cold records being broken for every warm record (35:1) and the usual suspects are quietly shivering in their houses.

It’s Not About The Climate, Stupid


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Obviously I've impressed you enough for you to internet-stalk me...


Get over yourself there, sir--you've pointed people to your zebrafish research repeatedly. Some members may have been interested enough to check it out.


----------



## bryanc

It certainly wouldn't be very difficult for anyone to figure out who I, or most other frequent posters here may be. It is, however, not appropriate to post people's names, addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information on public fora.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It certainly wouldn't be very difficult for anyone to figure out who I, or most other frequent posters here may be. It is, however, not appropriate to post people's names, addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information on public fora.


Agreed about _using_ the name. Not agreed that _knowing _your name is the result of stalking.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Antarctic peninsula warming.

Antarctic summer effect confined to peninsula



> From the British Antarctic Survey , at least they didn’t pull a Steig and try to claim the observed effect on the Peninsula affects the entire continent. The peninsula is essentially a different Koppen climate class than the main continent, and is at the whim of changes in ocean currents and the SAM, plus Sea Surface Temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

Questions about James Hansen's "Coal is Greening the Planet" paper.

James Hansen Says Coal Is Greening The Planet!?!



> Dr. James Hansen of NASA, another in the long line of climate alarmists who don’t mind shafting the poor with expensive energy, has come out with a most surprising statement in his latest paper, _Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain_, hereinafter Hansen 2012. The statement involves Hansen et al.’s explanation for a claimed recent decrease in the airborne fraction.


Italics from the link.

Interesting observation about a graph Hansen uses:



> As you can see, *their curious treatment of the 7-year average at the end of the data is the only thing that makes the trend look so bad.* When changing the data length by one year makes that kind of change in an average, you can assume that your results are far, far from robust.


As always, much of the story is in the comments.


----------



## MacDoc

That 3.2 C average winter temps for Canada increase is just the beginning



> *New Models Predict Drastically Greener Arctic in Coming Decades*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This set of images shows the observed distribution of Arctic vegetation (left) in relation to the predicted distribution of vegetation under a climate warming scenario for the 2050s (right). Data used to generate the observed image are from the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (2003). (Credit: AMNH/R. Pearson)_
> 
> Mar. 31, 2013 — New research predicts that rising temperatures will lead to a massive "greening," or increase in plant cover, in the Arctic. In a paper published on March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the next few decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.
> 
> "Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem," said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
> 
> Plant growth in Arctic ecosystems has increased over the past few decades, a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate. The research team -- which includes scientists from the Museum, AT&T Labs-Research, Woods Hole Research Center, Colgate University, Cornell University, and the University of York -- used climate scenarios for the 2050s to explore how this trend is likely to continue in the future. The scientists developed models that statistically predict the types of plants that could grow under certain temperatures and precipitation. Although it comes with some uncertainty, this type of modeling is a robust way to study the Arctic because the harsh climate limits the range of plants that can grow, making this system simpler to model compared to other regions such as the tropics.
> 
> The models reveal the potential for massive redistribution of vegetation across the Arctic under future climate, with about half of all vegetation switching to a different class and a massive increase in tree cover. What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.
> 
> "These impacts would extend far beyond the Arctic region," Pearson said. "For example, some species of birds seasonally migrate from lower latitudes and rely on finding particular polar habitats, such as open space for ground-nesting."
> 
> In addition, the researchers investigated the multiple climate change feedbacks that greening would produce. They found that a phenomenon called the albedo effect, based on the reflectivity of Earth's surface, would have the greatest impact on the Arctic's climate. When the sun hits snow, most of the radiation is reflected back to space. But when it hits an area that's "dark," or covered in trees or shrubs, more sunlight is absorbed in the area and temperature increases. This has a positive feedback to climate warming: the more vegetation there is, the more warming will occur.
> 
> "By incorporating observed relationships between plants and albedo, we show that vegetation distribution shifts will result in an overall positive feedback to climate that is likely to cause greater warming than has previously been predicted," said co-author Scott Goetz, of the Woods Hole Research Center.
> 
> This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, grants IPY 0732948, IPY 0732954, and Expeditions 0832782. Other authors involved in this study include Steven Phillips (AT&T Labs-Research), Michael Loranty (Woods Hole Research Center and Colgate University), Pieter Beck (Woods Hole Research Center), Theodoros Damoulas (Cornell University), and Sarah Knight (American Museum of Natural History and University of York).


New models predict drastically greener Arctic in coming decades


----------



## Macfury

Models are just like streetcars--there will be another one coming around in just a few minutes.


----------



## bryanc

And they all seem to converge on the same results, no matter who makes them.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And they all seem to converge on the same results, no matter who makes them.


No. They converge on results in direct proportion to the bias of the modeler.


----------



## bryanc

That bias being math (logic) and empirical data.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That bias being math (logic) and empirical data.


If "empirical data" is represented by truncated data sets, selective dismissal of data that do not underscore the premise, and manipulation of data then it can be made to dance in any fashion chosen. When processed through a model offering a biased and pre-set outcome, even true empirical data is twisted. Finally, when statistical significance is overlooked, then important new announcements about the climate 100 years hence become meaningless.

Do you want a certain premise backed by a model? Put out an RFP and take the most competitive bid.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If "empirical data" is represented by...


data that has been collected and processed according to peer-reviewed protocols accepted as valid by the experts in the field. You don't know any more than I do about how the data was processed, what the reasons for that processing were, or what the acceptable standards in the field are, so you are in no position to criticize.



> Do you want a certain premise backed by a model? Put out an RFP and take the most competitive bid.


That is not how science is done. Many independent researchers have taken many independent approaches, and over several decades they have all reached the same conclusions. They don't get paid for reaching a specific result; they get paid for using scientifically valid processes and reporting their findings. When all the scientists are getting the same results, it probably means something.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> data that has been collected and processed according to peer-reviewed protocols accepted as valid by the experts in the field. You don't know any more than I do about how the data was processed, what the reasons for that processing were, or what the acceptable standards in the field are, so you are in no position to criticize.


Perhaps you are not. I am.



bryanc said:


> That is not how science is done. Many independent researchers have taken many independent approaches, and over several decades they have all reached the same conclusions. They don't get paid for reaching a specific result; they get paid for using scientifically valid processes and reporting their findings. When all the scientists are getting the same results, it probably means something.


Poor fellow. In an ideal world scientists would be respected for their honesty, integrity and ability to look beyond their own prejudices. 

However, I did not say that all studies were conducted in according to RFP. I am pointing out that I could buy one to demonstrate whatever future I want to predict.

Since all scientists are NOT getting the same result and most of the studies don't survive any sort of rigorous testing (i.e., backwards compatibility with actual climate) I'm not very impressed.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I am.


You may _think_ you are, but you have offered no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, you appear to be a classic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


> I am pointing out that I could buy one to demonstrate whatever future I want to predict.


Of course you could, and it would utterly fail to gain any scientific recognition for exactly that reason.


> I'm not very impressed.


Because you are not a climatologist, and because you have no training in the feild, no one is interested in your opinion on the subject.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You may _think_ you are, but you have offered no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, you appear to be a classic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> 
> Of course you could, and it would utterly fail to gain any scientific recognition for exactly that reason.
> 
> Because you are not a climatologist, and because you have no training in the feild, no one is interested in your opinion on the subject.


You've made it clear that you have no interest in my opinion... repeatedly. Despite your inability to post convincing arguments supporting your position, I will continue to read yours as a courtesy.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> And they all seem to converge on the same results, no matter who makes them.


No surprise, considering they all make the same erroneous assumptions...


----------



## FeXL

So, just a _few_ further observations on Marcott _et al_ after they presented a FAQ list. One question: What kind of paper have you prepared if the conclusions are so weak and/or so poor that they require a FAQ to explain what you've done? Jes' askin'...

Do read the comments, much of the story is there.

Marcott issues a FAQ on their paper

From the FAQ:



> _20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions._


Wait...Wasn't this paper sold in the media prior to its release as being the new harbinger of 20th century warming? Just nod your heads & say, "Yes". Now, the hockey stick blade is crap? Quelle surprise...

The Marcott Filibuster

Aside from the acknowledgement quote above...



> Otherwise, their response is pretty much a filibuster, running the clock on questions that have not actually been asked and certainly not at issue by critics. For questions and issues that I’ve actually raised, for the most part, they merely re-iterate what they already said. Nothing worth waiting for.


Couple of tweets:

Roger Pielke, Jr:



> The reality of climate change, the importance of the cause or the evilness of the deniers -- none of these excuse misrepresenting science.


Richard Tol (IPCC lead author):



> truly irksome is the deviation between what the paper says and what their data say


Further from Pielke.

Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science 



> However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.


His recommendations:

1) _Science_ should issue a correction to the paper, and specially do the following:

(a) retract and replot all figures in the paper and SI eliminating from the graphs all data/results that fail to meet the paper's criteria for "statistical robustness."
(b) include in the correction the explicit and unambiguous statement offered in the FAQ released today that the analysis is not "statistically robust" post-1900.

2) NSF should issue a correction to its press release, clarifying and correcting the statements of Peter Clark (a co-author, found above) and Candace Major, NSF program manager, who says in the release:

*"The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age,"* says Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences.​
3) The _New York Times_ (Gillis and Revkin, in particular), _Nature_ and _New Scientist_ as outlets that pride themselves in accurate reporting of science should update their stories with corrections. Grist and Climate Central should consider the same.

Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

A response from PSI regarding criticism of their work, my post #2744.

What's up with Anthony Watts' attempted rebuttal?


----------



## FeXL

And while we're on the topic of data smoothing and endpoints (re: Walcott), a couple of posts on that & some very interesting information about a technique that showed up in one of Mann's papers after it had been refused publication by someone else...

In the first one, spurious lagged correlations after data smoothing.

The Pitfalls of Data Smoothing



> Allan Macrae has posted an interesting study at ICECAP. In the study he argues that the changes in temperature (tropospheric and surface) precede the changes in atmospheric CO2 by nine months. Thus, he says, CO2 cannot be the source of the changes in temperature, because it follows those changes.


He concludes:



> My general conclusion from all of this is to avoid looking for lagged correlations in smoothed datasets, they’ll lie to you. I was surprised by the creation of apparent, but totally spurious, lagged correlations when the data is smoothed.



Dr. Michael Mann, Smooth Operator



> People sometimes ask why I don’t publish in the so-called scientific journals. Here’s a little story about that. Back in 2004, Michael Mann wrote a mathematically naive piece about how to smooth the ends of time series. It was called “On smoothing potentially non-stationary climate time series“, and it was published in Geophysical Research Letters in April of 2004. When I read it, I couldn’t believe how bad it was.


More:



> My main insight in my paper was that I could actually test the different averaging methods against the dataset by truncating the data at various points. By doing that you can calculate what you would have predicted using a certain method, and compare it to what the true average actually turned out to be.
> 
> And that means that _you can calculate the error for any given method experimentally._ You don’t have to guess at which one is best. You can measure which one is best. That was the insight that I thought made my work worth publishing.


Italics from the link.

Further, from the comments:



> Do I understand this correctly. In 2005 and 2006 GRL declines 2 times to publish a paper showing an improved method to deal with the averaging end-point problem. Then in 2008 GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] publishes a paper showing the same technique, by a different author, without attribution for the 2005 and 2006 submissions?


Plagiarism?


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> Because you are not a climatologist, and because you have no training in the field, no one is interested in your opinion on the subject.


He must really be hurting, for I have seen no rejoinder as of yet, not that I would. 

And for a brief, glorious moment, I though you were referring to someone else here. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

So, in my post #2733, I noted that even _The Economist_ was asking questions. Now, the Committee on Climate Change is in full attack mode, saying that the models have been successfully predicting temps for the past 60 years.

However...



> Yet as this newspaper pointed out, for almost all of that 60-year period the models were not making predictions – *because they did not yet exist.*
> 
> Instead, the models had recently been making ‘hindcasts’ – backward projections based on climate simulations and tailored to actual temperatures. The evidence shows the models collapse when they try to forecast the future.


Bold mine.

Government's climate watchdog launches astonishing attack on the Mail on Sunday... for revealing global warming science is wrong

Even the dailys are getting it...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, in my post #2733, I noted that even _The Economist_ was asking questions. Now, the Committee on Climate Change is in full attack mode, saying that the models have been successfully predicting temps for the past 60 years.


Exactly. The hindcasting models fail to predict the future, and the forecasting models fail to hindcast.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen leaving NASA?

BREAKING: James Hansen to leave NASA to be full time activist



> _Dr. Hansen says he senses the beginnings of a mass movement on climate change, led by young people. Once he finishes his final papers as a NASA employee, he intends to give it his full support.
> 
> “At my age,” he said, “I am not worried about having an arrest record.”_​


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

Yet more on Marcott.

We’re not screwed?



> The new study, by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix, was based on an analysis of 73 long-term proxies, and offered a few interesting results: one familiar (and unremarkable), one odd but probably unimportant, and one new and stunning. The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.
> 
> *The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.*


Bold mine.

More:



> Had Marcott et al. used the end dates as calculated by the specialists who compiled the original data, *there would have been no 20th-century uptick in their graph, as indeed was the case in Marcott’s PhD thesis.* But Marcott et al. redated a number of core tops, changing the mix of proxies that contribute to the closing value, and this created the uptick at the end of their graph. *Far from being a feature of the proxy data, it was an artifact of arbitrarily redating the underlying cores.*


Bold mine.

McIntyre sums:



> In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered *in the blogosphere*, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Hide & Seek in AR5.

IPCC plays hot-spot hidey games in AR5 — denies 28 million weather balloons work properly



> *It was a major PR failure in 2007. The IPCC won’t make the same mistake again. They’ve dumped the hot-spot graphs.*
> 
> In AR4 they put in two graphs that show how badly their models really do. In the next report they plan to bury the spectacular missing-hot-spot images through “graph-trickery” and selective blindness. Each round of IPCC reports takes the spin-factor up another notch. It’s carefully crafted.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

On SST's.

Global Microwave Sea Surface Temperature Update for March, 2013: -0.01 deg. C



> ...they should be useful for monitoring signs of recent ocean surface warming, *which appears to have stalled since at least the early 2000′s.*


Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> On SST's.
> 
> Global Microwave Sea Surface Temperature Update for March, 2013: -0.01 deg. C
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.


The heat is hiding and cannot be found.


----------



## bryanc

Ironic that you should post something about ocean surface temperature 'stalling' today, as there was just some good science published about this. The surface temperature increase has not 'stalled', but it has not increased at the rate the models predicted. As we all know, models are necessarily simplified, and part of the cause of the problem here appears to be that the ocean models are not incorporating the partitioning of energy between different depths of the ocean. So more energy is going into the deep ocean than into the surface water.

Here's the important figure (with legend) from Balmaseda et al. (2013), which was published in Geophysical Research Letters this week (full PDF available on request):


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ...part of the cause of the problem here appears to be that the ocean models are not incorporating...


U-huh. More model trouble.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> U-huh. More model trouble.


Having worked fairly extensively in computer modelling myself, I can say that it's difficult. Models are always simplifications, but they often provide a good enough test of a hypothesis that they can be useful, and sometimes they can be useful in generating and refining hypotheses even when they turn out to be wrong.

It would seem to me that climate modelling is even more intractably complex than the chemical and macromolecular modelling I've done, so I'm impressed with how sophisticated the climatologist's models have become, and how well they have been able to fit empirical observations. 

Fortunately, in terms of making progress on our understanding of the global climate and our effects upon it, computer models are only one of many tools climate researchers have at their disposal; the consensus of the field has emerged as a result of the agreement between the results of many different approaches.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> So more energy is going into the deep ocean than into the surface water.


Riiight. That "missing" heat that's not showing up in ARGO or anywhere else, much to Trenberth's dismay.


----------



## eMacMan

Of course trying to model while incorporating only secondary reflections caused by CO2 and while ignoring that an increase in CO2 will also increase the primary reflection back into space. Also claiming a factor of 3 positive feedback but ignoring all negative feedback is not going to produce models that can successfully hind or forecast. Especially as CO2 is a relatively minor player amongst the list of variables that direct climate. 

Designating CO2 a primary driver and declaring doom will follow if huge amounts of capital are not diverted to the Banksters and the Gore Gang is absolutely obscene. Especially as this diversion of financial resources is not intended to have any impact on CO2 emissions.

BTW BCs highly touted carbon tax has, as predicted been dumped into general revenues, with little or no greening from this particular capital diversion. Almost all of the carbon tax has been gobbled up in interest payments to the Banksters.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...I'm impressed with how sophisticated the climatologist's models have become,


Agreed. I think the 7%-21% accuracy they have risen to is head & shoulders above where they were. However, those numbers are still a _bit_ low to base a hypothesis on...


----------



## Macfury

21% accuracy, and only withing narrow parameters? There's another science called mathematics that would suggest building policy on these numbers would be foolish.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The surface temperature increase has not 'stalled', but it has not increased at the rate the models predicted.


Tell ya what...take a good look at the graph in that link and, using your critical, mathematical knowledge, just eyeball me a trend line. At best, it's very slightly negative. Looks like an eleven year stall to me.

Now find me a CHIMP5 composite modelled result that looks anything like that trend line. There's 30-odd of them, pick your most advantageous 10 results & average. 

I'll wait...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Further problems modelling clouds.

Problems of CMIP5 Climate Models with Tropical Low Clouds

In closing:



> In the words of the four French researchers, "the current generation of climate models still experiences difficulties in predicting the low-cloud cover and its radiative effects." In particular, they report that the models: (1) "under-estimate low-cloud cover in the tropics," (2) "over-estimate optical thickness of low-clouds, particularly in shallow cumulus regimes," (3) "poorly represent the dependence of the low-cloud vertical structure on large-scale environmental conditions," and (4) "predict stratocumulus-type of clouds in regimes where shallow cumulus cloud-types should prevail." However, they say that "the impact of these biases on the Earth's radiation budget ... is reduced by compensating errors [italics added]," including "the tendency of models to under-estimate the low-cloud cover and to over-estimate the occurrence of mid- and high-clouds above low-clouds."


----------



## FeXL

Wonder who is going to be doing all the "adjusting" in his absence...

Hansen Continues To Tamper With The Global Temperature Record



> The graph below shows changes made to Hansen’s GLB.Ts+dSST.txt over the past year. He makes these changes in place, overwriting the existing file so that there is no record on the NASA web site of his tampering. Fortunately we have people saving off old copies.
> 
> As usual, he has cooled the past and warmed the present. Hansen has created a 0.15C additional warming between 1910 and 2012, which didn’t exist in the February 20, 2012 version of the same file.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Wonder who is going to be doing all the "adjusting" in his absence...
> 
> Hansen Continues To Tamper With The Global Temperature Record


Bless me father, he is doing it for a good reason known only to climate scientists. They would never dream of falsifying records or jimmying data.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> That "missing" heat that's not showing up in ARGO or anywhere else


Those data on ocean heat that I just posted are based on ARGO data sets. A good friend of mine, who's Ph.D. is on convective modelling, works on ARGO data(*); the increasing deep ocean heat signature is well known now and being used to refine models of ocean mixing.

(* Incidentally, I'm curious about how you climate change deniers feel about Dear Leader cutting the budget for this project; If there really is no warming going on, wouldn't it be good to get the data to show it? Why cut the budget for this excellent opportunity to falsify ACC, as well as learn a great deal more about the oceans?)


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Tell ya what...take a good look at the graph in that link and, using your critical, mathematical knowledge, just eyeball me a trend line. At best, it's very slightly negative.




They're all clearly positive; the deeper you go the more positive they get. Are you talking about a different graph?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> (* Incidentally, I'm curious about how you climate change deniers feel about Dear Leader cutting the budget for this project; If there really is no warming going on, wouldn't it be good to get the data to show it? Why cut the budget for this excellent opportunity to falsify ACC, as well as learn a great deal more about the oceans?)


1) I don't know if you're really this ignorant of where I stand on the issue or just trying to bait me. Either way... I don't deny climate change. As a matter of fact I heartily endorse the findings. That's the only thing the warmists have right. I do not believe in CAGW and I don't believe there is enough ACC to justify spending trillions or even billions to mitigate imaginary disasters or ends of time. I believe we are currently headed for a cooling spell, on the order of a couple decades.;
2) Who TF is Dear Leader and why do I care?;
3) There hasn't been statistically significant warming for 17 years, even Hansen & Pachauri have acknowledged that.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> They're all clearly positive; the deeper you go the more positive they get. Are you talking about a different graph?


Spencer's graph here from post #2773, the one you referred to about surface temps.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Spencer's graph here from post #2773, the one you referred to about surface temps.


Okay, sorry; I thought you were talking about the ocean temperature graph from the paper I posted.

The difference between these two is almost certainly that one (from the Spencer paper) is estimates of surface temperature based on remote satellite measurement by microwave, and the other (the one I posted from the Balmaseda paper) is based on actual thermometers in the water. The microwave measurement appears to be missing the small increase in surface temperature (not to mention the big increase in temperature at depth).


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Either way... I don't deny climate change. As a matter of fact I heartily endorse the findings. That's the only thing the warmists have right.


This is hard to perceive from your posting; you are chronically posting rubbish from blogs that appears to be disputing the established science on this topic.


> I do not believe in CAGW and I don't believe there is enough ACC to justify spending trillions or even billions to mitigate imaginary disasters or ends of time.


If this is your issue, why are you disputing the ACC science rather than the publications regarding the economic impacts of ACC? These are unrelated issues.

Unlike the consensus of climatologists regarding ACC, I'm unaware of any consensus of ecologists, economists, sociologists, insurance brokers, or anyone else on how big or expensive the impacts of ACC will be. If this is your issue, why attack the science that is well supported? Why not attack the weakly supported analysis of impact?


> I believe we are currently headed for a cooling spell, on the order of a couple decades.


Believe whatever you like; just don't pretend it's scientifically justified.


> Who TF is Dear Leader and why do I care?


Harper and his science-muzzling ideological friends who are doing everything their authoritarian little team can think of to prevent research from being done, or publicized, in order to prevent facts that will contradict his policies from coming to light.

You should care because their decisions are what is preventing us from finding out if ACC may be flawed. You should care because you are being prevented from seeing the results of research you paid for. You should care because scientists are dedicating their lives to finding out something about reality, and Harper, et al. are burying their lives' work because it doesn't fit their ideological narrative. You should care because the only way a democracy can work is if the people have access to information.


> There hasn't been statistically significant warming for 17 years, even Hansen & Pachauri have acknowledged that.


This is for climatologists and other scientists to decide; the warming of the deep ocean that has occurred in the past decade looks pretty significant to me, but I'm just a biologist, I'll let the experts in that field analyze their data.


----------



## MacDoc

> There hasn't been statistically significant warming for 17 years, even Hansen & Pachauri have acknowledged that.


still don't get the full picture do you? You say you support the science then put your foot in your mouth.
The physics don't change.
The atmosphere is transient..be sure and let us know when the net glacial mass loss stops.

There are a couple of reasons for a pause in the atmospheric global averages, ENSO, volcanoes and particulates and S02 but there sure is little sign of any slow down in the night time temps and in regions like Australia and the Arctic where the change is just accelerating.

Sounds to me like a waffle from an untenable position for oh about 15 years or more since AGW has been very clear.


----------



## groovetube

Well it looks like you won handily here Bryanc, when someone attacks you personally like that it means they have zip beyond that.

It still gets away with this stuff constantly.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Because the effects of ACC are insignificant


Says the layman who knows diddly-squat about climate science...


> It's already flawed.


Says the layman who knows diddly-squat about climate science...

Let us know when you get your Ph.D. in climatology, then maybe your proclamations on this subject will be worth listening to.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Says the layman who knows diddly-squat about climate science...
> 
> Says the layman who knows diddly-squat about climate science...
> 
> Let us know when you get your Ph.D. in climatology, then maybe your proclamations on this subject will be worth listening to.


I continue to read your opinions on these matters, bryanc, despite your self-confessed inability to weigh in on them with any relevance. No, don't thank me. It's a courtesy I offer to all.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This is hard to perceive from your posting; you are chronically posting rubbish from blogs that appears to be disputing the established science on this topic.


Oh, horse****. Show me one link I've posted in any of these 3 GHG threads where they said global warming does not exist.



bryanc said:


> If this is your issue, why are you disputing the ACC science rather than the publications regarding the economic impacts of ACC? These are unrelated issues.


Because far too frequently the false gods of ACC are cavorting across the meadow with the false gods of CAGW.



bryanc said:


> ...consensus...


I don't do the c-word.



bryanc said:


> Believe whatever you like; just don't pretend it's scientifically justified.


There is a fair amount of science pointing in that direction, not the least of which is our current sunspot cycle. Again, if you clicked on a link, you'd know that.



bryanc said:


> Harper <snip>


I'm not going to discuss Harper's politics on this thread. You want to ask the question on the Canadian Political thread, feel free. I probably won't respond there, either, because discussing politics on a blog is even more fruitless than discussing global warming.



bryanc said:


> This is for climatologists and other scientists to decide


Well, then, it's been decided.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The physics don't change.
> The atmosphere is transient..be sure and let us know when the net glacial mass loss stops.


You really are thick, aren't you? No, the physics don't change. Sceptics knew that from the beginning. Warmists didn't.

The whole crazy, untenable, warmist position has been that temps are rising in direct relation to CO2 concentrations. Period. Then, when that unfortunate period of temperature flat-lining hit, despite the increase of gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, the story needed to be changed. Hence, warmist's sudden embracement of natural cycles.

As to "net glacial mass loss", we were in the Little Ice Age for 500 years. We've been out of it for 150. I'll leave the math to you, gentle reader...



MacDoc said:


> there sure is little sign of any slow down in the night time temps


Ever heard of UHI? That's why day time temps have flat-lined and night time temps have increased. All that asphalt, concrete, brick, what have you, that heated up during the day is now holding it's heat into the night. Choose monitoring stations that are properly sited (nowhere near urban areas) and, suddenly, night time temps haven't changed, either. Who knew? Apparently not SS and RC...


----------



## FeXL

On the subject of cooling... Interesting reading. Don't agree with everything he has to say but some stuff to make you go hmmm. He's a geologist.

Global Cooling – Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions



> The decline in the count minima from solar cycles 20-22 ie from 1969 – 1991 corresponds roughly to the temperature rise from the early 1980s to the 2003-5 temperature peak . It also matches well with the increase in the count of hours of sunshine during the same period dicussed by Wang et al which may well represent an open phase of the iris effect.
> 
> The relatively higher counts at the cycle 23 and especially the cycle 24 neutron minima troughs (solar cycle SSN peaks) suggest a continuing downtrend in temperatures to at least 2024.
> There was a secular change in the related Ap index in 2004-5 which could presage a sharp temperature drop in about 2016-17 and the Oulu data show an increase in the neutron count also in 2004- 5 which might indicate the same thing and which is alredy built in to the system.
> 
> It is possible that the record 20th century peak in the 2009 count might indicate a real cold snap in 2021-22.


He has links to other articles he has written.


----------



## FeXL

Lewandowsky paper has been delinked.

Lewandowsky paper ‘provisionally removed’ due to complaints

Further background info.

Tom Curtis Writes



> While CA readers may disagree with Tom Curtis, we’ve also noticed that he is straightforward. Recently, in comments responding to my recent post on misrepresentations by Lewandowsky and Cook, Curtis agreed that “Lewandowsky’s new addition to his paper is silly beyond belief”, but argued that “the FOI data does not show Cook to have lied about what he found. He was incorrect in his claims about where the survey was posted; but that is likely to be the result of faulty memory.”


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Show me one link I've posted in any of these 3 GHG threads where they said global warming does not exist.
> ...
> Because far too frequently the false gods of ACC


When you constantly post links to blogs or cherry pick quotes from published science that suggest ACC may not be true, warming has "stalled", and use phrases like "false gods of ACC" it gives the impression that you don't accept the science.



> Well, then, it's been decided.


Glad we finally agree. If the climatologists reverse their position on ACC, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I will happily agree to allow the experts to draw their conclusions.


----------



## eMacMan

I think I am beginning to understand. During the warming phase of a natural cycle, all of the warming is caused by CO2 and natural cycles completely cease to exist. However when a prolonged cooling phase is entered, suddenly climate is once again controlled by natural cycles, which magically more than offset the effects of CO2 and the x3 positive feedback warming loop. 

Still absolutely no explanation as to how stealing $Trillion$ from those that have nothing to give, and transferring the stolen wealth to the Banksters and Al Gore Gang, can possibly have the slightest impact on atmospheric CO2. I suspect the reason that no explanation is ever given is that the mechanics involve starving or freezing to death a significant portion of the planets population. Despite being morally and ethically bankrupt, eliminating half of the planets population would indeed reduce overall CO2 emissions. It would also explain why the Chicken Little crowd does not want to talk about the mechanics of their proposed cure. I guess as long as they believe their cause to be Holy, wiping out half of humanity can be written off as collateral damage with no punishment meted out to the perpetrators.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> I think I am beginning to understand. During the warming phase of a natural cycle, all of the warming is caused by CO2 and natural cycles completely cease to exist. However when a prolonged cooling phase is entered, suddenly climate is once again controlled by natural cycles, which magically more than offset the effects of CO2 and the x3 positive feedback warming loop.


Not even close. And not even remotely similar to anything published in any peer-reviewed science. And you don't even get any marks for effort, as that was a lame attempt at sarcasm.



> Still absolutely no explanation as to how stealing $Trillion$ from those that have nothing to give, and transferring the stolen wealth to the Banksters and Al Gore Gang, can possibly have the slightest impact on atmospheric CO2.


I have far less to say about the proposed solutions, but your attempt at satirizing the carbon-taxing scheme(s) proposed is equally lame. More to the point, what do you offer as a better alternative. Take it as given that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem; that's something that has been established by science, and you are not in a position to argue about the science. So how would you reduce our release of CO2 and other GHGs without damaging the economy?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> warming has "stalled",


The warming _has_ stalled. CO2 levels _have_ gone up. That _is_ the empirical evidence _and_ the science. 

Twist it, torque it, turn it upside down & scream blue murder. Do whatever you like. That confirms the disconnect between the two. Models ain't gonna change any of that. Sorry...


----------



## heavyall

groovetube said:


> Well it looks like you won handily here Bryanc


What thread are you reading? bryanc is getting his ass handed to him. He's the one who doesn't bring anything to the table beside insults.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> I have far less to say about the proposed solutions, but your attempt at satirizing the carbon-taxing scheme(s) proposed is equally lame. More to the point, what do you offer as a better alternative. Take it as given that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem; that's something that has been established by science, and you are not in a position to argue about the science. So how would you reduce our release of CO2 and other GHGs without damaging the economy?


Nothing satirical about it. Because virtually every government in the world is up to their ears in debt, any carbon taxes would flow directly to the Banksters, they would not pass go, nor would they stop any CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Don't believe it? Look how BCs carbon tax was dropped into the general fund and swallowed whole to prop up the provincial deficit.

Of course Al Gore has positioned himself nicely to take a huge slice of every carbon credit sold. That is why he promotes them so heavily. Does not hurt that there is no forensic audit so he is quite free to buy a carbon credit and sell it 10 or even a hundred times over. Sweet thing about that is he can, should he choose to do so, cook the books so bought and sold balance and thereby dodge most of the taxes he would other wise pay. 

The only way these two approaches can have any impact on man made CO2, is if enough people are starved, frozen and/or made homeless by the gouging.

Remember Al Gore and most of the rest of the elite are contributing 20, 30 even 100 times the national average of CO2. That means the poor, whom are clearly the target of these measures, are using half or even less of the national average. In plain English you have to wipe out 50 to 100 of the nations poorest to allow just one of the elite to continue their lifestyle unabated. Like it or not if you're going to tackle manmade CO2 on the backs of the poor, annihilation is the only possible result. These people have already cut right to the bone merely to survive, when you are at the breaking point cutting even more simply cannot be done in a non-destructive manner.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Nothing satirical about it. Because virtually every government in the world is up to their ears in debt, any carbon taxes would flow directly to the Banksters, they would not pass go, nor would they stop any CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Don't believe it? Look how BCs carbon tax was dropped into the general fund and swallowed whole to prop up the provincial deficit.


bryanc has also referred to the blessing of the World Bank on AGW theories as though it was a hard sell. He does not mention that they skim a percentage of each carbon trading transaction for themselves.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> More to the point, what do you offer as a better alternative. Take it as given that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem; that's something that has been established by science, and you are not in a position to argue about the science. So how would you reduce our release of CO2 and other GHGs without damaging the economy?


More to the point, no alternative is necessary. There is no "given the established science" and no reason to reduce carbon emissions. 

Your statement is like saying "given the existence of hostile space aliens for whom we have no proof, how would you fight them when they arrive--by developing a flying saucer defense fleet or ground-based death rays?"


----------



## MacDoc

> A*ustralia has no choice but to change with the climate
> *
> * 13:38 03 April 2013 by Michael Slezak, Sydney, Australia
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> Australia has been warned: it's time to adapt to a changed climate. The extreme weather that has rocked the country over the last couple of years is a result of human-induced climate change, and will only get worse without immediate drastic action, according to the Climate Commission, an independent advisory body set up by the Australian government.
> 
> "Climate change is making many extreme events worse in terms of their impacts on people, property, communities and the environment," says climate commissioner Will Steffen. "We are very concerned that the risk of more frequent and more severe extreme weather events is increasing as we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases."
> 
> The report, The Critical Decade, warns that emergency services, health authorities and communities must prepare for increasingly common bouts of extreme heat, bush-fire conditions, heavy rainfall and drought. It pinpoints the southeastern parts of Australia, containing some of the country's most densely populated areas – including Sydney and Melbourne – "as being at increased risk from many extreme weather events – heatwaves, bushfires, heavy rainfall and sea-level rise."
> 
> This comes just weeks after another independent group set up by the Australian Government released a report recommending that, because of climate change, the military "start planning for responding to scenarios such as a devastating bushfire at home at the same time that a storm surge hits the Pacific".
> 
> When Australia officially emerged from a decade-long drought recently, far from being a cue for relief, the announcement came amid devastating floods, storms and the worst heatwaves on record.
> 
> *Record-breaking summer*
> 
> The summer that just ended broke 123 weather records in 90 days, including hottest summer and hottest day, as well as 26 daily rainfall records at different locations around the country.
> 
> "Records are broken from time to time, but record-breaking weather is becoming more common as the climate shifts," says Tim Flannery, the chief climate commissioner.
> 
> *The report projects that by the end of the century, Darwin, in Australia's north, will experience 312 days of weather above 35 °C each year – up from just eight in 2008. *Associated with such extended extreme weather will be a rise in infectious diseases, mental health problems and deaths among people with compromised health.
> 
> While the extreme rain events are likely to be more common in some areas, droughts are also predicted to become more frequent across some of the country's major food-growing areas.
> 
> "Stabilising the climate is like turning around a battleship – it cannot be done immediately given its momentum," the report warns. "When danger is ahead you must start turning the wheel now. Any delay means that it is more and more difficult to avert the future danger."


Australia has no choice but to change with the climate - environment - 03 April 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

> The summer that just ended broke 123 weather records in 90 days, including hottest summer and hottest day, as well as 26 daily rainfall records at different locations around the country.


Except that Australian climate records were not been broken last year--only the way in which average temperatures were recorded had changed.



> The report projects that by the end of the century, Darwin, in Australia's north, will experience 312 days of weather above 35 °C each year – up from just eight in 2008.


Again, if you tell a model to trend hot days, it will do as you tell it. A model of the sort used to predict hot days in Darwin is based on a false relationship between CO2 and temperature--one that has broken over the last 20 years.


> "Stabilising the climate is like turning around a battleship – it cannot be done immediately given its momentum," the report warns. "When danger is ahead you must start turning the wheel now. Any delay means that it is more and more difficult to avert the future danger."


This reminds me of the type of homily uttered by the pigs in _Animal Farm_ as the poor horses worked themselves to death. 

Either that, or something uttered by Chauncey Gardener.


----------



## MacDoc

The egg dripping off Harper's face looks good on him.....



> ENVIRONMENT
> *Alberta’s bold plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions stuns Ottawa and oil industry* .
> SHAWN MCCARTHY AND NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
> OTTAWA and CALGARY — The Globe and Mail
> 
> 
> The Alberta government has quietly presented* a proposal to sharply increase levies on carbon production and force large oil-industry producers to slash greenhouse gas *emissions by as much as 40 per cent on each barrel of production, a long-term plan that has surprised Ottawa and industry executives with its ambition.


more

Alberta

snip



> “A larger part of the discussion around Keystone has been about greenhouse gas emissions” from the oil sands, said Clare Demerse, director of federal policy with the Pembina Institute. “This is clearly a sector that is under scrutiny right now, and the right answer to that scrutiny is to come out with credible regulations.”


kicking and screaming into reality....
bout bloody time...a large pie in the face to Harper's odious environmental record....


----------



## Macfury

Did you read the proposal MacDoc? It doesn't promise what you believe it does. Perhaps it will provide enough of a smokescreen to get the Keystone XL built, though.


----------



## MacDoc

Yay team.....closing coal plants and opening new nukes :clap:



> *US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years*
> 
> * 03 April 2013 by Michael Reilly
> 
> After a three-decade hiatus, work is finally under way on a new wave of reactors thanks to government funding – but China is already way ahead
> 
> Editorial: "It's too early to herald a US nuclear renaissance"
> 
> YOU could be forgiven for thinking a new era of nuclear energy is under way in the US. On 11 March, crews at the Virgil C Summer power plant in South Carolina completed a 51-hour marathon of pouring concrete. Three days later, in Burke County, Georgia, another concrete base was completed.
> 
> The two reactors that will sit on these bases will be Westinghouse AP1000s. Like older models, they will use uranium fission to heat water and drive a turbine, but these reactors will be smaller, simpler to build, and each will add more than [HILITE]1100 megawatts of capacity to the region's power grid when they come online in 2016 or 2017 – without emitting carbon dioxide.[/HILITE]
> 
> They will be the first new reactors on US soil in over three decades. Besides the two reactors in progress, two more are planned – one at each plant. And work has resumed on a half-built reactor, Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. It could be connected to the grid by 2015.


more

US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years - tech - 03 April 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> What thread are you reading? bryanc is getting his ass handed to him.


Here's a new topic for scientific investigation; how are conservatives able to live in a completely different universe and still apparently use up oxygen in ours?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The warming _has_ stalled. CO2 levels _have_ gone up. That _is_ the empirical evidence _and_ the science.


Saying it does not make it true. I have posted current peer-reviewed science that shows the opposite of this; you have posted links to blogs. The science is clearly showing warming. The blogs are the only one's talking about a "stall."

And just yesterday you were saying you didn't dispute global warming or ACC; it's just that you don't believe it will be catastrophic. Now you're disputing the warming again. Which is it?


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Yay team.....closing coal plants and opening new nukes :clap:
> 
> 
> 
> more
> 
> US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years - tech - 03 April 2013 - New Scientist


Have as yet to see all the coal plants in the world do as much damage as one Fukishima. Still it illustrates perfectly why the Chicken Little Crowd is so dangerous.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Saying it does not make it true. I have posted current peer-reviewed science that shows the opposite of this; you have posted links to blogs. The science is clearly showing warming. The blogs are the only one's talking about a "stall."


First off, then what are Hansen & Pachauri, amongst other warmists, talking about? I've linked to them in this thread, I'm not going to repost. You can search if you feel inclined.

Second, you need a peer-reviewed study to find out if it's warming? Read the bloody temperature records! GISS, HADCRUT3, -4, any of them. Again, I posted a link a while back showing all the official temperature records (6 or 7 if memory serves), all of them showed similar current statistical flatlines. I don't recall the shortest, but the longest ran out to 22 years. Again, you can go search.



bryanc said:


> And just yesterday you were saying you didn't dispute global warming or ACC; it's just that you don't believe it will be catastrophic. Now you're disputing the warming again. Which is it?


Seeing as official temperature records don't impress you, go find a peer-reviewed paper that charts the recent temperature record (that will end up having the exact same data as the official temp record, BTW.) Take a look at the last hundred years or so. Plot a trend line. It's rising (= global warming), overall. 

However, there are cooling and warming cycles within that trend. The breakdown is thus: warming trend from ~1910-~1945, cooling trend from ~1945-~1975, warming trend from ~1975-~2003, flat trend to 2013. Even within these "secondary" trends are shorter trends.

The period of global cooling which started in the late 40's was at a time when the anthropogenic CO2 signal was barely discernable, if at all, from natural CO2. 

To sum, the hundred year trend shows global warming. The current 17 year trend shows flatline. I didn't contradict myself. It all depends on what time period you are speaking of.

Now, all of this is pretty academic. Are you just trying to be pedantic or do you have a point?


----------



## FeXL

Further on that unprecedented, catastrophic Greenland ice melt last summer... (/sarc)

Weather, not climate, caused the brief surface melt in Greenland last summer



> Readers may recall the breathless wailing over a brief period of surface melt detected by satellites last year. The way the media and alarmists who drive the media behaved, you’d think that global warming had set the planet on fire. Maybe their beef was over the red color in the satellite image that accompanied the press release.


Yup.



> Three million cubic kilometers of ice won’t wash into the ocean overnight, but researchers have been tracking increasing melt rates since at least 1979. Last summer, however, the melt was so large that similar events show up in ice core records only *once every 150 years or so* over the last four millennia.


Further.



> *In a study to be published in the April 4 issue of the journal Nature,* Bennartz and collaborators describe the moving parts that led to the melt, which was observed from the ICECAPS experiment funded by the National Science Foundation and run by UW–Madison and several partners atop the Greenland ice sheet.


Yep, all bold mine. Colour, too. Jes' wanted to make sure that the usual suspects saw this was GOOD SCIENCE being published in one of the PREFERRED PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS!!!

Natcheral cycles, people...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al._

Proxy spikes: The missed message in Marcott et al



> There is a message in Marcott that I think many have missed. Marcott tells us almost nothing about how the past compares with today, because of the resolution problem. Marcott recognizes this in their FAQ. The probability function is specific to the resolution. Thus, you cannot infer the probability function for a high resolution series from a low resolution series, because you cannot infer a high resolution signal from a low resolution signal. The result is nonsense.


Again, much of the story is in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

XX) (3x...)

Predicting Decadal to Multi-Decadal Variability in Precipitation

More Problems with Decadal Climate-Model Prediction Skills

On the Road to Predicting Changes in the Asian Summer Monsoon


----------



## FeXL

Interesting take on a couple of Spiegel's recent articles.

Spiegel Stops Believing…”Hot Debate Over Climate: How Reliable Are The Prognoses?” Growing Doubts Over Models!


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> To sum, the hundred year trend shows global warming. The current 17 year trend shows flatline. I didn't contradict myself. It all depends on what time period you are speaking of


So you don't believe the ocean temperature data shows warming of the deep ocean in the past 17 years? The purple line (total depth) is "flat" in your estimation?


----------



## eMacMan

Further on the BC Carbon Tax debacle.

To summarize; Even this relatively minor Carbon Tax was causing serious damage to BC's economy, without having even a moderate impact on provincial CO2 emissions. My earlier comments reinforced by the Premiers own words.



> Premier Christy Clark said British Columbia's carbon tax will be frozen at current rates if the Liberals are re-elected May 14.
> 
> A creeping tax scale was introduced five years ago to have residents reduce their use of carbon emitting fuels by one-third by 2020. Almost seven cents is added to every litre of gasoline sold in this province now, or the equivalent of $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.
> 
> Clark says current economic conditions don't allow for further increases.
> 
> *"Now we're at a point where people are finding it really difficult to afford to live in British Columbia and other places and people are concerned about their future, and with an unstable world economy we have to work hard to keep life affordable for people," she said.*
> "Freezing the carbon tax for five years is part of my commitment."
> 
> NDP environment critic Rob Fleming calls the move an admission of failure by the government, saying freezing the rate for half a decade will ensure B.C. doesn't meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
> 
> "If they're going to suspend one of the major tools to achieve carbon reductions in British Columbia — carbon pricing — for five full years, then they have basically given up on their climate reduction targets and they should make that clear. Be honest about it," he said.
> 
> The NDP has previously promised to raise corporate tax rates to allow some carbon tax revenue to be used for local transit projects, but it won't say yet what else an NDP government would do with


Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines


----------



## chimo

bryanc said:


> So you don't believe the ocean temperature data shows warming of the deep ocean in the past 17 years? The purple line (total depth) is "flat" in your estimation?


To be read in a Steve Jobs voice:

"You're holding it wrong". Rotate about 80 degrees clockwise and it will look flat.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> So you don't believe the ocean temperature data shows warming of the deep ocean in the past 17 years? The purple line (total depth) is "flat" in your estimation?


<sigh> Do we have a deep sea ocean temperature record going back a hundred years or more? Does that sound remotely like anything I might be referring to? Do GISS or HADCRUT measure deep ocean temps? Did Hansen and Pachauri comment on deep sea ocean temp flatlining?

And you wonder why I don't want to engage you on this topic?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> And you wonder why I don't want to engage you on this topic?


No, it's quite apparent that you have no understanding of either the methodology or culture of science, and therefore engaging in a discussion of science with an actual scientist is a source of constant frustration and embarrassment for you. Go back to the blogs where the fossil fuel industry shills will tell you want you want to hear; it will make you feel better, and you're clearly not going to make any useful contribution to the field anyway.

If you're lucky, you may be old enough that you won't live to see your fantasies utterly crushed by reality; but I suggest you avoid reading anything that reviews the actual scientific literature if you want to keep those illusions intact.

It's been fun. Have a nice life.


----------



## iMouse

chimo said:


> To be read in a Steve Jobs voice:
> 
> "You're holding it wrong". Rotate about 80 degrees clockwise and it will look flat.


I used "Alex", the 'new' voice for Leopard. (Yes, old school here.) 

It was OK, but perhaps if Siri said it, it might sound even sexier? :lmao:

beejacon


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> It's been fun. Have a nice life.


Typical warmist response. Colour me surprised. <not!>

Post a link on flatlining global surface temps, get accused of not following the peer-reviewed science, document proof of said flatlining surface temps, goalposts get moved to deep sea temps, response issued clarifying original statement & associated science, (hanging you out high & dry in the process) & now you're leaving in a snit 'cause I know nothing about science. I was referring to the official temperature record that peer-reviewed science uses! Hello...

That's some vortex you just created there.

Why is it that when you post a link to a peer-reviewed paper it's gospel and when I do the same it's an outlier, some freak of nature that somehow must be reconciled with the "truth"? 

And, for somebody who claims to religiously follow "consensus" you certainly have no issues changing horses in mid stride to the newest & greatest, as long as it suits your argument. 

As to my life, thx for the wishes. I sleep like a rock every night, despite the hammering of those nails into the lid of the CAGW coffin.

Goodbye, bryanc. It's been real...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You should care because their decisions are what is preventing us from finding out if ACC may be flawed. You should care because you are being prevented from seeing the results of research you paid for. You should care because scientists are dedicating their lives to finding out something about reality, and Harper, et al. are burying their lives' work because it doesn't fit their ideological narrative. You should care because the only way a democracy can work is if the people have access to information.


That climate scientists have dedicated their lives to their careers make them no different from anyone else dedicated to their careers. If they have received funding and special treatment in the past, they have no reason to expect that they will continue to receive it until they retire. Democracy will continue to function without them.


----------



## FeXL

A short list of failed predictions.

Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laughingstocks



> What follows are dozens of predictions for warmer winters made not long ago during the 2000s, *many by leading scientists*. What started as a simple Google search, turned into a list of false winter predictions for Central Europe, particularly Germany. By sheer coincidence reader Jimbo sent over his own list of false wintertime predictions made by *“experts”* in the US and Great Britain.


Bold mine.

Tell me again that "experts" and "peer-reviewed" science are infallible...


----------



## FeXL

Nice blurb on sunspots from NASA. Good info.

Solar Cycle Prediction


----------



## FeXL

Sounds like there may be some interesting data in the pipe, if it ever sees the light.

Will Lonnie Thompson archive THIS new ice core data?



> From the Ohio State University , taken with a grain of salt since Dr. Thompson and his wife Ellen are serial non archivers of ice core data (even when asked for it), which prevents other scientists from checking their work.


Apparently he has some history with not archiving data.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Marcott _et al_ statistical methodology. Very good discussion in the comments.

Marcott Monte Carlo



> So far, the focus of the discussion of the Marcott et al paper has been on the manipulation of core dates and their effect on the uptick at the recent end of the reconstruction. Apologists such as “Racehorse” Nick have been treating the earlier portion as a _given._ The reconstruction shows that mean global temperature stayed pretty much constant varying from one twenty year period to the next by a _maximum_ of .02 degrees for almost 10000 years before starting to oscillate a bit in the 6th century and then with a greater amplitude beginning about 500 years ago. The standard errors of this reconstruction range from a minimum of .09 C *(can this set of proxies realistically tell us the mean Temperature more than 5 millennia back within .18 degrees with 95% confidence?)* to a maximum of .28 C. So how can they achieve such precision?


Italics from the link, bold mine.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> Harper and his science-muzzling ideological friends who are doing everything their authoritarian little team can think of to prevent research from being done, or publicized, in order to prevent facts that will contradict his policies from coming to light.
> 
> You should care because their decisions are what is preventing us from finding out if ACC may be flawed. You should care because you are being prevented from seeing the results of research you paid for. You should care because scientists are dedicating their lives to finding out something about reality, and Harper, et al. are burying their lives' work because it doesn't fit their ideological narrative. You should care because the only way a democracy can work is if the people have access to information.


It's statements like this that expose you as being completely full of it.

Government scientists are government employees. They have no more special right to speak about their work than any other employee of a government, federal or provincial, Liberal, NDP, or CPC. My wife works for the Manitoba (NDP) government, there's no chance in hell she'd be allowed to talk to the press about her job either.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Government scientists are government employees. They have no more special right to speak about their work than any other employee of a government, federal or provincial, Liberal, NDP, or CPC. My wife works for the Manitoba (NDP) government, there's no chance in hell she'd be allowed to talk to the press about her job either.


They're still free to publish this stuff in learned journals, but they want to have unfettered access to the press. To that I say--good luck with that.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> Here's a new topic for scientific investigation; how are conservatives able to live in a completely different universe and still apparently use up oxygen in ours?


That's because we live in the real world instead of computer models of it.


----------



## FeXL

Freeman Dyson on climatologists...

Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor



> Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.
> 
> So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
> 
> *"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.*


Bold, well, mine.

Further:



> "I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
> 
> ...
> 
> "The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."
> 
> ...
> 
> "They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they’ve been brainwashed."
> 
> ...
> 
> "It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin."


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" dept, I offer these two. My reasoning? 'Cause if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be screaming blue murder. It's not, so you don't hear a squeak. Funny, that...

A Cold German Or Two

Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record


----------



## FeXL

Interesting paper on forcings.

A Comparison Of The Earth’s Climate Sensitivity To Changes In The Nature Of The Initial Forcing



> The Earth’s feedback response to warming is independent of the nature of the forcing that caused that warming. The question I intend to examine is whether the nature of the forcing will have a significant impact on the initial warming or the response time of the earth’s system. I looked at changes in three different types of forcing and their effect on the earth’s temperature response.


He concludes:



> This paper proposes that the IPCC’s position is not consistent with our best millennial temperature records nor is it consistent with Green House Gas Forcing and temperature rise in the 20th century (Fig. 1) without unrealistically large aerosol cooling. The IPCC’s position is particularly inconsistent when it is noted that aerosol levels have fallen over the last 20 years at a time when temperature rise has abated.
> 
> All the available data is neatly reconciled and consistent if we are prepared to accept that the earth’s climate sensitivity is different for long wave greenhouse gas forcing than it is for short wave solar forcing. It is, in fact, unlikely that these two would have the same sensitivity and there are good physical reasons why they wouldn’t.


----------



## FeXL

Biting paper to Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society.

Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society



> Dear Sir Paul Nurse,
> 
> Your reply to Lord Lawson dated 8 March has come to hand. It goes without saying that I make no claim to be responding on his behalf; he is more than capable of doing that for himself. Your letter, however, is such a singular juxtaposition of barely suppressed personal antipathy (malice even), blatant mendacity and shameless evasion, especially coming from a person in your position, that comment seems warranted.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: May contain peer-reviewed science...

On all that coral reef bleaching in '98.

Good news about coral reefs – they recovered from warming



> Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbours, a long-term study by marine biologists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) has shown.
> 
> Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today.


Abstract.



> Coral reef recovery from major disturbance is hypothesized to depend on the arrival of propagules from nearby undisturbed reefs. Therefore, reefs isolated by distance or current patterns are thought to be highly vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance. We found that on an isolated reef system in north Western Australia, coral cover increased from 9% to 44% within 12 years of a coral bleaching event, despite a 94% reduction in larval supply for 6 years after the bleaching. The initial increase in coral cover was the result of high rates of growth and survival of remnant colonies, followed by a rapid increase in juvenile recruitment as colonies matured. We show that isolated reefs can recover from major disturbance, and that the benefits of their isolation from chronic anthropogenic pressures can outweigh the costs of limited connectivity.





> The paper _“Recovery of an isolated coral reef system following severe disturbance“_, by J. P. Gilmour, L. D. Smith, A. J. Heyward, A. H. Baird and M. S. Pratchett will be published online at 5 am by the journal _Science_ on Friday, 5th April, 2013.


From the comments:



> Well, I’m only a geologist/engineer but this is not news to me. The world’s corals survived ice ages, 120 metre (400ft) undulations in sea level (drilling in the Bikini Atoll revealed coral limestone 120m thick -it kept pace – the SAME REEF COLONY for millions of years), hot sun, cool sun, high CO2, low CO2 (think of the ocean “acidification” caused by 4000ppm CO2), killer asteroid collisions, – apparently they may even have survived “snowball -earth”. I hope we are as tough as these suckers. Can biologists please write this down for future reference. It is long past time for biologists to either already know all this stuff, at least as well as every geologist knows it, or to get other employment.


----------



## FeXL

Michael Mann:



> _No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them._​


Clearly distinguished

<snort>...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marcott _et al_ & Tamino.

Marcott – 3 spikes and you are out



> Tamino claims he has added 3 spikes to the Marcott et al proxy data and the Marcott et al process detects them.
> 
> ...
> 
> Having had my reply disappeared at Tamino’s site, I thought readers at WUWT might be interested. I don’t believe Tamino’s conclusion follows from his results. Rather, I believe he has demonstrated the truth of my original prediction. What needs to be understood is that adding a spike to the proxy data is not the same as adding a spike to the proxies. This is where people get confused.


Also, a comment that really caught my eye:



> Here is a chart of the Marcott-2013 cores – Elevation vs ProxyType & Core Name.
> Color is by Category (NH, SH, Tropics), Shape by Proxy Type.
> http://i47.tinypic.com/w7bfbc.png
> Horizontal lines at sea level, -700 meters, and -2000 m. (key Argo depths)
> There are 18 proxies from below -2000m,
> 29 proxies from -700m to -2000m
> 11 proxies from 0 to -700 m
> 10 proxies from 0 to +1000m
> 4 Proxies from above +2800 m. (Antarctic ice cap)
> 
> Knowing what we know of the thermal profile of the -2000m to -700m to sea level ranges of the ocean depths from the Argo Floats, *How reasonable is it to expect that that the 47 proxies (out of 72) that come from below -700 m water depth are going to be able to see an atmospheric temperature spike of any kind? The Ocean’s heat capacity itself is one huge low pass filter.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I posted a link to some South American ice core research conducted by Lonnie Thompson, along with a comment from Steve McIntyre hoping that the data would get archived. It has. However, there is some question as to what the ice proxy is measuring: temperature or precipitation?

The Quelccaya Update



> There has been a longstanding dispute about whether d18O at Quelccaya and other tropical glaciers is a proxy for temperature or for the amount of precipitation. In monsoon region precipitation, negative d18O values show rain-out. Quelccaya d18O has been (IMO plausibly) interpreted by Hughen as evidence of north-south migration of the ITCZ, with Hughen comparing Quelccaya information particularly to information from Cariaco, Venezuela.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Marcott _et al_ statistical method.


Marcott’s Dimple: A Centering Artifact



> One of the longstanding CA criticisms of paleoclimate articles is that scientists with little-to-negligible statistical expertise too frequently use ad hoc and homemade methods in important applied articles, rather than proving their methodology in applied statistical literature using examples other than the one that they’re trying to prove.
> 
> Marcott’s uncertainty calculation is merely the most recent example. Although Marcott et al spend considerable time and energy on their calculation of uncertainties, I was unable to locate a single relevant statistical reference either in the article or the SI (nor indeed a statistical reference of any kind.) They purported to estimate uncertainty through simulations, but simulations in the absence of a theoretical framework can easily fail to simulate essential elements of uncertainty. For example, Marcott et al state of their simulations: “Added noise was not autocorrelated either temporally or spatially.” Well, one thing we know about residuals in proxy data is that they are highly autocorrelated both temporally and spatially.


----------



## FeXL

On a green Sahara Desert, 5000 years ago.

A ‘green’ Sahara was far less dusty than today 



> As recently as 5,000 years ago, the Sahara—today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles—was a verdant landscape, with sprawling vegetation and numerous lakes. Ancient cave paintings in the region depict hippos in watering holes, and roving herds of elephants and giraffes—a vibrant contrast with today’s barren, inhospitable terrain.
> 
> The Sahara’s “green” era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and *is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.*


Bold mine.

Why do words like "unusual", "unprecedented" and "unnatural" course through my mind...


----------



## FeXL

Words of caution on going all in with climate models.

Climate Predictions as Double-Edged Sword 



> Below I reproduce a blog post that my father and I wrote bask in 2006 warning advocates of action *not to put too many bets on the short-term evolution of the climate system based on climate model predictions.* Like experience with credit-rating agencies, surprises could have been avoided.


Bold mine.


----------



## MacDoc

Yes I've noticed the increased La Nina frequency and it makes sense in terms of vertical thermals in the ocean. Buys some time.

•••••



> *A Warming World Will Further Intensify Extreme Precipitation Events, Research Shows*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Percent maximum daily precipitation difference (2071-2100) - (1971-2000). (Credit: NOAA)
> _
> Apr. 8, 2013 — According to a newly-published NOAA-led study in Geophysical Research Letters, as the globe warms from rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, more moisture in a warmer atmosphere will make the most extreme precipitation events more intense.
> 
> The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the North Carolina State University's Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites-North Carolina (CICS-NC), NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the Desert Research Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and ERT, Inc., reports that the extra moisture due to a warmer atmosphere dominates all other factors and leads to notable increases in the most intense precipitation rates.
> 
> The study also shows a 20-30 percent expected increase in the maximum precipitation possible over large portions of the Northern Hemisphere by the end of the 21st century if greenhouse gases continue to rise at a high emissions rate.
> 
> "We have high confidence that the most extreme rainfalls will become even more intense, as it is virtually certain that the atmosphere will provide more water to fuel these events," said Kenneth Kunkel, Ph.D., senior research professor at CICS-NC and lead author of the paper.
> 
> The paper looked at three factors that go into the maximum precipitation value possible in any given location: moisture in the atmosphere, upward motion of air in the atmosphere, and horizontal winds. The team examined climate model data to understand how a continued course of high greenhouse gas emissions would influence the potential maximum precipitation. While greenhouse gas increases did not substantially change the maximum upward motion of the atmosphere or horizontal winds, the models did show a 20-30 percent increase in maximum moisture in the atmosphere, which led to a corresponding increase in the maximum precipitation value.
> 
> The findings of this report could inform "design values," or precipitation amounts, used by water resource managers, insurance and building sectors in modeling the risk due to catastrophic precipitation amounts. Engineers use design values to determine the design of water impoundments and runoff control structures, such as dams, culverts, and detention ponds.
> 
> "Our next challenge is to translate this research into local and regional new design values that can be used for identifying risks and mitigating potential disasters. Findings of this study, and others like it, could lead to new information for engineers and developers that will save lives and major infrastructure investments," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., director of NOAA's NCDC in Asheville, N.C., and co-author on the paper.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Yes I've noticed the increased La Nina frequency and it makes sense in terms of vertical thermals in the ocean. Buys some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While greenhouse gas increases did not substantially change the maximum upward motion of the atmosphere or horizontal winds, the models did show a 20-30 percent increase in maximum moisture in the atmosphere, which led to a corresponding increase in the maximum precipitation value.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, predictions of drought, and everything in between are also predicted by the models. Even a clock that has stopped working is right twice a day.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Yes I've noticed the increased La Nina frequency and it makes sense in terms of vertical thermals in the ocean. Buys some time.
> 
> •••••


How interesting. Not too long ago the Al Gore Worshippers were telling us that because the atmospheric CO2 level was 1/1000% higher than a few years ago. el Nino would keep getting stronger and la Nina would simply fade into nothingness, There would be no snow in the ski areas and that Great Britain would never again have a cold winter. 

Now after it has kicked ass for 5 years running la Nina is no longer relegated to the scrap heap but capable of overpowering CO2, despite the AGWs claim that CO2 is the prime climate driver.

And The Church of Climatology followers wonders why so many of us are skeptical.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Even a clock that has stopped working is right twice a day.


Modelling is difficult. Researchers use many different models, based on many different simplifications of reality and which take as input many different empirical parameters and process them using many different models of the physical processes as we under stand them. Not surprisingly, these different models give different results from a given set of starting parameters. The models who's results most closely approximate observable reality (both past and present) are kept and further refined. Climate researchers have been iterating this process for a few decades now, and the models have become remarkably good.

There are, inevitably, processes and mechanisms that have not been accounted for in the models, and these result in systematic deviations of observation from the prediction (indeed, this is often how we discover the existence of these processes in the first place, so models can be valuable scientific tools even when they're wrong). Sometimes, such systematic errors can be corrected for by simply recalibrating the output (adding a "fudge factor"), but sometimes the process must be added to the algorithmic processing done by the model, increasing it's complexity and computational costs. Furthermore, there are anomalies that result in temporary deviations from predicted results. Distinguishing between anomalies and systematic flaws is a challenging task; one that many people have dedicated their life's work to. I admire their dedication and efforts towards improving our understanding of the nature of our climate, and accurately predicting the consequences of our actions.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> ...despite the AGWs claim that CO2 is the prime climate driver.
> 
> And The Church of Climatology followers wonders why so many of us are skeptical.


Don't you get tired of attacking these straw men? I've never seen any science making any of these wild claims you're on about. No one thinks CO2 is the prime climate driver. It is simply one of many parameters, but it is one that we have significantly altered in a very short period of time, and these parameters interact and feed-back on each other in complex ways that often result in amplification effects. When one changes suddenly and dramatically, as has been the case with athropogenic CO2, the whole system shifts to a new equilibrium, and that shift will take centuries during which climate will be disrupted.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Don't you get tired of attacking these straw men? I've never seen any science making any of these wild claims you're on about. No one thinks CO2 is the prime climate driver. It is simply one of many parameters, but it is one that we have significantly altered in a very short period of time, and these parameters interact and feed-back on each other in complex ways that often result in amplification effects. When one changes suddenly and dramatically, as has been the case with athropogenic CO2, the whole system shifts to a new equilibrium, and that shift will take centuries during which climate will be disrupted.


How can you possibly make a statement like that? As you have noted many times here, you are not a climate scientist and have no right to hold an opinion.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Modelling is difficult. Researchers use many different models, based on many different simplifications of reality and which take as input many different empirical parameters and process them using many different models of the physical processes as we under stand them. Not surprisingly, these different models give different results from a given set of starting parameters.


Yes. This is why I don't understand a person crowing that their observations of La Nina agree with ONE model.



bryanc said:


> Climate researchers have been iterating this process for a few decades now, and the models have become remarkably good.


Which one do you think is the best?



bryanc said:


> There are, inevitably, processes and mechanisms that have not been accounted for in the models, and these result in systematic deviations of observation from the prediction (indeed, this is often how we discover the existence of these processes in the first place, so models can be valuable scientific tools even when they're wrong). Sometimes, such systematic errors can be corrected for by simply recalibrating the output (adding a "fudge factor"), but sometimes the process must be added to the algorithmic processing done by the model, increasing it's complexity and computational costs. Furthermore, there are anomalies that result in temporary deviations from predicted results. Distinguishing between anomalies and systematic flaws is a challenging task; one that many people have dedicated their life's work to. I admire their dedication and efforts towards improving our understanding of the nature of our climate, and accurately predicting the consequences of our actions.


Which is to say, the models are not yet good enough to predict future climates with a degree of certainty on which one could base public policy. Don't get me wrong. I admire their pioneering work, but it isn't yet ready for Prime Time.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> As you have noted many times here, you are not a climate scientist and have no right to hold an opinion.


That is not what I have said. Because I am not a climate scientist I do not have the expertise to criticize the conclusions the experts have drawn. I must either accept them, withhold judgement, or become an expert myself.

In this field, because the experts are in such extraordinary consensus, I judge it highly unlikely that they have all independently come to the same incorrect conclusions, so I accept their claims as the most parsimonious explanation for the data.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes. This is why I don't understand a person crowing that their observations of La Nina agree with ONE model.


This is not crowing; it's science. When you've been working on a model for a few years, and you find that it predicts some observable phenomenon better than other competing models, you publish it. That's how the system works.


> Which one do you think is the best?


I'm not a climatologist, I have no opinion on the details of their work. The models that most successfully predict empirical measurements will undoubtably be viewed as the best.


> Which is to say, the models are not yet good enough to predict future climates with a degree of certainty on which one could base public policy.


This is for climatologists and policy makers to decide.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is not crowing; it's science. When you've been working on a model for a few years, and you find that it predicts some observable phenomenon better than other competing models, you publish it. That's how the system works.


There is currently no prize being offered for a model that predicts _today's_ observable conditions _today_.



bryanc said:


> I'm not a climatologist, I have no opinion on the details of their work. The models that most successfully predict empirical measurements will undoubtably be viewed as the best.


You told me that "models have become remarkably good." How can you hold an opinion on this if you can't even provide me with an example of a very good model?



bryanc said:


> This is for climatologists and policy makers to decide.


Clearly it is not for you to decide.


----------



## eMacMan

Interestingly while the deniers were accurately predicting a string of unusually cold winters. The Chicken Little crowd had much of Great Britain believing such winters were a thing of the past. Many town councils made the mistake of believing the Hansen projections and woefully under-budgeted for snow removal and stockpiles of sand to fight the icy streets.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Interestingly while the deniers were accurately predicting a string of unusually cold winters. The Chicken Little crowd had much of Great Britain believing such winters were a thing of the past. Many town councils made the mistake of believing the Hansen projections and woefully under-budgeted for snow removal and stockpiles of sand to fight the icy streets.


Yes, I recall the Met Office glumly explaining that from then on, children in England were unlikely to ever see snow. I'll bet the little brats are sick of the stuff now!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Yes, I recall the Met Office glumly explaining that from then on, children in England were unlikely to ever see snow. I'll bet the little brats are sick of the stuff now!


Hell I'm sick of it, and this has been a "normal" winter. Just feels mild when compared to the past four. Those a bit further north, Central Canada and most of Europe have not been nearly so lucky this year.


----------



## FeXL

So, let's talk models a bit. XX) I know, I know...

NOAA has stated that:



> _”Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create
> a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”​_


Link to PDF inside.

In short, near-zero & negative trends < 10 years are OK, no warming for 15 years proves the models wrong. 

Let's take a look at some numbers from the official temperature records. I'm going to note the data in two ways. First, the length of time for the flatline (or negative slope, =cooling). Second the duration of statistically insignificant warming at a two sigma (95%) confidence level. I've ordered them from lowest to highest.



> UAH
> The slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 9 months. (goes to March)
> For UAH, the warming is *not* significant for over 19 years.
> 
> GISS
> The slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to February)
> For GISS, the warming is *not* significant for over 17 years.
> 
> Hadcrut4
> The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to February.)
> For Hadcrut4, the warming is *not* significant for over 18 years.
> 
> Hadcrut3
> The slope is flat since April 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to February)
> For Hadcrut3, the warming is *not* significant for over 19 years.
> 
> Hadsst2
> ...the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month.
> [There is no statistically significant warming data given.]
> 
> RSS
> The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 4 months. (goes to March)
> For RSS the warming is *not* significant for over 23 years.


Three of the six official temperature records currently exceed the 15 year mark noted by NOAA strictly on the basis of slope, but 5 of 6 show statistically insignificant ("near-zero") warming for periods of 17-23 years!

Two things: First, tell me again about all that model accuracy. Second, haven't we met (and exceeded) NOAA's own requirements to debunk them, period?

Are Climate Models Realistic?


----------



## FeXL

Predicting the past is fairly easy...

On Guemas et al (2013) “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade”

Abstract.



> Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. *The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models*, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.


Bold mine.

Like many others, I had difficulty getting past the title of this latest paper. Do they really mean that they went back, took a look at the "slowdown" in temps, tuned their models to that & now that they've patted themselves on the back for getting that correct, everything forward is expected to be "the truth"?

Whatever.



> The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. *However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The abstract also mentions a new-found ability to predict slowdowns in warming. But the warming of tropical Pacific ocean heat content is dependent on the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-01 and on the freakish 1995/96 La Niña, Figure 3. And the warming of sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans, Figure 4, depends on strong El Niño events.
> 
> ...
> 
> Can Guemas et al (2013) can predict 3-year La Niñas and freakish La Niñas like the one in 1995/96? Can they predict strong El Niño events, like those in 1986/87/88, 1997/97 and 2009/10? Both are unlikely—*the specialized ENSO forecast models have difficulty projecting beyond the springtime predictability barrier every year.*


Bold mine.

The first question that comes to mind is also the first comment:



> If they can predict El Niño events, the obvious test is: when will the next one begin?


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

So, new paper out, they used proxies to recreate the 20th century land temperature record. In comparing the recreated record to the existing one, a couple things stand out.

A Preliminary Look at Compo et al (2013)

Abstract.



> _Confidence in estimates of anthropogenic climate change is limited by known issues with air temperature observations from land stations. Station siting, instrument changes, changing observing practices, urban effects, land cover, land use variations, and statistical processing have all been hypothesized as affecting the trends presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others. Any artifacts in the observed decadal and centennial variations associated with these issues could have important consequences for scientific understanding and climate policy. We use a completely different approach to investigate global land warming over the 20th century. We have ignored all air temperature observations and instead inferred them from observations of barometric pressure, sea surface temperature, and sea-ice concentration using a physically-based data assimilation system called the 20th Century Reanalysis. This independent dataset reproduces both annual variations and centennial trends in the temperature datasets, demonstrating the robustness of previous conclusions regarding global warming._





> In short, Compo et al (2013) recreated global land air surface temperatures without surface station-based temperature measurements. Basically, they used other variables as inputs to a computer reanalysis to infer the land surface air temperature anomalies.


He notes:



> For me, compared to the other datasets, the Compo at al reanalysis has warmer anomalies during the early-to-mid 1970s and cooler anomalies during the late 2000s, which would create a lower trend during the recent warming period. The Compo et al reanalysis also shows a flattening of land air surface temperature anomalies starting in 1995, where the other datasets show a continued warming. Compo at el also show an exaggerated spike in 1943 associated with the multiyear El Niño then. And Compo et al show a later start to the rise during the early warming period.


A question from the comments stood out to me as well:



> Could someone explain why the range 90 degrees North to 60 South has been used? It would seem to me to bias the results by keeping in the warming arctic and excluding cooling antarctic.


----------



## FeXL

From the Laugh-A-Day department...

Climate change will lead to bumpier flights, say scientists



> The study, which used the same turbulence models that air traffic controllers use every day, found that the frequency of turbulence on the many flights between Europe and North America will double by 2050 and its intensity increase by 10-40%.


XX) Yep...

Wonder if it'll have any effect on flights to Australia...

Next, they'll be accusing global warming of causing giant blue crabs.

Oh, wait...


----------



## FeXL

There was a post a while back about Trenberth finding his missing ocean heat in a new paper. I haven't seen it yet, but Dr. Roy Spencer comments.

More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat



> Trenberth and co-authors claim that their modeling study suggests an increase in ocean surface winds since 2004 has led to greater mixing of heat down into the ocean, limiting surface warming.


XX) Models? Really, bryanc?



> Fortunately, we can examine this claim with satellite observations. We have daily global measurements of ocean surface roughness and foam generation, calibrated in terms of an equivalent 10 meter height wind speed, from AMSR-E
> 
> ...
> 
> I don’t know about you, but I don’t see an increase in surface winds since 2004 in the above plot.
> 
> ...
> 
> So far, I would say that the so-called missing heat problem is not yet solved. I have argued before that I don’t think it actually exists, since the “missing heat” argument assumes that feedbacks in the climate system are positive and that radiative energy is accumulating in the system faster than surface warming would seem to support.


He sums:



> Finally, as I have mentioned before, even if increased rate of mixing of heat downward is to blame for a recent lack of surface warming, the total energy involved in the warming of the deep oceans is smaller than that expected for a “sensitive” climate system. Plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of Joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, *requires too much faith for even me to muster.*


Bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

For those who dispute the claim that the media is being told to push the Global Warming agenda:



> After wrapping up a Saturday afternoon segment on the impact climate change may have had on the extreme winter weather that hit the Northeast this weekend, CNN anchor *Deb Feyerick* turned to a feature on a large asteroid that will just miss earth as it passes by.
> 
> 
> 
> “We want to bring in our science guy, *Bill Nye*, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,” said Feyerick. “What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming?


Also remember a similar inane comment from another news anchor trying to claim a volcanic eruption was caused by global warming. 

Sorry guys the jig is up. The world cannot afford to line Al Gore's pockets via carbon credit exchanges, nor can it afford to divert $Trillion$ to the banksters via massive carbon taxes.


----------



## FeXL

A rather revealing document authored by the UK Met Office, made available through FOIA.

Met Office’s Private Briefing Document For The Environment Agency



> The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate.
> 
> It is surely time that they, DEFRA and others admitted this in public, instead of continually repeating the same old speculations that every bit of bad weather is linked to global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Further on current & past solar cycles.

Current solar cycle data seems to be past the peak



> The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it appears as if the slow downside from what looks like the solar max for cycle 24. Though, it is still possible we could see a second small peak like is visible at the upper left in cycle 23.


----------



## FeXL

A Patagonia temperature reconstruction shows no hockey stick.

A 1500 yr warm-season temperature record from varved Lago Plomo, Northern Patagonia (47° S) and implications for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

Abstract.



> High-resolution records of calibrated proxy data for the past 2000 yr are fundamental to place current changes into the context of pre-industrial natural forced and unforced variability. Although the need for regional spatially explicit comprehensive reconstructions is widely recognized, the proxy data sources are still scarce, particularly for the Southern Hemisphere and South America.
> 
> We provide a 1500 yr long warm season temperature record from varved Lago Plomo, a proglacial lake of the Northern Patagonian Ice field in southern Chile (46°59' S, 72°52' W, 203 m). The thickness of the bright summer sediment layer relative to the dark winter layer (measured as total brightness; % reflectance 400–730 nm) is calibrated against warm season SONDJF temperature (1900–2009; r = 0.58, p(aut) = 0.056, RE = 0.52; CE = 0.15, RMSEP = 0.28 °C; five-year triangular filtered data). In Lago Plomo, warm summer temperatures lead to enhanced glacier melt and suspended sediment transport, which results in a thicker light summer layer and to brighter sediments (% total brightness). Although Patagonia shows pronounced regional differences in decadal temperature trends and variability, the 1500 yr temperature reconstruction from Lago Plomo compares favourably with other regional/continental temperature records but also emphasizes significant regional differences for which no data and information existed so far. The reconstruction shows pronounced sub-decadal–multi-decadal variability with cold phases in the 5th, 7th and 9th centuries, during parts of the Little Ice Age chronozone (16th and 18th centuries) and in the beginning of the 20th century. The most prominent warm phase is the 19th century which is as warm as the second half of the 20th century, emphasizing a delayed recent global warming in the Southern Hemisphere.
> 
> The comparison between winter precipitation and summer temperature (inter-seasonal coupling) from Lago Plomo reveals alternating phases with parallel and contrasting decadal trends of winter precipitation and summer temperature and positive and negative running correlations(winterPP;summerTT). In the 20th century the trend of this correlation changes at 1920, 1945 and 1975 AD, and the phases with positive (negative) correlations inferred from the lake sediments are also found as a regional robust pattern in reanalysis data, and coincide with the changes of the instrumental PDO index. Enhanced circumpolar flow around 60° S is proposed for positive phases of PDO which leads to the reversed coupling and contrasting decadal trends of winter precipitation and summer temperature during PDO positive phases. Our reconstruction of the inter-seasonal coupling back to 1530 AD reproduces many features of existing PDO reconstructions from the Pacific suggesting that Lago Plomo provides a record for the regional expression of the PDO in Patagonia.


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol's influence on climate.

Paper finds solar influence on climate has been underestimated 

Abstract.



> Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reﬂects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.


----------



## FeXL

Global warming/ENSO connection.

The Global Warming-ENSO Connection

Summary:



> "Overall," in the words of the two researchers, "there is no evidence that there are changes in the [1] strength, [2] frequency, [3]duration, [4] location or [5] direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008."


----------



## FeXL

From the comments:



> This is like playing “wack-a-mole;” as soon as one hockey stick study is wacked, a new one pops up!


Yup.

Another proxy study with an ‘unprecedented’ temperature claim



> ...there’s another multiproxy study published, with flat blade and a somewhat limp hockey stick combined with that “unprecedented” claim that has become almost a red flag for bad proxy studies when they are that certain. From the SI PDF file, it looks like it is another splicing study, where they have added CRU data to the paleo reconstruction using tree ring, ice core, and varve data.


So, the study claims that current temps are the highest in the last 600 years. My first response is, no kidding! Six hundred years ago was the beginning of the Little Ice Age! See, how you deal with the inconvenient MWP is to date your research after it happened...

There are other issues.

More from the Junior Birdmen



> In keeping with the total and complete stubbornness of the paleoclimate community, they use the most famous series of Mann et al 2008: the contaminated Korttajarvi sediments, the problems with which are well known in skeptic blogs and which were reported in a comment at PNAS by Ross and I at the time. *The original author, Mia Tiljander, warned against use of the modern portion of this data, as the sediments had been contaminated by modern bridgebuilding and farming.* Although the defects of this series as a proxy are well known to readers of “skeptical” blogs, peer reviewers at Nature were obviously untroubled by the inclusion of this proxy in a temperature reconstruction.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

A summary of research indicating the MWP occurred in Antarctica, proving it was, in fact, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a localized North Atlantic event.

Medieval Warm Period (Antarctica)


----------



## FeXL

Further issues with a proxy from Marcott _et al._

The Impact of TN05-17



> TN05-17 is by far the most influential Southern Hemisphere core in Marcott et al 2013- it’s Marcott’s YAD061, so to speak. Its influence is much enhanced by the interaction of short-segment centering in the mid-Holocene and non-robustness in the modern period. Marcott’s SHX reconstruction becomes worthless well before the 20th century, a point that they have not yet admitted, let alone volunteered.
> 
> Marcott’s TN05-17 series is a bit of an odd duck within his dataset. It is the only ocean core in which the temperature is estimated by Modern Analogue Technique on diatoms; only one other ocean core uses Modern Antalogue Technique (MD79-257). The significance of this core was spotted early on by ^.
> 
> TN05-17 is plotted below. *Rather unusually among Holocene proxies, its mid-Holocene values are very cold.* Centering on 4500-5500 BP in Marcott style results in this proxy having very high anomalies in the modern period: closing at a Yamalian apparent anomaly of over 4 deg C.


Bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> A summary of research indicating the MWP occurred in Antarctica, proving it was, in fact, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a localized North Atlantic event.
> 
> Medieval Warm Period (Antarctica)


This has been long accepted by everyone except those basket cases who are trying to defend their eggs with the Hansen-Mann hockey stick. Damn I'll probably be suspended for mashing mixed metaphors.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Michael Mann says climate models cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period 



> A new paper from Michael Mann et al finds that climate "models cannot explain the warm conditions around 1000 [years before the present, during the Medieval Warming Period] seen in some [temperature] reconstructions." According to Mann et al, "We find *variations in solar output* and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900." Mann also claims, "but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800." This claim is highly unlikely given that ice cores show CO2 levels only changed by less than 10 ppm from 1600-1800, and the effect of 10 ppm CO2 on the climate today remains undetectable even with modern instrumentation.


Bold from the link. I also agree with the last sentence.

Abstract.



> Reconstructions of past climate show notable temperature variability over the past millennium, with relatively warm conditions during the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ (MCA) and a relatively cold ‘Little Ice Age’ (LIA). We use multi-model simulations of the past millennium together with a wide range of reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric mean annual temperature to separate climate variability from 850 to 1950CE into components attributable to external forcing and internal climate variability. We find that external forcing contributed significantly to long-term temperature variations irrespective of the proxy reconstruction, particularly from 1400 onwards. Over the MCA alone, however, the effect of forcing is only detectable in about half of the reconstructions considered, and the response to forcing in the models cannot explain the warm conditions around 1000 [years before the present] seen in some reconstructions. We use the residual from the detection analysis to estimate internal variability independent from climate modelling and find that the recent observed 50-year and 100-year hemispheric temperature trends are substantially larger than any of the internally-generated trends even using the large residuals over the MCA. We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900, but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800. The proxy reconstructions tend to show a smaller forced response than is simulated by the models. We show that this discrepancy is likely to be, at least partly, associated with the difference in the response to large volcanic eruptions between reconstructions and model simulations.


----------



## FeXL

Well, it's an interesting hypothesis but, sorry, they can't have it both ways...

New paper finds more melting causes less melting in Antarctica 



> In fact, the study, published in the March issue of Nature Geoscience, found, the presence of a layer of slowly melting freshwater might actually help slow the melting process--as meltwater from Antarctica's ice shelves increases in volume, it creates a cooler surface layer that shields the ocean from warmer, ocean strata below.
> 
> The study provides a compelling contrast to findings in the Arctic, where studies from the last 60 years have supported the idea that increased summer melting breaks up ice shelves, leading to a rise in sea level in the region.


From the link:



> Apparently the physical properties of water differ between the Arctic and Antarctic /sarc


----------



## FeXL

On insurance company claims that there is an anthropogenic footprint in loss claims.

Fool Me Once: Munich Re's Thunderstorm Claims 



> Last October Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, issued a press release in which they made a remarkable claim about a new study of normalized economic losses related to thunderstorms in the United States:
> 
> In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades.​


He sums:



> Misleading public claims. An over-hyped press release. A paper which neglects to include materially relevant and contradictory information central to its core argument. All in all, just a normal day in climate science!


----------



## FeXL

Further on that melting Antarctic sea ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice Area Above Normal For 500 Consecutive Days

Some would claim (accurately) that this is not peer reviewed science. It isn't. All Goddard did was access the official data, choose his subset & then graph it with a trend line. You don't need a PhD to read a graph.

Same with my next post.


----------



## FeXL

On the differences beween the GISS and RSS temperature datasets.

GISS Diverging From RSS At 1.2C Per Century

From the comments:



> David Appell says:
> April 11, 2013 at 1:19 am
> 
> One measures the surface temperature. The other meaures the lower troposphere, up to about 10 km.
> 
> Why should they be equal?
> Reply
> 
> *
> stevengoddard says:
> April 11, 2013 at 1:21 am
> 
> They shouldn’t be. Global warming theory says that the mid-troposphere warms faster than the surface. Unfortunately for the scamsters, we see the exact opposite..
> Reply
> o
> David Appell says:
> April 11, 2013 at 1:28 am
> 
> Where does the theory say that?
> Over what time period?
> o
> henrythethird says:
> April 11, 2013 at 2:14 am
> 
> Pretty bad when you can go to sites like SkS and see the following statement:
> 
> “…it is true that according to UAH and RSS, the lower troposphere is not warming as fast as we expect from models and atmospheric physics. Globally, climate models predict that the lower atmosphere should warm approximately 1.2 times faster than the surface. According to UAH data, the surface is actually warming a bit faster than the lower atmosphere…”


Yup...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> On insurance company claims that there is a anthropogenic footprint in loss claims.
> 
> Fool Me Once: Munich Re's Thunderstorm Claims
> 
> 
> 
> He sums:


More likely an excuse to jack up insurance rates.


----------



## FeXL

Donna expands on Pielke Jr's article about insurance noted yesterday.

A Normal Day in Climate Science



> Those of us who take the trouble to delve into the bewildering world of climate change soon discover a wheelbarrow full of questionable practices and sloppy research. That doesn’t invalidate the entire field, but it does give one tremendous pause.
> 
> If I thought the fate of the planet hinged on the work I was doing, I’d be bending over backward to meet the highest standards possible. I’d triple-check my math. I’d use widely recognized procedures – rather than making up new ones. I’d dot every ‘I’ and cross every ‘T’.
> 
> But as Pielke says, quite the opposite seems to be the norm in climate science. His post is about a practice called science-by-press-release. Last October, the reinsurance company Munich Re issued a press release that said its researchers had found evidence of a “climate-change footprint” in the financial losses associated with natural disasters.


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting article comparing ice core and plant stomata proxies of CO2 levels. The stomata indicate significantly higher levels of CO2 prior to industrialization than the 280ppm commonly accepted.

The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils



> Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth's carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low.
> 
> ...
> 
> Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth's past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
> 
> *As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

On extrapolating evaporation data from five locations to global scale.

New PR claim from Columbia extrapolates globally from a handfull of weather stations



> From Columbia University , something that made my B.S. meter ping. My first thought was that evaporation pans aren’t new, going back to the beginning of the U.S. Weather Bureau COOP network, so what is this all about?
> 
> ...
> 
> This looks to be a case of “test locally, extrapolate globally”. Read on.


----------



## FeXL

There may actually be a use for the "GoreSat".

Sequestered Gore satellite apparently not affected by ‘sequester’



> There’s no money to run White House tours, but apparently there’s money to pull one of Al’s pet projects out of mothballs.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that man made US drought last summer.

New government report from NOAA says 2012 summer drought NOT caused by global warming



> NOAA asks: _What caused the 2012 Central Great Plains Drought?_
> 
> NOAA’s answer: *The central Great Plains drought during May-August of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.*
> 
> • Moist Gulf of Mexico air failed to stream northward in late spring as cyclone and frontal activity were shunted unusually northward.
> • Summertime thunderstorms were infrequent and when they did occur produced little rainfall.
> • Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.


Italics & bold from the link.

That's gonna leave a mark...

Seth Borenstein even reverses his hyperbole from last summer. Remember “This is what global warming looks like”?


----------



## FeXL

Further on unusual, unprecedented, unnatural warming...

Holocene climate variability on the Kola Peninsula, Russian Subarctic, based on aquatic invertebrate records from lake sediments

Abstract.



> Sedimentary records of invertebrate assemblages were obtained from a small lake in the Khibiny Mountains, Kola Peninsula. Together with a quantitative chironomid-based reconstruction of mean July air temperature, these data provide evidence of Holocene climate variability in the western sector of the Russian Subarctic. The results suggest that the amplitude of climate change was more pronounced in the interior mountain area than near the White Sea coast. A chironomid-based temperature reconstruction reflects a warming trend in the early Holocene, interrupted by a transient cooling at ca. 8500–8000 cal yr BP with a maximum drop in temperature (ca. 1°C) around 8200 cal yr BP. T*he regional Holocene Thermal Maximum, characterized by maximum warmth and dryness occurred at ca. 7900–5400 cal yr BP. During this period, July temperatures were at least 1°C higher than at present.* The relatively warm and dry climate persisted until ca. 4000 cal yr BP, when a pronounced neoglacial cooling was initiated. Minimum temperatures, ca. 1–2°C lower than at present, were inferred at ca. 3200–3000 cal yr BP. Faunal shifts in the stratigraphic profile imply also that the late-Holocene cooling was followed by a general increase in effective moisture.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further to my previous post, the Chiefio muses about a paper about peat dating back to 1998 from, of all places, NASA GISS. The surprise is inside.

Oh, For The Love Of Peat!



> It would seem that there were some folks at NASA GISS who still knew how to do real science in 1998. That’s the date on the following article. Yes, it has the obligatory Genuflection to Global Warming tacked on at the end, but rather like a Heil Hitler stuck at the end of a memo by an unthinking clerk who is just following the style guide of the times, words now devoid of meaning due to their over use.


He sums:



> What I find amazing about this paper is two fold. That it is clearly good and honest Science being done by someone at NASA GISS with Hansen Trolling the halls. With only a minor sop to the Global Warming gods… Then, that it actually saw the light of day. Perhaps in 1998 the “peat guys” were not yet thought of as a climate issue.


----------



## CubaMark

_Whoooo boy....._

*Texas Congressman Cites Noah's Ark As Evidence Against Climate Change*









Texas Republican Joe Barton stands out even among his fellow conservative Republicans who have made it an article of faith to deny the existence of a human component to climate change.

On Wednesday, Barton cemented that reputation by citing the Old Testament to refute scientific evidence of man-made global warming, drawing on the story of Noah's ark.

"I would point out that if you are a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change," Barton told a congressional hearing on Wednesday in a video first shown on the BuzzFeed website. "That certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."​
(MotherJones)


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> *Texas Congressman Cites Noah's Ark As Evidence Against Climate Change*


It's certainly as good as any other evidence against ACC. And it will resonate with the base and help him get re-elected, where he will continue God's work of preventing heathen scientists from injecting their pesky facts and logic into public policy.


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> _Whoooo boy....._
> 
> *Texas Congressman Cites Noah's Ark As Evidence Against Climate Change*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Republican Joe Barton stands out even among his fellow conservative Republicans who have made it an article of faith to deny the existence of a human component to climate change.
> 
> On Wednesday, Barton cemented that reputation by citing the Old Testament to refute scientific evidence of man-made global warming, drawing on the story of Noah's ark.
> 
> "I would point out that if you are a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change," Barton told a congressional hearing on Wednesday in a video first shown on the BuzzFeed website. "That certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."​
> (MotherJones)


Was it not man's sinful ways which caused God to swamp the Earth with 40 days of rain???? Thus, this climate change was caused by man. It's right there in the Bible.


----------



## SINC

I do not believe that all scientists are heathen. That noted, I also believe that one day those involved in climate research will be proven guilty of committing the single largest science fraud ever imposed upon humanity.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> I do not believe that all scientists are heathen. That noted, I also believe that one day those involved in climate research will be proven guilty of committing the single largest science fraud ever imposed upon humanity.


Well The Great Bankster Heist set the fraud bar extremely high. Still if any one can pull it off it is the Al Gore Worshippers and The First Church of Climatology. Unfortunately at the moment the inconvenient truth is that the choir is out there singing in the snow


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> It's certainly as good as any other evidence against ACC. And it will resonate with the base and help him get re-elected, where he will continue God's work of preventing heathen scientists from injecting their pesky facts and logic into public policy.


Jeezuz, bryanc. Wah frickin' wah. Would you like some cheese with that whine?


----------



## iMouse

Dr.G. said:


> Was it not man's sinful ways which caused God to swamp the Earth with 40 days of rain???? Thus, this climate change was caused by man. It's right there in the Bible.


Never happened. 

At the time the Earth was flat, so all the water whould have just run off.

beejacon


----------



## FeXL

Another "Hockey Stick". 

The ‘Smart Storms’ Hockey Stick



> ...Michelle Womann, famed climate scientist from Musket Senior High School in Philadelphia, said, “We’ve been aware of these coming for decades, it was only a matter of time. We’ve measured leaves in my back yard for over three months and these storms are unprecedented in history.”


----------



## FeXL

So...is "gut instinct" science better or worse than "consensus science"? Oh, XX), models involved...

Climate Craziness of the week – with the physical signature of UHI staring them right in the face, Mann & Borenstein go with their ‘gut’ instincts



> They compared surface data to a model, and drew inferences from that:
> 
> _We used optimal detection method to compare the observed China annual extreme temperatures for 1961–2007 with those simulated by the CanESM2 under different external forcings. Our analyses include one-signal analysis using climate responses to ALL, NAT, ANT, and individual anthropogenic forcing, and two-signal analyses using various combinations of responses to different forcings._​
> But the only forcing they considered was GHG’s. Nary a word exists in the paper about UHI, urban heat island, station siting, or heat sink effects.


That's an awful lot like using only pirates as a forcing. Serious! If the only thing you use as a forcing in your model is pirates, then it becomes blatantly obvious that global warming is due to the paucity of pirates in the 20th century.


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head...>

English Winters Back To Normal–Julia Blames Global Warming!



> So just how cold have Britain’s winters become? Well, according to the Central England Temperature series, not very! The winter just gone ranks an unremarkable 187th coldest in the 354 years since the index started in 1660. Figure 1 shows just how unremarkable it has been. The 2012/13 winter finished at 3.83C, a fraction above the mean over the whole record of 3.72C.
> 
> ...
> 
> There has certainly been a sharp drop away from the abnormally mild winters between 1998 and 2008, but this only takes us back to the sort of winters that were prevalent during most of the last century, and still much warmer than the 19thC. *The current 5-year average is 3.6C, exactly the same as the average temperature from 1980-89. And from 1960-69, the average was, you’ve guessed it, also exactly 3.6C.*


Bold mine.

In summary:



> It is understandably embarrassing for the Met Office to see so many of their predictions blowing up in their faces. But, instead of simply accepting that they were wrong in misinterpreting a few years of data in the way they did, they are desperately searching for a way to pin the blame for a return to normal winters on global warming.
> 
> It is hard to see just how much credibility they have left when it comes to predicting climate, or even understanding past climate. *As their Chief Scientist,* Julia Slingo must surely accept overall responsibility for this sorry state of affairs.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, we've got a gooder, here. Gotta love error bars that are nearly as large as the measured change.

Warmists continuously split hairs down to tenths & even hundredths of a degree (Last year was the warmest evah, by 0.01 degrees!). Here, we have NOAA saying that 1.18 degrees C is statistically the same as 0.78 degrees C (their version of how much global warming since 1952). Using that logic & those numbers, then 0.78 degrees C is statistically the same as 0.38 degrees C and we've had far less warming since '52. Which is it, boys?

Global Warming Over Land Is Real: CU-Boulder, NOAA Study

Again, using those numbers & that logic, how long has the flatline actually been?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the varves from Tingley and Huybers.

1. Spurious Varvology



> However, in one important way lake proxies are unlike say ice core proxies. The daily activities of human beings don’t change the thickness of the layers of ice that get laid down. But everything from road construction to changes in farming methods can radically change the amount of sediment in the local watercourses and lakes. That’s the problem with Korttajarvi.
> 
> And in addition, changes in the surrounding natural landscape can also change the sediment levels. Many things, from burning of local vegetation to insect infestation to changes in local water flow can radically change the amount of sediment in a particular part of a particular lake.


2. Tingley and Huybers: Varve Compaction



> I haven’t yet looked at how the other varve series handled compaction, but it seems like an important issue in any attempt to deduce temperatures from this sort of data. In the particular case of the Murray Lake series, it seems to me that the original data clearly “indicates” that mass accumulation be used as an index, rather than varve thickness unadjusted for compaction and that this should have been used according to the stated methodology of Tingley and Huybers.
> 
> As previously noted, Tingley and Huybers also used the contaminated portion of the Korttajarvi sediment data, so there are multiple problems with their varve reconstruction. *These are not complicated issues, but ones that ought to be within the scope of even Nature peer reviewers.*


Bold mine.

Zing!

Also, much of the story in both links in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

On dating & archiving Svalbard's 1997 ice core.

New Light on Svalbard



> In 1997, the 121 m Lomonosovfonna ice core was drilled in Svalbard. As of mid-2009, when Hu McCulloch and I wrote CA posts on this core, nothing had been published on O18 values prior to AD1400 nor had any Lomonosovfonna data been archived, even for the post-1400 period.
> 
> Both Hu McCulloch and I, in separate CA posts here and here, speculated that the withheld O18 values prior to AD1400 would elevated values. A digital version of the pre-1400 data became available this week in connection with Hanhijarvi et al and confirmed our surmise, as shown below.
> 
> The figure below shows Lomonosovfonna O18 values back through the MWP as calculated from data in the SI to Hanhijarvi, Korhola and Tingley. As Hu and I had surmised, the O18 values prior to AD1400 (denoted by dotted line) were elevated.


----------



## MacDoc

> *New Insight Into Accelerating Summer Ice Melt On the Antarctic Peninsula*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Ice core camp. (Credit: Image courtesy of British Antarctic Survey)_
> 
> Apr. 14, 2013 — A new 1,000-year Antarctic Peninsula climate reconstruction shows that summer ice melting has intensified almost ten-fold, and mostly since the mid-20th century. Summer ice melt affects the stability of Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers.
> 
> Ice core camp
> 
> The research, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, adds new knowledge to the international effort that is required to understand the causes of environmental change in Antarctica and to make more accurate projections about the direct and indirect contribution of Antarctica's ice shelves and glaciers to global sea level rise.
> 
> In 2008, a UK-French science team drilled a 364-metre long ice core from James Ross Island, near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, to measure past temperatures in the area. They discovered that this ice core could also give a unique and unexpected insight into ice melt in the region.
> 
> Visible layers in the ice core indicated periods when summer snow on the ice cap thawed and then refroze. By measuring the thickness of these melt layers the scientists were able to examine how the history of melting compared with changes in temperature at the ice core site over the last 1,000 years.
> 
> Lead author Dr Nerilie Abram of The Australian National University and British Antarctic Survey (BAS) says, "We found that the coolest conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lowest amount of summer melt occurred around 600 years ago. At that time temperatures were around 1.6°C lower than those recorded in the late 20th Century and the amount of annual snowfall that melted and refroze was about 0.5%. Today, we see almost ten times as much (5%) of the annual snowfall melting each year.
> 
> "Summer melting at the ice core site today is now at a level that is higher than at any other time over the last 1000 years. And whilst temperatures at this site increased gradually in phases over many hundreds of years, most of the intensification of melting has happened since the mid-20th century."
> 
> This is the first time it has been demonstrated that levels of ice melt on the Antarctic Peninsula have been particularly sensitive to increasing temperature during the 20th century.
> 
> Dr Abram explains, "What that means is that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed to a level where even small increases in temperature can now lead to a big increase in summer ice melt."
> 
> Dr Robert Mulvaney from the British Antarctic Survey led the ice core drilling expedition and co-authored the paper. He says, "Having a record of previous melt intensity for the Peninsula is particularly important because of the glacier retreat and ice shelf loss we are now seeing in the area. Summer ice melt is a key process that is thought to have weakened ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula leading to a succession of dramatic collapses, as well as speeding up glacier ice loss across the region over the last 50 years."
> 
> In other parts of Antarctica, such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the picture is more complex and it is not yet clear that the levels of recent ice melt and glacier loss are exceptional or caused by human-driven climate changes.
> 
> Dr Abram concludes, "This new ice core record shows that even small changes in temperature can result in large increases in the amount of melting in places where summer temperatures are near to 0°C, such as along the Antarctic Peninsula, and this has important implications for ice instability and sea level rise in a warming climate."
> 
> This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council. Dr Abram is an Australian Research Council Queen Elizabeth II Fellow.


New insight into accelerating summer ice melt on the Antarctic Peninsula


----------



## bryanc

I'm sure this will be refuted in the blogosphere immediately.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm sure this will be refuted in the blogosphere immediately.


Why would it need to be refuted, unless it was as poorly handled as many of these studies have been?

I don't know why this study is here, however, since it makes no claim for GHGs or AGW.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, science by press release. Don't I often get criticized for that? I know, I know, this is on the "consensus" side of the argument. It could be printed in the National Inquirer and be accepted as the "truth" as long as it supported "consensus". Whatever...

Let's take a look at the press release, shall we?

Thousand year old ice core, that would take it back to the MWP, check. Location, northern tip of Antarctic Peninsula, lots of influence from SST, check. Coldest temps 600 years ago, that's the Little Ice Age, check. Most melting has been since mid-20th century, coming out of the Little Ice Age, check. No false claims about CAGW, ACC, GHG, check.

Took the liberty of finding the abstract & downloading the SI. Aside from postulating melt rates, at first blush all the paper really does is reconfirm known science.

I agree with Macfury: Why is the article here?


----------



## FeXL

Further research pointing to a coming global cooling due to lower TSI.

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age

Abstract.



> Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.


Link to the PDF paper inside.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the flatline.

A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “The Pause” Update

The author goes on to discuss land & sea surface temps, atmospheric temps, ocean temps, sea level and snow & ice anomalies.

He concludes:



> The Pause in “Earth’s Temperature” appears in many of Earth’s observational records, with The Pause lasting for at least a decade, and in reasonable portion of the records, it appears to have begun with the strong 1998 El Nino. The questions now are how long will The Pause last and where will “Earth’s Temperature” go from there?


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale quotes Spencer's article about Trenberth's missing heat, then addresses ARGO floats.

More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat



> There is little observational data at depths of 1500 meters prior to ARGO. In other words, *we have little idea about the temperatures of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters and their variability before ARGO.*
> 
> Third, on top of that, consider that ARGO floats have been found to be unreliable, hence the need to constantly readjust their observations.


Bold mine.

Again, much of the story is in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Tingley and Huybers further bias the results?

Tingley and Huybers Exclude Mt Logan



> Perhaps the greatest single difference between being a “real climate scientist” and policies recommended here is that “real climate scientists” do not hesitate in excluding data ex post because it goes the “wrong” way, a practice that is unequivocally condemned at Climate Audit and other critical blogs which take the position that criteria have to be established ex ante: *if you believe that treeline spruce ring widths or Arctic d18O ice core data is a climate proxy, then you can’t exclude (or downweight) data because it goes the “wrong” way.*
> 
> This seems trivially obvious to anyone approaching this field for the first time and has been frequently commented on at critical blogs. However it is a real blind spot for real climate scientists and Tingley and Huybers are no exception.
> 
> Fisher’s Mount Logan ice core d18O series is a longstanding litmus test. It goes down in the latter part of the data and is not popular among multiproxy jockeys. *Tingley and Huybers excluded Mt Logan from their data set,* purporting to justify its exclusion as follows


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, the UK Sunday Times tries to make a mountain out of a molehill regarding the press release that MacDoc linked to. In the mean time, on the Antarctic continent...

Sunday Times Reports Record Ice Growth As Record “Melt”



> Antarctic sea ice area has been increasing and above normal for more than 500 consecutive days, so the experts chime in with a claim of record melt.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Weddell Sea (adjacent to the Antarctic Peninsula) had double the normal amount of sea ice this summer. That is because it was exceptionally cold.


----------



## FeXL

In the mean time, _Nature_ mag notes:

Recent climate, glacier changes in Antarctica within normal bounds; Changes cannot be attributed with confidence to manmade global warming



> In the last few decades, glaciers at the edge of the icy continent of Antarctica have been thinning, and research has shown the rate of thinning has accelerated and contributed significantly to sea level rise.
> 
> New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.
> 
> ...
> 
> *“If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,”* said Steig, lead author of a paper on the findings published online April 14 in Nature Geoscience.


Bold mine.

That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> In the mean time, _Nature_ mag notes:


It's actually _Nat. Geoscience_, not _Nature_, and unfortunately, it's behind a pay-wall, so I can't access the actual science. Do you have a PDF you could send?

I can access the abstract:


> *Changes in atmospheric circulation over the past five decades* have enhanced the wind-driven inflow of warm ocean water onto the Antarctic continental shelf, where it melts ice shelves from below1, 2, 3. *Atmospheric circulation changes have also caused rapid warming*4 over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and contributed to declining sea-ice cover in the adjacent Amundsen–Bellingshausen seas5. It is unknown whether these changes are part of a longer-term trend. Here, we use water-isotope (δ18O) data from an array of ice-core records to place recent West Antarctic climate changes in the context of the past two millennia. *We find that the δ18O of West Antarctic precipitation has increased significantly in the past 50 years, in parallel with the trend in temperature, and was probably more elevated during the 1990s than at any other time during the past 200 years.* However, δ18O anomalies comparable to those of recent decades occur about 1% of the time over the past 2,000 years. General circulation model simulations suggest that recent trends in δ18O and climate in West Antarctica cannot be distinguished from decadal variability that originates in the tropics. We conclude that the uncertain trajectory of tropical climate variability represents a significant source of uncertainty in projections of West Antarctic climate and ice-sheet change.


So what it looks like they're saying is that this particular measure at this particular location does not give a strong enough signal to exclude natural climatic variability _by itself_.

If only we had thousands of other studies done by thousands of other researchers using thousands of other techniques spread over many decades to help us address this uncertainty... oh, wait... we do! And that's why it's called 'a consensus.'


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If only we had thousands of other studies done by thousands of other researchers using thousands of other techniques spread over many decades to help us address this uncertainty... oh, wait... we do! And that's why it's called 'a consensus.'


Repeating it over and over ain't going to make your wishes of a consensus come true. This is what is known as "magical thinking."


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Repeating it over and over ain't going to make your wishes of a consensus come true.


I strenuously wish it was not true. But I am compelled by the evidence of actually talking and working with climate researchers, and reading the scientific literature to conclude that there is such a consensus.

You go right ahead reading the blogs of the deniosphere if that make you feel better.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I strenuously wish it was not true. But I am compelled by the evidence of actually talking and working with climate researchers, and reading the scientific literature to conclude that there is such a consensus.
> 
> You go right ahead reading the blogs of the deniosphere if that make you feel better.


It makes me feel better to talk to people who have not already disqualified themselves from offering an informed opinion on the subject!


----------



## bryanc

As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, I am perfectly qualified (indeed, far better qualified than most here) to formulate an opinion on the apparent behaviour of scientists - for example the existence of a consensus among climatology researchers on the validity of the ACC theory. I am also likely rather better qualified than you or other frequent posters here to evaluate the much of the actual research itself, however, I do not judge my expertise sufficient to critically analyze the numerical modelling, geophysical work, etc., and I therefore accept the interpretations of the experts in these fields on that data.

You seem incapable of distinguishing between these rather obviously different topics. Perhaps some remedial reading courses should be added to your plans for the summer.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ou seem incapable of distinguishing between these rather obviously different topics. Perhaps some remedial reading courses should be added to your plans for the summer.



Did I just hear a grunion bubbling?

Sadly, my summers have not been the warm kind promised by those experts.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> It's actually _Nat. Geoscience_, not _Nature_


You're correct, sorry. The linked headline notes "Nature Mag".



bryanc said:


> Do you have a PDF you could send?


I do not.



bryanc said:


> So what it looks like they're saying...


You can interpret it anyway you like. The money quote, the one I noted, came from Eric Steig, warmist's greatest Antarctic ally. If he says that today's Antarctic glacial retreat is the same as the 1940's & 1830's, then there is no such thing as unusual, unnatural or unprecedented in today's example.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting take on temperature data handling. He uses a rather unusual technique but I'm not sure I agree with everything he has to say.

On the scales of warming worry magnitudes–part 1



> The paper is unique and novel in its approach to man-made global warming in many respects: it is written by experimental scientists, it is published in journal that deals with data analysis and pattern recognition of data generated by a physical instrument, it treats the Earth atmosphere as a system where everything is local and nothing is global, and it is the first paper that looks for temperature patterns in the data that is generated by the instrument designed to and used by experimental scientists since early 1700s – calibrated thermometer. What is also unique is that every single graph and number that I have reported in the paper can be reproduced and validated by reader using data that is in public domain and analyse that data using simple excel worksheet.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yep. Arctic ice models. Guess what? 50% show a decrease in Arctic ice and 50% show an increase in Arctic ice. That's 50% of a consensus, no? Pick yer argument and run with the half that supports it...

The sensitivity of the Arctic sea ice to orbitally induced insolation changes: a study of the mid-Holocene Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project 2 and 3 simulations

Abstract.



> In the present work the Arctic sea ice in the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial climates are analysed and compared on the basis of climate-model results from the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project phase 2 (PMIP2) and phase 3 (PMIP3). The PMIP3 models generally simulate smaller and thinner sea-ice extents than the PMIP2 models both for the pre-industrial and the mid-Holocene climate. Further, the PMIP2 and PMIP3 models all simulate a smaller and thinner Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the mid-Holocene than in the pre-industrial control climate. The PMIP3 models also simulate thinner winter sea ice than the PMIP2 models. The winter sea-ice extent response, i.e. the difference between the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial climate, varies among both PMIP2 and PMIP3 models. *Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase.* The model-mean summer sea-ice extent is 11 % (21 %) smaller in the mid-Holocene than in the pre-industrial climate simulations in the PMIP2 (PMIP3). In accordance with the simple model of Thorndike (1992), the sea-ice thickness response to the insolation change from the pre-industrial to the mid-Holocene is stronger in models with thicker ice in the pre-industrial climate simulation. Further, the analyses show that climate models for which the Arctic sea-ice responses to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are similar may simulate rather different sea-ice responses to the change in solar forcing between the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial. For two specific models, which are analysed in detail, this difference is found to be associated with differences in the simulated cloud fractions in the summer Arctic; in the model with a larger cloud fraction the effect of insolation change is muted. A sub-set of the mid-Holocene simulations in the PMIP ensemble exhibit open water off the north-eastern coast of Greenland in summer, which can provide a fetch for surface waves. This is in broad agreement with recent analyses of sea-ice proxies, indicating that beach-ridges formed on the north-eastern coast of Greenland during the early- to mid-Holocene.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that melting East Antarctic & coastal ice.

A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last 800 yr

Abstract.



> Global climate models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should increase in a warming climate and mitigate rises in the sea level. Several processes affect surface mass balance (SMB), introducing large uncertainties in past, present and future ice sheet mass balance. To provide an extended perspective on the past SMB of Antarctica, we used 67 firn/ice core records to reconstruct the temporal variability in the SMB over the past 800 yr and, in greater detail, over the last 200 yr.
> 
> *Our SMB reconstructions indicate that the SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible* and that the current SMB is not exceptionally high compared to the last 800 yr. High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s. However, *a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.* To explain the differences in behaviour between the coastal/ice divide sites and the rest of Antarctica, we suggest that a higher frequency of blocking anticyclones increases the precipitation at coastal sites, leading to the advection of moist air in the highest areas, whereas blowing snow and/or erosion have significant negative impacts on the SMB at windy sites. Eight hundred years of stacked records of the SMB mimic the total solar irradiance during the 13th and 18th centuries. The link between those two variables is probably indirect and linked to a teleconnection in atmospheric circulation that forces complex feedback between the tropical Pacific and Antarctica via the generation and propagation of a large-scale atmospheric wave train.


JoNova comments:

Antarctica gaining Ice Mass — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data


----------



## FeXL

Well, after time off to deal with a personal issue, it's going to take some effort to catch up. Here goes...

So, Nic Lewis has successfully published a paper at Journal of Climate.

An objective Bayesian estimate of climate sensitivity



> Many readers will know that I have analysed the Forest et al., 2006, (F06) study in some depth. I’m pleased to report that my paper reanalysing F06 using an improved, objective Bayesian method was accepted by Journal of Climate last month, just before the IPCC deadline for papers to be cited in AR5 WG1, and has now been posted as an Early Online Release, here. The paper is long (8,400 words) and technical, with quite a lot of statistical mathematics, so in this article I’ll just give a flavour of it and summarize its results.


In a nutshell (from the comments):



> Sensitivity of 1.6 degrees K for doubling from 280 to 560 ppm CO2, with around 0.7 K observed at current 400 ppm.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Trenberth's missing heat.

A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C



> That’s right. According to Levitus et al 2012, the average temperature of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters warmed a miniscule 0.09 deg C (or 0.16 deg F) from 1955 to 2010. Granted, the heat capacity of the ocean is much greater than the atmosphere, but *that warming of 0.09 deg C strains believability. Are we able to sense such a small change?*


Bold mine.



> Now consider how few temperature samples there are at depths of 1500 meters before 2003/04 (Refer to gif animation of temperature sample maps here). 2003/04 is when the ARGO floats began to have reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans. It’s very difficult to find the dataset credible. A warming of 0.09 deg C in 55 years equals a linear trend of approximately 0.016 deg C per decade. *That’s sixteen one thousandths of a deg C per decade.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen’s human free vision of the future



> When I was a kid, I’d watch cartoons with mad scientists running amok and causing trouble. As an adult, I observed that there actually aren’t any mad scientists. Now, after reading Dr. James Hansen’s latest essay, I’m not so sure anymore.


----------



## FeXL

Further on carbon markets.

Watching the death of the EU Carbon Market



> The European Union’s climate change policy is on the brink of collapse today after MEPs torpedoed Europe’s flagship CO2 emissions trading scheme by voting against a measure to support the price of carbon permits. The price of carbon crashed up to 45 per cent to a record-low €2.63 a metric ton (and later to €2.46 – Anthony), after the European Parliament rejected a proposal to change the EU emissions-trading laws to delay the sale of 900m CO2 permits on the world’s biggest carbon markets.


----------



## FeXL

Part 2 of the temperature data handling article.

On the scales of warming worry magnitudes– Part 2



> So let me start this second part in which I will quantify differences between the annual temperature patterns with a scheme that explains how thermometer works. Please note that this comes from NASA’s engineers, specialists who actually know what they are doing in contrast to their colleagues in modelling sections. What thermometer is detecting is kinetic energy of the molecules that are surrounding it, and therefore thermometer reflects physical reality around it. In other words, data generated by thermometer reflect physical property called temperature of the molecules (99% made of N2 and O2 plus water) that are surrounding it:


----------



## FeXL

Two more papers show a lower climate sensitivity that that predicted by TIPPC™. Counting Nic Lewis', that's three in a couple of days.

Another paper finds lower climate sensitivity

Abstract of the first.



> Climate sensitivity is estimated based on 0–2,000 m ocean heat content and surface temperature observations from the second half of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century, using a simple energy balance model and the change in the rate of ocean heat uptake to determine the radiative restoration strength over this time period. The relationship between this 30–50 year radiative restoration strength and longer term effective sensitivity is investigated using an ensemble of 32 model configurations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), suggesting a strong correlation between the two. The mean radiative restoration strength over this period for the CMIP5 members examined is 1.16 Wm−2K−1, compared to 2.05 Wm−2K−1from the observations. This suggests that temperature in these CMIP5 models may be too sensitive to perturbations in radiative forcing, although this depends on the actual magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the modern period. The potential change in the radiative restoration strength over longer timescales is also considered, resulting in a likely (67 %) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90 % confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K.


Abstract of the second.



> Measurements show that the Earth’s global-average near-surface temperature has increased by about 0.8℃ since the 19th century. It is critically important to determine whether this global warming is due to natural causes, as contended by climate contrarians, or by human activities, as argued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This study updates our earlier calculations which showed that the observed global warming was predominantly human-caused. Two independent methods are used to analyze the temperature measurements: Singular Spectrum Analysis and Climate Model Simulation. The concurrence of the results of the two methods, each using 13 additional years of temperature measurements from 1998 through 2010, shows that it is humanity, not nature, that has increased the Earth’s global temperature since the 19th century. Humanity is also responsible for the most recent period of warming from 1976 to 2010. Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976. *It is also found that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is on the low side of the range given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Good for a laugh...

These guys could use some help with slapstick


----------



## FeXL

More smiles...

Gavin skeptic mode: ON – for Skeptical Science



> Gavin Schmidt, a much misunderstood character in the global warming debate, has demonstrated his good faith and honourable intentions by issuing a denunciation of Skeptical Science.


Comparing a mean to a mode? Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

So, there are certain fruit loops & wackos out there who claim warming of 6 degrees by 2050. Let's take a closer look at the claim, shall we?

Numeracy in Climate Discussions – how long will it take to get a 6C rise in temperature?



> This essay is a result of an email discussion this morning, I asked Dr. Happer to condense and complete that discussion for the benefit of WUWT readers. This is one of the most enlightening calculations I’ve seen in awhile, and it is worth your time to understand it because it speaks clearly to debunk many of the claims of temperature rise in the next 100 years made by activists, such as the 6c by 2050 Joe Romm claims, when parroting Fatih Birol in Reuters:
> 
> _“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters._​


Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

Now I’ve heard everything

From the comments:



> OK, so a simulation of a theoretical future was modeled to show there could be more dense otoliths in some fish that could possibly increase their hearing sensitivity by as much as 58% if the model is correct and the theory is correct and the simulation of the future becomes reality. Do I have that right?


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index



> We’ve shown in numerous posts how poorly climate models simulate observed changes in temperature and precipitation. The models prepared for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) can’t simulate observed trends in:
> 
> 1. satellite-era sea surface temperatures globally or on ocean-basin bases,
> 
> 2. global satellite-era precipitation,
> 
> 3. global, hemispheric and regional land surface air temperatures, and
> 
> 4. global land plus sea surface temperatures when the data is divided into multidecadal warming and cooling periods.
> 
> In this post, we’ll compare the multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP5-archived models, which were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming AR5, and the new GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. As you’ll recall, GISS recently switched sea surface temperature datasets for their LOTI product.


----------



## FeXL

PAGES2K, Gergis and Made-for-IPCC Journal Articles



> March 15, 2013 was the IPCC deadline for use in AR5 and predictably a wave of articles have been accepted. The IPCC Paleo chapter wanted a graphic on regional reconstructions and the PAGES2K group has obligingly provided the raw materials for this graphic, which will be published by Nature on April 21. Thanks to an obliging mole, I have information on the proxies used in the PAGES2K reconstructions and will report today on the Gergis reconstruction, of interest to CA readers, which lives on a zombie, walking among us as the living dead.
> 
> The PAGES2K article has its own interesting backstory. The made-for-IPCC article was submitted to Science last July on deadline eve, thereby permitting its use in the Second Draft, where it sourced a major regional paleo reconstruction graphic. The PAGES2K submission used (in a check-kited version) the Gergis reconstruction, which it cited as being “under revision” though, at the time, it had been disappeared.
> 
> The PAGES2K submission to Science appears to have been rejected as it has never appeared in Science and a corresponding article is scheduled for publication by Nature. It sounds like there is an interesting backstory here: one presumes that IPCC would have been annoyed by Science’s failure to publish the article and that there must have been considerable pressure on Nature to accept the article. Nature appears to have accepted the PAGES2K article only on IPCC deadline eve.


----------



## FeXL

Further on PAGES2K.

PAGES2K South America



> A commenter observed that the forthcoming PAGES2K received over 50 pages of review comments from one reviewer. One wonders what he had to say about the PAGES2K South American network which has some very odd characteristics.


----------



## FeXL

Even more on PAGES2K.

PAGES2K Reconstructions



> The PAGES2K article to be published tomorrow will show eight regional reconstructions, which are plotted below. In today’s post, I’ll try to briefly summarize what, if anything, is new about them.


----------



## MacDoc

> *In April 1938, British amateur climatologist Guy Stewart Callendar wrote a paper that confirmed for the first time that the Earth is warming up. *It helped kick start research into one of the world’s biggest scientific conundrums.
> 
> *That happened exactly 75 years ago.*


snip


> “People were sceptical about some of Callendar’s results, partly because the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere was not very well known and because his estimates for the warming caused by CO2 were quite simplistic by modern standards,” Hawkins said in a statement.
> 
> *Callendar’s estimates for the amount of observed warming have stood the test of time *and agree remarkably well with more modern analysis of the same period, said Hawkins.


Meet the man behind global warming - The World Daily


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meet the man behind global warming - The World Daily


He can't be held responsible for the failure of his theories. That was a long time ago.


----------



## i-rui

HBO - Real Time with Bill Maher Blog - How to Become a Global Warming*Denier

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## jef

i-rui said:


> HBO - Real Time with Bill Maher Blog - How to Become a Global Warming*Denier
> 
> :lmao::lmao:


Damn - you beat me to this link...


----------



## Macfury

Did you like him better in _House II_ or _Murder She Wrote_?


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Model-Data Difference – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies – GISS, HADCRUT4 & NCDC

In closing:



> Presenting the differences between modeled and observed global surface temperatures is yet another way to show how poorly the climate models simulate global temperatures since 1880. The models cannot explain the observed cooling from 1880 to the 1910s, and they cannot explain the warming from the 1910s to the 1940s. Plotting the difference also helps to show that the divergence in recent decades, with the models simulating too much warming, started as far back as the early 1990s, when models overestimated the cooling from the volcanic aerosols associated with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Scooter Nuccitelli, modes & means...

Dana Nuccitelli’s meany mode is like stinky cheese

And, suddenly, without fanfare, note or otherwise, it's all been changed.



> Heh. How does that stinky moon cheese taste Dana?


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

So, let's talk peer review...

Feature: Let's review the peer review process



> Responding last year to criticism of their field in the wake of the serial fraud committed by Diederik Stapel, three social psychologists - Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes and Russell Spears - published a paper in Perspectives on Psychological Science, titled “Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science”. *This provided compelling evidence that, across the disciplines, peer review fails to root out fraud.* This is worrisome enough. Yet *even basic errors in the literature can now be extremely difficult to correct on any reasonable timescale.*


More:



> It was Paul Brookes, again, who delivered the most damning appraisal, concentrating his fire on Nature Publishing Group: “You can have all the heavy hitters on your side, but if you challenge something in [an NPG] journal, you will have a fight to even get in the door, followed by a pitched battle to get something published, with every possible curve-ball thrown at you during the review and revision process. NPG does not like it when you find mistakes that should have been found in peer review.”


Further:



> Nor are many individual scientists in the habit of questioning what is published - particularly by leading journals. *Their brands have become so powerful that publication by them is often taken - wrongly - as an absolute quality standard.*


A possible solution?



> *Blogging is one obvious forum for the timely critiquing of published work.* Levy’s blog, for example, features a large number of well-argued posts (my own notwithstanding) and comments by contributors who include an NPG editor. But blogging is not enough. *First, too many scientists unfortunately still see it as lacking respectability, rigour and professionalism. They will too easily dismiss valid criticisms of published work simply because the concerns were not raised through what are seen as the appropriate channels.* In addition, a number of science bloggers themselves have questioned the extent to which peer-review-by-blog might descend into the type of slanging match or character assassination often encountered in internet forums. Rather more stringent checks and balances, coupled with a somewhat different ethos, are required.
> 
> *We need to embed the benefits of blogging within the peer review and publishing process itself.* This will involve, at the minimum, publishing alongside the article all (still anonymous) referees’ reviews and authors’ responses, as well as all raw data (including unprocessed images) associated with the paper.


All bold mine.

First, sound like anybody here? Second, anybody who cannot see the value of a blog as a legitimate place to discuss science, to level honest & informed criticism & to actually act a as form of peer-review is truly stuck in the 19th century.


----------



## FeXL

Another <yawn> important <yawn> treemometer <so sleepy> study <snore>.

It's the Pages2K that McIntyre has been blogging about.

Yet another ‘unprecedented’ hot times tree ring reconstruction

Press release inside, abstract below.



> Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.


From the comments:



> This study reconstructs the past 2000 years, therefore the headline could instead be
> 
> “Earth as warm as 1,400 years ago, temperatures not unprecedented”


Yup...

More:


More on the recent Pages2K paper



> _We also found that temperatures in some regions were higher in the past then they were during the late 20th century and that, the longer the individual site record, the more likely it was to show prior warm intervals, which is consistent with the long-term cooling trend. *In Europe, for example, the average temperature between AD 21 and 80 was warmer than during AD 1971-2000.* But temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, the transition to colder regional climates between AD 1200 and 1500 is evident earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere._


Bold mine.

Further:

A Quick Comment about the PAGES Continental Temperature Reconstructions



> Clearly, the claims of unprecedented recent temperatures are not supported by the regional reconstructions. Four of the seven regions presented by Kaufman et al (2013) clearly show that recent temperatures are comparable to past temperatures or they have been exceeded in the past. This can also be seen in the individual graphs presented in Steve McIntyre’s post here. Now, hasn’t this been one of the arguments by climate skeptics since the hockey stick was introduced—that the hockey-stick appearance is a regional phenomenon? That regional reconstructions show current temperatures have been exceeded in the past in many parts of the globe?


----------



## FeXL

Nic Lewis talks about errors in the Forest 2006 study methodology.


Non-centring in the Forest 2006 study


----------



## FeXL

Well, here's a surprise...

Shock: Scientific American publishes article on the failure of climate models 



> The team goes on to provide several possible explanations for the failure of the models, most likely related to their inability to account for details in the ENSO cycle. The researchers also note that the models may not capture some important features of the biosphere.
> 
> In addition to their failure to reproduce El Niño and La Niña, existing models do not fully capture other factors that influence rainfall, such as clouds and vegetation. But Smerdon adds that the atmospheric and oceanic dynamics that inhibit rainfall and favour prolonged drought may be essentially random and so almost unpredictable.
> 
> This is in fact a problem that has plagued computer models of climate since their very inception in the 1950s.


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...

MET office now admits Arctic sea ice didn't cause unusually cold weather



> This hypothesis [the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice] remains contentious [9], however, and there is little evidence from the comparison between the cold spring of 1962 and this year that the Arctic has been a contributory factor in terms of the hypothesis proposed above. Figure 13 shows the midtroposphere temperature anomalies for 1962 and 2013; over the Arctic they are almost identical and reflect the negative NAO pattern. It is hard to argue that Arctic amplification had changed the equator to pole temperature in a systematic way to affect the circulation this spring.


----------



## FeXL

I've about 4 or 5 links from Steven Goddard I'm going to put in one post. Some of these are of the "It's weather, not climate" variety & I post these just to inform what some current weather patterns are, 'cause if the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet your sweet patootie we'd be hearing about it...


Disturbing Normalcy Of Arctic Ice Continues Unabated

Second Coldest March/April On Record In The US

Coldest Spring On Record In North Dakota

Understanding Arctic Sea Ice

9:1 Ratio Of Record Lows To Record Highs


----------



## FeXL

New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative



> Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor. The argument goes that as surface temperatures rise so more water will evaporate from the oceans thereby amplifying temperatures because H2O itself is a strong greenhouse gas. Climate models all assume net amplification factors of between 1.5 and 6. Has the water content of the atmosphere actually been increasing as predicted?


Further:



> There is indeed some correlation in the data from 1988 until 1998, but thereafter the two trends diverge dramatically. *Total atmospheric water content actually falls despite a relentless slow rise in CO2. This fall in atmospheric H2O also coincides with the observed stalling of global temperatures for the last 16 years. All climate models (that I am aware of} predict exactly the opposite. Something is clearly amiss with theory. Is it not now time for “consensus” scientists to have a rethink?*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Caution, models involved (however, linear regression, not CHIMP).

New paper finds effect of volcanoes on climate has been overestimated by factor of 2, & finds lower climate sensitivity to CO2

Abstract.



> Observed reductions in Earth's surface temperature following explosive volcanic eruptions have been used as a proxy for geoengineering of climate by the artificial enhancement of stratospheric sulfate. Earth cools following major eruptions due to an increase in the reflection of sunlight caused by a dramatic enhancement of the stratospheric sulfate aerosol burden. Significant global cooling has been observed following the four major eruptions since 1900: Santa María, Mount Agung, El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo, leading IPCC (2007) to state "major volcanic eruptions can, thus, cause a drop in global mean surface temperature of about half a degree Celsius that can last for months and even years". We use a multiple linear regression model applied to the global surface temperature anomaly to suggest that exchange of heat between the atmosphere and ocean, driven by variations in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), has been a factor in the decline of global temperature following these eruptions. The veracity of this suggestion depends on whether sea surface temperature (SST) in the North Atlantic, sometimes called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but here referred to as Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), truly represents a proxy for the strength of the AMOC. Also, precise quantification of global cooling due to volcanoes depends on how the AMV index is detrended. If the AMV index is detrended using anthropogenic radiative forcing of climate, we find that surface cooling attributed to Mt. Pinatubo, using the Hadley Centre/University of East Anglia surface temperature record, maximises at 0.14 °C globally and 0.32 °C over land. *These values are about a factor of 2 less than found when the AMV index is neglected in the model and quite a bit lower than the canonical 0.5 °C cooling usually attributed to Pinatubo.* This result is driven by the high amplitude, low frequency component of the AMV index, demonstrating that reduced impact of volcanic cooling upon consideration of the AMV index is driven by variations in North Atlantic SST that occur over time periods much longer than those commonly associated with major volcanic eruptions. The satellite record of atmospheric temperature from 1978 to present and other century-long surface temperature records are also consistent with the suggestion that *volcanic cooling may have been over estimated by about a factor of 2 due to prior neglect of ocean circulation.* Our study suggests a recalibration may be needed for the proper use of Mt.~Pinatubo as a proxy for geoengineering of climate. Finally, *we highlight possible shortcomings in simulations of volcanic cooling by general circulation models,* which are also being used to assess the impact of geoengineering of climate via stratospheric sulfate injection.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper showing cooling of 12 degrees C in Icelandic lakes over the last 10,000 years, in addition to major shifts in climate.

Abrupt Holocene climate transitions in the northern North Atlantic region recorded by synchronized lacustrine records in Iceland

Abstract.



> Two high-sediment-accumulation-rate Icelandic lakes, the glacial lake Hvítárvatn and the non-glacial lake Haukadalsvatn, contain numerous tephra layers of known age, which together with high-resolution paleomagnetic secular variations allow synchronization with a well-dated marine core from the shelf north of Iceland. A composite standardized climate record from the two lakes provides a single time series that efficiently integrates multi-proxy data that reflect the evolution of summer temperatures through the Holocene. The first-order trends in biogenic silica (BSi), δ13C, and C:N rise relatively abruptly following deglaciation, reaching maximum values shortly after 8 ka following a complex minimum between 8.7 and 8.0 ka. The Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) in the lakes is marked by all proxies, with a sharp transition out of the 8 ka cold event into peak summer warmth by 7.9 ka, and continuing warm with some fluctuations until 5.5 ka. Decreasing summer insolation after the HTM is reflected by incremental cooling, initially ∼5.5 ka, with subsequent cold perturbations recorded by all proxies 4.3 to 4.0 ka and 3.1 to 2.8 ka. The strongest disturbance occurred after 2 ka with initial summer cooling occurring between 1.4 and 1.0 ka, followed by a more severe drop in summer temperatures after 0.7 ka culminating between 0.5 and 0.2 ka. Following each late Holocene cold departure, BSi re-equilibrated at a lower value independent of the sediment accumulation rate. Some of the abrupt shifts may be related to Icelandic volcanism influencing catchment stability, but the lack of a full recovery to pre-existing values after the perturbation suggests increased periglacial activity, decreased vegetation cover, and glacier growth in the highlands of Iceland. *The similarity in timing, direction and magnitude of our multi-proxy records from glacial and non-glacial lakes, and from the adjacent marine shelf, suggests that our composite record reflects large-scale shifts in ocean/atmosphere circulation throughout the northern North Atlantic.*


Bold mine.

Highlights:



> •Precisely-dated decadally-resolved Holocene climate records from two Icelandic lakes.
> •Multiproxy paleoclimate composite reveals delayed response to insolation maximum.
> •Early Holocene warmth followed by general cooling after 5.5 ka.
> •Abrupt cold perturbations 5.5, 4.2, 3.0, and 1.5 ka climaxing in the Little Ice Age.
> •Synchronized lake records provide a climate template for the northern North Atlantic.


Taking a look at their multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, either singly by lake or the composite of the two, shows me that nothing we've experienced since the industrial revolution is unnatural, unusual or unprecedented: neither rate of warmth nor peak temperature.


----------



## FeXL

On planetary harmonics, solar activity and terran climate change.

Analysis finds planetary harmonics control solar activity and subsequent climate change 



> A new post at ClimateMonitor.it by Carlo Tosti demonstrates that the global temperature record since 1880 is highly correlated to solar activity, and that solar activity is in turn highly correlated to the harmonics of planetary motion. These correlations and accumulating evidence of an amplified solar effect on Earth's climate would tend to suggest a "unified theory" of climate change, whereby gravitational effects from planetary motions cause small changes in solar activity, which are then amplified via cosmic rays/clouds [Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology], ozone, and ocean oscillations to cause large changes in Earth's climate.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another potential solar amplification mechanism



> A paper published today in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds the 11-year solar cycle is correlated to the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a wind reversal that "dominates" variability of the lower stratosphere and in turn "affects a variety of extratropical phenomena including the strength and stability of the winter polar vortex." The IPCC AR4 states that the IPCC climate models do not include the quasi-biennial oscillation due to inadequate understanding of the causes, and "Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere." *The paper adds to many others finding solar amplification mechanisms that are not included in the climate models the IPCC uses to dismiss the role of the Sun.*


Bold mine.

<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Caution, models involved. Further on declining solar activity.

Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years

Abstract.



> Recently a new low-noise record of solar activity has been reconstructed for the past 9,400 years by combining two 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica with 14C from tree rings [F. Steinhilber et al., 2012]. This record confirms earlier results, namely that the Sun has varied with distinct periodicities in the past. We present a prediction of mean solar magnetic activity averaged over 22 years for the next 500 years mainly based on the spectral information derived from the solar activity record of the past. Assuming that the Sun will continue varying with the same periodicities for the next centuries we extract the spectral information from the past and apply it in two different methods to predict the future of solar magnetic activity. First, the two methods are tested by predicting past changes. *Our methods are able to predict periods of high and low solar activity for a few centuries in the past.* However, they are less successful in predicting the correct amplitude. Then, the methods were used to predict the period 2000-2500. *Both methods predict a period of low activity around 2100 AD.* Between 2100 AD and 2350 AD the results are inconsistent regarding the duration of the low activity state in 2100 AD and the level of activity until 2250 AD. Around 2250 AD both methods predict a period of moderate activity. After 2350 AD both methods point to a period of high activity. The period of high activity will end around 2400 AD and will be followed by a period of moderate activity.


I wonder if it will take another Maunder or Dalton minimum before these guys take a look up at that bright yellow orb in the sky...


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol's influence.

New paper finds solar activity controlled heavy rainfall & flooding along major river in China over past 2000 years

Abstract.



> The Lower Yellow River (LYR) has been characterized as a frequently breaching, overflowing and shifting river in historical periods. Understanding the factors that influence the LYR variations is critical for river management and disaster prevention. This study constructed a spatio-temporal data base of the LYR’s breaching and overflowing events (BOEs) and course-shifting events (CSEs) occurring in the late Holocene. The data base and corresponding solar activity data were analyzed to determine the overall influence, temporal influence and spatial influence of solar activity on the LYR. Results showed that 75.5% of the LYR CSEs and 61.7% of the LYR BOEs occurred in sunspot number decline phases of 11 yr solar cycles, suggesting that the LYR changed more frequently during the sunspot number decline phases. The underlying mechanism of this phenomenon was further interpreted as the high correlation between sunspot decline phases and heavy rainfall in the middle reaches of Yellow River (MYR). Five of the six heavy rainfall years over the last 60 years and 14 of the 16 well-known heavy rainfall records from 132 BC to AD 1933 in the MYR occurred in sunspot decline phases. Heavy rainfall in the MYR promoted the increase of the LYR runoff and the sediment rate and then raised the possibility of the occurrence of BOEs and CSEs. The study also found that the frequency of BOEs was positively related to the fluctuation amplitude of the sunspot maximum intensity in long time series. The flow directions of the LYR courses were found to affect the influence of solar activity on BOEs. The highest correlation between sunspot decline phases and BOEs was presented during the lifetime of eastward flows while the lowest during the lifetime of northward flows. In addition, human activities may undermine the impact of solar activities on the LYR changes.





> A paper published today in The Holocene finds that short term changes in solar activity have had a major influence on heavy rainfall and flooding along the Lower Yellow River in China over the past ~2000 years. The authors find that when sunspot numbers decline during the 2nd half of solar cycles, heavy rainfall is more common. This would tend to support the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, as declining solar activity leads to increased cosmic rays forming clouds, and hence increased rainfall. Once again, more evidence accumulates that tiny variations of solar activity can be amplified to large changes in climate on Earth.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds no effect of global warming on El Niños 



> "Overall," in the words of the two researchers, "there is no evidence that there are changes in the [1] strength, [2] frequency, [3]duration, [4] location or [5] direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008."


----------



## FeXL

Caution, models (chemistry-climate models, not GCM CHIMP's) involved.

New paper finds large changes in solar UV influence climate change

Abstract.



> The lack of long and reliable time series of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) measurements makes an accurate quantification of solar contributions to recent climate change difficult. Whereas earlier SSI observations and models provided a qualitatively consistent picture of the SSI variability, recent measurements by the SORCE (SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment) satellite suggest a significantly stronger variability in the ultraviolet (UV) spectral range and changes in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) bands in anti-phase with the solar cycle. A number of recent chemistry-climate model (CCM) simulations have shown that this might have significant implications on the Earth's atmosphere. Motivated by these results, we summarize here our current knowledge of SSI variability and its impact on Earth's climate.
> 
> We present a detailed overview of existing SSI measurements and provide thorough comparison of models available to date. SSI changes influence the Earth's atmosphere, both directly, through changes in shortwave (SW) heating and therefore, temperature and ozone distributions in the stratosphere, and indirectly, through dynamical feedbacks. We investigate these direct and indirect effects using several state-of-the art CCM simulations forced with measured and modelled SSI changes. A unique asset of this study is the use of a common comprehensive approach for an issue that is usually addressed separately by different communities.
> 
> We show that the SORCE measurements are difficult to reconcile with earlier observations and with SSI models. Of the five SSI models discussed here, specifically NRLSSI (Naval Research Laboratory Solar Spectral Irradiance), SATIRE-S (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstructions for the Satellite era), COSI (COde for Solar Irradiance), SRPM (Solar Radiation Physical Modelling), and OAR (Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma), only one shows a behaviour of the UV and visible irradiance qualitatively resembling that of the recent SORCE measurements. However, the integral of the SSI computed with this model over the entire spectral range does not reproduce the measured cyclical changes of the total solar irradiance, which is an essential requisite for realistic evaluations of solar effects on the Earth's climate in CCMs.
> 
> We show that within the range provided by the recent SSI observations and semi-empirical models discussed here, the NRLSSI model and SORCE observations represent the lower and upper limits in the magnitude of the SSI solar cycle variation.
> 
> The results of the CCM simulations, forced with the SSI solar cycle variations estimated from the NRLSSI model and from SORCE measurements, show that the direct solar response in the stratosphere is larger for the SORCE than for the NRLSSI data. Correspondingly, larger UV forcing also leads to a larger surface response.
> 
> Finally, we discuss the reliability of the available data and we propose additional coordinated work, first to build composite SSI data sets out of scattered observations and to refine current SSI models, and second, to run coordinated CCM experiments.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further on old Sol's influence.
> 
> New paper finds solar activity controlled heavy rainfall & flooding along major river in China over past 2000 years


Then we must tax the sun, to stop it from shining so brightly!


----------



## FeXL

Caution: treemometers used. However, at least some of the source material was carbon dated as a second proxy.

Paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Alps, late 20th century temperatures were low to normal in comparison to past 9000 years 

Part of the Abstract.



> The altitude of the Alpine tree-line has often been used as proxy for the climatic conditions in the Holocene epoch. The usual approach for establishing a record for this proxy is the analysis of pollen and macro remains. We analysed living trees and subfossil logs from the timberline ecotone in the innermost Kauner valley in the Central Eastern Alps in order to assemble a Holocene dendrochronological tree-line record...The dendrochronological record from the Kauner valley, showing high and very high tree-line positions between approx. 7100 and 2100 B.C. with only two gaps (around 6490 B.C. and from 3350 to 3280 B.C.), suggests that *summer temperatures as observed in the late 20th century were at the normal or the lower limit of the temperature range which can be assumed for long periods of the early and middle Holocene epoch.*


So, what caused the warming 9000 years ago?


----------



## FeXL

Paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate



> A lecture by professor Hiroko Miyahara of the University of Tokyo provides additional support to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, finding that both solar geomagnetic activity and the polarity of geomagnetic activity have significant effects upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The polarity of solar geomagnetic activity flips with a 22-year cycle, with periods of negative polarity [such as the current solar cycle] having a greater effect upon cosmic rays and cloud formation. The authors also find a remarkable correlation between solar rotational signals, cloud height, and the Madden-Julian Oscillation [third figure below], which may represent yet another mechanism by which small changes in solar activity can be amplified to large changes in climate.


----------



## FeXL

XX) Another model failure...

New paper discovers a 'major source' of alkalinity that might protect reefs from 'acidification'

Abstract.



> To better predict how ocean acidification will affect coral reefs, it is important to understand how biogeochemical cycles on reefs alter carbonate chemistry over various temporal and spatial scales. This study quantifies the contribution of shallow porewater exchange (as quantified from advective chamber incubations) and fresh groundwater discharge (as traced by 222Rn) to total alkalinity (TA) dynamics on a fringing coral reef lagoon along the southern Pacific island of Rarotonga over a tidal and daily cycle. Benthic alkalinity fluxes were affected by the advective circulation of water through permeable sediments, with net daily flux rates of carbonate alkalinity ranging from −1.55 to 7.76 mmol m−2 d−1, depending on the advection rate. Submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) was a source of TA to the lagoon, with the highest flux rates measured at low tide, and an average daily TA flux of 1080 mmol m−2 d−1 at the sampling site. *Both sources of TA were important on a reef-wide basis*, although SGD acted solely as a delivery mechanism of TA to the lagoon, while porewater advection was either a sink or source of TA dependent on the time of day. This study describes overlooked sources of TA to coral reef ecosystems that can potentially alter water column carbonate chemistry. *We suggest that porewater and groundwater fluxes of TA [total alkalinity] should be taken into account in ocean acidification models in order to properly address changing carbonate chemistry within coral reef ecosystems.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on treemometers.

Tree-Ring Width vs. Tree-Ring Maximum Latewood Density

In summary:



> "These findings," according to Esper et al., "together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions (Mann et al., 1999; Esper et al., 2002; Frank et al., 2007; Hegerl et al., 2007; Mann et al., 2008) relying on tree-ring [width] data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times," as they say is also the case with the study of Frank et al. (2010), while adding that the MXD data suggest that "large-scale summer temperatures were some tenths of a degree Celsius warmer during Roman times than previously thought."


----------



## MacDoc

Must view - very well done exploration of the science.... 

Home Page | Thin Ice

Tell us again how it's not happening.....


----------



## FeXL

It's not happening...


----------



## FeXL

Just a thought exercise, no predictions, no panic. Good, old-fashioned what-if. Kinda like all those climate models...

Imagine What Would Happen If We Didn’t Have A Strong El Niño For 4 More Years


----------



## bryanc

Deniers: "La la la...I can't hear you!"

...as the evidence continues to mount, and the scientific community moves on to trying to better understand the fundamental mechanisms and what can be done about it.


----------



## FeXL

Now, hockey sticks published without blades.

Steig’s Bladeless “Hockey” Stick



> In a recent RC post entitled “Ice Hockey” and a recent Nature article, Steig and coauthors have introduced a novel and very baroque “hockey stick”, one without a blade. *A true Halloween of horrors: in addition to Gergis’ zombie hockey stick, the bladeless Hockey Stick of Sleepy Hollow is now at large.*


Bold mine.

<snort>


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Deniers: "La la la...I can't hear you!"
> 
> ...as the evidence continues to mount, and the scientific community moves on to trying to better understand the fundamental mechanisms and what can be done about it.


It's not a great idea to "move on" when you haven't even done the basic work.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Tell us again how it's not happening.....


I think we need to do a scientific examination of movie trailers.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...as the evidence continues to mount,


Yes, let us look at more of that evidence, shall we?

Nicola Scafetta: Major new sea level study – finds C21st rise likely to be less than a foot.

Abstract.



> Herein I propose a multi-scale dynamical analysis to facilitate the physical interpretation of tide gauge records. The technique uses graphical diagrams. It is applied to six secular-long tide gauge records representative of the world oceans: Sydney, Pacific coast of Australia; Fremantle, Indian Ocean coast of Australia; New York City, Atlantic coast of USA; Honolulu, US state of Hawaii; San Diego, US state of California; and Venice, Mediterranean Sea, Italy. For comparison, an equivalent analysis is applied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index and to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. Finally, a global reconstruction of sea level (Jevrejeva et al. in Geophys Res Lett 35:L08715, 2008) and a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (Luterbacher et al. in Geophys Res Lett 26:2745–2748, 1999) are analyzed and compared: both sequences cover about three centuries from 1700 to 2000.
> 
> The proposed methodology quickly highlights oscillations and teleconnections among the records at the decadal and multidecadal scales. At the secular time scales tide gauge records present relatively small (positive or negative) accelerations, as found in other studies (Houston and Dean in J Coast Res 27:409–417, 2011). On the contrary, from the decadal to the secular scales (up to 110-year intervals) the tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. *In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.* The multiscale dynamical evolutions of the rate and of the amplitude of the annual seasonal cycle of the chosen six tide gauge records are also studied.


Bold mine.

Here's the punch line:



> For example, fitting the global sea level record during the 1700–2000 period gives a = 0.0092 ± 0.0004 mm/year2, during the preindustrial 1700–1900 period gives	a = 0.0093 ± 0.0013 mm/year2, and during the industrial 1900–2000 period gives a = 0.010 ± 0.004 mm/ year2.


Practically no difference in the rate of sea level rise between pre and post industrial climate.

I know, I know. This is way beyond the realm of "consensus" science, a statistical outlier, mere empirical evidence that must somehow be reconciled with the "truth" that models have projected. Just like the links to the other peer-reviewed science I have posted that don't mean nuttin' either...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's not a great idea to "move on" when you haven't even done the basic work.


Tell that to the thousands of climatologists and other scientists who've been working on this for decades, and who've all independently come to the same conclusion. That's why we have a consensus, and that's why science has moved on; just like we've moved on from the basic acceptance of evolutionary theory to working out the details of what happened in what lineages, and the details of how certain evolutionary mechanisms work at a molecular level, climatologists have moved on from recognizing that ACC has and is happening to working out the details of what exactly happened and the geochemical and other mechanisms that are in play.

There are still a few people that refuse to accept that evolution is true, and there are still a few people that refuse to accept that ACC is true. They're just not credible scientists.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I think we need to do a scientific examination of movie trailers.


Did you look at the cast of characters? Jones? Rahmstorf? No biases there. And Lonnie Thompson? Really? The only person who is probably worse at archiving data than him is his wife...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Tell that to the thousands of climatologists and other scientists who've been working on this for decades, and who've all independently come to the same conclusion.


Yes, I am telling them that.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Tell that to the thousands of climatologists <snip>


Blah. Blah. BLAH!

100% of the scientists who believed in the consensus of geocentric orbits were wrong, too.

Shall I cite a couple dozen more examples for you? Easy enough, history is full of true stories about the consensus being 100% wrong...


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Revkin...

Wait, what?: Revkin reports that the PAGES 2K study found that the Arctic was "warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000"



> The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to our reconstruction….
> 
> In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in A.D. 741–770, and the interval from A.D. 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000. *Antarctica* was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as A.D. 1671–1700, and *the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.*


Bold from the link.

Musta bin penguins in RV's...


----------



## FeXL

Scooter's got a new sounding board, Bob schools him.

Dana Nuccitelli Misleads and Misinforms in His First Blog Post at The Guardian



> Dana Nuccitelli’s first post at his new blog at The Guardian is titled “Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming’s acceleration?” His article is subtitled, “‘Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,’ said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it.” *Nuccitelli’s first post at The Guardian is reminiscent of his posts at SkepticalScience—that is, it’s misleading and full of misinformation.*
> 
> Data contradict the points Dana Nuccitelli is trying to make. In this post, we’ll briefly discuss ocean heat content data, how Mother Nature—not manmade greenhouse gases—creates warm water during La Niña events, how she releases that naturally created warm water during El Niño events and redistributes it around the oceans afterwards, and we’ll discuss Dana Nuccitelli’s misleading animation called “The Escalator”. Data explains how and why the vast majority of global warming occurred naturally…when it warmed.


Bold mine.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes, I am telling them that.


I'm sure they're hanging on your every word, being such a widely known luminary on the subject.


----------



## FeXL

Further on global temperatures.


Temperature change in perspective



> So since 2000 the CET [Central England Temperature record] shows an annual temperature diminution at the rate of -0.49°C / decade or -0.59°C in 12 years: *this negates almost the entire CET temperature rise since 1850.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

More Problems with State-of-the-Art Climate Models



> What is even more disturbing, they indicate that *"these errors have persisted in several generations of models for more than a decade."*


Bold mine.

One of my favorite quotes from Einstein comes to mind:



> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


I guess that as long as accountability is not required, they'll carry on in the same fashion...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> 100% of the scientists who believed in the consensus of geocentric orbits were wrong, too.


Given that the scientific method was not well-established until a century after Galileo's time (although Galileo was clearly an important player, along with his contemporary Francis Bacon, in getting things rolling), this is an absurd statement.


> Shall I cite a couple dozen more examples for you? Easy enough, history is full of true stories about the consensus being 100% wrong...


The only examples I can think of in which there was anything resembling a consensus among scientists that turned out to be wrong in modern scientific history, are examples where a given phenomenon or process was not well understood, so in the absence of evidence, people working in the field made some necessary assumptions about how it worked that turned out to be wrong. When techniques and data developed to give us some insight into the phenomenon in question, researchers rapidly assimilated the new data and adopted the new paradigm. Some arguable exceptions might be things like Barbara McClintock's work on transposable elements, which was greeted with skepticism by the genetics community when it was first presented (it was a rather extraordinary claim), but she (and others who became interested in the possibility and tantalized by her early results) were quickly able to generate data that convinced the skeptics, and transposable elements are now part of the consensus of what is understood about eukaryotic genetics.

It's one thing to have a bunch of scientists scratching their heads about something, deciding "well... it probably works something like this...", and then when someone actually figures out how it _does_ work, everyone goes "oh... cool... so _that's_ how it works" and another to have a bunch of scientists who've working on something for decades and have a ton of evidence to support a theory that essentially everyone in the field has come to agree on, and then have that turn out to be wrong.

Read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" if you're really interested in this.

What we see with the climate science 'debate' is, while ACC was controversial and not generally accepted in the 1970's, scientists who were unconvinced by the data have become increasingly rare as more and more have their objections satisfied by new observations and analyses. Four decades later it's effectively impossible to find a credible climate scientist who remains unconvinced of ACC. The only people disputing it now are PR shills and amateurs from other fields that have some political axe to grind.

There is still obviously lots to learn, and our knowledge of the processes and phenomena underlying the observations is still relatively primitive; but that's exciting when you're a scientist. Armed with a good over-arching theory (ACC), good observational and analytical tools, and reasonable funding, one almost can't help but make progress.

The irony is that, on those rare occasions when you link to the actual science, it's almost invariably this sort of progress in support of ACC that I'm talking about; unexpected results that don't fit the existing model that help us improve the model and that sort of thing.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The irony is that, on those rare occasions when you link to the actual science, it's almost invariably this sort of progress in support of ACC that I'm talking about; unexpected results that don't fit the existing model that help us improve the model and that sort of thing.


The current models are near worthless, so there's a lot of room for improvement. However, enough of these exceptions don't improve a model--they completely break it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The current models are near worthless


Only worthless to you, because they don't agree with you're pre-determined idea of what the answer must be.

If/when someone comes up with a model that explains the data better, they'll publish it and it will become the new standard. From my colleagues who work in this field, the impression I get is that researchers are extraordinarily pleased with the existing models, as they fit observations better than expected.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Only worthless to you, because they don't agree with you're pre-determined idea of what the answer must be.


Worthless because they neither forecast or hindcast with any degree of accuracy. Nonetheless, their creators hold them fast and suckle them as though they are exceptional children.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Worthless because they neither forecast or hindcast with any degree of accuracy.


You keep saying these things, but you clearly lack any knowledge of the subject. The fact that the models both forecast and hindcast with high degrees of accuracy is what makes the researchers like them. Stick to your blogs and have a good time if that's what you like. The scientist will continue to grapple with understanding the real world.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You keep saying these things, but you clearly lack any knowledge of the subject. The fact that the models both forecast and hindcast with high degrees of accuracy is what makes the researchers like them. Stick to your blogs and have a good time if that's what you like. The scientist will continue to grapple with understanding the real world.


Yes. I recall asking you which model you found the most accurate, and you claimed you did not know of one to nominate.

I know you have great confidence in the scientific priest clan, but blind faith such as this is a little much.


----------



## bryanc

That is not what I said. I said I'm not sufficiently expert in modelling to rationally formulate an opinion on which models are best. I have colleagues who work in this feild, and I understand that different models are used for different problems/data types/computational constraints, so there probably is no one "best" model.

I have no faith in anything or anyone. I do however, have reason and evidence (both historical and of my own experience) that scientists are largely honest, intelligent, extremely hardworking, and extremely good at their jobs. Furthermore, I have reason and evidence to believe that consensus in science emerges slowly, if at all, and only when the data is unequivocal. From this I deduce that the consensus of scientists in the field that ACC is fundamentally correct is good evidence to accept it.

Your refusal to accept it cannot be based on your analysis of the data, because you lack the expertise to have conducted such an analysis, and it flies in the face of the evidence I have outlined above; it is therefore you who is taking the position of faith. Faith that what the oil companies and their PR teams are telling you is true.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Given that the scientific method was not well-established until a century after Galileo's time (although Galileo was clearly an important player, along with his contemporary Francis Bacon, in getting things rolling), this is an absurd statement.


The presence or absence of the scientific method is nothing more than a red herring. You use the term "consensus" as a "might is right" tool, the "majority wins". In your view, more people believe than not, therefore the hypothesis must be correct.

Yes, I'm shouting here:

CONSENSUS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

Just because a bunch of people believe it is so does not make it so. Not in the past, not today, nor tomorrow. Philosophy 101. Go read your textbook.



bryanc said:


> The only examples I can think of...


Just because you don't know of any does not negate their existence. And yet, in the same breathe, you go along to note one.

Seeing as your red herring has you suspicious of anything pre- scientific method, here's more recent examples, just two random ones of many I'm aware of:

1: Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift, ca. 1915. This concept turned the geological world on it's head; most were believers in Dana's theory of Permanence. Wegener was considered a kook by many until the theory was fleshed out in the 60's as Plate Tectonics. Unfortunately, he never lived to see his redemption.

2: More recently, Dan Schectman's work in crystallography: 



> His discovery *shattered scientific consensus* in crystallography and has now earned him the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.


Bold mine.

As I noted, scientific history is littered with the carcasses of consensus theories.



bryanc said:


> What we see with the climate science 'debate' is, while ACC was controversial and not generally accepted in the 1970's...


In the 70's, as I have pointed out in the past, a lot of these same fruit loops & whackos where telling us that an ice age was imminent. Which the hell is it? Why should we believe them now?



bryanc said:


> Four decades later it's effectively impossible to find a credible climate scientist who remains unconvinced of ACC. The only people disputing it now are PR shills and amateurs from other fields that have some political axe to grind.


Only in your circle, then. And, at least you changed your big oil comment, thankyouverymuch.

You also continuously move the posts over to the "more reasonable" ACC, instead of the "more drastic" CAGW. Fine. As transparent as this is, please feel free to quote a peer-reviewed paper anywhere, that quantifies exactly (Hell, I'll take a ballpark figure!) how much effect mankind has had on the climate. 1%? 5%? 25%? 100%? We've been through this before. With anything less than 20% of an effect (which is very much into CAGW territory), there is no way that any sane person can justify the hundreds of billions of dollars being squandered on this FUD & hyperbole. This is cash that could have been spent on education, poverty, food, medicine, whatever. Anything but an imaginary problem built on output exhibiting the bias of the computer modellers and being pedalled by the likes of activists like Hansen..



bryanc said:


> Armed with a good over-arching theory (ACC), good observational and analytical tools, and reasonable funding, one almost can't help but make progress.


You mean, like one that claims that melting Arctic ice causes melt/freezing, more/less snow, more/less rain? Well, they have it then. Great catch-all. Global warming causes everything.

As to the progress, yes, there is much of that being made. Unfortunately, it's not in the direction warmists would like it to be.



bryanc said:


> The irony is that, on those rare occasions when you link to the actual science, it's almost invariably this sort of progress in support of ACC that I'm talking about; unexpected results that don't fit the existing model that help us improve the model and that sort of thing.


Yes, it's astounding how accurate the models can actually be (up to 21% now). You know, I always scored higher on a retest once I knew the answers, too. Go figger. I guess you don't appreciate the irony in more accurate hindcasting... 

Problem, is, they still can't forecast worth ****e...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Nic Lewis' paper, and some history.

A compilation of lower climate sensitivities, plus a new one



> And the main parameter of interest is the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Lewis’ study also includes additional model years and additional years of observations, including several years from the current global warming “hiatus” (i.e., the lack of a statistically significant rise in global temperature that extends for about 16 years, starting in early 1997).
> 
> *We actually did something along a similar vein—in English—and published it back in 2002. We found the same thing that Lewis did: substantially reduced warming. We were handsomely rewarded for our efforts by the climategate mafia, who tried to get 1) the paper withdrawn, 2) the editor fired—not just from the journal, but from Auckland University, and 3) my (Michaels) 1979 PhD “reopened” by University of Wisconsin.*


Bold mine.

Nope, no warmist axe to grind, no agenda to further. Move along, nothing to see here.

And to think that science used to be a respectable field...


----------



## FeXL

Another hypothesis, somewhat similar to Tisdale's.

The Shifts Hypothesis – an alternative view of global climate change



> Its simplicity is that it uses only two factors to obtain an explanation of general features in each considered region. And it displays consistency over time because it provides the same explanation for the warming of the beginning and of the end of 20th century. This consistency enabled a fit of linear regression coefficients of data from first part of century (before 1950) to obtain similar reconstruction for the second part (after 1950). The homogeneity between regions means that shifts occur at similar times in the temperature time series of the tropics and of the north middle latitudes although the two time series differ. This homogeneity provides confidence that the Shifts Hypothesis applies globally.


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea level rise.

New paper finds global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by 2100

Abstract.



> We revisit available tide gauge data along the coasts of Australia, and we are able to demonstrate that the rate may vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year, and that there is an absence of acceleration over the last decades. With a database of 16 stations covering only the last 17 years, the National Tidal Centre claims that sea level is rising at a rate of 5.4mm/year.We here analyse partly longer-term records from the same 16 sites as those used by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) and partly 70 other sites; i.e. a database of 86 stations covering a much longer time period. This database gives a mean trend in the order of 1.5 mm/year. Therefore, we challenge both the rate of sea level rise presented by the National Tidal Centre in Australia and the general claim of acceleration over the last decades.


----------



## FeXL

Climate-cooling effect 'stronger than volcanoes' is looking solid



> Sulphur-based aerosols are already acknowledged by all sides in the climate debate as a major factor in climate modelling, so the added effect potentially produced by Criegee intermediates *could mean a serious adjustment downwards for future climate forecasts.*


Further confirmation of lower climate sensitivity.

Link to paper @ Science.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> That is not what I said. I said I'm not sufficiently expert in modelling to rationally formulate an opinion on which models are best. I have colleagues who work in this feild, and I understand that different models are used for different problems/data types/computational constraints, so there probably is no one "best" model.


As it happens, I do know an expert modeller. 

One of the issues is that the math to improve at least some of these models does not exist... that is, they are well-known problems, but no solution exists yet. As you can imagine, advances in pure math/algorithm research aren't easily achieved .

As such, there is no option but to use certain known physical facts introduce constraints so that the math simplifies into something that is actually computable. This isn't padding the model to make it look a certain way or achieve a certain result, but simply that problem is uncomputable without introducing at least some constraints... this also doesn't mean that the model is useless either; only that care needs to be taken to use it without stretching it outside of its known constraints.

So no, there is no one best model. There are models that work better or worse depending how and where they are being used.

One of the frustrations of certainly some modellers is not that all people using or working with or criticizing the models truly understand how the models are built (though why would they, it's an entirely different field?) or the underlying math and computation behind it. As such, they get misused and misunderstood quite a bit. 

FWIW, he says ice is particularly difficult to model. Not sure why, but apparently it is.


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio muses about TSI & UV.

More TSI variation and big UV variance



> What they find is interesting. That our variable star has varied more than some other folks assert. (In particular, it is not in agreement with the “Steady TSI” assertions of folks like Leif Svalgaard.) As they compute the large scale trend based on Be and neutrons, then only apply the sunspot data from recent years to modulate for the variation of that base, the implication is that the “controversy” over sunspot counting that Leif highlights is muted. For their very long term reconstructions, even the sunspot number becomes irrelevant. They then reconstruct the likely variation in spectra (based on what we have seen happen prior to the paper) and find that UV has had a very large change over time.


----------



## SINC

*One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy*



> It may be the most ambitious scientific venture ever: a global collaboration to create an unlimited supply of clean, cheap energy. And this week it took a crucial step forward.
> 
> An idyllic hilltop setting in the Cadarache forest of Provence in the south of France has become the site of an ambitious attempt to harness the nuclear power of the sun and stars.
> 
> It is the place where 34 nations representing more than half the world’s population have joined forces in the biggest scientific collaboration on the planet – only the International Space Station is bigger.
> 
> The international nuclear fusion project – known as Iter, meaning “the way” in Latin – is designed to demonstrate a new kind of nuclear reactor capable of producing unlimited supplies of cheap, clean, safe and sustainable electricity from atomic fusion.
> 
> If Iter demonstrates that it is possible to build commercially-viable fusion reactors then it could become the experiment that saved the world in a century threatened by climate change and an expected three-fold increase in global energy demand.
> 
> This week the project gained final approval for the design of the most technically challenging component – the fusion reactor’s “blanket” that will handle the super-heated nuclear fuel.
> 
> The building site in Cadarache has also passed the crucial stage where some 493 seismic bearings – giant concrete and rubber plinths – have been set into the reactor’s deep foundations to protect against possible earthquakes.


Much more here:

One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy - Science - News - The Independent


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The presence or absence of the scientific method is nothing more than a red herring. You use the term "consensus" as a "might is right" tool, the "majority wins". In your view, more people believe than not, therefore the hypothesis must be correct.
> 
> Yes, I'm shouting here:
> 
> CONSENSUS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.


Shouting does not make you correct. The fact that a consensus among experts exists is an *observation*, not a a logical statement of any kind. From this observation, and other observations (such as the fact that consensus emerges among scientists very rarely and only when the data are compelling), I deduce that their conclusion is likely correct.

If you have difficulty understanding this logic, it is not surprising you cannot understand the scientific literature you persist in misinterpreting here.

The examples you cite for cases in which a consensus turned out to be incorrect are examples of cases in which the data necessary to overturn the poorly supported pre-existing paradigm took some time to accumulate, but which were were quickly accepted once provided. Exactly as I said; science is eager to overthrow existing paradigms when new data becomes available.

This is the opposite of what is happening with respect to ACC; as more data accumulates, more support for ACC is observed. Hence the confidence in the paradigm grows.



> As I noted, scientific history is littered with the carcasses of consensus theories.


So you've given up on saying such a consensus doesn't exist 

I'm not saying that the consensus is proof of ACC's validity, I'm saying, as non experts, the consensus is about the only evidence we can use to support our own confidence in it's validity.

Again, if new data that cannot be explained within the existing paradigm is obtained, the paradigm will be overturned. Such paradigm shifting work, if it occurs, will be done by people working in the field, not by bloggers and industry shills. The fact that such a shift in the paradigm has not occurred is also evidence that non-experts can use to draw the inference that the existing data supports ACC, rather than refutes it as the bloggers you are fond of citing would like people to believe.



> You also continuously move the posts over to the "more reasonable" ACC, instead of the "more drastic" CAGW.


I'm not aware of any scientists promoting 'CACW'. The scientific consensus is around "Anthropogenic Climate Change".



> As transparent as this is, please feel free to quote a peer-reviewed paper anywhere, that quantifies exactly (Hell, I'll take a ballpark figure!) how much effect mankind has had on the climate.


I've seen several estimates, but I don't have the references here; I'll have to get back to you. My recollection is that the estimates ranged from 3-30 percent of the observed climate change was due to human activity.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> *One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy*


I haven't really been following the progress in fusion technology; I hope they can get it working, as that really would be the magic bullet for our energy problems. We'd still need to develop technologies to store the electrical power (batteries, fuel cells, etc.), but having a clean, effectively unlimited source of electrical power would obviously be very cool.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Shouting does not make you correct. The fact that a consensus among experts exists is an *observation*, not a a logical statement of any kind.


Neither does repeating endlessly that a consensus exists. When asked to provide solid evidence of it, you couldn't, declaring that too much work would be required. The argument from laziness doesn't generally have much impact.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Neither does repeating endlessly that a consensus exists. When asked to provide solid evidence of it, you couldn't, declaring that too much work would be required. The argument from laziness doesn't generally have much impact.


You clearly have a very selective memory. When asked to provide evidence that such a consensus exists, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed publication on that very topic from a very high impact science journal that showed a consensus of 98% of working climatologists accepting ACC.

What you did was say something along the lines of "those methods are flawed" i.e. your typical "I'm so much smarter than the scientists working in this field I can ignore their conclusions" argument. This is not even "argument from laziness" it's argument from arrogance and it doesn't impress anyone.


----------



## iMouse

I am of the opinion that it's draws nourishment from people such as you, so pace yourself.

_(Flash back to ST-TNG, and the Creature that killed Tasha Yar.)_


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You clearly have a very selective memory. When asked to provide evidence that such a consensus exists, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed publication on that very topic from a very high impact science journal that showed a consensus of 98% of working climatologists accepting ACC.
> 
> What you did was say something along the lines of "those methods are flawed" i.e. your typical "I'm so much smarter than the scientists working in this field I can ignore their conclusions" argument. This is not even "argument from laziness" it's argument from arrogance and it doesn't impress anyone.



Look at it again. Did you ever read it in the first place? The paper makes no such claims, nor can it make such claims, given the scope of what it attempted to do, and given its shaky methodology.


----------



## bryanc

Yes I read it. It made the case that approximately 98% of credible climatologists accepted ACC. That's evidence of consensus.

You have your opinions, I have my evidence. It's not surprising that we disagree.

In other news, Scripps is predicting the atmospheric CO2 concentration will break 400 ppm for the first time in 800,000 years next month. I know, these are just scientists, not the bloggers who's opinions you respect, but still, it's another claim of an unprecedented observation for you to try to ignore.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> FWIW, he says ice is particularly difficult to model. Not sure why, but apparently it is.


I suspect it's because ice is extremely non-linear; rather than gasses and fluids who's characteristics change in progressive, relatively predictable ways that can be modelled as differential equations, ice will sit there, apparently doing nothing, until it reaches a crisis and collapses all of a sudden (i.e. all the derivatives of become undefined). I'm sure your husband knows much more about this, but I have heard that the math used for modelling theses sorts of singularities (crises) is related to fractals and other chaotic systems, and it is an area where the math is not well-understood, so perhaps that's why ice is difficult to model.

It's something I'd definitely like to know more about, but just don't have the time to read up on.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes I read it. It made the case that approximately 98% of credible climatologists accepted ACC. That's evidence of consensus.


Clearly you didn't read through to the end. The author's comments on his own study: 



> A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.


It's amazing how much faith you place in the scientific priest clan, bryanc. You listened to his sermon, became one of the faithful, began to prosletyze and never checked the founding documents.



bryanc said:


> You have your opinions, I have my evidence.


I have the author's own words, but you have your faith.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Clearly you didn't read through to the end.


I did read it through to the end. There is obviously always more information that could be collected, and all studies have limitations. The line you are quoting is that necessary statement of limitation that all such studies contain.

I agree with the authors that if someone wanted to do a more thorough and extensive data collection and analysis, that would be interesting, and might reveal more about the historical emergence of this consensus or other informative data.

However, you said I didn't have any evidence for my contention that a consensus exists, and I presented this paper. Your turn. What evidence do you have that such a consensus does not exist?



> It's amazing how much faith you place in the scientific priest clan, bryanc.


Again, I have no faith in anything. The vast preponderance of evidence is on one side of this argument. As a rational agent I therefore have no choice but to accept that this is likely the truth. If you've got evidence to the contrary, let's see it. But before you waste your time; blogs are not evidence.


----------



## bryanc

Let me clarify; you claim I don't have evidence for consensus, and that I've said I was too lazy to get such evidence. That is bullish*t. I've provided evidence. Rather than trying to provide any rational argument or counter evidence, you've said that the evidence I've provided isn't good enough. My response was that no one would go through the effort to get more data just to convince a few trolls on the internet of something that is so obvious prima facie (and for which good evidence has already been provided), and you've tried to claim this is argument from laziness. This is an obviously intellectually dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I've made a claim: consensus among climatologists regarding ACC exists.
You've disputed that claim and asked for evidence.
I've provided evidence: a peer reviewed publication in PNAS showing support for ACC at roughly 98% among credible climatologists.
You've waved your arms and said the study is methodologically flawed, but you've got nothin. Time to put up or shut up. How do you know there is not a consensus among credible climatologists regarding ACC?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Let me clarify; you claim I don't have evidence for consensus, and that I've said I was too lazy to get such evidence. That is bullish*t. I've provided evidence. Rather than trying to provide any rational argument or counter evidence, you've said that the evidence I've provided isn't good enough.


This reminds me of religious arguments. The adherents already know the truth--why should they bother supplying evidence to the thick heads who are deliberately closing themselves off to the truth and beauty of their faith?



bryanc said:


> You've waved your arms and said the study is methodologically flawed, but you've got nothin. Time to put up or shut up. *How do you know there is not a consensus among credible climatologists regarding ACC?*


The parallel. "Prove there is no God."


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Let me clarify; you claim I don't have evidence for consensus, and that I've said I was too lazy to get such evidence. That is bullish*t. I've provided evidence. Rather than trying to provide any rational argument or counter evidence, you've said that the evidence I've provided isn't good enough. My response was that no one would go through the effort to get more data just to convince a few trolls on the internet of something that is so obvious prima facie (and for which good evidence has already been provided), and you've tried to claim this is argument from laziness. This is an obviously intellectually dishonest attempt to shift the burden of proof.
> 
> I've made a claim: consensus among climatologists regarding ACC exists.
> You've disputed that claim and asked for evidence.
> I've provided evidence: a peer reviewed publication in PNAS showing support for ACC at roughly 98% among credible climatologists.
> You've waved your arms and said the study is methodologically flawed, but you've got nothin. Time to put up or shut up. How do you know there is not a consensus among credible climatologists regarding ACC?


ah see you'll never win in this regard. I think they prefer not to address your question head on, because they simply can't. They'll go around in circles coming up with a myriad of reasons why they couldn't possibly answer the question. Even the most ridiculous of ones.

The truth is, you have provided the proof, now it's their turn and they've failed miserably so far, except some feeble excuses.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This reminds me of religious arguments.


Indeed it does; I provide reason and evidence and you argue from a position of revealed truth.


> The parallel. "Prove there is no God."


On the contrary; the existence of a god makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore cannot be falsified. The existence of a consensus among scientists makes many easily testable predictions (e.g. simply read the academic literature and see what proportion of the published peer-reviewed science is supportive of ACC and what percent is not), and is therefore eminently falsifiable.
As the proponent of the contention (that there exists a consensus among climatologists) it was incumbent on me to provide evidence. I did. It is now incumbent on you to try to falsify that evidence with better evidence to the contrary.

This is very basic stuff; I shouldn't have to explain it to you.

The ball is very clearly in your court.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As the proponent of the contention (that there exists a consensus among climatologists) it was incumbent on me to provide evidence. I did.


You provided a miserable proxy for what you claimed you would provide. You filled in the large missing area with faith.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The fact that a consensus among experts exists is an *observation*, not a a logical statement of any kind. From this observation, and other observations (such as the fact that consensus emerges among scientists very rarely and only when the data are compelling), I deduce that their conclusion is likely correct.


You can color this any way you like, not limited to but including the rose coloured glasses you use. For the last time: just because a bunch of people say it is so does not make the hypothesis correct. You keep saying that this is not a logical statement yet in the same breath, you say this:



bryanc said:


> If you have difficulty understanding this *logic,*


A logical statement is exactly how you are using it, despite your protestations to the contrary. Nice try.



bryanc said:


> it is not surprising you cannot understand the scientific literature you persist in misinterpreting here.


Time and again you have admitted your lack of knowledge on the subject, yet you are able to tell me that my interpretations of the data are incorrect. Which is it? The lion's share of the time I am quoting directly from the Abstract or from the paper itself. Go tell the authors their interpretations are incorrect, then bring the response here.

Please feel free to refute anything I post with specific, scientific examples. Once again, mere blog posts must be low hanging fruit for an expert such as yourself. You are always quick to discredit bloggers yet you never refute. You are also quick to point out that my peer-reviewed science links always support ACC. How? Put up or shut up. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. If you are going to criticize, then defend your position. If you are going to claim victory, then prepare to back it up. And "I don't know but 'consensus' says so," and "It's a blog post," are not defensible positions. They are, however, very targetable ones. Remember, there is no shame in not having an answer (read: not commenting).



bryanc said:


> The examples you cite for cases in which a consensus turned out to be incorrect are examples of cases in which the data necessary to overturn the poorly supported pre-existing paradigm took some time to accumulate, but which were were quickly accepted once provided.


It doesn't matter how long the change took. What matters is what most scientists believed was the "truth" (your definition of consensus), wasn't. The "consensus" was wrong. That's my point. BTW, neither of those examples was "poorly" supported. Again, nice attempt to deflect.



bryanc said:


> Hence the confidence in the paradigm grows.


Confidence in the paradigm is dropping like a stone. Note all the recent back tracking by warmists re: model predictions as only one of many examples. Here's a few more...

Models predicted that temps would continue to increase along with CO2 levels. They have flatlined. Models predicted that there would be an increase in both the rate and severity of catastrophic weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, droughts, floods, etc.). Both have dropped. Models predicted decreases in Antarctic ice levels. They are at record highs. Models are supposed to be able to predict cloud cover. They underestimate it & the subsequent cooling. Models are supposed to be able to simulate two of the most important weather patterns on the planet, ENSO and the Indian Monsoon. They can't. Models are supposed to be able to predict global wind speeds. They exaggerate them. Models predicted a hot spot in the upper troposphere. It ain't there. Models are supposed to be able to accurately track aerosol particle concentrations. They can't. I _could_ go on.

That's one helluva paradigm. And you don't think people are asking WTF? I could care less what the largely left-owned press has to say but, when even they're asking the question...



bryanc said:


> I'm not saying that the consensus is proof of ACC's validity, I'm saying, as non experts, the consensus is about the only evidence we can use to support our own confidence in it's validity.


That is exactly what you are saying, time and time again, _ad nauseum._ As I've noted, I have sufficient knowledge in at least a couple of areas to be able to tell if some papers pass the sniff test. That's why Marcott's stunk right out of the gate. It's also why, if a paper (on either side of the argument) has results based on models, it is immediately suspect and subject to greater scrutiny.



bryanc said:


> I'm not aware of any scientists promoting 'CACW'.


Then you been living with blinkers on. How many times in the recent past has James Hansen, among others, called for immediate action by such & such a date or we're all doomed, only to have said dates pass and damned if we ain't all still here, in a global temperature flatline? 



bryanc said:


> I've seen several estimates, but I don't have the references here; I'll have to get back to you. My recollection is that the estimates ranged from 3-30 percent of the observed climate change was due to human activity.


There have been a number of peer reviewed papers I've linked to recently that show more & more effect on the climate from old Sol. By the time you factor in the sun's influence, CO2's is down into the lower single digits. Mere percentage points worth of effect on about 3/4 of a degree of global warming over the last hundred years. Do you know what 3% of 0.74 degrees is? *Twenty two one-thousandths of a degree, 0.022.* On any temperature scale, global, regional or local, that number is simply not measurable. Period. Hell, Hansen's adjustments to the temperature record are more than order of magnitude greater than that.

Tell me all that money couldn't have been spent on something more pressing.


----------



## FeXL

Donna comments on safe, secret climate meetings,,,

Secret Climate Meetings



> In my view, climate change is the latest in a long list of eco-apocalypses that drama queen scientists have frightened us with. If it isn’t global cooling, it’s acid rain. If it isn’t acid rain, it’s the disappearing ozone layer. If it isn’t the ozone layer, it’s global warming.
> 
> All of these have been used by environmentalists to argue that we’re sinners against the planet and that Gaia is going to punish us if we don’t repent.
> 
> No matter what the problem happens to be, their solution is always the same. We must don sackcloth and ashes. We must condemn consumer society and stop hopping on planes. We must turn down the heat and the air conditioning and eat less meat.
> 
> If these meetings are happening behind closed doors so that the few Tories who think their own party’s policies aren’t aggressive enough can strategize with like-minded others, that’s a serious problem.


Fire. Them. All.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen unleashed: people he disagrees with are ‘neanderthals’



> This Saturday morning Canada’s state broadcaster (the CBC) aired, on their weekly politics & current affairs show “the House”, a 15 min. ‘interview’ with James Hansen, in which he denigrated our Government as “neanderthal” in it’s approach to AGW, and that climate change science is “crystal clear”.


And. Defund. The. CBC.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Historical Antarctic mean sea ice area, sea ice trends, and winds in CMIP5 simulations

Abstract.



> In contrast to Arctic sea ice, *average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979. While most climate models from the CMIP5 archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past,* whether these models can be dismissed as being wrong depends on more than just the sign of change compared to observations. We show that internal sea ice variability is large in the Antarctic region, and both the observed and modeled trends may represent natural variations along with external forcing. While several models show a negative trend, only a few of them actually show a trend that is significant compared to their internal variability on the timescales of available observational data. Further, the ability of the models to simulate the mean state of sea ice is also important. There presentations of Antarctic sea ice in *CMIP5 models have not improved compared to CMIP3,* and show an unrealistic spread in the mean state that may influence future sea ice behavior. Finally, Antarctic climate and sea ice area will be affected not only by ocean and air temperature changes but also by changes in the winds. The majority of the CMIP5 models simulate a shift that is too weak compared to observations. Thus, this study identifies several foci for consideration in evaluating and improving the modeling of climate and climate change in the Antarctic region.


This from Susan Solomon, of Climategate fame. Of course, there's backpedaling, within natural variability and all...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate", skeptic edition.

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History



> The only year when the spring started colder was 1975.


79% Of The US Below Normal Temperature in 2013



> Thirty three percent of the US is more than two degrees below normal. Nine percent is more than four degrees below normal. Three percent is more than six degrees below normal.


----------



## FeXL

Remember Lewandowsky? Well, the Aussie's got rid of him (+1), the Brits got stuck with him (-1).

Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”, gives him money, loses more scientific credibility



> Over Easter, psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky moved from Perth to Bristol (lucky UK). He’s the psychologist who is expert in an imaginary group of humans called “Climate deniers”. Neither he, nor anyone else has ever met one but he discovered their imaginary motivations by surveying the confused groups who hate them. As you would, right?


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio muses about a paper on Egypt drought and flooding during the Dark Ages published ca 1971.

Egyptian Dark Ages



> Deposits south of Wadi HaIfa suggest that *flood levels in early predynastic times were about 10 m. higher than today,*


Bold from the link.

There goes that "unprecedented" thing again...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> For the last time: just because a bunch of people say it is so does not make the hypothesis correct.


For the last time that is not and never has been what I am saying.

Let me try an analogy. Suppose neither you nor I have ever been to in a submersible exploring the deep sea. However, we do know 5000 scientists who have done this. 4999 of these scientists agree that vestimentiferan tube worms grow on deep sea hydrothermal vents, and they have published many peer-reviewed scientific studies on these creatures. There is, however, one who claims that no one has ever been to the bottom of the ocean, and it's all a hoax like the Apollo moon landings.

Neither one of us can know for sure what's true, but it's pretty easy to see that the consensus of scientists with expertise in the field is an observation a rational agent can use to make a judgement about what is likely true.



> You keep saying that this is not a logical statement


You seem to be having trouble distinguishing observation from inference. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on you about this - after all this is what I do for a living - but I do hope you can see the point I'm making now.

The consensus of climate scientists is not a logical statement. It is an observation. From that observation (and many others) I make the inference that the support for ACC is scientifically sound, even though I can't do all the science myself.



> Time and again you have admitted your lack of knowledge on the subject, yet you are able to tell me that my interpretations of the data are incorrect.


The only times I have told you your interpretations are incorrect are when the science is within my realm of expertise (e.g. chemistry). However, when you disagree with the experts in the field, I'm prone to pointing this out; not because it's proof that you're wrong, but because, as a non-expert, I'd want some compelling reason to believe that you know the science better than the scientists working in the field before I'd accept your interpretation over theirs.



> The lion's share of the time I am quoting directly from the Abstract or from the paper itself.


No, the lion's share of the time, you are quoting a blog posting, which, when I follow it through to the paper, it is either behind a pay wall that I can't get through, or the paper does not actually say what the blog you quoted said it did. 



> Go tell the authors their interpretations are incorrect, then bring the response here.


On the one occasion I found a paper that seemed like it might be supporting your position, I did contact the authors, and they said "only a f*cking idiot would think that" when I suggested their paper conflicted with ACC.



> Please feel free to refute anything I post with specific, scientific examples.


On the occasion that your postings have been within my realm of expertise, I have done and will continue to do so.



> Confidence in the paradigm is dropping like a stone.


Not from what I can see.

But I'll be perfectly happy to agree with you when the paradigm changes. The point is that it will be the climatologists, and not the bloggers who change the paradigm.



> There have been a number of peer reviewed papers I've linked to recently that show more & more effect on the climate from old Sol.


No one has ever argued that the sun does not affect the climate. The question is how much human activity affects it. Given the effects of the sun, oscillations in ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. etc., this is a non-trival problem to solve.

Consequently, I would not be so arrogant as to declare I know better than the thousands of Ph.D.s in the field who've been working on that exact problem for decades. Since they all seem in agreement that human activity is having a significant effect, and the only people refuting this are bloggers and industry shills, I can't see any rational support for disputing ACC.


----------



## iMouse

It's not easy witnessing death by a thousand cuts.

But I will persevere.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> It's not easy witnessing death by a thousand cuts.
> 
> But I will persevere.


Don't worry. Another theory will replace ACC soon enough.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Don't worry. Another theory will replace ACC soon enough.


If it does, it will be because it is a better theory, in that it is better able to explain all the observable data. That's how science works.

The emergence of a new paradigm that overturns a well-established, well-supported theory like ACC is a guaranteed superstar career for all of the scientists involved in establishing it. And this is why the stability of ACC over the past few decades is good evidence that it is correct; everyone wants to be the one to overturn the popular paradigm, so everyone is always trying to do so. The failure of a community of researchers to overturn a paradigm after decades of trying is about the best evidence you can get that the theory is correct.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If it does, it will be because it is a better theory, in that it is better able to explain all the observable data.


At this point, random climate variability does a far better job of explaining climate than does ACC.


----------



## bryanc

Hey FeXL, I have a genuine suggestion for you. Since I refuse to debate the science with you except for where it overlaps with my expertise, and since you really seem to want to argue that case, why not head over to Ars Technica. They have a thread going in The Observatory where people who really know this stuff discuss it, and some of the issues you've raised here come up there. It's not completely one sided; there are a few ACC-skeptics that post there.

Well, to be honest, it's pretty one sided; the ACC-skeptics invariably get their a$$es handed to them by the people who know the science. But if you're genuinely interested in learning why the bloggers who are telling you ACC is flawed are full of sh*t, try posting some of this over there where there are people who know the feild and people who know the math. If you're genuinely willing to be convinced by reason and evidence, go look for some.


----------



## iMouse

Not much wiggle room there, but we'll see what he comes up with this time.


----------



## bryanc

I generally don't post in the Ars threads; I read and learn. But it's a perfect forum for FeXL's style of posting something that claims to be scientifically supportable, in that there are a bunch of professional scientists that post there who will explain why it's wrong (with references and fully expanded math). I'd love to see someone post some of the stuff FeXL posts over there; it'd be a bloodbath.


----------



## groovetube

I'd like to see that as well.

Somehow tough, I wouldn't hold my breathe. Being confronted by scientists who know what they're talking about might be a bit much.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> For the last time that is not and never has been what I am saying.
> 
> Let me try an analogy. Suppose neither you nor I have ever been to in a submersible exploring the deep sea. However, we do know 5000 scientists who have done this. 4999 of these scientists agree that vestimentiferan tube worms grow on deep sea hydrothermal vents, and they have published many peer-reviewed scientific studies on these creatures.


This analogy is simply dreadful. The people who descend in a submersible bring home evidence of their journeys. They don't simply create models of them and attempt to pass them off as evidence.

Scientist #1: I've been to Mars and back, Old Chap!
Scientist #2: Nonsense! Have you a computer model that can simulate your journey? Now, there's a man's proof!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This analogy is simply dreadful. The people who descend in a submersible bring home evidence of their journeys. They don't simply create models of them and attempt to pass them off as evidence.


Ironically, I'm just reviewing a paper that involves computer modelling of deep sea population ecology.

Modelling is one of many scientific tools, and it is only one of many sources for support of ACC.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ironically, I'm just reviewing a paper that involves computer modelling of deep sea population ecology.
> 
> Modelling is one of many scientific tools, and it is only one of many sources for support of ACC.


Certainly. However, modeling is not evidence that you've visited the sea bottom.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> modeling is not evidence that you've visited the sea bottom.


No, modelling is one way in which we try to make sense of the data we have, and make predictions about the future (or test how well various mathematical models of physical processes fit the data we've got). That is exactly how it is being used in climate research.

{edit to add: why do you think climate researchers started trying to model the effect of GHG on the global climate? They didn't start out trying to support a given position; they had data suggesting the climate was changing more than could be explained by natural variation ... that was the observation, not the output of the models}.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> No, modelling is one way in which we try to make sense of the data we have, and make predictions about the future (or test how well various mathematical models of physical processes fit the data we've got). That is exactly how it is being used in climate research.
> 
> {edit to add: why do you think climate researchers started trying to model the effect of GHG on the global climate? They didn't start out trying to support a given position; they had data suggesting the climate was changing more than could be explained by natural variation ... that was the observation, not the output of the models}.


Yes. The models prove nothing, because they are not evidence of anything. And because they perform so poorly, they predict nothing substantial.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> For the last time that is not and never has been what I am saying.
> 
> Let me try an analogy.


That is truly the most dreadful analogy I have ever read.



bryanc said:


> You seem to be having trouble distinguishing observation from inference.


You believe in model output as proof of CAGW, ACC, whatever, & you tell me I have issues with observations vs inference? Oh, the iron...



bryanc said:


> The consensus of climate scientists is not a logical statement.


You used the word "logic". This is your quote:



> If you have difficulty understanding this logic,


How the hell else can this possibly be interpreted? If the basis for your observation is not logic, then why would you use the actual word logic?



bryanc said:


> However, when you disagree with the experts in the field, I'm prone to pointing this out;


Whose experts? Who qualifies you to decide who is an expert or not? There are experts on both sides of the argument and, despite your protestations to the contrary, there are many experts on the skeptical side of the argument. This is hardly one or two people calling out in the dark.



bryanc said:


> On the one occasion I found a paper...


This wunnerful little anecdote that you have repeated ad nauseum is fabulous. Perhaps you should post it on the bathroom wall where someone who cares can read it...



bryanc said:


> On the occasion that your postings have been within my realm of expertise, I have done and will continue to do so.


Great! Then I can expect mostly silence. Oh, and can you take that yappy little dog with you, too? You know, the one that's always sniping & yapping and adding exactly zero to the discussion? Thx...



bryanc said:


> But I'll be perfectly happy to agree with you when the paradigm changes. The point is that it will be the climatologists, and not the bloggers who change the paradigm.


There ya go again, impugning bloggers when they have, in fact, changed the paradigm already. For just one instance, see "Mann's Hockey Stick".



bryanc said:


> No one has ever argued that the sun does not affect the climate.


Funny that, the models you hold so dearly do. Funny, too, that when the models are programmed to put less emphasis on CO2 and more on the sun, suddenly their accuracy increases significantly.



bryanc said:


> Consequently, I would not be so arrogant as to declare I know better than the thousands of Ph.D.s in the field who've been working on that exact problem for decades. blah, blah, blah


Good, scientific experts on the skeptical side of the argument working towards a solution, as well. Funny thing is, the warmists are the ones adjusting their argument to be more in line with the empirical evidence that skeptics use, as the model's predictions fall by the wayside. Wonder why...


----------



## groovetube

that's what I thought.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> It's not easy witnessing death by a thousand cuts.
> 
> But I will persevere.


Are we watching the same channel? 'Cause I swear you must be on CBC while the rest of us are on Discovery...


----------



## BigDL

Seems there is a dispute with regard to GHG Tar/Oil Sands Keystone Pipeline, Ostentatious Grandiose Lambaster's Government (OGL) his Environment Minister and Climate Scientist James Hansen.

See VIDEO of Joe Oliver's Position


Joe Oliver said:


> "It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts. And he should know that," Oliver said to reporters, following a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


See VIDEO of James Hansen's Position


James Hansen said:


> "The current government is a Neanderthal government on this issue, but Canada can actually be a leader," he said. Hansen mentioned British Columbia's carbon tax as a positive step. "I have hopes that Canada will actually be a good example for the United States but the present government is certainly not."


It little wonder the mere mortals here can't find common ground.


----------



## iMouse

groovetube said:


> That's what I thought.


Why are you so pessimistic, for he surely has the courage of his convictions.

Here.


----------



## Macfury

Being a leader is only worthwhile if you're moving forward. Hansen's regressive stance and fouled data have become more and more pronounced of late.


----------



## groovetube

iMouse said:


> Why are you so pessimistic, for he surely has the courage of his convictions.
> 
> Here.


or a weatherman who says what he wants to hear.

Hardly a quest for truth...


----------



## groovetube

first post on that thread:



> The drive-by potshots in the ephemeral NI threads just don’t cut it.
> 
> We really should have a dedicated thread, let’s avoid nuking it.
> 
> Avoid being inflammatory. Unless referenced in germane climate science citations mention of Gore, Intelligent Design, pseudoscience, inconvenient stuff, tobacco science, and anything else not pertinent to the climate science is discouraged.
> 
> Content, content, content.
> 
> Good citations include peer review journals, summaries from collaborative scientific organizations, and links to climate study centers and data related to such.
> 
> Sources of potential utility are non-peer review climate science publications, Wikipedia, various government and industry data sources.
> 
> *Tread carefully with blogs, popular press, and policy stories.*
> 
> If sources cannot be found outside of pay walls, within the limits of fair use please quote the main point(s) of interest.
> 
> Bombast and rhetoric is no substitute for good references.


well explains why the fear of going there.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You believe in model output as proof of CAGW, ACC, whatever, & you tell me I have issues with observations vs inference?


You clearly have a reading comprehension issue; you constantly attribute to me things I have not said and most explicitly do not believe.

I have said very clearly over and over that I do not try to interpret the climatological science one way or another; it's not my field, I don't have the expertise to be able to rationally decide if the models, the tree-rings, the ice core isotopes, the choronomid mouthparts in lake bottom sediments, and all the other myriad bits of data used to support ACC are adequate support for the theory.

I do have sufficient expertise in science in general and the culture of science to know that the sort of consensus that has emerged around ACC does not happen without compelling evidence. So the logic goes like this:

Let A="compelling evidence" and Let B="consensus of experts".
Iff A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

I observe B (i.e. that there is a consensus of experts), and from that I infer that there is compelling evidence, even though I lack the expertise to judge the evidence for myself.



> You used the word "logic".


Yes, perhaps you don't understand the concept; I do grow weary of explaining this simple logic to you over and over.

The observation of a consensus is not in and of itself a logical statement; it is an observation of empirical reality. From the logical statement "Iff A, then B", and the observation of "B", we can use logic to infer "A." (note for the logically impaired: "Iff" means "If and only if")

I really don't know how to make this any simpler for you. If you can't follow this, you are beyond my ability to teach.



> How the hell else can this possibly be interpreted?


See above


> If the basis for your observation is not logic, then why would you use the actual word logic?


Observation is not logic. Observation is observation. Logic can be applied to observations, but they are not the same thing.



> Who qualifies you to decide who is an expert or not?


I do not decide who is an expert; the universities who award the degrees do. Earning a Ph.D. in a field qualifies you as an expert.


> There are experts on both sides of the argument


Qualitatively true, but quantitatively inaccurate; there are *vastly* (as in orders of magnitude) more experts on one side than the other. This is the meaning of the word "consensus"

There are "experts" in biology and biochemistry (i.e. people with Ph.D.s in these disciplines) who dispute evolution. This does not change the fact that there is a consensus in the biological sciences regarding the validity of evolution.


> This wunnerful little anecdote that you have repeated ad nauseum is fabulous.


You asked what the authors of the papers you quoted thought of your interpretation.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> If you can't follow this, you are beyond my ability to teach.


Then, please, oh great one, stop trying.

Save your breath for those more worthy than me...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lewandowsky.

Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations



> I know of at least two, possibly more, professional complaints that are in progress against Lewdandowsy (and his sidekick, Skeptical Science’ s John Cook) at the University of Western Australia for his data fabrication and his questionable science composed of outlandish made-up claims designed to smear climate skeptics worldwide.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Then, please, oh great one, stop trying.


Allright; I'll give up. Carry on with your blogs, and I'll watch for you over at Ars Technica. :baby:


----------



## FeXL

Further on the PAGES2K paper.


Gifford Miller vs Upside-Down Kaufman



> PAGES2k expanded Kaufman’s 2009 network to 22 series, adding a number of new series, including Hvitavatn, Iceland, where *Kaufman once again has used the data upside down* to the interpretation of Gifford Miller, the original author and a very eminent paleoclimatologist.


Bold mine.

Once again, there are people on this board who who have you not read this information because it comes from a blog, not that most hallowed of things, a peer-reviewed paper. Yet, at the same time, other blogs are suddenly recommended reading. Oh, the iron...

"All blogs are equal, although some are more equal than others." Orwell would be proud.


----------



## FeXL

So, there was an observation made that in the very near future (a matter of days, if I recall correctly) CO2 concentrations were going to hit 400ppm for the first time in 800,000 years. This brings to mind a couple of things.

1) That CO2 concentrations have actually been at 400 ppm before;
2) What caused that to happen then?;
3) Have CO2 concentrations ever been higher?

I'll let the reader ponder 1 & 2, while furnishing a graph I have used in the past to answer 3.

What To Expect When CO2 Hits 400 PPM



> 400 PPM CO2 means nothing – other than another meaningless number for clueless people to get hysterical about. CO2 is at historically low levels in the geological record.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

Arctic Ice Is Right Where It Always Is This Time Of Year


----------



## FeXL

Further on scientists predicting catastrophe for mankind in the face of rising CO2 concentrations. For the thick among you, that's CAGW, not ACC, and this is merely the second of many that I note.

Joe Romm Predicts “…*All But Certain Ruin for Modern Civilization*…” from a NOAA Fisheries Press Release

Bold mine.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The observation of a consensus is not in and of itself a logical statement; it is an observation of empirical reality. From the logical statement "Iff A, then B", and the observation of "B", we can use logic to infer "A." (note for the logically impaired: "Iff" means "If and only if")


That study again? The one that fully states that it does not achieve what you claim it does? You've got to let that one go, bryanc. That dog simply won't hunt.


----------



## Macfury

> 400 PPM CO2 means nothing – other than another meaningless number for clueless people to get hysterical about. CO2 is at historically low levels in the geological record.


But I want it back to where I think it should be. The globe was a static system, after all, until humans arrived to ruin it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The one that fully states that it does not achieve what you claim it does?


Actually, I just went back to re-read it, because I didn't remember the quote you pulled ("A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.") and I wanted to find it in context.

The context is important; that is their problem statement, not their concluding statement. The authors are proposing to solve that problem (in the next sentence they say "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.")

So that study does exactly what I said, and you've got nothing but your opinion to oppose it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Actually, I just went back to re-read it, because I didn't remember the quote you pulled ("A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.") and I wanted to find it in context.
> 
> The context is important; that is their problem statement, not their concluding statement. The authors are proposing to solve that problem (in the next sentence they say "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.")
> 
> So that study does exactly what I said, and you've got nothing but your opinion to oppose it.


The selection mechanism precludes your conclusion. It is based only on active publishing using a very loose interpretation of what could be included, but nothing about a general opinion of climate scientists--it is a dreadful and lazy proxy for actual research. 

If this sort of lazy work meets your standards, you're welcome to it. Don't expect others to buy into it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The selection mechanism precludes your conclusion. It is based only on active publishing using a very loose interpretation of what could be included, but nothing about a general opinion of climate scientists--it is a dreadful and lazy proxy for actual research.


Ah, back to your opinion on the methods. Well, good, at least you have given up claiming that the study does not state what I said it did.

You are welcome to argue statistical and research methodology with the editors of _The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science_ (Impact Factor 9.681), where the study was published after peer-review. Their editorial offices can be found here.



> Don't expect others to buy into it.


I expect others to use whatever criteria of belief they find rational. I'm quite certain that there is no evidence that would convince you or some other notables here that ACC has met the standards of rational acceptance, because you believe it is not true on the basis of faith. Those who have not reasoned themselves into a position, cannot be reasoned out of it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ah, back to your opinion on the methods. Well, good, at least you have given up claiming that the study does not state what I said it did.


It does not do what it states, because its methods do not allow it to complete its objectives. It's a cheap bait-and-switch.


----------



## bryanc

As I said, take it up with the editors and reviewers of PNAS. I'm sure they'll be very concerned that some guy on the internet thinks they're publishing research that is not methodologically sound.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As I said, take it up with the editors and reviewers of PNAS. I'm sure they'll be very concerned that some guy on the internet thinks they're publishing research that is not methodologically sound.


I don't have the same religious awe of PNAS that you do, bryanc. This work is a logical disgrace.

I recall you saying it was the best the researcher could do, given the funds available to perform the study. How soon you forget.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> As I said, take it up with the editors and reviewers of PNAS. I'm sure they'll be very concerned that some guy on the internet thinks they're publishing research that is not methodologically sound.


now why would 'some guy on the internet' actually address the researchers directly?

because he would get pwned perhaps?


----------



## eMacMan

Heard an interesting presentation today from the geologist/engineer that set up the monitoring of Turtle Mountain.

This was done in 2003 to through to the present. The monitoring devices were set-up with the preconceived belief that the South Peak posed the greatest danger and there was a large block which would eventually slide to the east. The various devices were therefore set to primarily read motion in that direction.

Back in the 1980s the UofC had set up several Aerial Photography targets, and flew several aerial photography flights. About 2006 new photography was flown and compared to the photos from 20 years ago. The engineer said the results made absolutely no sense and he was ready to chuck the data. He finally realized the idea of a single block was erroneous, there were really three smaller interlocking blocks moving east, west and I believe north. 

Lesson here is just because data does not agree with the model, it does not mean the data is erroneous or needs adjusting. It is more likely the model that needs to be adjusted. Had the engineer gone the route of Mann/Hanson/Hadley, we would still be unaware of crucial information. 

Now geology is a science where most of the mechanics are reasonably well understood. OTOH Climatology is really in its infancy. Very few of the drivers are well understood, nor do the scientists have any thing resembling a firm grip on the various positive and negative feedback factors. As far as climate science goes, other than a handful of weather station records, we have almost no empirical data dating back more than 50 years. As to a complete array, that still is nowhere near being in place and what is often dates back less than 20 years. Not nearly enough time to correlate data and climate. So once again forget the science is settled and the sky is falling crap and start looking at ways to make the models fit the data, not the other way around.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, there's a new paper out, peer-reviewed an' all, that compares modelled results of hurricane activity & strength to empirical evidence of the same. Of course, the models (despite all the shortcomings noted in the article) are accepted as "the truth", especially by Scooter over at SS.

On Holland and Bruyère (2013) “Recent Intense Hurricane Response to Global Climate Change”



> Holland and Bruyère (2013) is yet another peer-reviewed study that relies on climate models as if the models represent reality, when climate models clearly do not.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on PAGES2K.

More Kaufman Contamination



> Kaufman and paleo peer reviewers ought to be aware that the recent portion of varve data can be contaminated by modern agriculture, as this was a contentious issue in relation to Mann et al 2008 (Upside Down Mann) and Kaufman et al 2009. Nonetheless, Kaufman et al 2013 (PAGES), despite dozens of coauthors and peer review at the two most prominent science journals, committed precisely the same mistake as his earlier article, though the location of the contaminated data is different.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper on further shortfalls of CHIMP models.

Evaluation of multidecadal variability in CMIP5 surface solar radiation and inferred underestimation of aerosol direct effects over Europe, China, Japan and India

Abstract.



> Observations from the Global Energy Balance Archive indicate regional decreases in all sky surface solar radiation from ~1950s-1980s, followed by an increase during the 1990s. These periods are popularly called dimming and brightening, respectively.Removal of the radiative effects of cloud cover variability from all sky surface solar radiation results in a quantity called “clear sky proxy” radiation, in which multidecadal trends can be seen more distinctly, suggesting aerosol radiative forcing as a likely cause. *Prior work has shown climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3) generally underestimate the magnitude of these trends, particularly over China and India. Here, we perform a similar analysis with 173 simulations from 42 climate models participating in the new CMIP5. Results show negligible improvement over CMIP3, as CMIP5 dimming trends over four regions–Europe, China, India and Japan–are all underestimated. This bias is largest for both India and China, where the multi-model mean yields a decrease in clear sky proxy radiation of −1.3 ± 0.3 and −1.2 ± 0.2 W m−2 decade−1, respectively, compared to observed decreases of −6.5 ± 0.9 and −8.2 ± 1.3 W m−2 decade−1. Similar underestimation of the observed dimming over Japan exists, with the CMIP5 mean dimming ~20% as large as observed. Moreover, not a single simulation reproduces the magnitude of the observed dimming trend for these three regions. Relative to dimming, CMIP5 models better simulate the observed brightening, but significant underestimation exists for both China and Japan. Overall, no individual model performs particularly well for all four regions.* Model biases do not appear to be related to the use of prescribed versus prognostic aerosols, or to aerosol indirect effects. However, models exhibit significant correlations between clear sky proxy radiation and several aerosol-related fields, most notably aerosol optical depth (AOD), and absorption AOD. This suggests model underestimation of the observed trends is related to underestimation of aerosol direct radiative forcing and/or deficient aerosol emission inventories.


Bold mine.

This is good news for the warmist crowd, however. Some how, some way, they'll spin this into a win for CAGW, ACC, whatever...


----------



## groovetube

this thread has become a drag to read with the near blanketing of spam blog posts.


----------



## MacDoc

He likes to quote official papers without understanding what he is saying or how it somehow negates anything about AGW

The plain language there is there was global dimming - well known and understood - due to S02 which was cleaned up in the 90s ( Clean Air act - recall acid rain ) and the radiation began to reach the surface again so AGW kicked into high gear with cleaner skies. Nothing fancy about that.

This is all inside the box stuff and merely refines what is already known. It's all about aerosols and says nada about AGW beyond it might be delaying the ocean uptake of heat a tad.

The paper is purporting to show that the effects of aerosols ( which are also part of Anthro impacts on climate ) are not fully expressed in the models and not fully understood as they have both negative and positive forcing depending on the type and situation.
That's nothing new - the impacts of aerosols are still being teased out and as the paper mentions - we don't know what the aerosol emissions are.

Doesn't change the reality
It's getting warmer
We're responsible.

I did enjoy Alberta caving in on emissions....nice pie in the face for Herr Harper.


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> The paper is purporting to show that the effects of aerosols (which are also part of Anthro impacts on climate) are not fully expressed in the models and not fully understood as they have both negative and positive forcing depending on the type and situation.
> *That's nothing new* - the impacts of aerosols are still being teased out and as the paper mentions - we don't know what the aerosol emissions are.


(my bold)

I'm not sure I agree; while it most certainly is congruent with the ACC paradigm, and aerosols certainly have been considered before, it would appear that they have a greater impact than previously thought, so that _is_ new.

The other big one that clearly needs to be better understood is the heat transfer to the deep ocean; a mechanism that appears to be slowing the rate of surface warming (obviously good news for us in the short term), but possibly at the cost of increasing the thermal inertia of the system and therefore making the warming harder to stop in the long run.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> He likes to quote official papers without understanding what he is saying or how it somehow negates anything about AGW


Gawd, you were so close, too...

Actually, what I really like posting is peer-reviewed research adding to the pages long list of climate model shortfalls. That's my fav...:love2:


----------



## bryanc

Should we start an "Official, authoritative evolutionary biology" thread where we post links to papers in current evolutionary theory (almost all of which focus on addressing current limitations or shortfalls of our understanding of evolution) and quote creationist bloggers who think this is evidence that "evolutionary theory is in crisis!!11one11eleventyone!"


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Should we start an "Official, authoritative evolutionary biology" thread where we post links to papers in current evolutionary theory (almost all of which focus on addressing current limitations or shortfalls of our understanding of evolution) and quote creationist bloggers who think this is evidence that "evolutionary theory is in crisis!!11one11eleventyone!"


Feel free. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## bryanc

No, but it is a perfect analogy for the topic at hand.


----------



## Sonal

groovetube said:


> this thread has become a drag to read with the near blanketing of spam blog posts.


Oh, you actually read those?


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Oh, you actually read those?


It's pretty sad really. If someone doesn't like reading something, imagine being compelled to read it anyway.


----------



## bryanc

If we could get people here to actually stick to _authoritative_ sources (i.e. peer-reviewed science, or other academically vetted material), it might be possible to have a meaningful discussion.

Unfortunately, no one here really has any expertise on the subject, so I'm not sure what point there would be in doing so. While it's interesting to know what progress is being made in climate research, none of us in any position to criticize or contribute meaningfully to the science, and we've already got a science thread where we can post research we find interesting for general discussion. The only reason this topic has to be quarantined is that certain people have political agendas that run counter to the science.


----------



## FeXL

What I find more amazing than anything is that the people who are complaining the most about the thread content know what was posted yesterday, know what was posted today, know what will be posted tomorrow, yet can't stop themselves from clicking the link. 

OC or what...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The only reason this topic has to be quarantined is that certain people have political agendas that run counter to the science.


So, what's the thrust here? You're the official quarantiner? :baby:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...hic.


----------



## bryanc

Hey, I just post here occasionally so that any naive passers by can see that what you're trying to pass off as an "authoritative" opposition to science is nothing but a political campaign to spread FUD.

As a professional scientist and educator, I consider it a public service.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, that's a good one. 

The real issue here is that people have been snow-balled into believing all the BS hype and FUD from political activists masquerading as scientists like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, _et al_, and supported by a left leaning media who is too spineless to ask the question.

As nothing more than a dumb biker, I consider this fulfilling & entertaining.

And, I can always tell when I'm getting over the target 'cause the flack is heaviest...

You have yerself a good afternoon there, Mr. Quarantiner. I'm gonna hit the hiway on the hawg, have myself a cold craft beer somewhere smoky and sleep like a baby tonight, assured that my tax dollars are being spent wisely...


----------



## groovetube

People aren't being snow balled by anyone masquerading as scientists at all, in fact the theories are from an overwhelming number of _actual scientists_ qualified in this subject, unlike the 'weathermen' who write the blogs you spam this thread with.

Nice try though.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> ...assured that my tax dollars are being spent wisely...


I should say, I do appreciate your financial support of my research and educational efforts here and elsewhere.


----------



## iMouse

Blind Faith was not just an excellent album, by Blind Faith. 

But before that Clapton fronted Cream, and their song [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXmZr8MiV0"]Politician[/ame] might have given impedance to forming his next group. Blind Faith. 

Sadly, they didn't last as long. 

Lyrics.


----------



## Sonal

I'd actually consider them scientists masquerading (or being masqueraded) as political activists.

It's not easy to become a scientist. Political activist, however.... shoot, couple summers ago, I briefly became one by accident.


----------



## bryanc

The transformation from scientist to activist/media persona is pretty much a one way street, so most scientists resist going down that road until they're near the end of their careers, unless the issue is one they feel sufficiently passionate about. There certainly have been a good number of capable research scientists who've become environmental or peace activists secondarily (e.g. David Suzuki and Linus Pauling), but they rarely return to research after becoming activists. I think this is because their objectivity is always in question once they engage with a partisan issue publicly.

It is interesting to see how many prestigious climate scientists have become activists in the past few years; I think this is indicative of the confidence climatologists have in ACC and the seriousness of their concern regarding the potential impacts it may have on our civilization. It's analogous to the number of biologists who become environmental activists and the number of physicists who become activists for nuclear disarmament.

This is another example of how we, as non-experts can indirectly infer the confidence the experts have in the data from their behaviour.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I'd actually consider them scientists masquerading (or being masqueraded) as political activists.


The problem occurs when the activism informs their science as has happened in so many recent cases. I don't otherwise care how many placards scientists carry, or how many human chains they form around a daisy.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This is another example of how we, as non-experts can indirectly infer the confidence the experts have in the data from their behaviour.


Or can directly infer that they've lost their marbles...


----------



## FeXL

Caution, models involved.

New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds tiny variations in solar activity over 11-year solar cycles have greatly amplified effects upon climate via changes in the Arctic Oscillation, North Pacific sea surface temperatures & sea level pressure, and via changes in stratospheric ozone from solar UV. The authors find the Arctic Oscillation evolves from a negative mode a few years before solar maximums to a positive mode at and following solar maximums. The IPCC claims the tiny variations in solar activity during solar cycles cannot affect climate, but this paper and many others demonstrate solar activity has greatly amplified effects upon climate via ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations such as the Madden-Julian oscillation and Quasi-biennial oscillation, stratospheric ozone, and sunshine hours/clouds.


Abstract.



> *The surface climate response to 11-yr solar forcing during northern winter is first re-estimated by applying a multiple linear regression (MLR) statistical model to Hadley Centre sea level pressure (SLP) and sea surface temperature (SST) data over the 1880-2009 period. In addition to a significant positive SLP response in the North Pacific found in previous studies, a positive SST response is obtained across the midlatitude North Pacific.* Negative but insignificant SLP responses are obtained in the Arctic. The derived SLP response at zero lag therefore resembles a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). Evaluation of the SLP and SST responses as a function of phase lag indicates that *the response evolves from a negative AO-like mode a few years before solar maximum to a positive AO-like mode at and following solar maximum*. For comparison, a similar MLR analysis is applied to model SLP and SST data from a series of simulations using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. The simulations differed only in the assumed solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone. *It is found that the simulation that assumed an ozone variation estimated from satellite data produces solar SLP and SST responses that are most consistent with the observational results,* especially during a selected centennial period. In particular, a positive SLP response anomaly is obtained in the northeastern Pacific and a corresponding positive SST response anomaly extends across the midlatitude North Pacific. *The model response versus phase lag also evolves from a mainly negative AO-like response before solar maximum to a mainly positive AO response at and following solar maximum.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Or can directly infer that they've lost their marbles...


Amen. I suspect that a large dose of feeling underappreciated combined with the presence of a few webcams can lead to significant bouts of acting out.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Further on model shortcomings. (4x)

Modeling the Asian Summer Monsoon

Projections of CMIP5 Models: Will They Ever Come Together?

Modeling Northern Hemispheric Winters

Problems Modeling Air-Sea Fluxes and Sea Surface Temperatures

A summing statement from the third link that addresses all:



> It would appear that with all the things climate models have been able to accomplish over the past several decades, even the best of them still have numerous significant deficiencies that have yet to be overcome.


Also wanted to pull a quote from the paper in my previous post:



> 631	In general, models should be validated by observations rather than the other way around. 632	However, it greatly strengthens an observational result if the physical processes that lead 633	to that result are understood. The latter can only be accomplished using models.


I agree strongly with the first two sentences and disagree moderately with the third: empirical observations can also accomplish point 2. That said, the unfortunately truth (and the main reason why I keep banging this particular drum) is that climate models are no where near prime time and anything we may infer from their output should be taken with a large grain of salt.


----------



## bryanc

This just gets better and better. First the global scientific community is incompetent, and a few bloggers are going to shoot holes in decades of peer-reviewed science. Then its a global conspiracy on the part of the scientists to secure lucrative research grants (somebody forgot to look at how feeble the funding for science is). Now, the scientists are all insane... they cracked under the pressure of criticism from the blogosphere I guess.

When do the space aliens get in on the story?


----------



## FeXL

A modellers wet dream: a temperature reconstruction *(from empirical observations)* where r=0.961.

Fourier Analysis reveals six natural cycles driving temperatures, no man-made effect: predicts cooling

Abstract.



> The longest six instrumental temperature records of monthly means reach back maximally to 1757 AD and were recorded in Europe. All six show a V-shape, with temperature drop in the 19th and rise in the 20th century. Proxy temperature time series of Antarctic ice cores show this same characteristic shape, indicating this pattern as a global phenomenon. We used the mean of the six instrumental records for analysis by discrete Fourier transform (DFT), wavelets, and the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). For comparison, a stalagmite record was also analyzed by DFT. The harmonic decomposition of the abovementioned mean shows only six significant frequencies above periods over 30 yr. The Pearson correlation between the mean, smoothed by a 15-yr running average (boxcar) and the reconstruction using the six significant frequencies, yields r = 0.961. This good agreement has a > 99.9 % confidence level confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations. It shows that the climate dynamics is governed at present by periodic oscillations. We find indications that observed periodicities result from intrinsic dynamics.


Further:



> Figure 2 shows the reconstruction together with the Central-European temperature record smoothed over 15 years (boxcar). *The remarkable agreement suggests the absence of any warming due to CO2* (which would be nonperiodic) or other nonperiodic phenomena related to human population growth or industrial activity.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Thus the overall temperature development since 1780 is part of periodic temperature dynamics prevailing already for 2000 years. This applies in particular to the temperature rise since 1880, which is officially claimed as proof of global warming due to CO2, but clearly results from the 250 year cycle.* The 250 year cycle was driving the temperature drop from 1800 to 1880 (see Fig. 4), which in all official statements is tacitly swept under the carpet. This same general fall and rise shows in the high quality Antarctic ice core record in comparison with the central-european temperature records (Fig. 4, blue curve).


Bold mine.

Link to paper in References (#1) of Jo's link.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This just gets better and better. First the global scientific community is incompetent, and a few bloggers are going to shoot holes in decades of peer-reviewed science. Then its a global conspiracy on the part of the scientists to secure lucrative research grants (somebody forgot to look at how feeble the funding for science is). Now, the scientists are all insane... they cracked under the pressure of criticism from the blogosphere I guess.
> 
> When do the space aliens get in on the story?


Where do you get on with conspiracies? It's human nature to try to find money. If you're a research scientist on the edge of obsolescence, the very nature of feeble funding will have them applying in hordes to study AGW if that's where the money is.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Where do you get on with conspiracies? It's human nature to try to find money. If you're a research scientist on the edge of obsolescence, the very nature of feeble funding will have them applying in hordes to study AGW if that's where the money is.


Not the priest clan? They're above basic human survival instincts like paying the mortgage and feeding the family. Its always about the science. Desires for money, fame and power roll off of them like water on a duck's back.


----------



## MacDoc

Harper gonna be left floundering as the world moves on....wait til the big trading partners start questioning his environment record.....oh ..wait....they already are..

- the two big players are making meaningful progress.



> *China leads in climate change's 'critical decade'*
> 
> * 12:52 30 April 2013 by Michael Slezak
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> *China is fast becoming a world leader in the fight against climate change.*
> 
> In the past year, it has halved the growth in electricity demand, continued to increase its wind and solar energy production, and is in the process of developing emissions trading schemes to cover a quarter of a billion people.
> 
> The US is also doing well, although much of its improvement comes from a shift away from oil in favour of cheaper gas and a slower economy, rather than as a result of direct action on climate change.
> 
> That's the conclusion of the latest in a series of reports entitled "The Critical Decade" published by Australia's Climate Commission, and examining global action on climate change. The report focuses on the US and China, which together produce 37 per cent of the world's emissions. Earlier this month, the two nations issued a strongly worded statement pledging to work together to curb climate change and "set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world".
> 
> The report describes China's development of renewable energy as "extraordinary", pointing to a 50-fold increase in the amount of energy generated from wind power since 2005. Its investment in clean energy in 2012 was $65.1 billion, which represents 30 per cent of the total investment by G20 nations that year. The government is developing seven emissions trading schemes around the country that will include 256 million people and 3.4 per cent of the global economy. The schemes are expected to start this year in some regions with the expectation that they will be rolled out nationwide from 2015.
> 
> *Emissions still rising*
> 
> China's greenhouse gas emissions aren't expected to peak until 2025 at the earliest. However, the country has reduced its carbon intensity - the amount it emits per unit of GDP - by 5 per cent in 2012, which means it is on track to meet its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity by 40 per cent by 2020. The idea is to give China room to continue economic development, while doing so in a sustainable way as possible.
> 
> The US is also on track to meet its goal of reducing absolute emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020, with California's emissions trading scheme playing a role, as well as the country's $35.6 billion investment in renewable energy, second only to China. However, other factors have also helped, with the slower economy causing emissions to slump, and its ambition to be energy independent leading to an increase in domestic gas use rather than imported oil.
> 
> ZhongXiang Zhang, an economist at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, says the US got lucky on low emissions, which are not entirely down to its emissions policy. Since the "US is now in an easy position", it might push China towards stronger targets, he says.
> 
> *Good, but can do better
> *
> Around the world, one third of countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the US, have achieved absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic growth. That proves "countries can continue to grow their economies while shrinking their emissions", the report notes.
> 
> "There is significant momentum being driven by a mix of economic, political and environmental motivations," says John Wiseman from the University of Melbourne. "That in turn creates a range of risks that these trends could fall over or head in unpredictable directions." He says that while the US's energy independence policy has led to an increased uptake of renewables, it also uses more gas and is working to exploit carbon-intensive tar sand oil.
> 
> "This report reminds us that we do still have the knowledge and time to drastically lower emissions, and lessen the impact of future climate change," says David Schlosberg from the University of Sydney. He warns however, that the pace must accelerate.
> 
> The report's authors, who include Tim Flannery, Australia's chief climate commissioner, agree – describing this as the critical decade to accelerate climate change action. "This decade must set the foundations to reduce emissions rapidly to nearly zero by 2050. The earlier such action is under way the less disruptive and costly it will be," they write.


China leads in climate change's 'critical decade' - environment - 30 April 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

> The US is also on track to meet its goal of reducing absolute emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020.


A foundering economy will do that for you! Russia achieved the same trick by going belly up!



> Emissions still rising
> 
> China's greenhouse gas emissions aren't expected to peak until 2025 at the earliest. However, the country has reduced its carbon intensity - the amount it emits per unit of GDP - by 5 per cent in 2012, which means it is on track to meet its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity by 40 per cent by 2020.


That's because the new stinky coal plants China is building are more efficient than the old coal plants they were using. We'll see what they do in 2025.

I applaud the Harper government for getting off this pathetic PR exercise.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I applaud the Harper government for getting off this pathetic PR exercise.


Essentially everything a politician does is a PR exercise, almost by definition. What is promising is that more and more Canadians disagree with you, and are recognizing the importance of Canada's participation in the global effort to reduce GHG emissions. This will hurt Harper at the polls.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The problem occurs when the activism informs their science as has happened in so many recent cases. I don't otherwise care how many placards scientists carry, or how many human chains they form around a daisy.


A handful of scientists talk to the media and you infer influence... the rest are likely consumed by their own research interests.


----------



## bryanc

An interesting new paper published in PNAS this week shows something anyone around here already knows: conservatives are ideologically driven to dislike products that protect the environment... even when it saves them money to use them.



Gromet said:


> Our results demonstrate that individuals will forego economically beneficial options if these options promote a value that is in conflict with their political ideology


(PDF available upon request for anyone who can't access the paper)


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> An interesting new paper published in PNAS this week shows something anyone around here already knows: conservatives are ideologically driven to dislike products that protect the environment... even when it saves them money to use them.


Conservatives are less likely to buy a bulb laced with mercury when they are reminded of it by an environmental message identifying it as a possible CFL. Liberal buyers are happy to buy them because it makes them feel good about the environment, regardless of the mercury disposal problem.

Ultimately, the identified Conservatives were likely to buy a bulb because it promises to saves money--a realistic prospect that can be tested. Liberals were more likely to buy them because they "helped the environment"--a claim that they cannot adequately test.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> An interesting new paper published in PNAS this week shows something anyone around here already knows: conservatives are ideologically driven to dislike products that protect the environment... even when it saves them money to use them.


That's not true at all. The issue is conservatives are suspicious of marketing claims that a product can protect the environment. 

I can certainly attest to that. Green marketing seldom has anything to do with the environment. It's a marketing buzzword that moves products first and foremost. Lightbulbs are a perfect example. Incandescents use very little energy anyway, and are fairly safe environmentally. CFLs are pretty toxic, pretty expensive, yet get branded as the enviro choice because they use less energy. The rational choice is cost first, the light they give off second, toxicity to the environment third... and the amount of electricity they use a distant fourth.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> That's not true at all. The issue is conservatives are suspicious of marketing claims that a product can protect the environment.
> 
> I can certainly attest to that. Green marketing seldom has anything to do with the environment. It's a marketing buzzword that moves products first and foremost. Lightbulbs are a perfect example. Incandescents use very little energy anyway, and are fairly safe environmentally. CFLs are pretty toxic, pretty expensive, yet get branded as the enviro choice because they use less energy. The rational choice is cost first, the light they give off second, toxicity to the environment third... and the amount of electricity they use a distant fourth.


Their "savings" are usually touted over a period of bulb life of 7 to 10 years. I've had brand name CFLs left on my doorstep by several well-meaning organizations. I've placed them in innocuous locations where their cold light is the least offensive. I have never had one that demonstrated it could last longer than an incandescent.


----------



## chimo

heavyall said:


> .....The rational choice is cost first, the light they give off second, toxicity to the environment third... and the amount of electricity they use a distant fourth.


After certain necessary performance-related factors, in most cases I would suggest the rational choice is the life-cycle cost. There are a lot of other costs related to lighting (relamping costs, energy consumption, colour performance, durability....)

I'm not a huge fan of CFLs because most of them I have used do not live up to their lifespan claims. Power cycling significantly reduces their lifespan. 

I would keep an eye on LEDs for the future. Efficiency is going up yearly and unit costs are decreasing. Many more options are coming to market. They are not ideally suited to retrofitting in old fixtures due to heat management but efficiency increases are making that less of a problem.


----------



## bryanc

The point of the paper is not about claims or relative environmental merits of a given product, but that conservatives respond negatively to marketing that touts the environmental virtues of a product. One could almost conclude that conservatives (as a population) are anti-envrionment.


----------



## heavyall

Macfury said:


> Their "savings" are usually touted over a period of bulb life of 7 to 10 years. I've had brand name CFLs left on my doorstep by several well-meaning organizations. I've placed them in innocuous locations where their cold light is the least offensive. I have never had one that demonstrated it could last longer than an incandescent.


I've had the same thing happen here. "Free lightbulbs?" I tried them in the house, and yes, the light they give off is weird. So I put them in the garage instead. They didn't last all that long for me either (4-6 months at best), so I don't even see where the long term savings come in to play. The box says "Green" is literally their only selling feature.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> The point of the paper is not about claims or relative environmental merits of a given product, but that conservatives respond negatively to marketing that touts the environmental virtues of a product. One could almost conclude that conservatives (as a population) are anti-envrionment.


Again, no. The issue is they believe that the person who is claiming the environmental advantage is probably lying, because they usually are.

Note the paper specifically mentions carbon emissions. YES, most conservatives are not fooled by that marketing hype. And they will go out of their way to not financially support an organization or company that is perpetuating the myth that CO2 is a pollutant.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> The point of the paper is not about claims or relative environmental merits of a given product, but that conservatives respond negatively to marketing that touts the environmental virtues of a product. One could almost conclude that conservatives (as a population) are anti-envrionment.


Hmmm, since the paper is not peer reviewed it is little more than some guys on the internet with an opinion on a blog.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Hmmm, since the paper is not peer reviewed it is little more than some guys on the internet with an opinion on a blog.


Unless I'm mistaken*, this is a peer-reviewed paper, and PNAS has among the most rigorous review standards of any journal, so we can be quite confident that the methodology and interpretation of the data is well founded and meets the academic standards of the researchers in that field.

The difference between a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal and a blog posting is night-and-day.

(* note: In the PDF it states that the manuscript was received for review on Oct 23, 2012, and approved for publication April 9, 2013, suggesting the authors had to address some non-trivial criticisms).


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> The difference between a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal and a blog posting is night-and-day.


That's true. Most blogs have significantly more credibility than the incestuous, navel gazing, self-congratulatory peer-review process.


----------



## bryanc

Och, yer probably right; it's not like science has made any significant progress or anything... they probably just sit around patting each other on the back all day.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> Och, yer probably right; it's not like science has made any significant progress or anything... they probably just sit around patting each other on the back all day.


I like how you keep using the word science as a smokescreen to hide specific fraud behind. 

Jackasses like Mann, Hansen and Jones have not demonstrated that they have much more to contribute other than the aforementioned back-patting. Their peer-review is a strike against a paper's credibility, and it's the blogs of people like Watts and McIntyre that are actually providing the science.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The difference between a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal and a blog posting is night-and-day.


I loved this quote by Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal _The Lancet_:



> The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.


----------



## bryanc

There have been many criticisms of the peer review process in science (most of which are valid), and no one claims it is without flaws. It's simply better than any other process anyone has come up with.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> There have been many criticisms of the peer review process in science (most of which are valid), and no one claims it is without flaws. It's simply better than any other process anyone has come up with.


And one of those flaws is obviously consensus on AGW.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> There have been many criticisms of the peer review process in science (most of which are valid), and no one claims it is without flaws. It's simply better than any other process anyone has come up with.


It's nowhere near as good as having independent fact checkers publicly posting their findings, followed by open discussion and continuous follow-up.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This just gets better and better. First the global scientific community is incompetent,


Not all, just a few associated with CAGW & AGW.



bryanc said:


> and a few bloggers are going to shoot holes in decades of peer-reviewed science.


Which some have already managed to do.




bryanc said:


> Then its a global conspiracy on the part of the scientists to secure lucrative research grants (somebody forgot to look at how feeble the funding for science is).


Again, not all scientists, just the ones smart enough to recognize a gravy train when they see one. Lemmee give ya a little tip: you tie global warming into your zebrafish research, you can get in on it too.




bryanc said:


> Now, the scientists are all insane... they cracked under the pressure of criticism from the blogosphere I guess.


Again, not all of them, just a select few.



bryanc said:


> When do the space aliens get in on the story?


Can't say anything about space aliens, but there are a few fruit loops & whackos who think that global warming affects prostitution. 

Almost as good as aliens...

Donna has a few more.


----------



## FeXL

heavyall said:


> It's nowhere near as good as having independent fact checkers publicly posting their findings, followed by open discussion and continuous follow-up.


<cough>blog review<cough>

It's a comin'...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> <cough>blog review<cough>
> 
> It's a comin'...


Cut the guy some slack. It used to be a pretty tight little club. Now that anyone can play, the coin of respect for scientists has cheapened significantly.


----------



## SINC

And now this:

Russian Scientist Warns Earth Is Heading For Another Little Ice Age | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)


----------



## groovetube

Interesting.

For a site that proports to be 'balanced', a quick scan if many pages of its 'science news' shows everyone if its postings to be anti climate change. Didn't see one anywhere pro, y'know, to keep things balanced..


----------



## MacDoc

they really are scraping barrel bottom now


----------



## bryanc

Not to worry, they'll soon find some credible science to misinterpret and they'll be off again.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> they really are scraping barrel bottom now


Not like those nutty newspaper reports you picked off the Aussie wire, eh MacD?


----------



## eMacMan

Problem is that while the Chicken Little crowd have blown the forecasts over the past several years, these same Russian scientists have been nailing them bang on.


----------



## FeXL

And you wonder why many think that politicians masquerading as scientists have lost their marbles? One more example...

David Suzuki: All Mining Must Stop



> A world without steel doesn’t only preclude wind farms, it precludes bridges – since steel girders are what make them safe. A world without metals is one in which hammers, nails, screws, drills, saws, shovels, rakes, and hoes don’t exist. Not to mention computers, phones, cameras, televisions, factories, airplanes, coins, and gold jewellery.
> 
> If using material dug from the earth is off limits, there goes bricks, cement, and shingles. We’re back to building our homes out of uncut wood, twigs, and mud.
> 
> The gospel according to Suzuki is that anything that comes out of the ground is poison. Digging up minerals is “unnatural.” Mining anything risks “changing the make-up of everything on the planet’s surface, including the atmosphere.”


Fruit fly guy is only one of many who want to return civilization to the dark ages, before industrialization, living off the land. Fine. However, you gotta know that the first ones to complain that they can't make it are the progressives missing their gov't handouts...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds 'no consensus on the sign' of cloud effects on climate 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds "climate models have no consensus on the sign of the longwave cloud feedback." Translation: we don't know if it is positive or negative, whether radiative 'greenhouse' effects from clouds are positive or negative. Longwave infrared feedback from water vapor/clouds is essential to determine whether the miniscule radiative effect from CO2 is amplified ['positive feedback' as claimed by the IPCC] or dampened ['negative feedback' as shown by many skeptics] due to changes in water vapor.
> 
> Further, the paper states "stratospheric water vapor and temperature changes may both act as a positive feedback mechanism during global warming," but satellite observations show stratospheric water vapor as well as total column water vapor are declining in defiance of the IPCC computer models.


Abstract.



> This paper mainly addresses two issues that concern the longwave climate feedbacks. *First, it is recognized that the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, as measured by their impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), may vary across different climate models even when the concentrations of these gases are identically prescribed.* This forcing variation contributes to the discrepancy in these models’ projections of surface warming. A method is proposed to account for this effect in diagnosing the sensitivity and feedbacks in the models. Second, it is shown that the stratosphere is an important factor that affects the OLR in transient climate change. Stratospheric water vapor and temperature changes may both act as a positive feedback mechanism during global warming and can not be fully accounted as a “stratospheric adjustment” of radiative forcing. Neglecting these two issues may cause a bias in the longwave cloud feedback diagnosed as a residual term in the decomposition of OLR variations. *The climate models have no consensus on the sign of the longwave cloud feedback after accounting for both issues.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Sage advice from the Australian Climate Commission.

Warmism's bellowing dinosaurs



> In a forlorn attempt to assure the public that the information it provides can be trusted, the government-appointed ACC states on its website:
> 
> _“The Climate Commission was established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change…” (2)_​
> Independent and reliable? Then why the following disclaimer:
> 
> _“This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.” (3)_​
> There are those who dismiss the ACC as little more than a mouthpiece for government propaganda to justify its carbon (dioxide) tax, but its website does provide one excellent piece of advice:
> 
> _“The Commission recommends that users ….. carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.”_​


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> New paper finds 'no consensus on the sign' of cloud effects on climate


Well, maybe they have a consensus only on the conclusion, but not on any of the steps they would need to take to reach it.


----------



## FeXL

Nothing like a good, old-fashioned book-burning to confirm that you really are a bunch of fruit loops & whackos. Wonder if the photos on the walls are the results of others that got out of hand...

San Jose State University Meteorology decides burning books they don’t agree with is better than reading them


----------



## iMouse

If you think that we can be lumped in with anything American, just to suit your 'needs', please think again.


----------



## FeXL

My need is to portray climate fruit loops & whackos for the charlatans that they are, no matter what country of origin.


----------



## FeXL

Questions, questions...

Tornado spike in 2011 attributed to climate change. So what to make of this year’s tornado drought?

While he gets some of it wrong, at least he notes the question.

More:

Severe Weather Drought: Tornadoes drop to a new all time record low, major hurricane absence is setting a new record every day


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale on ARGO & Ocean Heat Content history.

Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000 Meters) – Why Aren’t Northern Hemisphere Oceans Warming During the ARGO Era?



> Before the ARGO floats were deployed, there were so few temperature and salinity observations at depths below 700 meters that the NODC does not present ocean heat content data during that period for depths of 0-2000 meters on an annual basis. That is, the NODC only presents its annual ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-2000 meters starting in 2005. The NODC’s annual ocean heat content data (0-2000 meters) for global oceans are here; for the Indian Ocean, see here; for the Atlantic Ocean, they’re here; and for the Pacific Ocean, data can be found here. The NODC now only presents its long-term data (1955 to present) for depths of 0-2000 meters in pentadal form. They had provided the long-term annual data for the depths of 0-2000 meters for a very short time period, but removed it from their website as soon as they released the pentadal data. There are two problems with the pentadal data. It mysteriously adds more than 30% to the long-term trend when compared to the formerly available annual data for those depths. (See the post here.) And the 5-year “averaging” of the pentadal data makes the dataset useless in attribution studies. *5-year filters have been used by the climate science community for years to mask responses to El Niño and La Niña events, which also have significant impacts on ocean heat content data.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, new survey by Cook. Based on his history w/ Lewandowsky, can we expect better? Not by the sounds of it. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, the first link sums rather nicely. The balance of the links are about attempt #2 and a little contest.

Lewandowsky et al 2013: surveying Peter to report on Paul

John Cook’s new survey – lots of questions, no answers

Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?

Guess John Cook’s Title — Contest


----------



## FeXL

Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions



> The IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report continues to suggest that the Earth will warm rapidly in the 21st century. How far are its projections short of observed reality?
> 
> A monthly benchmark graph, circulated widely to the news media, will help to dispel the costly notion that the world continues to warm at a rapid and dangerous rate.
> 
> The objective is to compare the IPCC’s projections with observed temperature changes at a glance.


----------



## FeXL

Were Late Season Snowstorms and the Long Cold Winter Caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming or a Cold Northern Polar Region?



> However, there are apparently some dissenting opinions who don’t think that Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change are the cause of Long Cold winters and late winter storms, e.g. in the same AccuWeather article:
> 
> _AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Bernie Rayno weighed in by saying, “I do not believe this [snowstorm] has anything to do with climate change. *It is ridiculous that ‘climate change’ is being blamed for seemingly everything recently.”*​_


Bold mine.

I think ridiculous is far too polite a term...


----------



## FeXL

No hockey sticks in Tibet!

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet 

Abstract.



> To improve our understanding of the Asian monsoon system, we developed a hydroclimate reconstruction in a marginal monsoon shoulder region for the period prior to the industrial era. Here, we present the first moisture sensitive tree-ring chronology, spanning 501 years for the Dieshan Mountain area, a boundary region of the Asian summer monsoon in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. This reconstruction was derived from 101 cores of 68 old-growth Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) trees. We introduce a Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) based standardization method to develop the tree-ring chronology, which has the advantages of excluding non-climatic disturbances in individual tree-ring series. Based on the reliable portion of the chronology, we reconstructed the annual (prior July to current June) precipitation history since 1637 for the Dieshan Mountain area and were able to explain 41.3% of the variance. The extremely dry years in this reconstruction were also found in historical documents and are also associated with El Niño episodes. Dry periods were reconstructed for 1718-1725, 1766-1770 and 1920-1933, whereas 1782-1788 and 1979-1985 were wet periods. The spatial signatures of these events were supported by data from other marginal regions of the Asian summer monsoon. Over the past four centuries, out-of-phase relationships between hydroclimate variations in the Dieshan Mountain area and far western Mongolia were observed during the 1718-1725 and 1766-1770 dry periods and the 1979-1985 wet period.


----------



## FeXL

The Germans get it...

Baffled German Government Concedes! “Global Warming Has Stopped…Warming Pause Is Remarkable…Unexpected”



> _"…there is no doubt about the greenhouse effect, but even so this *warming pause is remarkable because the climate scientists with all their models did not expect this.”*​_
> At this point Kirchhof of Green radio of the German Federal Department of the Environment are finally admitting that there are suddenly many more unknowns than they first thought, that the warmist scientists are indeed baffled, and that the science is not settled after all.
> 
> At the 2-minute mark, a somewhat surprised host is forced to ask how can it be that the temperature has not risen even though more CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. Here Kirchhof, in summary, admits they don’t know why:
> 
> _"Yeah, that’s the big question. The scientists here are not completely sure. But *there are many possible explanations.”*​_
> Many possible explanations? That means they don’t have freaking clue! When it comes to complex systems like climate, it takes years and years of analyses and observation to untangle it all. Kirchhof (my emphasis):
> 
> _"A big role *may be* played by the oceans, which *possibly* are absorbing more heat, and so the additional heat is no longer being taken up by the atmosphere but instead is moving into the water. This can be measured. However if these surface water temperatures increased sharply until 15 years ago but now have stagnated, then it means that the ocean is absorbing more heat than it did before. You can suspect this, it’s very plausible, but you cannot prove it because of methodology reasons, says Jochem Marotzke.”​_
> Marotzke:
> 
> _"The problem is, although it is plausible, and it is in principle in agreement with model calculations, the problem is that *we do not have enough good measurements* from the past to say: ‘Ah, back then the deep oceans absorbed less heat and today it is taking in more heat. These *observations are simply missing.”*​_
> It makes us wonder with so much missing data and so many unknowns, *how could they even have dared to think the science was settled a few years ago?* Suddenly they tell us they don’t know squat, that they are completely baffled, and that they are scrambling for explanations!


Bold in last paragraph mine, balance from the link.

You know, I'm OK with "We don't know". Nothing wrong with a bit of humility in the face of empirical evidence contrary to your hypothesis.

What I have issues with is practitioners of a discipline as young as climatology spouting nonsense like "The science is settled", "You're too stupid to ask questions" and "Models spew science, screw empirical observations".


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" file, sceptic style.

First time since records began in Arkansas that it snowed in May!



> For the first time since written weather history began in Arkansas (1819), snow has fallen in the month of May. This snow has set records for the latest snowfall and latest measurable snowfall in the state.


I know, I know...

Models predicted it.


----------



## FeXL

From Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann, warmer temps, pestilence and higher sea levels. Stop me when this starts sounding familiar...

Michael Mann's Scary New Sea Level Predictions Identified As Bogus, Confirms 97% Consensus That He Fibs



> Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence research, Michael Mann has recently gone public with crazed talk of his beloved Jersey Shores being swamped by a mythical, huge sea level increase:
> 
> _"He said sea levels could rise six to nine feet by the end of the century. “We’re not talking the 20 feet that would be necessary to submerge Manhattan. But the Jersey Shore of my youth will not exist if we continue on this course.”"_​


Further:



> Indeed, as the Excel calculated linear trend indicates, since 1992, the sea level at the Jersey Shore region has increased. In fact, it has increased at the unbelievable rate of +0.02 centimeters per month! This means by January 1, 2100 the Jersey Shores will be "swamped" by an increase of...wait for it...a spectacular, humungous, world-ending-as-we-know-it, 8.9 inches!!!


<snort>

I wonder if that massive 8.9 inches takes into account isostatic rebound...


----------



## heavyall

LOL. How many times do these jokers have to be caught flat-out lying before people stop listening to them. It's terrifying that there are still people out there who think that these guys are real scientists.


----------



## FeXL

More settled science.

A case of the vapors – another global cooling mechanism found



> Organic vapors affect clouds leading to previously unidentified climate cooling
> 
> University of Manchester scientists, writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, have shown that natural emissions and manmade pollutants can both have an unexpected cooling effect on the world’s climate by making clouds brighter.
> 
> Clouds are made of water droplets, condensed on to tiny particles suspended in the air. When the air is humid enough, the particles swell into cloud droplets. It has been known for some decades that the number of these particles and their size control how bright the clouds appear from the top, controlling the efficiency with which clouds scatter sunlight back into space. A major challenge for climate science is to understand and quantify these effects which have a major impact in polluted regions.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds global temperature is highly correlated to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 

Abstract.



> Interannual to decadal variations in Earth global temperature estimates have often been identified with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. However, we show that variability on timescales of 2–15 years in mean annual global land surface temperature anomalies Tavg are more closely correlated with variability in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. In particular, the cross-correlation of annually-averaged values of Tavg with annual values of the AMO, the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation index, is much stronger than the cross-correlation of Tavg with ENSO. The pattern of fluctuations in Tavg from 1950 to 2010 reflects true climate variability, and is not an artifact of station sampling. *A world map of temperature correlations shows that the association with AMO is broadly distributed and unidirectional.* The effect of El Nino on temperature is locally stronger, but can be of either sign, leading to less impact on the global average. *We identify one strong narrow spectral peak in the AMO at period 9.1 ± 0.4 years and p-value 1.7% (CL 98.3%).* Variations in the flow of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may be responsible for some of the 2–15 year variability observed in global land temperatures.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

No hockey sticks in Chile, either. Caution: models used.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Chile 



> A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs temperatures in the South American Andes [Chile] and finds temperatures were warmer during the 1940's-1950's than at the end of the record in 2005.


Abstract.



> High-resolution reconstructions of climate variability that cover the past millennia are necessary to improve the understanding of natural and anthropogenic climate change across the globe. Although numerous records are available for the mid- and high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, global assessments are still compromised by the scarcity of data from the Southern Hemisphere. This is particularly the case for the tropical and subtropical areas. In addition, high elevation sites in the South American Andes may provide insight into the vertical structure of climate change in the mid-troposphere. This study presents a 3000 yr long austral summer (November to February) temperature reconstruction derived from the 210Pb and 14C dated organic sediments of Laguna Chepical (32°16' S/70°30' W, 3050 m a.s.l.), a high-elevation glacial lake in the subtropical Andes of central Chile. Scanning reflectance spectroscopy in the visible light range provided the spectral index R570/R630, which reflects the clay mineral content in lake sediments. For the calibration period (AD 1901–2006), the R570/R630 data were regressed against monthly meteorological reanalysis data, showing that this proxy was strongly and significantly correlated with mean summer (NDJF) temperatures (R3yr = −0.63, padj = 0.01). This calibration model was used to make a quantitative temperature reconstruction back to 1000 BC.
> 
> The reconstruction (with a model error RMSEPboot of 0.33 °C) shows that the warmest decades of the past 3000 yr occurred during the calibration period. The 19th century (end of the Little Ice Age (LIA)) was cool. The prominent warmth reconstructed for the 18th century, which was also observed in other records from this area, seems systematic for subtropical and southern South America but remains difficult to explain. Except for this warm period, the LIA was generally characterized by cool summers. Back to AD 1400, the results from this study compare remarkably well to low altitude records from the Chilean Central Valley and Southern South America. However, the reconstruction from Laguna Chepical does not show a warm Medieval Climate Anomaly during the 12–13th century, which is consistent with records from tropical South America. The Chepical record also indicates substantial cooling prior to 800 BC. This coincides with well-known regional as well as global glacier advances which have been attributed to a grand solar minimum. This study thus provides insight into the climatic drivers and temperature patterns in a region for which currently very few data are available. It also shows that since ca AD 1400, long term temperature patterns were generally similar at low and high altitudes in central Chile.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Always like quantifying model performance...

New paper finds climate models need another 5 to 50 years of research to predict impacts of climate change 



> A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters finds that current climate models are not able to predict regional, seasonal temperature and precipitation changes and have huge "mean errors between 1 and 18 °C." Therefore, according to the authors, the models are especially unable to predict the impacts of regional temperature and precipitation changes. According to the authors, "no single [climate model] matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures." The majority of the IPCC AR4 report discusses the alleged regional impacts of climate change based on these same models, but according to the authors, the models won't be ready to predict the impacts of climate change for another 5 to 50 years, stating, "we estimate that at least 5–30 years of [computer modeling research] is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models."


Abstract.



> Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies.


Please note that the above mentioned issues are just the short list and not an extensive summary of model shortfalls...


----------



## FeXL

Further from the "It's weather, not climate" files, sceptic style.

North Dakota Obliterating All Springtime Cold Records



> So far this spring, North Dakota is averaging -2.9C – which is more than 12C cooler than the spring of 1977.


81% Of The US Below Normal Temperatures In 2013


----------



## FeXL

So, have a link to an article from a little over two years ago. In the article are links to peer-reviewed papers on so-called climate induced issues that completely contradict each other, ie.,

Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner.

Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers

This leaves me with 3 questions, two of my own & the third from the link:

1) Exactly which of these papers is the "Settled Science"?

2) Why should we believe anything warmists have to say about climate?;

3) What I want to know from ‘Warmists’ is what would falsify the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

How Well Do Climate Models Mimic Atmospheric Teleconnections?



> *What was learned*
> When all was said and done, the two researchers concluded that "current state-of-the-art climate models are not able to reproduce the temporal behavior, in particular the exact phasing of the dominant patterns due to internally generated model variability." In addition, they concluded that "the state-of-the-art climate models are not able to capture the observed frequency behavior and characteristic time scales for the coupled runs satisfactorily ... in accordance with Stoner et al. (2009) and Casado and Pastor (2012)," both of which studies concluded, in their words, that "the models are not able to reproduce the temporal characteristics of atmospheric teleconnection time-series."


Sums it up for me...


----------



## FeXL

Very closely related to my post #3139 above...

Coming Ice Age…According To Leading Experts, Global Mean Temperature Has Dropped 1°C Since 1990!



> 1988: 15.4°C; 1990: 15.5°C; 2004: 14.5°C; 2007: 14.5°C; 2010: 14.5°C; 2012: 14.5°C





> Of course we know that the mean global surface temperature has not fallen 1°C since 1990, so *it is obvious that the experts are all confused about what the real mean temperature really is.*


Further:



> The whole business of transforming society based on a figure that we now see is completely in dispute and in a state of utter confusion needs to be stopped until the issue gets cleared up. If it was 15.5°C in 1990 and today it is indeed only 14.5°C, then shouldn’t we be preparing for something totally different? Which figure is right?
> 
> The scientists need to explain this situation. *Talking about trends and anomalies when there’s no agreement on the benchmark temperature makes no sense.*


Bold mine.

If we can't even agree on what the global temperature is, what is the point of talking about anything else?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> If we can't even agree on what the global temperature is, what is the point of talking about anything else?


And if you could turn a switch like a thermostat what temperature would you set it at?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> What I want to know from ‘Warmists’ is what would falsify the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?


Well, if you substitute "climate scientists" for "Warmists", and refer to the actual theory, which is Anthropogenic Climate Change rather than AGW, this is an excellent question.

Apart from the trollish wording, the only thing that's wrong is _where_ you're asking it, not what you're asking.

If you actually want an answer to your question, you need to ask people who are genuine experts in the field, not a mac-user internet form.

I can't provide more than a vague idea of what would falsify the Standard Model in Quantum Theory because I'm not a physicist who specializes in quantum mechanics; I'd hazard that it would have something to do with the number, types and energies of particles produced by certain collisions in a super-collider, but beyond that, it's not my field so I can't really tell you what would convince physicists that their consensus is incorrect.

For the very same reasons, I can't provide more than a vague answer to your question; it's not my field. I'd hazard that it would have something to do with oxygen isotopes in ice cores, distribution of chronimid mouth parts in lake bottom sediments, migration times of birds, pH of sea water, flowering times of plants, and that sort of thing. Because ACC is a very well supported theory, with many independent lines of evidence from many different fields, I doubt there's any one piece of data that could bring down the whole theory, but any of the many hypotheses that make up the theory could be falsified.

So if you really want an answer, ask a professional climatologist.

Of course, you don't really want an answer, which is why you post it here. It's rather like someone watching a few too many Jackie Chan movies and then going out on the 6th grade playground claiming to be a black-belt in Kung-Fu. You might actually win a few fights with 6th graders, but you don't really know anything and you don't really want to learn, or you'd contact a real university with real scientists and ask them, rather than posting here. You don't even have the guts to post this rubbish on internet forums where there are a few people who have a passing familiarity with the field, or I'd see your rubbish showing up on Ars Technica.

So I'll leave you to the playground where you can make yourself feel big.


----------



## iMouse

bryanc said:


> So if you really want an answer, ask a professional climatologist.


Sadly, Percy Saltzman passed away in '07. :-( R.I.P.

He *would* know.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> blah, blah, blah...


Few things:

1) Quite the diatribe there, bryanc. Hit a nerve, much? Worth repeating: The flack is alway heaviest over the target;

2) If you can't answer the question, why do you respond? Oh, forgot, self-appointed quarantiner. Very noble...;

3) Interestingly, the third question is transparently rhetorical: with both sides of the argument covered by that most hallowed of things, "peer reviewed research", there is no way to falsify it, save to live through it. Which, BTW, we are all currently (and apparently, amazingly, despite all CO2 to the contrary) doing...;

4) All blogs are equal (****e), but some are more equal than others (all warmist blogs). Have I got that right? And, how do you know that I haven't been to Ars climate for some time, probably before you ever went there? And why should I accept their bias any more or less than any other <spit> blog? Sources of little more than falsehoods & irritation, right? See how this rolls off your tongue, "But Ars follows the conseeeensuuuuuusss." :love2: Delicious, no?;

5) I don't make me feel big, you do. Every time you post an 8 paragraph non response like this last one.  Your disdain for this sandbox is palpable, yet you seem to have some pathological need to return time & again. We should talk about that some time, I can help...


----------



## FeXL

Back to work...

Donna notes more science by press release. Note all the weasel words.


The Drama Queen Files: Exhibit #5



> According to a headline in the UK’s Independent newspaper, the ocean is turning to acid and the Arctic’s soaring CO2 leaves fish and hunters gasping for life. The subtitle tells us that “Greenhouse gases are making seawater toxic.”


Further:



> Let us be clear: this is a brochure. The title page and the final page contain no relevant content. A significant percentage of the other two pages are devoted to colour photographs. The only thing this document does is list 10 “key findings.” There are no footnotes or citations. *This is the furthest thing from a scientific report – it is, instead, a marketing tool.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

A Central England Temperature reconstruction adds ~120 years to the thermometer record. Couple of interesting peaks in the reconstruction.

The curious case of rising CO2 and falling temperatures



> In this I reconstructed Central England temperature to 1538 from its current instrumental date of 1659.
> 
> I was surprised by two notable periods of warmth around 1630 and 1530. I am indebted amongst other material, to Phil Jones excellent book ‘Climate since 1500 AD’ plus such books as Le Roy Laduries’ Times of feast times of famine’ which confirm that these were indeed warm periods.


----------



## FeXL

Wah, frickin' wah...

Long Term Tornado Trends



> American Meteorological Society President, Dr Marshall Shepherd, seems to think *it is unfair to mention low tornado numbers, saying it is an “abuse”.*


Bold mine.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's "unbiased" survey...

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased “correct” survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?



> After finalizing a long post on John Cook’s crowd-sourced consensus-rating survey (to be titled “I take Cook’s survey so you don’t have to”), I submitted my completed survey to Cook’s website and received an automated response that included a key new bit of information, suggesting what likely shenanigan Cook has planned.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Trenberth's missing heat.

Even More about Trenberth’s Missing Heat – An Eye Opening Comment by Roger Pielke Sr.



> _ About 90 percent of this extra energy goes into the oceans. But meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder says he would like to understand why more heat is going into the deep ocean. “Until we understand how this fundamental shift in the climate system occurred,” says Pielke, “and if this change in vertical heat transfer really happened, and is not just due to the different areal coverage and data quality in the earlier years, we have a large gap in our understanding of the climate system.”
> 
> These large changes in ocean content reveal that the Earth’s surface is not a great place to look for a planetary energy imbalance. “This means this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend,” he says. “Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change, it illustrates a defect in using the two-dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.”_​


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate models fail to ‘predict’ US droughts



> The results were puzzling. Although the simulation produced a number of pronounced droughts lasting several decades each, these did not match the timing of known megadroughts. In fact, drought occurrences were no more in agreement when the model was fed realistic values for variables that influence rainfall than when it ran control simulations in which the values were unrealistically held constant. “The model seems to miss some of the dynamics that drive large droughts,” says study participant Jason Smerdon, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies historical climate patterns.
> 
> Other climate models tested by the team fared no better, he says. In particular, the models failed to reproduce a series of multi-decadal droughts that occurred in the southwest during the *Medieval Climate Anomaly*, a period between AD 900 and 1200 when global temperatures were about as high as they are today.


Bold mine.

Notice the more politically correct "Medieval Climate Anomaly" as opposed to the original "Medieval Warming Period".

At least they acknowledge they presence of the MWP and the fact that temps were as warm as today. That's progress.

More:



> In addition to their failure to reproduce El Niño and La Niña, existing models do not fully capture other factors that influence rainfall, such as clouds and vegetation. But Smerdon adds that *the atmospheric and oceanic dynamics that inhibit rainfall and favour prolonged drought may be essentially random and so almost unpredictable.*


What's this!? Natural cycles, not CO2, causing weather & climate? Is this _Nature_ I'm reading? <faints>


----------



## FeXL

Review paper finds European climate change due to the Sun, not CO2 



> A new SPPI & CO2 Science review paper entitled Solar Influence on European Temperatures finds extensive evidence that solar activity has dominated European climate change of the past 2 millenia, which "suggests that there is little reason to attribute 20th-century global warming to the concomitant increase in the air's CO2 content. Natural variability appears quite capable of explaining it all. In conclusion, paleoclimatic studies from Europe provide more evidence for the global reality of solar-induced temperature oscillations pervading both glacial and interglacial periods, which oscillations are looking more and more likely as the primary forcing agent responsible for driving temperature change during the Current Warm Period. The concurrent historical increase in the air's CO2 content, on the other hand, is likely little more than a bit player."


----------



## FeXL

Review paper on cosmoclimatology finds the Sun controls climate change, not CO2



> A new SPPI & CO2 Science review paper entitled Solar Influence on Climate: Cosmic Rays reviews the literature on Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology and concludes, "Clearly, in light of all the evidence presented above, the flux of galactic cosmic rays wields an important influence on Earth's climate, and likely much more so than that exhibited by the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 , making fluctuations in the Sun the primary candidate for "prime determinant" of Earth's climatic state."


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Problems Modeling Air-Sea Fluxes and Sea Surface Temperatures



> (1) "although regional biases in some components are improved, others are still present and some are made worse [italics added],"
> (2) "the largest degradation in the transition from CCSM3 to CCSM4 in mean flux bias is found in the greater shortwave radiation reaching the ocean's surface,"
> (3) "this degradation is a global, nearly uniform increase with many regional averages falling outside the range of observation-based estimates,"
> (4) "enhanced evaporation leads to net air-sea freshwater fluxes that can be outside the range of observation-based estimates, and thus lead to erroneous ocean salinity and density,"
> (5) "enhanced evaporation can also lead to an enhanced hydrological cycle with more precipitation over both the ocean and land,"
> (6) "annual variability [in air-sea flux fields] is substantially in error in virtually all regions with the likelihood of robust CCSM4-CORE disagreement - based on the wavelet probability analysis of Stevenson et al. (2010) - almost always above 90%,"
> (7) "the net shortwave radiation has the largest errors on all time scales (mean, annual, and interannual)," and
> (8) "the pattern of errors is different for each time scale, suggesting that cloud activity at each time scale may be flawed with different patterns."


----------



## FeXL

A simple chart can speak volumes. PhD not required...

This is an amazing chart



> almost perfect correlation with the phases of the PDO/AMO cumulative total, not co2


Click on the chart for the large version, compare the PDO/AMO cycles at the bottom to the global temp anomaly (blue line).


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> What's this!? Natural cycles, not CO2, causing weather & climate? Is this _Nature_ I'm reading? <faints>


You're supposed to say: "the prestigious, peer-reviewd _Nature_.


----------



## FeXL

So, new National Science Foundation paper out. Authors examined lake sediments dating back more than 3 million years in a Russian Lake that escaped glaciation. They note that CO2 levels were comparable to today, concurrent temps at the site were 8 degrees C warmer than today & regional precipitation 3x greater than today. Their conclusion? It was CO2 that dunnit and we better watch out 'cause CO2 is gonna dunnit again...

New NSF paleo research claiming Arctic was warmer fails to take major ocean circulation changes 3 million years ago into account

However...

Any earth science student worth his/hers/its salt will know that 3 million years ago is about the time that the isthmus of Panama formed, blocking ocean currents between the Atlantic & Pacific. Ya s'pose anybody thought of the effect that small, insignificant, little change to ocean currents may have created, from the authors to the reviewers?


----------



## FeXL

Willis discusses an interesting interpretation of Levitus' ocean heat content data.

The Layers of Meaning in Levitus



> Now, my problem was that when I looked at graphs like Figures 1 & 2, I thought that the deepest layer was gaining heat the fastest. And there’s been a lot of discussion about how that could be, and much speculation about the reason for the big increase in the deeper layers from 2001 onwards.
> 
> But yesterday I thought hey, wait a minute … those layers of the ocean overlap! They are not separate layers, they all extend to the surface. So what we’re seeing in the deep 2000 metre level data is to some extent affected by what’s happening in the other levels. Yeah, I know, I should have seen it earlier, but I’m not gonna pretend.
> 
> The good news is that we’re measuring ocean heat content (OHC), so it’s very different from temperature. We can simply subtract the changes in the 700 metre level OHC from the 2000 metre level OHC changes, and what is left is the change in heat content for the layer from 700 metres down to 2000 metres.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

I post this next link not in support or skepticism of the paper's conclusion, but because a portion of one small paragraph jumped out at me.

Cirrus Cloud seeds identified – will help in climate knowledge



> *Contrary to what many lab experiments have found,* the team observed very little evidence of biological particles, such as bacteria or fungi, or black carbon emitted from automobiles and smokestacks.


Bold mine.

IMHO, far too much "science" is being conducted from a lab chair parked in front of a computer and not nearly enough from empirical measurements in the real world. Good on anybody who gets their butt out of that chair, away from the computer & actually measures something.

The next sentence in that paragraph notes that said data will then be used to make models more accurate. Great! At least they're using empirical evidence in the model. That lessens the chance of GIGO computing (garbage in, garbage out).


----------



## FeXL

On the accuracy of that GISS temperature record.

GISS Rapidly Diverging From RSS



> Climate experts tell us that GISS surface temperatures (based on 1200 km extrapolations) closely match satellite data. It takes about 90 seconds to demonstrate that they have no idea what they are talking about.


Two things to note from that graph:
1) The slope, whereby you can see the divergence is getting worse most recently;
2) Why are the adjustments almost always warming, rather than cooling? I see about 9 data points below, at or near 0. Everything else (dozens of points) is warming.

Questions, questions...


----------



## BigDL

IMO just a bunch of road apples. Horse puckies, if you will!


----------



## Macfury

Are your horse puckies peer reviewed?


----------



## FeXL

So, a while back there was a post noting that Trenberth had published a paper with "proof" that the deep ocean (700-2000m) had continued to warm. Finally had a chance to read the paper, as well as an analysis of the paper. Guess what...

XX)

Yup, modelled results. As a matter of fact, the results from one model being fed into another.

Why Reanalysis Data Isn’t …



> Well, what I was missing is that Trenberth et al. are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”. But as the title says, reanalysis “data” isn’t data in any sense of the word. It is the output of a computer climate model masquerading as data.


In addition, deep ocean temperature data prior to ARGO is sparse, scattered and generally unreliable. Therefore, any comparisons using data prior to ARGO (say, before about 2003) introduce a whole raft of questions. That is not a defence on either side of the argument, merely the unfortunate truth.

Further:



> In addition, in all cases where reanalysis model results are used, the exact same analysis should be done using the actual data. I have done this in Figure 3 above. Had Trenberth et al. presented that graph along with their results … well … if they’d done that, likely their paper would not have been published at all.
> 
> Which may or may not be related to why they didn’t present that comparative analysis, and to why they’re trying to claim that computer model results are “data” …


And, yes, it's a non-peer reviewed opinion. So refute it...


----------



## FeXL

Einstein : “If the data doesn’t match the theory, change the data”



> Phil Jones and NOAA said there was no warming in the US.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1999, Hansen said that he didn’t see any warming in the US.
> 
> ...
> 
> The measured data actually shows US temperatures cooling over the last 90 years, and that didn’t match the theory – so around the year 2000 NOAA and NASA simply changed the data.


----------



## MacDoc

related article



> *Hawaii to suffer most as global sea levels rise, study says
> *
> NASA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Hawaiian Islands, seen from space, are the most vulnerable to uneven global sea level rise due to melting glaciers and ice sheets.
> By John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News_
> 
> Melting ice in Greenland, Antarctica and elsewhere will push up seas unevenly around the world, according to a new study that finds some of the highest waters will inundate Honolulu, Hawaii.
> 
> At the poles, sea levels will actually fall because of the way sea, land and ice interact. For example, the sheer mass of water held in ice in Greenland and Antarctica generates a gravitational field that pulls in the surrounding water. As ice there melts, the gravitational pull weakens and the water is redistributed.
> 
> In addition, the melting ice on Antarctica and Greenland will lighten the load on the land beneath it, allowing the land to rebound up and the seafloor to drop a corresponding amount.
> 
> "Meaning that as the seafloor deepens, there is another component of sea-level fall, ironically, around these piles of ice," Charles Fletcher, a geologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, explained to NBC News.
> 
> Fletcher was not involved in the new study but is familiar with its findings, particularly the vulnerabilities of Hawaii — and, more broadly, tropical islands in the Pacific Ocean — to global sea-level rise.
> 
> *Modelling glacier wastage*
> The research was co-led by Giorgio Spada, a professor of Earth physics at the University of Urbino in Italy. It is "the first study to examine a regional pattern of sea-level changes using sophisticated model predictions of the wastage of glaciers and ice sheets over the next century," he told NBC News via email.
> 
> He and colleagues used the model to investigate sea level under two future scenarios of sea-level rise: a mid-range, likely-to-happen one and one closer to the upper limit of what’s plausible. Under both, maximum sea-level rise is expected at Honolulu, the researchers reported Feb. 13 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
> 
> In the mid-range scenario, worst-affected equatorial oceans could see as much as two feet of sea-level rise, when the fact that water expands as it warms is taken into account. Under the high end, the rate of sea-level change in Honolulu will exceed 0.3 inches a year during the second half of this century.
> 
> Sea-level rise will also be greater than average in Western Australia and throughout the atolls and islands in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In Europe, sea levels will rise, but will likely be lower than the global average given the continent’s proximity to Greenland and the dropping sea levels there.
> 
> *Incomplete picture*
> But the picture is far from complete, cautioned Fletcher.
> 
> "What this paper and other models have not been able to do because, ultimately, it is too chaotic, is to predict what the winds will be doing," he explained.
> 
> For example, enhanced trade winds associated with a phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are pushing the Pacific Ocean surface westward. As a result, annual sea-level rise in Hawaii is currently about half the global average rate of about 0.1 inch a year, while in the western Pacific the rate is more than 0.3 inch a year.
> 
> This may, or may not, change with the next phase of the oscillation, noted Fletcher, whose own research recently highlighted how groundwater beneath land rises with sea levels and could breach the surface, causing severe flooding in places such as Honolulu.
> 
> "Overall, the (new) paper is one more twig in the bundle of concerns that low-lying coastal cities, and especially Pacific islands, are highly vulnerable to this problem of sea-level rise," he said, adding that "these Pacific islands have contributed almost nothing to the problem of global warming."


----------



## FeXL

So, too lazy to post a link to the article? In that case, I'm too lazy to go looking for it.

Going by what you quoted, I see two things:
1) XX) Yup, modelled results. Not going to convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that means bugger all;
2) Absolutely no mention of CAGW, ACC or anything else as the cause. Why post here?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, too lazy to post a link to the article? In that case, I'm too lazy to go looking for it.
> 
> Going by what you quoted, I see two things:
> 1) XX) Yup, modelled results. Not going to convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that means bugger all;
> 2) Absolutely no mention of CAGW, ACC or anything else as the cause. Why post here?


Low lying coastal cities are always vulnerable to the sea. I don't need a model to tell me that.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Low lying coastal cities are always vulnerable to the sea. I don't need a model to tell me that.


That always makes it official, though...


----------



## BigDL

> So, too lazy to post a link to the article? In that case, I'm too lazy to go looking for it.
> 
> Going by what you quoted, I see two things:
> 1) Yup, modelled results. Not going to convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that means bugger all;
> 2) Absolutely no mention of CAGW, ACC or anything else as the cause. Why post here?





> Low lying coastal cities are always vulnerable to the sea. I don't need a model to tell me that.





> That always makes it official, though...


No good would come of telling some folks anything...why go to much effort...when their minds are closed already.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> No good would come of telling some folks anything...why go to much effort...when their minds are closed already.


What are you telling us that is different from what is already known?


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> No good would come of telling some folks anything...why go to much effort...when their minds are closed already.


It's not a matter of having a closed mind, it's a matter of fact. Show me some peer-reviewed science indicating models have attained something better than 7-21% accuracy. Worth repeating: I want models to be better. Unfortunately, they're not anywhere near prime time, despite all the screeching to the contrary. Until that happens, not much to talk about in the modelling dept.

Instead of just trolling, why not add something salient to the conversation? 

Do you have an opinion on the latest Trenberth paper? Do the results from his models bear any resemblance to the real world? What do you think about the way that thermometer records were grafted onto the proxy data in Marcott _et al_ (a la Michael Mann), when it wasn't so in his thesis? What about the type of data smoothing he used? How do you reconcile the adjustments made to the thermometer record, in that earlier temps have been moved downward and more recent ones upward, accounting for much of the claimed increase in global temps? Do you think that the older thermometers were calibrated hot & the new ones cold? Do you think that the Kaufman paper data was contaminated or not? Perhaps some other aspect related to global warming?

Here's your chance, discuss away. I'm all ears...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Here's your chance, discuss away. I'm all ears...


If you had any interest in an informed discussion, you wouldn't be posting on a mac-users internet forum. You'd be contacting trained scientists with the expertise to answer your questions, and you'd find out that you're questions are all either already addressed, or are being addressed by the people trained to do so.

But instead, you're spamming this forum with recycled blog posts from climate change denial propagandists and loudly proclaiming your superiority over the professionals in the feild. 

In all seriousness, don't you have anything better to do?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If you had any interest in an informed discussion, you wouldn't be posting on a mac-users internet forum. You'd be contacting trained scientists with the expertise to answer your questions, and you'd find out that you're questions are all either already addressed, or are being addressed by the people trained to do so.
> 
> But instead, you're spamming this forum with recycled blog posts from climate change denial propagandists and loudly proclaiming your superiority over the professionals in the feild.
> 
> In all seriousness, don't you have anything better to do?


Why are you mounting these personal attacks?


----------



## bryanc

It's not a personal attack, it's a genuine question; FeXL persists in posting these ludicrous attacks on highly technical research here where no one has the expertise to discuss the topic in a rational informed manner, and proclaiming that the practitioners of this field are inept and/or dishonest. Why would anyone do this? If someone had what they felt were legitimate and serious questions regarding the research done by astrophysicists, would it make sense to post it here? If I thought my colleagues in molecular biology research were faking their results, would it makes sense for me to post hundreds of rants about qPCR data, epitope predictions, and western blot results here?

Of course it wouldn't. If you think scientists are faking their data, take your claims to the granting agencies, journal editors, and other experts with the knowledge to rationally consider the data. Obviously this has already been done (many times) with respect to climate research, and the experts have concluded that the data supports the claims of the researchers, otherwise the journals would've published a retraction (as they have been forced to do on many occasions - usually as the result of honest mistakes, but sometimes as the result of genuine fraud). This is a field that is the focus of a lot of public attention, so it is far more rigorously scrutinized than most. But if FeXL thinks he, or rather the bloggers he's constantly reposting here, know better than the researchers they're criticizing, he's welcome to take it to someone who's able to consider his case.

But there's no one here who can. Thus, he's wasting his time. Hence my question; has he got nothing better to do?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ... you're spamming this forum with recycled blog posts...


<snort> Kinda sorta an awful lot like you recycle consensus, no? 



bryanc said:


> loudly proclaiming your superiority over the professionals in the field.


Fixed your spelling mistake for you. "I" before "E", remember?

I've never proclaimed any kind of superiority. I've never claimed exclusive knowledge. I do have some knowledge & background in earth sciences, math and computing science, enough to be able to understand at least some (if not much) of the related concepts and to sometimes be able to formulate a question or two. As a matter of fact, more than once I've noted that most of what I have is questions.

Going from your last diatribe, and this response, you seem to imply that I'm some sort of school yard bully for reading, learning and then asking questions on ehMac instead of some warmist approved <spit> blog. Why aren't you levelling the same sort of BS criticism to participants in the Religious thread? How many of them correspond daily with the pope? What about the Canadian Politics thread? Have you suggested to anyone there that maybe they should contact PMSH in order to get their facts straight? The same with the American Political thread. Told anybody there that Jug Ears needs to hear from them on a regular basis? Weak, weak, weak, bryanc.

Big DL posted his/her/its dig & left without contributing one whit to the conversation at hand. If he/she/it is big enough to go trolling, then he/she/it is big enough to contribute to the topic. I think that is civil enough to ask for. One thing I'm sure few missed is the irony of the statement "when their minds are closed already.". HA! Nobody on these boards is as closed minded on this thread topic as you & MacDoc. I noted the absence of the link, not the sort of behaviour you'd expect from someone who wasn't interested in following up on the topic.

Speaking of which, you claim to be open to discussion on the topic. Perhaps you would like to begin by addressing a couple of the topics I suggested to BigDL? You, too, bryanc, are always quick to criticize but seldom to contribute.



bryanc said:


> In all seriousness, don't you have anything better to do?


I do, but I don't generally get into my first beer before 10AM.

Seriously, can't you contribute anything more to the thread than criticism of others? It really makes you look like you got nuttin'. 

'Sides, if you really don't like what's going on here, why continue to return?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I've never proclaimed any kind of superiority. I've never claimed exclusive knowledge. I do have some knowledge & background in earth sciences, math and computing science, enough to be able to understand at least some (if not much) of the related concepts and to sometimes be able to formulate a question or two. As a matter of fact, more than once I've noted that most of what I have is questions.


And as I keep saying, the problem is not the questions, it's where you're asking them. No one here is going to be able to address them, and you know that very well. So why do you keep posting them here?



> Going from your last diatribe, and this response, you seem to imply that I'm some sort of school yard bully for reading, learning and then asking questions on ehMac instead of some warmist approved <spit> blog.


I don't think there is any such thing as a 'warmist' blog, but that's not even remotely relevant to what I said. I said ask real scientists; not boggers.



> Why aren't you levelling the same sort of BS criticism to participants in the Religious thread?


Because no one is claiming they know theology better than people with Ph.D.s in theology. As for what people believe, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and their reasons for their beliefs. You are certainly free to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or the global conspiracy of climate scientists if you like. You just aren't entitled to say you have factual evidence of either. 



> What about the Canadian Politics thread? Have you suggested to anyone there that maybe they should contact PMSH in order to get their facts straight?


Plenty of people get called out on not having their facts straight in any of the politics threads. But unlike esoteric scientific specialties, the relevant facts are available from newspapers and other general information sites, and the analysis of the facts does not required advanced training in specialized fields. (I've always objected to calling the study of politics "political science" as there's no science involved...).



> Nobody on these boards is as closed minded on this thread topic as you & MacDoc.


I won't speak for others, but I'm entirely open minded on this an any other subject. If ACC is wrong, I expect to hear about it from qualified professionals in the field, and I will accept their expert opinion, as I personally lack the expertise in the field to argue with them.



> Speaking of which, you claim to be open to discussion on the topic. Perhaps you would like to begin by addressing a couple of the topics I suggested to BigDL? You, too, bryanc, are always quick to criticize but seldom to contribute.


As I've said over and over, I, like you, lack the relevant expertise to address the questions you raise. If you're genuinely interested in learning something, contact genuine experts in the field. Don't post questions about climate research in a mac-users form and expect sophisticated discussion.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> FeXL persists in posting these ludicrous attacks on highly technical research...


Ooooo, "highly technical". Is that warmist code for "you're too stupid to understand"? How do you know that anything about what I post is ludicrous? Who are you to judge? Where are your climate science credentials?



bryanc said:


> ...proclaiming that the practitioners of this field are inept and/or dishonest. Why would anyone do this?


Some are either or both. Only a person in deep denial (oh, the iron...) can't see this. The most egregious example of this is the continued, nearly undocumented, adjustments to the global temperature record. As to why? That most basic of reasons: cash. Period. No global warming hysteria, no further grants, no paid speaking engagements, nothing.



bryanc said:


> If someone had what they felt were legitimate and serious questions regarding the research done by astrophysicists, would it make sense to post it here?


Ooooo, astrophysicists. Salute! Most of what I post here has already been asked elsewhere, job done in many cases. Why do I repeat it? Why, bryanc, I have that most noble of causes: to inform the visitors at this thread.




bryanc said:


> If you think scientists are faking their data, take your claims to the granting agencies, journal editors, and other experts with the knowledge to rationally consider the data.


Happening every day, by others. As someone who claims to have knowledge of how the system works, you never responded to the link I posted a while back on just how difficult it is to get a retraction on a published paper, first of all, at all, and secondly, in any kind of timely fashion.



bryanc said:


> This is a field that is the focus of a lot of public attention, so it is far more rigorously scrutinized than most.


What a timely coincidence... I just happen to have a link to a commenter who talks about peer reviewing in _Nature_ & _Science_.



> When I review for Nature (not climate science), *I find about half of the reviewers (we get to see all the reviews) do a superficial review. When this happens, they are typically reviewing how ‘significant’ the work is, not how scientifically sound it is. Interestingly, the journals a step down from Science and Nature have on average much more rigorous and consistent reviews.*


Bold mine.

It is observations like this that make me question the hell out of _everything_ in "climate science", especially from the "consensus"...



bryanc said:


> But if FeXL thinks he, or rather the bloggers he's constantly reposting here, know better than the researchers they're criticizing, he's welcome to take it to someone who's able to consider his case.


Asked & answered above. However, I will add this codicil: there are people with far more knowledge than me who are doing it. And, I will add, getting results.



bryanc said:


> Thus, he's wasting his time.


You think I'm wasting my time. I think I'm getting a return in spades...


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Don't post questions about climate research in a mac-users form and expect sophisticated discussion.


Oh, trust me, I don't...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.


Still waiting for spring in Minnesota



> Minnesota, like much of the country (as reported at WUWT here) is currently undergoing its own ‘little ice age’ with record late season snows (18″ in southeastern MN a week ago) and cold, and near record ice out dates on the State’s lakes. Lakes in the southern third of the State saw ice outs approaching new records and many lakes in the northern half of the state are still ice covered today.


And, from the "Canary In The Coal Mine":

Alaska Endures Record Cold While Still Buried Under Snow



> The central and eastern United States are not the only areas experiencing a colder-than-average spring. Alaska is also hanging on to winter's chill and snow.
> 
> The five-week period from April 3 to May 7 was the coldest in 109 years of record keeping at Fairbanks, Alaska, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).
> 
> Temperatures during this period averaged only 19.9 degrees and broke the old record for the same stretch of days set in 1924.
> 
> According to Expert Senior Meteorologist Joe Lundberg, "Fairbanks has not had a day above 50 degrees since Oct. 4, 2012."


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature record adjustments. Any guesses which way they went? /sarc.

Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 Temperature Data Sets Adjusted/Corrected/Updated… Can You Guess The Impact?

Man, those thermometers must have been horrible sixteen (!) years ago...



> While the magnitude of the changes is not that large, many of the adjustments/corrections...are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Ooooo, "highly technical". Is that warmist code for "you're too stupid to understand"? How do you know that anything about what I post is ludicrous? Who are you to judge? Where are your climate science credentials?


This is exactly my point. I don't have any credentials and neither do you. That's why it's ludicrous. You post stuff here that no one here can possibly comment on rationally, and then act like you've proven something. It was comical for a while, but it's beyond stale now.



> Most of what I post here has already been asked elsewhere, job done in many cases. Why do I repeat it? Why, bryanc, I have that most noble of causes: to inform the visitors at this thread.


Because people here aren't able to find climate change denial blogs, so you have to re-post everything here?



> As someone who claims to have knowledge of how the system works, you never responded to the link I posted a while back on just how difficult it is to get a retraction on a published paper, first of all, at all, and secondly, in any kind of timely fashion.


As someone who does know how the system works, I do know that when published science is refuted, the refutations get published, regardless of wether the original work is retracted. Eventually, most of what is published is overturned by subsequent work; that's called scientific progress.

I'm sure, with your obsessive focus on the topic, you'll be among the first to hear if there is any significant doubt about ACC, as it will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, and then loudly pointed to as vindication by the climate change deniers. It just hasn't happened. Until it does, your incessant posting about how the end-is-nigh for ACC is just tedious.

If you actually want to have a serious discussion about the science of climate change, I've already posted a link to the Observatory forum at Ars Technica, where there are people who actually know something about this topic who will probably be able to address your questions. Who knows, maybe you're right and all the scientists are wrong. But you're not going to prove anything by recycling blog posts here.


----------



## FeXL

And just in case you like your scepticism served up with a bit of snark...

Antarctic Sea Ice To Cover The Planet By November, 3054



> The Antarctic sea ice area anomaly has been growing at a rate of 330,000 km² per year, and has been above normal for 534 days in a row. Using the standard and best statistical techniques of peer-reviewed climate science, we can conclude that all of Earth’s oceans will be covered with Antarctic sea ice by November, 3054.


Further on "Settled Science"...

California Scientists Couldn’t Believe That The Continents Move



What d'ya suppose caused that...

Past The Tipping Point : Antarctica Has Cooled 75C Over The Last Fifty Million Years


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> blah, blah, blah...


As is usual, and yet again, you're putting words in my mouth. Show me once, anywhere, in three GHG threads, where I've denied the existence of ACC. 

Put up or shut up.

As a matter of fact, if your obviously very short & selective memory does not recall, I even agreed with you on ACC.

Back then you noted that you recalled somewhere that mans effect on the climate was somewhere between 3% and 30%. This ringing any bells? You also noted that you would try to find the reference. Weeks have gone by & nothing. 

Again, big surprise.

As I noted in my reply at the time, in the last hundred years (far longer than anthropogenic CO2 has had a measurable effect, so this is to the benefit of your side of the argument), we've had about 3/4 of a degree C of global temperature increase and that 3% of that was "Twenty two one-thousandths of a degree, 0.022". I asked you then if you thought that all the money spent on global warming could not have been spent better elsewhere.

Here's the post.

Not only did you not respond to the ludicrously small measurement of 0.022 degrees (no surprise) which is mathematically correct, even without a peer-reviewed paper but you have not produced said papers.

You carp on & on about how there is nothing in this thread except links to blog posts. Yet, when you are engaged you suddenly find something else to take up your time instead of responding, perhaps hoping that the "problem" will just go away. Then when you finally do respond, you put words in others people's mouths. Very disingenuous and, frankly disappointing from a "scientist".

Tell ya what, I'll rehash. This is basic math, no climatology degree required. You noted 3%-30% as the range of effect. If CO2 is the only driver of climate (which even you have noted is not true) and if man is, in fact, responsible for a full 30% of the warming in the last hundred years (again, giving you the benefit of the doubt for the untraceable effects of anthropogenic CO2 prior to about 1955), 30% of 0.74 degrees is 0.22 degrees (again measured over the period of a century) in a very, very generous interpretation of the numbers.

Now I'm going to conduct the stingy math, eliminating the generous interpretations. Global temperature increase since 1955 is about 0.55 degrees, depending on the record of choice. Let's assume that CO2 is responsible for 25% of the warming, although there is much peer-reviewed literature suggesting far less than that (single digits). I'll do two calculations, best case/worst case

Best case: ACC=0.55 degrees warming * 25% net CO2 effect * 3% = 0.004 degrees warming due to ACC.

Worst case: ACC=0.55 degrees warming * 25% net CO2 effect * 30% = 0.041 degrees warming due to ACC.

Again, I ask, is this number even measurable on the global temperature record, at any scale?
Is all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on global warming worth a very questionable 0.004 to 0.041 degree "savings"? 
All this based on a science that, by all definitions, is still in its infancy?


----------



## BigDL

MacDoc said:


> related article





FeXL said:


> So, too lazy to post a link to the article? In that case, I'm too lazy to go looking for it.
> 
> Going by what you quoted, I see two things:
> 1) XX) Yup, modelled results. Not going to convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that means bugger all;
> 2) Absolutely no mention of CAGW, ACC or anything else as the cause. Why post here?





Macfury said:


> Low lying coastal cities are always vulnerable to the sea. I don't need a model to tell me that.





BigDL said:


> No good would come of telling some folks anything...why go to much effort...when their minds are closed already.





FeXL said:


> That always makes it official, though...





FeXL said:


> It's not a matter of having a closed mind, it's a matter of fact. Show me some peer-reviewed science indicating models have attained something better than 7-21% accuracy. Worth repeating: I want models to be better. Unfortunately, they're not anywhere near prime time, despite all the screeching to the contrary. Until that happens, not much to talk about in the modelling dept.
> 
> Instead of just trolling, why not add something salient to the conversation?
> 
> Do you have an opinion on the latest Trenberth paper? Do the results from his models bear any resemblance to the real world? What do you think about the way that thermometer records were grafted onto the proxy data in Marcott _et al_ (a la Michael Mann), when it wasn't so in his thesis? What about the type of data smoothing he used? How do you reconcile the adjustments made to the thermometer record, in that earlier temps have been moved downward and more recent ones upward, accounting for much of the claimed increase in global temps? Do you think that the older thermometers were calibrated hot & the new ones cold? Do you think that the Kaufman paper data was contaminated or not? Perhaps some other aspect related to global warming?
> 
> Here's your chance, discuss away. I'm all ears...


Well let's review for a little minute here.

MacDoc post an article regarding potential effects of sea level rise. The posted article speaks for itself and on its own and is very clear. 

Fexl demands a link or a link won't be searched for. Macfury adds little to the conversation. Fexl replies with irony or sarcasm. Your call dear reader.

Fexl then claims no (airquotes)CAGW(/airquotes) (airquotes) jargon(/airquotes) with regard to the article. 

Are we are to infer no mention of (climate change) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? (Remember this tidbit for a little bit.)

I offer a truth that being; some people will not change their minds no matter the effort put into an argument (air quotes)even with links(/airquotes) or the correctness of a well reasoned argument. 

My above statement applies to all him, her, them, they, me or you dear reader.

When confronted, square in the face, with a truth, I am accused of trolling by of all folks, Fexl! 

I am thinking here (as a non qualified amateur jr. psychologist) that Fexl recognizes his own trolling tendencies and projected that undesirable (trolling) quality onto me.

I know Fexl will only accept links so here you go Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now to further dismiss me I am confronted with (airquotes)jargon,(/airquotes) this (air quotes)jargon(/airquotes) shall demonstrate Fexl's superiority on the subject. 

Well if you remember Fexl's dismissal of MacDoc's post and it's relevance to (airquotes)CAGW(/airquotes) ("are we are to infer Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming") then along with (polar) glacier melting, sea level rise was mention as the most catastrophic effect of "Global Warming" and later called "Climate Change" caused by the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.

This information has been we'll reported since the last quarter of the last century of the last millennium. Why would an expert even a self proclaimed expert need a link?

People that link to strongly held opinions that re-enforce someones strongly held opinions are just that: opinions and nothing more than opinions. 

Opinions are not facts dear reader. 

Repeating opinions doesn't make opinions facts, turn opinions into propaganda then you might be readily accepted by a population but the propaganda is not a fact, it's still in the realm of opinion! (An opinion that is widely held though.)

If opinions are presented as facts then I am free to express my opinion that the thesis is BS IMO. (in my opinion...no link required)


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> our call dear reader.


No... YOUR call.


----------



## FeXL

I've read it four times. I still have no idea what the hell was said or what the point was. Perhaps some dear reader can interpret for me...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I've read it four times. I still have no idea what the hell was said or what the point was. Perhaps some dear reader can interpret for me...


My mileage does not vary.


----------



## bryanc

I agree, that's a fairly incomprehensible stream of data; perhaps we should make a model?


----------



## Birdwatcher

FeXL said:


> I've read it four times. I still have no idea what the hell was said or what the point was. Perhaps some dear reader can interpret for me...


I can't believe anyone thought that was even close to being a well thought out post. It is a rambling, disjointed steaming pile and little more. 

Incidentally, unlike some others, I am enjoying the questions being raised here. One should never assume because you're an expert (or them), you're (they're) right. History has proven that wrong time and again.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I agree, that's a fairly incomprehensible stream of data; perhaps we should make a model?


If a model can make sense of that, then they're doing better than they are with the climate...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> I've read it four times. I still have no idea what the hell was said or what the point was. Perhaps some dear reader can interpret for me...


I only tried twice. I was a little afraid I might scramble otherwise usable brain cells if I made any serious attempt to glean any useful or relevant information from it.


----------



## FeXL

Birdwatcher said:


> Incidentally, unlike some others, I am enjoying the questions being raised here. One should never assume because you're an expert (or them), you're (they're) right. History has proven that wrong time and again.


Thank you. There are people who come here to do just that, rather than just show up for the freak show...


----------



## bryanc

Birdwatcher said:


> One should never assume because you're an expert (or them), you're (they're) right.


Fair enough. But until you've spent the time learning the field, it's even more unwise to assume that your naive interpretation of what is reported in blogs (or even in the primary literature) is valid. If you're curious about scientific findings, ask the scientists, not the bloggers with political agendas.


----------



## eMacMan

Further on the Continental Drift consensus. 

Back in the days when the oil industry paid my rent and filled my cupboards I worked with several Geologists who were educated in the late 40s, 50s and even early 60s. All were taught that that CD was a bone head theory that defied the consensus of serious scientists. Even so by the mid 60s, these same Geologists, had wholeheartedly embraced the (not so) new theory. By the late 60s it was being taught as a possible alternative and by the end of the 70s was the approved by consensus theory.

Consensus is just that. Far too many simply take what they are taught as a valid foundation. True science involves looking at those foundations through ones own eyes.


----------



## Birdwatcher

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. But until you've spent the time learning the field, it's even more unwise to assume that your naive interpretation of what is reported in blogs (or even in the primary literature) is valid. If you're curious about scientific findings, ask the scientists, not the bloggers with political agendas.


So let me guess, I should ask the 'scientists' who also have political agendas, and the research grants to go with them, right?


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Further on the Continental Drift consensus.
> 
> Back in the days when the oil industry paid my rent and filled my cupboards I worked with several Geologists who were educated in the late 40s, 50s and even early 60s. All were taught that that CD was a bone head theory that defied the consensus of serious scientists. Even so by the mid 60s, these same Geologists, had wholeheartedly embraced the (not so) new theory. By the late 60s it was being taught as a possible alternative and by the end of the 70s was the approved by consensus theory.
> 
> Consensus is just that. Far too many simply take what they are taught as a valid foundation. True science involves looking at those foundations through ones own eyes.


Exactly. As the data becomes compelling, theory changes to fit the data. That's how science works. Prior to the 1970's, there was no reason to think that human activity could significantly affect the climate, and it took decades of accumulating data to result in the current consensus that we are, in fact changing the climate (hence, ACC).

Something is not true because there is a consensus. But as a lay person, when confronted with a consensus of scientists working in that field, you'd be daft to question it... not because they can't be wrong, but because you aren't equipped to determine if they are.


----------



## bryanc

Birdwatcher said:


> So let me guess, I should ask the 'scientists' who also have political agendas, and the research grants to go with them, right?


So you think thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries around the world are involved in a conspiracy? And if they were, that this conspiracy would be *against* the oil companies who've been throwing money at anyone who can discredit ACC?


----------



## Birdwatcher

bryanc said:


> So you think thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries around the world are involved in a conspiracy? And if they were, that this conspiracy would be *against* the oil companies who've been throwing money at anyone who can discredit ACC?


No, read my post again. I did not mention anything about conspiracies. Do you deny that 'scientists' too have agendas and are careful to stay within the guidelines of those agendas to keep the grant money flowing? And that the grant money would not likely be from oil companies? My, but we are paranoid.


----------



## iMouse

Looks like you have a new antagonist to satiate. 

Good luck, and keep up the good fight against garbage science.


----------



## MacDoc

I like the way he ignores Koch and Exxon crap pseudo science ala Lord Monckton - same old crap from the denier cadre and increasingly laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GVHqlnPAc

what do you want to bet he hasn't and won't watch this....might be embarrassing

Meanwhile....

The heat goes on...



> *Scientists Find Extensive Glacial Retreat in Mount Everest Region*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members of the team conducting these studies will present their findings on May 14 at the Meeting of the Americas in Cancun, Mexico -- a scientific conference organized and co-sponsored by the American Geophysical Union.
> 
> Glaciers in the Mount Everest region have shrunk by 13 percent in the last 50 years and the snowline has shifted upward by 180 meters (590 feet), according to Sudeep Thakuri, who is leading the research as part of his PhD graduate studies at the University of Milan in Italy.
> 
> Glaciers smaller than one square kilometer are disappearing the fastest and have experienced a 43 percent decrease in surface area since the 1960s. Because the glaciers are melting faster than they are replenished by ice and snow, they are revealing rocks and debris that were previously hidden deep under the ice. These debris-covered sections of the glaciers have increased by about 17 percent since the 1960s, according to Thakuri. The ends of the glaciers have also retreated by an average of 400 meters since 1962, his team found.
> 
> The researchers suspect that the decline of snow and ice in the Everest region is from human-generated greenhouse gases altering global climate. However, they have not yet established a firm connection between the mountains' changes and climate change, Thakuri said.
> 
> He and his team determined the extent of glacial change on Everest and the surrounding 1,148 square kilometer (713 square mile) Sagarmatha National Park by compiling satellite imagery and topographic maps and reconstructing the glacial history. Their statistical analysis shows that the majority of the glaciers in the national park are retreating at an increasing rate, Thakuri said.
> 
> To evaluate the temperature and precipitation patterns in the area, Thakuri and his colleagues have been analyzing hydro-meteorological data from the Nepal Climate Observatory stations and Nepal's Department of Hydrology and Meteorology. The researchers found that the Everest region has undergone a 0.6 degree Celsius (1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in temperature and 100 millimeter (3.9 inches) decrease in precipitation during the pre-monsoon and winter months since 1992.
> 
> In subsequent research, Thakuri plans on exploring the climate-glacier relationship further with the aim of integrating the glaciological, hydrological and climatic data to understand the behavior of the hydrological cycle and future water availability.
> 
> "The Himalayan glaciers and ice caps are considered a water tower for Asia since they store and supply water downstream during the dry season," said Thakuri. "Downstream populations are dependent on the melt water for agriculture, drinking, and power production."


Scientists find extensive glacial retreat in Mount Everest region


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile....
> 
> The heat goes on...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists find extensive glacial retreat in Mount Everest region


Here's the money:



> The researchers suspect that the decline of snow and ice in the Everest region is from human-generated greenhouse gases altering global climate. _However, they have not yet established a firm connection between the mountains' changes and climate change,_ Thakuri said.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. But until you've spent the time learning the field, it's even more unwise to assume that your naive interpretation of what is reported in blogs (or even in the primary literature) is valid. If you're curious about scientific findings, ask the scientists, not the bloggers with political agendas.


If you want to know about religion, ask priests and ministers.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. But until you've spent the time learning the field, it's even more unwise to assume that your naive interpretation of what is reported in blogs (or even in the primary literature) is valid. If you're curious about scientific findings, ask the scientists, not the bloggers with political agendas.


Birdwatcher, I just want you to know that I would never insult your intelligence by telling you what you should and shouldn't read.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> ...the bloggers with political agendas.


So, you've been here a while bryanc, posted on all three GHG threads, clicked a few links. In addition, you've brought up the above point a number of times.

Perhaps you could identify, say, 5 bloggers by name and give a quick one or two sentence summary of what their respective political agendas are.

I'll add that the lengthening list of questions in your court. Your play...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Here's the money:


Ya know, looking at the article, the quote & that big red ad in his signature, I think he just got (wait for it...):

*Spring Cleaned!!!*

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hic...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> I like the way he ignores Koch and Exxon crap pseudo science ala Lord Monckton - same old crap from the denier cadre and increasingly laughable.
> 
> what do you want to bet he hasn't and won't watch this....might be embarrassing


It _was_ embarrassing. I was looking for something new, but this is the same old global warming pap packaged with ominous music. Many of the "facts" are now old news, replaced with new, observable realities that don't support warmism.

I did feel uplifted by the program's conclusion: that the warmists and their dogma have essentially been neutered in America. However, it must certainly have depressed you, especially in light of the collapse of support for climate change "action" in Europe.


----------



## bryanc

Birdwatcher said:


> Do you deny that 'scientists' too have agendas and are careful to stay within the guidelines of those agendas to keep the grant money flowing?


Why the quotes around 'scientists'? Some of them may have political agendas, and a few of those agendas may even be similar. But reality does not have an agenda; it is the way it is, and the purpose of the scientific method is to test ideas against realities. So it doesn't really matter how we want the data to turn out; objective reality is the only arbiter of what is true. The tree rings have the profiles they have, the oxygen isotopes in ice cores are what they are, the chronomid mouth parts found in lake bottom sediments are of a certain distribution, plants flower when they flower, birds migrate when they migrate and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what it is. These are aspects of objective reality. 

Scientists observe these aspects of objective reality and try to build theories that explain the observable phenomenon within a mechanistic framework. These data are currently best explained within the framework of Anthorpogenic Climate Change, which is why essentially all credible climate researchers accept ACC as their working paradigm.



> And that the grant money would not likely be from oil companies?


Oil companies, like tobacco companies and CFC-producers in the past are pouring as much money as they can into a global PR campaign to discredit the science and individual scientists involved in the research that links their products to a global problem. We've seen this many times before, and we'll see it again in the future. When science casts a poor light on Industry, Industry fights it (and who can blame them; they're making trillions of dollars, and the science is threatening their bottom line).

Given the very modest incomes scientists who don't work for industry make (it's worth noting that our salaries are not derived from our grant money; I get paid the same regardless of what I publish or what grants I bring in), I have no doubt that the big money Industry can offer has and will continue to entice a number of ostensibly credible scientists into their PR machine, but surprisingly few have flipped. I take this as further evidence that the data is just too compelling to be able to deny with a straight face.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So it doesn't really matter how we want the data to turn out; objective reality is the only arbiter of what is true. The tree rings have the profiles they have...


So if you don't like the data from one set of tree rings, find new trees! (Recalling the infamous tree ring proxy debacle). I'll have to look up the reference, but I recall finding it very funny that since tree-ring proxies failed to provide data consistent with real-world observations of the last 50 years, some researchers began to claim that the problem was with the trees themselves, not their proxy protocol.



bryanc said:


> ...the oxygen isotopes in ice cores are what they are, the chronomid mouth parts found in lake bottom sediments are of a certain distribution, plants flower when they flower, birds migrate when they migrate and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is what it is. These are aspects of objective reality.


Sure. But the conclusions derived from these observations are not the same thing as the data itself. These cannot be conflated.



bryanc said:


> These data are currently best explained within the framework of Anthorpogenic Climate Change, which is why essentially all credible climate researchers accept ACC as their working paradigm.


Current conditions are "best" explained by natural variability.



bryanc said:


> We've seen this many times before, and we'll see it again in the future. When science casts a poor light on Industry, Industry fights it (and who can blame them; they're making trillions of dollars, and the science is threatening their bottom line).


Science doesn't threaten them at all. However, drawing false conclusions from "science" is a threat to everyone.



bryanc said:


> Given the very modest incomes scientists who don't work for industry make (it's worth noting that our salaries are not derived from our grant money; I get paid the same regardless of what I publish or what grants I bring in), I have no doubt that the big money Industry can offer has and will continue to entice a number of ostensibly credible scientists into their PR machine, but surprisingly few have flipped. I take this as further evidence that the data is just too compelling to be able to deny with a straight face.


They haven't flipped because nobody is offering them money to flip.


----------



## FeXL

Good, if lengthy, post on SST's.

Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions



> This post presents the multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic, the North Pacific and in the Southern Hemisphere. It presents those multidecadal variations using the three primary sea surface temperature reconstructions—NOAA’s ERSST.v3b, and the UKMO Hadley Centre’s HADISST and HADSST3 datasets—to highlight the subtle differences in the timings and magnitudes of those variations. Last, this post reminds the reader that *the long-term sea surface temperature dataset are reconstructions and that they differ quite drastically from the source data.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

German authors of _Die Kalte Sonne_ (_The Cold Sun_) address 3 papers that show far less CO2 sensitivity than TIPCC™.

Professors Vahrenholt & Lüning: Three new papers that reject IPCC disaster scenarios 



> However, only one thing had been overlooked in the whole euphoria - that there may be natural factors that have contributed to this warming: The sun peaked in the 1980's-1990's at one of the strongest intensities of the last 10,000 years. And the 60-year [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] ocean cycle was moving at this time in the warm phase. *A historic science mistake took its course ...*


Bold mine.

This is the error, the misinterpretation of the data, that I talk about.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Current conditions are "best" explained by natural variability.


...said the non-scientist with no expertise in the field. This is my point. You're entitled to your opinion. It just isn't worth anything outside of your fields of expertise.

This is why I don't offer my opinion on the validity of specific examples of climatological research; it's not my field, so my opinion isn't worth anything.

I am a scientist, so my opinion on the consensus of climatologists might be worth something. That's your call.


----------



## FeXL

h/t to Gavin, over at Real Climate. <snort>

Real Climate : Sea Level Rise Rate Has Dropped Since The 19th Century



> Real Climate published this sea level plot – to prove global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> So I went to their data source, and plotted the 19th century trend on top of the data set. As you can see, sea level rise has slowed considerably since the 19th century.
> 
> ...
> 
> During the 19th century, sea level rose at 2.3 mm/year. The post 1900 trend is 1.9 mm/year.
> 
> Real Climate has boldly proven that sea level rise has slowed by almost 20% since the 19th century.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is why I don't offer my opinion on the validity of specific examples of climatological research; it's not my field, so my opinion isn't worth anything.


Yes, we know. Will you please stop telling us that?


----------



## bryanc

Despite the repetition, you persist in demonstrating that you have not comprehended the principle. By stating your opinions on these highly technical issues as if they were fact, with no caveat regarding your lack of expertise on the topic, you demonstrate that you don't understand this principle: in science, not all opinions are equal.


----------



## Birdwatcher

bryanc said:


> in science, not all opinions are equal.


Quite unlike ehMac where as I understand it, all opinions are equal, despite your claims to the contrary.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Despite the repetition, you persist in demonstrating that you have not comprehended the principle. By stating your opinions on these highly technical issues as if they were fact, with no caveat regarding your lack of expertise on the topic, you demonstrate that you don't understand this principle: in science, not all opinions are equal.


In fact, I appear to be better able to comprehend the issues than you do.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> This is why I don't offer my opinion on the validity of specific examples of climatological research; it's not my field, so my opinion isn't worth anything.


You do, however, back up your accusations, don't you? Like your oft repeated "politically motivated bloggers" stance? What bloggers? What is their political agenda?

Put up or shut up, bryanc. Back it up or stop using the phrase. Is that an unfair request? Here's your chance to not sound and appear exactly like one of the other usual suspects here, whose hollow arguments, baseless accusations and bluster have long been put in their place.

While you're at it, don't be afraid to respond to the hundreds of billions of dollars vs an unmeasurable 22 one-thousandths of a degree of global warming question. Or is that just a little too close to home, that barb just a little too pointed to handle?

Perhaps my math is wrong, please feel free to go over it & correct if necessary.

You want discussion on the topic, here it is. No links to "politically motivated" blogs. Just plain, old-fashioned, numbers & words, facts & figures.

<crickets>

The hot air in that balloon dumps pretty quickly, don't it... beejacon


----------



## Macfury

All you're going to get is reaffirmation of his faith in the priest clan of scientists who each review each other's work and approve of it, in a tidy closed loop. Stay tuned... they'll tell you when it's time to believe something else.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Put up or shut up, bryanc. Back it up or stop using the phrase.


Here, let me google that for ya...

Here's the first of 48,500,000 results...



The Gardian said:


> Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.


----------



## bryanc

Birdwatcher said:


> Quite unlike ehMac where as I understand it, all opinions are equal, despite your claims to the contrary.


Where have I claimed otherwise? My point has been, and remains, that the troglodyte et al. are entirely welcome to their opinions. But until they get them published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, they're of no relevance to the discussion.


----------



## Birdwatcher

Of course, anyone can play that game.


----------



## bryanc

Indeed, and a few things become immediately apparent when you do. Firstly, you get far fewer hits (less than 1/10th), and more importantly, most of those hits are articles in news papers reporting that climate scientists are being_ falsely_ accused of manipulating data, and have been repeatedly vindicated by independent investigations of these claims.

For example, from the first hit on that list:


Wikipedia said:


> Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding *no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.*


(my bold)


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Indeed, and a few things become immediately apparent when you do. Firstly, you get far fewer hits (less than 1/10th), and more importantly, most of those hits are articles in news papers reporting that climate scientists are being_ falsely_ accused of manipulating data, and have been repeatedly vindicated by independent investigations of these claims.


Yes, I recall the thoroughness of those investigations--which often did not even include speaking to the people accused of malfeasance.


----------



## eMacMan

Let's be really blunt here. The oil companies could not care less if the price of their product is inflated. Selling less product at a higher price will not in the least squeeze their profits.

The big money in GWW (Global Warming Worship) is in the Carbon Credit Racket and Carbon Tax Scam. Have those who will benefit from either put pressure on scientists to support AGW, of course they have. When we are talking $Trillion$ it would be unforgivably naive to believe otherwise.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Let's be really blunt here. The oil companies could not care less if the price of their product is inflated. Selling less product at a higher price will not in the least squeeze their profits.


Agreed. If there's any concern among some companies, it's simply that the non-issue of global warming will put an unnecessary damper on the overall economy. They may fund information outreach programs not because they agree with AGW and want to discredit it, but because they don't believe in it.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Here, let me google that for ya...
> 
> Here's the first of 48,500,000 results...


That answers nothing and is exactly the kind of response MacDoc has offered in the past. You're in great company there. Just the sort of blanketed, all-encompassing, non-response I'd expect from other warmists on this thread. Nice try. I guess I expected more from a scientist. 

You want people to engage you, to discuss the issues and, when they do (and only after dogging you for a response) that's the kind of garbage you come up with? You accuse me of denying the existence of ACC, yet only two weeks ago I openly agreed with it on this very thread (and that's only the most recent occurrence).

Your credibility is taking hit after hit here, bryanc. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. However, if you want your opinion to be regarded as anything more than bitter, disgruntled trash talk, you may want to re-examine the direction that is taking.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> You want people to engage you, to discuss the issue


I don't want to engage in any discussions of climate change research, as that's not my field. I persist in point out that no one with any knowledge of the science is posting in this tread, despite it's name, so that any naive passers by don't mistake anything you, or anyone else, posts here as being in any way authoritative.

My participation here serves entirely to keep your postings in perspective; i.e., that yours are the postings of an uninformed layman who disputes the consensus of thousands of scientists with Ph.Ds. who work in the field. This does not prove you're wrong; but it does, I think, put it in perspective.


----------



## Birdwatcher

On the contrary, your postings here are abusive and condescending toward your fellow members who wish to discuss what is going on in terms of global warming. No one requires the credentials you allude to, to do just that. Many would appreciate it if you simply plied your superior attitude elsewhere and left this thread alone. Don't like it? Please go away and forget about it while we discuss the pros and cons of what science is attempting to tell us.


----------



## iMouse

Short version.

Leave us to our delusions.


----------



## Birdwatcher

iMouse said:


> Short version.
> 
> Leave us to our delusions.


Long version. Stop with the abusive and condescending put downs of fellow members for voicing their opinions. It is something that mods should step in and halt.


----------



## BigDL

*I Finally Got It...*

I now understand what bothers me about this thread. I like the citizen scientist I do not like a pseudo scientist.

I object to the pseudo intellectual approach of posts in this thread. Questioning scientific observation when it is well known the members here can't do the "math."

Why not take the time to show the formula(s) and explain the math and methodology in layman terms to make the information accessible to the lay person? I suspect the poster can't do the "math" or understand the methodology any better than the rest of us. 

Providing links to blogs where the blogger can't do the math either and where bloggers misrepresent information is not worth the klick of the hyperlink.

It has been recommended, many times, that the pseudo scientist should take up the issues raised with real scientists not with folks who can't reasonably comment on the topics as we members know we can't do the "math." 

I have to wonder what is the agenda for this thread. 

Is it "national pride" with a major resource of a province?

Is somebody receiving a "kickback" from big oil or google or some other organization for each post concerning the denying of climate change?

Is it because of investment(s) and protecting wealth?

Is it blind loyalty to talking points of politicians that the posters best identify with?

Why post in the manner of pseudo intellectual/pseudo scientist?


----------



## iMouse

Everyone has an agenda.

It's just difficult at times to figure out what it is.

Many individual words might be used to describe the motivations represented in this thread, but I will not attempt to list them

It would take too long.


----------



## Birdwatcher

Hmm, and again I don't get it. A second rambling and disjointed steaming pile? As I understand it, anyone has a right to question anything they disagree with here, be it scientific opinion, peer reviewed or not. To try and impose a single person's will that one has to be a scientist to have an opinion just does not fly with me for sure, and I suspect others who frequent the thread.


----------



## BigDL

Birdwatcher said:


> Hmm, and again I don't get it. A second rambling and disjointed steaming pile? As I understand it, anyone has a right to question anything they disagree with here, be it scientific opinion, peer reviewed or not. To try and impose a single person's will that one has to be a scientist to have an opinion just does not fly with me for sure, and I suspect others who frequent the thread.


 See this is the problem. The reporting of a scientific finding as a result of observation and analysis *is not a matter of opinion.* 

If you do not at least have that understanding then perhaps you missed my point entirely but you are welcome to your opinion, it is your opinion and it is not wrong. I hope you will agree posters are entitled to their own opinions but *posters are not entitled to their own facts.*

Opinions on any topic are fine, debating scientific findings when you do not have the where-with-all to do the "math" is just ridiculous, it is :lmao::lmao:.


----------



## Macfury

It just keeps getting more disjointed.


----------



## Birdwatcher

Macfury said:


> It just keeps getting more disjointed.


Yes indeedy do. Sad really. Opinions are allowed and as I mentioned earlier, if people don't like them, stay out of the thread. I mean why continue to frustrate yourselves trying to change opinions? It's like beating your head against a wall, but it feels good when you quit. Although from some content, some heads have been damaged from the continued beatings. I would post this in large bold type, but I find it so childish.


----------



## iMouse

Go with what you are comfortable with.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> See this is the problem. The reporting of a scientific finding as a result of observation and analysis *is not a matter of opinion.*
> 
> If you do not at least have that understanding then perhaps you missed my point entirely but you are welcome to your opinion, it is your opinion and it is not wrong. I hope you will agree posters are entitled to their own opinions but *posters are not entitled to their own facts.*
> 
> Opinions on any topic are fine, debating scientific findings when you do not have the where-with-all to do the "math" is just ridiculous, it is :lmao::lmao:.


Except far too frequently the finders simply say the math is too difficult for mere mathematicians to comprehend and refuse to reveal either the mathematical path or even the raw empirical data which led to their conclusions.

I recall more than a few FOI orders in the UK that never were obeyed.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> I have to wonder what is the agenda for this thread.


While I can't speak for anyone else, I can clearly state my reasons for participating in this topic. In no particular order:

1) I first became interested in the global warming debate when the politicians became involved. As soon as the stinking politicians get involved in science, you know that the only reason they are there is to grind an axe. Politics has no place anywhere near science. Period...;

2) As I read & learned more on the topic, more & more "inconsistencies" cropped up. Small, niggling little details that were either wholesale ignored or pushed off to the side as not mattering;

3) The whole "consensus" BS. "You're too stupid too understand, don't question consensus", "97% of scientists say". Nearly 500 years ago, 100% of the people who believed in a geocentric model were proven wrong. There is no such thing as consensus in science. 'Nuf said;

4) The belief that climate models somehow produce climate "science", to the point that empirical evidence is being ignored at the models' behest;

5) Climategate. The release of the original emails and the realization that much deception and arrogance was going on behind the scenes, things that have no place in science;

6) Michael Mann's hockey stick paper. What was purported to be state of the art research was nothing more than upside down data, poor quality proxies, completely unacceptable statistical methodology and outright deception. It should have never passed peer review;

7) On papers & peer-review: There is significant evidence that climate science peer review consists in many cases of simply "pal-review", comrades-in-arms washing each other's backs. In addition, far too many times the raw data & computer code are not included with the paper. Thus, the results are not repeatable. There is also significant evidence that sceptical papers have a much harder time getting published. If the "science is settled", what have they to fear? Low hanging fruit, no?;

8) The whole concept of CAGW based on currently rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plants start dying at levels <200ppm. CO2 is not poison, it's an essential compound for life. Submariners frequently are exposed to concentrations of up to 5000ppm. The fact that an essential trace gas that represents less than 4/100's of a percent of our atmosphere is going to kill everything on the planet is ridiculous. In the past we have had CO2 concentrations 10x what they currently are (4000ppm). We've had higher concentrations & lower temperatures than today. We've also had lower concentrations & higher temperatures than today. There is also peer-reviewed research that indicates the recent rate of change is not unprecedented, either (study was based on the Holocene, the last 11k years or so). While CO2 does play a small part in global temps (the exact amount is debatable), it most certainly does not equate that high CO2 = high temperatures;

9) Despite much screeching to the contrary, the science is not settled. Yes, there are broad, sweeping generalizations that are partly, maybe even mostly understood. However, every day there are questions that come up that are not explained by models or by the GHG hypothesis. There are _many_ credentialed and respected scientists who are sceptics;

10) 10 years ago (& more), all the warmists were crowing about how the science was "settled", there could be no doubt that anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels was _the_ reason global temps were rising. CO2 concentrations were rising, global temps were rising. Simple, no? Now that global temps have flatlined for over 15 years, who is changing their story? It's not the sceptics who, all along, have said that CO2's forcing is not that significant, there are other things at play. It's the warmists who are suddenly scuttling around like cockroaches exposed to the light, frantically seeking explanations that won't make them look like incompetents. Suddenly even the climate gods are forced into acknowledging the flatline, everybody from Hansen to Pachauri because, even with their manipulated data, it's obvious there is some disconnect between CO2 & global temps (and, after all, they need to save face). There are other processes at work. Hence, the science is _not_ "settled". Yes, this _is_ how science works, but modifying your hypothesis does not make your original conclusion any better. It was still wrong in the first place;

11) My task here is to educate myself & to inform others that there are other legitimate, empirically backed perspectives on the subject. There is much criticism thrown about regarding blogs & the veracity of the material contained therein and elsewhere. Some of the material is peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptical POV. Of course, this is usually written off as statistical outliers that must somehow been reconciled with "the truth" by people who know even less of the topic than me or without even clicking the link: "It came from a <spit> blog". Anybody who believes that solid information cannot be gleaned from some blogs is truly living in the 19th century. Yes, you may have to separate the wheat from the chaff but that's much of the fun in learning, no? Some of the material is posted by people with specialization in a particular area, eg, Steve McIntyre is a statistician, who, with the assistance of Steve McKitrick, pulled the plug on the Hockey Stick. Some of the material is simply "brain food", things that makes you go hmmm. Some of it is delivered as snark, in the case of Steven Goddard. While his material is not peer-reviewed, much of the time he highlights obvious disconformities between what some warmists claim and what publicly accessible official records indicate ("Climate scientists claim this, yet the data clearly shows otherwise. How can that be?");

12. I have an earth sciences, computer programming/math background. I also have a few university bio/botany/zoo courses under my belt (I wandered for a few semesters). Some of the material I post I understand to a reasonable extent. Papers stemming from a geo- perspective I generally understand. I know enough about programming to comprehend that models (and particularly, _modellers_) aren't anywhere near prime time. I have a brief familiarity with some of the statistics. Other topics I may only get the gist of. I don't get it all & have never claimed to. I'm no expert. I'm an informed layman & I sure as hell ain't getting a cheque from big oil. Despite uproarious claims to the contrary, neither are any of the blogs I link to. In fact, most sceptic bloggers are unpaid volunteers just trying to do "the right thing". Maybe that's what puzzles most warmists (who, coincidently are usually lefties): they can't figger out why anybody would do this for free or, at best, a bit of ad revenue that immediately gets spent on equipment maintenance or upgrades... What I post has nothing to do with any political affiliation, period.

In a rather large nutshell, that's where I'm coming from, why I'm here & how I'm doing it.


----------



## FeXL

One more rather significant reason for my interest in the subject...

13) The International Pack of Climate Crooks (IPCC). When AR4 came out, it was supposed to be the "gold standard" in research. It didn't take long to find out that much of their research material was grey literature, WWF handouts, magazine articles, etc. Soon after, Donna Laframboise critically examined the report and found, shall we say, something less than a "gold standard". This was an eye-opener for me and my distrust in the whole system skyrocketed immediately. I'm all for separating a bit of chaff from the wheat, but when fully 30% (5587 of 18,531) of the references used in a nearly 3000 page report are _not_ peer-reviewed, there is little to convince me that I should be digging for that diamond in the coal mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, in the face of all the research that indicates a lower CO2 sensitivity than previously estimated, terms like "CO2 doubling" to get the required degree of catastrophe are now passe. The new meme & associated terminology is "tripling" or "quadrupling".

New York Times Conceding Low Sensitivity! Now Talking About “CO2 Quadrupling” To Get Catastrophe Scenarios!

One particular paragraph caught my eye & echoes one of my points from last evening's post:



> 3. There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Of the last 130 years, CO2 has risen 100% of the time, but temperature have risen only during 45 of those years (1920-45 and 1978-98). That’s a very lousy correlation. And you only need to look back at the previous interglacial during the Eem. While CO2 was steady at about 280 ppm, the temperature dropped 6°C.


He sums:



> There you have it. Now climate scientists and the catastrophe-obsessed media are now forced, for perhaps the very first time, to talk about CO2 quadrupling in order to get the much wanted catastrophe scenarios.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style. Recall also the "canary in the coal mine"...

So, the fine folk in Nenana, AK have this fun little contest every year whereby they try to predict when the ice will go out in the Nenana River next to their village. Problem is, last Thursday they still had 40" of ice...

Nenana Ice Classic now past 4th latest ice breakup

This quote is gold:



> It’s hard to forget geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks saying in 2009,
> 
> _The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century.​_
> Sage insight.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's survey & forthcoming paper.

Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse AGW



> You have to wonder how somebody can write (let alone read) the claims made here in the press release by Cook with a straight face. It gives a window into the sort of things we can expect from his borked survey he recently foisted on climate websites which seems destined to either fail, or get spun into even stranger claims.


So, from 97% consensus down to <33%. Is that how warmists measure "progress"?

Funny, I just went back to an old textbook & refreshed my memory on the definition of "scientific procedure". Could find the word "consensus" anywhere...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models involved.

From the distinguished magazine _Science_, on a report in the distinguished magazine _Nature_, not so much sea level rise from Greenland's glaciers.

News in Brief: Ice loss from Greenland's glaciers may level off 



> The increasing pace of ice breaking off Greenland’s glaciers and dumping into the ocean may not actually be a warning sign of runaway ice loss and catastrophic sea level rise, researchers report in the May 9 _Nature_.


----------



## FeXL

Further on aerosol cooling & <gasp> empirical observations trumping models!

Sulfate aerosols have less cooling impact on climate than assumed



> Harris' measurements showed that sulfate in clouds forms mostly through the oxidation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) by oxygen (O2) ... Much less often the trail led to the oxidation of SO2 by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and ozone (O3). "As my colleagues and I compared the basic assumptions of climate models with my results we were very surprised, because only one of twelve models considers the role of transition metal ions in the formation of sulfate", says the scientist, who is now working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA. *Instead, most of the models used the alternative pathways of sulfur dioxide oxidation by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), ozone (O3) and the hydroxyl radical (OH).*


Bold mine.

I emphasize this statement because the article makes it sound like the models have "minds" of their own & took this particular erroneous pathway on a matter of whim. Models do not "think", they follow code & input. Again, relating to last evening's post, _modellers program models._ If there is a bias here, an incorrect pathway taken, it's because of the program the modeller created or errors in the data input to the model or both.


----------



## iMouse

Keep reading, but consider the source.


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol's influence on the climate (linear regression models used).

Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming

Abstract.



> Herein I discuss common errors in applying regression models and wavelet filters used to analyze geophysical signals. I demonstrate that: (1) multidecadal natural oscillations (e.g. the quasi 60 yr Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation (AMO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) need to be taken into account for properly quantifying anomalous background accelerations in tide gauge records such as in New York City; (2) uncertainties and multicollinearity among climate forcing functions also prevent a proper evaluation of the solar contribution to the 20th century global surface temperature warming using overloaded linear regression models during the 1900–2000 period alone; (3) when periodic wavelet filters, which require that a record is pre-processed with a reflection methodology, are improperly applied to decompose non-stationary solar and climatic time series, Gibbs boundary artifacts emerge yielding misleading physical interpretations. By correcting these errors and using optimized regression models that reduce multicollinearity artifacts, I found the following results: (1) the relative sea level in New York City is not accelerating in an alarming way, and may increase by about 350 &pm; 30 mm from 2000 to 2100 instead of the previously projected values varying from 1130 &pm; 480 mm to 1550 &pm; 400 mm estimated using the methods proposed, e.g., by Sallenger Jr. et al. (2012) and Boon (2012), respectively; (*2) the solar activity increase during the 20th century contributed at least about 50% of the 0.8 °C global warming observed during the 20th century instead of only 7–10%* (e.g.: IPCC, 2007; Benestad and Schmidt, 2009; Lean and Rind, 2009; Rohde et al., 2013). The first result was obtained by using a quadratic polynomial function plus a 60 yr harmonic to fit a required 110 yr-long sea level record. The second result was obtained by using solar, volcano, greenhouse gases and aerosol constructors to fit modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions (e.g.: Moberg et al., 2005; Mann et al., 2008; Christiansen and Ljungqvist, 2012) since the Medieval Warm Period, which show a large millennial cycle that is well correlated to the millennial solar cycle (e.g.: Kirkby, 2007; Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2012c). These findings stress the importance of natural oscillations and of the sun to properly interpret climatic changes.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

iMouse said:


> Keep reading, but consider the source.


Yes, please do...


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> While I can't speak for anyone else, I can clearly state my reasons for participating in this topic. In no particular order:
> 
> 1) I first became interested in the global warming debate when the politicians became involved. As soon as the stinking politicians get involved in science, you know that the only reason they are there is to grind an axe. Politics has no place anywhere near science. Period...;
> 
> 2) As I read & learned more on the topic, more & more "inconsistencies" cropped up. Small, niggling little details that were either wholesale ignored or pushed off to the side as not mattering;
> 
> 3) The whole "consensus" BS. "You're too stupid too understand, don't question consensus", "97% of scientists say". Nearly 500 years ago, 100% of the people who believed in a geocentric model were proven wrong. There is no such thing as consensus in science. 'Nuf said;
> 
> 4) The belief that climate models somehow produce climate "science", to the point that empirical evidence is being ignored at the models' behest;
> 
> 5) Climategate. The release of the original emails and the realization that much deception and arrogance was going on behind the scenes, things that have no place in science;
> 
> 6) Michael Mann's hockey stick paper. What was purported to be state of the art research was nothing more than upside down data, poor quality proxies, completely unacceptable statistical methodology and outright deception. It should have never passed peer review;
> 
> 7) On papers & peer-review: There is significant evidence that climate science peer review consists in many cases of simply "pal-review", comrades-in-arms washing each other's backs. In addition, far too many times the raw data & computer code are not included with the paper. Thus, the results are not repeatable. There is also significant evidence that sceptical papers have a much harder time getting published. If the "science is settled", what have they to fear? Low hanging fruit, no?;
> 
> 8) The whole concept of CAGW based on currently rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plants start dying at levels <200ppm. CO2 is not poison, it's an essential compound for life. Submariners frequently are exposed to concentrations of up to 5000ppm. The fact that an essential trace gas that represents less than 4/100's of a percent of our atmosphere is going to kill everything on the planet is ridiculous. In the past we have had CO2 concentrations 10x what they currently are (4000ppm). We've had higher concentrations & lower temperatures than today. We've also had lower concentrations & higher temperatures than today. There is also peer-reviewed research that indicates the recent rate of change is not unprecedented, either (study was based on the Holocene, the last 11k years or so). While CO2 does play a small part in global temps (the exact amount is debatable), it most certainly does not equate that high CO2 = high temperatures;
> 
> 9) Despite much screeching to the contrary, the science is not settled. Yes, there are broad, sweeping generalizations that are partly, maybe even mostly understood. However, every day there are questions that come up that are not explained by models or by the GHG hypothesis. There are _many_ credentialed and respected scientists who are sceptics;
> 
> 10) 10 years ago (& more), all the warmists were crowing about how the science was "settled", there could be no doubt that anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels was _the_ reason global temps were rising. CO2 concentrations were rising, global temps were rising. Simple, no? Now that global temps have flatlined for over 15 years, who is changing their story? It's not the sceptics who, all along, have said that CO2's forcing is not that significant, there are other things at play. It's the warmists who are suddenly scuttling around like cockroaches exposed to the light, frantically seeking explanations that won't make them look like incompetents. Suddenly even the climate gods are forced into acknowledging the flatline, everybody from Hansen to Pachauri because, even with their manipulated data, it's obvious there is some disconnect between CO2 & global temps (and, after all, they need to save face). There are other processes at work. Hence, the science is _not_ "settled". Yes, this _is_ how science works, but modifying your hypothesis does not make your original conclusion any better. It was still wrong in the first place;
> 
> 11) My task here is to educate myself & to inform others that there are other legitimate, empirically backed perspectives on the subject. There is much criticism thrown about regarding blogs & the veracity of the material contained therein and elsewhere. Some of the material is peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptical POV. Of course, this is usually written off as statistical outliers that must somehow been reconciled with "the truth" by people who know even less of the topic than me or without even clicking the link: "It came from a <spit> blog". Anybody who believes that solid information cannot be gleaned from some blogs is truly living in the 19th century. Yes, you may have to separate the wheat from the chaff but that's much of the fun in learning, no? Some of the material is posted by people with specialization in a particular area, eg, Steve McIntyre is a statistician, who, with the assistance of Steve McKitrick, pulled the plug on the Hockey Stick. Some of the material is simply "brain food", things that makes you go hmmm. Some of it is delivered as snark, in the case of Steven Goddard. While his material is not peer-reviewed, much of the time he highlights obvious disconformities between what some warmists claim and what publicly accessible official records indicate ("Climate scientists claim this, yet the data clearly shows otherwise. How can that be?");
> 
> 12. I have an earth sciences, computer programming/math background. I also have a few university bio/botany/zoo courses under my belt (I wandered for a few semesters). Some of the material I post I understand to a reasonable extent. Papers stemming from a geo- perspective I generally understand. I know enough about programming to comprehend that models (and particularly, _modellers_) aren't anywhere near prime time. I have a brief familiarity with some of the statistics. Other topics I may only get the gist of. I don't get it all & have never claimed to. I'm no expert. I'm an informed layman & I sure as hell ain't getting a cheque from big oil. Despite uproarious claims to the contrary, neither are any of the blogs I link to. In fact, most sceptic bloggers are unpaid volunteers just trying to do "the right thing". Maybe that's what puzzles most warmists (who, coincidently are usually lefties): they can't figger out why anybody would do this for free or, at best, a bit of ad revenue that immediately gets spent on equipment maintenance or upgrades... What I post has nothing to do with any political affiliation, period.
> 
> In a rather large nutshell, that's where I'm coming from, why I'm here & how I'm doing it.





FeXL said:


> One more rather significant reason for my interest in the subject...
> 
> 13) The International Pack of Climate Crooks (IPCC). When AR4 came out, it was supposed to be the "gold standard" in research. It didn't take long to find out that much of their research material was grey literature, WWF handouts, magazine articles, etc. Soon after, Donna Laframboise critically examined the report and found, shall we say, something less than a "gold standard". This was an eye-opener for me and my distrust in the whole system skyrocketed immediately. I'm all for separating a bit of chaff from the wheat, but when fully 30% (5587 of 18,531) of the references used in a nearly 3000 page report are _not_ peer-reviewed, there is little to convince me that I should be digging for that diamond in the coal mine.


I do not like the idea of the air being bought and sold. I do not like air and water being turned into commodities and privatized. I do not like food being branded and patented either. 

Reports in the nature of propaganda bother me. I can not sit by and allow the propaganda to stand without challenge. Propaganda doesn't merit much respect in my view. 

In the past, cases of propaganda where the "big lie" led to a near genocide of a people, therefore I shan't stand idly by and let the propaganda spew without remark.

I would also like to say, in the Maritimes we are experiencing spring again this year, same as last few years. We have normally transited from winter to early summer without what might be called elsewhere spring weather.

Having spring weather is a major change from the first 50 to 55 years of living here. 

With that in mind, I have a question regarding, preparing my garden this spring. 

With the numerous posts of manure above, is it fresh or is it well rotted?

From where I am sitting, pseudo science shall be expected then. 

So I will predict if everything remains the same, then nothing will change, how say you.


----------



## iMouse

I cannot say nay to that Sir.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> ...how say you.


I say Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, once again...


----------



## bryanc

For any interested in what actual scientists have to say on this issue, here's a link.

{edit to add: Here's the conclusion for anyone who can't access the link:


> The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘. . . on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘. . . the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (Alle`gre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.


}


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Tropical Upper Tropospheric Warming: Models vs. Measurements



> *What was learned*
> The two researchers say their work demonstrated that "even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements." In addition, they say that "the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs."
> 
> *What it means*
> Once again we have numerous climate model results that deviate significantly from real-world measurements; and we see no improvement in this regard between the CMIP3 set of models and the newer and supposedly improved CMIP5 models. This is not what most rational people would call progress.


----------



## FeXL

EPA 1983 : Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise By 2100



> There has been almost no rise in sea level at LA since that prediction was made thirty years ago. The graph below shows the actual trajectory in red, and the EPA forecast trajectory in green.
> 
> ...
> 
> One could easily come to the conclusion that many government climate experts have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's prize "independent" methodology.

Skeptical Science kidz channel Inigo Montoya in new ‘consensus’ paper



> That’s right. The “independent” raters talked to each other about how to rate the papers. This must be some new form of independence I’ve never heard of. I’m not the only one thrown off by this. Sarah Green, one of the most active raters, observed the non-independence:
> 
> _But, this is clearly not an independent poll, nor really a statistical exercise. We are just assisting in the effort to apply defined criteria to the abstracts with the goal of classifying them as objectively as possible.
> Disagreements arise because neither the criteria nor the abstracts can be 100% precise. We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow.​_
> One must wonder at the fact an author of the paper calls the work independent despite having said just a year earlier, “we would never be able to claim” it is independent. Perhaps there is some new definition for “never” I’m unaware of.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> For any interested in what actual scientists have to say on this issue


The scientific method does not include the word "consensus".


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I say Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, once again...


You have the patience of a saint.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> For any interested in what actual scientists have to say on this issue, here's a link.
> 
> {edit to add: Here's the conclusion for anyone who can't access the link:
> }


Putting up a video of that dude recounting his failed study is no better than the study itself. FeXL has provided you with updated research on the matter--why go back to that old trough again?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> You have the patience of a saint.


I'm seriously trying to figure out what the hell has been said in he/she/its last three posts. I have a decent handle on English, I took Latin in university, French in junior high, mom speaks German, dad, Ukrainian and both have trickled down to me. 

However, for the life of me, I don't have a clue what any of these mean or what the purpose was... <shakes his head>


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Putting up a video of that dude recounting his failed study is no better than the study itself. FeXL has provided you with updated research on the matter--why go back to that old trough again?


'Cause bryanc no longer "discusses" AGW (despite previous offers to do so here & here). He's the self-appointed "quarantiner", remember? 

He can't recall posts from just two weeks ago (or chooses to ignore them) and he can't recall previous offers to discuss the topic (or, again, he chooses to ignore them). One wonders what else he has forgotten (or chosen to ignore) and why anything else he has to say on the topic should carry any water. 

I warned him about failing credibility not that long ago...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> EPA 1983 : Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise By 2100


To be fair climate models were in their very infancy back then. Rumour has it that any day now these models will graduate from kindergarten, though fudge on the data stream has cast somewhat of a cloud over the ceremony.


----------



## iMouse

Macfury said:


> You have the patience of a saint.


"Release the chaff." :lmao:


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> 'Cause bryanc no longer "discusses" AGW (despite previous offers to do so here & here).


Please read the linked posts; I have, and continue to be perfectly consistent. I am happy to discuss the science that falls within my field of expertise. Very little of what constitutes climate research fits that description, and I scrupulously avoid discussing that (despite what seem to me to be obvious misinterpretations of that research on your part) because it's not my feild. I do not want to make the mistake that you and others here chronically make, which is to presume your naive perspective on highly technical research publications is somehow better than that of thousands of Ph.D.s who've spent their lives becoming expert in this field.


> He's the self-appointed "quarantiner", remember?


It was MacFury who started this thread, if I remember correctly. I'm just happy to keep the anti-science relatively confined.



> He can't recall posts from just two weeks ago (or chooses to ignore them) and he can't recall previous offers to discuss the topic (or, again, he chooses to ignore them). One wonders what else he has forgotten (or chosen to ignore) and why anything else he has to say on the topic should carry any water.


Given your obvious difficulty reading and understanding my posts, it's no wonder you can't understand the science.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> The scientific method does not include the word "consensus".


No it doesn't. But neither you nor I are qualified to do science regarding climate change. While concensus doesnt mean the science is correct, the scientific consensus is the best basis for policy decisions. What the research I linked to demonstrates is that there is essentially no debate among qualified scientists regarding wether humans are significantly altering the climate. The debate is entirely political and it is entirely manufactured by the oil and gas industry.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I am happy to discuss the science that falls within my field of expertise.





bryanc said:


> I don't want to engage in any discussions of climate change research, as that's not my field.


Which of these diametrically opposed statements is it? They _completely_ contradict each other. This reminds me of warmist research which says that global warming will create hot/cold, wet/dry, more/less snow & rain. Like them, you can never be wrong because you've got both bases covered.



bryanc said:


> It was MacFury who started this thread, if I remember correctly.


And your point is?



bryanc said:


> Given your obvious difficulty reading and understanding my posts, it's no wonder you can't understand the science.


Yes, it's all my problem because I don't understand what your position is based on two completely contradictory sentences.


----------



## iMouse

Bryan, were you a sheep dog in another life? lol


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> What the research I linked to demonstrates is that there is essentially no debate among qualified scientists regarding wether humans are significantly altering the climate.


What the research I link to demonstrates that mans influence on the climate boils down to single digits, literally 10's of thousandths of a degree of effect, a quantity so small as to be unmeasurable at any scale. And, this warming stopped dead in its tracks as of 1998. All empirical indicators point to the extension of this flatline for some time, 5-20 years. This is certainly not the type of conclusion that merits hundreds of billions of dollars being pissed away on FUD that could otherwise be used for matters far more important to all of us. Or the mandatory burning of foodstuffs in the place of gasoline & diesel fuel and associated fallout. Or the introduction of carbon taxes which does nothing to curtail CO2 emissions but manges to make a few wealthy people even richer, all on the backs of "little people".



bryanc said:


> The debate is entirely political and it is entirely manufactured by the oil and gas industry.


Whatever you say, MacDoc. Can you please advise them to forward my cheque? I'm heading out of town this weekend & could use a little more spending money to purchase some great CO2 infused craft beer stateside...


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> No it doesn't. But neither you nor I are qualified to do science regarding climate change. While concensus doesnt mean the science is correct, the scientific consensus is the best basis for policy decisions. What the research I linked to demonstrates is that there is essentially no debate among qualified scientists regarding wether humans are significantly altering the climate. The debate is entirely political and it is entirely manufactured by the oil and gas industry.


I have to respectfully disagree with you with regard to the word "political."

I don't think it is political, I think it is propaganda. Propaganda that has been manufactured by the Big Oil/Gas and King Coal industries.

Then some folks have been duped into parroting this...(let's be polite and call it) cow patty (this time) to fool people into believing "nothing to see here folks...move along, keep moving.


----------



## Macfury

I think I can model some of these posts.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> I have to respectfully disagree with you with regard to the word "political."
> 
> I don't think it is political, I think it is propaganda. Propaganda that has been manufactured by the Big Oil/Gas and King Coal industries.
> 
> Then some folks have been duped into parroting this...(let's be polite and call it) cow patty (this time) to fool people into believing "nothing to see here folks...move along, keep moving.


You mean just like your 'propaganda campaign' using a certain term for the current PM? Yeah, that's it. Aren't you are as guilty as anyone on that front?


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> The debate is entirely political and it is entirely manufactured by the oil and gas industry.


It's political alright, but not at all the way you portray it. It's manufactured by environmental extremists and capitalized on by funding whores.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> environmental extremists and capitalized on by funding whores.


If, by "environmental extremists" you mean "most people in the developed world" and by "funding whores" you mean "scientists", then yes.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> If, by "environmental extremists" you mean "most people in the developed world" and by "funding whores" you mean "scientists", then yes.


"Scientists", yes, scientists, no.

It _used to_ be most people back when they didn't know the "scientists" were lying. Less and less people are falling for it now as the evidence mounts:

Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> ...back when they didn't know the "scientists" were lying.


... ooo! Some anonymous guy on the internet says the scientists are lying!! the scientists are lying!!!


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> ... ooo! Some anonymous guy on the internet says the scientists are lying!! the scientists are lying!!!


I hear if you post this enough on a forum it makes it true. :lmao:

Or, apparently, if you spam a thread with thousands of blog posts by retired weathermen, because you just -know- they're smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Just wait til everyone figures out the great conspiracy theory of all the scientists!


----------



## bryanc

I do get a chuckle out of the claims that more and more scientists are questioning ACC, when the actual evidence shows that, over the past decade those few remaining descanters have become convinced by the data and joined the consensus.

It's like the rightwingnuts live in a mirror universe... does Spock have a goatee over there?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, I suspect you live in an academic echo chamber where what you say is probably true--within a couple of hundred metres of the building you work in.


----------



## Birdwatcher

The irony of a self admitted, "I know nothing about AGW scientist", telling us we're all wrong is almost overpowering.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I do get a chuckle out of the claims that more and more scientists are questioning ACC, when the actual evidence shows that, over the past decade those few remaining descanters have become convinced by the data and joined the consensus.
> 
> It's like the rightwingnuts live in a mirror universe... does Spock have a goatee over there?


well they keep trying, but not one of them has ever given one shred of any evidence that what they say is true.

I recall you repeatedly asking the fury for any evidence a while back, never saw any.

Which of course, isn't surprising. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> You mean just like your 'propaganda campaign' using a certain term for the current PM? Yeah, that's it. Aren't you are as guilty as anyone on that front?


It's really anyone's guess as to how this has anything to do with what DL posted, but well good kick at the can anyway.


----------



## BigDL

Birdwatcher said:


> The irony of a self admitted, "I know nothing about AGW scientist", telling us we're all wrong is almost overpowering.


 Aren't you on Fexl's side of this conversation, why are you dissing him.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> ... ooo! Some anonymous guy on the internet says the scientists are lying!! the scientists are lying!!!


Please, there are over 300 pages right here of DOCUMENTED lies. Try reading them sometime.


----------



## bryanc

Birdwatcher said:


> The irony of a self admitted, "I know nothing about AGW scientist", telling us we're all wrong is almost overpowering.


That would be ironic, if it had anything to do with what I've ever posted. I have never said that FeXL's or anyone else's interpretations of the science are incorrect. I've said that they are in disagreement with essentially everyone qualified to interpret the data.

As someone who lacks the expertise to analyze the data myself, and as a scientist who knows how unusual it is for so many of the researchers in a field to agree about something, I interpret the consensus of credible climatologists as strong evidence that their data is consistent and unequivocal.


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Please, there are over 300 pages right here of DOCUMENTED lies. Try reading them sometime.


I read the peer-reviewed science, not the blogs; there have been no documented cases of scientific misconduct, despite 8 independent investigations of such charges. I'm afraid, you've got nothin'.


----------



## BigDL

heavyall said:


> Please, there are over 300 pages right here of DOCUMENTED lies. Try reading them sometime.


You're right and I have drawn Fexl's attention to his propaganda in favour Big Oil/Gas and King Coal's agenda.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> You're right and I have drawn Fexl's attention to his propaganda in favour Big Oil/Gas and King Coal's agenda.


OMG! A post in English! Thank you!

One man's propaganda is another man's science, _et vice versa._ As such, I won't bother defending it. My position is well known.

However, if you seriously think that the consumption of fossil fuels will decrease by any measurable amount because a bunch of scientists claim that CO2 is killing the world, you are not only not in the same solar system, but not in the same galaxy as reality. The so-called solutions (wind, solar, tide, biofuels, electric cars, etc.) are using even more fossil fuels than the problems they were created to fix and, in many cases, cause even more damaging effects.

There was also a peer-reviewed paper that came out a few days ago (I won't provide a link as you wouldn't click it anyway) that showed the greening of the planet by around 11% attributable to the 14% rise in CO2 concentrations since the 80's. Now, I'm not suggesting that we pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere for the care & feeding of plants. However, you're going to have to convince a ton of third world people that more (some?) food for their families & livestock is a bad thing.

Mankind's desire for progress is going to take fuel. Period. If we had taken the money pissed away on the false premise of CAGW and put it towards solutions in the fossil fuel industry, we may already have such a thing as clean burning coal. I'm going to post a link later in Alternative Energy about research indicating cleaner combustion of natural gas. Maybe this could have come out years ago if they would have had a bit of that fortune for grant money. Who knows? With some of that cash, we may have commercially viable thorium reactors already available.

Gasoline prices have gone up locally 15 cents/litre in the last two weeks. You think I like Big Oil/Gas? What a sick joke...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, there's been a whole new crop of climate models created (CHIMP 5, to replace the earlier CHIMP3). I posted a few links to articles & papers on their "accuracy". Here's one more.


Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations

Abstract.



> Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, *the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations,* namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. *However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts,* despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate. *It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice. However, this convergence is difficult to justify given the significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Questioning a fish story from WaPo.

Washington Post Headline: “Worlds fish have been moving to cooler waters for decades, study finds”

He notes:



> The Cheung et al (2013) paper hasn’t yet received the normal end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it hype from the alarmist blogs Climate Progress and SkepticalScience. It’s still a little early, though. Give Climate Progress and SkepticalScience a little while before they join the Washington Post, where Lenny Bernstein elected to make the claim of a “rapidly warming planet”. As so often happens, claims about warming sea surface temperatures are not supported by sea surface temperature data.
> 
> And of course, ocean heat content and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed naturally.


----------



## FeXL

I'd love to see this submitted for publication. On night time cooling temps & CO2's signature.

An analysis of night time cooling based on NCDC station record data



> Climate science is all about surface temperature trends. The problem with this is that the CAGW is a rate of cooling problem, not a static temperature problem. Is Co2 changing the rate of cooling, thereby altering the expected surface temperature, are the hypnotized positive feedbacks actually there, are there any actual measurements of these parameters.


He concludes:



> This shows conclusively that the average night time cooling is not limited by GHG because low humidity clear skies cool far more than the global average. Since recorded Min Max temperatures show no sign of a loss of cooling on a daily basis since at least 1950, even if CO2 has increased the amount of DLR, something else(most likely variablity of clouds) is controlling temperatures. This would seem to eliminate CO2 as the main cause of late 20th century warming.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's "survey".

Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading



> So what’s all the fuzz about? Cook et al. selected around 12,000 scientific abstracts that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” published in the period 1991-2011. With a large group of volunteers they then rated the papers using 7 categories. Around 8000 of the abstracts (2/3) take no clear position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Of the remaining ~4000 abstracts more than 97% “endorse AGW” according to the paper. Only a tiny amount (78 papers) “reject AGW”. Hence they claim again that there is a consensus, that the debate is over and also that there is a gap between scientists and the public (see graph above). A much larger percentage of the scientists “endorses AGW” than the public at large.


More:



> I like 3.2: “endorse that GHG’s cause warming”. I also strongly agree with this part of 3.5: “implying warming from CO2″. The meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75% of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to climate change” or “imply warming from CO2″.
> 
> The misleading part is that they didn’t specify this result in their paper. Nowhere in their paper or in the supplementary material they even mentioned the total numbers in the different categories like I did in the simple table above. They only showed the total of category 1-3 in their figure 1(a)


He sums:



> *So the whole result of this survey is completely self confirming.* Because there is a concern for CO2 there is a lot of funding of climate science. This then generates a lot of climate science papers (they surveyed 12,000 but mention there are many more). *In the abstracts scientists refer to the concern about CO2. The abstract then falls into category 2 or 3 and therefore almost all the papers “endorse AGW”.*


Bold mine.

Jo's take:

Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for

As noted in the comments, I think point 5 is particularly important:



> 5. Most of these consensus papers assume the theory is correct but never checked. They are irrelevant.
> 
> *The papers listed as endorsing man-made global warming includes “implicit endorsement”, which makes this study more an analysis of funding rather than evidence.* Cook gives the following as an example of a paper with implicit endorsement: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. Any researcher studying carbon sequestion has almost certainly not analyzed outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or considered the assumptions about relative humidity in climate simulations. Similarly, researchers looking at the effects of climate change on lemurs, butterflies, or polar bears probably know little about ocean heat content calculations. These researchers are “me too” researchers.


I also think points 7 & 8 are very revealing.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen in the wild.

Hansen's scandalous interview



> Hansen opened with the most astonishing claim about global temperatures,
> 
> _In the last decade it's warmed only about a tenth of a degrees as compared to about two tenths of a degree in the preceding decade._​
> a claim which completely contradicts Hansen's own GISTEMP dataset
> 
> ...
> 
> There is a suggestion that he might have been referring to a land-only dataset, but this would still be grossly misleading since he says that land-only data overestimates trends.


Hansen Takes A U-Turn : Confirms That Global Warming Reduces Severe Storms



> Until today, Hansen’s entire thesis has been based on polar amplification – where the poles heat more than the tropics. This reduces the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now Hansen is arguing the exact opposite – that the equator heats while the poles cool, causing a larger temperature gradient and more severe storms. The implication being that the past warming should have reduced severe storms.



Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy... Which is it?


----------



## FeXL

Some of you may have heard the TIPCC™ meme about how anthropogenic CO2 is s'pose to stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, as opposed to natural CO2, which only stays in the atmosphere for ~5 years.

I just found out that "thousands of years" figure was generated by, of all things, a MODEL! So, first off, a big fat raspberry to models,

XX)

Second, some empirical information that disputes the modelled output...

Analysis finds man-made CO2 emissions only remain in atmosphere for ~5 years, not thousands 



> The IPCC claims man-made CO2 emissions [only 4% of total CO2 emissions] remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, as opposed to the 96% of CO2 emissions from nature which have a lifetime of only about 5 years. Climate scientist Pehr Björnbom, author of a published paper finding low CO2 climate sensitivity, has a new post today on the fallacy that man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. Dr. Bjornbom reviews the findings of Dr. Gösta Pettersson, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and specialist in reaction kinetics, and author of the book 'False Alarm.' Dr. Pettersson finds the computer model ["The Bern Model'] used by the IPCC to predict CO2 lifetimes of over 100 years is highly flawed and is strongly contradicted by observations from both atomic bomb testing and atmospheric levels of CO2 [the Keeling Curve].


The original is in Dutch and was translated, so the grammar & syntax is just a touch off.


----------



## FeXL

Good news: World’s biggest ice sheets likely more stable than previously believed – upsets previous estimates of melting and sea level

Abstract.



> Sedimentary rocks from Virginia through Florida record marine flooding during the mid-Pliocene. Several wave-cut scarps that at the time of deposition would have been horizontal are now draped over a warped surface with a maximum amplitude of 60 m. We modeled dynamic topography using mantle convection simulations that predict the amplitude and broad spatial distribution of this distortion. The results imply that dynamic topography and, to a lesser extent, glacial isostatic adjustment, account for the current architecture of the coastal plain and proximal shelf. This confounds attempts to use regional stratigraphic relations as references for longer-term sea-level determinations. Inferences of Pliocene global sea-level heights or stability of Antarctic ice sheets therefore cannot be deciphered in the absence of an appropriate mantle dynamic reference frame.


In a nutshell:



> Using the east coast of the United States as their laboratory, a research team led by David Rowley, CIFAR Senior Fellow and professor at the University of Chicago, has found that the *Earth’s hot mantle pushed up segments of ancient shorelines over millions of years, making them appear higher now than they originally were millions of years ago.*
> 
> “Our findings suggest that the previous connections scientists made between ancient shoreline height and ice volumes are erroneous and that perhaps our ice sheets were more stable in the past than we originally thought,” says Rowley. “Our study is telling scientists that they can no longer ignore the effect of Earth’s interior dynamics when predicting historic sea levels and ice volumes.”


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

O. M. G. Climate control shampoo...

Climate control – lather, rinse, repeat

I wonder if I can use this on my n...er, back...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Are regional models ready for prime time?



> A few months ago we made the launch of the international discussion platform . This week we start the third dialogue about the (added) value of regional climate models. We have three excellent participants joining this discussion: Bart van den Hurk of KNMI in The Netherlands who is actively involved in the KNMI scenario’s, Jason Evans from the University of Newcastle, Australia, who is coordinator of Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) and Roger Pielke Sr. who through his research articles and his weblog is well known for his outspoken views on climate modelling. Below you find the introductory article on which the three experts had to base their guest blog. After reading that head over to the dialogue.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Church of Climatology & its high priests...


Climate Scientist Hans Von Storch Warns: Climate Scientists Have Been “Taking On The Roles Of Medicine Men And Priests”



> ‘The climate pope tells us what has to be done, and for the people it’s: keep your mouths shut. Scientists have been taking over the roles of medicine men and priests.
> 
> ...
> 
> But some of his colleagues in science like to use ‘stories that point to a catastrophe,’ said the professor of meteorology. One example was the assumption that our region would see ‘murderous violent storms’. But there was no data showing this. ‘It all has a cultural, anthropological background’ . ‘If you sin, then you will be punished. And the punishment always takes on an environmental dimension which also included storms in the past. In former times it was God’s punishment. Today it’s punishment by Nature. Nature is to keep man in check. And for this we see idiotic films like ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’’


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's a new paper (Otto _et al_) out on lower climate sensitivity. Couple of interesting things about it:

1) It echoes the findings of Nic Lewis' informal study back in December;
2) 14 of the lead author's are from the *IPCC!!!!*

New paper shows transient climate response less than 2°C

Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors



> Lewis , who had previously published a solo paper on his ECS estimate was roundly panned as a “single study” by the advocates over at “Skeptical Science” in a scathing post by Dana Nuccitelli, who will now have a hard time honestly reconciling the Otto et al paper, because i*t is co-authored by several IPCC authors who previously had considered higher climate sensitivity values to be likely.*


Bold mine.

Wonder how AR5 is going to handle this...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" files, sceptic style.

Timelapse video of 2013 Nenana Ice Classic breakup

Oh, BTW, a new late breakup record was established.

What was that about the "canary in the coal mine"?


----------



## FeXL

So, hearing about the Oklahoma tornado yesterday afternoon for the first time, I wondered how long before some idiot stepped up & blamed it on "global warming". I need not have feared, there was a lineup.

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse From Rhode Island Provides Erroneous Information To American Public in Global Warming Rant

Stunning ignorance on display from Senator Barbara Boxer over Oklahoma tornado outbreak

And, isn't it jut an amazing coincidence that they both happen to be Dems...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's Charlie Foxtrot.

Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them

So, several scientists whose papers were classified by Cook were asked, "Is this an accurate representation of your paper?"

Craig D. Idso:



> That is not an accurate representation of my paper.


Nicola Scafetta:



> What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. [As opposed to the 90-100% that the IPCC claims]


Nir J. Shaviv:



> Nope… it is not an accurate representation.


Richard Tol:



> Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.


Yup. Peer-reviewed science at its finest...


----------



## FeXL

Monckton gets results.

Monckton challenges the IPCC – suggests fraud – and gets a response



> Two weeks ago I reported the central error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to its secretariat. After the contributing scientists had submitted their final draft report, the bureaucrats and politicians had tampered with the HadCRUt3 graph of global instrumental temperatures since 1850 by adding four trend-lines to the anomaly curve and drawing from their relative slopes the unjustifiable and statistically indefensible conclusion, stated twice in the published report, that global warming was “accelerating” and that the “acceleration” was our fault.


No response. Nada.

More:



> I received no reply to my report of the IPCC’s erroneous conclusion that global warming was “accelerating”. So today I wrote to the IPCC again:
> 
> _“I am an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wrote to you two weeks ago to report a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report. I have had no reply. My letter of two weeks ago is attached, together with a copy of a letter I have sent to the Inter-Academy Council asking it to use its good offices to persuade you to reply. I have also sent a letter, for information only at this stage, to the police in Geneva, since it appears that a fraud may have been committed by the IPCC.”​_


He also copied the letter to the Fraud Office in London & the AG in Virginia. Sonuvagun, he got a response.

Further:



> I have thanked the IPCC for passing on my report of its error in the Fourth Assessment Report and have told the police the IPCC have now replied. It is clear from the IPCC Secretariat’s reply that Dr. Pachauri, to whom I had reported the error in writing and in person as long ago as 2009, had not passed my report of the error to the Secretariat as he should have done. *No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.*


Bold mine.

No doubt...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Meteorologist explains extreme weather was worse in the past & the problems with computer models



> "There are no climate models that have gotten the the global temperature correct." Lawrence Gould is professor of physics at the University of Hartford and he's been researching global climate change for eight years. He says *real observations prove the forty four computer models that predict temperatures are not that accurate.* While they predict warming, global temperatures have actually remained steady or have even cooled the last fifteen years. "You look at the observations and that would indicate that the models have to be corrected."


Bold mine.

New paper finds computer models are inconsistent with temperature reconstructions of the past millennium 

Abstract.



> Are simulations and reconstructions of past climate and its variability consistent with each other? We assess the consistency of simulations and reconstructions for the climate of the last millennium under the paradigm of a statistically indistinguishable ensemble. In this type of analysis, the null hypothesis is that reconstructions and simulations are statistically indistinguishable and, therefore, are exchangeable with each other. Ensemble consistency is assessed for Northern Hemisphere mean temperature, Central European mean temperature and for global temperature fields. Reconstructions available for these regions serve as verification data for a set of simulations of the climate of the last millennium performed at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.
> 
> Consistency is generally limited to some sub-domains and some sub-periods. Only the ensemble simulated and reconstructed annual Central European mean temperatures for the second half of the last millennium demonstrates unambiguous consistency. Furthermore, we cannot exclude consistency of an ensemble of reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature with the simulation ensemble mean.
> 
> If we treat simulations and reconstructions as equitable hypotheses about past climate variability, the found general lack of their consistency weakens our confidence in inferences about past climate evolutions on the considered spatial and temporal scales. That is, our available estimates of past climate evolutions are on an equal footing but, as shown here, inconsistent with each other.


----------



## FeXL

New paper indicating that the 2007 ice anomaly explained by decrease in cloudiness.

Observational constraints on Arctic Ocean clouds and radiative fluxesduring the early 21st century

Abstract.



> Arctic Ocean observations are combined to create a cloud and radiation climatology for the early 21st century (March 2000 - February 2011). Data sources include: observed top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes (CERES-EBAF), active (CloudSat, CALIPSO) and passive (MODIS) satellite cloud fraction observations, and observationally constrained radiative flux and cloud forcing calculations (CERES-EBAF, 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR).Uncertainty in flux calculations is dominated by cloud uncertainty, not surface albedo uncertainty. The climatology exposes large geographic, seasonal, and inter-annual variability in the influence of clouds on radiative fluxes but, on average, Arctic Ocean clouds warm the surface (+10 Wm-2, 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR) and cool the TOA (−12 Wm-2, CERES-EBAF, 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR).Shortwave TOA cloud cooling and longwave TOA cloud warming are stronger in 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR than in CERES-EBAF, but these two differences compensate each other yielding similar net TOA values. During the early 21st century, summer TOA albedo decreases are consistent with sea ice loss, but are unrelated to summer cloud trends that are statistically insignificant. In contrast, both sea ice variability and cloud variability contribute to inter-annual variability in summer shortwave radiative fluxes. *Summer 2007 had the largest persistent cloud, radiation, and sea ice anomalies in the climatology. During that summer, positive net shortwave radiation anomalies exceeded 20 Wm-2 over much of Arctic Ocean. This enhanced shortwave absorption resulted primarily from cloud reductions during early summer, and sea ice loss during late summer.* In summary, the observations show that while cloud variability influences absorbed shortwave radiation variability, there is no summer cloud trend affecting summer absorbed shortwave radiation.


How does 20 Wm-2 compare to the norm?



> By way of comparison, the alleged longwave forcing from CO2 increase since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 is only about 0.8 Wm-2*, or 25 times less than the forcing from these cloud reductions noted during 2007.


----------



## FeXL

So, lengthy article summing the Lewandowsky Charlie Foxtrot. If you don't know the history, this covers it. If you do, the closing paragraphs are the most salient...

The Lewandowsky Papers



> A culture of intransigence has developed in the shadow of the compact between politics and science, which can be seen in the Lewandowsky affair in microcosm. *Lewandowsky’s work unwittingly demonstrates that what is passed off as peer-reviewed and published ‘science’, even in today’s world, is no more scientific than the worst ramblings of the least qualified and nuttiest climate change denier on the internet. It looks like science, certainly, but the product only survives a superficial inspection.* The only difference being the institutional muscle that Lewandowsky has access to, but which unhinged climate change deniers do not. The object of the Professor’s study is his really his own refusal to debate with his lessers.
> 
> *The consequence of this should be alarming to everyone who takes an interest in the climate and other scientific debates, no matter what their view on climate change. Lewandowsky demonstrates that the academic institutions do not produce dialogue that has any more merit than the petty exchanges — flame wars –that the internet is famous for. Dressing political arguments up in scientific terminology risks the value of science being lost to society — its potential squandered for an edge in a political fight. After all, if Lewandowsky’s work is representative of the quality of scientific research in general and the standards the academy expects of academics, what does that say about climate science and the quality of the scientific consensus on climate change? If the scientific argument about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is only as good as Lewandowsky’s claim that ‘Rejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets’, then perhaps climate sceptics should be taken more seriously.*


Bold from the link.

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Perspective on the current rate of sea level rise. Caution: paleotidal models used.

Influence of tidal-range change and sediment compaction on Holocene relative sea-level change in New Jersey, USA

Abstract



> We investigated the effect of tidal-range change and sediment compaction on reconstructions of Holocene relative sea level (RSL) in New Jersey, USA. We updated a published sea-level database to generate 50 sea-level index points and ten limiting dates that define continuously rising RSL in New Jersey during the Holocene. There is scatter among the index points, particularly those older than 7 ka. A numerical model estimated that paleotidal range was relatively constant during the mid and late Holocene, but rapidly increased between 9 and 8 ka, leading to an underestimation of RSL by ∼0.5 m. We adjusted the sea-level index points using the paleotidal model prior to assessing the influence of compaction on organic samples with clastic deposits above and below (an intercalated sea-level index point). We found a significant relationship (p = 0.01) with the thickness of the overburden (r =  0.85). We altered the altitude of intercalated index points using this simple stratigraphic relationship, which reduced vertical scatter in sea-level reconstructions. *We conclude that RSL rose at an average rate of 4 mm a−1 from 10 ka to 6 ka, 2 mm a−1 from 6 ka to 2 ka, and 1.3 mm a−1 from 2 ka to AD 1900.*


Bold mine.



> Thus, the paper finds a large deceleration in sea level rise over the past 10,000 years, to a rate in 1900 essentially the same as during the past seven years.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that melting Antarctic Sea Ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Set A New Daily Record on May 20 



> After setting 8 daily Antarctic Sea Ice Extent records earlier in the year, 2013 stayed near the top in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place until day 140 (May 20).
> 
> Another daily record was set yesterday breaking the old record set in 2000 by 66,000 sq km. 2013 is now in 6th place for daily records set.


----------



## FeXL

SS changes their story.

SkepticalScience Now Argues Against Foster & Rahmsorf (2011) | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations



> Now blogger Clyde informs WattsUpWithThat that SkepticalScience is saying they will be removing their video because *it does “…not represent a consensus in the peer-reviewed results…”*


Bold mine.

See, the argument is wrong because it goes against "consensus", not because of any flaw, error or omission in the scientific research. <shakes his head>

Funny, I never saw "democracy" anywhere in my recent review of the scientific method, either...


----------



## FeXL

Warm(ist) crow...

Kevin Trenberth struggles mightily to explain the lack of global warming



> [Trenberth]Another prominent source of natural variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is *changes in the sun itself, seen most clearly as the sunspot cycle.*


Bold mine.

'Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

No hockey sticks in Russia, either...

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Russian Subarctic 

Abstract



> Sedimentary records of invertebrate assemblages were obtained from a small lake in the Khibiny Mountains, Kola Peninsula. Together with a quantitative chironomid-based reconstruction of mean July air temperature, these data provide evidence of Holocene climate variability in the western sector of the Russian Subarctic. The results suggest that the amplitude of climate change was more pronounced in the interior mountain area than near the White Sea coast. A chironomid-based temperature reconstruction reflects a warming trend in the early Holocene, interrupted by a transient cooling at ca. 8500–8000 cal yr BP with a maximum drop in temperature (ca. 1°C) around 8200 cal yr BP. The regional Holocene Thermal Maximum, characterized by maximum warmth and dryness occurred at ca. 7900–5400 cal yr BP. During this period, July temperatures were at least 1°C higher than at present. The relatively warm and dry climate persisted until ca. 4000 cal yr BP, when a pronounced neoglacial cooling was initiated. Minimum temperatures, ca. 1–2°C lower than at present, were inferred at ca. 3200–3000 cal yr BP. Faunal shifts in the stratigraphic profile imply also that the late-Holocene cooling was followed by a general increase in effective moisture.


----------



## FeXL

Paper finds a long-term cooling trend in the N. Atlantic and Mediterranean 

Abstract



> Reconstructions of upper ocean temperature (T) during the Holocene (10–0 ka B.P.) were established using the alkenone method from seven, high accumulation sediment cores raised from the northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (36°N–75°N). All these paleo-T records document an apparent long-term cooling during the last 10,000 yrs. In records with indication of a constant trend, the apparent cooling ranges from −0.27 to −0.15°Ckyr−1. Records with indication of time-variable trend show peak-to-peak amplitudes in apparent temperatures of 1.2–2.9°C. A principal component analysis shows that there is one factor which accounts for a very large fraction (67%) of the total variance in the biomarker paleo-T records and which dominates these records over other potential secondary influences. Two possible contributions are (1) a widespread surface cooling, which may be associated with the transition from the Hypsithermal interval (∼9–5.7kaB.P.) to the Neoglaciation (∼5.7–0kaB.P.); and (2) a change in the seasonal timing and/or duration of the growth period of alkenone producers (prymnesiophyte algae). The first contribution is consistent with many climate proxy records from the northeast Atlantic area and with climate model simulations including Milankovitch forcing. The second contribution is consistent with the divergence between biomarker and summer faunal paleo-T from early to late Holocene observed in two cores. Further work is necessary, and in particular the apparent discordance between biomarker and faunal T records for the relative stable Holocene period must be understood, to better constrain the climatic and ecological contributions to the apparent cooling observed in the former records.


----------



## FeXL

Railroad engineer states no connection between AGW & OK tornado...

IPCC Chief: Oklahoma tornado ‘can’t be related to manmade climate change… not possible. Scientifically… not valid’



> _“But one really cannot relate an event of this nature to human-induced climate change. It’s just not possible. Scientifically, that’s not valid,” he said.​_




I know, I know. Nobody is more surprised than me...


----------



## FeXL

So, there have been noises made recently about deep dips in the jet stream (& the subsequent heat waves eg. Russian heat wave) being caused by global warming.

Funny, that. In the 70's, they were caused by global cooling...

1975 : Deep Dips In The Jet Stream Were Blamed On Global Cooling

However,



> In the 1970s, no one was stupid enough to blame global cooling on global warming.


----------



## iMouse

FeXL said:


> 'Nuf said...


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:






Sorry, please do go on.


----------



## FeXL

I will, thx.

XX)


Anti-information in climate models



> Ponder this: Suppose there is a multiple choice test, asking for the correct temperature forecast for 100 temperature observations, and there were four choices. Using random numbers, you would average one-in-four correct, or 25%. But the models in the National Assessment somehow could only get 12.5%!


But they've become so much better...


----------



## FeXL

Further by Otto _et al,_ by Nic Lewis.

Updated climate sensitivity estimates using aerosol-adjusted forcings and various ocean heat uptake estimates



> The Otto et al. paper has received a great deal of attention in recent days. While the paper’s estimate of transient climate response was low, the equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity figure was actually slightly higher than that in some other recent studies based on instrumental observations. Here, Nic Lewis notes that this is largely due to the paper’s use of the Domingues et al. upper ocean (0–700 m) dataset, which assesses recent ocean warming to be faster than other studies in the field. He examines the effects of updating the Otto et al. results from 2009 to 2012 using different upper ocean (0–700 m) datasets, with surprising results.


----------



## FeXL

A stretch back I listed a link to a post by Steve McIntyre who had commented on Lonnie Thompson's reluctance to publish ice core data from his studies in Peru. The data has now been published and, unsurprisingly, no hockey sticks in Peru.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Peru

Abstract



> Ice cores from low latitudes can provide a wealth of unique information about past climate in the tropics, but they are difficult to recover and few exist. Here, we report annually resolved ice core records from the Quelccaya ice cap (5670 meters above sea level) in Peru that extend back ~1800 years and provide a high-resolution record of climate variability there. Oxygen isotopic ratios (δ18O) are linked to sea surface temperatures in the tropical eastern Pacific, whereas concentrations of ammonium and nitrate document the dominant role played by the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone in the region of the tropical Andes. Quelccaya continues to retreat and thin. Radiocarbon dates on wetland plants exposed along its retreating margins indicate that it has not been smaller for at least six millennia.


----------



## FeXL

Willis has examined some volcano data in the temperature record & has an hypothesis. I found the work interesting but had a few questions. He (almost arbitrarily it seems) removes one volcano's data because it's an outlier and discounts another, when he only had 6 data samples to begin with. That would be my second question: why only 6 data samples? There are many sizeable eruptions on record, use them. That said, I like what he did in "stacking" the data on his graph.


Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models



> Unlike the situation with say greenhouse gases, we actually can measure how much sunlight is lost when a volcano erupts. The volcano puts reflective sulfur dioxide into the air, reducing the sunlight hitting the ground. We’ve measured that reduction from a variety of volcanoes. So we have a reasonably good idea of the actual change in forcing. We can calculate the global reduction in sunlight from the actual observations … but unfortunately, despite the huge reductions in global forcing that volcanoes cause, the global temperature has steadfastly refused to cooperate. The temperature hasn’t changed much even with the largest of modern volcanoes.


Oh, big surprise, models proven wrong (yet again)...


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre examines Briffa's update to the Yamal dendrochronology.

Briffa 2013



> Yamal has been a longstanding issue at Climate Audit...In resisting FOI requests for their withheld 2006 Yamal-Urals regional chronology, CRU said that it was incomplete, as they were continuing to work on its development. However, they did undertake to disclose the 2006 regional chronology as part of the present publication. On my first reading, instead of living up to their undertaking to develop a regional chronology, CRU has instead provided reasons against using a regional chronology and do not present one in the paper – instead focussing on a variation of the original Yamal chronology.


----------



## FeXL

Scooter calls Richard Tol a "denier"! Oh, the iron...

Josh on great moments in use of the ‘D word’



> For those who don’t know, Dr. Richard Tol is hardly a “denier”, having been an IPCC reviewer, and author of several papers that are supporting of the global warming issue. But, Dr. Tol knows “crap” when he sees it.


I jes' luvs it when the warmists start turnin' on each other...


----------



## FeXL

A very revealing article on the accuracy of SST records prior to 1950 (pssst, there ain't none...).

Historical Sea Surface Temperature Adjustments/Corrections aka “The Bucket Model”…

So, if we really don't have a SST record prior to ARGO in 2003, how the hell do we know how much warming there's actually been?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> A very revealing article on the accuracy of SST records prior to 1950 (pssst, there ain't none...).
> 
> Historical Sea Surface Temperature Adjustments/Corrections aka “The Bucket Model”…
> 
> So, if we really don't have a SST record prior to ARGO in 2003, how the hell do we know how much warming there's actually been?


According to the Great Goreacle, you must have faith. Still hard to explain why he would be snapping up beach front property.


----------



## FeXL

Study shows complete disconnect between CO2 concentrations & Greenland temperatures.

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature



> As can be seen from the figure above, there is absolutely no rational relationship between the Holocene temperature history derived by Axford et al. and the air's CO2 content. Over the first 1800 years of the record, for example, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a sluggardly 10 ppm, Holocene temperatures rose, in the mean, by about 2.3°C. Then, over the following 2,400 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by about 20 ppm, mean summer air temperatures dropped by approximately 2.6°C. And over the next 1900 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by some 10 to 15 ppm, mean air temperature changed not at all. But over the final 300 or so years, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by a whopping 125 ppm, summer air temperatures first declined by about 1.9°C and then rose by about 1.9°C, for essentially no net change. Clearly, the CO2 concentration of Earth's atmosphere would appear to have had no consistent impact on July air temperatures in the vicinity of North Lake, Greenland, over the past seven millennia.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> According to the Great Goreacle, you must have faith. Still hard to explain why he would be snapping up beach front property.


I knew of the problems & inconsistencies stemming from the use of buckets, but one of the comments in that link shed light on major unconformities with engine coolant inlet temps that I wasn't aware of. The unfortunate truth is that we simply do not know how inaccurate the SST record actually is. File everything away prior to 2003 (ARGO) in some dark archive & let's move on. The kicker is, there are issues with ARGO, as well.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.


Hottest Year Ever Update



> 79% of the US is below normal temperature so far this year.


From Whiteface Mountain, NY (Lake Placid Olympics) this Memorial Day weekend.



> We're now up to 34" of #Snow on top of #Whiteface what a #MemorialDay


Nearly 3' of fresh snow falling on the last weekend in May.

Children are not going to know what warm weather is...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that 97% consensus paper.

My feelings on "consensus" science or, another way, science by "democracy" are well known. I really don't understand why there is so much time wasted attempting to refute this garbage. It stands, triple-coiled & steaming, on its own. That said, three more authors have noted that Cook's classification of their paper is erroneous...

The 97% consensus paper is starting to fall apart



> “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner
> 
> “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon
> 
> “No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin


----------



## FeXL

XX)

The Chiefio muses about gambling our future away with black boxes.

Bet The World on Secret Black Boxes



> We frequently see various reports of this or that General Circulation Model (GCM) or the “ensemble mean” of several of them (the average of a bunch instead of just one) showing the earth is going to heat up and it’s the end of life as we know it.
> 
> They are the backbone of the IPCC / ARx reports fear mongering.
> 
> Recently, several folks have pointed out that actual temperatures are now well outside the 95% confidence interval of many of the models, and the “ensemble mean”, and that statistically there has been no warming for, variously, 12 years to 16 years (depending on the model and the “statistical significance” test used).
> 
> In short, the major driver of climate panic, The Models, are no longer giving results that match reality.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Cold Hard News…



> I’m sure there are other samples as well. Frankly, though, having snow and cold spread from Australia across the North Pole and into Germany and the UK then on over to New York (and we are under cold cloud with rain threatened, almost unheard of here on what is often a very hot BBQ day), this is clearly a wide spread cold year.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but here is the ocean surface temperatures. Whole lot of blue on that anomaly map...


You can bet your sweet patootie that if that map was covered in yellow, orange & red, the usual suspects would be screeching about it on a daily basis. Now it's blue? Crickets...


----------



## FeXL

The Aussies get it... (caution: updated models involved)

Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is closer to 2 degrees



> The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.


From the comments:



> Debunking 6 degrees? where have these guys been sealed away. Were already chipping away at their 2 degrees.


----------



## FeXL

No hockey in China.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in China 

Abstract



> We use principal component regression and partial least squares regression to separately reconstruct a composite series of temperature variations in China, and associated uncertainties, at a decadal resolution over the past 2000 yr. The reconstruction is developed using proxy temperature data with relatively high confidence levels from five regions across China, and using a temperature series from observations by the Chinese Meteorological Administration, covering the period from 1871 to 2000. Relative to the 1851–1950 climatology, our two reconstructions show four warm intervals during AD 1–AD 200, AD 551–AD 760, AD 951–AD 1320, and after AD 1921, and four cold intervals during AD 201–AD 350, AD 441–AD 530, AD 781–AD 950, and AD 1321–AD 1920. *The temperatures during AD 981–AD 1100 and AD 1201–AD 1270 are comparable to those of the Present Warm Period,* but have an uncertainty of ±0.28 °C to ±0.42 °C at the 95% confidence interval. Temperature variations over China are typically in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) after 1000, a period which covers the Medieval Climate Anomaly, the Little Ice Age, and the Present Warm Period. In contrast, a warm period in China during AD 541–AD 740 is not obviously seen in the NH.


Bold from the link.

'Pears Mikey is running out of places to play hockey...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "It's the sun, stupid".

New paper finds 'robust geological evidence' supporting Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology

Abstract



> The climatic effects of cloud formation induced by galactic cosmic rays (CRs) has recently become a topic of much discussion. The CR–cloud connection suggests that variations in geomagnetic field intensity could change climate through modulation of Cosmic Ray flux. This hypothesis, however, is not well-tested using robust geological evidence. Here we present paleoclimate and paleoenvironment records of five interglacial periods that include two geomagnetic polarity reversals. Marine oxygen isotope stages 19 and 31 contain both anomalous cooling intervals during the sea-level highstands and the Matuyama–Brunhes and Lower Jaramillo reversals, respectively. This contrasts strongly with the typical interglacial climate that has the temperature maximum at the sea-level peak. *The cooling occurred when the field intensity dropped to < 40% of its present value, for which we estimate > 40% increase in Cosmic Ray flux. The climate warmed rapidly when field intensity recovered. We suggest that geomagnetic field intensity can influence global climate through the modulation of Cosmic Ray flux.*


Bold from the link.

Sonuvagun. Old Sol. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yep. Few more model failures...

Wind Speeds over China: AR5 Climate Models vs. Real-World Data



> In the blunt but true words of the three researchers, "_all_ models exhibit lower interannual variability than reanalysis data and observations, and _none_ of the models reproduce the recent decline in wind speed that is manifest in the near-surface observations [italics added]." Progress, therefore, in this specific area of climate model development subsequent to the prior IPCC report could well be described as pitiful ... because there simply was no progress.


Modeling Precipitation Over the Mediterranean Region



> The three researchers discovered that "the observed trends are markedly inconsistent with expected changes due to GS forcing," noting that "observed changes are several times larger than the projected response to GS forcing in the models." But they indicate that "the most striking inconsistency" was "the contradiction between projected drying and the observed increase in precipitation in late summer and autumn."


ENSO Behavior in Evolving Climate Models: CMIP5 vs. CMIP3



> ...the two researchers report that "a systematic narrow bias in ENSO meridional width remains in the CMIP5 models," although they state that the newest results represent "a modest improvement over previous models."


Is that like from a D- to a D?

Simulating the Southwestern Indian Ocean's Seychelles Dome



> In a revealing final assessment of their findings, Nagura et al. conclude that "compared to the CMIP3 models, the CMIP5 models are even worse in simulating the dome longitudes."


So, untold quantities of money have been spent upgrading models & the results are even further off of empirical observations. Methinks the problem isn't the models. Methinks we need better _modellers..._


----------



## FeXL

It's an opinion piece.

If that causes hives, sweating and shortness of breath, don't click on the link.

Science proves alarmist global warming claims nothing but hot air


----------



## FeXL

The Devastation Of 400 PPM



> At 400 PPM CO2, the US just had the coldest spring since CO2 was 304 PPM. The second hottest US spring occurred when CO2 was below 300 PPM.


Just an amazingly versatile compound, that CO2...


----------



## FeXL

Further on CERN & CLOUD.

CERN’s Jasper Kirkby On The Newest Unpublished Results Of CLOUD: “The Results Are Very Interesting”


----------



## FeXL

Hansen's swan song.

Hansen falsified: His extreme sea level rise projections are drowning in hubris

From the comments:



> Does every one realize that Dr. Hansen’s doubling every ten years, exponential, 5 meter sea level rise possibility would result in a one millimeter per DAY of sea level rise by December 31, 2100?
> 
> That’s 100 times what today’s, if you can believe it, rate is. That means all the worlds rivers, calving glaciers and ocean warm up would have t be proceeding at 100 times today’s rate.
> 
> Do these guys ever run the numbers?


I'm guessing not...


----------



## FeXL

So, scratching & digging for a way to explain our current flat-lined temps, Hansen had claimed that it was due to coal plant sulphur dioxide emissions reaching the stratosphere. Not so much...

Hansen falsified again: New paper finds volcanoes are the source of aerosols that cool the planet, NOT man

Abstract



> We present a climatology of monthly and 10° zonal mean profiles of sulfur dioxide (SO2) volume mixing ratios (vmr) derived from MIPAS/Envisat measurements in the altitude range 15–45 km from July 2002 until April 2012. The vertical resolution varies from 3.5–4 km in the lower stratosphere up to 6–10 km at the upper end of the profiles with estimated total errors of 5–20 pptv for single profiles of SO2. Comparisons with few available observations of SO2 up to high altitudes from ATMOS, for a volcanically perturbed situations from ACE-FTS and, at the lowest altitudes, with stratospheric in-situ observations reveal general consistency of the datasets. The observations are the first empirical confirmation of features of the stratospheric SO2 distribution which have only been shown by models up to now: (1) the local maximum of SO2 at around 25–30 km altitude which is explained by the conversion of carbonyl sulfide (COS) as the precursor of the Junge layer, and (2) the downwelling of SO2 rich air to altitudes of 25–30 km at high latitudes during winter and its subsequent depletion on availability of sunlight. This has been proposed as the reason for the sudden appearance of enhanced concentrations of condensation nuclei during Arctic and Antarctic spring. Further, the strong increase of SO2to values of 80–100 pptv in the upper stratosphere through photolysis of H2SO4 has been confirmed. *Lower stratospheric variability of SO2 could mainly be explained by volcanic activity and no hint for a strong anthropogenic influence has been found.* Regression analysis revealed a QBO (quasi-biennial oscillation) signal of the SO2 time series in the tropics at about 30–35 km, a SAO (semi-annual oscillation) signal at tropical and subtropical latitudes above 32 km and annual periodics predominantly at high latitudes. Further, the analysis indicates a correlation with the solar cycle in the tropics and southern subtropics above 30 km. Significant negative linear trends are found in the tropical lower stratosphere, probably due to reduced tropical volcanic activity and at southern mid-latitudes above 35 km. A positive trend is visible in the lower and middle stratosphere at polar to subtropical southern latitudes.



More:



> Based on these results, major contributions of the sulfur budget in the stratosphere can be analyzed directly. Among others, carbonyl sulfide (COS) gas produced by organisms ascends from the oceans, disintegrates at altitudes higher than 25 km, and provides for a basic concentration of sulfur dioxide. *The increase in the stratospheric aerosol concentration observed in the past years is caused mainly by sulfur dioxide from a number of volcano eruptions. "Variation of the concentration is mainly due to volcanoes,"* Höpfner explains. Devastating volcano eruptions, such as those of the Pinatubo in 1991 and Tambora in 1815, had big a big effect on the climate. The present study also shows that smaller eruptions in the past ten years produced a measurable effect on sulfur dioxide concentration at altitudes between 20 and 30 km. *"We can now exclude that anthropogenic sources, e.g. power plants in Asia, make a relevant contribution at this height,"* Höpfner says.


All bold from the link.


----------



## SINC

Interesting discovery:



> (Phys.org) —Lawrence Livermore scientists have discovered and demonstrated a new technique to remove and store atmospheric carbon dioxide while generating carbon-negative hydrogen and producing alkalinity, which can be used to offset ocean acidification.


Scientists develop CO2 sequestration technique that produces 'supergreen' hydrogen fuel


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Interesting discovery:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists develop CO2 sequestration technique that produces 'supergreen' hydrogen fuel


It's interesting from a fuel perspective, but I'm not to keen on these kooks trying to dump chemicals into the ocean to achieve what hey think is the "correct" balance.


----------



## iMouse

This is causing some concern, as the Spring melt provides a whole whack of people with their water.

Better start building more dams, to capture Fall/Spring precipitation that is not falling as snow.


----------



## Macfury

iMouse said:


> This is causing some concern, as the Spring melt provides a whole whack of people with their water.
> 
> Better start building more dams, to capture Fall/Spring precipitation that is not falling as snow.


Yes, but why is this in the GHG thread?


----------



## FeXL

I find the correlation interesting. However, I'm with many of the commenters who note that correlation does not mean causation.

Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide



> From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim. While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding.


More:



> Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
> 
> CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.


----------



## FeXL

No hockey sticks in the Pacific or SW North America.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Pacific Ocean; cooling over past 7,000 years 



> A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs sea surface temperatures over the past 16,000 years and finds that the tropical Pacific has cooled over the past ~7,000 years since the Holocene Climate Optimum. The paper also finds that the frequency and intensity of El Ninos [ENSO] has significantly decreased over the past ~12,000 years, opposite of the claims of climate alarmists. In addition, the paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the North American southwest demonstrating a decrease in both reconstructed temperatures and climate extremes [variability] over the past ~7,000 years.


Abstract



> Climate effects on landscape evolution during the Late Pleistocene–Holocene transition (∼14.6–8 ka) in southwestern North America traditionally are linked to the activity of the North American Monsoon and to vegetation change related to a decrease in winter precipitation acting in response to orbital cyclicity. We performed an integrated analysis of regional alluvial fan, lacustrine and paleobotanical records for the area comparing them with hemispheric and regional paleoclimate proxies. Our focus was on the potential role the Tropical Pacific has as a synoptic pattern modulator and moisture source for hydrogeomorphic activity in the region.
> 
> Our analysis indicates that the onset of alluvial fan aggradation in most of the region at ∼13.5 ka could have been a response to semi-permanent El Niño-like conditions in the Tropical Pacific, which enhanced the frequency of winter frontal storms as well as increased penetration of tropical cyclones in the region. The North American Monsoon was restricted in extent and intensity until ∼7 ka and probably was not a major factor in alluvial fan aggradation. A second stage of alluvial fan aggradation from 11.5 to ∼9 ka was dominated by hyper-concentrated flows and sheet-flood sedimentation, along with deposition in fluvial settings. Storms were probably were linked to landfall of enhanced water vapor bands in the leading edge of winter extra-tropical cyclones with moisture advected directly from the Tropical Pacific. At ∼8 ka, favorable conditions for the occurrence of these storms waned and storm tracks shifted northward.
> 
> Analysis of modern analogs for storm types described above as prevalent during this period indicates that changes in circulation patterns across the Tropical Pacific can affect storm properties enough to explain the observed geomorphic effects, regardless of other factors traditionally considered of large impact like vegetation change. Our results suggest that the Tropical Pacific plays a larger role than currently thought in landscape evolution of the region.


----------



## FeXL

Further support for warm weather leading to fewer floods.

New paper finds warming decreases floods 



> A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds floods are more common during periods of cooling and less frequent during periods of warming, the opposite of the claims of climate alarmists. The paper shows that flooding was more common during the Little Ice Age than during the 20th century or the Medieval Warming Period. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding that global warming leads to fewer floods. The authors also find flood frequency is "under orbital and possibly solar control."


Abstract 



> Two lacustrine sediment cores from Lake Ledro in northern Italy were studied to produce chronologies of flood events for the past 10 000 yr. For this purpose, we have developed an automatic method that objectively identifies the sedimentary imprint of river floods in the downstream lake basin. The method was based on colour data extracted from processed core photographs, and the count data were analysed to capture the flood signal. Flood frequency and reconstructed sedimentary dynamics were compared with lake-level changes and pollen inferred vegetation dynamics. The results suggest a record marked by low flood frequency during the early and middle Holocene (10 000–4500 cal BP). Only modest increases during short intervals are recorded at ca. 8000, 7500, and 7100 cal BP. After 4500–4000 cal BP, the record shows a shift toward increased flood frequency. With the exception of two short intervals around 2900–2500 and 1800–1400 cal BP, which show a slightly reduced number of floods, *the trend of increasing flood frequency prevailed until the 20th century, reaching a maximum between the 16th and the 19th centuries.* Brief-flood frequency increases recorded during the early and middle Holocene can be attributed to cold climatic oscillations. On a centennial time scale, major changes in flood frequency, such as those observed after ca. 4500/4000 and 500 cal BP, can be attributed to *large-scale climatic changes such as the Neo-glacial and Little Ice Age, which are under orbital and possibly solar control.* However, in the Bronze Age and during the Middle Ages and modern times, forest clearing and land use probably partially control the flood activity.


Bold mine.

What's this? "...orbital and possibly solar control." Factors other than CO2 governing climate? Heresy!


----------



## FeXL

So, few weeks back the White House had a meeting discussing the "imminent Arctic death spiral". This week, Arctic ice hit the 30 year mean.

Three Weeks Since White House Warned About The Imminent Arctic Death Spiral

The good news, as Steven points out, is:



> The cycle for climate bull**** is getting very short.


One of the most interesting things for me is who organized the meeting...


----------



## BigDL

:clap: :clap: :clap: Bravo!

With some plot development perhaps this fiction writing could get published...like elsewhere...maybe even in print rather than just pixels on the internet.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap: Bravo!
> 
> With some plot development perhaps this fiction writing could get published...like elsewhere...maybe even in print rather than just pixels on the internet.


It was made into a movie:

The Fire Next Time (TV 1993) - IMDb

Worth a laugh!


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap: Bravo!
> 
> With some plot development perhaps this fiction writing could get published...like elsewhere...maybe even in print rather than just pixels on the internet.


The International Pack Of Climate Crooks (TIPCC™) is way ahead of ya there. Try any of their annual reports for a real screamer. More than 30% of their references grey literature or worse, guaranteed!


----------



## FeXL

Further on 97% Cook(ed)...

Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus



> “In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – _Richard Tol_
> 
> [on their paper search parameters]
> Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.
> 
> Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.
> 
> Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.
> 
> Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.
> 
> “[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – _Richard Tol_


Far too kind...

Further:

The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds



> Dr. Richard Tol has just discovered that using Cook’s own data, the consensus number Cook should have published is 98%, rather than 97%.
> 
> Dr. Tol writes in a critique of the Cook et al. paper:
> 
> _In fact, the paper by Cook et al. may strengthen the belief that all is not well in climate research. For starters, their headline conclusion is wrong. According to their data and their definition, 98%, rather than 97%, of papers endorse anthropogenic climate change. While the difference between 97% and 98% may be dismissed as insubstantial, it is indicative of the quality of manuscript preparation and review.​_


Dr. Tol also notes this:



> Tol also says this about the 97% scientific consensus claim:
> 
> It is a strange claim to make. *Consensus or near-consensus is not a scientific argument. Indeed, the heroes in the history of science are those who challenged the prevailing consensus and convincingly demonstrated that everyone thought wrong.* Such heroes are even better appreciated if they take on not only the scientific establishment but the worldly and godly authorities as well.


Bold mine.

I find the second bolded sentence most interesting as it echoes the exact same point I made not so long ago.


----------



## FeXL

So, Gavin makes some interesting observations on Twitter about social models. The iron in the statements is how they apply identically to his climate models...

A frank admission about the state of modeling by Dr. Gavin Schmidt

He notes:



> While errors in maths undoubtedly exist, the failure of models to match real world far more likely due to erroneous assumptions


And earlier:



> Perfect maths plus bad assumptions still equals BS


----------



## FeXL

On the start of the US hurricane season & the record hurricane drought.

Hurricane season begins with a new record hurricane drought for the USA



> The Atlantic Hurricane season starts today, June 1st, 2013.
> 
> While NOAA predicts an active Atlantic Hurricane Season, it is useful to note this other milestone of hurricane drought, *a duration not seen since 1900.*
> 
> *As of today, it has been 2777 days or 7.6 years since the US has been hit by a Cat 3 or greater hurricane.* The last such hurricane was Wilma on October 24th, 2005. Each day forward will be a new record in this drought period.


Bold mine.

In the comments, vukcevic notes a very interesting correlation between North Atlantic hurricanes and Arctic atmospheric pressures.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. John Christy (Alabama state climatologist) was among a group of people who engaged in a climate change conference in West Virginia a couple days back.

His presentation:

Climatologist Dr. John Christy: Climate Change Overview in Six Slides 



> * Popular scare stories that weather extremes – hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods — are getting worse are not based on fact.
> * In the U.S., high temperature records are not becoming more numerous.
> * Climate models significantly overestimated warming during the past 15 years.
> * Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100.
> * If a policy is not economically sustainable, it’s not politically sustainable.
> * The climate change impact of enhancing CO2 concentrations has so far been small compared to the public health and biospheric benefits provided by affordable, carbon-based energy.


----------



## FeXL

So, a trio of articles about Mannian Climate Science.

If The Present Refuses To Get Warmer, Then The Past Must Get Cooler



> The graph below superimposes his current graph (blue line) on top of the 1999 version (red line.) Note how he retroactively cooled 1910 by 0.20 degrees.


Mann-Made Global Warming Finally Proven



> Twenty-five percent of all global warming is due to data tampering at GISS since 2004.
> 
> This is on top of all their data tampering prior to 2004.


Hansen’s Magical Time Machine



> The National Academy Of Sciences published this graph in 1975, showing that the northern hemisphere had cooled dramatically since 1940, and 1970 temperatures were cooler than the year 1900.
> 
> Hansen using his magical powers, was later able to go back in time and determine that none of this ever happened. Global cooling was all in the imagination of the people who suffered through it.


In addition:



> Hansen received $720,000 from Soros to politicize NASA science.
> 
> _As NewsBuster Jake Gontesky reported, an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily Monday claimed one of billionaire leftist George Soros’s foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.​_


Yeah, tell me again about all that big oil funding for sceptics...


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the arguments that warmists frequently use is that the rate of warming since the industrial revolution (about 8/10's of a degree C in a little over 100 years) is "unprecedented", as in never happened before. I've noted in a past post that earth science students know this is complete bunk. Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, elucidates below...

Multiple, Intense, Abrupt Late Pleistocene Warming And Cooling: Implications For Understanding The Cause Of Global Climate Change



> The results of oxygen isotope measurements from ice cores in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets several decades ago stunned the scientific world. *Among the surprises from the cores was the recognition of multiple, late Pleistocene, extraordinarily abrupt, intense periods of warming and cooling.* The most precise records of late Pleistocene climate changes are the ice cores of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). These cores are especially important because the ages of the ice at various levels in the core have been measured by counting annual layers in the ice, giving a very accurate chronology of climatic fluctuations determined by measurement of annual layers.


Bold mine.

How much have temps changed in the past, and over what time period?



> [14,500 years ago] Temperatures in Greenland *rose 20°F (~12° C)*, about equal to the total cooling of the late Pleistocene glaciation, to near present-day levels *in about one century*


Can you imagine the wailing and rending of hair if that happened today? And, it's hardly an isolated event. And, too, what the hell caused that kind of warming back then? It sure wasn't anthropogenic CO2.

Methinks that if every blooming climate scientist attended an introductory course in Quaternary Geology, we'd have a lot less problems with this...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style, a couple of links.


Coldest Spring In England Since 1891



> According to the Central England Temperature Series, England has just experienced its coldest Spring since 1891. The average mean temperature of 6.87C ranks the 31st coldest on records starting in 1659, and is 2 degrees lower than the 1981-2010 average of 8.9C.


And, spring, oops, summer skiing in June in France.

Fossil Fuel Powered Overheated Atmosphere, Brings First Ever Summer Skiing To The South Of France


----------



## FeXL

So, Ed Davey, British MP, wants to shut up sceptics. Typical of left-leaning politicians the world over, he's not content to win based on the merits of his argument, he also wants to just turn off opposing arguments. What is he (they) afraid of?

Lib Dem Energy Secretary tells newspapers to stop publishing views of climate change sceptics 



> As JS Mill points out in On Liberty, *either they are right, in which case you shouldn't try and suppress the truth, or they are wrong, in which case you have nothing to fear from the publication of their view*s since their wrong-headedness will then be plain for everyone to see. If Ed Davey really believes that the truth is on his side in this debate, he should encourage his opponents to air their views in public as often as possible, not criticise "some sections of the press" for giving them a platform.


Bold mine.

Ed-zactly...


----------



## eMacMan

On more than a few occasions several of us have attempted to point out the folly of Carbon credits/taxes.

One very clear example of how it impacts a school board in Fernie.

Clearly there are far better ways to spend $80,000 than that mandated by the BC government.
The Free Press - SD5 puts $80,000 into Carbon Offsets Fund



> School District 5 (SD5) is expected to pay out close to $80,000 in carbon offsets to the Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT) in order to comply with the government’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. The amount is similar to what the school board paid last year.
> 
> Under the act, school districts are required to offset carbon footprints, most of which are a result of greenhouse gas emissions from old and inefficient school buildings, by purchasing carbon offsets from the PCT at a fixed price of $25 per ton. This rate is often much higher than fluctuating market rates.
> 
> At a meeting last week, the board instead directed staff to research the development of a SD5 reserve fund equivalent to the annual carbon credit offset purchase they are expected to pay to the PCT.
> 
> “We understand that there are a number of municipalities that will be doing this type of thing as well, and we think it makes sense,” says Board Chair, Frank Lento.
> 
> According to Lento, these funds would be held in reserve to be used towards carbon footprint reducing measures within SD5 operations, as approved by the board, in order to be considered carbon neutral under provincial legislation.
> 
> Lento is optimistic that the government will view the board’s Carbon Offsets Reserve Fund as complying with legislation, given that the fund’s sole purpose is to address carbon emissions. He also pointed out that school buildings represent one of the single largest opportunities for reducing public sector greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> Lento explained, “If our district had been able to invest the $80,000 paid to the PCT last year in a solar wall upgrade in one of our schools, we would have achieved a reduction in our carbon footprint while realizing an annual $9,000 in energy savings.”
> 
> Lento describes the lost opportunity to save $9,000 as a direct reduction in funding available for regular operating expenses. “These operating expenses ultimately mean less dollars spent in the classroom and that’s bad for kids.” *What about the $80,000????*
> 
> This isn’t the first time the board has tried to encourage the government to adjust the way they deal with carbon offsets. The board sent a letter to previous Minister of Education George Abbott both in November 2011 and February 2012, asking the government to ensure that carbon offsets paid out by school districts are set aside for the sole purpose of upgrading school district facilities to reduce carbon footprints.
> 
> “So far we haven’t seen any concrete changes from government, although we’ve been told that there would be changes,” said Lento. “Our kids simply can’t wait any longer. “That’s why the Board has decided to create this reserve fund. We’re not ignoring legislation, we’re simply interpreting it in a way that’s more beneficial for our kids.”


I quoted the entire artical as Newspaper links are known to disappear over time.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale takes on Trenberth in a lengthy, layman targeted post.

Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”



> Dr. Trenberth failed to illustrate and discuss a few key points, but I have addressed them in the following with data that’s available to the public. And I’ve provided quotes from and links to Dr. Trenberth’s earlier research, which he now contradicts with speculation.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting take on Climate Change by an Engineer.

An Engineer’s Take On Major Climate Change



> Let’s examine, at a high and salient level, the positive-feedback Anthropogenic Global Warming, Green-House-Gas Heating Effect (AGW-GHGHE) with its supposed pivotal role for CO2. The thinking is that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will trigger a large increase in atmospheric Green-House-Gas water vapor. And then the combination of these two enhanced atmospheric constituents will lead to run-away, or at least appreciable and unprecedented – often characterized as catastrophic – global warming.


He sums:



> 1. Climate science is very complicated and very far from being settled.
> 
> 2. Earth’s climate is overwhelmingly dominated by negative-feedbacks that are currently poorly represented in our Modeling efforts and not sufficiently part of ongoing investigations.
> 
> 3. Climate warming drives atmospheric CO2 upward as it stimulates all natural sources of CO2 emission. Climate cooling drives atmospheric CO2 downward.
> 
> 4. Massive yet delayed thermal modulations to the dissolved CO2 content of the oceans is what ultimately drives and dominates the modulations to atmospheric CO2.
> 
> 5. The current spike in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural (~98%). i.e. Of the 100ppm increase we have seen recently (going from 280 to 380ppm), the move from 280 to 378ppm is natural while the last bit from 378 to 380ppm is rightfully anthropogenic.
> 
> 6. The current spike in atmospheric CO2 would most likely be larger than now observed if human beings had never evolved. The additional CO2 contribution from insects and microbes (and mammalia for that matter) would most likely have produced a greater current spike in atmospheric CO2.
> 
> 7. Atmospheric CO2 has a tertiary to non-existent impact on the instigation and amplification of climate change. CO2 is not pivotal. Modulations to atmospheric CO2 are the effect of climate change and not the cause.


I like the concise style.


----------



## FeXL

Willis creates an interesting one line formula to compete with GCM's.


Climate Sensitivity Deconstructed



> Three years ago, inspired by Lucia Liljegren’s ultra-simple climate model that she called “Lumpy”, and with the indispensable assistance of the math-fu of commenters Paul_K and Joe Born, I made what to me was a very surprising discovery. The GISSE climate model could be accurately replicated by a one-line equation. In other words, the global temperature output of the GISSE model is described almost exactly by a lagged linear transformation of the input to the models (the “forcings” in climatespeak, from the sun, volcanoes, CO2 and the like). The correlation between the actual GISSE model results and my emulation of those results is 0.98 … doesn’t get much better than that. Well, actually, you can do better than that, I found you can get 99+% correlation by noting that they’ve somehow decreased the effects of forcing due to volcanoes. But either way, it was to me a very surprising result. I never guessed that the output of the incredibly complex climate models would follow their inputs that slavishly.


Much of the discussion is in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Further on ice extent.

The Annual NSIDC Audit



> Around this time last year I caught some NSIDC monkey business, and something looks wrong again this year. They show 2013 and 2012 ice extent almost identical.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the JAXA maps tell a very different story. There is a lot more ice this year in the Beaufort and Kara Seas than there was last year.


----------



## minstrel

_This is another subtlety that I have been struggling to communicate. While the consensus among researchers in any given field should not inhibit challenges to the dominant paradigm by people with the expertise to make rational arguments about it, for those outside any given field, a consensus of experts within it is the best evidence we can have that the support for the current paradigm is strong.

So consensus of experts only has value to non-experts. This is what I've been saying about the climate change argument for literally years now; if you are a non-expert, as everyone here is, the consensus of experts is compelling evidence that there is good science supporting the ACC theory. If you are an expert in climate science, you don't need other experts to tell you if the scientific support for ACC is any good; you can decide for yourself. And the vast majority of experts in climate science have decided ACC is well supported._

If scientists can't communicate such subtleties, they are doing no one any service. Many participants in this thread have significant education in scientific disciplines. The great thing about science is we need not always agree; as I understand it, scientific advancement requires disagreement.

But, what do I know


----------



## FeXL

In the interest of not derailing the Ice Hockey thread any further, I've moved this here. As, I just see, minstrel has also done.



bryanc said:


> This is another subtlety that I have been struggling to communicate. While the consensus among researchers in any given field should not inhibit challenges to the dominant paradigm by people with the expertise to make rational arguments about it, for those _outside_ any given field, a consensus of experts within it is the best evidence we can have that the support for the current paradigm is strong.


However, as evidenced by untold examples from our past, it does not mean that the current paradigm (CO2 has a significant effect on global climate) is correct. It merely means that no one has strong enough evidence to refute the paradigm _today_.

And, as the foundation for CAGW has crumbled, so trembles the related theory of ACC. Even if ACC is never expressly disproven, there is more & further research surfacing every day indicating that CO2 is nothing more than a bit player in the big picture of global climate. How much money should the planet spend to deflect potentially hundredths or thousandths of a degree of climate change?

Note especially that warmism's big boys are revising their numbers down. This is very significant. Why? Because their modelled predictions are failing miserably and the empirical evidence does not support their alarmism. Either their input is wrong, the programming is wrong, or there is some other unknown at work (in which case the science is not settled).

Sorry, I forgot. You like not discussing things of which you have no knowledge. Dinner conversation must be stunning at your house...


----------



## bryanc

I'm not sure this belongs in this thread, as it's a topic that relates to everything from law, to medicine, to hockey, but I'll carry this on here for now, as this thread has had nothing to do with it's title since it started.



minstrel said:


> If scientists can't communicate such subtleties, they are doing no one any service.


Scientists are trained in science; not communications. This, of course, has significant ramifications on our ability to teach undergraduate courses... I've often wondered why one would hire someone who's spent decades mastering esoteric subject matter and technologies to get up in front of a room full of 20-somethings and expect them to communicate effectively. Yet this is how the system works.

However, it is our primary job to push back the frontiers of ignorance, and communicate our findings to our peers; not to the general public. Indeed, I think it is largely because the scientific community demands one be good at communicating with other scientists that we're so notoriously bad at communicating with the general public. Scientists necessarily develop their own languages (jargon) for discussing their research, and developing skill in research and research communication does not help one learn to communicate with people outside that field. However, in recent decades, the importance of communicating with the general public has been recognized and many people are working on it.

The problem is that, in order to communicate science to the general public, one must simplify, and or generalize in ways that make some of the important details difficult to convey. I know that in my feild, this is a chronic problem; I've never been able to get through a Scientific American article on molecular biology without wanting to pull my hair out because it's so wildly misleading. But when I read SA on quantum mechanics or astrophysics, it seems very understandable and clear. Either that means that the SA writers covering physics are much better than those covering biochemistry, or, more probably, my lack of expertise in physics prevents me from seeing the oversimplifications or generalizations that make me cringe when reading articles that relate to molecular biology.

Thus, I can recognize that my expertise has limitations. When a topic on which I am sufficiently expert is at hand, I will apply my critical thinking to the data, and come to my own opinions. However, when the data is outside of my realm of expertise, I apply my critical thinking to things I can rationally analyze; the sociology, the financial interests, the history, etc. So even when I cannot use my special expertise in my field, I can still think critically about issues.

In the case of the climate change debate, I recognize that my expertise does not apply to most of the science, so I won't engage in discussions with fools who are unable to see that they lack the expertise to critically analyze the data either. But my experience with the culture of science, the general history of the topic, the global economic system and especially the financial and political power of the petroleum industry, as well as those few bits of the actual data that fall within my feild, all support the conclusion that there is compelling evidence of athropogenic climate change.

I can't be as confident of this conclusion as I can be regarding subjects within my own field, but I can still be quite confident.



> The great thing about science is we need not always agree; as I understand it, scientific advancement requires disagreement.


You are correct. And 30 years ago there was a lot of disagreement about if and how human activity was affecting global climate. That disagreement promoted a lot of research that has yielded the current consensus on ACC. Similarly, 150 years ago there was a lot of disagreement about how biological diversity arose. That disagreement promoted a lot of research that has yielded the current consensus on evolution by natural selection.

In both these cases there obviously remains much that we don't know; there are still major disagreements about the details of how specific lineages evolved, the roles of horizontal gene transfers, how the various mechanisms of gene duplication gave rise to the specific suites of genes we see in extant species, etc. But there is a profound consensus on the general theory of evolution.

I'm not a climatologist, so I can't give specific details regarding what are currently viewed as the major gaps in our knowledge, but I'm sure they are numerous and exciting. But I can say that the fact that a global community of scientists have reached such a profound consensus on the general theory of ACC is compelling evidence that the data supporting that theory is unequivocal.


----------



## eMacMan

Nonsense. A good geologist can build up a very complex and impressive subsurface interpretation, but in order to make a living he needs to be able to explain why he believes his interpretation is accurate and why the laymen looking at it can expect to find oil, water, minerals or whatever else they may be looking for.

Ultimately his livelihood depends on the accuracy of his interpretation but without communication skills, his interpretive skills may mean next to nothing.

In the case of AGW the scientists did a very good job of communicating a very worst case scenario to political individuals who saw a way to realize very solid financial returns from that interpretation. They were not in the least hesitant to exaggerate or demand that others exaggerate, the effects of AGW and CO2s impact on AGW, in the hopes of exaggerating their returns. In plain English this is usually called a scam.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Nonsense. A good geologist can build up a very complex and impressive subsurface interpretation, but in order to make a living he needs to be able to explain why he believes his interpretation is accurate and why the laymen looking at it can expect to find oil, water, minerals or whatever else they may be looking for.


You are confusing applied science and basic science. A geologist working for an oil company isn't really doing science; that's engineering - the application of what we understand about the natural world to solving a defined problem: finding oil. A medical doctor is in the same situation; they're not trying to push back the frontiers of what is known about biology; they're trying to apply what is known to solving some problem.

A geologist doing basic science might be trying to figure out how certain crystals form as a function of pressure and temperature in the context of some mineral matrix. And her success or failure in this is not related to how well she can explain to mining companies how that might relate to their ability to find diamonds. However, her success as a scientist will certainly depend on her ability to communicate what she's discovered, and the evidence and logic of her discovery to her fellow geologists. Wether you or I can understand her reasoning and evidence is not relevant.

As for the rest of your rant about AGW being a scam, you have your interpretations and I have mine, but neither are related to science.


----------



## iMouse

I always feel slightly smarter, after reading your posts here. 

Honestly, it's the only reason I will click though on this thread.


----------



## Macfury

Anybody incapable of communicating may also have difficulty forming hypotheses and examining them logically.


----------



## iMouse

"*May*", but they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Anybody incapable of communicating may also have difficulty forming hypotheses and examining them logically.


This helps explain the fact that scientists are so well known for their eloquent and accessible communication skills 

Obviously we need to be able to communicate well, but we are trained and required to communicate with our peers; not the general public. This is now recognized as a problem, and the wide-spread misunderstanding of science, especially climate science, is obvious evidence that this problem is something that needs immediate attention. As a science educator and as a research scientist, I'm personally involved in many efforts to address this issue, but it's not an easy problem to solve.

The issue has primarily two facets; the scientists themselves are often not great communicators, and the general public is often not sufficiently well-educated to be able to comprehend what the scientists are trying to communicate. 

A third factor occasionally arises that makes matters worse: ideologically motivated sabotage. In the case of evolution, the efforts of the scientific community to educate the public are chronically undermined by religious disinformation campaigns (e.g. the Intelligent Design campaign). In the case of climate science, the efforts of the scientific community are being sabotaged by a very well funded disinformation campaign supported initially by the oil industry (e.g. the Koch bros. et al.), and now through anonymous billionaires who's identities are obscured by 'charitable trusts' (but who, in all likelihood, are the same oil industry billionaires who started the FUD campaign in the first place).


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> You are confusing applied science and basic science. A geologist working for an oil company isn't really doing science; that's engineering - the application of what we understand about the natural world to solving a defined problem: finding oil. A medical doctor is in the same situation; they're not trying to push back the frontiers of what is known about biology; they're trying to apply what is known to solving some problem.
> 
> A geologist doing basic science might be trying to figure out how certain crystals form as a function of pressure and temperature in the context of some mineral matrix. And her success or failure in this is not related to how well she can explain to mining companies how that might relate to their ability to find diamonds. However, her success as a scientist will certainly depend on her ability to communicate what she's discovered, and the evidence and logic of her discovery to her fellow geologists. Wether you or I can understand her reasoning and evidence is not relevant.
> 
> As for the rest of your rant about AGW being a scam, you have your interpretations and I have mine, but neither are related to science.


Not in the least. When you try to manipulate climate, by reducing the atmospheric content of a trace gas by an amount of ~1/1000th of a percent of the total atmosphere, that is very much applied science. 

Before bleeding $Trillion$ from those who can least afford to pay the bill, the models have to much more accurately predict and hind cast the weather which is indeed a momentary reflection of the climate. And they have to do it in reality, not merely mirror the effects of managed data inputs. Since neither Carbon trading nor carbon taxation can have any impact at all on CO2 output, without major disruptions in the world economy, both strategies are indeed scams, and they are being promoted with the assistance of your sacred scientists.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> When you try to manipulate climate, by reducing the atmospheric content of a trace gas by an amount of ~1/1000th of a percent of the total atmosphere, that is very much applied science.


That _would_ be applied science; but that's not what climatologists are trying to do. Climatologists are trying to explain the observations, and the best explanation for the data is that athropogenic emissions of GHGs have altered the climate. Hence the consensus of climatologists regarding ACC.

What, if anything, we choose to do about ACC may or may not involve trying to reduce the emissions of CO2 and other GHG. And you're correct, such actions are the application of science. But that application of science has nothing to do with the scientific merit of ACC.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinions on the merits of various proposed responses to the science, but don't confuse that with your opinions having any scientific validity.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> In the case of climate science, the efforts of the scientific community are being sabotaged by a very well funded disinformation campaign supported initially by the oil industry (e.g. the Koch bros. et al.), and now through anonymous billionaires who's identities are obscured by 'charitable trusts' (but who, in all likelihood, are the same oil industry billionaires who started the FUD campaign in the first place).


The only fools on this thread are those who seriously think that Big Oil is behind the sceptical argument. It's time to get past the SS, Unreal Climate, WaPo, etc., BS & learn something. You accuse me of getting all my information from blogs. How about, say, a peer-reviewed paper (oh, the iron...) outlining Big Oil's massive payments supporting sceptics. Oh, right, they're all _anonymous_ donations from billionaires. Jeezuz, conspiracy theory, much? That tells me you got nuttin'. Seriously, this may be the biggest crock I've ever heard you spew. This makes the worst BS that MacDoc has ever left steaming in the middle of a thread look like gospel truth! 

The only global climate FUD campaign has been the one initiated by the Catastrophic AGW idiots who think that a 2 degree rise in global temperature will cause the planet to fry into a crisp through some asinine positive feedback hypothesis, despite the fact that earth's history records global temperatures 6-8 degrees warmer than now with CO2 concentrations both lower & higher than now. This is all academic, you don't need a PhD to read a first year geology text. However, you don't care because the "science is settled".

You've recently noted that your presence on this thread is to "moderate" the topic, provide some balance. That's all well & fine. However, before you go making yourself look like an even bigger fool, I suggest you either educate yourself on the topic or just back out gracefully.

On that note, you've also stated your ignorance on the topic time & again. When I read crap like your quoted post, I can't agree more...


----------



## FeXL

How timely. Further on the non-relationship between CO2 & global temperatures.

Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels



> During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period
> 
> From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.
> 
> The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.


OK, so there are no error bars on that second graph. Agree completely. However, the error bars would have to swing wildly over the whole dataset in order to beg any kind of question.

Why do first year earth science undergrads know this but not PhD'd climate scientists?

In the comments there is some question as to the solar influence difference since the Pre-Cambrian, a legitimate query. However, suddenly there's interest in solar influence?


----------



## FeXL

Some brain food, an association that makes you go "Hmmmm".

Does the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have predictive skill for global temperature?



> The interesting thing is PDO in this graph appears to have predictive skill for changes in global temperature – the changes in PDO appear to match changes in global temperature, once the graphs are normalised, but temperature lags PDO by around 5 years.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook's "consensus".

Quote of the Week – marketing the consensus before it’s ’97% Cooked’



> In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show that Cook et al. 2013 was little more than a marketing ploy under the guise of peer reviewed science.
> 
> At least one commenter on the SkS forum thought this “cart before the horse” marketing discussion was strange:
> 
> _*"I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).”* – Ari Jokimäki_


Methinks poor Ari just got himself banned...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, some info about thief Peter Gleick & Cook's paper.

Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper



> Tonight, I’m surprised to find that *Gleick*, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets *is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which published the now discredited Cook et al. 97% consensus paper.*


Bold mine.

Colour me surprised. 
/sarc.


----------



## FeXL

Scooter likes a carbon tax.

King Canuccitelli plans to tax carbon right out of the air



> The only thing a Carbon Tax will command in California, is a mass exodus of business.


----------



## FeXL

More settled science.

Whoops! An inconvenient truth for ‘global warming makes more rain’ advocates: reduced pollution increases rainfall



> From the “Department of Unintended Consequences” and Georgia State University comes this oops moment in science. And all that time we are being told by people like Peter Stott that it was the increase in “global warming” that has increased rainfall.


----------



## FeXL

Just a few (OK, 25) reasons why AGW has failed.

Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax

So what do warmists do? Fall back to the old "consensus" argument. My feelings on that word here are well known. I've also posted other opinions echoing my position. Here's one more, from the post:



> _“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. *Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”* Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology_


Bold mine.

Thank you, Michael.

So, whenever you read/hear someone using that word in relation to science, know that they are not being scientific, but politic.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, what do we have here? Hindcast output from 73 (!) CHIMP5 GCM (only the newest & bestest) models vs empirical observations? Well, how'd they do?

EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature

In a phrase: They sucked.

Roy notes:



> Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?


Ah, that would be the warmist universe.

Tell me again, bryanc, how well models are doing. See, that's the problem with engaging me without doing your research first. You come up with statements like:



bryanc said:


> Climate researchers have been iterating this process for a few decades now, and the models have become remarkably good.


Linky

And now you can try to defend your statement in the face of empirical observations to the contrary. Or, you can choose to ignore it 'cause ya got nuttin'...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yep, another.

Storm-Track Activity: Modeled vs. Measured



> *What was learned*
> The four researchers report that (1) "only 2 of the 17 models have both the Northern Hemisphere [NH] and Southern Hemisphere [SH] storm-track activity within 10% of that based on ERA-Interim," (2) "four models simulate storm tracks that are either both significantly (>20%) too strong or too weak," (3) "the SH to NH ratio of storm-track activity ... is biased in some model simulations due to biases in midtropospheric temperature gradients," (4) "storm tracks in most CMIP3 models exhibit an equatorward bias in both hemispheres," (5) "some models exhibit biases in the amplitude of the seasonal cycle," (6) models having a strong (weak) bias in storm-track activity also have a strong (weak) bias in poleward eddy momentum and heat fluxes, suggesting that wave-mean flow interactions may not be accurately simulated by these models," and (7) "preliminary analyses of Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)/CMIP5 model data suggest that CMIP5 model simulations also exhibit somewhat similar behaviors."


----------



## FeXL

And one more for your Hump Day smiles, before I sign off & pollute the atmosphere with the CO2 from a cold craft beer...


How Cook ‘n’ Lew do science 



> Here’s a summary of the Scientific Method, according to John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky


The 8 steps are at the link...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Things that make you go hmmm..." department, more settled science?

Can the Moon change our climate? Can tides in the atmosphere solve the mystery of ENSO?



> The Moon has such a big effect — moving 70% of the matter on the Earth’s surface every day, that it seems like the bleeding obvious to suggest that just maybe, it also affects the air, the wind, and causes atmospheric tides. Yet the climate models assume the effect is zero or close to it.
> 
> Indeed, it seems so obvious, it’s a “surely they have studied this before” moment. Though, as you’ll see, the reason lunar effects may have been ignored is not just “lunar-politics” and a lack of funding, but because it’s also seriously complex. Keep your brain engaged…


Good read.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> From the "Things that make you go hmmm..." department, more settled science?
> 
> Can the Moon change our climate? Can tides in the atmosphere solve the mystery of ENSO?
> 
> 
> 
> Good read.


Seems to me it might be a whole lot easier to fudge data than include those lunar effects in an AGW climate model. Besides if they were included, there might not be enough duct tape on the planet to put Mann's hockey stick back together.

I will note that the authors were able to express themselves clearly enough that I was able to comprehend most of the article, so presumably we are about to learn that they were not "real" scientists.


----------



## Macfury

Amusing to see a science professor backing the inscrutability of the scientist priest-clan with such vigour. The kind of respect demanded for scientists hearkens back to a kinder, gentler time when it wasn't so easy to see the human failings of scientists caught up in ego, personal political and philosophical agendas, funding dilemmas and hunger for career advancement.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Amusing to see a science professor backing the inscrutability of the scientist priest-clan with such vigour.


Thank you for the beautiful illustration of the problem. Even though I have carefully chosen my words, and written as clearly as I can, your interpretation is exactly the opposite of my meaning.

I clearly said that I and other scientists work hard at communicating, but that such communications can be difficult even when both parties are working in good faith. The situation is worse when one or more parties are actively sabotaging the efforts at communication, as is the case with respect to climate change science.

Fundamentally what this means is that, unless you are willing to dedicate decades of your life to becoming an expert, there are large realms of modern science in which you won't be able to directly analyze the data yourself. When the particle physicists tell us they've found the Higgs Boson, we have to trust them, because we don't have the expertise to analyze the evidence on which they're basing that conclusion. The same is true for many other disciplines.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> When the particle physicists tell us they've found the Higgs Boson, we have to trust them...


Trust them, my butt. There is empirical evidence supporting what may be the existence of the Higgs boson, something that can be measured, something that can be observed. An experiment that can be duplicated.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence for CAGW. Period. And, every passing month there is more peer-reviewed evidence showing CO2 is little more than a bit player in the big picture. At this rate, ACC will fast becoming less threatening to the planet than a bad case of belly button lint...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> There is empirical evidence supporting what may be the existence of the Higgs boson, something that can be measured, something that can be observed.


Yes, that's why it's called "science." My point is, apart from vague generalities, neither you nor I know what the data supporting the claims of the particle physicists is, neither of us could derive the existence of the Higgs Boson from that data, neither of us could tell if that data had been inappropriately manipulated, and neither of us could tell the quantum physics community that they'd interpreted their data incorrectly; we have to trust that the thousands of people with Ph.D.s in the relevant disciplines know what they're doing.

If some weatherman started a blog saying that the Higgs Boson was a fake, and that it's all a scam intended to increase the research funding for particle physics, you might find that compelling evidence of a conspiracy. But neither of us would be able to delve into the data and make a rational assessment based on our own analysis.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, that's why it's called "science." My point is, apart from vague generalities, neither you nor I know what the data supporting the claims of the particle physicists is, neither of us could derive the existence of the Higgs Boson from that data, neither of us could tell if that data had been inappropriately manipulated, and neither of us could tell the quantum physics community that they'd interpreted their data incorrectly; we have to trust that the thousands of people with Ph.D.s in the relevant disciplines know what they're doing.


Again, your admissions of inability to assess the information are refreshing. However, your limitations are not my own.



bryanc said:


> If some weatherman started a blog saying that the Higgs Boson was a fake, and that it's all a scam intended to increase the research funding for particle physics, you might find that compelling evidence of a conspiracy. But neither of us would be able to delve into the data and make a rational assessment based on our own analysis.


The conspiracy is your perennial straw man. There is no conspiracy. Just appallingly unoriginal thought, and people bending science to their own ends.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Again, your admissions of inability to assess the information are refreshing. However, your limitations are not my own.


Indeed. I rather suspect you are far more limited in this regard than I am.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Yes, that's why it's called "science." blah blah blah consensus, blah blah blah


Exactly. Which is why it's important that there has been peer-reviewed paper upon peer-reviewed paper coming out recently, confirming CO2's lower sensitivity. These are not single outliers, they are multiple researchers, independently arriving at the same conclusion from different datasets. Not a term I'd use, but I believe you'd call that consensus... 

Not only that but, as noted before, even the staunch warmists are reducing their CO2 sensitivity numbers, in the face of empirical evidence, abject model failure and in a mad scramble to save their precious funding. 

It's a great time to be a sceptic, watching the chickens come home to roost. Popcorn & beer, anyone?


----------



## FeXL

It's busy around Chez FeXL today, don't know if I'll have a chance to get all the links up. That said, thought it important to post this one, an opinion piece. It's gold:

How to run a really bad infowar campaign.



> On one side you had the alarmists, who had all the politicians in their pocket, a massive PR budget which was usually and still is replenished by governments grants, all the mainstream media including the crypto-state television channels like ABC, CBC, PBS and BBC, pretty much the whole of the journalistic establishment, all the activist prominenti of climate science, the EU, NASA, NOAA, BOM, EPA, IPCC, pretty much anything you can think of which has an acronym, the seamier side of the investment industry, every environmental organisation right down to the smallest fruit loop loony tune outfit, all the major science journals, presidents, prime ministers, the world, his brother, his sister, their dawg and even the frigging cat, never mind their bloody hamster.
> 
> On the other side you had us and we had, umm, well, as a matter of fact we’d bugger all beyond the wit to point out the *teensy-weensy cracks, nay yawning crevasses, in the science,* and in a political sense, sound the alarm bell about the sort of Armageddon the hysterical bandwagon was slouching towards.
> 
> Given that match up, the obvious question has to be – how the hell did they ever manage to lose and why are we doing so well, while their once soaring ambitions now lay in smoking ruins?


Bold mine.

As I noted before, one of the things that got me involved in the debate was those tiny, little, niggling details that were never addressed and pushed off to the side as unimportant, mere scraps from the bloated global warming carcass. I guess it's karma that those insignificant bits are now coming back, full force...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Couple days back I linked to a post illustrating clearly how the new generation of CHIMP 5 GCM's sucked. Apparently there was some criticism of the linear trend plot (despite Roy's explanation), so the data has been replotted as 5 yr running averages. You guessed it, still sucks.

Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: ‘the day of reckoning has arrived’

Once again I note that there are people on this thread who would have me not post this legitimate information 'cause it ain't peer-reviewed. What dya s'pose they're afraid of...


----------



## FeXL

While this truly belongs in the "You Can't Make These Things Up" thread, I'll post it here...

Humor: U.N. Climate delegates unaware of ‘the pause’ in global warming



> You’d be surprised at what they don’t know at the UN climate conference in Bonn.
> 
> Then again, maybe you wouldn’t.
> 
> Although the evidence keeps mounting up, most of the delegates in Bonn are unaware that there had been no warming for 16 years.


These are the people who are making global climate policy. :yikes:

My school age children know there's been no warming for 16 years...


----------



## FeXL

Just an update on Antarctic sea ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice Still Well Above Normal



> Sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere remained well above normal in May, according to NSIDC figures.
> 
> At the end of May, the extent stood at 12.406 million sq km, which is 6.7% above the 1979-2000 average of 11.624 million sq km.
> 
> Extent throughout this year has also been above last year’s already high level.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Hansen...



> ...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.


Was that a crack of thunder I just heard?


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Reuters...

Wait, what? Reuters does a story blaming natural cycles for extreme weather like floods and droughts


----------



## FeXL

Donna has an article on climate politics.

Don’t Let Your Daughters Grow Up to Be This Kind of Scientist



> Luers’ essay declares that her side of the climate debate needs to “take control of the conversation.” She talks about:
> 
> * creating “*political* support”
> * “the larger *political* landscape”
> * “longer-term *political* needs”
> * the need to build “*political* will”
> * building “a *political* and public base of support”
> * [all bolding added by me]
> 
> She says that “*political* research techniques and analyses have grown in sophistication, enabling analysts to learn a good deal about what works and what does not in *political* campaigns.”


Bold from the link.



> In other words, her paper has absolutely nothing to do with science. It’s about political strategizing. *The word “political” appears in it no less than 22 times.*


Bold mine.

The iron here is that warmists are usually the first to accuse sceptics of turning the argument political.

Another outstanding example of climate science, er, politics at work...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Not only that but, as noted before, even the staunch warmists are reducing their CO2 sensitivity numbers, in the face of empirical evidence, abject model failure and in a mad scramble to save their precious funding.


And yet, we were being asked to build wildass policy based on those refuted claims because it was the "logical" thing to do.


----------



## FeXL

The informed among you will know that the warming effect of CO2 is a logarithmic response: the higher the concentration, the lower the effect. 

Below is a brief article (with a link to an expanded version) outlining CO2's effect at higher concentrations.

CO2 by the numbers: having the courage to do nothing



> To understand exactly what might be achieved by political action for de-carbonisation the table below gives the likely warming, (without positive or negative feedbacks), that will be averted with an increase of CO2 from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, a full extra 400 ppmv, assuming that the amount of CO2 released by all world nations in future is reduced in future by 50%.


The codicil I would add is that his CO2 effect numbers are averaged between 2.5 degrees/doubling (more towards the sceptical argument) and the IPCC average of 5.85 degrees/doubling. If any of you have read any of my recent links about CO2's effect, there is support for<2 degrees/doubling. Either way...


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I posted an link to an article speculating about the possibility to predict climate based on observations of the PDO. Willis questions that ability.

Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind



> The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate in other than a general way. Let me talk a bit about what the PDO *is*, what it *does*, and *how we measure it*.


Bold from the link.

Good read about the PDO.


----------



## FeXL

Donna, too, talks about Spencer's spaghetti graph and total model failure. From the comments is a link to a paper by Ross McKitrick from last year I hadn't read before, also addressing model failures. Link below.

Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO2: Models are proven failures



> This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013 and John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. *This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.*


Bold mine.

Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test



> A few years ago a biologist I know looked at how climate change might affect the spread of a particular invasive insect species. He obtained climate-model projections for North America under standard greenhouse-gas scenarios from two modelling labs, and then tried to characterize how the insect habitat might change. To his surprise, he found very different results depending on which model was used. *Even though both models were using the same input data, they made opposite predictions about regional climate patterns in North America.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Ha! Even Galileo (yes, that one), loathed consensus.

Galileo Spoke About The Consensus

On the geocentrist's reluctance to accept heliocentricity, some of whom refused to even look through his telescope.



> "My dear Kepler, *I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd*. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? *Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.*"


So, if any of you believe, like me, that there is no room anywhere in science for consensus, apparently we are in pretty damn decent company... 

Oh, just for you, mouse, bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

Even heliocentricity enjoyed a long span of consensus.

Alas for scientific consensus, the sun is not the centre of the universe, just the solar system.


----------



## FeXL

Temperature record update. The GISS record has recently been changed, with interesting results.

Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April* Data)



> The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: *On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

However, there is good news. _Science_ actually publishes a paper critical of models. (shocka, I know)

More climate models FAIL – A ***** in the armor at _Science_?

Abstract



> Fifty years ago, Joseph Smagorinsky published a landmark paper (1) describing numerical experiments using the primitive equations (a set of fluid equations that describe global atmospheric flows). In so doing, he introduced what later became known as a General Circulation Model (GCM). GCMs have come to provide a compelling framework for coupling the atmospheric circulation to a great variety of processes. Although early GCMs could only consider a small subset of these processes, it was widely appreciated that a more comprehensive treatment was necessary to adequately represent the drivers of the circulation. But how comprehensive this treatment must be was unclear and, as Smagorinsky realized (2), could only be determined through numerical experimentation. *These types of experiments have since shown that an adequate description of basic processes like cloud formation, moist convection, and mixing is what climate models miss most.*


Bold mine.

Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.

From the submitter:



> The authors ran some extremely simplified CMIP5 GCMs, looking only at how they treated water (precipitation, cloud formation), and found extreme differences from one model to the next, as is evident from the figure.
> 
> In the final section titled Back to Basics, they make clear that the problem is a fundamental one of not understanding the coupling between water and general circulation. *They specifically state it would be better to go towards numerical weather prediction rather than continue to expand the coverage of the GCMs.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds significant cooling effect of irrigation; implies water vapor feedback is negative

Abstract



> The influences of agricultural irrigation on trends in surface air temperature from 1959 to 2006 over Xinjiang, Northwest China are evaluated using data from 90 meteorological stations. The 90 stations are located in landscapes with markedly different cultivated land uses. The increasing trends in daily average temperature (Ta), maximum temperature (Tmax), and minimum temperature (Tmin) for May–September (the main growing season) are negatively correlated with cultivated land proportions within 4 km of the meteorological stations, as indicated by year 2000 land use data. The correlations between the trends in Tmax and cultivated land proportions are the most significant. The trends in Ta, Tmax, and Tmin for May–September are expected to decrease by −0.018, −0.014, and −0.016 ° C per decade, respectively, along with a 10% increase in cultivated land proportion. As irrigated cultivated land occupies over 90% of total cultivated land, the dependence of temperature trends on cultivated area is attributed to irrigation. The cooling effects on stations with cultivated land proportion larger than 50% are compared to temperature trends in a reference group with cultivated land proportion smaller than 10%. *The irrigation expansion from 1959 to 2006 over Xinjiang is found to be associated with cooling of May–September Ta, Tmax, and Tmin by around −0.15 ° C to −0.10 ° C/decade in the station group with extensive irrigation. Short periods of rapid irrigation expansion co-occurred with the significant cooling of the May–September temperature.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Hour long video by Dr. Murray Salby, Climate Scientist, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia, on CO2. 


Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change 

Long watch, very interesting.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost the British Environment Secretary...

Wind farms are a 'complete scam', claims the Environment Secretary who says turbines are causing 'huge unhappiness'



> Wind farms have been branded a ‘complete scam’ by Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, reigniting coalition battle over green power.
> 
> As the government unveiled new powers for local residents to block turbines blighting their villages, Mr Paterson condemned many planned schemes as ‘deeply unpopular’ and causing ‘huge unhappiness’ across the country.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> When you've lost the British Environment Secretary...
> 
> Wind farms are a 'complete scam', claims the Environment Secretary who says turbines are causing 'huge unhappiness'


There are somewhere between 600 and 700 wind turbines visible within 20 miles of Pincher Creek. I certainly do sympathize with the victims of these installations.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the dearth of polar bears due to climate change.

New Study: Polar Bear Population Growing Despite Declining Sea Ice



> Hard to believe, isn’t it? Rather than being proven victims of Arctic sea ice in a “death spiral” due to global warming, *when they finally present the data, biologists have to admit that they cannot actually tell the difference between a polar bear population that is so large that it can no longer increase and one that is suffering a population decline because of reduced sea ice.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## minstrel

Thanks for the post FeXL! And peer reviewed to boot!


----------



## SINC

Yep, the crumbling of consensus has begun. It will be interesting to watch as the entire global warming bit falls apart, bit by tiny bit. :clap:


----------



## FeXL

minstrel said:


> Thanks for the post FeXL! And peer reviewed to boot!


Your welcome. However, don't get your hopes up too high. Obviously it's a statistical outlier that must somehow be reconciled with "the truth".


----------



## FeXL

There's been a number of peer-reviewed papers published over the last year or so about any number of species with the ability to adapt to temperature change, pH change, etc. While I haven't linked to many of them, this essay stood out for a particular reason.

Leveraging a Changing Climate: Recent advances in understanding how Species cope with Changing Conditions.



> The concept of climate change has become a controversial one. By that it is not meant to be said that the happening of climate change is controversial in and of itself, but that it has become an issue as divisive in its contents as any other such engagement. Our primary objective here is simply to highlight some recent researches which specifically detail how the world’s flora and fauna cope advantageously in spite of, and indeed because of changing environmental conditions. We hope to show here that, far from being bystanders in the face of the forces of nature, these organisms are natural forces in themselves and will certainly move where possible when confronted by change both great and small.


The part that interested me most was the bit about pantless tree frogs in Panama:



> “*Pantless treefrogs can switch between laying eggs in water or on leaves, so they may weather the changes we are seeing in rainfall better than other species that have lost the ability to lay eggs in water.* “Being flexible in where they put their eggs gives them more options and allows them to make decisions in a given habitat that will increase the survival of their offspring.”10


Bold mine.

Why do you suppose they evolved this particular behaviour in the first place? Could it be to adapt to changing climate conditions in the past? It's certainly not a recent developement, but one that has been passed down for countless generations in response to external stimuli, ie., _changing weather & climate conditions over millenia._


----------



## FeXL

Further on the warming plateau.

The warming ‘plateau’ may extend back even further



> It can be shown that the plateau may extend further back than that [1998], and that nature still rules the climate system, more so than man. I’m not sure why Gillis thinks 15 years is the number people use starting at 1998, I don’t know of anyone making that claim recently. Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995, a point also brought up in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lindzen at WUWT when he said: “Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?”


----------



## FeXL

Hansen a denier?

Hansen says NOAA is a denier; surprised other scientists don't share his wacko viewpoints 



> A recent US government study denying a link between climate change and last year’s severe drought in the country’s midwest was down to “a particular scientist in NOAA who always makes that statement with every extreme event,” Hansen said, referring to the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


As opposed to, say, a particular scientist who used to work at GISS who has his own mantra to repeat...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Just a few more problems...

Another Test of CMIP5 Models: What Problems Were Detected?



> Among other things, the 21 researchers report that "most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes," in that "the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere,"


New paper finds the 'hot spot' predicted by climate models doesn't exist 



> All climate models predict the tropical troposphere will warm the fastest to produce a 'hot spot,' yet observations from satellites and 28 million weather balloons confirm that there is no hot spot, and that the surface has warmed more than the tropical troposphere.


IPCC AR4 Projections of Indian Summer Monsoon-ENSO Links



> In describing their findings, the four researchers from India report that (1) "only ~1/4th of the models from 20C3M capture either ENSO or ENSO Modoki patterns in June, July, August and September," that (2) "of this 1/4th, only two models simulate both ENSO and ENSO Modoki patterns as important modes," and that (3) "out of these two, only one model simulates both ENSO and ENSO Modoki as important modes during both summer and winter." In addition, they say that the two models that demonstrate ENSO Modoki, as well as ENSO associated variance in both 20C3M and SRES A1B, project just the opposite types of impacts of SRES A1B.


Storm-Track Activity: Modeled vs. Measured



> The four researchers report that (1) "only 2 of the 17 models have both the Northern Hemisphere [NH] and Southern Hemisphere [SH] storm-track activity within 10% of that based on ERA-Interim," (2) "four models simulate storm tracks that are either both significantly (>20%) too strong or too weak," (3) "the SH to NH ratio of storm-track activity ... is biased in some model simulations due to biases in midtropospheric temperature gradients," (4) "storm tracks in most CMIP3 models exhibit an equatorward bias in both hemispheres," (5) "some models exhibit biases in the amplitude of the seasonal cycle," (6) models having a strong (weak) bias in storm-track activity also have a strong (weak) bias in poleward eddy momentum and heat fluxes, suggesting that wave-mean flow interactions may not be accurately simulated by these models," and (7) "preliminary analyses of Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)/CMIP5 model data suggest that CMIP5 model simulations also exhibit somewhat similar behaviors."


----------



## FeXL

Paper on a mechanism by which corals cope with lower pH in seawater.

Impact of seawater acidification on pH at the tissue–skeleton interface and calcification in reef corals

Abstract



> Insight into the response of reef corals and other major marine calcifiers to ocean acidification is limited by a lack of knowledge about how seawater pH and carbonate chemistry impact the physiological processes that drive biomineralization. Ocean acidification is proposed to reduce calcification rates in corals by causing declines in internal pH at the calcifying tissue–skeleton interface where biomineralization takes place. Here, we performed an in vivo study on how partial-pressure CO2-driven seawater acidification impacts intracellular pH in coral calcifying cells and extracellular pH in the fluid at the tissue–skeleton interface [subcalicoblastic medium (SCM)] in the coral _Stylophora pistillata_. We also measured calcification in corals grown under the same conditions of seawater acidification by measuring lateral growth of colonies and growth of aragonite crystals under the calcifying tissue. Our findings confirm that seawater acidification decreases pH of the SCM, but this decrease is gradual relative to the surrounding seawater, leading to an increasing pH gradient between the SCM and seawater. Reductions in calcification rate, both at the level of crystals and whole colonies, were only observed in our lowest pH treatment when pH was significantly depressed in the calcifying cells in addition to the SCM. Overall, our findings suggest that reef corals may mitigate the effects of seawater acidification by regulating pH in the SCM, but they also highlight the role of calcifying cell pH homeostasis in determining the response of reef corals to changes in external seawater pH and carbonate chemistry.


Further.



> Venn et al. say they "observed calcification (measured by growth of skeletal crystals and whole colonies) in all our treatments, including treatment pH 7.2, where aragonite was undersaturated." And they say that "this finding agrees with previous work with _S. pistillata_ conducted elsewhere, where net calcification was also observed over a similar range of pH and pCO2 (Krief et al., 2010)." These findings suggest, in their words, that "_S. pistillata_ may have a high tolerance to decreases in seawater pH and changes in seawater chemistry," which leads them to conclude that "maintenance of elevated pHSCM relative to the surrounding seawater may explain how several coral species continue to calcify even in low pH seawater, which is undersaturated with respect to aragonite (this study and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011) and Cohen et al., (2009))."
> 
> Last of all, Venn et al. report that "reductions in calcification rate, both at the level of crystals and whole colonies, were only observed in our lowest pH treatment [pH 7.2] when pH was significantly depressed in the calcifying cells in addition to the SCM." Nevertheless, and "overall," they say their findings suggest that "reef corals may mitigate the effects of seawater acidification by regulating pH in the SCM," which is something they clearly have the capacity to do.


Their work included "exposures to levels of acidification and elevated pCO2 _many times greater_ than those predicted to occur at the end of this century [italics added]."


----------



## FeXL

Taking a second look at Australia's temperature record.

Reassessing the Past Century of Warming in Australia



> Introducing their study, Stockwell and Stewart (2012) write that "various reports identify global warming over the last century as around 0.7°C, but warming in Australia at around 0.9°C, suggesting Australia may be warming faster than the rest of the world." But is that really the case?


Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

And just a little snark...

Sneaky Heat



> Global warming heat used to go directly to Alaska and the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula.
> 
> Now it avoids those places and sneaks to the bottom of the ocean, undetected.




That's the complete post, sans comments.


----------



## BigDL

*Curiousier and Curiousier*

Just gets curiousier and curiousier don't it?



Wired said:


> In 2009, scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research pointed to the southern creep of noctilucent clouds as an early warning signal for climate change high in the atmosphere. Now, new data from NASA’s cloud-observing AIM satellite supports this possibility.
> 
> James Russell, principal investigator for AIM, says increasing methane emissions could be amping up the cloud show. “When methane makes its way into the upper atmosphere, it is oxidized by a complex series of reactions to form water vapor,” Russell said. “This extra water vapor is then available to grow ice crystals for [noctilucent clouds].”
> 
> As polar regions warm in the summer months, water vapor is driven to higher levels of Earth’s atmosphere. There, small dust particles left over from burning meteors, volcanic eruptions, or even rocket launches act as seeds for ice formation. Transparent in broad daylight, these crystalline clouds become visible in twilight hours, reflecting the sun’s rays from below the horizon. They float so high in the atmosphere that they can even glow in the dead of night. Normally such nocturnal cloud sightings peak when the sun is at its 11-year minimum. This year marks exactly the opposite, a predicted solar maximum.


Strange, Glowing Night Clouds Continue to Spread | Wired Science | Wired.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EhsIN6BMyk


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Just gets curiousier and curiousier don't it?


Curiously, I have some questions/points:

1) Paragraph 3 mentions that noctilucent cloud creep southwards is a sign of climate change. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't: correlation is not causation. That said, who doesn't believe in climate change? I can't think of a single person who doesn't. I certainly do.

2) Para 5 notes that NC's normally peak at sunspot minimum, whereas 2013 is a SS max. Have you seen the SS chart for 2013? It's very low. The lowest peak, in fact, since 1906. The author has drawn a connection between low sunspot years & NC's. We're currently at a sunspot low, despite it being a peak year. Is that such a stretch?

3) Para 6 notes that stratospheric cooling drives from raised GHG levels. Agreed. CO2 levels are raising.

4) Para 7 notes the patently obvious that model accuracy will trail empirical observations for some time. Good.

5) However, at no point does anything in the article mention or allude to anthropogenic causation. Hence, why post the article here?


----------



## FeXL

Another BYUND (bright young UN delegate...), making global policy.

U.N. Delegate: a cold summer proves global warming


----------



## speckledmind

:d


----------



## FeXL

A number of interesting points raised in this article. The one that I found most interesting is below.

Leading the way with an unbiased climate panel



> No matter what Gore and 350.org founder Bill McKibben tell us, experts in the field know that climate science is highly immature. *We are in a period of “negative discovery,” in that the more we learn about climate, the more we realize we do not know.* Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Gore tells us should be done, we must recognize the doubt in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Germans headed to Antarctica.

More Baffled German Scientists – Expedition To Find Out “Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Expanding”



> This is one question a German research institute now aims to answer. Antarctica has long been a painful thorn in the warmists’ side. Hopefully a real answer will be found, and not some concocted plausible-sounding explanation of the sort we’ve been getting lately.


----------



## FeXL

Further discussion on the warming plateau. The link goes directly to a long but very enlightening comment by Robert Brown @ Duke Physics on the models. I suggest reading the article first, then scrolling back down through the comments. Very good read. I love his butterfly observation...

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months



> Saying that we need to wait for a certain interval in order to conclude that “the models are wrong” is dangerous and incorrect for two reasons. First — and this is a point that is stunningly ignored — there are a _lot_ of different models out there, all supposedly built on top of _physics_, and yet _no two of them give anywhere near the same results!_


Italics from the link.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Germans headed to Antarctica.
> 
> More Baffled German Scientists – Expedition To Find Out “Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Expanding”


Read one wacko explanation that had the continental ice, melting at temps of -60°C and flowing out onto the sea ice where it refroze.

A more likely explanation is that the continental ice is increasing in depth, and gravity is pushing some of the build up out on top of the sea ice. This is a bit more consistent with real world empirical observations.


----------



## FeXL

Yesterday NOAA's NCDC tweeted an interesting statistic. Funny thing, they never bothered researching NOAA's own archives for a simple & straightforward solution...

To NCDC: We Haven’t Seen an El Nino since 2009/10, What Do You Expect?


----------



## FeXL

MET Office forecasts, in a word: Suck.

12 Reasons Why The Met Office Is Alarmed



> The Met Office’s temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm. None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold. *That makes the errors systemic and significant.*


Weather forecasters use the same GCM's that climate modellers do, just shorter time frames. As such, climate modellers have been predicting much higher temps than what are empirically observed. Is it a surprise to anyone that weather forecasts are also innaccurate to the high side?


----------



## FeXL

Well, there's an interesting graphic...

Friday Funny (well maybe not so funny) – XKCD takes on the real climate threat



> Sobering graphics to scale: ice sheets 21,000 years ago versus today’s skylines.


----------



## FeXL

10 small, insignificant, beard-scratching, chin-pulling points that should make you go hmmm...

Man-Made Global Warming WRONG - The Ten Reasons.


----------



## FeXL

No hockey sticks in Siberia.

Caution: Treemometers used. However, the highlights note that isotopes were also used in the analysis. Unfortunately, the paper is paywalled.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia; temperatures 'not unprecedented' 



> A paper published today in _Quaternary Science Reviews_ finds another non-hockey-stick from a tree-ring temperature reconstruction over the past 6,100 years in North Siberia. The authors find, "The recent warming is not unprecedented in the Siberian north. Similar climatic conditions to the present warming were recorded by about [4000 B.C.]." The data shows the tree ring index of relative temperature was ~1.0 at the end of the record in 2008, and warmer [~1.4] in the 1950's, warmer throughout most of the Medieval Warming Period 917-1150 A.D. [index up to 1.6], and warmer during the Climatic Optimum Period 4111–3806 B.C. [index up to 2.3].


Abstract



> To answer the question “Has the recent warming no analogues in the Siberian north?” we analyzed larch tree samples (_Larix gmelinii_ Rupr.) from permafrost zone in the eastern Taimyr (TAY) (72°N, 102°E) using tree-ring and stable isotope analyses for the Climatic Optimum Period (COP) 4111–3806 BC and Medieval Warm Period (MWP) 917–1150 AD, in comparison to the recent period (RP) 1791–2008 AD.
> 
> We developed a description of the climatic and environmental changes in the eastern Taimyr using tree-ring width and stable isotope (δ13C, δ18O) data based on statistical verification of the relationships to climatic parameters (temperature and precipitation).
> 
> Additionally, we compared our new tree-ring and stable isotope data sets with earlier published July temperature and precipitation reconstructions inferred from pollen data of the Lama Lake, Taimyr Peninsula, δ18O ice core data from Akademii Nauk ice cap on Severnaya Zemlya (SZ) and δ18O ice core data from Greenland (GISP2), as well as tree-ring width and stable carbon and oxygen isotope data from northeastern Yakutia (YAK).
> 
> We found that the COP in TAY was warmer and drier compared to the MWP but rather similar to the RP. Our results indicate that the MWP in TAY started earlier and was wetter than in YAK. July precipitation reconstructions obtained from pollen data of the Lama Lake, oxygen isotope data from SZ and our carbon isotopes in tree cellulose agree well and indicate wetter climate conditions during the MWP.
> 
> Consistent large-scale patterns were reflected in significant links between oxygen isotope data in tree cellulose from TAY and YAK, and oxygen isotope data from SZ and GISP2 during the MWP and the RP.
> 
> Finally, we showed that the recent warming is not unprecedented in the Siberian north. Similar climate conditions were recorded by tree-rings, stable isotopes, pollen, and ice core data 6000 years ago.


----------



## FeXL

Amidst all the screeching, gnashing of teeth & rending of hair about the 2012 drought, we have a few voices containing science & reason.

New paper finds 2012 Great Plains drought was within natural variability 

Abstract



> The question whether extreme climate events require extreme forcings is assessed for the severe Great Plains drought during May-July (MJJ) 2012. This drought event had a rapid onset, and little indications or early warnings for its sudden emergence existed. The analysis of its origins is based on a dynamical seasonal climate forecast system where states of the ocean, atmosphere, land, sea ice, and atmospheric trace gases were initialized in late April 2012 and an ensemble of forecasts was made. Based on diagnosis of a spectrum of possible outcomes for precipitation over the Great Plains from this system, *it is concluded that the extreme Great Plains drought did not require extreme external forcings, and could plausibly have arisen from atmospheric noise alone.* Implications for developing early warning system for extreme events in general are also discussed.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Trenberth.

Trenberth’s missing trends.



> Kevin Trenberth recently posted an oddly vague polemic discussing the recent slow down in temperature trends. On the one hand he provides reasons why the slow down is real. But on the other hand, he seems unable to avoid trying to simultaneously argue that _warming hasn’t slowed_.


Italics from the link.

Have a look at the third comment, also from Lucia.

More:

Hide The Decline: Trenberth’s Trick


----------



## FeXL

When Marcott's paper came out a while back, a bunch of the usual suspects jumped on the story as further proof of unprecedented warming, hockey stick, etc. As you recall, soon after Marcott submitted his clarification, noting that the hockey stick's veracity was questionable at best. Based on that clarification &, in the absence of further proof, the MET Office have backpedaled & withdrawn their blogpost about the paper.

Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick


----------



## FeXL

Donna addresses TIPCC's™ blatant politicization of the little bit of science remaining in their Annual Reports.

The IPCC: Politicizing Science Since 1988



> From September 23 to 26, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will host a meeting in Stockholm, Sweden.
> 
> ...
> 
> Representatives of national governments – diplomats, politicians, and environmental bureaucrats – will gather to do something extraordinary. They will take a document authored by scientists and spend four days rewriting it.
> 
> ...
> *
> Because the purpose of the Stockholm meeting is to both sanitize and politicize.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

WaPo's deliberate temperature data record cherry pick.

Washington Post Behaving As NOAA’s Useful Idiot



> Below I tacked on the 1975 National Academy of Sciences Northern hemisphere graph from 1975, at the same scale. Current temperatures are no warmer than 1940.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Model-Data Comparison: Hemispheric Sea Ice Area



> Just add sea ice onto the growing list of variables that are simulated poorly by the IPCC’s climate models. Over the past few months, we’ve illustrated and discussed that the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive for the upcoming 5th Assessment Report (AR5) cannot simulate observed:
> 
> Global Precipitation
> 
> Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures
> 
> Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880
> 
> And in an upcoming post, we’ll illustrate how poorly the models simulate daily maximum and minimum temperatures and the difference between them, the diurnal temperature range.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

For at least 20 years we've been hearing "We are running out of time." Donna wonders if we're there yet...

Have We Run Out of Time Yet?

Sounds just like the fruit loops & whackos predicting the end of the world tomorrow. Oh, wait...


----------



## FeXL

EnZed gets it...

NZ Greens lose interest in global warming – ‘no hellfire, no brimstone’

Unfortunately the link enclosed in the article goes 404 and if you search the home page for the article it is revealed you need to log in. Matters not, there's a screenshot containing relevant text.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mann's treemometers...from Briffa!


Briffa Condemns Mann Reconstructions



> Not in so many words, of course. However, Briffa et al 2013 took a position on the use of radially deformed tree ring cores that would prohibit the use of strip bark bristlecones in temperature reconstructions, thereby emasculating Mann’s reconstructions. And not just the Mann reconstructions, but the majority of the IPCC reconstructions used by Briffa in AR4.


----------



## FeXL

Update on Antarctic ice sheet melt.

Caution: models used.

New Study Shows Antarctica Ice Is Melting 70% More Slowly Than Thought – Another Scare Bites The Dust



> An international research team led by Erik Ivins of the Jet Propulsion Lab of Pasadena, California has taken a closer look at the GIA-correction and has reworked the data. They just recently published the results in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Based on data of the last decade, *they’ve determined that the Antarctic ice melt represents in the worst case an amount of 0.16 mm/year in terms of global sea level rise.* That is signficantly less than what the IPCC proposed in its 2007 climate report. Back then the IPCC propoosed a sea level rise contribution by Antarctica in the worst case of 0.56 mm per year, see Table SPM1 of IPCC AR4).


Bold mine.

Abstract.



> Antarctic volume changes during the past 21 thousand years are smaller than previously thought, and here we construct an ice sheet history that drives a forward model prediction of the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) gravity signal. The new model, in turn, should give predictions that are constrained with recent uplift data. The impact of the GIA signal on a Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Antarctic mass balance estimate depends on the specific GRACE analysis method used. For the method described in this paper, the GIA contribution to the apparent surface mass change is re-evaluated to be +55±13 Gt/yr by considering a revised ice history model and a parameter search for vertical motion predictions that best fit the GPS observations at 18 high-quality stations. Although the GIA model spans a range of possible Earth rheological structure values, the data are not yet sufficient for solving for a preferred value of upper and lower mantle viscosity nor for a preferred lithospheric thickness. GRACE monthly solutions from the Center for Space Research Release 04 (CSR-RL04) release time series from January 2003 to the beginning of January 2012, uncorrected for GIA, yield an ice mass rate of +2.9± 29 Gt/yr. The new GIA correction increases the solved-for ice mass imbalance of Antarctica to −57±34 Gt/yr. The revised GIA correction is smaller than past GRACE estimates by about 50 to 90 Gt/yr. The new upper bound to the sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet, averaged over the time span 2003.0–2012.0, is about 0.16±0.09 mm/yr.


Link to paper in full.


----------



## FeXL

A CLIMATE DEBATE: BOTH SIDES SHOWED UP! BY DENNIS T. AVERY



> I just took part in a remarkable event: *a public debate over manmade global warming in which both sides appeared*—and the Associated Press reported on it! I have been invited to many of these events over the past six years, but the warmists always canceled when they found a skeptic was part of the deal.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Key players, Gore, are giving up: they can’t control the climate



> On the five stages of grief, this is partly acceptance, but mostly it’s bargaining. Fans of Man-Made Global Warming are realizing they can’t have Deity Status — where they manage global financial markets and play God with the weather. Instead they hope they can still play hero, and direct less financially lucrative projects. They just want to hold back the tides, that sort of stuff.


Further:



> "In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts.
> 
> But in his 2013 book “The Future,” *Gore writes bluntly: “I was wrong.*” He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions.​


Bold mine.

That must hurt.

Now, if we could just get him to admit he didn't really invent the intertoob...


----------



## FeXL

Cherry picking Arctic Ice Satellite Data.

Ignoring Inconvenient Arctic Data



> NSIDC likes to pretend that there is no satellite data for Arctic ice prior to 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> This makes for scary graphs showing disappearing Arctic ice, which are highly misleading.
> 
> The 1990 IPCC report had satellite data going back much earlier than 1979, which showed that Arctic peaked in that year, and was much lower in 1974.
> 
> ...
> 
> If NSIDC used all of the available data, their scary story wouldn’t look so scary. Starting their graphs during the peak ice year is pretty dodgy.


Dodgy?

Dodgy is far too polite...


----------



## FeXL

McKitrick has a new paper out, comparing temperature data with population growth. He employs some models, but not the faulty GCM's.

New paper by Ross McKitrick – ‘temperature data strongly affected by local population growth’

Abstract



> The debate over whether urbanization and related socioeconomic developments affect large-scale surface climate trends is stalemated with incommensurable arguments. Each side can appeal to supporting evidence based on statistical models that do not overlap, yielding inferences that merely conflict but do not refute one another. I argue that such debates are only be resolved in an encompassing framework, in which both types of results can be demonstrated as restricted forms of the same statistical model, and the restrictions can be tested. The issues under debate make such data sets challenging to construct, but I give two illustrative examples. First, insignificant differences in warming trends in urban temperature data during windy and calm conditions are shown in a restricted model whose general form shows temperature data to be strongly affected by local population growth. Second, an apparent equivalence between trends in a data set stratified by a static measure of urbanization is shown to be a restricted finding in a model whose general form indicates significant influence of local socioeconomic development on temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale on Muller _et al_ (2013).

On Muller et al (2013) “Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures”



> Compared to a number of other sea surface temperature-based indices (and sea level pressure-based indices, which we didn’t discuss in this post), Muller et al (2013) found that global land surface temperatures correlate best with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. We illustrated and discussed the reason for this—the AMO data and land surface air temperatures respond similarly to ENSO, ENSO residuals, and volcanic aerosols.
> 
> We also discussed and illustrated why Muller et al (2013) should have used detrended North Pacific sea surface temperatures instead the PDO data for a proper comparison to the AMO.
> 
> And we used correlation maps to show the differences between the PDO and the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific. We also used the correlation maps of the PDO and ENSO with global temperature anomalies to help explain what the PDO represents.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Bishop Hill posts a blog note referring to Tisdale's & Curry's recent separate dissection of CHIMP5 accuracy.


Some model thoughts

Interestingly, Doug McNeall (of Met Hadley) sends out a couple tweets in defence:



> The CMIP5 ensemble is not set up a a calibrated probabilistic prediction system: it doesn't pretend to be one either.


and



> It is just a set of plausible trajectories that the climate might take, given a certain set of forcings.


Then why, one must ask, is so much emphasis being placed on the output of these models by the warmist side?


----------



## FeXL

Yup, you read it here...

Who Dares to Deny Arctic Warming?



> _1. Receding of glaciers and “melting away” of islands….all the Greenland glaciers which descend into Northeast Bay and Disko Bay have been receding since approximately the beginning of the century. On Franz Joseph Land during recent years several islands have appeared as if broken in two. It turned out they had been connected up to that time by ice bridges. …I noted a great decrease in the size of (Jan Mayan and Spitzbergen) glaciers. Ahlman terms the rapid receding of the Spitzbergen glaciers “catastrophic”._


Along with 7 more concrete examples of Arctic Warming.

Then the punch line...


----------



## FeXL

Some updates on the state of Global Warming, 2013. Some of these are from the "It's weather, not climate" file, sceptic style.


2013 Global Warming Update



> * Temperatures have been below normal in 75% of the US
> * Tornadoes have been below normal
> * Forest fires have been at a record low
> * The permanent corn belt drought is over
> * Arctic ice is very close to normal
> * Antarctic ice is above normal
> * Arctic temperatures are at a record low for this time of year
> * No global warming for over 17 years
> * Longest period since the Civil War without a major hurricane landfall in the US


----------



## FeXL

On all those small hydro projects.

Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don’t



> Researchers conclude in a new report that a global push for small hydropower projects, supported by various nations and also the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, may cause unanticipated and potentially significant losses of habitat and biodiversity.
> 
> An underlying assumption that small hydropower systems pose fewer ecological concerns than large dams is not universally valid, scientists said in the report. A five-year study, one of the first of its type, concluded that for certain environmental impacts the cumulative damage caused by small dams is worse than their larger counterparts.


----------



## FeXL

A quick look at some UK climate benchmarks. See if you can spot the Global Warming...

A data review to supplement the UK Met Office ‘Disappointing Weather Meeting’


----------



## FeXL

A short post on heat moving into & out of the oceans.

Forcing The Ocean To Confess



> So what I’ve done is I’ve looked at the annual change in heat content of the upper ocean (0-2000m). Then I’ve calculated the global forcing (in watts per square metre, written here as “W/m2″) that would be necessary to move that much heat into or out of the ocean. Figure 1 gives the results, where heat going into the ocean is shown as a positive forcing, and heat coming out as a negative forcing.


----------



## FeXL

Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations 

Abstract



> We aim to identify the multi-decadal variability relative to the global warming trend in available observation data. First we apply the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) method to the global mean surface temperature (ST_gm) data to obtain a centennial global warming trend. Then the associated signals to the global warming trend are removed from three sets of climate variables including SST, ocean temperature from surface to 700 m, and the NCEP and ERA40 reanalysis, respectively. All detrended variables are low-pass filtered. Through three independent EOF analyses of the filtered variables, all consistently show two dominant modes with their respective temporal variability resembles the Pacific Decadal Oscillation/Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation (PDO/IPO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The spatial structure of PDO-like mode is characterized by an ENSO-like structure and hemispheric symmetric features. The eigenvectors of AMO-like mode feature overall warm SST anomalies in the Atlantic and Pacific basin north of 10oS. The atmospheric structure associated with the AMO-like mode also exhibits hemispheric asymmetric features with anomalous warm air in Eurasia, and cold air over southern oceans. In the past 30 years, the evolution of PDO-like and AMO-like oscillations gives rise to strong temperature trends resembling negative-phase PDO mode in Pacific, and positive-phase AMO mode in Atlantic. Globally, the two multi-decadal oscillations contribute an important part of the ST_gm warming. *The two oscillations are expected to slow down the global warming trends in the next decade.*


Bold mine.

Further evidence that the current flatline will extend for some time yet.

Link to the PDF of the slideshow at the bottom of the post.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations


Yes, this is consistent with what I've read elsewhere. About 50% of the global warming is natural, and about 50% is anthropogenic. Due to most of the natural forcing now pushing towards cooling, the anthropogenic forcing is being canceled out, and hence the current flattening of the warming trend. This is all entirely consistent with the ACC paradigm.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in the Atlantic Ocean 

Abstract



> We undertake the first comprehensive effort to integrate North Atlantic marine climate records for the last millennium, highlighting some key components common within this system at a range of temporal and spatial scales. In such an approach, careful consideration needs to be given to the complexities inherent to the marine system. Composites therefore need to be hydrographically constrained and sensitive to both surface water mass variability and three-dimensional ocean dynamics. This study focuses on the northeast (NE) North Atlantic Ocean, particularly sites influenced by the North Atlantic Current. A composite plus regression approach is used to create an inter-regional NE North Atlantic reconstruction of sea surface temperature (SST) for the last 1000 years. We highlight the loss of spatial information associated with large-scale composite reconstructions of the marine environment. Regional reconstructions of SSTs off the Norwegian and Icelandic margins are presented, along with a larger-scale reconstruction spanning the NE North Atlantic. *The latter indicates that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ warming was most pronounced before ad 1200, with a long-term cooling trend apparent after ad 1250.* This trend persisted until the early 20th century, while in recent decades temperatures have been similar to those inferred for the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’. The reconstructions are consistent with other independent records of sea-surface and surface air temperatures from the region, indicating that they are adequately capturing the climate dynamics of the last millennium. Consequently, this method could potentially be used to develop large-scale reconstructions of SSTs for other hydrographically constrained regions.


Bold mine.

Paper is paywalled.


----------



## FeXL

Contrary to what TIPCC™ says about contributions from Ol' Sol...

New paper finds the Indian winter and summer monsoons are driven by solar activity 

Mid- to late-Holocene Indian winter monsoon variability from a terrestrial record in eastern and southeastern coastal environments of Sri Lanka

Abstract



> The southeastern coastal plain of Sri Lanka contains Holocene sediment archives representing the winter monsoon variability because this region is protected from both summer monsoon and cyclonic rainfall. Chemical, biological, mineralogical, and physical climate proxies were studied in sediment cores extracted from three different coastal estuaries and lagoons situated on the southeastern coast to derive winter monsoon variability. These cores displayed minimum influence of sea level-related changes in sediments. Clay normalized proxy records suggest intervals of aridity from >7300 to ~6750, semi-aridity from ~6250 to 4600 yr BP [years before the present], and aridity from ~4000 to 3000 and ~1100 to < 500 cal. yr BP, with a short wet interval from ~6500 to 6250 cal. yr BP, and a wet interval from ~3000 to 1500 yr BP. Our results match the timing of previously published climate events for Holocene variations in the Indian summer monsoon. Wavelet analysis of the detrended climate proxy records identify significant periodicities at: ~20 ~28–32, ~64, ~100, ~128, ~192, ~256 yr in our data. *Most of these periodicities are consistent with known solar irradiance cycles, which drive the decadal- to centennial-scale variability of the summer monsoon. Our multiproxy record for mid- to late-Holocene climate in southeastern Sri Lanka documents that Indian winter monsoon variability is statistically similar to Indian summer monsoon variability, suggesting similar forcing mechanisms.*


Bold from the link.

Paper is paywalled.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Yes, this is consistent with what I've read elsewhere. About 50% of the global warming is natural, and about 50% is anthropogenic. Due to most of the natural forcing now pushing towards cooling, the anthropogenic forcing is being canceled out, and hence the current flattening of the warming trend. This is all entirely consistent with the ACC paradigm.


The article clearly states that 50% is from _ocean cycles_ only. As significant as ocean cycles are, there are many other natural forcings at work which contribute significantly to the other 50%.

Where is the proof that the other 50% is anthropogenic?


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds no evidence of ocean 'acidification' in upper Santa Monica Bay

Variability and trends of ocean acidification in the Southern California Current System: A timeseries from Santa Monica Bay

Abstract



> We investigate the temporal variability and trends of pH and of the aragonite saturation state, Ωarag, in the southern California Current System on the basis of a 6 year timeseries from Santa Monica Bay, using bi-weekly observations of dissolved inorganic carbon and combined calculated and measured alkalinity. Median values of pH and Ωarag in the upper 20 m are comparable to observations from the subtropical gyres, but the temporal variability is at least a factor of 5 larger, primarily driven by short-term upwelling events and mesoscale processes. Ωarag and pH decrease rapidly with depth, such that the saturation horizon is reached already at 130 m, on average, but it occasionally shoals to as low as 30 m. No statistically significant linear trends emerge in the upper 100 m, but Ωarag and pH decrease, on average, at rates of -0.009 ± 0.006 yr-1 and -0.004 ± 0.003 yr-1 in the 100 to 250 m depth range. These are somewhat larger, but not statistically different from the expected trends based on the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. About half of the variability in the deseasonalized data can be explained by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with warm phases (El Niño) being associated with above normal pH and Ωarag. The observed variability and trend in Ωarag and pH is well captured by a multiple linear regression model on the basis of a small number of readily observable independent variables. This permits the estimation of these variables for related sites in the region.


Paper is paywalled.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Treemometers used. However, there is supporting evidence from isotope proxies.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in England 

400-year May-August precipitation reconstruction for Southern England using oxygen isotopes in tree rings



> Few long and well-dated summer precipitation reconstructions that extend beyond the longest records of instrumental measurements exist in Europe. Further understanding of the past trends in summer precipitation and the mechanisms driving that variability are necessary to improve the predictions of climate models. Tree rings are unique in their ability to provide high-resolution, absolutely dated climate signals for the study of palaeoclimatology. The physiological processes controlling oxygen isotope composition (δ18O) in wood are reasonably well understood highlighting its potential as a climate proxy in a variety of environments. Significant correlation between wood δ18O and precipitation has been demonstrated worldwide reflecting both direct rainout processes and indirectly evaporative enrichment. We present an annually resolved reconstruction of precipitation based upon oxygen isotope variations in tree ring cellulose covering the most recent ˜400 years for England. The May-August precipitation series, which was formed by combining reconstructed values based on oxygen isotope composition (δ18O) in tree ring cellulose of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) (1613-1893) and instrumental data (1894-2003), indicates significant decadal and centennial precipitation variability culminating in dry conditions in the early-middle 17th century and the late 20th century. The analysis demonstrated statistically robust May-August precipitation signal in the δ18O values of oak cellulose back to 1697, the first year of the oldest instrumental precipitation series in England.


Paper is paywalled.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Where is the proof that the other 50% is anthropogenic?


The fact that you even phrase your question like that demonstrates your complete inability to understand science. Empirical science cannot prove; it can only disprove.

Many independent lines of evidence have provided many independent estimates of the effect of athropogenic factors on many independent measures of climate, ranging from air temperatures to deep ocean heat content, to ocean pH. I've seen ranges in these estimates from 10-70%. But no one has ever suggested human activity is the sole cause of climate change.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that you even phrase your question like that demonstrates your complete inability to understand science. Empirical science cannot prove; it can only disprove.


You are confusing mathematical proof "a demonstration that some mathematical statement is necessarily true" with the type of proof FeXl is invoking: "argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition." If one states that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for X per cent of global heat, then such a "proof"--a call for evidence--is required.


----------



## bryanc

If he's looking for evidence that a significant proportion of climate change is due to athropogenic effects, I invite him to read any 2nd year climatology textbook, or pretty much the entire climatology literature going back to 1970. The consensus among climatologists regarding this is well documented, and the consensus is due to the abundance of unequivocal evidence from many different lines of research.

But of course, we've been over this over and over and over, and neither you nor he have any interest in a rational discussion of this topic. If FeXL did, he wouldn't' be posting warmed-over blog articles on a Canadian Macintosh users forum; he'd post his questions and criticisms of the science somewhere scientists who work in the field are likely to respond to them (as I've suggested many times). And if you had any interests in a rational discussion of this topic, you wouldn't be cheering him on here, you'd be reading these discussions at the aforementioned technical websites, or better yet, the actual research literature.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If he's looking for evidence that a significant proportion of climate change is due to athropogenic effects, I invite him to read any 2nd year climatology textbook, or pretty much the entire climatology literature going back to 1970. The consensus among climatologists regarding this is well documented, and the consensus is due to the abundance of unequivocal evidence from many different lines of research.


This is a non-starter.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This is a non-starter.


Yes. I know. There will always be a few who are so determined to remain ignorant of scientific progress that they won't even allow themselves to become familiar with the basics of a given field, lest it shake their faith in their previously held convictions.

Fortunately, such individuals will never succeed in science, and scientific progress simply leaves them behind.

The climate change denialists are the internets equivalents of the Amish; a quaint community that time forgot and that some of us living in the real world like to occasionally visit and buy crafts from.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes. I know. There will always be a few who are so determined to remain ignorant of scientific progress that they won't even allow themselves to become familiar with the basics of a given field, lest it shake their faith in their previously held convictions.


That describes you, bryanc! The consensus that never existed is weaker now than before. And still you do press on...


----------



## bryanc

How could it possibly describe me; I have never made any claims to expertise in this field and have never disputed the conclusions of the scientists publishing peer-reviewed work in their fields. 

As it happens, there was recently another large scale meta-study done on the change in consensus regarding ACC among credible climate scientists, and exactly the opposite of what you claim was demonstrated. The support for ACC has shifted from about 75% to well over 95% during the past decade, and it is now almost impossible to find a credible climate researcher who disputes this.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> How could it possibly describe me; I have never made any claims to expertise in this field and have never disputed the conclusions of the scientists publishing peer-reviewed work in their fields.
> 
> As it happens, there was recently another large scale meta-study done on the change in consensus regarding ACC among credible climate scientists, and exactly the opposite of what you claim was demonstrated. The support for ACC has shifted from about 75% to well over 95% during the past decade, and it is now almost impossible to find a credible climate researcher who disputes this.


Do tell... those embarrassing surveys should shock anyone who values the scientific method.


----------



## bryanc

As far as I'm aware, such surveys are the standard method in sociology research (which this is... the question is regarding beliefs among a defined demographic; i.e. it is a question about people, not a question that can be addressed by measuring observable aspects of nature). I agree completely that this is nowhere near as objective as the science, but scientific objectivity is not available here, so we have to make do.


----------



## MacDoc

Oh my - this is dire












> *Heat Wave May Threaten World’s Hottest Temp. Record*
> 
> * Published: June 26th, 2013 , Last Updated: June 27th, 2013
> Andrew Freedman By Andrew Freedman
> 
> EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to reflect new forecast information on Thursday, June 27.
> 
> A brutal and potentially historic heat wave is in store for the West as parts of Nevada, Arizona and California may get dangerously hot temperatures starting Thursday and lasting through next week. In fact, by the end of the heat wave, we may see a record tied or broken for the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth.
> 
> The furnace-like heat is coming courtesy of a “stuck” weather pattern that is setting up across the U.S. and Canada. By midweek next week, the jet stream — a fast-moving river of air at airliner altitudes that is responsible for steering weather systems — will form the shape of a massive, slithering snake with what meteorologists refer to as a deep “ridge” across the Western states, and an equally deep trough seting up across the Central and Eastern states.


more
Heat Wave May Threaten World's Hottest Temp. Record | Climate Central


----------



## iMouse

Permafrost may soon be a thing of the past.

Wonder what the Earth will give up if that happens?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Oh my - this is dire


What is dire is the inability to discern between weather & climate...


----------



## BigDL

So much for the serenity of summer! 

I seems the forecast is for a hot, turbulent season with a forecast of much hot air from the west.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> So much for the serenity of summer!
> 
> I seems the forecast is for a hot, turbulent season with a forecast of much hot air from the west.


Dangerously hot temperatures roasting the Southwest - CNN.com

The US west is VERY hot.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Dangerously hot temperatures roasting the Southwest - CNN.com
> 
> The US west is VERY hot.


I read that online earlier this week, of possible new record hot temperatures, in Nevada, California and I believe New Mexico. Quite astounding really.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I read that online earlier this week, of possible new record hot temperatures, in Nevada, California and I believe New Mexico. Quite astounding really.


I was in Tucson, Arizona one August when it hit 117F. I thought I was going to die. I have been in NYC when it hit 102F, and Athens, Georgia when it hit 113F (with the humidex), but desert heat is like being inside of a giant pizza oven.


----------



## SINC

*What’s Behind The Current Heat Wave: Climate Change or Weather?*

You can put your hand down Climate Change, says National Geographic:

What’s Behind the Heat Wave: Climate Change or Weather?


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> You can put your hand down Climate Change, says National Geographic:
> 
> What’s Behind the Heat Wave: Climate Change or Weather?


So what odds!



Guardian said:


> If you think the world is warming and the weather getting nastier, you're right, according to the United Nations agency committed to understanding weather and climate.
> 
> The World Meteorological Organization says the planet "experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes" in the ten years from 2001 to 2010, the warmest decade since the start of modern measurements in 1850.
> 
> Those ten years also continued an extended period of accelerating global warming, with more national temperature records reported broken than in any previous decade. Sea levels rose about twice as fast as the trend in the last century.


Unprecedented climate extremes marked last decade, says UN | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> I was in Tucson, Arizona one August when it hit 117F. I thought I was going to die. I have been in NYC when it hit 102F, and Athens, Georgia when it hit 113F (with the humidex), but desert heat is like being inside of a giant pizza oven.


I was in Annapolis, Maryland at 109. The temperature plummeted to 99 at night.


----------



## FeXL

*Oh, the iron...*

Apologies for the paucity of posts here, been on family holidays, trying lots of new craft beers stateside, riding the Hawg, eating lotsa red meat, you know... 

I've been covering my morning blog roll and have bookmarked the salient articles & will get to them on my own time. This one, however, just couldn't wait.

So, it's well known one of warmists' favourite tactics against sceptics is to accuse them of being in the pay of Big Oil.

Wonder of wonders, warmist Dana "Scooter" Nuccitelli works for Big Oil...

Dana Nuccitelli’s ‘vested interest’ ? – oil and gas

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Macfury

It's pretty funny to see natural gas lobbies paying green groups to attack coal as well! Follow the money.


----------



## FeXL

Another that can't wait...

My view on "consensus" science is clear: Science isn't decided by a show of hands. Period.

That said, there has been much hue & cry about garbage like "97% consensus" and other such tripe. Recently there was another paper published by Cook _et al_ which echoed the 97% number (actually, it didn't, but that's already been posted).

Climatologist Mike Hulme, hardly a sceptic, adds his analysis of that paper to the fray. It is a comment under a blog article, dated July 25, 2013 at 6:39 am.



> The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> My view on "consensus" science is clear: Science isn't decided by a show of hands.


Just in case anyone is taken in by this revisionism, no one ever suggested science is decided by consensus; I suggested that science is decided by scientists, not bloggers. And since no one here, least of all the most active poster, is a scientist with relevant training in the feild, the contents of this thread could not be further removed from its title.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Just in case anyone is taken in by this revisionism, no one ever suggested science is decided by consensus; I suggested that science is decided by scientists, not bloggers. And since no one here, least of all the most active poster, is a scientist with relevant training in the feild, the contents of this thread could not be further removed from its title.


What is your point when you invoke consensus so frequently?


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Just in case anyone is taken in by this revisionism, no one ever suggested science is decided by consensus; I suggested that science is decided by scientists, not bloggers. And since no one here, least of all the most active poster, is a scientist with relevant training in the feild, the contents of this thread could not be further removed from its title.


It's not just my opinion that's being posted on this thread. It is also the opinion of experts, scientists, researchers and many others who contribute to the peer-reviewed papers which I frequently post here.

As to your term, "revisionism", the only revising going on is the rewriting of the global land temperature record by warmists, in order to shore up their argument.

And, neither are you a scientist with relevant training in the field. Therefore, your opinion holds no further merit, either. At the least I'll provide supporting, peer-reviewed evidence; you quote "consensus". Who has the stronger argument?


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> At the least I'll provide supporting, peer-reviewed evidence; you quote "consensus". Who has the stronger argument?


You post a few, largely misinterpreted* peer-reviewed papers; I point out that your position is in conflict with the consensus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers. "Who has the stronger argument" indeed.

(*when one contacts the authors of the papers you cite, they do not agree with your interpretations.)


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> You post a few, largely misinterpreted* peer-reviewed papers; I point out that your position is in conflict with the consensus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers. "Who has the stronger argument" indeed.
> 
> (*when one contacts the authors of the papers you cite, they do not agree with your interpretations.)


Some argument. Have you personally read those thousands & thousands of peer-reviewed papers? Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question. As you obviously haven't, then how do you know what the position of the paper actually is? Let me guess: let's see a show of hands. Right?

Sounds an awful lot like Cook _et al_ 2013 who, just by reading a few abstracts, arrived at that same tired, old, unsubstantiated, BS 97% consensus number. Immediately the paper was published, there were a number of authors who reported that Cook's position taken on their papers was wrong, incorrect, as in not supporting AGW. The paper's methodology has been debunked by many, not limited to, but including warmists.

But, of course, you already knew that because you read all these papers I link to, correct? Guess what? I read all the available papers I link to (those that are not paywalled or are available on google scholar), before I post them on this thread. While I may not understand each & every bit of them, it means that every day I'm getting a little bit more knowledge than you on the topic. Now, far from making me an expert, it means that, at the very least, over the course of the years I've been following the argument, I'm a well-informed layman.

How do I misinterpret the papers? And, you, as an uninformed layman, know they're being misinterpreted how? I post the link, usually the abstract, maybe take a quote directly out of the paper. Sometimes I'll provide a comment, others not. Where's the interpretation?

And, your tiresome little re-re-re-telling of the same story about how, once, long ago you contacted a single, one, author, out of the hundreds of papers I've posted links to on this thread is nothing more than a red-herring. A single paper, out of hundreds. Fine. I'll concede, simply because I didn't contact the author myself to clarify. You win. One paper. However, if one paper refutes hundreds of others, then have I got a list for you.

Now, address the hundreds of others. After you read them or contact all of the authors...


----------



## heavyall

Another factor is that the position of the author of the paper doesn't necessarily gel with the data presented in it. S/he might say they never meant to convey position-X, but if their own data clearly shows it, too bad for them.

That's a huge part of the problem when it comes to AGW position papers -- more often than not, their own data does not say what they claim it does.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Have you personally read those thousands & thousands of peer-reviewed papers?


Of course not; it's not my field of research. That's why I rely on the interpretation of the experts... duh!

What I don't understand is how someone like you, who has even less expertise in relevant fields of research than me, would become so emotionally committed to the opposing view; its abundantly clear that you understand the research even less well than I do, yet you take up the standard of not only a minority view, but that of a trivially small minority view, without having the faintest f*cking clue what you're supporting... It's almost like you have a religious conviction to support one side: FeXL's side, right or wrong.

Whatever turns yer crank, I'm not interested in arguing with you any more.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> without having the faintest f*cking clue what you're supporting.


Nice to see the Magic influence here now. Congrats, very good!


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Nice to see the Magic influence here now. Congrats, very good!


feel free to report anything you find objectionable.


----------



## pm-r

SINC said:


> Nice to see the Magic influence here now. Congrats, very good!



I just stumbled onto this thread by accident and was a bit surprised by some comment posts I read.

So I went back to page #1 to find out what it was all about in the beginning and ehmac himself had this to say with his #2 post:



ehMax said:


> I will give this topic one last chance. 3 strikes, and this topic is out.
> 
> Please only present information, and thoughtful comments on the information.
> 
> Please do not preface information with disparaging remarks / labels towards people who hold opposing views.


Obviously he isn't around any more from some of the posts I read, and sure a lot more than three strikes!!!!!  

Fist and final post here in this forum thread for me.

Just saying...


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> without having the faintest f*cking clue what you're supporting... .


And yet, he clearly understands significantly more than you do.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> What I don't understand is how someone like you, who has even less expertise in relevant fields of research than me, would become so emotionally committed to the opposing view;


It's not a pissing contest bryanc. You win. You've got more university courses than I do. Take a bow. That doesn't put you in a position to judge me, or anyone else who knows more about the topic than you. Nearly every single day for the last 6 years or better I've been educating myself on the topic. I'm betting large I have a fuller grasp of the topic than you do.

There is nothing emotional or political about my view. My view is based on cold, hard, observable scientific facts. The view that you follow, the "consensus", is based on GCM's which have yet to prove themselves beyond an accuracy rate of ~20%, max. And that was the old generation, CHIMP3. The new generation, CHIMP5, is even worse in many instances. Read a paper every so often, learn something. Why is it that some of the smarter modellers are dialing back CO2 sensitivity? Because they get better numbers! How come? 'Cause the hypothesis of CO's high sensitivity, the foundation for the argument, is wrong. Period. Amazing how that little tidbit of info is being cited in any number of papers in the last year or so. Sensitivities of <2 popping up all over the place, as opposed to upwards of 4.



bryanc said:


> its abundantly clear that you understand the research even less well than I do,


You've admitted your ignorance on the topic many times, bryanc. Hence your faith in "consensus". I'm a fair stretch beyond requiring someone to do that for me...



bryanc said:


> yet you take up the standard of not only a minority view, but that of a trivially small minority view, without having the faintest f*cking clue what you're supporting...


Thank you. May I have another? First, it matters not how few people are sceptical (on any topic, for that matter). What matters is that they can make a cogent case for their argument. Done & done. This ain't a grade school show of hands on what to do for recess. Secondly, despite your attempts to trivialize how many people are sceptical, it's not that few. Third, if science operated via majority view, there would be no need for scientists. We could hand it all over to the politicians. I can see it now. "Whaddya think of this, boyz? Show of hands for? Against? Carried. The earth is now the center of the universe. Next item on the agenda? Plate techtonics. On deck? Global warming..."



bryanc said:


> It's almost like you have a religious conviction to support one side: FeXL's side, right or wrong.


Hate to disappoint ya, I'm agnostic. And, frankly, I've never cared who agreed with me & who didn't, at any point in my life, on any topic. I'm not that insecure. That said, I'm willing to listen to anybody who can offer a reasonable explanation from the AGW side. I've read most of the arguments. Haven't found one yet that satisfied me. And, I'm in good company on that. Many experts, climate scientists, physicists, and earth scientists, among others, are sceptical, too.



bryanc said:


> Whatever turns yer crank, I'm not interested in arguing with you any more.


Thing is bryanc, you're not arguing. Neither are you discussing. You're shovelling. You're trying to push "consensus" down my throat & I'm having none of it. If you were honestly interested in engaging me on the topic, we could have a civil discussion, even without getting into the real meat & potatoes. You ain't &, consequently, I'm not interested.

Gonna miss ya (again)...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, new paper (paywalled) on, you guessed it, climate models. Seems you get differing results depending on what hardware you use. Floating point rounding math issues, anyone?

Abstract


> This study presents the dependency of the simulation results from a global atmospheric numerical model on machines with different hardware and software systems. The global model program (GMP) of the Global/Regional Integrated Model system (GRIMs) is tested on 10 different computer systems having different central processing unit (CPU) architectures or compilers. *There exist differences in the results for different compilers, parallel libraries, and optimization levels, primarily due to the treatment of rounding errors by the different software systems. The system dependency, which is the standard deviation of the 500-hPa geopotential height averaged over the globe, increases with time.* However, its fractional tendency, which is the change of the standard deviation relative to the value itself, remains nearly zero with time. In a seasonal prediction framework, *the ensemble spread due to the differences in software system is comparable to the ensemble spread due to the differences in initial conditions* that is used for the traditional ensemble forecasting.


Bold from the first link.

New paper finds the same climate model produces different results when run on different computers

They ask a very salient question:



> Could climate catastrophe be due to a rounding error?


More:

Another uncertainty for climate models – different results on different computers using the same code

My next post has a very interesting revelation about climate modelling from a 1938 paper...


----------



## FeXL

Week and a half back, Steve McIntyre posted an intriguing article about a low sensitivity model and compared its output to a current high sensitivity model utilized by the UK Met Office. 


Results from a Low-Sensitivity Model

He kept the author of the model under wraps until today's expose:

Guy Callendar vs the GCMs

It's based on a paper published by Guy Callendar, a steam engineer, in 1938.



> Callendar 1938 proposed (his Figure 2) a logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature (expressed as an anomaly to then present mean temperature.) In my teaser post, I used Callendar’s formula (with *no* modification whatever) together with RCP4.5 total forcing and compared the result to the UK Met Office’s CMIP5 contribution (HadGEM2) also using RCP4.5 forcing.


Bold from the original.



> Figure 1. Callendar 1938 showing temperature zone relationship. Log curve (red) fitted by digitizing 13 points on the graphic and fitting a log curve by regression: y= -2.635113 + 2.410493 *x. *This yields sensitivity of 2.41 *log(2) = 1.67 deg.*


Bold mine.

Huh. Doubling sensitivity of 1.67. Callendar knew this in 1938. The International Pack of Climate Crooks still hasn't figgered it out...

How'd his model fare, compared to warmists' latest & greatest, CHIMP5?



> Remarkably, none of the 12 CMIP5 have any “skill” in reconstructing GLB temperature relative to the simple GCM-Q [Callendar's] formula. Indeed, 10 of 12 do dramatically worse.


Must read.


----------



## FeXL

A number you won't see quoted anywhere in the MSM...

Nine of the last 10 days a new record has been set for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. It is currently >1,000,000 square km (!) over the 30 year mean.


WOW! 9th Daily Record in 10 Days Smashes Record for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent


----------



## bryanc

Back in the real world...




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc, you should be a little embarrassed simply linking a cartoon on YouTube called "Temperature Data."


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Back in the real world...


Well, I'd like to make a coupla observations...

First, as a scientist you should know that in the real world, you are required to defend your position with some sort of empirical data. Your post neither links nor cross-references empirical data nor do you even bother stating what your point is. Just some cryptic one-liner that may have been uttered by one of the other usual suspects on this thread.

Second, nobody I know denies that the earth hasn't warmed on & off since 1880 & for thousands of millennia before. I certainly don't. No more than I deny that the Holocene Climatic Optimum of 8000 years ago was several degrees warmer than it is today at a significantly reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration. Depending on whose manipulated data you are citing, there's been around 7 degrees C of warming since 1880. During that time there have been brief periods of warming and some longer periods of cooling. No argument.

Third, what empirical evidence is there that the cause of this warming is anthropogenic? And, what percentage? Note: Models do not spew empirical evidence.

Fourth, gotta love that pulsing red in the Arctic, where they have practically no data due to an almost complete absence of thermometers. What you are seeing is climate model predictions tacked onto severely manipulated thermometer data. But, you already knew that.

Fifth, the veracity of the sea surface temperature data is questionable due to inconsistent methodology before ARGO (wood buckets, canvas buckets, metal buckets, depth of the sample, engine coolant intake depth changes due to freight load, a whole host of other variables), & even after ARGO there has been significant data manipulation. However, as an informed layperson, you knew that, too.

I hold no issues with opposing views. Unlike warmists & their religion, I have no desire to stamp out the opposition. I let the science based on measurable observations do the talking. Bring some empirical evidence to the table & we'll discuss it. Hell, bring a SWAG, if you like. State it clearly & concisely and be able to defend your position. 

Today, you have done none of these...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> bryanc, you should be a little embarrassed simply linking a cartoon on YouTube called "Temperature Data."


The data is from NASA; youtube allows embedding so I used that link.

I trust the thousands of scientists at NASA and at dozens of other independent research institutes around the world to know how to do their jobs. I don't trust the oil industry and their PR-campaigns in the blogosphere who have been paid to discredit climate researchers over the past decade.

The science on this topic is clear; the opposition to efforts to curb GHG emissions and mitigate ACC are entirely motivated by the fossil fuel industry and their political allies. To ignore this is to be willfully ignorant.

There was an interesting article published recently on the psychology of the anti-science mind-set on the political right (vs. climate change) and on the political left (vs GMO crops and vaccines). The evidence is quite clear that once most people have bought into one ideology, no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can shift their perceptions. You might want to consider your position in light of these observations.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> The evidence is quite clear that once most people have bought into one ideology, no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can shift their perceptions. You might want to consider your position in light of these observations.


Irony at it's finest folks.


----------



## eMacMan

Having seen one NASA map where the temps for Alberta were clearly manipulated I do view NASA numbers with a good deal of skepticism. I mean almost every weather station in the province showed one of and in some cases the coldest year on record and NASA had us pegged at slightly warmer than normal that year.

It's buried in one of the earlier threads, I remember pointing out the problem at the time.


----------



## Macfury

James Hansen has been caught numerous times goosing the data, not only from recent years but back to the 1930s.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The data is from NASA; youtube allows embedding so I used that link.


Thx for the clarification.



bryanc said:


> I trust the thousands of scientists at NASA and at dozens of other independent research institutes around the world to know how to do their jobs. I don't trust the oil industry and their PR-campaigns in the blogosphere who have been paid to discredit climate researchers over the past decade.


Funny, that. I trust the thousands of scientists who actually use the scientific method, employing empirical observations rather than reading printouts from computer models that have thus far not been able to come close to anything that resembles reality.

And, I'd love for you to come up with some hard proof of this vast oil industry conspiracy to discredit climate researchers. Warmists themselves are the ones who have engineered their failure, by making faulty predictions based on crappy models that have never come true and are quickly massaged to suit the panic du jour. Now the chickens have come home to roost the warmists are the ones with egg on their face.

You hold NASA scientists in high esteem. Fine. I wonder of you would give such high praise if you knew what Hansen had done to the global temperature record, or what NASA was doing to the sunspot record. What about NASA's penchant to create temperatures in the Arctic where no thermometers exist?

I also wonder if the same admiration is passed on to prior NASA scientists, namely those who have retired but still seek the truth. I speak specifically of those 20 who, in February of 2012, formed "The Right Climate Stuff" group & associated website & blog. Lemme give ya a hint: they don't buy "The Science is Settled".



bryanc said:


> The science on this topic is clear; the opposition to efforts to curb GHG emissions and mitigate ACC are entirely motivated by the fossil fuel industry and their political allies. To ignore this is to be willfully ignorant.


Which science is that we're talking about here? 

Is this the science that gave us Glacier-gate where the IPCC made erroneous claims about Himalayan glacier melt, namely that the glaciers would be completely melted by 2035, based on a WWF report? 

Is this the science that gave us Amazon-gate where the IPCC gave erroneous claims about the effects of global warming on the Amazon rainforest based on a WWF report?

Perhaps you are referring to the IPCC's science upon which Africa-gate bloomed, whereby it was claimed that yields from rain fed agriculture wold be reduced by 50% by 2020, again, info from an advocacy group.

If not, it must then be the science that the IPCC used in Antarctica-gate, wherein they underestimated Antarctic sea ice by 50%.

As we are talking about the IPCC not checking simple facts, this is the place for Holland-gate, whereby the IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, when in fact only 26% of the country is below sea level.

Maybe you are talking about the IPCC science behind Polarbear-gate, that which claimed polar bear populations were falling due to global warming and were 1/5 of what they actually were.

Perhaps you are talking about the science behind Greenpeace-gate and the IPCC lead author who is not only a Greenpeace employee, but who reviewed his own work.

To add to the pile, perhaps you are talking about the cadre of outstanding scientists (not!) that form 28-gate, that bastion of talent & information that the BBC accesses to form climate reporting policy.

Of course, we should not exclude from this list of science those outstanding scientists exposed in Climate-gate I & II. Phil Jones, who wanted to redefine the peer review process to stop sceptic papers from being published. Michael Mann, who was using tricks to "hide the decline" in his data. Interestingly enough, his "hockey stick" graph was so stinky that even the IPCC elected to not use it in their subsequent annual report. Many warmists allegedly deleting data to bypass FOIA. I could list pages on Climate-gate alone.

If none of the above, perhaps we could talk about the science behind those wonderful global circulation models, you know, the ones that used to get ~20% correct but are now even worse? We could discuss why empirical evidence show CO2's sensitivity to doubling is far less than two, some papers even showing less than one, whereas the models are still using numbers >4.

Maybe we could talk about the science that figgers deep sea temperatures can rise due to global warming without a trace of the missing heat ever passing through the water column? 

Perhaps a discussion is in order about the settled science that didn't predict the current 18 year flatline in global temps?

As we are speaking of global temps, we should mention the science behind the abject failure of Jim Hansen's 1988 Scenario A, B, C temperature graph, the one he presented to the US Senate on the hottest day of the summer with the room windows open and the air conditioning not working.

Is that the science we're talking about?

The above list is short. It is also only a small representation of the massive chunk of problems associated with what you & your climate gods refer to as "settled science".

BTW, where is my cheque from Big Oil?



bryanc said:


> The evidence is quite clear that once most people have bought into one ideology, no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can shift their perceptions. You might want to consider your position in light of these observations.


heavyall nailed this one.

That said, I've told you from day 1, bryanc, I'm open to fresh ideas & new hypotheses explaining the warmist perspective. Have at 'er...


----------



## bryanc

heavyall said:


> Irony at it's finest folks.


I expected this; the implication being that I'm suffering from the ideologically motivated reasoning, rather than you. But I accept the science on both sides of the political spectrum. I have no problem with GMO foods, and I don't think there's any scientific conspiracy to cover up the dangers of vaccines. Thus, I do not fit the paradigm of "ideologically motivated reasoning" as you do.

When the science is within my feild of expertise, I use my own critical thinking skills and evaluate the evidence independently - this is the case for GMOs and vaccines, and my own analysis of the data is entirely congruent with the scientific consensus on these topics. When the science is outside the scope of my expertise, I either accept the consensus of experts in their respective fields, or expand my expertise.

This is why I have no interest in arguing with you over the details of climate research; I'm not a climate researcher and neither are you, so neither of us has an opinion worth considering. The only opinions that matter in this debate are those of the scientists with relevant expertise. Since those with relevant expertise are in overwhelming and unequivocal consensus, the argument is settled.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This is why I have no interest in arguing with you over the details of climate research; I'm not a climate researcher and neither are you, so neither of us has an opinion worth considering. The only opinions that matter in this debate are those of the scientists with relevant expertise. Since those with relevant expertise are in overwhelming and unequivocal consensus, the argument is settled.


Again, I do accept that you have no qualifications to discuss the matter--this must be the 210th time you've confessed this.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Again, I do accept that you have no qualifications to discuss the matter--this must be the 210th time you've confessed this.


Yet you still fail to comprehend the distinction between being able to rationally criticize the science, and being able to rationally interpret the consensus of scientists in the field.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Again, I do accept that you have no qualifications to discuss the matter--this must be the 210th time you've confessed this.


Seeing as bryanc seems to like repetition, I'd like to bring this to his attention one more time:

100% of the people who believed in a Geocentric Universe were 100% wrong. The "consensus", as he'd use the term, ultimately didn't have a clew. Science is not decided by a show of hands, it is decided by empirical evidence. This is why AGW is falling apart faster than an unsewn seam in a washing machine.

I was going to list many more but, it wouldn't change his fascination with ancient religions. That said, this little item about Geocentric Universe the came up in my search:



> This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions.


I was aghast! Sound like any other pseudo-science we're all familiar with? When all you postulate the warming of the earth upon is CO2, then CO2 is obviously the culprit. Models are tuned to show exactly the kind of result you want, declines are hidden in the data, poof! The science is settled! You'd get a similar result if you blamed rising temps singularly on the paucity of pirates. It's Blackbeard's fault!

Then, unexpectedly, temps flatline for 18 years, all the while hundreds of tons of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere and people start questioning CO2's role. Wait just a minute... Maybe the science isn't settled. What if it's something else? What if it's largely the sun, clouds, aerosols, a whole host of natural causes and man's contribution is merely a bit part? On the order of a few percent? What if that paper on treemometers with the hockey stick temperature graph is wrong and the thousand or more papers supporting the existence of the MWP are right? Hence, scepticism and the search for real causes, the peer-reviewed results authored by thousands of sceptical scientists which we see before us today.

bryanc, you told me flat out I didn't have an f'ing clue what I was defending. Irony that, coming from somebody who openly proclaims his ignorance on the subject and swallows consensus like it was kool-aid at a Jonestown religious gathering...


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Seeing as bryanc seems to like repetition, I'd like to bring this to his attention one more time:


Sigh... Despite the repetition and the blinding obviousness of my point, you still seem to be able to completely miss it. I have no opinion on the validity of climate science. I have never said that the consensus of scientists proves they're right. Your analogy to the geocentric universe is entirely inappropriate, as I am not saying the scientists are right or wrong. I can't have an opinion on that because I'm not an expert in the field. You are not an expert in the field, so while you're entitled to your opinion, it is worthless to anyone who has a rational world view.



> Science is not decided by a show of hands, it is decided by empirical evidence.


Exactly correct; empirical evidence that is collected and analyzed by scientists, not bloggers on the internet.



> This is why AGW is falling apart faster than an unsewn seam in a washing machine.


What colour is the sky on your planet? On earth, the sky is blue and the support for ACC among climate researchers has grown from about 70% to essentially 100% over the past 20 years.



> bryanc, you told me flat out I didn't have an f'ing clue what I was defending.


Because, as I have pointed out over and over, it it obvious you don't have the training or expertise in the field your criticizing. How hard is this to understand? When you've earned a Ph.D. in the field, your opinions will be considered more seriously.


----------



## bryanc

Actually, I'll add one more point. FeXL is constantly challenging me to argue with him about the science, and I consistently refuse, because I'm not going to spend my time arguing on the internet about something that I know little about with someone who knows even less than I. However, I do see many of the same points FeXL brings up discussed on another site that I frequent, where the exact same arguments FeXL brings up are consistently demolished by actual climate scientists. I have previously invited FeXL to post his arguments there if he wants to know why they're wrong, but he is apparently uninterested in arguing is case with people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter.


----------



## heavyall

bryanc said:


> I have previously invited FeXL to post his arguments there if he wants to know why they're wrong, but he is apparently uninterested in arguing is case with people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter.


"There" (the thread at ARS)is a perfect example of any semblance of rational thought being shouted down, with the warmists having no interest at all in actually learning anything. They are fully set in their unsubstantiated opinion, and grow more so the more evidence to the contrary they are shown. That thread almost immediated devolved into people trying to do character assassination of Roger Pielke instead of responding to what was in the paper he wrote.


----------



## FeXL

How's the view from the cheap seats, bryanc? Pretty easy to sit back on that ivory tower and call consensus, rather than actually conducting some of the heavy lifting and reading some of the peer-reviewed research, educating yourself and forming your own informed opinion, like some of us have.



bryanc said:


> I can't have an opinion on that because I'm not an expert in the field.


Nor are you an expert on many other topics on these boards, yet you freely contribute your opinion on a regular basis to many threads here. For someone who claims to have a handle on logic, your argument has holes you could drive a truck through.

I posit that the reason you won't engage me on this thread is that you get your butt handed to you every time you do.



bryanc said:


> You are not an expert in the field, so while you're entitled to your opinion, it is worthless


As my opinion happens to echo that of many eminently qualified scientists in related fields, you know what your opinion is...



bryanc said:


> Exactly correct; empirical evidence that is collected and analyzed by scientists, not bloggers on the internet.


Your fallback position is repetitive, tiresome & a red herring. In addition to posts from bloggers, I have posted links to hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, yet you don't acknowledge that contribution, save a single paper whose author allegedly called BS.

I'd like to address that, BTW. The author may have called BS, but if the data shows otherwise, as much as he dislikes it...QED.



bryanc said:


> What colour is the sky on your planet? On earth, the sky is blue and the support for ACC among climate researchers has grown from about 70% to essentially 100% over the past 20 years.


Such wunnerful numbers. Got some research to back that up? Don't tell me you're quoting that whole 97% BS meme again. That's been picked apart like a vulture on a carcass on multiple occasions. Time to get some new material...

Time & again, bryanc, I've noted that I acknowledge that I believe man has contributed to global warming. Again, no argument. 

The question sceptics have always asked, and the one that warmists have always been unsuccessful in answering, is thus: How much? You've variously quoted numbers from 10-30% and up to 70% (without any defence, I might add). Quite a spread, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps, just maybe, that science isn't nearly as settled as everyone says.

In the mean time, warmists are scuttling around like cockroaches in the light trying to adjust their models to explain failed temperature graphs, flatlined temps and missed forecasts.

As I've noted before, it's not sceptics who have changed their story. Their take has always been that there is a low sensitivity to CO2. It's warmists who are busy revising their numbers downwards and getting better results because of it.



bryanc said:


> Because, as I have pointed out over and over, it it obvious you don't have the training or expertise in the field your criticizing. How hard is this to understand? When you've earned a Ph.D. in the field, your opinions will be considered more seriously.


As I've noted before, I'm not the only one making these observations. It's you who has difficulty comprehending this simple fact.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Actually, I'll add one more point. FeXL is constantly challenging me to argue with him about the science, and I consistently refuse, because I'm not going to spend my time arguing on the internet about something that I know little about with someone who knows even less than I. However, I do see many of the same points FeXL brings up discussed on another site that I frequent, where the exact same arguments FeXL brings up are consistently demolished by actual climate scientists. I have previously invited FeXL to post his arguments there if he wants to know why they're wrong, but he is apparently uninterested in arguing is case with people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter.


It's merely another blog, bryanc, and, as I've noted, I was probably there long before you ever were. This ain't my first rodeo. Why is your blog "better" than any of the ones I visit regularly? Because it supports "the truth"? Like most warmist blogs, I've long since stopped visiting ARS. There is little rational discussion on most of them and, as heavyall has noted, a massive shoutdown is directed towards anyone who questions or disagrees with the religion.

Anthony Watts just anounced that, of the millions of blogs on wordpress, he has just reached number one in traffic. Why do you s'pose that is? Lemme give you a hint: It's because people are thirsting for an honest and fair discussion of the facts. As a warmist, you can ask a reasonable question on his blog & not get shouted down. He not only allows back & forth, he encourages it. There are many warmist blogs who won't even allow a sceptical question or observation to stay posted. It'll be deleted in minutes. If the science is that settled, what have they to fear?

As to the superiority of your knowledge on the topic over mine, any time you wish to put that to the test, feel free. Until then, fantasize away...


----------



## FeXL

*Thursday smiles*

“A waste disposal operative with a clapped out scooter and a sexual Dr. Who fixation”

Many of the Hitler parodies make me smile. This one had me laughing out loud. There's a bit of a story behind the creation of it, details at the link.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> How's the view from the cheap seats, bryanc? Pretty easy to sit back on that ivory tower and call consensus, rather than actually conducting some of the heavy lifting and reading some of the peer-reviewed research, educating yourself and forming your own informed opinion, like some of us have.


Yes, it is much easier (and usually better) to allow the professionals to do their jobs; I don't have the time to become expert in another highly technical feild, so I have to accept the consensus of those who have.

If you have genuinely become expert in this feild, then you have a valid point. However, from what I've read here, your 'expertise' is based on reading blogs and carefully selected articles from the literature that have been pre-interpreted for you as fitting your hypothesis. Given that for every peer-reviewed paper drawing ACC into question one can find hundreds supporting ACC, the fact that you only discuss that tiny fraction that fits your hypothesis is telling. Furthermore, as I have pointed out many times, the papers you cite often do not support your case, and your interpretation of the published data has been in diametric opposition to that of the authors of the studies.

Rather than 'educating' yourself through reading blogs on the internet, perhaps you should actually study the feild at an accredited academic institution. If, as you say, you've been reading about this topic for 6 years, you could've earned a B.Sc. and an M.Sc. in this time if you'd spent it at a university. If you had done so, your opinion would be worth considering more seriously (and, I suspect, it would be considerably different than that of the "internet expert" you've presented here).

It's worth noting that there are innumerable internet experts on evolution who have spent inordinate amounts of time (sometimes decades) becoming 'expert' in evolutionary theory, and all of it's 'flaws'. They post extensively on internet message boards about how evolutionary theory is "on the verge of collapse" and about how many "eminent scientists" have abandoned evolution, and about how the evolutionists are on the run!!!1!11! etc. 

As I'm not a climate researcher, I cannot say wether your expertise is of that nature, but it appears very similar.



> Nor are you an expert on many other topics on these boards, yet you freely contribute your opinion on a regular basis to many threads here.


You will note that the topics on which I engage in discussion are either non-technical in nature, or are topics in which I have the relevant academic background.



> For someone who claims to have a handle on logic, your argument has holes you could drive a truck through.


See above; my logic is entirely consistent and without flaw in this regard. (Incidentally, I took advanced courses in predicate calculus and symbolic logic... if you think I've made a logical error, I invite you to point it out).



> I posit that the reason you won't engage me on this thread is that you get your butt handed to you every time you do.


You are so far removed from reality, you demonstrably cannot recognize the points I am making, let alone refute them.



> Such wunnerful numbers. Got some research to back that up?


Yes, already posted and discussed.


> That's been picked apart like a vulture on a carcass on multiple occasions.


On the internet... let me know when you've got published, peer-reviewed material that refutes this.



> I've noted that I acknowledge that I believe man has contributed to global warming.


This is a feeble dodge; you chronically post rubbish about how temperatures are not rising, or how human activity is not responsible, or how NASA is faking their data, or other global-warming-denial lunacy. Then when you're called out on it, you make claims like this. 



> The question sceptics have always asked, and the one that warmists have always been unsuccessful in answering, is thus: How much?


Why ask me? I have no idea. The climatologists say various things; I've seen numbers ranging from about 30-70%. They're the people in a position to have an informed opinion on the subject, not some retired weatherman with a blog.



> Perhaps, just maybe, that science isn't nearly as settled as everyone says.


Science is never settled; there is very strong scientific support for the ACC hypothesis, just like there is very strong support for darwinian evolution. In my feild, we continue to make significant progress in understanding evolution, and I'm sure the climatologists will continue to make significant progress in understanding how human activity affects global climate.

And just to reiterate my position, as a biologist, if you want to argue about evolution, I'm game. But if you want to argue about climate research, I'd be a fool to participate; it's not my field. Given that it's not your feild, and yet you persist in arguing about it, what does that say about you?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And just to reiterate my position, as a biologist, if you want to argue about evolution, I'm game. But if you want to argue about climate research, I'd be a fool to participate; it's not my field. Given that it's not your feild, and yet you persist in arguing about it, what does that say about you?


It says that he's more capable than you of assessing and discussing climate science, but that you would be a fool to do the same.


----------



## bryanc

Did you learn logic from Monty Python? Given that all fish live in water, and all trout are fish, you conclude that if you buy kippers it will not rain.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Did you learn logic from Monty Python? Given that all fish live in water, and all trout are fish, you conclude that if you buy kippers it will not rain.


From this I learn that you enjoy Monty Python--and perhaps Supertramp.


----------



## bryanc

This just came up in another context, but I think it might be useful to re-post it here. Back in 1989, Isaac Asimov wrote a nice little essay called The Relativity of Wrong, to address the common misconception that the progress science makes is continuously overturning/refuting previously held scientific beliefs. That's not really how it works.

While science is never 'settled', we do converge on the truth progressively. One of the steps in this progress has been the emergence of the ACC model over the past few decades. Yes there is still uncertainty, and yes there is still work to be done, but as the science progresses, we become more confident in this paradigm.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> This just came up in another context, but I think it might be useful to re-post it here. Back in 1989, Isaac Asimov wrote a nice little essay called The Relativity of Wrong, to address the common misconception that the progress science makes is continuously overturning/refuting previously held scientific beliefs. That's not really how it works.
> 
> While science is never 'settled', we do converge on the truth progressively. One of the steps in this progress has been the emergence of the ACC model over the past few decades. Yes there is still uncertainty, and yes there is still work to be done, but as the science progresses, we become more confident in this paradigm.


We are diverging _AWAY_ from the ACC model. Science is doing its job.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We are diverging _AWAY_ from the ACC model. Science is doing its job.


Not according to any of the peer-reviewed literature; the only people who make this claim are bloggers on the internet. But yes, science is doing its job.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> If you had done so, your opinion would be worth considering more seriously (and, I suspect, it would be considerably different than that of the "internet expert" you've presented here).


I don't care if anyone considers my opinion seriously, least of all someone who parrots "consensus". I told you, I've never been one who hid in a crowd. And, I don't care how many tens of gajillions of warmists you say there are and how few sceptics you seem to think there are. Numbers of scientists matter not. As long as there is one warm body on this planet who can form a cohesive argument based on empirical data that refutes AGW, that's enough. It was enough for the collapse of geocentrism and many other failed hypotheses and it's good enough here.



bryanc said:


> It's worth noting...


What's worth noting is the complete irrelevance this has to global warming.



bryanc said:


> As I'm not a climate researcher, I cannot say wether your expertise is of that nature, but it appears very similar.


And I'm not a psychologist but I can easily compare your swallowing of consensus to that of religious sanctimony.



bryanc said:


> You will note that the topics on which I engage in discussion are either non-technical in nature, or are topics in which I have the relevant academic background.
> 
> See above; my logic is entirely consistent and without flaw in this regard. (Incidentally, I took advanced courses in predicate calculus and symbolic logic... if you think I've made a logical error, I invite you to point it out).


You make sweeping, broad-based statements and, when I call you on it, suddenly you list all these little codicils that are s'pose to apply after the fact. The statement that you made, with no subsequent codicils attached, was logically flawed. Done & done.



bryanc said:


> You are so far removed from reality, you demonstrably cannot recognize the points I am making, let alone refute them.


You are such a poor communicator that you can't even convince anyone on these boards what the hell your definition of "consensus" means. You swear up & down that it doesn't mean science by authority (a logical fallacy, BTW) but can't articulate a response that says otherwise. 

Besides, what points besides consensus? You make no other points. What is there to refute?



bryanc said:


> Yes, already posted and discussed.
> 
> On the internet... let me know when you've got published, peer-reviewed material that refutes this.


There are some things, bryanc, that are so painfully stupid, they don't need a paper to prove them wrong. They stand by themselves as monumental pillars of failure. In addition, as noted, science by authority is a logical fallacy. I don't care if the trumped up number is 97% or 3%. What counts is the empirical evidence, not model output.



bryanc said:


> This is a feeble dodge; you chronically post rubbish about how temperatures are not rising,


How is it a feeble dodge? I've been saying it for years. It's a matter of record on these boards. We agree on something & it's a "feeble dodge"? Jeezuz...

Global temperatures have not statistically changed in the satellite record for over 18 years. Depending on whose surface temperature record you use, global temps have not statistically changed from between 17 and 22 years. This is the official temperature data record, as presenting by the temperature experts, including their modifications. Deny it all you want. If the flatline hadn't happened, then why did Pachauri & Hansen, among others, feel compelled to address it? Nor did they deny the flatline's existence.

For someone with such a commanding knowledge of the subject, these are basics you really need to bone up on. I can offer my services...



bryanc said:


> or how human activity is not responsible,


The role of anthropogenic activity in global warming is minuscule in the big picture. Any number of papers have been posted here to that end, each providing evidence of nature's overwhelming influence. You, however, as a serial non-clicker, would never know that.



bryanc said:


> or how NASA is faking their data,


There are two issues with NASA data which are painfully apparent to anyone with even the most basal of knowledge on the topic. 

First, NASA's constant "retuning" of the global temperature record. The older record, say prior to 1950, is constantly being cooled. The contemporary record is constantly being warmed. There is little to no explanation for these adjustments and these adjustments have been monitored by people outside of NASA. As a matter of fact, if you are seriously interested in how much adjustment has been made, I can find a graph for you. However, as I suspect you are far more interested in the sound of your voice, I won't take the time now.

Second, this quote from NASA:



> GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away.


By their own admission, they are making up the data. Whether by pencil crayon or computer. What kind of accuracy do you suppose weather stations 1200km apart gives to the Arctic temperature record? What kind of a range of temps do you think there are between Fredericton & Detroit, slightly south? That's pretty damn close to 1200km, the way a crow flies. What about 1200 km due north? What kind of temperature change do you think we've got there? Every time you see a NASA map with data from the Arctic, you know it ain't real.



bryanc said:


> or other global-warming-denial lunacy. Then when you're called out on it, you make claims like this.


As opposed to global warming endorsement lunacy? Like hockey sticks? Any number of -gates? Comparing global warming sceptics to moon landing deniers when two prominent sceptics actually bloody landed on the moon? Puleaze...

bryanc, you're so wound up in this religionist garbage you don't even realize that we agree on a major point. Get a grip. ACC exists! The difference between you & me is what percentage.



bryanc said:


> The climatologists say various things; I've seen numbers ranging from about 30-70%. They're the people in a position to have an informed opinion on the subject, not some retired weatherman with a blog.


Funny, the first time I asked you that you noted 10-30%. Like all warmists, I see the numbers have been revised upwards. Again, my info on that comes from peer-reviewed papers, not Watts. Frankly, I don't care if you ever click a link but please don't keep quoting numbers without providing some backup. And, no, I don't trust your word.



bryanc said:


> Science is never settled;


Let's get that search function out, shall we?



bryanc said:


> Similarly, the debate over plate tectonics, the heliocentric solar system, and anthropogenic climate change, are all *essentially settled*.





bryanc said:


> When scientists stop arguing among themselves, it's because every possible point of contention has been *settled* to the point where nobody thinks the can gain some notoriety by showing someone else has been wrong about it.





bryanc said:


> 95% consensus is effectively *"settled"*.


So, which the hell is it? Is it settled or not?



bryanc said:


> I'm sure the climatologists will continue to make significant progress in understanding how human activity affects global climate.


They are, every day. However, the evidence is not going the direction you think...



bryanc said:


> Given that it's not your feild, and yet you persist in arguing about it, what does that say about you?


It tells me that I agree with many of the peer reviewed papers authored by eminently qualified sceptical scientists that I have read. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## FeXL

Got some Saturday morning snark for ya...

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style:

More Low Temperature Records Than High Temperature Records In 2013



> So far this year there have been 2,115 low temperature records set at all US HCN stations, and 1,594 high temperatures.


There are any number of ways to quantify heating & cooling. Here, Goddard uses the number of 40 degree C days in a summer:

US Summers Have Cooled Dramatically Over The Last 80 Years



> The graph below plots the number of 40C readings at all GHCN HCN stations. The five hottest summers were 1934, 1936, 1954, 1980 and 1930. No summer above 350 PPM CO2 has come even close. The current summer will finish with the fewest 40C readings in 100 years.


And, a hockey stick from 1975. Looks different, somehow...:

An Older Version Of The Hockey Stick



> This version is from the National Academy of Sciences, before self-awarded Nobel Prize Mikey straightened them out that the world was heating out of control, rather than cooling out of control.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting conclusions from a paper presented at the Seventeenth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties in 2009, unfortunately paywalled.


Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years 

Abstract



> The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). *These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years,* that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I talked about the manipulation by NASA of their official GISS temperature record. First I link to a specific GISS example in Iceland:

The Past is Getting Colder 



> What might their motive be for - ahem - restating historical data? This data, we may be sure, was once written down in unambiguous digits. Why has it been 'got at'?


Good question.

The enclosed link references the above story but, better yet, from the comments is an observation by David Whitehead (Aug 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM) that include links to this page on global temperatures, which contains a massive amount of information on the subject. Well worth the time. 

The data which is most relevant to this particular post, adjusted temperature records, is detailed in the fifth topic in the table of contents, "Temporal stability of global air temperature estimates".

When you scroll down from that heading, you see a number of maturity diagrams summarizing changes made to a particular temperature record. Cooling is blue, warming is red. HADCRUT adds a general warming trend. NCDC & GISS (NASA) have a general cooling trend in the past & a warming trend for more recent temps. 

In addition, here's a link from Goddard with some observations:

Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS

Now, while I don't actually expect certain consensus swallowers to click on the links, those of you actually interested in learning something about the topic will find much to cover.

BTW, I believe this post and my earlier one about infilling between Arctic temperature stations clearly addresses the question of NASA (and others) "faking their data".


----------



## bryanc

I'm only going to respond to a couple of points where your misunderstanding of my position is so egregious that I can't ignore it.



FeXL said:


> You are such a poor communicator that you can't even convince anyone on these boards what the hell your definition of "consensus" means. You swear up & down that it doesn't mean science by authority (a logical fallacy, BTW) but can't articulate a response that says otherwise.


Communication is a two-part process. I don't know how to make my position any more clear than I already have, but I'll try one more time.

Modern climate science is a highly technical feild that requires sophisticated understanding of many complex and interrelated disciplines, types of data analysis and advanced computational modelling. One who lacks expertise in these esoteric topics cannot rationally analyze the data oneself, and therefore cannot rationally criticize the conclusions. I recognize that I lack this expertise, and therefore do not criticize the conclusions of the experts. I am skeptical of your expertise, as I have seen no evidence of its existence, and I am therefore dubious of your criticisms of these findings. Furthermore, I observe that there are a large number of experts who have independently corroborated these conclusions, and this increases my confidence that they are valid.

Note that this in no way implies that science functions by consensus. But rather that a consensus of scientists is an observation which a non-scientist can use to help make judgements about how reliable a scientific opinion, on which they cannot independently judge the data, may be.

As non-experts in the field, we (you and I) cannot analyze the data, but we can interpret the scientific consensus.

Is that clear now? The consensus of scientists is evidence the non-scientist can use to make judgements about how confident they, as non-experts, can be regarding the conclusions reported by scientists.



> For someone with such a commanding knowledge of the subject, these are basics you really need to bone up on.


How many times to I need to repeat this?!? I make no claims of having *any* knowledge of the subject. This is explicitly _why_ I must accept the consensus of expert opinion; I cannot form an informed opinion of my own because I am not expert in this field. If you were operating rationally, this would also be your position, but instead, you make claims like this:


> The role of anthropogenic activity in global warming is minuscule in the big picture.


You provide no evidence to support this claim. You are a non-expert in this field. The consensus of experts in this field is that anthropogenic activity _does_ have a significant effect on global climate.

In order to convince me, or an rational member of the lay public, that your position is valid, you need to have "expert credibility." Now, you may object, "this is a matter to be settled by empirical evidence, not by believing whoever has the most degrees" and I completely agree with you. But, because I'm not a climatologist, I can't analyze the empirical evidence, so no amount of empirical evidence will convince me or other non-experts like me. This is not because I don't respect the empirical evidence; I absolutely do agree data is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false. I just recognize my own limitations, and that I am not able to interpret the relevant empirical evidence on my own; I need experts to do that for me (in this field).

So if you (or any other climate change 'skeptic') wants to convince the general public that the consensus of experts on this issue is incorrect, you need to change the consensus of experts. And you don't do that by re-posting some weather man's blog. You do that by publishing papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.



> Any number of papers have been posted here to that end, each providing evidence of nature's overwhelming influence.


And yet the consensus is stronger now than ever. And when the authors of those papers are contacted, they are all part of this consensus. We all know nature plays a major role in climate. No one has ever doubted that. The question is how much of a role does human activity play, and it appears that essentially all experts in this feild agree that our role is significant.



> ACC exists! The difference between you & me is what percentage.


No, the difference between you an me is that you think you know; and your conclusion is that the scientists have got it wrong. Whereas I admit this is not my field of expertise, so I have no business trying to answer this question; I'll accept the consensus of the experts.



> Let's get that search function out, shall we?


:clap:
Well done; you have proved you can use the search function and that you cannot read. It's no wonder you have so much difficulty interpreting science.

In every one of those posts, I was careful to say "*essentially* settled", or "settled *to the extent that*..." The caveats are important. I'm a professional scientist, and I have an extensive background in philosophy; I understand that all of science is always open to question and falsification. But I also understand that when scientists reach the level of consensus exhibited by climatologists regarding the ACC issue, it's because there is overwhelming and unequivocal evidence in support of the theory, and we can therefore treat the conclusion as "proved beyond a reasonable doubt."


> So, which the hell is it? Is it settled or not?


With this question you demonstrate that you completely failed to get the point of Asimov's essay on The Relativity of Wrong.
It's not black and white; there is always uncertainty. It's just that as science progresses the uncertainty gets smaller.

Incidentally, in the process of improving our understanding of climate, science has progressed from believing that human activity cannot possibly have a significant impact on global climate to understanding that we do have a significant impact, but we are still uncertain about how large it is. So it would appear that you are advocating for an already overturned paradigm.



> However, the evidence is not going the direction you think.


If the consensus of qualified scientists in this field changes, I will have to change my opinion. However, as I deal with qualified scientists who work in this field on a daily basis, I am lead to believe you are incorrect regarding the direction the data is leading. Only time will tell, but apart from the ineffectual railing of some self-proclaimed experts on the internet, it is abundantly clear that science views this issue as "settled", and is now focused on trying to refine our understanding of how much we affect climate, the mechanisms of these effects, what sorts of climactic changes we can expect, and how to mitigate our effects and the damage changes will cause.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> I am skeptical of your expertise, as I have seen no evidence of its existence, and I am therefore dubious of your criticisms of these findings.


I repeat: I've never claimed to be an expert on any of this. Ain't one. However, as I have noted before, I am formally educated in some areas of this multidisciplinary field and well read in others. That makes me informed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even lacking any education on the subject, I can criticize whatever the hell I want, with or without your leave. I don't care if it passes your muster or not. My interest in the subject has nothing to do with pleasing you or anyone else.

In addition, there is much information which doesn't require a PhD to understand. Pretty simple to read a graph of NASA's serial temperature adjustments.



bryanc said:


> Furthermore, I observe that *there are a large number of experts* who have independently corroborated these conclusions,


This is pure, unadulterated horse**** from about a dozen different angles and the bold the fly in your ointment. 100% confidence level, no error bars. 

First of all, you simply cannot accurately make overreaching, blanket statements like the above. What conclusions? Whose conclusions? All of them? Many? Some? One? You make it sound that everything that comes out of a warmists mouth is "the truth". You could write books on warmist bunkum and, interestingly enough, Donna Laframboise is one who has.

Second, seeing as you cannot make your argument without saying "there are a ton of scientists who note such & such", and seeing as you just luvs big numbers, I'm going to repeat a point using your logic I made long ago in this thread. There is a database online with over 1100 peer-reviewed papers that support the existence of the MWP. This is in direct opposition to a certain single hockey stick graph. As might means right in your books...

Third, the bold. Same old story. "FeXL, by consensus I do not mean might is right." "FeXL, by consensus I do not mean that science is decided by a show of hands." "FeXL, I'm telling you, science is not decided by authority." Yet, the first statement you actually make in your argument that pertains to consensus contains *there are a large number of experts*. What the hell is this besides science by authority? Nothing, because again, that's exactly what you are saying! Can we just cut through all this back & forth BS and have you admit you believe in science by a show of hands?

I'll tell you why you fall flat on your face every time you try to explain your position on consensus. I'm going to start by pulling up a dictionary definition:



> An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole; General agreement or accord; General or widespread agreement; Collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion


Every one of the above statements translates into quantity. Read them once more, just to be sure. Again, as science is not decided by how many people agree with the hypothesis, the second you insert quantity into your argument it falls apart. That's why you have been unsuccessful in your explanation. The very definition of consensus itself includes quantity, a majority thereof. It's your terminology that's failing you.



bryanc said:


> and this increases my confidence that they are valid.


Fine. I'm happy that you have reached a point on the topic that you are comfortable with. However, there are sceptics who are making valid & salient observations based on empirical data that indicate much to the contrary. As I've noted, there only needs to be one.



bryanc said:


> Note that this in no way implies that science functions by consensus.


Time and again, that's exactly what you are saying: "Warmists' hypotheses are more/better than sceptics' 'cause more of us believe in them."



bryanc said:


> As non-experts in the field, we (you and I) cannot analyze the data, but we can interpret the scientific consensus.


Again, I can analyze whatever the hell I want. The thing here, bryanc, is that far too often you accuse me of putting my opinion on these boards and subsequently tell me that I don't have sufficient expertise to do so. Funny, much of the time I'm posting an expert sceptics' opinion & merely saying I agree with it. 



bryanc said:


> Is that clear now?


Very. Consensus is science by authority and you believe in it. Got it...



bryanc said:


> The consensus of scientists is evidence the non-scientist can use to make judgements about how confident they, as non-experts, can be regarding the conclusions reported by scientists.


Once again, no. How many people believe in a particular hypothesis has absolutely no, as in zero, correlation with validity.



bryanc said:


> How many times to I need to repeat this?!? I make no claims of having *any* knowledge of the subject.


Yet you feel comfortable making observations like "you chronically post rubbish about how temperatures are not rising, or how human activity is not responsible, or how NASA is faking their data, or other global-warming-denial lunacy."

If you know absolutely nothing about the topic then I'd appreciate you not passing judgement on anything I say. If you are not in a position to be critical, then don't. If you are, then back up what you are saying. Either way...



bryanc said:


> If you were operating rationally, this would also be your position, but instead, you make claims like this:
> 
> You provide no evidence to support this claim. You are a non-expert in this field.


First off, I have posted many links to peer-reviewed papers with evidence supporting mankind's shrinking role. The problem is, you haven't read them. If I had provided a whole host of links in that post, again, you would not have read them.

Second, even if I had posted supporting evidence, you would have noted that I'm not qualified to even read the research, let alone post it. Or, some other diversionary tactic.

So, which the hell is it? Do you want supporting links or not? If I do provide the links, are you actually going to read them or are you just being pedantic?



bryanc said:


> The consensus ...


Blah, blah, blah...



bryanc said:


> In order to convince me, or an rational member of the lay public, that your position is valid, you need to have "expert credibility."


It's not my opinion I'm trying to convince anyone of. I'm simply passing on the opinion of qualified scientific sceptics. I realize that is a concept difficult for warmists to believe but, such animals actually do exist & they are hardly an endangered species.



bryanc said:


> So if you (or any other climate change 'skeptic') wants to convince the general public that the consensus of experts on this issue is incorrect, you need to change the consensus of experts. And you don't do that by re-posting some weather man's blog. You do that by publishing papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


I post links to peer-reviewed papers all the time. Watts really pisses you off, doesn't he? Thing is, although he may not be a full-blown "climate scientist", whatever the hell that means, he knows far more about the topic than you do. I'll take his word over yours any day...



bryanc said:


> And yet the consensus...


Blah, blah, blah...



bryanc said:


> And when the authors of those papers are contacted, they are all part of this consensus.


And you've personally contacted each & everyone of these authors of papers I've never linked to (wait a minute, I thought I only linked to Watts' site...). Your rhetoric is tiresome, bryanc. Oh, for the "consensus": Blah, blah, blah...



bryanc said:


> We all know nature plays a major role in climate. No one has ever doubted that.


Apparently you've never read an IPCC report or listened to Michael Mann or read anything by James Hansen. You yourself have stated (without support, I might add) that you have read anthropogenic influences up to 70%. That don't leave much for old Ma nature; 30% falls something short of major.



bryanc said:


> The question is how much of a role does human activity play, and it appears that essentially all experts in this feild agree that our role is significant.


More consensus bull****. Blah, blah, blah... 

Again, you accuse me of overstepping my bounds by not providing a link yet you are perfectly comfortable doing the same. And, I love your use of weasel words: significant. What kind of a number do you attach to "significant"? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%? No ambiguity there, none at all. This vagueness, from a scientist.



bryanc said:


> No, the difference between you an me is that you think you know; and your conclusion is that the scientists have got it wrong.


The difference between you & me is that I recognize there are two sides to the argument. I just happen to agree with the supporting evidence from the other side of the argument.



bryanc said:


> In every one of those posts, I was careful to say "*essentially* settled", or "settled *to the extent that*..." The caveats are important.


Yes, as in CYA... It seems that your philosophy background has done nothing more than enable you to obfuscate the point.

'Tis a far cry between "science is never settled" and "the debate...[is]...essentially settled." These two statements are not equivalencies. Ain't even close. Spin away...

'Nuf said.



bryanc said:


> level of consensus


Blah, blah, blah...



bryanc said:


> With this question you demonstrate that you completely failed to get the point of Asimov's essay on The Relativity of Wrong.


I was questioning your use of disparate, diametrically opposed phrases, thankyouverymuch.



bryanc said:


> It's just that as science progresses the uncertainty gets smaller.


Yes. Yes, it does. And, interestingly enough, that process can turn an existing hypothesis completely on it's ear in favour of a superior theory. Say, for instance, in the case of Geocentrism...

FTFY:



bryanc said:


> Incidentally, in the process of improving our understanding of climate, science has progressed from believing that human activity cannot possibly have a significant impact on global climate to erroneously accepting computer model output as empirical evidence, along with associated incorrect assumptions about large anthropogenic influence to, finally, realizing that man's influence on climate is <10% and not worth bankrupting the planet on.





bryanc said:


> If the consensus of qualified scientists in this field changes, I will have to change my opinion. However, as I deal with qualified scientists who work in this field on a daily basis, I am lead to believe you are incorrect regarding the direction the data is leading.


Fine. That's your uninformed opinion. I would never try to take that away from you, nor discount its validity. And, I can entirely understand why you'd be talking to climate scientists on a regular basis in the pursuit of your zebrafish embryo research...



bryanc said:


> Only time will tell, but apart from the ineffectual railing of some self-proclaimed experts on the internet,


Typical ad hom, attack the person, not the science. For someone with all your philosophy courses and alleged debating skills and education and bravado, all you can come up with is this? Serious?

Your ignorance, not only on the subject but also on the quality of sceptical scientists, is truly palpable. And, if this is the sort of information you are picking up in your dealings with all the multiple, "qualified scientists who work in this field on a daily basis", might I suggest that it's time to deal with a better class of scientist? 

I typically don't name drop sceptical scientists, simply because science shouldn't be about who is making the argument or about how many support the argument but the quality of the argument. That said, please, do yourself a favour. Have a look around, there are scientists, some with considerable reputation and accomplishment, with eminent qualifications who are conducting solid research on the sceptical side of the argument, with reproducible results and solid conclusions that are being published in peer-reviewed papers. You'll look less a fool and more the professional you claim to be. 

Even if you decide not to conduct this little exercise, stop insulting the hardworking people you know absolutely nothing about; there is far, far more to the story than "the ineffectual railing of some self-proclaimed experts on the internet".



bryanc said:


> ...it is abundantly clear that science views this issue as "settled", and is now focused on trying to refine our understanding of how much we affect climate, the mechanisms of these effects, what sorts of climactic changes we can expect, and how to mitigate our effects and the damage changes will cause.


The warmists believe the science is settled. Sceptics do not. Interestingly enough, the sceptics, in their pursuit of empirical evidence (as opposed to model output), are the ones who have come up with much of the recent research regarding man's minimal influence. Quite ironic, actually, watching both sides of the argument lower their estimates of CO2's sensitivity...

As to the mitigation of our effects, a great start would be to trash many of the "green" programs currently in effect. Most of them create more CO2 and negative side effects than the technology and/or methodology they supplanted, in addition to costing billions of dollars more. Wind power, solar power and corn ethanol as a fuel additive are three that come to mind immediately.


----------



## eMacMan

> As to the mitigation of our effects, a great start would be to trash many of the "green" programs currently in effect. Most of them create more CO2 and negative side effects than the technology and/or methodology they supplanted, in addition to costing billions of dollars more. Wind power, solar power and corn ethanol as a fuel additive are three that come to mind immediately.


Please, please, please include those compact fluorescent house lights in that last statement. Far more resources in the manufacture/disposal and absolutely zero total energy savings for those of us who live in colder climates. 

Also zero savings on those 50%+ light bulbs that are never even turned on. You'll find them in every house; lights in the attic, lights that only get turned on when you change the furnace filter, bedside lamps in the spare bedroom..............


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> I repeat: I've never claimed to be an expert on any of this. Ain't one.


Okay, good; that's progress.


> Even lacking any education on the subject, I can criticize whatever the hell I want


knock yerself out; it just does doesn't mean anything. There's lots of non-expert opinions in conflict with the consensus of science on the internet. But you should recognize that when you do this, you're indistinguishable from the creationists disputing evolution.


> First of all, you simply cannot accurately make overreaching, blanket statements like the above. [regarding the large number of climate scientists who agree with the consensus on ACC] What conclusions?


That ACC is the best explanation for the observable data. Now before you go waffling about not disagreeing with ACC, what ACC says is that anthropogenic activity has significant effects on global climate. That is what thousands of active, publishing, climate researchers agree on. And it is in conflict with your stated position that human activity has negligible effects on climate.



> Third, the bold. Same old story. "FeXL, by consensus I do not mean might is right." "FeXL, by consensus I do not mean that science is decided by a show of hands." "FeXL, I'm telling you, science is not decided by authority." Yet, the first statement you actually make in your argument that pertains to consensus contains *there are a large number of experts*. What the hell is this besides science by authority? Nothing, because again, that's exactly what you are saying! Can we just cut through all this back & forth BS and have you admit you believe in science by a show of hands?


No. You clearly don't understand my position. I emphatically do not believe science is settled by authority, consensus or any other social process. Science is settled exclusively by evidence. Data is the only arbiter of truth. Is that clear enough for you?

My point is that in fields where my personal scientific expertise does not apply, I am not in a position to do science; I can't use the data to determine what is true and what is false. Given that I'm not sufficiently expert to do science on a given topic, and that there are thousands of people who are experts on this topic, and furthermore that essentially all the experts on this topic agree on what the data says, only a fool would conclude that all the experts are wrong.

The key to your misunderstanding here is in thinking that my conclusion, as a lay person, about the validity of science, has anything to do with the science itself.

I recognize and admit my ignorance in this field, and therefore accept the consensus of experts.



> Every one of the above statements translates into quantity. Read them once more, just to be sure. Again, as science is not decided by how many people agree with the hypothesis, the second you insert quantity into your argument it falls apart. That's why you have been unsuccessful in your explanation. The very definition of consensus itself includes quantity, a majority thereof. It's your terminology that's failing you.


The quantitative nature of this judgement is entirely a valid statistical approach. If, for example, I wanted to know what species of crinoid was most abundant on the Juan de Fuca Sea Mount, but I had no personal expertise in crinoid systematics and no funding or other resources to gain that expertise and go and survey the location myself, I would ask some experts. If I ask 50 experts, all of whom have been to the location and who have published peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic, and 48 of them agree that _Florometra serratissima_ is the most abundant, but one disagrees, and one is not sure, the ballance of evidence would argue that _Florometra serratissima_ is the most abundant species at this site.

Thus I, as a non-expert, can use the consensus of experts to come to a conclusion on a scientific issue that I am not able to address scientifically myself. And the number and proportion of experts agreeing with the consensus provides me with a measure of confidence in this conclusion.

It is important to note that this has nothing to do with the actual facts; it might be the case that _Agaricocrinus americanus_ is the most abundant crinoid on the Juan de Fuca sea mount, despite our belief that this species is extinct. But unless I can ascertain and analyze the facts for myself, my next best method of formulating an opinion is to accept the consensus of the experts.



> I'm happy that you have reached a point on the topic that you are comfortable with. However, there are sceptics who are making valid & salient observations based on empirical data that indicate much to the contrary.


My point is that neither you nor I are qualified to judge wether these criticisms of ACC are valid. We can, however, observe the fact that qualified experts in this field view these criticisms and contemptible efforts by PR companies to confuse the public regarding well-established and well-supported science.

The point here is neither of us is qualified to judge the validity of the criticisms, so we can only interpret the reactions of the experts to the criticisms.


> The thing here, bryanc, is that far too often you accuse me of putting my opinion on these boards and subsequently tell me that I don't have sufficient expertise to do so. Funny, much of the time I'm posting an expert sceptics' opinion & merely saying I agree with it.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But again, as a non-expert, your opinion and $1.85 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

If the "expert" skeptics' opinions have scientific validity, they will change the consensus of the scientific community, and I, as a rational non-expert who has no choice but to accept the consensus of the scientific community, will have to change my opinion as well.



> Consensus is science by authority and you believe in it. Got it...


No, clearly you don't. But I've been over this so many times I can't be bothered to do it again.



> I have posted many links to peer-reviewed papers with evidence supporting mankind's shrinking role. The problem is, you haven't read them.


Early on in this thread, I read many of them. They often did not say what you said they did, and when it wasn't clear, I contacted the authors for clarification, and found that they found your interpretation of their data ludicrous.

But my interpretation of the papers you cite is not really relevant; I'm not a climatologist, so why would wether I agree or disagree with your interpretation matter. All that matters is the interpretation of the people with the relevant expertise, and it is clear that their interpretation is at odds with yours.



> So, which the hell is it? Do you want supporting links or not?


When I say you have provided no evidence of your expertise, the fact that you would counter that with links on the internet is such eloquent support for my point that I have to pause and wonder at what goes on in your mind.



> Blah, blah, blah...


This, while less eloquent, also illustrates why I believe you do not have a strong rational position.


> I'm simply passing on the opinion of qualified scientific sceptics.


To an internet forum of Canadian Mac users?!?

The only possible value the opinion of "qualified skeptics" might have would be to the international scientific community. I'm sure if they've got something wrong, they'd like to know. Of course, the international community of climate scientists has heard all about this stuff, and, according to the professional climatologists, ocean convection current modelling experts, paleoclimatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric chemists, planetary geologists, limnologists, and other scientists working in climate research that I know, these arguments were debunked decades ago.



> I realize that is a concept difficult for warmists to believe but, such animals actually do exist & they are hardly an endangered species.


Sadly, the same is true of Intelligent Design proponents and Young Earth Creationists. It certainly is not because their arguments have any validity. However, in order to understand _why_ their arguments are invalid, you need a fairly sophisticated understanding of biology and evolutionary theory; i.e., you need expertise. Therefore, if you are a non-expert in biology, you have to trust the consensus of biologists regarding the validity of evolutionary theory.



> And, I love your use of weasel words: significant. What kind of a number do you attach to "significant"? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%? No ambiguity there, none at all. This vagueness, from a scientist.


No, this is your lack of expertise. "Significant" has a very specific statistical meaning, and it has nothing to do with the magnitude of change.



> The difference between you & me is that I recognize there are two sides to the argument.


No, I recognize that there _were_ two sides to this argument, and one of them - that athropogenic effects do not significantly affect global climate - has been falsified. That is how science progresses.



> 'Tis a far cry between "science is never settled" and "the debate...[is]...essentially settled."


Not really, well-supported, well established theories like evolution or ACC could, in principle, be overturned by new data. Thus, they are never "settled." However, they are sufficiently settled that we can use them to move forward. Significant progress has been made in our understanding of the physics of aerofoils since the early 20th century, and there is still plenty that is not understood. But the fact that the science wasn't 100% settled didn't stop us from developing aeroplanes and using the incomplete approximations we had to develop other technologies.

The problem you're having here is black&white thinking; either the science is right or wrong, settled or unsettled, true or false, consensus or no consensus. Reality is more subtle than that. 



> And, interestingly enough, that process can turn an existing hypothesis completely on it's ear in favour of a superior theory. Say, for instance, in the case of Geocentrism...


Yes, that can happen occasionally. Back in the 1970's climatologists thought that human activity couldn't possibly have a significant effect on global climate, but that has been overturned in favour of a superior theory; ACC.



> And, I can entirely understand why you'd be talking to climate scientists on a regular basis in the pursuit of your zebrafish embryo research...


I have friends and colleagues in physics, chemistry, and within my own biology department who work on climatology research; I enjoy discussing their research (and associated publications) with them, and I've helped with some computer modelling, some microscopy (on pollen grains and other biological indicators of climate from lake-bottom sediments). But I wouldn't mistake my casual acquaintance with this field over the past 4 decades as "expertise". You would be wise to take a step back and evaluate your own "expertise" and adjust your confidence in your opinions accordingly.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> knock yerself out; it just does doesn't mean anything. There's lots of non-expert opinions in conflict with the consensus of science on the internet. But you should recognize that when you do this, you're indistinguishable from the creationists disputing evolution.


This is where you're wrong. Public perception of so-called global warming and its importance in public policy have been revolutionized by people standing up to this dogma. So while FeXL's individual posts may not have a measurable effect, the sum total of all people speaking out against this nonsense has had a genuinely positive effect.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> the sum total of all people speaking out against this nonsense has had a genuinely positive effect.


I'm sure the Koch brothers, who have funded much of this anti-science propaganda, would agree with you.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the science.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm sure the Koch brothers, who have funded much of this anti-science propaganda, would agree with you.
> 
> That, of course, has nothing to do with the science.


Standing up against bad global warming science has changed the public policy landscape!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Standing up against bad global warming science has changed the public policy landscape!


... in exactly the same way that the tobacco industry was able to delay policy decisions that were scientifically supported but weren't in its interest.

However, as the science continues to become ever more irrefutable, the pressure on politicians to accept reality will continue to mount. The Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in Canada do show far more resistance to evidence and reason than I would've imagined possible, but they will inevitably fail.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ... in exactly the same way that the tobacco industry was able to delay policy decisions that were scientifically supported but weren't in its interest.
> 
> However, as the science continues to become ever more irrefutable, the pressure on politicians to accept reality will continue to mount. The Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in Canada do show far more resistance to evidence and reason than I would've imagined possible, but they will inevitably fail.


The difference here is that the tobacco lobby was wrong and that repeated experimentation could prove replicable results. The link between tobacco ingestion and cancer wasn't based on a computer simulation.


----------



## bryanc

Hey, here's an idea: if you think the science is flawed, and you recognize that arguing about it with non-experts on the internet is a waste of everyone's time (which is my point), why not discuss this with real scientists publishing the real research in real peer-reviewed journals? You don't even need a degree; anyone is free to comment on any publication in many journals. Open access journals, like the Public Library of Science publications are free to access, and contain many of the current high-impact publications in this field.

PLoS One has over sixty one thousand papers dealing with climate change. I wonder why the climate change skeptics aren't posting their arguments in the open-access discussions there?

{edit to add: you don't see mister Watts peddling his BS 'refutations' of published papers there, which either means he knows he's wrong and will get called out on his BS if he tries it with knowledgeable people around, or he's unaware of the existence of Open Access journals, which means he's so hopelessly uninformed about modern scientific research that his opinion can be completely discounted}


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Hey, here's an idea: if you think the science is flawed, and you recognize that arguing about it with non-experts on the internet is a waste of everyone's time ...


I don't consider it a waste of my time.


----------



## eMacMan

I hate to point out the obvious but AGW proponents claim the only workable solution is to rob the poor and divert that aggregate wealth to the rich.

You can pay your tithe at the alter of Gore's Church of Climatology, or have it ripped from your wallet in the form of Carbon taxes. Neither of these "solutions" is intended to have the slightest impact on manmade CO2 levels. In order to have a dramatic impact, the robbery would have to reach the level where at least half of Western population is made homeless then starved or frozen to death. 

I know the true believers have changed AGW to ACC. Of course part of the problem with AGW is that, there is no way to establish a planetary temperature back over a long enough period to clearly claim temps are rising. ACC is so much better as you can blame any isolated event that comes along on ACC and ignore the fact that nearly identical events happened in the near or far distant past.

A final comment on NASA temperatures. Some/most of these are derived from satellite infra-red readings. These readings relate somewhat loosely to the ground temperature a few inches below the surface. In sandy deserts with enough ground control points it is possible to establish a reasonably good correlation. However those ground temps do not reliably correlate to air temps and air temps are the only historical-empirical data source available. This gets quite a bit uglier where there is vegetation cover because the control points have to relate to the particular vegetation, recent moisture levels, elevation and latitude. Snow-cover of course throws IR readings completely out of whack. Thick fresh snow almost no IR-radiation, thin old snow a completely different story. For instance a reference point in Great Falls, MT cannot be used to interpolate temps in Calgary or even Lethbridge even if all three locations have had a recent snowfall. 

A lot of ground control points are required and since the entire reason to do satellite infra-red imaging is to obtain data without the bother and expense of closely spaced ground reference points, NASA's claims of above average surface temps based on satellite IR imaging are pretty much completely meaningless.

FWIW most of this info is available in bits and pieces from NASA. They are very careful not to put everything together in place.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't consider it a waste of my time.


Well, you and I obviously like arguing  But I won't argue about the science because I'm not an expert in the field. You have also demonstrated no expertise in the feild, yet you say things like "bad global warming science" or that the science is "wrong", as if you knew better than all the thousands of people with Ph.D.s in relevant disiplines who disagree with you. And people around here call _me_ arrogant.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> But you should recognize that when you do this, you're indistinguishable from the creationists disputing evolution.


Nice try.

I told you, I've never been so insecure that I needed to hide in a crowd.



bryanc said:


> That ACC is the best explanation for the observable data. Now before you go waffling about not disagreeing with ACC, what ACC says is that anthropogenic activity has significant effects on global climate. That is what thousands of active, publishing, climate researchers agree on. And it is in conflict with your stated position that human activity has negligible effects on climate.


I said miniscule. Negligible will be in a few months when the next paper comes out, minimizing the effect even more.



bryanc said:


> Data is the only arbiter of truth. Is that clear enough for you?


Finally! Progress. 

That said, I would go so far as to specify "empirical" data.



bryanc said:


> ...there are thousands of people who are experts on this topic, and furthermore that essentially all the experts on this topic agree on what the data says,


The biggest issue here is your phrase "essentially all". Not even close. You probably never clicked on the link but some time back I posted a link to a peer-reviewed study showing that only 36% of geoscientists and engineers supported AGW or ACC. Those numbers compare favourably with a studies done with meteorologists. There is simply no way there can be a 97% consensus for the theory if 64% of these three branches of science don't agree. There aren't enough scientists in the other branches of the discipline to compensate. The numbers just don't add up.



bryanc said:


> only a fool would conclude that all the experts are wrong.


Only a fool believes in the 97% consensus in the first place.



bryanc said:


> If I ask 50 experts...and 48 of them agree that _Florometra serratissima_ is the most abundant...


Then, as a researcher, you note that 48 of 50 scientists support this particular piece of data. That is clearly quantified. There is no point & no reason to use the word "consensus".



bryanc said:


> My point is that neither you nor I are qualified to judge wether these criticisms of ACC are valid.


I'm not judging. I am accepting the criticism of qualified sceptical scientists.



bryanc said:


> The point here is neither of us is qualified to judge the validity of the criticisms, so we can only interpret the reactions of the experts to the criticisms.


I don't need to interpret anything. The conclusions are crystal clear. Climate models suck. The science is not settled, nor anything remotely close to it. NASA manipulates their data. Mann's Hockey Stick is POS research. Mankind's effect on the climate is relatively small.



bryanc said:


> When I say you have provided no evidence of your expertise, the fact that you would counter that with links on the internet is such eloquent support for my point that I have to pause and wonder at what goes on in your mind.


Links to peer reviewed papers stating exactly what I have been saying all along. Jeezuz, you're thick...



bryanc said:


> To an internet forum of Canadian Mac users?!?


Doesn't matter if it's on the outhouse wall. Posts here are read regularly. What's your point?



bryanc said:


> ...these arguments were debunked decades ago.


Then they are all lying to you. Much of this data is freshly minted.



bryanc said:


> The problem you're having here is black&white thinking; ...


My thinking is just fine & includes many shades of grey.



bryanc said:


> ...that has been overturned in favour of a superior theory; ACC.


And now that we're ironing out the wrinkles, specifically the understanding of CO2's low sensitivity, a new paradigm is being born.



bryanc said:


> You would be wise to take a step back and evaluate your own "expertise" and adjust your confidence in your opinions accordingly.


Unlike many here, I'm quite aware of both my strengths and weaknesses and I'm well past the point in my life where I require reminding of that, youngster.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> Finally! Progress.


Indeed, it would appear you are beginning to learn how to read, as this has always been my position.


> The biggest issue here is your phrase "essentially all".













> You probably never clicked on the link but some time back I posted a link to a peer-reviewed study showing that only 36% of geoscientists and engineers supported AGW or ACC.


People who's livelihood depends on the petroleum industry not convinced of climate change. Film at 11.



> The numbers just don't add up.


I have linked the peer-reviewed literature providing this data, you are welcome to take up your criticism with the authors or the editors of the journals that published them. But until credible peer-reviewed research refutes these findings, you're just a guy on the internet with an opinion.


> Then, as a researcher, you note that 48 of 50 scientists support this particular piece of data. That is clearly quantified. There is no point & no reason to use the word "consensus".


Why not; consensus means exactly this.


> I am accepting the criticism of qualified sceptical scientists.


...and ignoring the vastly more abundant and well-supported evidence to the contrary.



> Doesn't matter if it's on the outhouse wall. Posts here are read regularly. What's your point?


My point is that posts hear are not read by people qualified to explain why you're wrong. If you were being intellectually honest, you'd take your arguments somewhere where they could be addressed by people knowledgeable in the field. I have provided you with at least two such options, not to mention the "corresponding author" email addresses on any of the hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers that support ACC.


> Then they are all lying to you.






> And now that we're ironing out the wrinkles, specifically the understanding of CO2's low sensitivity, a new paradigm is being born.


I see no signs of a paradigm shift; science will continue to refine our understanding of the global climate and the effects of human activity on it. I would like to believe that our effect is small, but the scientists who are expert in this feild tell me otherwise. Either way, I am certainly in no position to argue with them.


----------



## bryanc

Oh, a while back someone suggested that there was no concerted effort to spread climate change denial; just for the record, here's a link to the Wikipedia page... you can easily find much more, but it's obvious that the oil industry and associated billionaires are doing a great job of keeping the public confused about the science.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Indeed, it would appear you are beginning to learn how to read, as this has always been my position.


Perhaps it has, perhaps not. You've never phrased it in terms anywhere nearly that clearly before.



bryanc said:


>


Oh, from Wiki, that last bastion of truth on the internet. Well, in that case, I apologize...



bryanc said:


> People who's livelihood depends on the petroleum industry not convinced of climate change. Film at 11.


Seriously? As opposed to the warmists whose funding and very existence depends on perpetuating the FUD and the myth? Please...



bryanc said:


> I have linked the peer-reviewed literature providing this data, you are welcome to take up your criticism with the authors or the editors of the journals that published them. But until credible peer-reviewed research refutes these findings, you're just a guy on the internet with an opinion.


As I noted, the research was peer-reviewed. Did you see it that time? Jes' wonderin' 'cause I've had to repeat my self a number of times on this thread lately, you appear to be cherry picking what you read. You never bothered clicking on the link in the first place, no point in me posting it again.



bryanc said:


> Why not; consensus means exactly this.


Because the word "consensus" does not quantify the amount. It merely implies more, rather than less. _Prima facie_, it means nothing at all. Would you accept as proper procedure from one of your student's papers: "We accept the data as presented due to the consensus of the primary authors. The actual numbers matter not.".



bryanc said:


> ...and ignoring the vastly more abundant and well-supported evidence to the contrary.


Again, with consensus. There's allegedly more data, therefore it must be correct.

Horse****. A single paper can provide evidence to overthrow everything published before it.

In addition, I'd love to ask for a few specific examples to a few specific questions, but I'd just get the tired & worn out routine of how ignorant you are on the subject and how correct consensus is and how I need to go subject myself to the abuse, er, "truth", at ARS.

You've created the perfect circular argument, bryanc. Endless, pointless, substanceless. You should be proud.



bryanc said:


> My point is that posts hear are not read by people qualified to explain why you're wrong.


You've noted ad nauseum that you don't have enough background to debate the subject or to voice an opinion. As such, you are also in no position to judge whether the sceptical opinion I support is wrong or not. 

As a recent convert to "data rules!", you also have much catching up to do. I could suggest a number of sceptical peer-reviewed papers for you to start with...



bryanc said:


> If you were being intellectually honest, you'd take your arguments somewhere where they could be addressed by people knowledgeable in the field.


If you were being intellectually honest you'd stop being critical of that which you so unabashedly admit to knowing nothing about.



bryanc said:


> ...hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers that support ACC.


Consensus. Barf...

Tell ya what. Why don't all your buddies head over to the sceptical science part of the library & refute a paper or two themselves? What with sceptics being such a bunch of know-nothings, low-hanging fruit, no? They oughta be able to debunk the whole subject before lunch, no?



bryanc said:


> I see no signs of a paradigm shift;


That, my friend, is because you are not reading the literature. Click a link, learn something.


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> Oh, a while back someone suggested that there was no concerted effort to spread climate change denial...


I'm sorry, I must have missed something...

When did Wiki & the Guardian become peer-reviewed publications?


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost even the most rabid progressives from John Q Public...

OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally



> Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama’s 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.


----------



## FeXL

Apollo 7 astronaut on the missing integrity in climate science.

Walt Cunningham: Restore climate science integrity, please!

Just a few, key quotes...



> *The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government – all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.*





> A group of NASA retirees responded with another letter charging that NASA in general, and GISS in particular, has failed to objectively assess all available data on climate change, while relying too heavily upon complex climate models that have not succeeded in predicting climate. The letter specifically asked that GISS, then headed by James Hansen, not incorporate unproven remarks in public releases and websites.
> 
> *Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.*





> Understanding global climate and what, if anything, humans can do to affect it are scientific questions that can be answered only by honest science and scientific data. *Yet, global warming alarmists invariably try to make their case through rhetoric, dogma, opinion, and emotion. They like to cite their climate models, and the public buys it.*





> The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, *and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.*


All emphasis mine.

But, hey, don't worry. Just another unsubstantiated opinion from a mere astronaut...


----------



## FeXL

*Well, well, well...*

Finally, a model I can support.

The erudite among you will note that in recent months there have been a number of peer-reviewed papers presenting evidence of a lower sensitivity to CO2 doubling than the garbage hyped by the International Pack of Climate Crooks among others.

In response to this a very few modellers have been adjusting their models to this data and have been getting results that are less erroneous. In addition, models based on natural forcings are also more accurate. Following this to its ultimate conclusion, a pair of scientists have created a simple model using no CO2 or aerosol parameters whatsoever. They base their research purely on 4 simple harmonic time periods.

What do you suppose the results were...

Simple climate model outperforms IPCC models, demonstrates climate effect of CO2 is miniscule 

(translated from the original Norwegian.)



> If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as IPCC claims in their reports also CO2 effects of climate models for the IPCC based are exaggerated. *The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data.*


Bold mine.

Was that a new paradigm I just heard click into place?

Was that another coffin nail I just heard pounded in?

Tell me once again about the massive effect anthropogenic CO2 has had on the climate...


----------



## FeXL

Lexicon Shift Alert: global warming gets another name change

1) Global Warming
2) Climate Change
3) Climate Disruption
4) Carbon Pollution
.
.
.
X) Irritable Climate Syndrome?

Just asking...Including CO2 (0.04%) and hydrocarbons (methane, etc.), carbon content in the atmosphere is literally hundredths of a percent. The human body has around 18% carbon content. 

Are we all now considered carbon pollution?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Yup... Further on climate model shortcomings. What it boils down to is that conventional climate models assume the earth is flat. A more accurate model is one that would include mountainous relief. The authors give a specific example based on the Tibetan plateau.

Paper is available in PDF.

New paper finds climate model results are 'substantially' erroneous because they assume the Earth is flat 

Abstract 



> The 3-D complex topography effect on the surface solar radiative budget over the Tibetan Plateau is investigated by means of a parameterization approach on the basis of “exact” 3-D Monte Carlo photon tracing simulations, which use 90 m topography data as building blocks.	Using a demonstrative grid size of 10 × 10 km2, we show that differences in downward surface solar fluxes for a clear sky without aerosols between the 3-D model and the conventional plane-parallel radiative transfer scheme are substantial, on the order of 200 W/m2 at shaded or sunward slopes. Deviations in the reflected fluxes of the direct solar beam amount to about +100 W/m2 over snow- covered areas, which would lead to an enhanced snowmelt if the 3-D topography effects had been accounted for in current climate models. *We further demonstrate that the entire Tibetan Plateau would receive more solar flux by about 14 W/m2, if its 3-D mountain structure was included in the calculations, which would result in larger sensible and latent heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Those of you who have been following for some time will recall that Mikey Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against the National Review. The National Review would love to see this come to fruition because, in the process of discovery, a whole pile of information including emails would need to be released. 

It appears that Mikey is having second thoughts and is now claiming that he was "baited" into pursuing the lawsuits.

Oh Mann! Climate baiter Mann claims he is a ‘baitee’


----------



## FeXL

A new paper pushes back on the ‘Arctic amplification is making extreme weather’ idea

Abstract



> Previous studies have suggested that Arctic Amplification has caused planetary-scale waves to elongate meridionally and slow-down, resulting in more frequent blocking patterns and extreme weather.
> 
> Here, trends in the meridional extent of atmospheric waves over North America and the North Atlantic are investigated in three reanalyses, and *it is demonstrated that previously reported positive trends are an artifact of the methodology*. No significant decrease in planetary-scale wave phase speeds are found except in OND, but this trend is sensitive to the analysis parameters.
> 
> Moreover, the frequency of blocking occurrence exhibits no significant increase in any season in any of the three reanalyses, further supporting the lack of trends in wave speed and meridional extent. This work highlights that observed trends in midlatitude weather patterns are complex and likely not simply understood in terms of Arctic Amplification alone.


Bold mine.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Further.



> During the 1970s, deep jet stream dips were blamed on global cooling.
> Scientists are much smarter now, and blame jet stream dips on global warming.


----------



## FeXL

So, The International Pack of Climate Crooks has leaked info about the upcoming AR5 Report and they're citing "95% certainty" that human activity is the cause of global warming since the 1950's. This is up from the 90% cited in AR4, 66% in TAR and 50% in SAR, all of which, interestingly enough, had no basis in empirical evidence. 



> “Were those numbers calculated, or just pulled out of some orifice?” They were not calculated, at least if the same procedure from the fourth assessment report was used. In that prior climate assessment, buried in a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC admitted that the reported 90% confidence interval was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture. This, of course begs the question as to how any human being can have “expertise” in attributing temperature trends to human causes when there is no scientific instrument or procedure capable of verifying the expert attributions.


OK, all that said...

When somebody hits you with that new ‘IPCC is 95% certain’ talking point on global warming, show them this

At the link are two graphs showing global temperature data from HadCRUT3 encompassing two separate 50 year time periods, 1895-1946 and 1957-2008. Which graph shows man's "influence" and which is all natural?


----------



## FeXL

Judith Curry relates a few personal experiences with the "consensus police".

‘Consensus police’



> Curry: 'Last year, I encountered a stark example of this. One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics.


What the hell ever happened to science? It used to be about finding the truth, no matter how painful or surprising the evidence. Now, it's about appeasing a particular political demographic. 

How very, very sad...


----------



## FeXL

Stalking the Rogue Hotspot



> I’ll return to the serious question of Dr. Trenberth’s missing heat in a moment. But first, let’s consider Dr. Trenberth’ statement, starting with the section highlighted in bold in Joe’s post, viz:
> 
> “We can confidently say that the risk of drought and heat waves has gone up and the odds of a hot spot somewhere on the planet have increased but the hotspot moves around and the location is not very predictable.”​
> That single sentence contains all the required elements of a good novel—unpredictability, increasing risks, a dangerous moving “hotspot”, confident experts, a planet in peril … all the stuff that goes into an exciting story, it’s perfect for a direct-to-DVD movie.


How the mighty have fallen.


----------



## FeXL

What's this? A different paradigm? How can this be? Isn't the science settled? Who is responsible for this...this heresy?

Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift



> Other scientists had been laying the groundwork, but it was Shaviv's graph which caused the paradigm shift. At a time when the anthropogenic global warming paradigm was accepted by almost all scientists, *his paper with Veizer was published in a geology journal, geology being the one scientific discipline that had never swallowed the man-centered view of climate change.*
> 
> *Geologists knew, from the geological record, that ice ages and greenhouse ages way preceded man in the Earth's history. Some also knew that carbon dioxide concentrations on today's Earth are low compared to the levels during earlier epochs. They did not share the usual inflated view of man's power and importance.*


Bold mine.

Thank you, Michael, Chip and Archie, among others, for your informative geology courses...


----------



## FeXL

About a new paper published in Nature Geoscience.

Newly discovered ocean plume could be major source of iron



> Scientists have discovered a vast plume of iron and other micronutrients more than 1,000 km long billowing from hydrothermal vents in the South Atlantic Ocean. The finding, published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, calls past estimates of iron abundances into question, and may challenge researchers' assumptions about iron sources in the world's seas.


Not only iron sources, but the carbon cycle, as well. While this is interesting enough on its own, there was something else in the article that caught my eye.

The second paragraph in the following quote is the money quote:



> Hydrothermal vents, or fissures in the Earth's crust, are found along the ridge, but they haven't been extensively studied because slow-spreading ridges are thought to be less active than fast-spreading ones.
> 
> *Past studies using helium, which is released from the Earth's mantle through hydrothermal vents and is routinely used as an indicator of vent activity, have found little coming from mid-Atlantic vents, and researchers have assumed that means the vents spew little iron as well.*


Bold mine.

Question: If the presence of these vents has been mainly unknown due to lack of interest because of the helium factor, how much heat can they add to the deep ocean? Is there a possibility that the small rise in deep ocean temps (which isn't traced anywhere else in the water column) is from the presence of significantly more of these thermal vents than previously thought?

Just something that made me go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Arctic Melt Season About Over – Climate Alarmism Suffers A Nuclear Meltdown



> The US Navy is forecasting an increase in extent over the next week. By mid-September, there could be twice as much ice as last year.


See last year's purple line at it's lowest point of ~2.5 million sq. km's? See this year's data, the black line, at nearly 5 million sq. km's?

I acknowledge "could be".

Even so, somewhat opposed to all the expert prognosticators who predicted the demise of Arctic ice by the end of 2013's melt season...


----------



## FeXL

And, further on the subject of Arctic Ice, a paper currently under review provides evidence of a largely ice free Barents Sea for nearly 6000 years of the Holocene.

Holocene sub centennial evolution of Atlantic water inflow and sea ice distribution in the western Barents Sea

Paper available online.

Abstract



> In order to elucidate a continuous Holocene high resolution record of past variability of Atlantic water inflow and sea ice distribution, we investigate in this study a marine sediment core (JM09-KA11-GC) from the Kveithola Trough, western Barents Sea margin which is influenced by the north flowing North Atlantic Current (NAC).
> 
> The depth-age model for JM09-KA11-GC was constructed from 9 14C AMS dates and shows sediment accumulation rates from 0.04 to 0.67 mm yr−1, enabling a sub centennial resolution for most of the core. Planktic foraminifera, stable isotopes and biomarkers from sea ice diatoms and phytoplankton were analysed in order to reconstruct subsurface temperatures and sea ice distribution.
> 
> Throughout the early part of the Holocene (11 900–6900 cal yr BP), the foraminiferal fauna is dominated by the polar Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (sinistral) and the biomarkers show an influence of seasonal sea ice. Between 11 300 and 11 100 cal yr BP, a clear cooling is shown both by fauna and stable isotope data corresponding to the so-called Preboreal Oscillation. After 6900 cal yr BP the subpolarTurborotalita quinqueloba becomes the most frequent species, reflecting a stable Atlantic water inflow. Subsurface temperatures reach 6 °C and biomarker content indicates open water with mainly ice-free conditions. During the last 1100 cal yr BP, biomarker abundances and distributions show the re-appearance of low frequency seasonal sea ice and the planktic fauna show a reduced salinity in the subsurface water. No apparent temperature decrease is observed during this interval, but the rapidly fluctuating fauna and biomarker distributions indicate more unstable conditions.


From the conclusions:



> Throughout the mid-late Holocene (6900–1100calyrBP), environmental conditions are stable with a pronounced inflow of Atlantic water with relatively warm subsurface temperatures around 5.9 ◦C, predominantly ice-free conditions and δ18O values reflecting stable high salinities.


----------



## FeXL

Not a headline you'll see in the MSM.

Earth Gains 38,000 Manhattans Of Sea Ice – Blows Away The Old Record



> Earth has gained 2.2 million km² of sea ice since this date last year, wiping out the previous record gain of 1.1 million km² in 1994.


That coalmine canary's gonna be freezing it's feathers off..


----------



## Kosh

I like how they mix up two different things and think they're one and the same. Polar Ice is not Sea Ice. Having one increase doesn't mean the other is decreasing.


----------



## FeXL

Kosh said:


> Polar Ice is not Sea Ice.


I'd agree that Polar ice is not necessarily Sea ice.



Kosh said:


> Having one increase doesn't mean the other is decreasing.


Not following you here?


----------



## groovetube

awesome!

This Is Probably The Funniest, Most Effective Way To Deal With People Who Ignore Science Facts Ever


----------



## Macfury

Embarrassing.


----------



## SINC

Juvenile.


----------



## heavyall

Dishonest.


----------



## bryanc

Nice one.

You know you've got a winner when you get such consistent responses from the anti-science crowd.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Nice one.
> 
> You know you've got a winner when you get such consistent responses from the anti-science crowd.


bryanc, if you've studied this to any degree, you'd realize that you're in the anti-science crowd on this one. The incidence and severity of such storms have actually been decreasing. This isn't one of those cases where you can fudge the numbers in favour of warmism--you simply count up the storms.

If this sort of YouTube juvenalia appeals to you for some other reason, fine. Don't attempt to align it with science.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> awesome!


So, groove, perhaps you could dig deep into that massive bag of science facts you possess and pull out a few answers. I'll keep the questions at drummer level, kinda like the Rock For Jocks entry level geology courses:

1) If rising global temperatures are, in fact, linked to rising CO2 concentrations as claimed by the IPCC and many others, how do you explain the statistical flatline in global temps for the last 17-23 years (depending on whose data set is used) despite the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased by 30ppm during that same time?

2) If anthropogenic CO2 emissions are, in fact, responsible for rising global temperatures as claimed by the IPCC and many others, how do you explain multiple periods of higher temperatures during the Holocene (eg. Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warming Periods) than we currently enjoy?

3) If anthropogenic CO2 emissions are, in fact, responsible for rising global temperatures as claimed by the IPCC and many others, how do you reconcile the record Antarctic ice levels this year with concomitant 400ppm CO2 concentrations?

Three simple, entry level questions. My children can answer them. Can you?


----------



## FeXL

The “Hottest” Temperature Game



> Global temperature is not doing what the “official” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted. Proponents of the claim humans are the cause of warming and the cooperative media react by trying to deflect, divert and perpetuate fear. They exploit people’s lack of knowledge and understanding. A January 2013 ABC News headline said, _“2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record, Says NASA”_ is a classic example of how the public are deliberately misled. It is deliberate because it distorts, is out of context, and exploits manipulation of statistics or as Disraeli summarized, _“Lies, damn lies and statistics.”_


Further:



> How meaningful is the temperature increase? What is the accuracy of the measure? IPCC says there was a “trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)” , that is for most of the period in the news story. *Notice the error range is ±0.2°C or ± 33%.* It is a meaningless record.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Big Oil!! Big Oil!!

When the warmists do it, it doesn't matter...

Warmist Michael Mann: Hey, I just remembered “It shouldn’t matter whether or not you stand to profit from the continued sale of fossil fuels” 



> “I think it’s wonderful,” said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University who was also a guest on the Inside Story climate panel. “What it says is that it shouldn’t be a matter of your politics or your monetary bottom line as to whether or not you believe in the science of climate change.”


I wonder if he will be nearly as cavalier after the court decision is handed down...


----------



## FeXL

XX)XX)

Yup, two of 'em...

Modeling Southern Ocean Bottom Water Characteristics



> What was learned
> The four researchers report that *"no model" - that's right, no model - "reproduces the process of Antarctic bottom water formation accurately."* Rather, "instead of forming dense water on the continental shelf and allowing it to spill off," they indicate that "models present extensive areas of deep convection, thus leading to an unrealistic, unstratified open ocean."


and

Modeling the Indian Ocean Dipole: A Progress Report (of Sorts)



> Cai and Cowan report that "most models generate an overly deep western Indian Ocean thermocline that results in an unrealistic upward slope toward the eastern tropical Indian Ocean," while noting that "the unrealistic thermocline structure is associated with too strong a mean easterly wind over the equatorial Indian Ocean, which is in turn supported by a slightly stronger mean west minus east SST gradient, reinforced by the unrealistic thermocline slope." And they conclude by stating that *"these biases/errors have persisted in several generations of models," such that (drum roll) "there is no clear improvement from CMIP3 to CMIP5."*


All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Some time back I posted a couple of links addressing Cook's latest 97% consensus paper. There appears to be even more controversy than initially described, above & beyond the logical fallacy of "consensus".

Richard Tol: half Cook’s data still hidden. Rest shows result is incorrect, invalid, unrepresentative.



> Richard Tol has been relentlessly polite in pursuing the data through email after email to John Cook, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor Max Lu and Professor Daniel Kammen, the journal editor. Tol simply wants the data so he can replicate and check John Cook’s results. Cook et al 2013 tried to demonstrate the irrelevant and unscientific point that there is a consensus among government funded climate scientists (if not among real scientists). We already know this study is fundamentally flawed (see Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study).
> 
> Now the University of Queensland’s scientific standards are being openly questioned too. Will UQ insist on the bare minimum standard that applies to all scientists — will they make sure Cook provides the data for a published paper? Did they realize what they were getting into when they gave Cook their platform?


Good question. Is not the hallmark of the hallowed peer review process to have all data included for the sole purpose of result duplication?

More:



> Given the large media run when this paper was issued, and the importance of saving the world from a climate catastrophe, you would have thought that Cook et al would know other scientists would want the data. Since Cook must have double checked and been rigorous preparing it, surely Cook would have all that data zipped up, ready to go when the paper was submitted in January? Naturally, Environment Research Letters would want to review that data too, wouldn’t they…


----------



## FeXL

Two from Goddard.

Mildest US Summer In A Century



> This summer, the US has experienced the fewest number of 100 degree readings in a century.


Hot Days In Sharp Decline In The US



> The number of of 90ºF days in the US is down 20% since the 1930s, with 2013 having the fewest in over a century. 2013 totals are not final, but are unlikely to pass 2009, which was the second mildest year.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Nice one.
> 
> You know you've got a winner when you get such consistent responses from the anti-science crowd.


Ha ha ha yeah.  The number of ignored usernames showing up so quickly and predictably seemed like a pretty good turnout!

So serious!


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> So serious!


So childish...


----------



## CubaMark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8


Careful CM, I posted this a page earlier and nearly caused an international incident!

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...authoritative-ghg-thread-357.html#post1416529


----------



## CubaMark

Oopsie. Not sufficiently interested in this thread to go searching for reposts...  Thought this was so new that nobody else had seen it. My bad!


----------



## Macfury

It's still an embarrassing video the second time around. It's a shame the left has become so anti-science.


----------



## FeXL

ssdd...


----------



## FeXL

So, about all those extra hurricanes & extreme weather that anthropogenic global warming is s'pose to be causing...

No Atlantic Hurricane by August in First Time in 11 Years



> “Amazing we’re on the 90th day of the hurricane season and no hurricanes yet.”


"Amazing." I guess that's one way to describe it. 

NOAA will start naming clouds soon, just to shore up their numbers & guarantee funding next year...


----------



## FeXL

Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons



> Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.


----------



## FeXL

Willis talks about Earth's energy balance accuracy.

Accuracy, Precision, and One Watt per Square Metre



> I’ve been investigating one of my favorite datasets in the last few days, the CERES satellite-based top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation dataset. In particular, I’ve taken month-by-month global and hemispheric averages of the data. The dataset consists of observations of three variables—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling longwave (infrared) radiation, and upwelling shortwave radiation (reflected sunlight). From these I derive a further dataset. This is the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) imbalance. It is calculated as downwelling solar minus upwelling (reflected) solar minus upwelling longwave. That gives a fascinating look at the overall radiation picture.


----------



## FeXL

On that paradigm shift...

Can The IPCC Do Revolutionary Science?



> The timing couldn’t be worse.
> 
> On 23-26 September, scores of representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries are scheduled to meet in Stockholm to wordsmith the final draft of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the key WG1 (physical science) portion of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
> 
> The draft SPM, sent to governments on 2 August, is a 22-page condensation of 14 chapters comprising 1,914 pages of material discussing scientific papers that were published between 2006 and 15 March 2013.
> 
> This SPM is (or could be) a document of world-shaking importance. As Bloomberg points out – “it is designed to be used by ministers working to devise by 2015 a global treaty to curb climate change”.
> 
> The timetable for the global treaty was deferred at the Durban COP because developing countries (particularly China and India) felt that the 2013 SPM was an indispensable input to the negotiations. Governments need an authoritative up-to-date assessment of both the extent and the causes of the climate change threat, present and future.
> 
> But the SPM has been sidelined by momentous climate change events that occurred after its March cut-off date – and even after the date the draft was circulated.


A good analysis. TIPCC™ is screwed, no matter if they plow ahead in the face of all this new evidence or if they postpone to address said evidence later.


----------



## FeXL

Another in a lengthening list of recent papers showing evidence of reduced temperature sensitivity to doubling of CO2 levels. Interestingly, the lower limit on this one is 1.16 degrees C, at the 95% confidence level.

Paper in press, PDF copy at the link.

New paper finds low estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 of 1.16C

Abstract



> Transient and equilibrium sensitivity or Earth's climate have been calculated using global temperature, forcing, and heating rate data for the period 1970-2010. We have assumed increased long wave radiative forcing in the period due to the increase of the long-lived greenhouse gases. By assuming that the change in aerosol forcing in the period to be zero we calculate what we consider to be lower bounds to these sensitivities, as the magnitude of the negative aerosol forcing is unlikely to have diminished in this period. The radiation imbalance necessary to calculate equilibrium sensitivity is estimated from the rate of ocean heat accumulation as 0.37 ± 0.03 W m-2 (all uncertainty estimates are 1-σ). With these data we obtain *best estimates for transient climate sensitivity 0.39 ± 0.07 K (W m-2)-1 and equilibrium climate sensitivity 0.54 ± 0.14 K (W m-2)-1, equivalent to 1.5 ± 0.3 and 2.0 ± 0.5 K (3.7 W m-2)-1, respectively.* The latter quantity is equal to the lower bound of the "likely" range for this quantity given by the 2007 IPCC Assessment report. The uncertainty attached to the lower-bound equilibrium sensitivity permits us to state, within the assumptions of this analysis, that *the equilibrium sensitivity is greater than 0.31 K (W m-2)-1, equivalent to 1.16 K (3.7 W m-2)-1*, at the 95% confidence level.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds global carbon cycle datasets may be biased



> A paper published today in Global Biogeochemical Cycles finds prior calculations of the global carbon cycle may be erroneous because such calculations are based upon partial pressures of CO2 from several meters below the ocean surface instead of CO2 levels at the ocean surface ["the boundary layer"] where CO2 is actually exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean. The authors find a "strong" CO2 variability between the global datasets measured from several meters below the surface in comparison to the ocean surface that cannot be explained by Henry's Law alone, and are primarily due to variations in biological activity between these layers. The paper finds higher levels of CO2 in the boundary layer than in the 5 meter deep global datasets, which would suggest that either the oceans are less of a sink for CO2 or a larger source of CO2 to the atmosphere than previously assumed. The authors recommend, "Observations of pCO2 just beneath the air-sea boundary layer should be further investigated in order to estimate possible biases in calculating global air-sea CO2 fluxes."


Unfortunately, paywalled.

Abstract



> The gradient in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) across the air-sea boundary layer is the main driving force for the air-sea CO2 flux. Global data-bases for surface seawater pCO2 are actually based on pCO2 measurements from several meters below the sea surface, assuming a homogeneous distribution between the diffusive boundary layer and the upper top meters of the ocean. Compiling vertical profiles of pCO2, Temperature and dissolved oxygen in the upper 5-8 meters of the ocean from different biogeographical areas, we detected a mean difference between the boundary layer and 5 m pCO2 of 13 ± 1 µatm. Temperature gradients accounted for only 11 % of this pCO2 gradient in the top meters of the ocean, thus, pointing to a heterogeneous biological activity underneath the air-sea boundary layer as the main factor controlling the top meters pCO2 variability. Observations of pCO2 just beneath the air-sea boundary layer should be further investigated in order to estimate possible biases in calculating global air-sea CO2 fluxes.


----------



## FeXL

Ruh roh...

US & EU are pressuring the IPCC to explain why there has been no global warming for past 15+ years



> “The recent slowing of the temperature trend is currently a key issue, yet it has not been adequately addressed in the SPM,” the EU said, according to an official paper that includes all governmental comments on the draft report. The U.S. comment suggested “adding information on recent hiatus in global mean air temperature trend.”


Further:



> The U.S. requested clarity on the implications of the data, commenting “this is an example of providing a bunch of numbers, then leave them up in the air without a concrete conclusion.”


----------



## FeXL

Urban Heat Island - could it account for much of the century scale warming attributed to AGW?

Nicely explained & illustrated article on UHI. The graphs near the end speak volumes.


----------



## groovetube

A Bunch Of Young Geniuses Just Made A Corrupt Corporation Freak Out Big Time. Time For Round Two.

very cool!


----------



## FeXL

So, first, if I take the time to debunk this hogwash, are you going to respond or are you going to continue to have those of us who would reply on ignore & carry on with your chicken**** trolling?

Second, you don't really believe this crap about renewable energy being cheaper and less harmful than conventional, do you?

Third, why is this in the GHG thread, rather than, say, Alternative Energy or maybe even in American Politics?

Fourth, I saw no evidence of any geniuses of any age nor any freaked out corporation. Rhetoric, much?

Fifth, every time you post activist garbage like this, it just makes you look the fool, rather than someone with a genuine interest in the issues at hand.

Sixth, "very cool". Really? Is that like, similar to "totally awesome, dude" or is it more along the lines of "gag me with a two by four"?


----------



## Macfury

All I see is a bunch of kids who want to pay more for energy and want others to finance the campaign. Too bad they're trying to foist those green wet dreams on hardworking members of the community. I hope their proposition gets shot to hell.


----------



## SINC

Trolling at its finest indeed.


----------



## groovetube

Actually, it was something I found very interesting that had much to do with GHG that I thought a few others might find interesting. It has great interest on social media, so I posted it here. I know, well especially since I posted it it could be seen as a piece of meat in a piranha pool, but I can't control people's reactions. Sorry that one's not on me.

Now, who's trolling? I have zero interest in engaging those who have proven to be a waste of time with personal fights. I'm sure there are a few others who might find this particular story interesting, whether or not they support this.

You don't own this thread, nor the forum, so if you dislike the post, move on. Let others who might find it interesting read it.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## groovetube

groovetube said:


> A Bunch Of Young Geniuses Just Made A Corrupt Corporation Freak Out Big Time. Time For Round Two.
> 
> very cool!


Just going to repost this because I was rudely interrupted by a forum bully.

If you don't like it, I don't care. I really don't. Constructive comments either for or against welcome.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> Oopsie. Not sufficiently interested in this thread to go searching for reposts...  Thought this was so new that nobody else had seen it. My bad!


No worries CM 

Bit of a minefield in here


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Just going to repost this because I was rudely interrupted by a forum bully.
> 
> If you don't like it, I don't care. I really don't. Constructive comments either for or against welcome.


No need to troll twice, we saw it the first troll around.


----------



## groovetube

It was't a troll, it was an interesting post so stop being so childish.

I intend to make many more interesting posts in here, I don't need the likes of you demanding I stop thanks.


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> So, first, if I take the time to debunk this hogwash, are you going to respond or are you going to continue to have those of us who would reply on ignore & carry on with your chicken**** trolling?
> 
> Second, you don't really believe this crap about renewable energy being cheaper and less harmful than conventional, do you?
> 
> Third, why is this in the GHG thread, rather than, say, Alternative Energy or maybe even in American Politics?
> 
> Fourth, I saw no evidence of any geniuses of any age nor any freaked out corporation. Rhetoric, much?
> 
> Fifth, every time you post activist garbage like this, it just makes you look the fool, rather than someone with a genuine interest in the issues at hand.
> 
> Sixth, "very cool". Really? Is that like, similar to "totally awesome, dude" or is it more along the lines of "gag me with a two by four"?


Just going to repost this 'cause the thread was rudely interrupted by a troll.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> It was't a troll, it was an interesting post so stop being so childish.


So there. Wah! 

Childish, alright.



groovetube said:


> I intend to make many more interesting posts in here, I don't need the likes of you demanding I stop thanks.


There isn't one of us on this board who is against an interesting post. You want to make an interesting post? Try this: Tell us why you thought it was important & how it related to the thread subject. Don't just point us to a video and childishly say "kewl...".

The issue some of us have is the fact that you have a veritable lexicon on your ignore list, myself included. It's like poking a tiger through a fence with a stick: pretty safe as long as that fence is there. We just want to make sure you get to read all your feedback as part of your educational process on this thread...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> There isn't one of us on this board who is against an interesting post. You want to make an interesting post? Try this: Tell us why you thought it was important & how it related to the thread subject. Don't just point us to a video and childishly say "kewl...".


That should be an easy question to answer from someone who claims not to be a troll. So, what is your response?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> That should be an easy question to answer from someone who claims not to be a troll. So, what is your response?


I'm sorry but who are you to make demands of me? All you've contributed here is to bully me. I'm free to make a post of interest and respond to who I wish.

Go fight with someone else.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## groovetube

you can stamp your feet, scream, holler, yell the victim crap, call me a liar, blah blah.

Do what you do Sinc. It's all on you.


----------



## SINC

Uh, not so much me. Haven't noticed that here yet?


----------



## groovetube

Do what you do Sinc, I don't care.

I don't think anyone else does either I'm afraid.


----------



## SINC

They care when you troll.


----------



## groovetube

no, I don't think "they" care about any of it.

Maybe you do, obviously, perhaps your buddy, but, no one else does.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> no, I don't think "they" care about any of it.


I guess you did not read this thread and the reaction to your double post. Ah well . . .


----------



## Sonal

I don't know (nor care) who was trolling, but whomever it was should take bow.... one full page of bickering. Well done. Mission accomplished. :clap::clap::clap: 

The rest of you should smack yourselves for getting sucked in.... oh yes, I'm sure you knew exactly what was going on and had a good reason and will insist on stating it... All that reads to me is more proof that the other guy got under your skin. 

Mind you, with this thread being about 85% FeXL posting blogs, 5% MacFury egging him on and 10% bryanc talking about scientific consensus, I'm not sure there's much point in staying on-topic anyway....


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Mind you, with this thread being about 85% FeXL posting blogs, 5% MacFury egging him on and 10% bryanc talking about scientific consensus, I'm not sure there's much point in staying on-topic anyway....


Who am I supposed to be egging on? It makes me laugh to see people coming to EhMac to complain about the way it operates, when paradise awaits at MacDiscussions.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Looks like a proper analysis of Cook's data has completely inverted the "consensus":

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8935


> A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Co global warming since 1950.
> 
> . . . . . .
> 
> The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected _Science and Education_ journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
> 
> The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, *but only 0.3%.*


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> I don't know (nor care) who was trolling, but whomever it was should take bow.... one full page of bickering. Well done. Mission accomplished. :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> The rest of you should smack yourselves for getting sucked in.... oh yes, I'm sure you knew exactly what was going on and had a good reason and will insist on stating it... All that reads to me is more proof that the other guy got under your skin.
> 
> Mind you, with this thread being about 85% FeXL posting blogs, 5% MacFury egging him on and 10% bryanc talking about scientific consensus, I'm not sure there's much point in staying on-topic anyway....


honestly, that wasn't a troll post. Did I know there would be some negative comments? Sure, it's as predictable as the sunrise. But I have 2 people on ignore, and I'm not in any way interested in interacting with them, so it doesn't mater what their response is. They don't need to bother with my post either. Why should this prevent a member form posting something they find interesting in here?

Sinc seems to think himself some sort of cop that can demand people respond or be called troll our whatever name he wants to call you. People come here on their free time and post or read what they want. I think it's a little pathetic that someone runs around ruining threads simply because he has a thing for someone and can't let it go. I'm more than happy to drop the grudge, but it seems he's incapable, which is a drag for others in a thread.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I'm more than happy to drop the grudge, but it seems he's incapable, which is a drag for others in a thread.


I offered to do just that on Magic a while back and your response was FY. Want to see a screen shot of it since you erased it?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I offered to do just that on Magic a while back and your response was FY. Want to see a screen shot of it since you erased it?


Sinc your offers have always been empty. I once took you up on it only to be stabbed in the back days later.

Rather than making excuses for why it can't be done, I'll say actions speak louder than words. Let's see, if you can drop the grudge etc, the name calling, the veiled swiping of people as 'druggues' etc., it just isn't necessary.

I have said more than once, I would return in kind. It's just that simple.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I offered to do just that on Magic a while back and your response was FY. Want to see a screen shot of it since you erased it?


At least he's admitting he has a grudge against you. That's progress. But I'd rather that progress be made in the comfort of his own head instead of here.


----------



## groovetube

BigCityLib Strikes Back: Hot Air on Wind Power

Interesting expose on the anti-wind crowd, on how they tried to pin increase of costs on wind power.

Turns out, that's not even true!


----------



## FeXL

Another content free post by groovetube. Again. 

In the wrong thread. Again. 

Turns out he doesn't have a clue. Again...

First, would somebody who is not on his ignore list please direct him to the Alternative Energy thread?

And, would the same person please inform him that any idiot who does not include a complete cost analysis of energy of any type, renewable, nuclear or carbon based, not limited to but including standby generators idling away to take over when the sun isn't shining or the the wind ain't blowing, government subsidies to developers, investors & producers of energy payed for by taxpayer dollars, the high cost to birds & bats from windmills along with associated human illnesses, and the raising of global food prices because some politician decided to put corn in our fuel tanks instead of starving people's mouths, is simply lying about the total cost of energy? 

Tell him to chart those up, then we'll talk about the true cost of renewable energy. In the Alternative Energy thread.

In addition, could you inform him that while it is entertaining as hell to watch him play with his notochord, it's still not a true spine and he's apparently a long way from making a salient contribution to this (any?) thread's topic?

TIA.


----------



## FeXL

(apologies to Macfury, didn't see your post)

As discussed before, some time back Cook _et al_ came out with a new crock about the 97% "consensus" on global warming. Also, as is well known, I could care less about any claims of consensus anywhere in science simply because, as is well known to at least some of us, science is not decided by a show of hands. The paper was thoroughly debunked online for its methodological flaws almost immediately.

However, for some, that's simply not enough.

That said, the post below contains a link to a peer-reviewed paper (paywalled) calling Cook's paper out for the crock it is. Careful, though, the post is on that nastiest of places on the intertoobs, Watts Up With That?

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Abstract



> Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.


Observations



> Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
> 
> ...
> 
> Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
> 
> ...
> 
> Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.


Having noted all that, it is refreshing to discover that a recently submitted paper on "agnotology" by, among others, Cook & Scooter has been flatly rejected. Details inside & @ Bishop Hill.


----------



## FeXL

There's been a certain amount of hullaballoo in the last few days by the "explanation" of the global temperature flatline by the cooling of the Pacific Ocean. Lubos addresses the subject quite succinctly.


Pacific waters as an excuse for the warming hiatus



> Instead, we're sold stories about the Pacific Ocean as a "justification" of the failure. It's no justification. If you totally screw your understanding of the Pacific Ocean, it pretty much means that you screwed your understanding of the climate on most of the globe. The Pacific Ocean covers one third of the Earth's ocean. In fact, this largest ocean's area exceeds the area of all lands on Earth. It's in no way negligible.
> 
> So even if you just consider the Pacific Ocean's contribution to the global average of the temperatures, it is a huge contribution that can't be overlooked. The Pacific Ocean was this large and this important even 20 years ago – even millions of years ago. It is no "news" that the Pacific Ocean was important.


Yup.

And, interestingly enough, if they accept the La Nina cooling of ENSO, then must they not accept the El Nino warming, too? 

And, suddenly, do not all of the natural forcings that sceptics have been talking about for years come under consideration as well?


----------



## FeXL

Some of you may recall the results of CERN's research released two summers ago, validating Svensmark's theory about the relationship between cosmic rays & cloud formation. Namely,



> The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here. The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. *Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead.*


Bold mine.

The criticism at the time noted that the size of the microscopic cloud nuclei was too small to stimulate cloud growth. Further research indicates that the nuclei do not stop growing and will increase in size to the point that clouds will form.

Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed

Link to open access PDF inside.

Abstract



> In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response at larger particle sizes. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulfuric acid in small clusters.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

More settled science: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is 20 million years older than thought



> The results of research conducted by professors at UC Santa Barbara and colleagues mark the beginning of a new paradigm for our understanding of the history of Earth’s great global ice sheets. The research shows that, contrary to the popularly held scientific view, an ice sheet on West Antarctica existed 20 million years earlier than previously thought.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds climate model assumptions on cloud-aerosol interactions may be off by ± 100% 

Abstract



> *Aerosol–cloud interaction effects are a major source of uncertainty in climate models so it is important to quantify the sources of uncertainty and thereby direct research efforts.* However, the computational expense of global aerosol models has prevented a full statistical analysis of their outputs. Here we perform a variance-based analysis of a global 3-D aerosol microphysics model to quantify the magnitude and leading causes of parametric uncertainty in model-estimated present-day concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Twenty-eight model parameters covering essentially all important aerosol processes, emissions and representation of aerosol size distributions were defined based on expert elicitation. An uncertainty analysis was then performed based on a Monte Carlo-type sampling of an emulator built for each model grid cell. *The standard deviation around the mean CCN varies globally between about ±30% over some marine regions to ±40–100% over most land areas and high latitudes, implying that aerosol processes and emissions are likely to be a significant source of uncertainty in model simulations of aerosol–cloud effects on climate.* Among the most important contributors to CCN uncertainty are the sizes of emitted primary particles, including carbonaceous combustion particles from wildfires, biomass burning and fossil fuel use, as well as sulfate particles formed on sub-grid scales. Emissions of carbonaceous combustion particles affect CCN uncertainty more than sulfur emissions. Aerosol emission-related parameters dominate the uncertainty close to sources, while uncertainty in aerosol microphysical processes becomes increasingly important in remote regions, being dominated by deposition and aerosol sulfate formation during cloud-processing. The results lead to several recommendations for research that would result in improved modelling of cloud–active aerosol on a global scale.


Bold from the link.

Open access paper.


----------



## FeXL

The Bishop links to a story over at Ars about models.



> There is a fascinating layman's intoduction to climate models over at Ars Technica. Author Scott Johnson starts out with the standard potshot at global warming dissenters, takes a look at how a GCM is put together and talks to lots of climate modellers about their work and all the testing they do; it has something of the air of a puff piece about it, but that's not to say that it's not interesting.


Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

I'm not nearly as effusive about the article but, as long as you can get past the back-slapping and the spit-swapping, there is some info to be gleaned. Don't forget your salt shaker and save yourself the purgatory of the comments...


----------



## SINC

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions


----------



## FeXL

So, JAXA (one of the agencies that monitor sea ice) is updating their software from v1 to v2. Under discussion is the timing (we are at/near the upward turn in Arctic sea ice) & the changes the software brings (interestingly enough, but perhaps not surprisingly, the new software lowers ice estimates).

JAXA timing worst ever – switching Arctic Sea Ice software, right as the minimum is about to happen



> They say timing is everything, and this timing couldn’t be more wrong. You”d think they would have waited until after the minimum had been recorded, so that there would be no questions or issues with the timing. But for some reason, JAXA has decided that now is the opportune time, right when everyone is watching.


And

Jaxa Version 2 – Make The Low Even Lower (and the Great Big Con continues)



> Guess what the following graph shows? It makes the minimum dramatically lower (400,000 sq km lower) and the maximum higher so the minimum looks even worse when graphed.
> 
> For shame.


I don't know if the timing is intentional or not but, either way, updating software at either min or max ice is probably not the best time.


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

According to a sociologist studying sceptics, Watts Up With That is the most central sceptic blog and, a scientific one, at that. I hear heads exploding already...

Mapping the skeptical blogosphere – WUWT seems to be the most central blog

Abstract



> While mainstream scientific knowledge production has been extensively examined in the academic literature, comparatively little is known about alternative networks of scientific knowledge production. Online sources such as blogs are an especially under-investigated site of knowledge contestation. Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests from social network analysis, and thematic content analysis of individual posts, this research identifies and critically examines the climate sceptical blogosphere and investigates whether a focus on particular themes contributes to the positioning of the most central blogs. A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. *These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system,* and appear to be less preoccupied with other types of scepticism that are prevalent in the wider public debate such as ideologically or values-motivated scepticism. *It is possible that these central blogs in particular are not only acting as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are filling a void by opening up climate science to those who may have been previously unengaged by the mainstream knowledge process and, importantly, acting themselves as public sites of alternative expertise for a climate sceptical audience.*


Bold mine.

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

ATI Files Suit to Compel the University of Arizona to Produce Records Related to So-Called “Hockey Stick” Global Warming Research



> “The public are increasingly aware that they have funded the effort to impose an all-pain, no-gain energy-scarcity agenda on them, from activists in federal bureaucracies and the green pressure groups they love, down to activists ensconced in state universities,’” says Chris Horner, ATI Senior Fellow, FMELC attorney and author of The Liberal War On Transparency, who managed the initial request and productions. “As such, we continue to seek copies of records the public paid for, to help bring about the oft-promised, yet rarely voluntary governmental transparency. Too often public institutions require that we engage in protracted battles under open records laws to allow the public a glimpse at the enormous apparatus they are underwriting,” he added.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds South America was warmer & had more severe drought 6,000 years ago in comparison to modern climate

Abstract



> The mid-Holocene (6000 calibrated years before present) is a key period in palaeoclimatology because incoming summer insolation was lower than during the late Holocene in the Southern Hemisphere, whereas the opposite happened in the Northern Hemisphere. However, the effects of the decreased austral summer insolation over South American climate have been poorly discussed by palaeodata syntheses. In addition, only a few of the regional studies have characterised the mid-Holocene climate in South America through a multiproxy approach. Here, we present a multiproxy compilation of mid-Holocene palaeoclimate data for eastern South America. *We compiled 120 palaeoclimatological datasets, which were published in 84 different papers. The palaeodata analysed here suggest a water deficit scenario in the majority of eastern South America during the mid-Holocene if compared to the late Holocene,* with the exception of northeastern Brazil. Low mid-Holocene austral summer insolation caused a reduced land–sea temperature contrast and hence a weakened South American monsoon system circulation. This scenario is represented by a decrease in precipitation over the South Atlantic Convergence Zone area, saltier conditions along the South American continental margin, and lower lake levels.


Bold from the link.

Link to open access paper inside.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out (paywalled) that associates the well known 60 year climate cycle with cosmic rays and solar activity. Interesting.

New paper relates natural 60 year climate cycle to the effects of solar activity and cosmic rays

Abstract



> *Possible reasons for a temporal instability of long-term effects of solar activity (SA) and galactic cosmic ray (GCR) variations on the lower atmosphere circulation were studied. It was shown that the detected earlier ∼60-year oscillations of the amplitude and sign of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects on the troposphere pressure at high and middle latitudes (Veretenenko and Ogurtsov, Adv.Space Res., 2012) are closely related to the state of a cyclonic vortex forming in the polar stratosphere. The intensity of the vortex was found to reveal a roughly 60-year periodicity affecting the evolution of the large-scale atmospheric circulation and the character of Solar Activity/Galactic Cosmic Ray effects.* An intensification of both Arctic anticyclones and mid-latitudinal cyclones associated with an increase of GCR fluxes at minima of the 11-year solar cycles is observed in the epochs of a strong polar vortex. In the epochs of a weak polar vortex SA/GCR effects on the development of baric systems at middle and high latitudes were found to change the sign. *The results obtained provide evidence that the mechanism of solar activity and cosmic ray influences on the lower atmosphere circulation involves changes in the evolution of the stratospheric polar vortex.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on global warming causing more extreme weather events.

New paper finds South Pacific rainfall was up to 2.4 times more variable before the 20th century 



> A new reconstruction of climate in the South Pacific during the past 446 years shows rainfall varied much more dramatically before the start of the 20th century than after. The finding, based on an analysis of a cave formation called a stalagmite from the island nation of Vanuatu, could force climate modelers to adjust their models. The models are adjusted to match the current levels of climate variability that are smaller now than they were in the recent past for this region.


Abstract



> Pacific decadal variability (PDV) causes widespread, persistent fluctuations that affect climate, water resources, and fisheries throughout the Pacific basin, yet the magnitude, frequency, and causes of PDV remain poorly constrained. Here we present an absolutely dated, subannually resolved, 446 yr stable oxygen isotope (δ18O) cave record of rainfall variability in Vanuatu (southern Pacific Ocean), a location that has a climate heavily influenced by the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ). The δ18O-based proxy rainfall record is dominated by changes in stalagmite δ18O that are large (∼1‰), quasi-periodic (∼50 yr period), and generally abrupt (within 5–10 yr). These isotopic changes imply abrupt rainfall changes of as much as ∼1.8 m per wet season, changes that can be ∼2.5× larger than the 1976 C.E. shift in rainfall amount associated with a PDV phase switch. The Vanuatu record also shares little commonality with previously documented changes in the Intertropical Convergence Zone during the Little Ice Age or solar forcing. We conclude that multidecadal SPCZ variability is likely of an [natural] endogenous nature. Large, spontaneous, and low-frequency changes in SPCZ rainfall during the past 500 yr have important implications for the relative magnitude of natural PDV possible in the coming century.


----------



## FeXL

Donna has a new book out. She talks about TIPCC's™ top man, railroad engineer & soft porn author, Rajendra Pachauri.

Into the Dustbin

Judith Curry gives a quick review.


Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC



> Two years ago, Donna Laframboise published a book entitled The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, which was discussed on this Climate Etc. post. Donna has a new book on the IPCC entitled Into the Dustbin: Rachendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize. Her new book is an anthology of her blog posts at No Frakking Consensus. With the release of the AR5 Working Group I Report anticipated in a few weeks, the release of the book is very timely as the world reacts to the IPCC AR5.


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm... Not quite sure what to make of this. Apparently a fairly large submarine ridge in the South Pacific has a narrow 25 mile wide channel, the Samoan Passage, through which a tremendous amount of water passes enroute from Antarctica to the Pacific, mixing it thoroughly & creating large undersea waves.

Breaking deep-sea waves reveal a potential mechanism for global ocean mixing

One wonders, in the big scheme of things, how much effect this really has.


----------



## FeXL

Rather than produce any hard data, this statistical reanalysis of the Hadcrut3 temperature record is, if nothing else, an interesting brain exercise. The author does go one step further and offers a forecast for the next 100 years. Most of the stats is way over my head but, as always, much of the story is in the comments.

Digital Signal Processing analysis of global temperature data time series suggests global cooling ahead

Abstract 



> The observed temperature anomaly since 1900 can be well modeled with a simple harmonic decomposition of the temperature record based on a fundamental period of 170.7 years. The goodness-of-fit of the resulting model significantly exceeds the expected fit to a stochastic AR sequence matching the general characteristic of the modern temperature record.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds IPCC climate models don't realistically simulate convection

Abstract



> *Deep moist atmospheric convection is a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy. It has been challenging to simulate convection realistically in global atmospheric models, because of the large gap in spatial scales between convection (100 km) and global motions (104 km).* We conducted the first ever sub-kilometer global simulation and described the features of convection. Through a series of grid-refinement resolution testing, we found that an *essential change for convection statistics occurred around 2-km grid spacing. The convection structure, number of convective cells, and distance to the nearest convective cell dramatically changed at this resolution.* The convection core was resolved using multiple grids in simulations with grid spacings less than 2.0 km.


Bold from the link.

As noted at the link, 2km resolution is much smaller than that used by IPCC models.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs me some snark. Today it's from Larry Bell @ Forbes.

Terrifying Flat Global Temperature Crisis Threatens To Disrupt U.N. Climate Conference Agenda



> Bummer! Now, just before members of the *U.N.’s Church of the Burning Planet* are scheduled to finalize their latest hellfire and brimstone sermon, a chilling development has occurred. A flood of blasphemous reports circulated among ranks of former faithful parishioners are challenging human-caused climate crisis theology.


Bold mine.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It goes on...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds 'up to 30% discrepancy between modeled and observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere' 

Abstract



> *Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere. Absorption of the solar radiation by water vapor in the near UV region may partially account for the up to 30% discrepancy between the modeled and the observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere.* But *the magnitude of water vapor absorption in the near UV region* at wavelengths shorter than 384 nm *is not known.* We have determined absorption cross sections of water vapor at 5 nm intervals in the 290-350 nm region, by using cavity ring-down spectroscopy. Water vapor cross section values range from 2.94 × 10-24 to 2.13 × 10-25 cm2/molecule in the wavelength region studied. The effect of the water vapor absorption in the 290-350 nm region on the modeled radiation flux at the ground level has been evaluated using radiative transfer model.


Paywalled.


----------



## FeXL

This is the mentality we're dealing with...

Obama’s Science Adviser Forecasts Arctic Ice Free Winters



> _…if you lose the summer sea ice, *there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well.* And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.
> 
> - John Holdren Obama’s Science Adviser_​


Bold mine.



> Six months of no sun at the North Pole, and the temperature won’t drop below freezing...
> 
> You can’t make up industrial grade stupid like the Obama White House


Nope.


----------



## FeXL

Donna comments on Topher Field's finished "50 to 1" project which came out a few days back.

The Important “50 to 1″ Project.


----------



## FeXL

Steve McIntyre talks at length about IPCC's use of proxies and discusses Tim Osborn of Climategate fame.

IPCC and the end of summer

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, the UN has an online survey ranking 16 issues by public feedback. Interestingly enough, Climate Change ranks dead last. However, that's not good enough for the UN Climate Secretariat & they are now availing themselves of the services of a professional PR firm to shore up those fallen numbers. After all, we can't have the most critical problem the planet faces (/sarc) dead last in a public opinion poll, can we?

PR Firm Enlisted to Convince Leaders to Ignore Public

Donna notes:



> The conclusion here is obvious. The average person doesn’t consider climate a priority. There’s nothing equivocal about this. This isn’t a matter of interpretation. Climate is the last item out of 16 possible choices that we want our leaders to spend time and money on.
> 
> Which means that, if Brodeur is successful in helping the UN persuade politicians and bureaucrats to implement ambitious climate change measures, it will have performed the opposite of a public service.
> 
> It will have convinced those in authority to behave in a manner that is fundamentally undemocratic. It will have cajoled them into pursuing policies that the UN well knows are utterly lacking in public support.


----------



## FeXL

Seeing is no longer believing. At least as far as tornado counting is concerned...


Making up historical tornado data



> Just because a tornado occurred in two places, doesn’t automatically mean there was one in between them that was unreported. Thunderstorm cell formation is micro to mesoscale in size, meaning tornadoes are highly local, and not all cells produce tornadoes, even if there is a line of tornadic prone cells with a front. They’ll have to make up reports out of whole cloth in my opinion. Interpolation of tornado sighting data just isn’t sensible, but they are going to try anyway:
> 
> _Their model calls for the reported number in rural areas to be adjusted upward by a factor that depends on the number of tornadoes in the nearest city and the distance from the nearest city._​
> Also, in my opinion, this is statistical madness.


And, wouldn't you have guessed it, there's models involved... XX)

There's also the usual unsubstantiated nod to "increasing...risk of violent tornadoes"...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Speaking of the little darlin's...

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds



> That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.


Tell me again about the infallibility of models. C'mon, pull the other finger...



> The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.


Yet, despite this apparently well-known shortfall, we have policy being formed based on the erroneous output of the models.

How about longer than 20 years?



> But John Christy says that climate models have had this problem going back 35 years, to 1979, the first year for which reliable satellite temperature data exists to compare the predictions to.
> 
> *"I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world," Christy said.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Bob Tisdale is putting the finishing touches on his new book, _Climate Models Fail._ A video at the link gives a brief preview of his work.

A Video Preview of “Climate Models Fail”


----------



## FeXL

Further on slumping sunspot activity.

Like ‘the pause’ in surface temperatures, ‘the slump’ in solar activity continues



> The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it is becoming even more clear that we are past solar max, and that solar max has been a dud. “The slump” continues not only in sunspot activity, but also other metrics. And, tellingly, Dr. David Hathaway has now aligned his once way too high solar prediction with that of WUWT’s resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Tim Ball talks about TIPCC™ and AR5.

IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke



> AR5 SPM is scheduled for approval in Stockholm at the end of September for release shortly thereafter. If you’re tempted to buy consider German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus comments about the IPCC pig in a poke.
> 
> _“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”_​
> *It is time for global outrage and accountability.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Claim: atmosphere heats the oceans, melts Antarctic ice shelf




> Warm ocean water, not warm air, is melting the Pine Island Glacier’s floating ice shelf in Antarctica and may be the culprit for increased melting of other ice shelves, according to an international team of researchers.
> 
> ...
> 
> Pine Island Glacier or PIG lies far from McMurdo base, the usual location of American research in Antarctica. Work done in the southern hemisphere’s summer, December through January 2012-13, included drilling holes in the ice to place a variety of instruments and using radar to map the underside of the ice shelf and the bottom of the ocean. Penn State researchers did the geophysics for the project and the research team’s results are reported today (Sept. 13) in Science.


Questions, questions...

From the comments: [sublimation notwithstanding...]



> The atmosphere is warming the water enough to melt the ice….but the air temp is still not high enough to melt the ice?


As always, much of the story in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Further on AR5.

BREAKING: IPCC AR5 report to dial back climate sensitivity



> The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.



Please, please, believe



> The models have failed, utterly, completely and catastrophically to predict the halt in temperature rises. That we should then be expected to accept "even greater confidence" about conclusions drawn from them is risible nonsense. This kind of spin is exactly the kind of thing one has come to expect from government chief scientific advisers and the climate establishment and is precisely why people are distrustful of their public utterances.


Leaked IPCC report discussed in the MSM



> People have been asking me to comment on the leaked IPCC Final Draft Summary for Policy Makers. Apparently someone in the IPCC made the Report available to ‘friendly’ journalists, as part of a strategy to brief them before the formal release of the Report. I have declined to comment until very recently, since I thought it was best to let the IPCC process play out. Now it is clear that the leaked report has made it into the hands of journalists that were not on the IPCC’s ‘friends’ list. I have now seen a copy of the SPM, and I provided comments to David Rose (and also to another journalist, not sure when that will air).


Judith's referenced article by David Rose (a good read):

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Link added:

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change 



> Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.


----------



## FeXL

What do at least three oceanic locations, grasslands, rice crops & paddys, Mediterranean cover crops, hay, oats & canola crops and sugarcane plantations have in common? 

They are all net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere.

New paper finds ocean along Baja California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere 

New paper finds ocean along N. California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2

New paper finds rice crops are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper finds hay, oats, canola crops are net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper finds sugarcane plantation is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper finds Mediterranean cover crops are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

Paper finds rice paddy fields are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper finds grasslands are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds climate models are unable to reproduce warming during the Holocene Climate Optimum

Abstract (open access)



> Mid-Holocene ocean and vegetation feedbacks over East Asia are investigated by a set of numerical experiments performed with the version 4 of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4). With reference to the pre-industrial period, most of the mid-Holocene annual and seasonal surface-air temperature and precipitation changes are found to result from a direct response of the atmosphere to insolation forcing, while dynamic ocean and vegetation modulate regional climate of East Asia to some extent. Because of its thermal inertia, the dynamic ocean induced an additional warming of 0.2 K for the annual mean, 0.5 K in winter (December–February), 0.0003 K in summer (June–August), and 1.0 K in autumn (September–November), but a cooling of 0.6 K in spring (March–May) averaged over China, and it counteracted (amplified) the direct effect of insolation forcing for the annual mean and in winter and autumn (spring) for that period. The dynamic vegetation had an area-average impact of no more than 0.4 K on the mid-Holocene annual and seasonal temperatures over China, with an average cooling of 0.2 K for the annual mean. On the other hand, ocean feedback induced a small increase of precipitation in winter (0.04 mm day−1) and autumn (0.05 mm day−1), but a reduction for the annual mean (0.14 mm day−1) and in spring (0.29 mm day−1) and summer (0.34 mm day−1) over China, while it also suppressed the East Asian summer monsoon rainfall. The effect of dynamic vegetation on the mid-Holocene annual and seasonal precipitation was comparatively small, ranging from −0.03 mm day−1 to 0.06 mm day−1 averaged over China. In comparison, the CCSM4 simulated annual and winter cooling over China agrees with simulations within the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP), but *the results are contrary to the warming reconstructed from multiple proxy data for the mid-Holocene.* Ocean feedback narrows this model–data mismatch, whereas vegetation feedback plays an opposite role but with a level of uncertainty.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Monckton gets his snark on.

Monckton on Readfearn: A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist



> A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist. Graham Readfearn, described as “a journalist”, heavily lost a public debate on the climate against me some years ago and has borne a steaming grudge ever since. Readfearn is no seeker after truth. He is an unthinking propagandist for the New Religion of Thermageddon™.


----------



## FeXL

The Climate Science Capitulation Begins…Hans von Storch: “We Definitely Have Seen Less Warming Than Expected”



> The Earth has warmed considerably less than expected over the past 15 years days, says Hans von Storch. That may be due to an unforeseeable climate variability, or that CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas was over-estimated, so says the meteorologist of the Coastal Research Institute.


Oh.

So, the science isn't settled, then?


----------



## FeXL

XX)


+++Harris and Lewis+++



> Nic Lewis has published a detailed comment on the Met Office’s report on climate sensitivity, which was itself very much a response to the Otto et al paper of which Nic was an author. The comment is here.


What's the issue?



> Essentially, the observations would lead you to conclude either that a high climate sensitivity is being masked by a quite strong cooling effect from aerosols, or that there is lower climate sensitivity and that aerosol cooling is a much smaller effect too. However, the Harris et al study behaves in a very different way. *If you tweak the settings on the model in a way that gives you relatively low climate sensitivity [as much recent research has indicated], the model ends up with a very strong aerosol cooling effect too. The relationship between aerosols and climate is the opposite way round to the observational studies!*


Bold mine.

Time to throw out that empirical evidence & give way to the models. Again...


----------



## FeXL

Rich. Beyond belief...

The genius of academe



> Our dogged detectives learn that 'deniers' (a word used throughout the article) are so-called because they 'deny the truth', and that they use 'multiple tactics ranging from "conspiracy theories" to “logical fallacies"'. They also discover that those implicated in Climategate were exonerated without a stain upon their honour. Then, however, the headscratching begins. How can it be then that people still don't trust the utterances of climatologists? What can be done?


The Bishop sums:



> It's rather extraordinary that a group of academics from top universities could go careering off into a field in which they seem to have no apparent expertise, read a hopelessly biased selection of the literature and come up with precisely the same ineffective plan that everyone else has come up with in the last three years. Rather surprising too that a journal would publish it. It's even more amazing that students pay good money to receive the benefit of an education from any of those involved.
> 
> *But in terms of entertainment value, you can't knock it.*


Bold mine.

Hilarious.

My tax dollars at work.


----------



## MacDoc

SNort.....denier wankers denying the obvious - head scratching indeed....

of course humanity had nothing to do with it.... :roll: 



> * Temperature chart for the last 11,000 years  SEP 16 2013*
> For the first time, researchers have put together all the climate data they have (from ice cores, coral, sediment drilling) into one chart that shows the "global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The climate curve looks like a "hump". At the beginning of the Holocene - after the end of the last Ice Age - global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the "little ice age" turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman 'Ötzi', who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)
> 
> What on Earth could have caused that spike over the past 250 years? A real head-scratcher, that. But also, what would have happened had the Industrial Revolution and the corresponding anthropogenic climate change been delayed a couple hundred years? The Earth might have been in the midst of a new ice age, Europe might have been too cold to support industry, and things may not have gotten going at all. Who's gonna write the screenplay for this movie? (via @


Temperature chart for the last 11,000 years

Get over it....move on with the denier crap ....it is soooo stale dated.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Get over it....move on with the denier crap ....it is soooo stale dated.


This is the best yet, MacDoc. They've rolled all of their crappy fudged data together for the first time, falsified tree ring data and all, then added the discredited HadCRU figures to the end to create an artificial spike--and come up with a temperature anomaly of 0.5 degrees Celsius over 11,000 years? 

Tell ya what--this isn't even statistically significant.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> SNort.....denier wankers denying the obvious - head scratching indeed....
> 
> of course humanity had nothing to do with it.... :roll:
> 
> [a link to some crap paper from Marcott]
> 
> Get over it....move on with the denier crap ....it is soooo stale dated.


Let's take a look at this wunnerful post from the educated warmist cadre, shall we? We'll go line by line.

1) Here's some good, solid science for ya. Oh, wait, that was the standard warmist tactic of name calling, little ad hom attack there to soften up the sceptics before the killer punch is delivered.

2) As far as I can tell, MacDoc, over the nearly 10 years I've been on these boards, nobody on these boards has contributed more CO2 to the atmosphere than you, personally. And, amazingly enough, I'm not even counting what's coming out of that hole under your nose. I'm talking about your multitude of aircraft flights, bouncing all over the globe. Hypocrite. Physician, heal thyself...

3) a) Ah, here's the science. Well, the first sentence at the link is BS, good start. It's not the first reconstruction that's been done. Wait, Marcott 2013? Serious? That statistical Charlie Foxtrot?? Welcome to 7 months ago. (Guess news takes a while to get down under. MacDoc's gonna crap himself when he finds out Labor is gone.) That paper was debunked within days of being published. Multiple links on this thread about it. Earliest posts at the bottom. Read, learn.

b) Notice the highly misleading temperature "anomaly" chart. Lies, damned lies, statistics & anomaly charts. What's the base period for Marcott? Or Marcott's base period value?

c)


> What on Earth could have caused that spike over the past 250 years?


Good question. A decent follow-up would be: What on Earth could have caused that spike at ~7500 YPB that lasted for ~4500 years, all at a time when CO2 concentrations were ~280ppm? 

d)


> Who's gonna write the screenplay for this movie?


Why don't they call up the guy who wrote Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest?

4) Speaking of stale, have you read anything about this goofy hypothesis that claims CO2 levels & global warming are linked? Wanna hear the punch line? Global temperatures have flat-lined for over 17 years all the while CO2 concentrations have skyrocketed! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Get it? The science isn't settled! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, what, that's your killer punch? That's all ya got? A little name-calling and a crap graph based on Marcott?

Tell ya what, my slim friend. You come back here anytime you want. You bring along some good, solid, empirical evidence of AGW, something that hasn't been debunked for over half a year, we'll have ourselves a little conversation. Until then, save yourself the public humiliation you receive every time you post warmist garbage like this.

Oh, and say hi to Julyar for me. Tell her that it sucks she got the shoe but... Actually, it doesn't suck, it's karma.


----------



## FeXL

Donna dissects Goldenberg.

Suzanne Goldenberg: Eco Activist Disguised as a Journalist



> The UK’s Guardian newspaper tells us that Suzanne Goldenberg is its “US environment correspondent.” This makes her sound like a reputable source of information.
> 
> In fact, she’s an environmental activist disguised as a journalist. Last week, Goldenberg authored a piece about the current state of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


----------



## FeXL

That pesky, non-melting Arctic sea ice...


Sea Ice News Volume 4 Number 5: No ice free Arctic this year – it appears that Arctic sea ice has turned the corner



> It looks like the Maslowski Countdown has ended early and there will be no “ice free Arctic” as predicted this year.
> 
> From NSIDC, which has a 5 day average in the plot. It looks like the minimum extent is ~5.0-5.1 million sq kilometers. NSIDC has yet to make an announcement on the turning point as of this writing. Note the minimum is withing the standard deviation bounds (grey shading) that NSIDC provides.
> 
> Note also that it is still possible to see a drop again, as this has happened in years past, but given the colder temperatures this year, a reversal appears unlikely.


Also see comment 3 ( Jimbo, September 16, 2013 at 2:11 pm).


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds reduction of soot caused ~17 times more warming than alleged from CO2 over past 20 years 

Abstract (paywalled)



> Carbonaceous aerosols have the potential to impact climate *directly through absorption of incoming solar radiation* and *indirectly by affecting cloud and precipitation.* To quantify this impact, recent modeling studies have made great efforts to simulate both the spatial and temporal distribution of carbonaceous aerosol's optical properties and associated radiative forcing. This study makes the first observationally constrained assessment of the direct radiative forcing of carbonaceous aerosols over California. By exploiting multiple observations (including ground sites and satellites), we constructed the distribution of aerosol optical depths and aerosol absorption optical depths (AAOD) over California for a ten-year period (2000–2010). We partitioned the total solar absorption into individual contributions from elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and dust aerosols, using a newly developed scheme. Our results show that AAOD due to carbonaceous aerosols (EC and OC) at 440 nm was 50%–200% larger than natural dust, with EC contributing the bulk (70%–90%). Observationally constrained EC absorption agrees reasonably well with estimates from global and regional chemical transport models, but the models underestimate the OC AAOD by at least 50%. We estimated that the top of the atmosphere (TOA) forcing from carbonaceous aerosols was 0.7 W/m2 and the TOA forcing due to OC was close to zero. The atmospheric heating of carbonaceous aerosol was 2.2–2.9 W/m2, of which EC contributed about 80–90%. We estimated the atmospheric heating of OC at 0.1–0.4 W/m2, larger than model simulations. *EC reduction over the last two decades may have caused a surface brightening of 1.5–3.5 W/m2.*


Bold from the link.

Comments:



> According to the authors, "[Soot] reduction over the last two decades may have caused a surface brightening of 1.5–3.5 W/m2." [average 2.5 W/m2] By way of comparison, the IPCC-alleged surface warming effect of increased CO2 over the last two decades is about 0.5 W/m2* at the top of the atmosphere, and 0.5/3.7 = 0.14 W/m2 at the surface, about 17 times less surface warming effect than the reduction of soot.
> 
> The larger role in climate for carbonaceous aerosols would necessarily imply a much lower climate sensitivity to CO2 than previously believed. Note also that there has been no statistically-significant warming for the past two decades, therefore, radiative forcing from both carbonaceous aerosols and CO2 levels are either overwhelmed by natural forcing or are much less than thought.


Study conducted in California.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Interesting new ocean carbon cycle proposed.

New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere


Abstract (open access to prepress paper)



> Although they are key components of the surface ocean carbon budget, physical processes inducing carbon fluxes across the mixed-layer base, i.e. subduction and obduction, have received much less attention than biological processes. Using a global model analysis of the pre-industrial ocean, physical carbon fluxes are quantified and compared to the other carbon fluxes in and out of the surface mixed-layer, i.e. air-sea CO2 gas exchange and sedimentation of biogenic material. Model-based carbon obduction and subduction are evaluated against independent data-based estimates to the extent that was possible. We find that climatological physical fluxes of DIC are two orders of magnitude larger than the other carbon fluxes and vary over the globe at smaller spatial scale. At temperate latitudes, the subduction of DIC and to a much lesser extent (< 10 %) the sinking of particles maintain CO2 undersaturation, whereas DIC is obducted back to the surface in the tropical band (75%) and Southern Ocean (25%). *At the global scale, these two large counter-balancing fluxes of DIC amount to +275.5 PgC y-1for the supply by obduction and -264.5 PgC y-1 for the removal by subduction which is ~ 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.* Moreover, we find that subduction of organic carbon (dissolved and particulate) represents ~ 20% of the total export of organic carbon: at the global scale, we evaluate that, of the 11 PgC y–1 of organic material lost from the surface every year, 2.1 PgC y-1 are lost through subduction of organic carbon. Our results emphasis the strong sensitivity of the oceanic carbon cycle to changes in mixed-layer depth, ocean currents and wind.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New post by climatologist Dr. Eduardo Zorita on "The Pause".

The intriguing stagnation



> We are not lacking hypothesis about the recent hiatus - or stagnation- in the global mean temperature: the ocean is taking up more heat, stratospheric water vapour has decreased, the sun has recently weakened and volcanic activity has also gathered a quicker click. A preliminary look at the structure of the stagnation may, or may not, offer some clues about how likely which of these hypothesis, or which combination, may end up being the correct one.


From The Hockey Schtick:



> Climatologist Dr. Eduardo Zorita, one of the authors of the recent paper rejecting the climate models at a confidence level >98% over the past 15 years, has a new post in which he states that the model vs. real-world discrepancy is even greater during the winter months [Dec-Feb], with only 0.2% of 6,104 climate model runs projecting the observed negative trend in winter temperatures [-0.10 C/decade] over the past 15 years. Climate models instead predicted that the most warming would occur during the winter months, the opposite of observations.


Good read, less technical.


----------



## FeXL

Defensive IPCC lead author jumps to conclusions based on "incomplete information"



> IPCC lead author Don Wuebbles has already concluded that the IPCC will put a "nail in the coffin" on the controversy about the halt of global warming, even though the leaked AR5 draft doesn't explain the halt, and even though he admits "we still have incomplete information until some of the new studies come out." The fact is the IPCC cutoff date for inclusion of studies has long passed, and no true scientist could justifiably come to this conclusion based upon unpublished "incomplete information."


Who said anything about true science? TIPCC™ is about political advocacy at its finest. It has nothing to do with science.



> The problem lies in the hotly debated "pause” in global warming over the last decade or more, which many have taken as an indication that a warming cycle has ended. Wuebbles confirmed that the upcoming report would address the pause, something the group is still struggling to mesh with climate models.
> 
> “We discuss the hiatus and issues about that in IPCC … but we still have incomplete information until some of the new studies come out that put the nail in that coffin,” he told FoxNews.com, citing current research that still needs to be synthesized into the draft.


I wait for the spin with bated breath...


----------



## FeXL

Ross McKitrick on the IPCC models.

IPCC models getting mushy



> The IPCC’s view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the “mainstream” view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models. Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.


----------



## FeXL

German Professor: IPCC Science Finds Itself In A Serious Jam…”5AR Likely To Be The Last Of Its Kind”



> And: “Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play.”
> 
> So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne”, which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.


I don't share the good professor's optimism that this will be the last AR. TIPCC™ will figger out a way to milk the system for some time yet.

Very revealing observations about just some of the shortfalls of alternative energy:



> FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.
> 
> Worse, it’s a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.
> 
> *It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world’s photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.*
> 
> On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don’t even deliver. *And when the wind really blows, we “sell” surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices.* And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.


Bold mine.

What really chafes is that there is a rail yard 10 minutes south of here stuffed with windmill parts, pedestals, blades, generator units, getting shipped out to a new wind farm somewhere north of the fair city.


----------



## FeXL

On Arctic ice trend lines, or how you utilize graphs to shore up your failing argument.

The Long Term Trend Towards Scientific Dishonesty

Tweet by Bob Ward:



> Article by [David Rose} failed to mention that Arctic sea ice extent last month was consistent with decrease of 10% per decade.


Steven's response:



> Even if the next five years were the five highest on record, the “long term trend” would still be down. They start their linear trend at a local maximum of a cyclical function – which is junk statistics at its worst.
> 
> NSIDC conveniently ignores all satellite data prior to 1979


----------



## FeXL

Pielke, Jr. on TIPCC™ & modelled temperatures vs empirical observations.

Global Temperature Trends and the IPCC 



> As the excitement builds about the release forthcoming IPCC report (snore), debate is underway on how to interpret previous IPCC predictions for the evolution of global surface temperature trends. The debate has been super-charged by a recent article in The Daily Mail by David Rose, leading the usual suspects to say the usual things. Such debates involve exegeses of generally inscrutable IPCC statements filtered through the imperfect process of media (social and mainstream) reporting, colored by agendas.
> 
> In this post I pass on the exegeses and have a look at the actual numbers to address several questions and raise a few of my own.


Rose's article has really stirred the pot. Good on him...


----------



## FeXL

One more today...

XX)

A Quick Look at the HADGEM2-ES Simulations of Sea Surface Temperatures

Tisdale sums:



> The individual simulations are poor representations of the sea surface temperatures, and as a result, so is the model mean. The average of bad simulations is not going to be a good simulation—no matter how hard the climate science community believes an average will be a good representation. The average simply smooths out the inherent internal noises within the models—noises that are not true representations of coupled ocean-atmosphere processes.


----------



## FeXL

Monckton on AR5 statistics.

Dodgy statistics and IPCC Assessment Reports



> The IPCC have indeed addressed The Pause. But they have addressed it by using statistical prestidigitation to air-brush it out. As Bob Tisdale has pointed out, the very first graphs the reader of the Summary for Policymakers will see are in Figure SPM.1, which consists of three panels. Each of these panels exploits bogus statistical techniques to vanish the pause.
> 
> Here is what They did and how They did it.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Incredible.

From the comments:



> So let me be sure I understand this. If we recreate the satellite data from 1860-1960, ie. assume it is constant because humans weren’t emitting CO2 yet. Then tune a model using natural forcings and a presumed CO2 effect to replicate the 1960-2010 data (omitting any of the new internal oscillation studies). Then we take out the CO2 and natural forcing data and the tuned model no longer fits the 1960-2010 data but does fit the 1860-1960 part where everything was assumed constant this proves CO2 forced warming. Really? I mean Really?


Claim: simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans

This is the "science" upon which we're s'pose to make global policy.


----------



## FeXL

Spencer comments.

A Turning Point for the IPCC…and Humanity?



> I usually don’t comment on recently published climate research papers, partly because they rarely add much, and partly because other blogs do a pretty good job of covering them anyway. The reason why I say “they rarely add much” is that there are a myriad of theories that can be justified with some data, but rarely is the evidence convincing enough to hang your hat on them.


In this case, he makes an exception:



> My main point is that nothing stands in the way of a popular theory (e.g. global warming) better than failed forecasts. *We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.* A few of us are not that surprised, as we always distrusted the level of faith that climate modelers had in their understanding of the causes of climate change.


Bold from the link.

I'd just refer to my sig but, as it may change over time, I'll post the two quotes here:

"The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." -Thomas Huxley

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” -Richard Feynman


----------



## FeXL

Executive Summary of the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II Report

Article provides an extensive list of findings.


----------



## FeXL

Jo Nova thinks scepticism is going mainstream.

A tipping point: Skepticism goes mainstream…

She notes:



> The war is by no means over, but the race in media coverage has stepped up a notch. Now, for the first time there is an element of competition, serious newspapers don’t want to be left behind. *Editors have realized the skeptics have a case.*


Bold mine.

I actually disagree with the emphasized statement. If that is, in fact, true, then warmists would never had anything published in the media. They never had a case in the first place. I believe that newspapers are trying to sell copies/ads and this just happens to be the next wave. Next week it will be something else.

That said, I'm loving the exposure.


----------



## FeXL

Week or so back I posted a link to Donna's analysis of Topher Field's 50:1 project. His point is that the costs to reduce the effects of global warming will be 50 times greater than the benefits, based on numbers from IPCC in 2007.

Barry Brill updates those estimates using leaked numbers from AR5.


50:1 should now be 100:1



> Since January 2012, no less than 19 scientific papers...have been published on the crucial question of climate sensitivity: ie how much warming would result from doubling the volumes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The latest draft of the AR5 summary tip-toes around this subject, but effectively recognises (in convoluted words and figures) that ‘equilibrium’ sensitivity (ECS) is probably around 2°C – about 33% less than the four previous reports had assumed.


Using even more updated & current data:



> So, if we were to apply updated science and normal economics to a cost:benefit study, the 50:1 ratio could easily blow out to 500:1.


This is why we must be very confident in the empirical evidence supporting global warming. The leap-before-you-look political hacks (including the ones posing as "scientists") could bankrupt the planet on garbage hypotheses that have absolutely no foundation in true science.


----------



## FeXL

This makes me grin like a cheshire cat. Down under, Tim Flannery, along with his plumb $180,000/year job (for a 3 day work week), has just gotten the shoe.

Climateer Tim Flannery sacked in Oz



> _“The Climate Commission does not have an ongoing role, and consequently I am writing to advise you that the Climate Commission has been dissolved, with effect from the date of this letter.”_​


Further:

A win for Australia! Government scraps Climate Commission.



> Tony Abbott was sworn in yesterday. Today Greg Hunt rang Tim Flannery to tell him the commission is closed. His $180,000 3-day-a-week job as a sales agent for “climate change” is over.


As Anthony notes, only one salient question remains:



> The question now is, which NGO will pick up this fool?


It's only a matter of time...


----------



## FeXL

Further on AR5 shortfalls.

IPCC to Once Again Illustrate Climate Model Failings in AR5 Summary for Policymakers



> They’re showing ocean heat content data for the Southern Ocean as far back as the 1970s, yet there are only a handful of temperature and salinity samples at depth there before the start of the ARGO era in 2003. Consider this too: there are only a few sea surface temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean before the satellite era of sea surface temperature data, which started in 1982. Altogether, there is little observations-based ocean temperature data before those benchmarks in the Southern Hemisphere, south of about 30S.
> 
> And I’m sure you can find other flaws in that bogus illustration.


From the comments:



> Zoom the figure and read the caption. The actual data are 10 year averages with the data point shown on the center year of the 10 year average.
> 
> Looks to me like the last data point stops in 2006, so they are showing data through 2011. Really neat trick they’ve used. *Think about the combination of 10 year averaging and centered presentation, plus consider that short peak temperature in 1998 from the El Nino being added in to the 10 year averages that include 1998.*
> 
> Taken altogether, that manner of presentation completely hides the hiatus.
> 
> What a piece of work these guys are!!


Bold mine.

Indeed.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

In a mad scramble to explain why Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, despite all this "global warming", you get studies like the one addressed at the link. Therein, models provide "evidence" that the main reason the ice is growing is the increase of westerly winds around the South Pole.

Claim: winds blamed for Antarctic sea ice approaching record high

Just one problem. From the comments:



> So:
> Air is warmer. Sea is warmer.
> But:
> _while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth._
> 
> I sense an oxy-moron. And I’m not talking about the words. (specifically)


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

This one I'm actually anticipating, along with Spencer's...

Uh, oh. It’s models all the way down



> Dr. Judith Curry lets an announcement slip in comments.
> 
> _My understanding of climate is not helped much by climate models. Stay tuned, our big paper on natural internal climate variability just got accepted by Climate Dynamics
> 
> Ask yourself why the common sense stuff that I say is regarded as news._​


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost _Nature..._

1) Article in Nature offers 3 natural explanations for the halt in global warming



> * solar activity [after previously claiming such small changes in solar activity could not affect climate],
> * stratospheric water vapour, "which warms the surface, has been relatively low since 2000" [climate models instead predicted an increase]
> * and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, based on a paper from which Dr. Judith Curry concluded, "no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming," which is contrary to the central premise of the IPCC.


2) New paper finds current climate models are 'unable to reproduce present or future climate accurately'

This seems to tie in with the paper I posted about here last week on deep sea waves.



> More problems for the models: An article published today in _Nature_ says "a new player on the scene" called "internal lee waves" are "a player in ocean dynamics that may make an important contribution to deep-ocean mixing...Climate models that do not represent this mixing appropriately will be unable to reproduce present or future climate accurately." According to the article, current IPCC climate models do not include this deep-ocean mixing from lee waves, which "warrant serious consideration for inclusion in the next generation of climate models."


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## SINC

*World's Top Climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years*



> Leaked United Nations report reveals the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
> 
> Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
> 
> A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
> 
> Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
> 
> The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.


Climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years | Mail Online


----------



## FeXL

Informative Op-Ed on sea level, measurement thereof, inherent inaccuracies.

Sea level rise: Climate change and an ocean of natural variability





> Satellite specifications claim a measurement accuracy of about one or two centimeters. How can scientists then measure an annual change of three millimeters, which is almost ten times smaller than the error in daily measurements? Measuring tools typically must have accuracy ten times better than the quantity to be measured, not ten times worse. Dr. Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology commented on the satellite data in 2007, “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”


Good read.

I'd like to read a technical paper on the subject.


----------



## FeXL

Luboš Motl gives his take on AR5 & commentors.

Politicians, nations argue, cry over spilled, cooled milk



> I had to laugh when I was reading Tamara Cohen's comments about a political IPCC document leaked to the Associated Press.
> 
> ...
> 
> The topic of Cohen's article is simple. Political employees were assigned the task to fine-tune the summary. A "minor" problem is that the report should talk about the ongoing warming whose rate may even be dangerous but according to the observations, there hasn't been any warming for 17 years (the trend is still negative for the last 16.83 years). *Too many people have already noticed that this main actor, global warming itself, didn't arrive to the stage.*
> 
> So politicians from many nations committed to the climate panic were crying over spilled milk and proposing various original solutions what to do with the milk, milk that seems to be cooling down on the floor every second. *If someone can't figure out from this story that the key claims by the IPCC are politically dictated and that the organization is constantly covering up key evidence, then nothing will ever make him to see the simple reality.*


Bold mine.

Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

I'm going to plunk this one down in the GHG thread, despite it being a weather, not climate event. Also, because it clarifies exactly what an "_N_-year flood" is and the disconnect with AGW.

How Fantasy Becomes Fact



> The flooding in Colorado has wreaked tremendous devastation, by one estimate the costs will total about $2 billion. Some people remain unaccounted for and it will be many months if not longer before the Front Range recovers. If you'd like to contribute to the recovery, please see this page with resources.
> 
> As is often the case in the aftermath of extreme events and disasters, people look for some way to put them into a bigger perspective. With respect to floods, a common way of establishing this perspective is through the N-year flood, which is defined as a flood with 1/N probability of occurring in any given year. So the 100-year flood, used in floodplain regulations, is a flood with an expected 1% chance of occurring in any given year.


----------



## FeXL

Captain Roy talks like a pirate & talks about the plunder from his satellite research.

Ocean Products from th’ SSM/I


----------



## FeXL

Judith talks about climate paper peer-review.

Peer review: the skeptic filter



> As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5?


I think it's classic CYA damage control. That said:



> A few weeks ago, I ran a post Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years that referred to a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change by Fyfe et al. This paper starkly laid out the discrepancy between CMIP5 model projections and observations of global surface temperature change. This wasn’t exactly news to those of us who follow the skeptical blogosphere; we have seen similar analyses by John Christy (presented in his Congressional testimony) and the analysis of Ed Hawkins that was made famous by David Rose’s article.
> 
> My blog post on the Fyfe et al. paper triggered an email from *Pat Michaels, who sent me a paper that he submitted in 2010 to Geophysical Research Letters, that did essentially the same analysis as Fyfe et al., albeit with the CMIP3 models.*


Bold mine.

So, what happened to that paper?



> Drum roll . . . the paper was rejected.


Gee, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

TIPCC™ moving the goal posts. Again...


IPCC didn't predict the global warming 'hiatus', but now claims it did



> The forthcoming IPCC report conveniently claims “Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common” for the climate model simulations, suggesting that the halt of global warming was predicted by the models. However, NOAA stated in the State of the Climate 2008 report that climate model simulations "rule out" hiatus periods of 15 years or more. Furthermore, NOAA states that if observations show no surface warming for 15 years or more, the climate models have been falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
> 
> _“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”_​
> In addition, a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds that the models did not predict 'hiatus' periods greater than 5 years. *Thus, the new IPCC claim that “Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common” for the climate model simulations is contradicted by the literature.* The climate models have been falsified by observations at a confidence level of 95% per the NOAA requirements, as well as two recent papers falsifying the models at a confidence levels of >98% over the past 15 years and 90% over the past 20 years.


Bold mine.

Tell me again how wunnderful an' accurate those climate models are...


----------



## FeXL

This has been discussed before but, just in case someone missed it.

My view of consensus in science is crystal clear: Science is not decided by a show of hands. That said, Andrew Montford (of Bishop Hill blog fame) has an article showing that, even if there were such a thing as consensus in science, this whole 97% garbage is shown for the trumped up, methodologically flawed crap it is.

Meaningless consensus on climate change



> In reality only a few scientific papers include a quantification of the manmade effect [question: wonder why that is...] or the likely extent of future warming. A few more give a qualitative feel, but the vast majority take no position at all, being concerned with more mundane questions such as “what is the effect of mineral aerosols on the climate” or “how might climate change affect populations of natterjack toads.”
> 
> *Most of these irrelevant papers were classified as implicitly accepting the IPCC consensus* and it is small wonder then that the authors got the result they had set out to reach. This strange methodological choice did mean that the “consensus” category was very large, but also meant that it ended up *including many papers by prominent global warming skeptics, a result that makes a mockery of the whole paper.*
> 
> Once the methodology used by Cook and his colleagues is understood, it becomes abundantly clear that *the consensus it describes is a very shallow one; the results add up to little more than “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and “mankind affects the climate.” These are propositions that almost everybody in the climate debate accepts*; the argument continues to be over how much greenhouse gases have affected us in the past and how much they will affect us in the future, and whether any of this represents a problem.


Bold mine.

So, either way, warmists' claim of "consensus" is a crock...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that canary in the coal mine, polar ice.

Earth Has More Sea Ice Than 1990



> Planet Earth currently has 333,000 Manhattans of sea ice, which is more ice than on the same date in 1990.


----------



## FeXL

While some focus on the peak and nadir ice levels, Pielke, Sr focusses on another metric.

He provides a link in a comment at Sea Ice News Volume 4 Number 6: Arctic sea ice has most definitely turned the corner – Maslowski is falsified



> It is worth noting that the date of the end of the seasons melt, and beginning of the cold season expansion continues to change very little if at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> The reason this is important is that the added CO2 and other greenhouse gases does not yet (if it ever does) alter the dominance of the seasonal solar cooling with respect to when the sea ice recommences to freeze.


Namely, has the timing of min/max ice changed, as would be expected if CO2 had anything to do with it.



> The time of occurrence of the maximum and minimum sea ice coverage in the Arctic showed slight trends towards occurring earlier in the year, although not significant. In the Southern Hemisphere, the trends were smaller and also not significant, but the time of ice maximum was becoming later, contrary to the other three trends.


----------



## FeXL

Donna notes some (more?) questionable behaviour from _Nature_.

‘Nature’ Spin Elevates Third-Tier IPCC Official to Chair



> A curious article has appeared in Nature, the German-owned, British-based science journal. Days before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases installment #1 of its massive new climate report, this prestigious journal has published a 2,300-word profile of an IPCC official.
> 
> Please note that Ottmar Edenhofer isn’t a climate scientist. He is, instead, the chief economist at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. (Hardly a neutral organization, the head of that institute thinks that using fossil fuels amounts to “a lifestyle of mass destruction.”)
> 
> The non-paywalled article is titled IPCC: The climate chairman. But Edenhofer isn’t the IPCC’s chairman. He’s merely a co-chair of Working Group 3.


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

So, after spending billons of kroner (1 $US=5.9 kroner), Norway is shelving a carbon capture plant whose completed construction was equated to landing on the moon.

Norway Drops ‘Moon Landing’ as Mongstad Carbon Capture Scrapped



> The effort was criticized this week by the nation’s Auditor General, which said *the test center project was 1.7 billion kroner over budget*, according to a statement on Sept. 17. In total, the government said it has spent about 7.2 billion kroner on carbon capture, including 1.2 billion kroner on the full scale project.


Further:



> “The investigation shows that the complexity of implementing CCS was underestimated in 2006,” the auditor said.


Is that, like, look before you leap?

Hundreds of billions of dollars on a single project alone, in one country, based on flawed "science". How many trillions of dollars worldwide, dollars that could have been used to feed starving people, fight disease, find real solutions to real problems.

I shake my head in disgust...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the recently released NIPCC report.

New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated 



> "Point to the model that predicted this hiatus," he said. "No increase in violent weather , no increase in hurricanes. All of this and we're still supposed to believe the models... models they picked because they supported their political interests, not because they represented good science."


----------



## FeXL

New IPCC report claims greenhouse gases caused 140% of warming since 1951



> According to the leaked IPCC report, "....Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5-1.3 C [mean 0.9 C] over the period 1951-2010." However, the most widely used global temperature dataset [HADCRU4] shows a temperature rise of 0.64 C over the period 1951-2010. Thus, *the IPCC is attributing 140% of the mean warming 1951-2010 to greenhouse gases*, more than fully discounting any contribution from natural variability and natural forcing such as solar activity and solar amplification, ocean oscillations, global brightening, etc.


Further:



> Recent peer-reviewed papers have led *Dr. Judith Curry to conclude "significantly MORE than half of the observed warming" is natural*, not due to man-made greenhouse gases.


Bold mine.

Simple question: Using your grade 6 math skills, which sounds more plausible? 140% or <50%?


----------



## FeXL

UK Telegraph: The obsession with climate change is turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history 



> This very weekend of September 2013, we were being told back in 2007, would be the moment when the Arctic was “ice-free”. Yet this summer’s ice-melt has been the smallest for nine years, and *the global extent of polar sea ice is currently equal to its average over the past 34 years*. Tuvalu and the Maldives are not vanishing beneath the waves. Far from hurricanes and tornadoes becoming more frequent and intense, their incidence is lower than it has been for decades. The Himalayan glaciers are not on course to have melted by 2035, as the IPCC’s last report predicted in 2007. *Nothing has changed except that the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has been more comprehensively discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided pressure group, essentially run by a clique of scientific activists committed to their belief that rising CO2 levels threaten the world with an overheating which is not taking place.*


Bold from the link.

What was I just noting about trillions of dollars?


----------



## FeXL

I recently posted a link to an article clarifying the difficulty in calculating sea levels. At the time I noted that I would like to read a paper on the subject. The one at the below link addresses at least some of the questions raised in the initial article. 

New paper finds sea levels rising at less than 4 inches per century, with no acceleration 

Abstract (open access paper)



> The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negatively) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards). We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. *By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.*
> 
> We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during *1807 – 2010* without recourse to data reconstruction. *Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States.* In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. *Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges.* In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.


Bold from the link.

I would gauge the paper at semi-technical, with the exception of most of the statistics. Good read.


----------



## FeXL

A newfound connection between solar wind speed and the NAO/AO?

New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

Abstract (paywalled)



> *Indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation show correlations on the day-to-day timescale with the solar wind speed (SWS). Minima in the indices were found on days of SWS minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading. The spatial distribution of surface pressure changes during 1963-2011 with day-to-day changes in SWS shows a pattern resembling the NAO.* Such a pattern was noted for year-to-year variations by Boberg and Lundstedt (2002), who compared NAO variations with the geo-effective solar wind electric field (the monthly average SWS multiplied by the average southward component, i.e., negative Bz component, of the interplanetary magnetic field). The spatial distribution of the correlations of geopotential height changes in the troposphere and stratosphere with the SWS; the geoeffective electric field (SWS∗Bz); and the solar 10.7 cm flux suggests that *solar wind inputs connected to the troposphere via the global electric circuit, together with solar ultraviolet irradiance acting on the stratosphere, affect regional atmospheric dynamics.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper attempts to explain why global warming caused cooling of the sub-Arctic during the 20th century

Abstract (paywalled)



> Various ocean reanalysis data reveal that *the subarctic Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) has been cooling during the twentieth century.* A similar cooling pattern is found in the doubling CO2 experiment obtained from the CMIP3 (coupled model intercomparison project third phase) compared to the pre-industrial experiment. Here, in order to investigate the main driver of this cooling, we perform the heat budget analysis on the subarctic Atlantic upper ocean temperature. The net surface heat flux associated with the increased concentration of greenhouse gases heats the subarctic ocean surface. *In the most of models, the longwave radiation [from greenhouse gases],* latent heat flux, and sensible heat flux exert a *warming effect,* and *the shortwave radiation exerts a cooling effect.* On the other hand, the thermal advection by the meridional current reduces the subarctic upper ocean temperature in all models. This cold advection is attributed to the weakening of the meridional overturning circulation, which is related to the reduction in the ocean surface density. In particular, greater warming of the surface air than of the sea surface results in the *reduction of surface evaporation* and thereby enhanced freshening of the ocean surface water, while precipitation change was smaller than evaporation change. The thermal advections by both the wind-driven Ekman current and the density-driven geostrophic current contribute to cooling in most of the models, where the heat transport by the geostrophic current tends to be larger than that by the Ekman current.


Bold from the link.

Is this right?



> According to the authors, "In the most of models, the longwave radiation [from greenhouse gases]... exert a warming effect, and the shortwave radiation [from the Sun] exerts a cooling effect." However, *it appears the models have the basic physics backwards*, because longwave radiation from greenhouse gases cannot penetrate the sea surface and thus only causes evaporative cooling of the ocean 'skin' surface, whereas shortwave radiation from the Sun can penetrate to depths of up to 100 meters to cause bulk ocean warming.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

TIPCC™ continues to take a kicking...

Mounting IPCC Fallout…Flagship Daily ‘Die Welt’ Headline: “Scientists Withdraw Basis For Climate Regulators”!



> The fallout surrounding the profound failures of the climate models used by the IPCC continues. If the German media is anything to go by, then *IPCC science is virtually disintegrating before our very eyes.*
> 
> Europe has always been a bulwark against climate skepticism. No more. The online German ‘Die Welt’ daily reports today that the upcoming IPCC AR5 is a de facto withdrawal of the scientific basis for climate regulation.


Bold mine.

And a more beautiful (and satisfying) sight I have rarely seen...


----------



## SINC

The fallout surrounding the profound failures of the climate models used by the IPCC continues. If the German media is anything to go by, then *IPCC science is virtually disintegrating before our very eyes.*



FeXL said:


> TIPCC™ continues to take a kicking...
> 
> Mounting IPCC Fallout…Flagship Daily ‘Die Welt’ Headline: “Scientists Withdraw Basis For Climate Regulators”!
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> And a more beautiful (and satisfying) sight I have rarely seen...


Looks like the jig is up for the pitiful charade called global warming. :clap:


----------



## FeXL

Willis has an interesting read about volcanic forcings.

The Eruption Over the IPCC AR5



> Note that the [volcanic] forcings are negative, because the eruptions inject reflective aerosols into the stratosphere. These aerosols reflect the sunlight, and the forcing is reduced. So the question is … do these fairly large known volcanic forcings actually have any effect on the global surface air temperature, and if so how much?


----------



## FeXL

Antarctica Sea Ice Extent All-Time Record Maximum on Sept 22 2013 



> Antarctica Sea Ice Extent set another all-time record of 19.51394 million sq km on Sept 22 2013.


----------



## FeXL

Steven gets denied.

_Guardian_ Back Up To Their Tricks



> Apparently their community standards prohibit anyone telling the truth.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Antarctica Sea Ice Extent All-Time Record Maximum on Sept 22 2013


Yep I recall hearing that the kayaker, who was going to dramatically illustrate the extent of global warming by paddling the Northwest passage, being turned back by.....wait for it; ICE.

How could anyone who believes worships at the alter of the St. Gore Church of Climatology possibly have seen that coming.


----------



## FeXL

I recently read an article (sorry, no link) about a number of yachts, personal watercraft & other water going modes of transportation frozen in pack ice this fall attempting to get through the northern passage. It seems that they all believed the 'ice-free in 2013' mantra.


----------



## FeXL

Donna is still hammering away at TIPCC™.

The IPCC: Not What You Think It Is



> On Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a summary of the first installment of its hefty new climate assessment. As a result, we’ll be hearing a great deal about this UN body over the next several days.
> 
> Already, though, it’s clear that many commentators don’t have the first flying clue what they’re talking about. As the author of two books about the IPCC, I’m happy to help out.


----------



## FeXL

Anthony provides a link to the leaked AR5 Summary draft for anyone who can hold their gorge down.

Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers



> For weeks, this document has been put in the hands of most every journalist that writes about climate issues, and many articles have been written about its contents. Given that much of the work done in it was publicly funded at universities, and because the discussion in the media has placed the issue in the public domain of discussion, plus with the IPCC Stockholm meeting to hammer out the final version convening this week, and with the announcement today that IPCC chair Rajenda Pachauri willl step down in 2015, (translation here) I feel it is time to make this document available so that the public also has the opportunity for (as the IPCC put it in their press release) _line-by-line scrutiny._


----------



## FeXL

Few days back I posted a link to a piece wherein Anthony asked which NGO will pick up Tim Flannery.

Not to worry, he's struck out on his own.

Sacked government scientist Tim Flannery forms the private Australian Climate Council 



> Freed from the government bureaucracy, Mr Flannery said he hoped the new council would be even more effective despite facing massive funding uncertainty.
> 
> 'It's no secret it's expensive to run an organisation like this. We hope that we can fulfil our ambition, We think we can be a bit more effective and a bit leaner than we were in government.''
> 
> *The first report from the new council is expected to be a short 'companion' to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which is set to be released on Friday*


Bold mine.

Well, I for one look forward to how Tim spins the AR5 Summary.


----------



## FeXL

Another graphical analysis of the temperature record since 1870.

An impartial look at global warming…

Definitely for the statistically minded. That said, much of the story in the commets.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

CHIMP5 models are unable to predict anything else, but they got the increase in thunderstorms nailed, right?

New paper predicts an increase of US thunderstorms; Reality check: US thunderstorms peaked in the mid-20th century when CO2 was 'safe'



> A new paper claims CMIP5 climate models, which have been falsified by 3 peer-reviewed papers, project that thunderstorm activity will increase in the future. *However, prior work has shown US thunderstorm activity peaked in the mid-20th century when CO2 was 'safe,' the opposite of what would be expected from the modelling results.*


Bold mine.

Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

Professor Mojib Latif and Professor Hans von Storch, leading climate scientists, interviewed about "The Pause".

Warming Gets Delayed Again…IPCC Scientist Mojib Latif: Pause “May Stubbornly Remain Until 2020 or 2025″!



> For the record, both now concede that global temperatures have indeed defied the vast array of (expensive) model projections and have not gone up in 15 years. Now more than ever before they are forced to concede that the models have been giving CO2 too much weight as a climate driver.
> 
> But Latif, who 10 years ago predicted Europe would hardly see snow and frost in the wintertime, now claims that he _“isn’t at all surprised in any way by the warming hiatus” _(and that all the models have been wrong). To his credit, Latif in the past predicted that ocean cycles needed to be better taken into account and that the warming would pause due to ocean cycles.
> 
> Hans von Storch, on the other hand, says he is surprised by the stalled warming: _“It hasn’t gotten as warm as we expected. [...] We really have to think about whether or not our models can really project the future development.”_


----------



## FeXL

Monckton spearheads a request to have Cook's "97%" paper withdrawn, based on very poor methodology.

“Honey, I shrunk the consensus” — Monckton takes action on Cooks paper

In a nutshell:



> The authors, having consigned 7930 abstracts to the Memory Hole because they had not parroted the Party Line, were left with 4014 abstracts. They marked just 64 of them, or 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts, as endorsing the standard version of “scientific consensus”.
> 
> Further examination by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41 of the 64 abstracts, or 1.0% of the 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, or just 0.3% of the original 11,944 abstracts, had said Yes to the standard version of consensus.


----------



## FeXL

Very surprised at this.

David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate



> David Suzuki’s performance on Q&A last night was extraordinary. I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures that even the UK Met Office and IPCC lead author climate scientists like Hans von Storch are discussing.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Very surprised at this.
> 
> David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate


Hilarious!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Hilarious!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Yeah Suzuki had his ass handed to him Down Under. Maybe he was expecting an Australian version of Strombo to hold his hand while he lectured. I guess they're unfamiliar with his sainthood in Canada and asked hard questions, unlike his cheerleaders in the Canadian media. Ezra had some great highlights on Sun News of his implosion on Australian TV.
Its nice to see this scam finally getting called out for what it is and scammers getting rich from it like Suzuki finally feeling the heat.


----------



## Macfury

Science thrives on open discourse... but not at _Popular Science_:

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science



> ...commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.


They're losing the battle and shutting the barn door after the horses have fled.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, ran across that this morning. It's one of a host of links I just haven't gotten around to today.

Pretty sad, isn't it?

"It's not the science that's failing us, it's those bloggers & uninformed public commenting. Damn them!"

Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

Revealing statement from the German Green Party in _Spiegel_.

Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth



> Despite resistance from many researchers, the German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years' lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies. *"Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic."*


----------



## FeXL

Earlier on in the year, Patchy acknowledged the flatline.

Now, in the face of the imminent release of the AR5 summary report, he's backpedalling like a clown at the circus.

Human role in warming 'more certain' - UN climate chief



> [Pachauri] also dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming.


Well, if a 17 year flatline isn't a slowdown, then I guess an equivalent increase isn't a warming, either...


----------



## FeXL

Very good analysis on AR5 from McIntyre.

Two Minutes to Midnight



> Efforts to craft an assessment on the run are further complicated by past failures and neglect both by IPCC and the wider climate science community. In its two Draft Reports sent to external scientific review, while IPCC mostly evaded the problem, its perfunctory assessment of the developing discrepancy between models and observations, such as it was, included major errors and misrepresentations, all tending in the direction of minimizing the issue.
> 
> IPCC has a further dilemma in coopering up an assessment on the run. Although the topic is obviously an important one, it received negligible coverage in academic literature, especially prior to the IPCC publication cutoff date, and the few relevant peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009; Knight et al 2009) are unconvincing.


He sums:



> One cannot help but wonder whether WG1 Chair Thomas Stocker might not have served the policy community better by spending more time ensuring that the discrepancy between models and observations was properly addressed in the IPCC draft reports, perhaps even highlighting research problems while there was time in the process, than figuring out how IPCC could evade FOI requests.


----------



## FeXL

Anthony speaks briefly about the _Popular Science_ comments censorship Macfury brought up earlier. Much of the story is in the comments, including a link to this excellent article on the same topic at _DailyTech_. The first subsection title is "Censorship, the Tired Retreat of the Thin Skinned". Sounds an awful lot like putting people on an "Ignore" list, doesn't it...

Quote of the week – the death of ‘Popular Science’ commentary


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale's new book is out.

New Book by Bob Tisdale: “Climate Models Fail”



> Climate Models Fail exposes the disturbing fact that climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. Using easy-to-read graphs, this book compares data (surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area) with the computer model simulations. It is very easy to see that the model outputs bear little relationship to the data. In other words, climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.
> 
> This book was prepared for readers without scientific backgrounds. The terms used by scientists are explained and non-technical “translations” are provided. Introductory sections present basics. There are also numerous hyperlinks to additional background information. The book is well illustrated, with more than 250 color-coded graphs and maps. It is an excellent introduction to global warming and climate change for people who are not well-versed yet want to learn more.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

This just sounds fishy. They've reprogrammed a new algorithm into their models & now, suddenly, they've found a ton of new phytoplankton. How do they know? Are they sure they're not overestimating? Still underestimating?

'Missing' phytoplankton found, but Trenberth's imaginary heat remains 'missing' 



> NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.


Hmmm... Colour me...sceptical.

If, indeed, the research is legit, then it does affect what we know about the carbon cycle.


----------



## FeXL

Prescient quote from Climategate email...

A climate scientist who accurately predicted the future



> _"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably..."_


----------



## FeXL

Spencer summarizes his satellite ocean data since 1987.

Global SSM/I Ocean Product Suite Since 1987



> Our satellite passive microwave radiometer assets have really advanced since the launch of the first Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) in 1987. The SSM/I and SSMIS have been providing global oceanic measurements of surface wind speed, total atmospheric water vapor, total cloud water, and rain rates, since mid-1987.
> 
> Frank Wentz and his homies at Remote Sensing Systems have produced intercalibrated ocean products from these sensors and post those products (in binary form, not for the weak of heart) at their ftp server. I’ve downloaded the archive of weekly averages from the separate satellites (you can also get daily and monthly), combined the separate satellites when more than one is operating, and computed weekly anomalies.
> 
> Here are the average annual cycles for the 4 products. *Note there is little seasonal variations when the oceans are globally averaged*


Bold mine.

He also talks about the presence of ENSO in that data in a later post.

On Changing ENSO Conditions: The View from SSM/I


----------



## FeXL

Title sums it rather nicely.

IPCC on acid

Interesting study on contrasts. TIPCC™ is certain about ocean "acidification" (that word still pisses me off...), yet X-Prize is offering a reward for a proper pH meter.

From the comments:



> Friends:
> 
> The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE says
> 
> Breakthrough sensors are urgently needed for scientists, managers and industry to turn the tide on ocean acidification and begin healing our oceans.
> 
> OK. So which is it
> (a) Do we know “our oceans” need “healing”?
> or
> (b) Do we lack instruments to discern if the oceans need to be “healed”?
> 
> It cannot be both.
> 
> Richard


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

There have been a number of analyses of the September 2013 _National Geographic_ cover. Easterbrook offers his.

National Geographic rising sea level prophecy – cause for concern or absurd fairytale?



> As Anthony points out, at the rate of sea level rise shown by tide gauge records since 1856 at The Battery 1.7 miles away, for sea level to reach that high up the Statue of Liberty would take 23,538 years!


----------



## FeXL

Longish, really good article about temperature data adjustments.

Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments and Al Gore’s Unwarranted Call for Intellectual Tyranny



> To understand how local climate change had affected wildlife in California’s Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains, I had examined data from stations that make up the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN).
> 
> I was quickly faced with a huge dilemma that began my personal journey toward climate skepticism. Do I trust the raw data, or do I trust the USHCN’s adjusted data?
> 
> For example the raw data for minimum temperatures at Mt Shasta suggested a slight cooling trend since the 1930s. In contrast the adjusted data suggested a 1 to 2°F warming trend. What to believe?


He further notes:



> *Data correction in all scientific disciplines is often needed and well justified.*


My bold.

Agreed. However, are the adjustments documented, ie. how much, why? Is the raw data still available? Is the adjusted data available & included with your published paper?

These are questions that point to shortfalls in many warmist papers where the adjustments are not documented and where both the raw & adjusted data are not included with the research. Often times the excuse is given that the only reason people want the data "is to be used against me". Duh! How is the experiment to be replicated without all the data? If your hypothesis cannot pass scrutiny using your own data & experiment, how did it get past peer-review and what was the point in publishing it in the first place?


----------



## FeXL

Lubos comments on ocean heat content.

Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase

Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

Joanne talks about the wisdom of a 60 year old paper.

Plants suck half the CO2 out of the air around them before lunchtime each day



> A paper that is nearly 60 years old shows us just how intrinsically important CO2 is to life.
> 
> An acre of corn is a living machine drawing CO2 from the air around it. In windless conditions, CO2 concentrations over a cornfield build up each night as CO2 diffuses from higher air and the organic matter and bacteria create CO2 from the soil. A paper by Chapman et al from 1954, shows that as soon as the sun comes up, to power-up those dormant photosynthetic cells, the plants rapidly draw down as much CO2 as possible, and when the CO2 levels fall too low, plant growth surely slows.
> 
> On a windless day CO2 values rose to 410ppm overnight and fell to 210ppm during the morning.


----------



## MacDoc

for those not wallowing in denial fantasy world...

*New Scientist on the IPCC report*

Climate report 2013: Your guide to the big questions - New Scientist


----------



## MacDoc

> *Human Influence On Climate Clear, IPCC Report Says*
> enlarge
> 
> _A new assessment by the IPCC finds that warming in Earth's climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. _(Credit: © meryll / Fotolia)
> 
> Sep. 27, 2013 — Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident in most regions of the globe, a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes.
> 
> It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. The evidence for this has grown, thanks to more and better observations, an improved understanding of the climate system response and improved climate models.
> 
> Warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850, reports the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Working Group I assessment report, Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, approved on Friday by member governments of the IPCC in Stockholm, Sweden.
> 
> "Observations of changes in the climate system are based on multiple lines of independent evidence. Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
> 
> Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I said: "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
> 
> "Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C for the two high scenarios," said Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. "Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer. As Earth warms, we expect to see currently wet regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions," he added.
> 
> Projections of climate change are based on a new set of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosols, spanning a wide range of possible futures. The Working Group I report assessed global and regional-scale climate change for the early, mid-, and later 21st century.
> 
> "As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years," said Co-Chair Qin Dahe. The report finds with high confidence that ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.
> 
> Co-Chair Thomas Stocker concluded: "As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of CO2, we are committed to climate change, and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop."
> 
> Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, said: "This Working Group I Summary for Policymakers provides important insights into the scientific basis of climate change. It provides a firm foundation for considerations of the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems and ways to meet the challenge of climate change." These are among the aspects assessed in the contributions of Working Group II and Working Group III to be released in March and April 2014. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report cycle concludes with the publication of its Synthesis Report in October 2014.
> 
> "I would like to thank the Co-Chairs of Working Group I and the hundreds of scientists and experts who served as authors and review editors for producing a comprehensive and scientifically robust summary. I also express my thanks to the more than one thousand expert reviewers worldwide for contributing their expertise in preparation of this assessment," said IPCC Chair Pachauri.
> 
> The Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) is available at IPCC Working Group I or IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


deal with it.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> deal with it.


With what? Oh, you must mean the flatline in temperatures every year for 15 consecutive years now?


----------



## Macfury

SINC, you must mean the flatline in temperatures that was referenced in the original leaked IPCC report--but was removed because it was felt that politicians couldn't make enough hay with accurate information.

UN stands firm on climate change and blames man AGAIN despite earth cooling for 15 years | Nature | News | Daily Express



> But the IPCC, *led by railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri*, has been dogged by controversy.


I've got to say that I didn't expect MacDoc to come forward with a claim about the latest IPCC report--but there you go. It's funny that as all of the countries in the world back off from these inane positions, the United Nations gets more entrenched.


----------



## SINC

Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists


----------



## eMacMan

I am not sure why this is taking scientists by surprise. I have seen a number of scientists predict this very phenomena over the past several years. The Russians as usual seem to have been out ahead of us on this one. Since we are now pretty much over the hump and heading back to solar minimums, it seems reasonable to expect very low solar activity over the next few years. 

BTW the issue is not the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth but the interaction between earth and solar magnetic fields that seems to impact climate. 

Personally I am expecting some more harsh winters despite the claims of the AGW crowd. Certainly this years spectacular increase in Arctic Ice may indeed prove a harbinger of nastier winters.


----------



## SINC

Check the pine cones on the trees in your area. Around here, there are thousands of them that formed this year. Way more than normal. This has always been a sure sign of a brutal winter and is usually a reliable predictor.


----------



## Macfury

To quote statistician James Briggs:

"The Consensus is confident, like me, that man causes climate change and that the climate has changed. But how much the climate has changed due to man is not known with 95% certainty."


----------



## FeXL

Well, I want to thank MacDoc for linking to the summary bull**** report. For the full bull**** report, you can find links to it here.

Now, what say we see what the real world is saying about the lying bastards in Fantasyland, shall we?

To the IPCC: Forget about “30 years”



> Under pressure at a media conference following release of its Summary for Policymakers, AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker is reported to have said that _“climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”_.
> 
> Some have seen this as the beginning of an IPCC ploy to continue ignoring the 16-year-old temperature standstill for many years into the future. But even the IPCC must know that any such red herring is dead in the water


Yet, the International Pack of Climate Crooks uses less than 30 year periods when it suits them, with no compunction.

Marotzke’s Broken Promise



> A few days ago, Jochem Marotzke, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author and, according to Der Spiegel, “president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany’s top scientific representative in Stockholm”, was praised (e.g. Judy Curry here) for his promise that the IPCC would address the global warming hiatus “head on” despite pressures from green factions in government ministries and for his declaration that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.
> 
> However, it turned out that Marotzke’s promise was merely another trick. Worse, it turns out that Marotzke already knew that the report would not properly deal with the hiatus – which, in a revealing interview, Marotzke blamed on an ” oversight” (h/t to Judy Curry here). Worse, it turns out that IPCC authors were themselves complicit during the plenary session in causing information about the discrepancy between models and observations to be withheld from the SPM, as shown by thus far undiscussed minutes of the IPCC plenary session.


Hide The Decline



> In an attempt to downplay the recent halt in global warming, the IPCC have claimed in their Summary for Policymakers that:
> 
> _As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade.)​_
> ...
> 
> So, at a stroke, the “pause” has become a “slowdown, but still significant” in the public’s eyes. But look deeper, and you will see this is a piece of devious trickery.


IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure.



> *Now that the plateau in temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near enough warming to explain the missing energy.*
> 
> They predicted the surface air temperature would increase, but they didn’t. (The 1990 IPCC predictions about temperatures were so wrong the trends have come in below their lowest possible estimate.) They predicted the oceans would warm more than twice as much as they actually have (as best as we can tell). They did *not* predict the air temperature would level out for 15 years, and the oceans would suddenly start producing “natural cooling”.


Bold from the link.

IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”



> The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.
> 
> The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).
> 
> A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere.



The IPCC: Yowling Cat in a Tree



> Over the weekend, I was interviewed by the Australian news site, MercatorNet, about my reactions to the Friday news conference organized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Stockholm.
> 
> In that context, I quoted climatologist Patrick Michaels comparing the IPCC to a treed cat. *Rather than retreating, he says the IPCC has chosen to climb onto “higher and thinner branches, while yowling ever louder.” It’s a brilliant metaphor.*


Bold mine.

Brilliant, indeed.

Confidence tricks between IPCC AR4 and AR5



> One of the key points in the new IPCC report is that the CO2 forcing level of confidence was increased from “High” to ”Very High”. *The way this was done was by increasing the uncertainty.* The means are about the same in AR4 and AR5 but *the uncertainty interval has increased from 0.34 to 0.7.*
> 
> ...
> 
> In the same graph (In AR5) an estimate of the total anthropogenic radiative forcing is included. *Given the uncertainty in the calculations there is no statistical difference between 1980 and 2011.*


Bold mine.

From the comments:



> This might be a suitable analogy:- It is found as the result of a survey that 90% of a group of golfers can hit a particular green from 100m. A new survey is made later with the same group of golfers. Now 95% of them hit the green. How is this? Have their skills improved? Investigation reveals the answer. The green has been made bigger.


An analogy maybe even Obama can understand...

Recall that pesky graph in the Second Order Draft? The one that showed actual temps had plotted below all TIPCC™ model predictions? It's been disappeared & substituted by one with some "massaged" data.

IPCC: Fixing the Facts



> Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.


The Political Science of Global Warming



> How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, *British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, "If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn't agree with it, you still take out the insurance."*


I would immediately consider the information suspect if it was provided by someone with an axe to grind. In this case, to further Cameron's analogy, if it was furnished by the insurance companies in the first place.

WSJ: One lesson of the IPCC report is it's time for policy caution; the climate models may need remodeling



> Between 1998 and 2012 the global economy more than doubled in size—to some $71 trillion in GDP from $30 trillion. That's the good news. Over the same period the world pumped more than 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is supposedly the bad news. Yet global surface temperatures have remained essentially flat. That's the mystery: If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?
> 
> That's the question we would have liked to see answered by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Friday published the summary of its fifth report on what co-chairman Thomas Stocker calls "the greatest challenge of our times." It would have also been nice to see some humility from the IPCC, which since its last report in 2007 has seen some of its leading scientists exposed as bullies, and some of its most eye-catching predictions debunked. (Remember the vanishing Himalayan glaciers?)
> 
> *No such luck.*


Bold mine.

There's a surprise...

Here, too:

German Geologist: Despite Shrillness “No Hard Evidence Of CO2, No Cause For Alarm…Key Findings Not Properly Reported”



> First I asked geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning by e-mail for his impression of the IPCC’s summary.
> 
> ...
> 
> _"When I read the reports in the mainstream media, I was shocked that some of the key findings were not properly reported: unexpected warming stop during the last 15 years not explainable by current models, the Medieval Warm Period in at least parts of the world was as warm as today. This should have been reported. Instead they wrote that the sea level threat increased, which is not really true. There has been no acceleration of sea level in the past few decades and a large European Research Consortium has recently ruled out the most scary sea level prognoses (European Research Consortium dismisses extreme sea level rise prognoses). The East Antarctic Ice Cap and Arctic sea ice trend actually is growing, drought and storm occurrences are well within the limits of natural variability. Current Greenland temperatures are on the level of the 1930s. *Forget the models, the real data show that there is no cause for any alarm.”*_


Bold mine.

IPCC report “A Cowardly Cover-Up and a disgrace to science,” says astrophysicist



> It is a cowardly cover-up of climate reality in which the BBC and Met Office play an especially dishonest role and an utter disgrace to science. It is a product of self-interested warmist parasites and Big Oil & energy giants who gain from high energy charges.


Big Oil, you say? Thought that was where all the sceptics' money came from...

Nigel Lawson: IPCC Brings The Good Name Of Science Into Disrepute



> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.
> 
> Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. *The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence”.*
> 
> Since then, *little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor.*


Bold mine.

IPCC’s pause ‘logic’

She sums:



> My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument. I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?). I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/arguments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions. For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem. Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade). *And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned.*
> 
> Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful. *Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful?*


Bold mine.

IPCC: solar variations don’t matter

Again, summing:



> What a relief that the IPCC consensus has decreed with high confidence that solar variations won’t influence the 21st century climate. For a minute there, after reading the NRC Report, Svensmark and Vahrenholt, I thought us scientists might have more work to do to figure out how the Earth’s climate system works.


The above is just a quick summary of some of the legitimate criticism levelled at AR5. It should keep you busy for the afternoon. Crack a cold one, get started & enjoy...


----------



## FeXL

Some hump day snark for ya...

Thin Rotten Decayed Ice-Free Arctic Update



> The long-term trend indicates that government climate science will be fact-free by the year 2015.


Shock News : Global Warming Has Nothing To Do With Science



> “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this,...


Shock News : Kook, Nuttercelli And Obama Are Lying About The 97%



> “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”


Very Hot Days Have Declined Dramatically As CO2 Has Increased



> There are 839 US HCN stations which have been continuously active since at least 1920. The number of 100ºF readings recorded at these stations has dropped dramatically since CO2 was at 310 PPM.


----------



## FeXL

'Modern warming trend can't be found' in new climate study

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> In the eastern Mediterranean in general and in Turkey in particular, temperature reconstructions based on tree rings have not been achieved so far. Furthermore, centennial-long chronologies of stable isotopes are generally also missing. Recent studies have identified the tree species Juniperus excelsa as one of the most promising tree species in Turkey for developing long climate sensitive stable carbon isotope chronologies because this species is long-living and thus has the ability to capture low-frequency climate signals. We were able to develop a statistically robust, precisely dated and annually resolved chronology back to AD 1125. We proved that variability of δ13C in tree rings of J. excelsa is mainly dependent on winter-to-spring temperatures (January–May). *Low-frequency trends, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to-spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record,* nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study. Comparisons with other northern-hemispherical proxy data showed that similar low-frequency signals are present until the beginning of the twentieth century when the other proxies derived from further north indicate a significant warming while the winter-to-spring temperature proxy from SW-Turkey does not. Correlation analyses including our temperature reconstruction and seven well-known climate indices suggest that various atmospheric oscillation patterns are capable of influencing the temperature variations in SW-Turkey.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Study Finds ARGO Buoys Show No Evidence Of Missing Heat

(from 2010)

Abstract (open paper)



> A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2,as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. *These results fail to support the existence of a frequently cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

The Global Warming They Fear is NOT Based upon Physical First Principles



> We are expected to swoon over the fact that climate models, which are run on supercomputers, are state-of-the-art achievements in science. But “state-of-the-art” does not always mean accurate, or even useful, if the art is still in its infancy.
> 
> It is sometimes said that climate models are built upon physical first principles, as immutable as the force of gravity or conservation of energy (which are, indeed, included in the models). But this is a half-truth, at best, spoken by people who either don’t know any better or are outright lying.


I know which of the two I'd bet money on...

Great cartoon at the link.


----------



## FeXL

OMG! Save the turtles! WTF! 

Earth Warming too Fast for Turtles to Escape



> *EE*: Can you explain for our readers why World's Turtles First! is so concerned about turtles?
> 
> *WTF!*: Because they move so slowly, turtles are the least able to migrate to cooler regions to escape the ravages of global warming. We are even receiving reports of turtles attempting to fly in order to escape global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Fooling Reporters is Easy, Just Ask the IPCC



> Last Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 36-page document. Called the Summary for Policymakers, it claimed to summarize 14 chapters of new, not-yet-released material.
> 
> Those 14 chapters weren’t boiled down to 36 pages by an aloof, rigidly logical mechanical device. Instead, human beings were involved. Sixty-five IPCC personnel, out of hundreds, were chosen to perform this task. Favouritism, bias, conflict-of-interest, and political calculation *could* all have played a role in their selection.


Bold mine.

Yeah, Donna. "Could" have...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "consensus" in science...

Why Climate Science is Fallible



> *Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion.* A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review.





> US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that climate science is “irrefutable.” *He is categorically wrong.* There is no certainty in science.





> *The history of science is a chronicle of revision.* For two thousand years, physicists maintained that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Astronomers thought the Sun moved around the Earth. Physicians supposed that plagues were caused by bad air and treated their patients by bleeding them to death. The icons of the Scientific Revolution, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all made serious errors. In the late eighteenth century, Neptunists formulated a theory to explain the origin of rocks. They described their conclusions as incontrovertible because everywhere they looked they found evidence that supported their theoretical conceptions. The Neptunist theory turned out to be completely erroneous. At the end of the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old. Radioactive dating in the twentieth century showed they were in error by a factor of 46. In the 1920s, American geologists rejected Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift with near unanimity. They were all wrong. *The history of science is a history of error. Has the process of history ceased? Has human nature changed?*


All bold mine.

Good read and precisely why I don't believe that the words "science" & "consensus" should ever be in the same sentence, save for criticism...


----------



## FeXL

Willis talks about model climate sensitivities.

Dr. Kiehl’s Paradox

He sums:



> ...the spread in model sensitivity is not due to the admittedly poorly modeled effects of the clouds. In fact it has nothing to do with any of the inner workings of the models. *Climate sensitivity is a function of the choice of forcings and desired output (historical temperature dataset), and not a lot else.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

On the sausage fest, I mean, politics of negotiating the politically (not scientifically, mind you) approved text of the TIPCC™ AR5 SPM

Negotiating the IPCC SPM


----------



## FeXL

So, last week this meteorologist read the AR5 SPM and weepingly decided that he was going to forgo jet travelling and get a vasectomy, never to have children, due to the horrible news foretold in the report.

Frankly, I have no truck with contemporary, whining, spineless, cry-baby metrosexuals repressing reproduction. Win/win for me and for society.

That said...

Crying Like A Schoolgirl Over Global Warming Report



> It's OK to laugh at Holthaus. Grown men reacting like schoolgirls should be hooted at with great pleasure.


----------



## FeXL

Judith further comments on McIntyre's analysis of the new, improved graph in the final report.

Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II



> Some skeptical sites are trumpeting the new figure 1.4 as a ‘hide the decline’, a new Climategate, etc. There may be nothing technically wrong with Figure 1.4, although it will mislead the public (and Dana Nuccitelli) to infer that climate models are better than we thought, especially with misleading accompanying text in the Report.
> 
> Of the diagrams, I like Ed Hawkins diagram the best: it does a good job of lining up the climate models and observations in a sensible way from 1960-1990, so as to show the growing discrepancy between models and observations over the last decade.
> 
> *What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years.*


Bold mine.

Ed Zachery...


----------



## FeXL

Further on AR5 Summary for Policymakers...

10 Pages of IPCC Science Mistakes?



> IPCC personnel – whom we’re told are the world’s top scientists – spent years writing their section of the IPCC’s new climate assessment (the Working Group 2 and Working Group 3 sections won’t be released until next year). Their work was, along the way, reviewed by third parties. It is supposed to be finished now. And yet, last week, 10 pages worth of new scientific errors were suddenly discovered.


More:



> But here’s the bottom line: my argument (that a scientific document is being crassly manipulated) and Betts argument (that IPCC authors made 10 pages worth of scientific mistakes), are equally damning. The IPCC doesn’t look good in either case.


Yup.

The IPCC flip flop on year 2100 temperature projections



> One of the first things I noticed, was that the temperature projections to the end of the 21st century went through a flip-flop in the evolution of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).


Dr. Tim Ball has an excellent read:

IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data



> IPCC projections fail for many inappropriate statistics and statistical methods. Of course, it took a statistician to identify the corrupted use of statistics to show how they fooled the world into disastrous policies, but that only underlines the problem with statistics as the two opening quotes attest.


And, one of my favorite quotes about statistics:



> _He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination. – Andrew Lang._​


New blogger on climate & especially AR5. This is a link to his home page. He has a number of articles up already.

Very good article on Bishop Hill from a gentleman attending the Royal Society meeting about the Working Group 1 SPM. 

A report from the Royal

There is a very revealing chart, Table 12.4, on catastrophic scenarios.



> Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of "Very unlikely" or "Exceptionally unlikely" and/or has "low confidence".


In addition.



> This prompted me to put a question to him, which was the first I'd been able to raise via the chair all day (I'd tried in several talks). I said to Matt [Collins:
> 
> "What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn't reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn't climate scientists' time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?"
> 
> Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:
> 
> *"Not my responsibility".*


<snort> I guess there is no reason for clarification of something that remains baseless in the first place...

Further on that chart from Jo Nova.

IPCC says abrupt irreversible clathrate methane, ice sheet collapse are unlikely.



> Will IPCC authors now correct Gore, Flannery, or other commentators when they tell us that CO2 emissions will probably lead to abrupt or irreversible ice sheet collapse, or collapses of the monsoonal circulation or Atlantic currents. Note the IPCC is saying “low confidence” for long term megadroughts, and monsoon changes, which means, “we don’t know” rather than “unlikely”. But why spend billions to prevent something you have low confidence will happen?


More from Judith Curry.

Did the AR5 take the ‘dangerous’ out of AGW?

She observes:



> But the real issue is this. The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).
> 
> The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here). *The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century. These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW.* Are the IPCC overconfident in their conclusions on these also?


Bold mine.

Oh, and just in case you really don't understand what Global WArming is, Goddard has a quick summary for you.



> Global warming is a man-made phenomenon – caused by useless little angry people who are empowered by corrupt politicians to attack successful, productive, happy people.


I'm pretty damn happy. Are you?


----------



## FeXL

Climate Craziness of the Week: Climate Boiling Point



> As a long-suffering member of the television news media, some-days, I just want to find the reporter and slap him upside the head and tell him to do some basic science research before making wild claims on national TV. This is one of those days.


The lineup would be long & distinguished...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds E. Antarctic ice shelf gaining more ice mass than previously believed

Abstract (paywalled)



> Many challenges remain for estimating the Antarctic ice sheet surface mass balance (SMB), which represents a major uncertainty in predictions of future sea-level rise. Validating continental scale studies is hampered by the sparse distribution of in-situ data. Here we present a 26-year mean SMB of the Fimbul ice shelf in East Antarctica between 1983–2009, and recent interannual variability since 2010. We compare these data to results of large-scale SMB studies for similar time periods, obtained from regional atmospheric modeling and remote sensing. Our in-situ data include ground penetrating radar, firn cores and mass balance stakes, and provide information on both temporal and spatial scales. The 26-year mean SMB on the Fimbul ice shelf varies between 170 and 620 kg m-2 a-1 giving a regional average value of 310 ±70 kg m-2 a-1. *Our measurements indicate higher long-term accumulation over large parts of the ice shelf compared to the large-scale studies.* We also show that the variability of the mean annual SMB, which can be up to 90 %, can be a dominant factor in short-term estimates. *The results emphasize the importance of using a combination of ground based validation data, regional climate models and remote sensing *over a relevant time period in order to achieve a reliable SMB for Antarctica.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Warmists: Shutdown preventing NOAA employees from interpreting IPCC report for media, policymakers



> _Since the shutdown, these experts are no longer available to help interpret the 2,000-page document for journalists or policymakers…​_


From the first comment:



> Whats to interpret. It seems pretty plain to me, they Know bumpkiss about buttkiss.


And, I can't disagree with the second:



> Sounds like the best reason yet to continue the shutdown until Obama is out of office.


Ha!


----------



## FeXL

Bob Tisdale throws together a list of 6 rather pointed questions the media should be asking TIPCC™ about The Pause.

Questions the Media Should Be Asking the IPCC – The Hiatus in Warming


----------



## FeXL

Oh, this is rich...

Liberal media huddles to re-hype global warming



> The liberal media is scrambling to figure out if they are under-reporting the seriousness of global warming.


<snort>

Further (from their operational "pamphlet"):



> “But many people say that journalism is still doing society a disservice, by under-reporting and downplaying the seriousness of the threats of global warming. We’ll look for lessons and advice from people who follow this issue closely.”


Tell ya what. Here's a freebie: Stop lying. Start basing your articles on empirical science rather than computer-based conjecture. Conduct some actual research instead of merely drinking the kool-aid. Question everyone & everything. These will get you far closer to a Pulitzer than quoting "consensus".


----------



## FeXL

I realize that I'm preaching mainly to the choir on this thread (save those who are here to see just what the hell FeXL will post or say next...) but, for those of you who remain unconvinced that there are two sides to the story, who believe that the science is settled and who believe that a conclusion based on model output is worth spending trillions of dollars on, read the linked article.

It is authored by Dr. Don Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, author of eight books and 150 journal publications. In addition, an expert reviewer for the IPCC report. You may not currently believe what he says but it behooves you to listen to what he has to say.

The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions




> Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” *When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.* As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, _*“The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”*_


Bold mine.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting decadal trend line graph.

Helping the IPCC with decadal trend graphs 



> Since nobody wants to be accused of cherry-picking starting dates and using a decadal average instead of a decadal trend line, let's graph the decadal linear trends for each starting year since 1988. This paints a quite different picture than the IPCC decadal average graph, showing a clear halt in "decadal average" and "decadal trend" global warming starting at the beginning of the 21st century.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate 

Abstract (paywalled)



> The frequency of large-scale heavy precipitation events in the European Alps is expected to undergo substantial changes with current climate change. Hence, knowledge about the past natural variability of floods caused by heavy precipitation constitutes important input for climate projections. We present a comprehensive Holocene (10,000 years) reconstruction of the flood frequency in the Central European Alps combining 15 lacustrine sediment records. These records provide an extensive catalog of flood deposits, which were generated by flood-induced underflows delivering terrestrial material to the lake floors. The multi-archive approach allows suppressing local weather patterns, such as thunderstorms, from the obtained climate signal. We reconstructed mainly late spring to fall events since ice cover and precipitation in form of snow in winter at high-altitude study sites do inhibit the generation of flood layers. *We found that flood frequency was higher during cool periods, coinciding with lows in solar activity. In addition, flood occurrence shows periodicities that are also observed in reconstructions of solar activity from 14C and 10Be records (2500–3000, 900–1200, as well as of about 710, 500, 350, 208 (Suess cycle), 150, 104 and 87 (Gleissberg cycle) years). As atmospheric mechanism, we propose an expansion/shrinking of the Hadley cell with increasing/decreasing air temperature, causing dry/wet conditions in Central Europe during phases of high/low solar activity. Furthermore, differences between the flood patterns from the Northern Alps and the Southern Alps indicate changes in North Atlantic circulation.* Enhanced flood occurrence in the South compared to the North suggests a pronounced southward position of the Westerlies and/or blocking over the northern North Atlantic, hence resembling a negative NAO state (most distinct from 4.2 to 2.4 kyr BP and during the Little Ice Age). South-Alpine flood activity therefore provides a qualitative record of variations in a paleo-NAO pattern during the Holocene. Additionally, increased South Alpine flood activity contrasts to low precipitation in tropical Central America (Cariaco Basin) on the Holocene and centennial time scale. This observation is consistent with a Holocene southward migration of the Atlantic circulation system, and hence of the ITCZ, driven by decreasing summer insolation in the Northern hemisphere, as well as with shorter-term fluctuations probably driven by solar activity.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

IPCC's AR5 "Unprecedented" Decadal Global Warming Claim Proven False By Latest Empirical Evidence



> *Summary*: After 7 years of research and billions of dollars on the 'AR5' report, the best that the IPCC can come up with is the thin gruel of "unprecedented" decadal warming, which when examined closely, is a false representation of the makeup, duration and the size of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. Since the last 15 years have proven that natural climate forces simply overwhelm the CO2 impact, the likelihood that modern decadal warming is more a result of natural (non-human) climate forces is the more probable "95% certainty".


----------



## FeXL

Preliminary but thought provoking article on ocean clouds vs ocean temps.

Oceanic Cloud Decrease since 1987 Explains 1/3 of Ocean Heating



> I think it is additional evidence that natural cloud variations cause multi-decadal time scale climate change.
> 
> But how do we know that this isn’t just positive cloud feedback on human-caused warming? Well, first of all there has been virtually no surface warming over this period of time, and cloud feedback is (by definition) in response to surface temperature.
> 
> Secondly, since about 2010 we see there has been an abrupt reversal in the trend of ocean energy accumulation…basically wiping out the energy accumulation caused by the previous 20 years of reduced cloudiness. Did positive cloud feedback suddenly change to negative cloud feedback? Seems hard to believe.
> 
> The more logical explanation is that there are natural cycles in cloud cover which cause multi-decadal periods of global warming or global cooling.


----------



## FeXL

The Great Climate Shift of 1878

Very interesting statistical analysis (stats way over my head) on temperature record. Good graphs for the visually oriented. Further discussion in the comments.



> *Conclusion*
> 
> The climate record of the past 163 years is well explained as the integral second-order response to a triggering event that occurred in the mid-to-late 1870s, plus an oscillatory mode regulated by solar irradiance. There is no evidence in the temperature records analyzed here supporting the hypothesis that mankind has had a measurable effect on the global climate.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

No Matter How the CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models Are Presented They Still Look Bad



> After an initial look at how the IPCC elected to show their model-data comparison of global surface temperatures in Chapter 1, we’ll look at the CMIP5 models a couple of different ways. And we’ll look at the usual misinformation coming from SkepticalScience.
> 
> Keep in mind, the models look best when surface temperatures are presented on a global land-plus-sea surface temperature basis. On the other hand, climate models cannot simulate sea surface temperatures, in any way, shape or form, or the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that drive their warming and cooling.


Scooter's under fire...


----------



## FeXL

Couple from Goddard.

IPCC : If The Data Doesn’t Fit The Theory, Change The Data



> Never mind the actual history of the planet. The IPCC has a dirty job to do and has wiped out most of 20th century history with this graph, that shows no 1940s warmth and no 1970s global cooling scare. There is no “ominous world-wide cooling” shown in the IPCC graph from 1953 to 1973.


IPCC Forgets To Mention Spectacular Arctic Ice Growth



> You would think that at least one person among thousands of the world’s top climate experts would have noticed the fact that Arctic sea ice is back to 2006 levels. Particularly since the word Arctic appears several thousand times in their report.


----------



## FeXL

Ten days back MacFury posted a link on _Popular Science's_ ridiculous decision to stop comments on articles. I posted a further link on the topic then. More from Jo Nova now.

Popular Science stop comments, because debating science is dangerous, readers are dumb



> Actions speak louder than words.
> 
> Of the two posts used to justify the silencing, the first was about climate, and had all of 16 comments — two of which were spam (see Ninna and Lili) — the rest mostly skeptical, and one used crass language. The other post was about abortion (90 comments) — yes, killing the unborn is going to generate debate. Is that it?


Further:



> They quote one survey of (I presume) random citizens who were allegedly swayed by rude ad hominem remarks. And what a giveaway: “skew a reader’s perception” — presumably *Pop Sci wanted the reader to go away with a particular perception, and the readers were getting it wrong. The editors seem think that there is a single correct “perception of science”? Says who? By what evidence? Is Pop Sci in the advocacy business or the science business?*


Bold mine.

Good question.

Finally:



> The commenters on my site, even some trolls, have been invaluable.


A lesson Pop Sci will, unfortunately, never learn, as they recede into the same white noise that consumed others.


----------



## FeXL

Physicist Tom Quirk has a few points to make about AR5 SPM.

The Computer says NO – The IPCC 2013 Summary for Policymakers



> This report from the IPCC should be its last. Not only has the climate science research community extracted billions of dollars from politicians but tens if not hundreds of billions have been invested in schemes to reduce CO2 emissions with little to show by way of reductions.


----------



## FeXL

WTF? Duplicate posts...


----------



## FeXL

Very good overview on global sea ice.

Global Sea Ice Overview, Walrus Gathering and Northern Regional Sea Ice Retrospective



> For those beating the “imminent Arctic ice death spiral” drum, 2013 has not been a good year. Per the graph above, Global Sea Ice Area has been stubbornly average in 2013, Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly had its smallest decline since 2006


----------



## FeXL

Longish, non-technical informative essay on Paleozoic glaciation & it's role in oxygenating the oceans. Much info in the comments.

We Must Get Rid of the Carboniferous Warm Period



> The Carboniferous was a warm ocean world, with low gas solubility in the deep sea. This produced an atmosphere suitable for land plants as they had an abundance of carbon dioxide gas to consume. Not for nothing does this period of Earth’s geological history have as its name the Carboniferous and yet in the mid-ocean above the deep abyssal anoxia, the pelagic fish also had an abundance of dissolved oxygen to breathe thanks to the presence of the Gondwana icecap and its coastal latent heat polynya.


Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Willis puts some meat on the skeleton of one of his pet ideas.

Evidence that Clouds Actively Regulate the Temperature



> I have put forth the idea for some time now that one of the main climate thermoregulatory mechanisms is a temperature-controlled sharp increase in albedo in the tropical regions. I have explained that this occurs in a stepwise fashion when cumulus clouds first emerge, and that the albedo is further increased when some of the cumulus clouds evolve into thunderstorms.
> 
> I’ve demonstrated this with actual observations in a couple of ways. I first showed it by means of average photographs of the “view from the sun” here. I’ve also shown this occurring on a daily basis in the TAO data. So I thought, I should look in the CERES data for evidence of this putative phenomenon that I claim occurs, whereby the albedo is actively controlling the thermal input to the climate system.


Another interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Duplicate post.


----------



## FeXL

Duplicate post.


----------



## FeXL

Duplicate post.


----------



## FeXL

Duplicate post.


----------



## FeXL

Duplicate post.


----------



## eMacMan

Somewhere in all of this I read that the Church of Climatology discounted Solar Cycles as irrelevant as the variation in Solar Energy reaching earth is ~1/100th of a percent.

However they also claim that a variation in CO2 amounting to 1/1000th of a percent of the earths total atmosphere will cause a cataclysmic climate fail. Oceans rising to swallow that beach front property that their high Priest, Al Gore recently purchased....

This despite the fact that CO2 traps only a single very narrow wavelength (~5Å) of the total solar energy energy spectrum. They go on to claim it traps (reflects back to earth) this energy but does not reflect incoming radiation of the same wavelength back to space. Beyond that is the unsupported 3x positive feedback claim with no exploration at all into negative feedback possibilities.

Then the Church of Climatology calls, those of us who are skeptical, heretics/unbelievers and threatens to relieve us of all our worldly possessions for daring to doubt!


----------



## FeXL

Washington Times: Climate due to water cycle not carbon dioxide



> I’m very glad to see this point being made in the mainstream media. Earth is a water planet (yet the models don’t do clouds, rain, snow or humidity well). This is pitched for The Washington Times audience, not a science blog, but it’s a point well made, and it’s good to see the point about positive feedback from water vapor, which I (and David Evans) have been making for so long, is getting out to the mainstream press. Readers will also find the North Atlantic hurricane statistics on predictions versus outcome rather stark. – Jo


----------



## FeXL

Brian Gunter: ‘Antarctic Continent Has Not Warmed In The Last 50 Years’

His final conclusion:



> 4. The zero temperature trends for the main regions of the Antarctic continent are interesting and possibly significant. In most regions of the world there have been a well-defined, but not alarming, increase (of less than 1ºC/century) in mean annual temperature over the past 100-150 years but this trend does not exist for the main land mass of Antarctica.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Nicola Scafetta: Climate Models Used By IPCC Fail To Reproduce Decadal & Multidecadal Patterns Since 1850

Abstract (open access)



> Power spectra of global surface temperature (GST) records (available since 1850) reveal major periodicities at about 9.1, 10–11, 19–22 and 59–62 years. Equivalent oscillations are found in numerous multisecular paleoclimatic records. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) general circulation models (GCMs), to be used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), are analyzed and found not able to reconstruct this variability. In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a GST plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 °C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records atmultiple time scales. For example, a quasi 60-year natural oscillation simultaneously explains the 1850–1880, 1910–1940 and 1970–2000 warming periods, the 1880–1910 and 1940–1970 cooling periods and the post 2000 GST plateau.
> 
> This hypothesis implies that about 50% of the ~0.5 °C global surface warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was due to natural oscillations of the climate system, not to anthropogenic forcing as modeled by the CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs. Consequently, the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling should be reduced by half, for example from the 2.0–4.5 °C range (as claimed by the IPCC, 2007) to 1.0–2.3°C with a likely median of ~1.5 °C instead of ~3.0 °C. Also modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions showing a larger preindustrial variability than the hockey-stick shaped temperature reconstructions developed in early 2000 imply aweaker anthropogenic effect and a stronger solar contribution to climatic changes. The observed natural oscillations could be driven by astronomical forcings. The ~9.1 year oscillation appears to be a combination of long soli–lunar tidal oscillations, while quasi 10–11, 20 and 60 year oscillations are typically found among major solar and heliospheric oscillations driven mostly by Jupiter and Saturn movements.
> 
> Solar models based on heliospheric oscillations also predict quasi secular (e.g. ~115 years) and millennial (e.g. ~983 years) solar oscillations, which hindcast observed climatic oscillations during the Holocene. Herein I propose a semi-empirical climate model made of six specific astronomical oscillations as constructors of the natural climate variability spanning from the decadal to the millennial scales plus a 50% attenuated radiative warming component deduced from the GCM mean simulation as a measure of the anthropogenic and volcano contributions to climatic changes. The semi-empirical model reconstructs the 1850–2013 GST patterns significantly better than any CMIP5 GCM simulation. Under the same CMIP5 anthropogenic emission scenarios, the model projects a possible 2000–2100 average warming ranging from about 0.3 °C to 1.8 °C. This range is significantly below the original CMIP5 GCM ensemble mean projections spanning from about 1 °C to 4 °C.
> 
> Future research should investigate space-climate coupling mechanisms in order to develop more advanced analytical and semi-empirical climatemodels. The HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4, UAHMSU, RSS MSU, GISS and NCDC GST reconstructions and 162 CMIP5 GCM GST simulations from 48 alternative models are analyzed.


----------



## FeXL

0.00 Warming With A Signal To Noise Ratio of 0.00 Increases Scientists’ Confidence In Warming



> There has been no warming for 17 years. The world’s top scientists have used this data with a S/N ratio of 0.00 and a high standard deviation, to gain increasing confidence that their catastrophic warming models are correct.


----------



## FeXL

Online Spiegel Top Headline: “Contradictory Prognoses: Scientists Discover Discrepancies In UN Climate Report”



> Online Spiegel as of right now has an unflattering report on the UN IPCC AR5 climate report as its top headline: SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten.
> 
> This hardly helps the credibility of climate scientists.
> 
> The headline article is dubbed: _Contradictory Prognoses: Scientists DiscoverDiscrepancies In UN Climate Report_, written by Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that hallowed peer review process at TIPCC™.

Speed reviewing



> The IPCC report is, famously, the most-reviewed document in human history or something like that. Which is why I was so intrigued by this graph sent to me by a BH correspondent. It shows the number of review comments received on each page of the Second Order Draft of the Working Group II report, leaked to this blog just a few days ago.


Great punchline at the link...


----------



## FeXL

Further misinformation from the MSM, of course, Tweeted worldwide.

The Oceans are Not More Acidic Now Than in the Past 300 Million Years



> It is unfortunate that an environmental journalist should confuse the rate of acidification with levels of acidity, but appalling that this story was tweeted uncritically by Nature Geoscience and a number of climate scientists other influential accounts. This is not some esoteric area of climate science. It is well known that CO2 was much higher during parts of the past 300 million years than it is today and therefore ocean surface pH would be expected to be lower. Why was Harvey’s assertion that “[the] oceans are more acidic now than they have been for at least 300m years” not challenged (as far as I can see) by anyone from the scientific establishment?


Ran across another article today noting that the original headline text had been changed to more accurately reflect what was said. Closing the barn door after the cow's out, anyone?


----------



## FeXL

> The smart money is starting to abandon the CO2 vessel


Crash boom bang



> While the IPCC and a number of key political figures such as Merkel and Obama are stubbornly staying the course, *the smart money has already started to react. More and more lifeboats can be seen leaving the ship.* The giant Desertec project aiming at producing solar energy for Europe in the Sahara desert is virtually dead in the sand. Spain is severely cutting back on its “renewable” subsidies. The German solar sector is in free fall, with big players such as Siemens and Bosch closing shop at a loss. Wind energy seems to be more robust, but even the market leader, Danish company Vestas, is experiencing severe headwinds. And last but not least, some governments such as those of Czechia and Australia prove their common sense by throwing useless “renewable” policies over board. As soon as this trend will have gained enough momentum, one might expect to see a new generation of scientists emerge producing nice colorful computer charts proving beyond doubt that CO2 is beneficial for plant growth and thus for feeding our populations.


Bold mine.

Good news. However, I have complete faith in govt's ability to **** money away on other frivolous & pointless projects, so don't expect a refund cheque any time soon...


----------



## FeXL

Background: HMS Challenger was a British ship launched in 1872 on a 4 year ocean research-based circumnavigation of the earth. Huge accomplishment and data from that trip are still being used today, ie, the water temps in the following _Nature Climate Change_ Letter from 2012.

Study finds global ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 years 

Abstract (paper at the link)



> Changing temperature throughout the oceans is a key indicator of climate change. Since the 1960s about 90% of the excess heat added to the Earth’s climate system has been stored in the oceans1, 2. The ocean’s dominant role over the atmosphere, land, or cryosphere comes from its high heat capacity and ability to remove heat from the sea surface by currents and mixing. The longest interval over which instrumental records of subsurface global-scale temperature can be compared is the 135 years between the voyage of HMS Challenger3 (1872–1876) and the modern data set of the Argo Programme4 (2004–2010). Argo’s unprecedented global coverage permits its comparison with any earlier measurements. This, the first global-scale comparison of Challenger and modern data, shows spatial mean warming at the surface of 0.59 °C±0.12, consistent with previous estimates5 of globally averaged sea surface temperature increase. Below the surface the mean warming decreases to 0.39 °C±0.18 at 366 m (200 fathoms) and 0.12 °C±0.07 at 914 m (500 fathoms). *The 0.33 °C±0.14 average temperature difference from 0 to 700 m is twice the value observed globally in that depth range over the past 50 years6, implying a centennial timescale for the present rate of global warming.* Warming in the Atlantic Ocean is stronger than in the Pacific. Systematic errors in the Challenger data mean that these temperature changes are a lower bound on the actual values. This study underlines the scientific significance of the Challenger expedition and the modern Argo Programme and indicates that *globally the oceans have been warming at least since the late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

CERN has been busy at working on Svensmark's cosmoclimatology theory. They've run across a snag regarding amine.

Amine a minor setback for Svensmark



> CERN has been doing some more tinkering with Svensmark's cosmoclimatology theory, trying to detect the effect of simulated galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation in the presence of various gases. The results are not altogether favourable for Svensmark, but it's also fair to say that the story is anything but over


CERN's press release.


----------



## FeXL

Rapid increase in ocean heat…?



> Here’s the alarmists’ thought process: Where’s the missing heat? Our models must be right (no doubt there), so it must be hiding somewhere. Somewhere we can’t measure it. Deep in the oceans!
> 
> *And because of the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air, the differences in temperature would be of the order of hundredths of a degree. Which is conveniently impossible to measure accurately.*
> 
> Which is why ocean heat content is the buzzword du jour.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen comments on the SPM.

Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment



> Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, *political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale is stunned.

AMAZING: The IPCC May Have Provided A Realistic Illustration



> I was examining the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report when I came across their Figure 3.A.2. I was amazed, especially with the bottom 2 cells. *Figure 3.A.2 appears to be a realistic presentation of temperature sampling at depth.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre looks at that AR5 figure again.

Fixing the Facts 2

He sums:



> Richard Betts did not dispute the accuracy of the comparison in SOD Figure 1.5, but argued that the new Figure 1.4 was “scientifically better”. But how can the comparison be “scientifically better” when uncertainty envelopes are shown for the three early assessment reports, but not for AR4. Nor can a comparison between observations and AR4 projections be made “scientifically better” – let alone valid in accounting terms – by replacing actual AR4 documents and graphics with a spaghetti graph that did not appear in AR4.
> 
> Nor is the new graphic based on any article in peer reviewed literature.
> 
> Nor did any external reviewers of the SOD suggest removal of Figure 1.5, though some (e.g. Ross McKitrick) pointed out the inconsistency between the soothing text and the discrepancy shown in the figures.
> 
> Nor, in the absence of error, is there any justification for such wholesale changes and deletions after the third and final iteration had been sent to external reviewers.
> 
> In the past, IPCC authors famously deleted data to “hide the decline” in Briffa’s temperature reconstruction in order to avoid “giving fodder to skeptics”. Without this past history, IPCC might be entitled to a little more latitude. However, neither IPCC nor its supporting institutions renounced such conduct or undertook avoid similar incidents in the future. Thus, IPCC is vulnerable to concerns that its deletion of SOD Figure 1.5 was primarily motivated to avoid “giving fodder to skeptics”.
> 
> Perhaps there’s a valid reason, but it hasn’t been presented yet.


----------



## FeXL

More "settled science".

Paper suggests solar magnetic influence on Earth’s atmospheric pressure

Abstract



> The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions. We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves. Our results show that amechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes. We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes.


Jo notes:



> Meteorologists are already aware that changes in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) can affect the polar regions of Earth. *Now, for the first time Lam et al report the magnetic field appears to influence atmospheric pressure in the mid latitudes.* Lam compared the average surface pressure at times when the magnetic field is either very strong or very weak and found a statistically significant wave structure similar to an atmospheric Rossby wave. They claim to show that this works through a mechanism that is a conventional meteorological process, and that the effect is large enough to influence weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. The size of the effect is similar to “initial analysis uncertainties” in “ensemble numerical weather prediction” (which I take to mean “climate models”).
> 
> They are suggesting that small changes in this solar influence on the upper atmosphere could produce important changes through “non-linear evolution of atmospheric dynamics”.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Can't wait.

Mann’s emails to be subject of state supreme court case



> You have to wonder what he’s got in those emails to be fighting so hard to keep people from seeing the supposedly mundane details of research.


----------



## FeXL

Well, a few days back Bob Geldorf said we have until 2030 to spends his millions, now we have some gen-u-wyne computer generated data (no, really) from the U of Hawaii saying it's 2047.


World to roast by 2047, film at 11



> “This paper is unusually important. It builds on earlier work but brings the biological and human consequences into sharper focus,” said Jane Lubchenco, former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this study. “*It connects the dots between climate models and impacts to biodiversity in a stunningly fresh way*, and it has sobering ramifications for species and people.”


Bold mine.

"Stunningly fresh", huh? Does that mean that they have some empirical evidence this time?


----------



## FeXL

Missed Nir Shaviv's observations on AR5 a week ago.

The IPCC AR5 – First impressions 



> My main conclusion is that this report is to a large extent a rehash of the AR4 report. However, given the lack of any new evidence pointing to humans and the increasing discrepancy between the alarmist models and predictions, *the IPCC authors are bluntly making more ridiculous claims as they attempt to fill in the gap between their models and reality.*
> 
> One of the statements which wonderfully exemplifies the absurdity of the new report is this paragraph discussing the climate sensitivity in the summary for policy makers.


Bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

Once again the Farmers Almanac and the International Panel of Climate Creeps are at direct odds with each other.

When this has happened in the past the FA has pretty much swept the ice with the IPCC.

Not-so-shocking almanac report predicts cold winter for Canada – Cottage Life



> The Farmers’ Almanac has just released its winter forecast report, and not surprisingly, it predicts Canada (known to many Americans as the Fortress of Ice and Igloos) will have a cold, snowy winter.
> 
> The century-old periodical, which employs highly secretive mathematical and astronomical formulas to make its predictions, reports that below-normal temperatures will predominate from east of the Rocky Mountains to the Eastern Great Lakes, with the coldest temperatures meandering southeast across the Canadian Shield to the Great Lakes. Only those who live along the coasts will be spared, as the Almanac predicts temperatures will average close to normal.
> 
> Snow will be a  unifying grievance and source of complaining for Canadians, with significant snowfalls predicted for the whole country. Quebec and Ontario will see a snowier-than-usual winter, much to the joy of elementary school kids vying for snow days.
> 
> The first two weeks of February over Quebec and Maritimes will be notably volatile, with mid-Marchbringing a wave of blustery storms extending coast to coast.
> 
> The report goes on to use incredibly scientific terms like “piercing cold,” “biting cold,” “chilly,” and “cold, wet and white” to describe each zone’s temperature outlook.


----------



## MacDoc

and that... is that.....well done..

L.A. Times cuts off climate-change deniers - CBS News

****heads the lot.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> and that... is that.....well done..
> 
> L.A. Times cuts off climate-change deniers - CBS News
> 
> ****heads the lot.


Yep, and a newspaper has never been wrong before, right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and that... is that.....well done..


Do you think that there is anyone, aside from you, that cares if the LA Times censors comments or not?

And, is that your sole contribution to the thread topic? How about some more settled science? Maybe a few quotes from SS or DSB? A couple snippets from AR5 SPM, perhaps?

No? Nothing? Thought not...


----------



## FeXL

So... Ya got this climate report, allegedly prepared by the brightest minds in the business, based on nothing but the purest of empirical science. A summary of one chapter of this magnificent tome is prepared for advance release, the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers). On the eve of the official release of the SPM every line of this "scientific" summary is passed by a roomful of politicians for careful, politically correct, grooming. The SPM is released with little fanfare (due mainly to an early "leak" of the draft to so-called sympathetic MSM outlets).

Now that the SPM has been released, you'd think everything was carved in stone, right? Wrong... Now, the "scientific" chapter report upon which the politically sanitized SPM was based may be revised for consistency with the SPM.

Tail wagging the dog – IPCC to rework AR5 to be ‘consistent with the SPM’



> _Does that seem backwards, to you? The SPM is the political statement. The “underlying chapters” are (supposedly) the science. So they’re saying that they may still need to revise the science to make it consistent with the political statement._​


----------



## FeXL

Chylek et al 2013 shows a linkage between US Southwest climate and AMO/PDO cycles

Abstract (open access, at the link)



> The surface air temperature increase in the southwestern United States was much larger during the last few decades than the increase in the global mean. While the global temperature increased by about 0.5 °C from 1975 to 2000, the southwestern US temperature increased by about 2 °C. If such an enhanced warming persisted for the next few decades, the southwestern US would suffer devastating consequences. To identify major drivers of southwestern climate change we perform a multiple-linear regression of the past 100 years of the southwestern US temperature and precipitation. We find that in the early twentieth century the warming was dominated by a positive phase of the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) with minor contributions from increasing solar irradiance and concentration of greenhouse gases.
> 
> The late twentieth century warming was about equally influenced by increasing concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and a positive phase of the AMO. The current southwestern US drought is associated with a near maximum AMO index occurring nearly simultaneously with a minimum in the Pacific dec- adal oscillation (PDO) index. A similar situation occurred in mid-1950s when precipitation reached its minimum within the instrumental records. If future atmospheric concentrations of GHGs increase according to the IPCC scenarios (Solomon et al. in Climate change 2007: working group I. The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge, 996 pp, 2007), climate models project a fast rate of southwestern warming accompanied by devastating droughts (Seager et al. in Science 316:1181–1184, 2007; Williams et al. in Nat Clim Chang, 2012).
> 
> However, the current climate models have not been able to predict the behavior of the AMO and PDO indices. The regression model does support the climate models (CMIP3 and CMIP5 AOGCMs) pro- jections of a much warmer and drier southwestern US only if the AMO changes its 1,000 years cyclic behavior and instead continues to rise close to its 1975–2000 rate. If the AMO continues its quasi-cyclic behavior the US SW temperature should remain stable and the precipitation should significantly increase during the next few decades.


From the Conclusion:



> The US SW temperature and precipitation are strongly influenced by the AMO and PDO. The fact that the CMIP simulations ensemble mean can reproduce the 1970–2010 US SW temperature increase without inclusion of the AMO (the AMO is treated as an intrinsic natural climate vari- ability that is averaged out by taking an ensemble mean of individual simulations) *suggests that the CMIP5 models’ predicted US SW temperature sensitivity to the GHG has been significantly (by about a factor of two) overestimated.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?



> It’s very obvious that climate modelers, under the direction of the IPCC, simply tuned their models to the high rate of warming from one half of a multidecadal “cycle” without considering the other counterbalancing or offsetting portion of the “cycle”. The IPCC’s position has been and continues to be that the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century was caused primarily by manmade greenhouse gases—a position that has always been unsupportable because climate models do not properly simulate multidecadal variability. The evidence of the model failings become more pronounced with every passing month of the halt in global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Paper discusses interesting link between NAO and Northern Hemisphere temperatures, including a simple successful linear model that predicts the current flatline.

New paper finds natural North Atlantic Oscillation controls Northern Hemisphere temperatures 15-20 years in advance 

Abstract (open access at the link)



> The twentieth century Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperature (NHT) is characterized by a multidecadal warming–cooling–warming pattern followed by a flat trend since about 2000 (recent warming hiatus). *Here we demonstrate that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is implicated as a useful predictor of NHT multidecadal variability. Observational analysis shows that the NAO leads both the detrended NHT and oceanic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) by 15–20 years. Theoretical analysis illuminates that the NAO precedes NHT multidecadal variability through its delayed effect on the AMO due to the large thermal inertia associated with slow oceanic processes. A NAO-based linear model is therefore established to predict the NHT, which gives an excellent hindcast for NHT in 1971–2011 with the recent flat trend well predicted. NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades,* due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.


Bold from the link.

The opening statement regarding warming is vague as to timeframe and the nod to warming affecting humanity is unclear & unnecessary.


----------



## FeXL

What could have caused enough warming to grow forests in Alaska over 2000 years ago, where now only a glacier resides?

Melting glacier in Alaska reveals ancient remains of forest – evidence of warm periods



> The Mendenhall Glacier’s recession is unveiling the remains of ancient forests that have remained frozen beneath the ice for up to 2,350 years.
> 
> The most recent stumps [UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor ] dated emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old.


----------



## FeXL

Maybe That IPCC 95% Certainty Was Correct After All



> ...I think I discovered what the IPCC meant regarding 95% certainty and global warming. I’m sure it was an honest mistake on their part.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much.
> 
> Honest mistake. Don’t you think? Maybe?


----------



## FeXL

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey...

The other divergence problem – climate communications



> I regularly get angry emails from people who are convinced that I’m single-handedly destroying the world with my opinion which is supposedly funded by “big oil” and the Koch brothers. Of course, having nothing else, that’s all part of the huge lie people like Dr. Mann likes to push, like this bit of libel over the weekend


In the mean time, Tisdale has penned an open letter to the Koch's, seeking funding.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale addresses a new paper that employs models in what is termed a "significant" paper. Bob asks:



> Does significant mean the study will make a loud noise when we throw it into the dustbin?


Well, now that we've set the tone...

Basically, the paper projects predictions for ENSO in the mid/late 21st century. This would be all well & fine, but models can't even model ENSO accurately, let alone predict one.

Will Global Warming Increase the Intensity of El Niño?

I do love the choice of words for the title of the paper: *Robust* twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability.

<snort>

Gotta love all that robust, empirical data that models spew...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

More model failures.

New paper shows climate models falsely predicted Antarctic sea ice would decline more than Arctic sea ice

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> A dominant characteristic of the available simulations of past sea ice changes is the strong link between the model results for modern and past climates. Nearly all the models have similar extent for pre-industrial conditions and for the mid-Holocene. The models with the largest extent at Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) are also characterized by large pre-industrial values. As a consequence, the causes of model biases and of the spread of model responses identified for present-day conditions appear relevant when simulating the past sea ice changes. Nevertheless, *the models that display a relatively realistic sea-ice cover for present-day conditions often display contrasted response for some past periods.* The difference appears particularly large for the LGM in the Southern Ocean and for the summer ice extent in the Arctic for the early Holocene (and to a smaller extent for the mid-Holocene). Those periods are thus key ones to evaluate model behaviour and model physics in conditions different from those of the last decades. Paleoclimate modelling is also an invaluable tool to test hypotheses that could explain the signal recorded by proxies and thus to improve our understanding of climate dynamics. Model analyses have been focused on specific processes, such as the role of atmospheric and ocean heat transport in sea ice changes or the relative magnitude of the model response to different forcings. The studies devoted to the early Holocene provide an interesting example in this framework as both radiative forcing and freshwater discharge from the ice sheets were very different compared to now. This is thus a good target to identify the dominant processes ruling the system behaviour and to evaluate the way models represent them.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Donna is tired of people who have never received a Nobel Prize claiming that they have.

Official Launch of FakeNobelLaureates.com



> I’m launching a new blog today. It’s called the Fake Nobel Laureates Hall of Shame. Its purpose is to shine a big, brash spotlight on the numerous individuals who continue to improperly claim that they are Nobel laureates and Peace Prize winners as a result of their association with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


----------



## FeXL

Another modeling shortcoming…



> Animal populations can have a far more significant impact on carbon storage and exchange in regional ecosystems than is typically recognized by global carbon models, according to a new paper authored by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES).


More:



> In one case, an unprecedented loss of trees triggered by the pine beetle outbreak in western North America has decreased the net carbon balance on a scale comparable to British Columbia’s current fossil fuel emissions.


Further:



> “We hope this article will inspire scientists and managers to include animals when thinking of local and regional carbon budgets,” said Peter Raymond, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Alarmists Seek Shelter From Public Storm



> Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wailed her agency would need at least 240,000 new EPA employees (each making some $100,000 per year, plus benefits) that she said would be needed just to administer new carbon dioxide regulations — and control nearly everything Americans make, drive, ship and do!
> 
> The EPA currently employs some 20,000 people at an annual budget of over $8 billion. The new hires alone would cost taxpayers another $24 billion annually — plus hundreds of billions of dollars in economic pain, manufacturing shutdowns and new job losses that the EPA's CO2 regulations would inflict.


More:



> The serious money has always flowed to alarmists, guilt-ridden environmentalists and control-seeking regulators, whom the world's taxpayers are generously and unwittingly funding. That's also the real meaning of the "green" movement and "green" energy.


----------



## FeXL

Further on LA Times shutting down comments.

Alarmists losing so badly they are scared of letters to editors



> *Those who depend on silencing opponents have already lost the intellectual war. *But they cling to the hope that they can keep the news of their loss from spreading.


Bold mine.

Sounds...sounds an awful lot like putting people on ignore, don't it. Then, when you see a thread that's busy, you take everybody off ignore because it bugs you that you might be missing something, troll the hell out of it, then return to putting everybody on ignore again, secure in your own little mind that the big, scary, bad guys (whom bury you on an even footing) can't get to you.


----------



## FeXL

Alarmists Just Can’t Get A Break



> Alarmists are having a tough year. They can’t create any warming or much in the way of hurricanes or tornadoes, Arctic ice has grown 60%, fire count has been the lowest in decades, and now their permanent drought has abandoned them too.


Maybe that's why they're blocking comments. They have no answers for all those pointed questions...


----------



## MacDoc

You mean stupid questions and hilarious nonsense like your ice comment...get a life...move on to something useful instead of tilting at a windmill you refuse to see.

Talk about drowning in right wing denier Koolaid.
All I have to do i drop in to see the latest nonsense from the denier machine that is getting farther and farther out of touch with reality....
Like the Repuglies to the south.......living in their own warped world. Pathetic......pawns to the fossil fuel interests
Meanwhile the planet warms...

funny looking pause...










the atmosphere is 2% of the energy storage system and is transient.....more heat is being picked up in the ocean so no Victoria it hasn't stopped and won't despite your wishful thinking.


----------



## Macfury

Guess MacDoc wants to be a punching bag again, leading with that pathetic old graph. I'll deal with it later unless you get to it first, FeXL.


----------



## FeXL

Feel free. I'm going to watch one of the littluns play volleyball, then I'm going to have a couple beers, then scratch myself, then clean out the cat box, wash the windows, change the oil in the Hawg. All those important things.

Then I'll deal with my buddy and his slurs...


----------



## FeXL

Well, let's take a look at my honourable opponent's post, see what we can decipher...




MacDoc said:


> blah, blah, blah, stupid questions, blah, blah, blah


Here's a coupla stupid questions for ya: Why should I take the word of a computer salesman who provides no evidence to back up his "argument" over peer-reviewed papers and empirical data? And why should I give any credence whatsoever to someone who simply cannot get through a GHG Thread post without resorting to name calling, ad homs, smears, slurs, and frequent appeals to logical fallacy?



MacDoc said:


> blah, blah, blah, ice comment, blah, blah, blah


Awright, Arctic ice is >60% higher than what it was last year. In addition, Arctic ice is currently at it's highest point by date since 2005. If you have empirical evidence to support your observation, feel free to post it at any time. Here's mine:

Danish Meteorological Institute

IARC-JAXA

This map of ice extent also from JAXA.



MacDoc said:


> blah, blah, blah, right wing denier Koolaid.


As opposed to, say, left wing head up yurass ignorance?



MacDoc said:


> All I have to do i drop in to see the latest nonsense from the denier machine that is getting farther and farther out of touch with reality....


I'm sure there's some English in here somewhere, perhaps even a point but, I just don't care enough to go looking for it. There sure as hell ain't no argument...



MacDoc said:


> Like the Repuglies to the south.......living in their own warped world. Pathetic......pawns to the fossil fuel interests


Now we're getting somewhere...little ad hom, little shout out to Big Oil. No science yet, no empirical evidence, but the usual nods to the usual suspects. Also a little hypocrisy going on, what with galavanting all over the planet on jet fuel. But it's not contributing to the CO2 problem when MacDoc does it. Nosiree...



MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile the planet warms...
> 
> funny looking pause...


OMG!!! Did you see that? A genuine piece of data. A frickin' graph! Be still my beating heart!!!!! EPA sourced, but it's a graph!!! That musta hurt. B minus for effort. We'll see what grade you raise after scrutiny.

Let's look at this a bit closer, shall we? You say "the planet warms", an all-encompassing statement. The graph is ocean heat content, not ocean temps. They are not equivalent. Not exactly comparing apples to apples, is it? If you want to talk about the planet warming, let's look at the whole planet, instead of <cough-possibly-cough> cherry-picking, shall we? 

Would it be fair to say that there are three basic areas of the planet where temperature can be measured (ignoring, for obvious reasons, sub-surface crustal temperatures)? Atmosphere, planet surface and sub-surface oceanic? And, in order to confirm that, indeed, "the planet warms" we should see evidence in all three areas. Agreed?


Lower Troposphere

Figure 1 trend line shows +0.5 degrees total warming from 1979 to 2009. However, since the peak in 1998, the trend is flat. You might describe it as a pause...

Global Surface Temps

This is a link to graphs charting the official surface temperature records of GISS, NCDC and HADCRUT4. Show me the warming since 1998.

In addition, this link takes you to a graph showing trends from even more official temperature data sets. Show me the warming since 1998.

For Ocean Temps, I refer you to my post from Oct 9, 2013 on the HMS Challenger.

Therein we learn that the oceans have been observed to be warming for 135 years. This, despite the fact that the commonly accepted timeframe for the detection of an anthropogenic signal in CO2 concentrations is ~1950. And, since 1960, the warming rate has declined to about half what it was prior to that. What relationship does that describe between CO2 & rising temperatures?

So, where are we? Lower troposphere temps flatlined for 15 years, despite warmist's claims it would be the first place to manifest itself. Global surface temps flatlined for at least an equal period. Ocean temps rising, but at a rate half what they were more than 100 years ago(!).

Sorry, Victoria, yer planet ain't warming. Your grade is an F...

Now that we've talked temperatures and shown that even if there is some warming indicated in one data set, it's correlation with an increase of CO2 is dubious, let's move on to ocean heat content.

Ocean Heat Content

While the graph you furnished is interesting in itself, clarifying data is missing. What depth? 0-700 metres? 0-2000? What geographic part(s) of what ocean? What datasets were used? ARGO? Prior to ARGO?

Figure 1 is a graph showing ocean heat content from 2005-2012. Why only 8 years? 'Cause it's the only (semi) reliable data we have below 700m. Sorry. Unfortunate, but the truth. It is commonly known that even ARGO data has its issues.

The interesting thing about Fig 1 is the difference in the northern hemisphere trend vs the southern hemisphere trend.



> Only about 7% of the warming of ocean heat content for the depths of 0-2000 meters occurred in the Northern Hemisphere from 2005 to 2012, yet the surface area of the Northern Hemisphere oceans represents about 43% of the surface of the global oceans.


As a matter of fact, the North Atlantic is not warming at all. And, the North Pacific is cooling! See Fig 2 & Fig 4. How is it possible that a well mixed atmosphere can be heating one ocean and not another? Or warm some parts of an ocean and not others? There is probably a very good answer to this. Whatever it is, you don't have it & neither do I. Nobody does. Another prime example of the science *not* being settled, despite all your screeching & name-calling to the contrary.

Some have postulated that ocean heat has gone to the depths, >2000 meters down. Fine. Find the location in the water column whereby it passed. Heat doesn't simply disappear from one level & appear in another. The warm water itself has to move from the surface to the depths. Kevin Trenberth has been searching for the missing heat for years, hasn't found it and describes that as "a travesty". ARGO hasn't seen it. Nor has anyone else. Even if there is some mechanism that moves warm water from the surface to the depths, we're talking a temperature change of hundredths of a degree. Unmeasurable with current technology.

That said, yes, broadly speaking ocean heat content (which is not temperature, recall) has increased since 2005.



MacDoc said:


> the atmosphere is 2% of the energy storage system and is transient..


Ooooo, I do so love a good fact...



MacDoc said:


> ...more heat is being picked up in the ocean...


Where's all the missing heat? Find it. Call Trenberth. You'll be a warmist hero. Call the IPCC and you can share the Nobel Prize, too. Serious...



MacDoc said:


> so no Victoria it hasn't stopped and won't despite your wishful thinking.


I don't care if the warming has stopped (which it currently has) or not. That's not the point at all and not the only error you have made on this topic. The issue for me is whether or not empirical science has been used in the reaching of the conclusion. Unfortunately for the warmists, computer models do not present empirical evidence. They produce what-if scenarios which can then be used to help support empirical data. The problem is, there is no empirical data supporting CAGW and, therefore, nothing for the model output to corroborate.

You have yerself a fine day, MaDoc, and if you run across Julyar crying in her beer, tell her not to worry, she's still got her pension. It's been a trip. Come back soon, y'hear?


----------



## FeXL

<yawn> Hey, the Goracle <yawn> is going to <yawn> present another <yawn> 24 hours of <yawn> alternate reality! <so sleepy>

Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project is set to do another 24 hours of alternate reality – nobody cares



> I guess he didn’t read the recent IPCC AR5 report that showed no connections of climate change/global warming with severe weather. In a year when we’ve had the least number of wildfires in 30 years and well below the decadal average, plus a near record low in tornadoes, and a hurricane season that has gone bust, Gore is pushing a dead issue.


Yup.

I'll pencil it in as another exciting day cleaning the cat box. Oh, what a good kitty, look what you've left for the warmists...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting...

New study shows Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sea surface temperature drive US tornado strength



> McCoy and Lupo found that the tornadoes that occurred when surface sea temperatures were above average were usually located to the west and north of tornado alley, an area in the Midwestern part of the U.S. that experiences more tornadoes than any other area. McCoy also found that when sea surface temperatures were cooler, more tornadoes tracked from southern states, like Alabama, into Tennessee, Illinois and Indiana.


Not CO2?!  Stop the presses!

The first comment:



> a study that is examining actual readings of actual events or DATA as opposed to a computer model…this will never meet peer review….lol


Sad, but true...


----------



## FeXL

Rather timely, considering my recent response to my dear buddy, MacDoc...

Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis



> Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific...


----------



## FeXL

Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts



> *Hide the decline*
> 
> Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve of 1999 is not the only climate curve that has disappeared from the 5th Assessment Report. Also Keith Briffa’s curve from 2000 and 2001 have disappeared. The following may be the reason they have disappeared.
> 
> Most reconstructions do not extend all the way to the present even though they provide enough data to do so in most cases. The reason for this is because the curve designers do not want to deal with the gaping differences between the values derived from the proxy reconstructions and the values recorded by modern instruments. So they simply truncate the proxy reconstructed values where a divergence between the two datasets begins. The discarded proxy reconstruction data are then simply replaced by the instrumental data obtained from the weather stations.


----------



## FeXL

The NIPCC gives a critique of AR5 SPM.

Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’



> The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its Fifth Assessment Report on September 27, 2013. It differs in important ways from a draft SPM dated June 2013 that circulated widely in the preceding months.
> 
> As discussed below, the new SPM reveals the IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC. The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

The age of climate alarmism is coming to an end



> You can be forgiven for not noticing that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its Fifth Assessment Report late last month.
> 
> The report landed with a thud, criticized and even mocked by many leading climate scientists. *The distinguished science journal Nature editorialized that this should be the last report issued by the UN body.*
> 
> This is just the latest signal that the age of climate alarmism is over. Given five tries to convince the world that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the planet, runaway sea-level rise and various weather disasters, the public still doesn’t buy it.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

A new book.

The Whole Story of Climate



> _*The Whole Story of Climate*_ is my attempt to explain both what we know of the temperature record and how distorted is part of the public discussion regarding climate. Essentially, I think that we need to collectively come to grips with the fact that Earth’s climate is always changing and that natural climate change is often rapid, not slow – as had been assumed by scientists until quite recently.


More:



> While the recent work of climate scientists has added greatly to our understanding of the fragility of climate, the public rarely hears from geologists – even though *geologists have been studying climate change for almost 200 years.* While the typical American has the impression that climate would be stable if it weren’t for industrialization and the production of greenhouse gases from smokestacks and cars, *geologic history in fact reveals a ceaselessly changing climate running back into the time thousands of years before the modern economy.*


Bold mine.

I have a geology background, perhaps one of the main reason I remain a sceptic.


----------



## FeXL

Another new Antarctic ice record, 10 days past what is commonly accepted as the point of no further growth.

Antarctic Ice Sets New All Time Record In October



> As at the 18th October, extent is still running at 998,000 sq km above normal.
> 
> With the Arctic ice running at 728,000sq km below normal, this means that *global sea ice is 270,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 norm.*


Bold mine.

More:

Antarctic sea ice still at record high — where is springtime melt?

How many of you have heard about this anywhere in the MSM?

Na, me either...


----------



## FeXL

Have you heard about the latest climate scare?

Climate Change Threatens Caribbean’s Water Supply



> Climate change does not threaten Caribbean water supplies. Population growth and economic development already do on some of the smaller islands. And they are using climate change to ‘extort’ financial aid (e.g. for desalination) from the usual rich ‘guilty’ AGW culprits.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

Really good non-technical read on warm water, calcium carbonate & CO2 from the Cretaceous period.

The Oceanic Central Heating Effect



> In my previous essay We Must Get Rid of the Carboniferous Warm Period I discussed the role of the polar seas around Antarctica in generating the cold dense oxygenated marine water that dominates the abyssal ocean depths of our modern world. I now want to discuss the role of shallow tropical seas in generating warm dense oxygen-poor marine water and how this fundamental and often overlooked process explains the presence of abyssal ocean warm water and high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during previous geological times, in particular the Cretaceous period.


He sums:



> In the argument of which comes first: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or warm ocean water, the geological evidence is unequivocal: The “oceanic central heating effect” dog wags the “atmospheric greenhouse gas” tail.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Mikey Mann, still making friends & influencing people.

This little nugget has been circulating for a couple days now. First spotted at Bishop Hill:

Wilson on millennial temperature reconstructions



> The real fireworks came when Mann's latest papers, which hypothesise that tree ring proxies have large numbers of missing rings after major volcanic eruptions, were described as "a crock of xxxx".


Red the first comment as well, nice explanation for the origin of the term...

Further:

Paleoscientist: Mann’s recent work was a ‘crock of xxxx’



> [Rob Wilson:] Although a rather flippant statement, I stand by it and Mann is well aware of my criticisms (privately and through the peer reviewed literature) of his recent work.


Josh gets involved.


Monday Mirthiness: Crock-on (UPDATED)


----------



## FeXL

I don't genrally get into this facet of the debate because the next fruit loops & whackos to come along will suggest we start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That said:

The Social Benefit of Carbon: $3.5 Trillion in Agricultural Productivity



> Craig Idso, an expert on the fertilization effects of elevated CO2 levels on various plant species, has done a new study of the positive externality (unintended economic consequence) of increasing CO2.
> 
> In the 50 year period, 1961-2011, he estimates that there has been a $3.5 trillion benefit resulting from increased agricultural productivity. The projected benefits in the coming decades are even larger.


----------



## FeXL

Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue

Pielke Sr. puts together some solid points. He sums:



> The IPCC report has failed to report on the implications of the real world radiative imbalance being significantly smaller than the radiative forcing. This means not only that the net radiative feedbacks must be negative, but they failed to document the magnitude in Watts per meter squared of the contributions to positive feedbacks from surface warming, and from atmospheric water vapor and clouds.
> 
> These must be smaller than what the IPCC models are producing.
> 
> One clear conclusion from their failure is that the climate system has larger variations in the Radiative Imbalance, Forcing and Feedbacks than is predicted by the model and accepted in the 2013 IPCC assessment report. Judy Curry David Douglass, Roy Spencer, Bob Tisdale, Anastasios Tsonis, Marcia Wyatt and others have been pioneers in advocating this perspective, and the failure in the SPM of the 2013 IPCC WG1 report to discuss this issue is a major failing of the assessment.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Tim Ball on a surfeit of water data in IPCC projections.

Lack of Data For All Phases of Water Guarantees Failed IPCC Projections

The info on the widespread effect of dew was new to me.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds natural ocean oscillations explain why the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than the Southern 



> "It rains more in the Northern Hemisphere because it's warmer," said corresponding author Dargan Frierson, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences. "The question is: What makes the Northern Hemisphere warmer? And we've found that it's the ocean circulation."
> 
> Frierson and his co-authors first used detailed measurements from NASA's Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System, or CERES, satellites to show that sunlight actually provides more heat to the Southern Hemisphere -- and so, by atmospheric radiation alone, the Southern Hemisphere should be the soggier one.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Rainfall in the tropics is largely focused in a narrow zonal band near the Equator, known as the intertropical convergence zone. On average, substantially more rain falls just north of the Equator1. This hemispheric asymmetry in tropical rainfall has been attributed to hemispheric asymmetries in ocean temperature induced by tropical landmasses. However, the ocean meridional overturning circulation also redistributes energy, by carrying heat northwards across the Equator. Here, we use satellite observations of the Earth’s energy budget2, atmospheric reanalyses3 and global climate model simulations to study tropical rainfall using a global energetic framework. We show that the meridional overturning circulation contributes significantly to the hemispheric asymmetry in tropical rainfall by transporting heat from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere, and thereby pushing the tropical rain band north. This northward shift in tropical precipitation is seen in global climate model simulations when ocean heat transport is included, regardless of whether continents are present or not. If the strength of the meridional overturning circulation is reduced in the future as a result of global warming, as has been suggested4, precipitation patterns in the tropics could change, with potential societal consequences.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds natural ocean oscillations control precipitation & climate in North China, not CO2 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *North China has undergone a severe drying trend since the 1950s, but whether this trend is natural variability or anthropogenic change remains unknown due to the short data length.* This study extends the analysis of dry–wet changes in North China to 1900–2010 on the basis of self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) data. The ensemble empirical mode decomposition method is used to detect multidecadal variability. A transition from significant wetting to significant drying is detected around 1959/60. *Approximately 70% of the drying trend during 1960–1990 originates from 50–70-yr multidecadal variability related to Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) phase changes.* The PDSI in North China is statistically negatively correlated with the PDO index, particularly at the 50–70-yr timescale, and *is also stable during 1900-2010.* Composite differences between two positive PDO phases (1922–1945 and 1977–2002) and one negative PDO phase (1946–1976) for summer exhibit an anomalous Pacific–Japan/East Asian–Pacific pattern-like teleconnection, which may develop locally in response to the PDO-associated warm sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Indo–Pacific Ocean, and meridionally extends from the tropical western Pacific to North China along the East Asia coast. North China is dominated by an anomalous high pressure system at mid–low levels and an anticyclone at 850 hPa, which are favorable for dry conditions. In addition, a weakened land–sea thermal contrast in East Asia from a negative to positive PDO phase also plays a role in the dry conditions in North China by weakening the East Asian summer monsoon.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds climate models exaggerated warming & falsely predicted decreased snow



> A new paper published in Climate Dynamics finds that faulty climate models predicted "excessive warming in wintertime [that falsely led to predictions of] a strong wintertime snow cover loss that is not found in observations." *The IPCC also claimed in 2001 that wintertime Northern Hemisphere snow cover would decrease, but since the IPCC made this prediction, the Northern Hemisphere has had five of the six snowiest winters on record.*


Bold mine.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Simulated variability and trends in Northern Hemisphere seasonal snow cover are analyzed in large ensembles of climate integrations of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Community Earth System Model. Two 40-member ensembles driven by historical radiative forcings are generated, one coupled to a dynamical ocean and the other driven by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) over the period 1981–2010. The simulations reproduce many aspects of the observed climatology and variability of snow cover extent as characterized by the NOAA snow chart climate data record. Major features of the simulated snow water equivalent (SWE) also agree with observations (GlobSnow Northern Hemisphere SWE data record), although with a lesser degree of fidelity. Ensemble spread in the climate response quantifies the impact of natural climate variability in the presence and absence of coupling to the ocean. Both coupled and uncoupled ensembles indicate an overall decrease in springtime snow cover that is consistent with observations, although springtime trends in most climate realizations are weaker than observed. *In the coupled ensemble, a tendency towards excessive warming in wintertime leads to a strong wintertime snow cover loss that is not found in observations.* The wintertime warming bias and snow cover reduction trends are reduced in the uncoupled ensemble with observed SSTs. Natural climate variability generates widely different regional patterns of snow trends across realizations; these patterns are related in an intuitive way to temperature, precipitation and circulation trends in individual realizations. *In particular, regional snow loss over North America in individual realizations is strongly influenced by North Pacific SST trends (manifested as Pacific Decadal Oscillation variability) and by sea level pressure trends in the North Pacific/North Atlantic sectors.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows ocean 'acidification' was about the same during the last interglacial period as today

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Recent concern over the effects of ocean acidification upon calcifying organisms has highlighted the aragonitic shelled thecosomatous pteropods as being at a high risk. Both in-situ and laboratory studies have shown that an increased dissolved CO2 concentration, leading to decreased water pH and low carbonate concentration, causes reduced calcification rates and enhanced dissolution in the shells of living pteropods. In fossil records unaffected by post-depositional dissolution, this in-life shell dissolution can be detected. Here we present the first evidence of variations of in-life pteropod shell dissolution due to variations in surface water carbonate concentration during the Late Pleistocene by analysing the surface layer of pteropod shells in marine sediment cores from the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean. In-life shell dissolution was determined by applying the Limacina Dissolution Index (LDX) to the sub-tropical pteropod Limacina inflata. Average shell size information shows that high in-life dissolution is accompanied by smaller shell sizes inL. inflata, which may indicate a reduction in calcification rate. Comparison of the LDX profile to Late Pleistocene Vostok atmospheric CO2 concentrations, shows that in-life pteropod dissolution is closely associated to variations in past ocean carbonate saturation. This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: treemometers used.

New paper finds summer temperatures in the year 2000 were about the same as during Medieval & Roman warm periods

Abstract (open access paper)



> Here we analysed the maximum latewood density (MXD) chronologies of two published tree-ring datasets: from Torneträsk region in northernmost Sweden (TORN, Melvin et al., 2013) and from northern Fennoscandia (FENN, Esper et al., 2012). We paid particular attention to the MXD low-frequency variations to reconstruct long-term summer (June–August, JJA) temperature history. We used published methods of tree-ring standardization: regional curve (RC) standardization, combined with signal-free (SF) implementation. Comparisons with a single-RC (RC1) and multiple-RC (RC2) were also carried out. We develop a novel method of standardization, the correction (C) implementation to SF (hence, RC1SFC or RC2SFC), tailored for detection of pure low-frequency signal in tree-ring chronologies. In this method, the error in RC1SF (or RC2SF) chronology, is analytically assessed and extracted to produce a RC1SFC or RC2SFC chronology. In TORN, the RC1SF chronology shows higher correlation with summer temperature (JJA) than RC1SFC, whereas in FENN the temperature signals of RC1SF chronology is improved by correction implementation (RC1SFC). The highest correlation between differently standardized chronologies for two datasets is obtained using FENN-RC2SFC and TORN-RC1 chronologies. Focusing on lowest frequencies, the importance of correction becomes obvious as the chronologies become progressively more correlative with RC1SFC and RC2SFC implementations. Subsampling the FENN data (which presents a higher number of samples than TORN dataset) to the chronology sample size of TORN data shows that the chronologies consistently bifurcate during the 7th, 9th, 17th and 20th centuries. We used the two MXD datasets to reconstruct summer temperature variations over the period −48–2010 calendar years. Our new reconstruction shows multi-decadal to multi-centennial variability with changes in the amplitude of the summer temperature of 2.6 °C in average during the Common Era.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds solar UV varies up to 100% during solar cycles, confirms solar amplification mechanism

Abstract (open access paper)



> Solar spectral fluxes (or irradiance) measured by the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) show different variability at ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths compared to other irradiance measurements and models (e.g. NRL-SSI, SATIRE-S). Some modelling studies have suggested that stratospheric/lower mesospheric O3 changes during solar cycle 23 (1996–2008) can only be reproduced if SORCE solar fluxes are used. We have used a 3-D chemical transport model (CTM), forced by meteorology from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), to simulate middle atmospheric O3 using three different solar flux data sets (SORCE, NRL-SSI and SATIRE-S). Simulated O3 changes are compared with Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) satellite data. Modelled O3 anomalies from all solar flux data sets show good agreement with the observations, despite the different flux variations. The off-line CTM reproduces these changes through dynamical information contained in the analyses. A notable feature during this period is a robust positive solar signal in the tropical middle stratosphere, which is due to realistic dynamical changes in our simulations. Ozone changes in the lower mesosphere cannot be used to discriminate between solar flux data sets due to large uncertainties and the short time span of the observations. Overall this study suggests that, in a CTM, the UV variations detected by SORCE are not necessary to reproduce observed stratospheric O3 changes during 2001–2010.





> From the Introduction to the paper:
> 
> The Sun is the primary source of energy to the Earth’s atmosphere, so it is essential to understand the influence that solar flux variations may have on the climate system. This can be studied by investigating the effect of 11 yr solar flux variations on the atmosphere. *Although total solar irradiance (TSI) shows only a small variation ( 0.1% per solar cycle), significant (up to 100 %) variations are observed in the ultraviolet (UV) region of the solar spectrum. In a “top-down” mechanism, these UV changes are thought to modify middle atmospheric (lower mesospheric and stratospheric) O3 [ozone] production, thereby indirectly altering background temperatures* (for a review see Gray et al., 2010). *These temperature changes can then modulate upward propagating planetary waves, and amplify the solar signal in stratospheric O3 and temperatures. The temperature changes will also affect the rates of chemical reactions which control ozone. This mechanism has been well accepted.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds 4 Alaskan glaciers are about the same size as during the Medieval Warm Period

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Fluctuations of four valley glaciers in coastal south-central Alaska are reconstructed for the past two millennia. Tree-ring crossdates on 216 glacially killed stumps and logs provide the primary age control, and are integrated with glacial stratigraphy, ages of living trees on extant landforms, and historic forefield photographs to constrain former ice margin positions. Sheridan Glacier shows four distinct phases of *advance*: in the 530s to c.640s in the First Millennium A.D., and the 1240s to 1280s, 1510s to 1700s, and *c.1810s to 1860s during the Little Ice Age (LIA).* The latter two LIA advances are also recorded on the forefields of nearby Scott, Sherman and Saddlebag glaciers. Comparison of the Sheridan record with other two-millennia long tree-ring constrained valley glacier histories from south-central Alaska and Switzerland shows the same four intervals of advance. These expansions were coeval with decreases in insolation, *supporting solar irradiance as the primary pacemaker for centennial-scale fluctuations of mid-latitude valley glaciers prior to the 20th century.* Volcanic aerosols, coupled atmospheric-oceanic systems, and local glacier-specific effects may be important to glacier fluctuations as supplemental forcing factors, for causing decadal-scale differences between regions, and as a climatic filter affecting the magnitude of advances.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

So sleepy... <yawn>

Greens Give Gore 2 Thumbs Down: Gore’s climate ‘reality’ show faces strongly negative reviews from his fellow global warming activists 



> *It was cringe-worthy*, quite dull, and sadly not very compelling...I'm still left with the overwhelming feeling that Gore's time is over' -- 'Presenting climate change as an irrefutable, global scientific consensus does not work. People do not want to hear from a former US V.P. with a briefcase full of academic honours and *a clear agenda*'


Bold mine.

Don't know about the rest of you but I spent the day pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with the Hawg, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by opening and drinking beers and pumping soot & CO2 into the atmosphere with a backyard campfire.

Here's lookin' at ya, Al...


----------



## FeXL

On oceanic evidence of the Medieval Warm Period.

Medieval Warm Period (The World's Oceans) -- Summary



> Yes, climate change is real ... just like the world's climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it's the norm. And in the several oceanic studies briefly reviewed above, as well as studies pertaining to the terrestrial surface of the planet, *earth's climate has been recognized as having shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that appears not yet to have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period,* as is also demonstrated by the hundreds of other such studies reviewed on the co2science.org website. And since none of these "warm-ups," as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air's CO2 concentration (which hovered around 285 ppm until the Industrial Revolution started it on its upward course towards today's 400 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th century warming of the globe was driven by concurrent anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

CMIP3 and CMIP5 Wind Stress Climatology



> *What was learned*
> The five researchers state that (1) "generally speaking, there is a lack of significant improvement of CMIP5 over CMIP3," that (2) "the CMIP ensemble-average zonal wind stress has eastward biases at mid-latitude westerly wind regions (30°-50°N and 30°-50°S, with CMIP being too strong by as much as 55%)," that (3) there are "westward biases in subtropical-tropical easterly wind regions (15°-25°N and 15°-25°S)," that (4) there are "westward biases at high-latitude regions (poleward of 55°S and 55°N)" that "correspond to too strong anticyclonic (cyclonic) wind stress curl over the subtropical (subpolar) ocean gyres," that (5) "in the equatorial Atlantic and Indian Oceans, CMIP ensemble zonal wind stresses are too weak and result in too small of an east-west gradient of sea level," that (6) "in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, CMIP zonal wind stresses are too weak in the central and too strong in the western Pacific," and that (7) "the CMIP [models] as a whole overestimate the magnitude of seasonal variability by almost 50% when averaged over the entire global ocean."


----------



## FeXL

The Little Ice Age: Its Relevance for Interpreting Modern Warming



> *What it means*
> _These facts clearly demonstrate that the most recent warming of the globe - which brought the earth to its current state of warmth (which is still far less than levels that were reached at earlier times in the Holocene) - began at the very coldest point of the current interglacial._ Thus, there is no reason to think it out of the ordinary that the planet would subsequently experience a strong warming, or that the latter portion of that warming would be in any way unusual, unnatural or unprecedented (especially since it actually ceased over a decade and a half ago). In fact, it was no more unnatural than the cooling that had brought the plane's temperature down to that earlier and truly unique cold point in time. We should be thankful for what 20th-century warming has done for both us and the rest of the biosphere in rescuing us from the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.


Italics mine.


----------



## FeXL

On the logarithmic effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Annoying Idea Circulating Among Skeptics



> *Eighty percent of the current CO2 portion of the greenhouse effect occurs in the first 50 PPM*, and 400 PPM is well past the knee of the curve. Going from 400 PPM to 550 PPM will have only a tiny effect on the energy balance in the atmosphere.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

What NSIDC Is Hiding



> Note the huge increase in the amount of white colored ice, which they used to call 5+ ice, but now call 4+ ice. Normally they publish a graph showing the extent of ice by age vs. year, but they didn’t include that graph this year.


My guess is that they'd have a difficult time 'splainin' the issues...


----------



## FeXL

New film puts Al Gore’s ‘climate reality’ nonsense about climate and carbon tax into perspective



> I’m going to tell you something very few are willing to tell you. Al Gore is a con man. I know that’s not politically correct and it’s something more polite commentators try to avoid but we can avoid it no longer. When your principal residence is a 10,000-square-foot mansion that uses 10 times the power of the average American home even after you’ve supposedly “greened” it, you’re a hypocrite. When you own multiple other homes, a humongous house boat and *fly around the world in private jets you are not green, no matter how much you pay in silly “carbon offsets.”* Gore is not some miserly power-pincher who recycles dental floss and sacrifices his life for the cause. His carbon footprint is on par with the Queen of England yet he lectures us and scolds us about our own power consumption.


Bold mine.

More:



> The fact of the matter is Al Gore is neck deep in so-called green investments that stand to make him hundreds of millions of dollars. *Much of it is subsidized by the U.S. government* [read: the taxpayer] and a sizable chunk has already gone down the drain.


Bold mine.

One doesn't even have to wonder how passionate the Goracle would be about "The Cause" if these green investments weren't nearly as lucrative.

Yet another reason why gov't needs to stay the hell out of business...


----------



## FeXL

Record Antarctic ice coverage & volume.

Stunner: Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute Confirms Antarctic Sea Ice May Have Reached Record VOLUME!



> With respect to global warming it seems to be a paradox that this year sea ice in the Southern Ocean has reached the highest extent in the last decades. *It was only in the mid 1970s that a similar sea ice extent had been observed.*


Bold from the link.

I recall the 70's. Wasn't that about the time that scientists were predicting another ice age? Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Canada has faulty climate models too? Who knew?

Epic Failure of the Canadian Climate Model



> The climate model produces one of the most extreme warming projections of all the 30 models evaluated by the IPCC. (See Note 1.) The model badly fails to match the surface and atmosphere temperature observations, both globally, regionally, as presented in six graphs.


Par for the course...


----------



## FeXL

Questions, questions...

Claim: Last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years in the Arctic, but not so fast



> The claim is that these plants haven’t been exposed for thousands of years, as dated by the C14 isotope.
> 
> _At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago._​
> That might be true, but then again they are long dead, so there wouldn’t be any uptake of new C14 if they were exposed to the open air in the past. There’s no claim that the mosses are now suddenly alive and growing again. So, if they had been “exposed to the elements” since then, they would not have an new C14 in them unless they came back to life and conducted photosynthesis.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Global Warming causing more storms.

Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years



> The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season looks set to go down as a big washout, marking the first time in 45 years that the strongest storm to form was just a minor Category 1 hurricane.


----------



## FeXL

Foster, Grant & Scooter at it again.

Tamino Resorts to Childish Attempts at Humor But Offers Nothing of Value


----------



## FeXL

Truth in the UN's “Green Climate Fund”

Long Green



> I offer this as context for what I found when I got to wondering what had happened to the United Nations “Green Climate Fund”. You may recall that the Green Climate Fund was set up by the UN as the only result of the most recent Rio de Janeiro conference on climate idiocy. When the Fund is going full throttle, it is supposed to disburse no less than $200 billion ($200,000,000,000) dollars each and every year to the developing countries.


More:



> And that means that of the $7.5 million dollars donated by taxpayers all over the world, the people in the developing countries will get …
> 
> None.


There's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Miller's Moss.

More Moss from Miller



> Gifford Miller’s most recent study on radiocarbon dates of Baffin Island moss has attracted recent publicity, including covers at Judy Curry, WUWT and Jim Bouldin, due to its claim to have demonstrated that the present is the warmest in 44000 years.


Much of the story in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

So, a model, non-CO2 based, comes up with errors 1/7 of IPCC's. Who knew?

Scientific Forecasts, Not Scenarios, For Climate Policy



> The IPCC modelers were apparently unaware of the many decades of research on forecasting methods. I along with Dr. Kesten Green conducted an audit of the procedures used to create the IPCC scenarios. We found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles.


So, with little to no empirical evidence and their precious models something just this side of garbage, what do they have left?

Let the warmist screeching begin...


----------



## FeXL

There has been some new research presented recently that indicates the negative effects of cholesterol may have been overstated. Australia's ABC program _Catalyst_ examines how this came about, endorsing the recent findings. The startling thing to many people in this story is the parallels with CAGW theory...

Catalyst says consensus wrong on cholesterol – but unquestionable on climate



> On the ABC program Catalyst this week, Dr Maryanne Demasi slayed a few dietary myths–like, cholesterol and saturated fat cause heart disease.
> 
> *She described how medical science was distorted for decades by the influence of money, and how one key researcher networked his way to the top of an influential association, casting ad hom insults at his competitor, ridiculing him, and calling his rival theory about sugar “quackery”. The personal attacks and name-calling worked, and for fifty years people have been paranoid of cholesterol, and scoffing corn syup instead, while study after study showed that that approach was not working.*
> 
> Everything said about the processes in this tale could be equally well said about climate science: Correlation is not causation. Weak, flawed studies can be cherry picked while good studies are ignored. Associations can be taken over by one activist. Large financial interests distort science.


My bold.

Doesn't sound familiar at all, does it...


----------



## FeXL

A billion bucks a day. But it's the sceptics with all that big oil backing who are the threat...

Nearly $1 billion a day to change the climate…



> Here’s a stark statistic that came out last week in a new report: The Climate Industry draws in nearly $1 billion dollars a day. But here’s an ominous combination: … it openly admits that taxpayer money is its “engine-room”. Reading between the lines below, this industry is almost completely dependent on domestic policies that funnel money from citizens to itself, and tilts the playing field — without those policies, it can’t attract much private money. That is, it can only get money at least partially by coercion, people won’t give it money purely voluntarily. These same groups want even more — they want the public to take the risks too. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the global warming bias.

Nebraska climate scientists’ heads stuck in the topsoil



> So this news story about the Nebraska state legislature wanting to fund a (relatively small, $44,000) study of natural climate cycles might seem like a welcome (albeit small) step in the right direction.
> 
> The problem is…so far, *no Nebraska researchers will touch research money that doesn’t have humans-to-blame as a theme.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Donna makes some interesting observations based on a graph by Roy Spencer, modified by Howard Hayden. Take a look at the second graph at the link.

The IPCC: Looking 95% Foolish



> Contrary to what any normal person would expect, *as the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct.*
> 
> In 2001, it thought it likely that human activity is responsible for much of the warming that has occurred since 1950. In 2007, it said this was very likely. Last month, it declared it extremely likely.


Further:



> The IPCC is now the sweaty, haggard gambler at the roulette table. Having lost a horrendous amount of money on the last 15 spins, it’s obvious to everyone that he should push back his chair, walk away, and endeavour to regain his sense of perspective.
> 
> Instead, the IPCC has doubled down. It has chosen to squander what remains of its reputation at twice the speed.


A I've noted elsewhere, let 'em own it...


----------



## FeXL

Couple of links here. BBC's Paul Hudson interviewed Mike Lockwood recently. Mike's opinion on climate change has changed considerably during the last 6 years.

Steven has his 2007 & his most recent observations, including Lockwood's prediction of a Maunder-like minimum, as well as a link to Hudson's article.

Settled Science Update



> In 2007, Mike Lockwood said that he had conclusive evidence that man-made CO2 was responsible for global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, he says the exact opposite


Anthony shares some correspondence from Dr. Jan Zeman on some of the same questions Lockwood presents.

Solar spectral irradiance, UV, and declining solar activity – a Maunder Minimum mechanism for cooler temperature?



> The paper discusses quite very surprising results from the SORCE spectral irradiance data, comparing it to other spectral data and models available, suggesting that spectral radiance variability throughout solar cycle could be considerably higher than thought until now, especially in the UV regions.
> 
> [This has] significant implications for atmospheric chemistry and its modeling, while also suggesting that the spectral variability in some other important regions of the solar spectrum (visible and >1μm IR) is not in phase with solar cycle – which I think is potentially another huge elephant in the room for CAGW.


Steven also notes:



> Just as scientists are starting to come to their senses, the LA Times bans any letters which don’t emphasize discredited science.


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

So, the thrust here is that the IPCC reconstructed past southern hemisphere temperatures and used no data from Antarctica. As a matter of fact, 



> The answer, rather remarkably, is that IPCC’s SH temperature reconstructions in their signature spaghetti graph (Figure 5.7b) used *California bristlecone* chronologies, *upside down Tiljander *and *European instrumental temperature data*, but did not use Antarctic isotope data covering the medieval period.


The IPCC Southern Hemisphere Reconstructions

Sure, there is crossover between the two hemispheres but, c'mon...


----------



## FeXL

I generally don't post much on the benefits of additional CO2 in the atmosphere because the next group of fruit loops & whackos will surely suggest that we should pump it up to 1000ppm.

That said, Obama's been pushing the whole "social cost of carbon" thing without acknowledging the "social benefit of carbon".

Obama's 'social cost of carbon' is at odds with science & ignores 'social benefits of carbon' 



> The social cost of carbon is supposed to be a complete accounting of the market externalities, *both positive and negative*, resulting from carbon dioxide emissions released by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas.
> 
> *But as its name implies, the government's accounting of the social cost of carbon focuses almost entirely on conjured "costs" while ignoring proven "benefits" of carbon dioxide emissions.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

More "green job" smoke & mirrors.

Another Green Flop: Cameron’s Green Jobs Promise Goes Up In Smoke



> The Green Deal, the government’s flagship home energy-saving scheme, which was meant to create up to 60,000 jobs by 2015, has instead caused up to 7,000 redundancies, with more likely to follow.


----------



## FeXL

Bill McKibben says wind is cheap as coal. Jo Nova says “so who needs a carbon tax then?”

Why, indeed?


----------



## FeXL

I've posted links to two articles recently on Miller's Moss in the Arctic. Here is a third, giving a somewhat lengthy but non-technical summary. She asks some pertinent questions. Very good read.

Unprecedented(?) Arctic warming. Part II


----------



## FeXL

I've noted this before. One of my favourite movie lines of all time comes from _Excalibur_. At the end of a battle where they are celebrating victory, Merlin tells King Arthur & his men, "The doom of man is to forget."

It’s Back Again To The Global Cooling Headlines Of The 1970s … Climate Science Now Clearly In Total Confusion, Chaos!



> In the 1940s and 50s, amid the Arctic meltdown, climate scientists back then warned of an ice-free Arctic and a warming planet.


----------



## FeXL

Good news from NOAA: coral reefs can adapt to warming

(With the usual nod to anthropogenic CO2 contributions, despite the fact that, of all the CO2 being generated on the planet, humans contribute ~4% of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2. Helluva tail wagging that dog, no?)

Oh, look, they did some models!



> “Earlier modeling work suggested that coral reefs would be gone by the middle of this century. Our study shows that if corals can adapt to warming that has occurred over the past 40 to 60 years, some coral reefs may persist through the end of this century,” said study lead author Cheryl Logan, Ph.D., an assistant professor in California State University Monterey Bay’s Division of Science and Environmental Policy. The scientists from the university, and from the University of British Columbia, were NOAA’s partners in the study.


And big surprise, models haven't matched empirical observation.

I wonder how the corals managed to squeak by the multiple near death experiences over the course of the Holocene when temps were higher than they are now. (Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, etc.) Not only that, but at the time these corals evolved, CO2 concentrations & global temps were both higher than today.


----------



## FeXL

Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5



> The CAGW meme is built on the outputs of climate models. Many of the modelers and IPCC and Met Office scientific chiefs had a background in weather forecasting. *In spite of the inability of the weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, in an act of almost unbelievable hubris and stupidity, the modelers allowed themselves to believe, or at least proclaim, that they knew enough about the physical processes and climate driving factors involved to forecast global temperatures for decades and centuries ahead.* Indeed, many establishment scientists appear to think that humanity can dial up a desired global temperature by keeping CO2 within some appropriate limit. What arrant nonsense!


----------



## FeXL

Miller's Arctic Moss paper is generating quite a stir. I posted a link to a post by Judith Curry a couple days back, she has updated that post with a reply by the paper's lead author, Giff Miller.


Unprecedented(?) Arctic warming. Part II (updated)

There's another analysis here:



> There’s a new study out in GRL (press release), the third (at least) in the last couple of years using plant remains that have been newly uncovered by receding ice caps in Greenland and Baffin Island to estimate the most recent date at which temperatures must have been about the same as current. I’ve now seen four numerous notices on Twitter about it, and a popular media story on it has just popped up. That story contains the basic storyline statement: “…summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic are higher today than they’ve been in at least 44,000 years, and are likely the warmest they’ve been in 120,000 years.”


And one more here:

Extreme Cherry-Picking "Science" Exposed In Newest Alarmist Arctic Climate Study - Moss-Picking Debunked, Unequivocally



> The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim.


Hmmm...

Just for colour, I'll include a link to an article by Richard Telford endorsing Miller's findings.

“Unprecedented” – skeptic flypaper

It's pretty bitter but worth a quick peruse, just to see how the dark side lives.


----------



## FeXL

Curry has another post, this one on models.

Implications for climate models of their disagreement with observations

Much of the story in the comments. This one in particular stood out for me:



> *Almost every field of engineering uses modeling and simulation now to great benefit to society. But the models have to be validated in the real world.* F1 uses CFD to simulate their cars on each track prior to going to the track, and they are very good (iirc within fractions of a sec), but they still do not get the exact lap time as their driver does on the real track.
> I worked for one of the first 3 electronics design and simulation companies when they first became a commercial venture, I’ve build hundreds of models, and run thousands of different circuit simulations showing the value to the engineers who designed those circuits. It’s all about the models, *CGM’s were hijacked by environmental activists, and the developer are absolutely convinced they’re right, but their results prove they are wrong.* When they finally decide they need to change their theories, change their models, progress in useful models can resume. *Models and simulations are good useful things, when the models is accurate, worthless when they are not.*


Bold mine.


----------



## MacDoc

nothing new here...it's getting warmer
we're responsible..



> *Unprecedented warming uncovered in Pacific depths*
> 
> * 18:30 31 October 2013 by Michael Marshall
> * For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> The effects of climate change are being felt almost a kilometre down in the biggest ocean on Earth.
> 
> A new record of water temperatures shows how the Pacific has warmed and cooled since the last ice age.* It shows that the ocean has warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than at any time in the previous 10,000.*
> 
> The fact that the heat of global warming is penetrating deep into the oceans is yet more evidence that we are dramatically warming the planet, says Yair Rosenthal of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, who led the study.
> Time capsules
> 
> To take the temperature of the ancient Pacific, Rosenthal's team turned to the preserved remains of single-celled organisms called foraminifera.
> 
> Each "foram" builds a hard shell around itself, and the amount of magnesium in the shell varies depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. By measuring the amount of the mineral in the shells, it is possible to work out the temperature of the water in which the forams lived.
> 
> Rosenthal examined preserved forams found in sediments from the seas around Indonesia. These seas receive water from the north and south Pacific, so their temperature should reflect the average across the entire Pacific. He focused on three species, which lived at different depths, giving him a measure of temperature changes between 500 and 900 metres deep.
> Heat spike
> 
> *Rosenthal found that after a period of warming following the end of the last ice age, the Pacific steadily cooled by 2.1 °C over the next 9000 years. Temperatures then shot up at an unprecedented rate: increasing by 0.25 °C in 200 years. The timing of the uptick reflects the onset of the industrial revolution.*
> 
> Similar temperature trends are known to have happened over land – encapsulated in the famous hockey stick graph.
> 
> It takes more energy to heat water by 1°C than it does to heat the same mass of air, so the oceans act as a gigantic heat sink that shields us from the effects of global warming.
> 
> "If we didn't have the ocean, we would be much warmer", says Rosenthal.
> 
> Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837


Unprecedented warming uncovered in Pacific depths - environment - 31 October 2013 - New Scientist


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> nothing new here...it's getting warmer
> we're responsible..
> 
> 
> 
> Unprecedented warming uncovered in Pacific depths - environment - 31 October 2013 - New Scientist


So what this paper purports is that: 

1. The Medieval Warm Period was real and that it was global in scope.
2. The Pacific was much warmer 8,000 years ago than it is today. It cooled down and then recovered a little of that heat in recent centuries.
3. Biological temperature proxies provide equally accurate temperature data for recent years and 10,000 years ago, determining reported temperature variations within the expected normal margin of error for such proxies. They not only provide accurate temperature data, but their little husks can be accurately dated to within decades, even if they died in 8000 BC.

I can buy 1 and 2, but not 3.


----------



## FeXL

So, new paper out, _Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years_. One of the findings is that the Medeval Warming Period was global in nature. That won't be much of a surprise to anybody who has been following this thread.

What is most revealing is that, via sediment proxies, they have evidence indicating that the Pacific Ocean (covering nearly half the planet and straddling both hemispheres) was 2.1°, ±0.4° warmer than today. Imagine that. And no global die offs, no mass extinctions, of corals or anything else. Frigging amazing...

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.



Anthony has a link to a video interview with two of the authors:

New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope

The Hockey Stick as additional visuals:

New paper finds Pacific Ocean has been significantly warmer than the present throughout vast majority of past 10,000 years 

Lubos Motl comments:

ScienceMag: Medieval Warm Period global, 0.65 °C warmer than present

Judith Curry provides the press release, some text from Revkin's video interview as well as a link to & comments from a piece in HufPo by Michael (High Stick) Mann on the paper:

Pacific Ocean Heat Content for the Past 10,000 years

Mann makes this observation:



> _Finally, we need to maintain a healthy skepticism about broad conclusions about global climate based drawn from one specific region like the tropical IndoPacific._​


The irony of this statement is hilarious, coming from a guy who based large portions of his research on a single tree (If you've seen one tree, you've seen Yamal) and upside-down sedimentology (Tiljander).


----------



## FeXL

Sigh...

Claim: El Nino events get more extreme as globe warms

Abstract (open access paper)



> It is vital to understand how the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has responded to past changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings, in order to better understand and predict its response to future greenhouse warming. *To date, however, the instrumental record is too brief to fully characterize natural ENSO variability, while large discrepancies exist amongst paleo-proxy reconstructions of ENSO.* These paleo-proxy reconstructions have typically attempted to reconstruct ENSO's temporal evolution, rather than the variance of these temporal changes. Here a new approach is developed that synthesizes the variance changes from various proxy data sets to provide a unified and updated estimate of past ENSO variance. The method is tested using surrogate data from two coupled general circulation model (CGCM) simulations. It is shown that in the presence of dating uncertainties, synthesizing variance information provides a more robust estimate of ENSO variance than synthesizing the raw data and then identifying its running variance. We also examine whether good temporal correspondence between proxy data and instrumental ENSO records implies a good representation of ENSO variance. In the climate modeling framework we show that a significant improvement in reconstructing ENSO variance changes is found when combining information from diverse ENSO-teleconnected source regions, rather than by relying on a single well-correlated location. This suggests that ENSO variance estimates derived from a single site should be viewed with caution. Finally, synthesizing existing ENSO reconstructions to arrive at a better estimate of past ENSO variance changes, we find robust evidence that the ENSO variance for any 30 yr period during the interval 1590–1880 was considerably lower than that observed during 1979–2009.


Bold mine.

Second comment nails it:



> The researchers admit: “the instrumental record is too brief to fully characterize natural ENSO variability” but still they attempt to predict future ENSO events. Since they don’t have enough data, they cook it up in those famously accurate Global Climate Models. Anyone see a problem with trying to predict the future when you don’t have enough data to understand the past?


----------



## FeXL

OK. One of the claims by warmists is that if the earth's temperature raises by 2° we will pass some sort of catastrophic "tipping point" that the planet will never recover from. This despite temperature reconstructions from the Paleozoic & Mesozoic eras that show we have been higher than that 2° cutoff many times & for millions of years.

That said, in light of the paper at the top of this page and the summary evidence that we've also had that 2° of warmth relatively recently, I give you this:

How long before we reach the catastrophic 2°C warming?



> The other day I conducted a presentation using the UK CET, like I have on several occasions. Along with explaining it as the longest recognised instrumental record of historical temperature anywhere on Earth, it is the best record we have to understand long the past.
> 
> As part of this presentation I point out that the temperature from 1659 to 2012 has only increased 0.87 Deg C in 353 years, or equivalent to 0.025 Deg C/decade. Considering this is a recovery period from the Little Ice Age it is hardly surprising and just part of natural variation. At this stage I normally get a few “really?” questions.
> 
> “The UK MetOffice’s own figures”, I reply.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale gives his September global surface temperature summary.

September 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update



> This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+ and 16 years using UKMO global historical surface temperature anomalies (HADCRUT4) data. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since the 1970s for the 12-year trends, or about 1980 for the 16-year trends.


----------



## FeXL

Further discussion of the possibility of another impending "Maunder-like" minimum.

Growing Risk Of A Maunder Minimum 'Little Ice Age'? 



> Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century. Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium. The comparisons have sparked a furious exchange of views between observers who believe the planet could be on the brink of another period of cooling, and scientists who insist there is no evidence that temperatures are about to fall. In all fairness, Russian scientists have warned over a decade ago that the Earth will enter a mini ice age period.


----------



## FeXL

It's well known that the surface thermometer record has received periodic adjustments, with with little to no corresponding explanation. In the article linked below there is evidence of the satellite sea level record receiving similar tailoring...

Satellite sea level data has been "adjusted" upward by 34% over past 9 years alone 



> There are many documented examples of sea level data from satellite altimeters being "adjusted" upward many years after publication, often repeatedly on the same data, and in defiance of the laws of probability, always in an upward direction. Seven documented examples can be found in the links in this post. *A recent comment in a sea level article on the Yale Environment 360 site documents another example of sea level data being adjusted upward by 34% [by 1 mm/yr, equivalent to an additional 4 inches per century] over the 9 years since it was collected and published on the University of Colorado website.*


Bold mine.

One question: Why?


----------



## FeXL

There's been some talk on this thread about paradigms. For history on paradigm shifts, enter "Thomas Kuhn" in your favorite online search engine. An aside: I don't like Google's lack of privacy and haven't used Google in years. Use StartPage or DuckDuckGo instead.

That said, to the article:

A Sea Change for Climate Science?



> Remember Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shift? According to his _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, theories change only when anomalous observations stress the ”dominant paradigm” to the point that it becomes untenable. Until then, failure of a result to conform to the prevailing paradigm is not seen as refuting the dominant theory, but explained away as a mistake of the researchers, errors in the data, within the range of uncertainty, and so on. *Only at the point of crisis does science become open to a new paradigm. So, does Kuhn inform the current climate debate, help identify important information or an alternative paradigm?*


Bold mine.

Good question. Is the dominant paradigm in climate science tenable?



> Climate skeptics don’t want to say we told you so but, well, we told you so. Even though we do not yet have an accepted theory of solar influence, *there are 25 unique models in the AR5-sponsored CIMP5 archive, most with a climate sensitivity untenable on observations from the last decade.*
> 
> Take out Occam’s razor and cull them – deep and hard.


Bold mine.

Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

Top of this page is a post with a couple of links about the new paper by Rosenthal, _et al._ about Pacific Ocean heat content. It's been under the microscope by both sides of the argument, each making various claims how it shores up their side of the argument. Mikey Mann's been cherry-picking away, recall the link to his article in HufPo.

Steve McIntyre puts some of that to rest in his usual thorough fashion.

Rosenthal et al 2013



> The article itself presents a Holocene temperature reconstruction that is very much at odds both with Marcott et al 2013 and Mann et al 2008. And, only a few weeks after IPCC expressed great confidence in the non-worldwideness of the Medieval Warm Period, Rosenthal et al 2013 argued that the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Optimum were all global events.
> 
> Although (or perhaps because) the article apparently contradicts heroes of the revolution, Rosenthal et al 2013 included a single sentence of genuflection to CAGW:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3)._
> 
> 
> 
> In the Columbia and Rutgers press releases accompanying the article, this claim was ratcheted up into the much more grandiose assertion that modern warming is “15 times faster” than in previous warming cycles over the past 10,000 years (though the term “15 times faster” is not actually made in the peer reviewed article):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather than quoting the article itself, Michael Mann, an academic activist at Penn State University, repeated the claim from the press release in an article at Huffington Post entitled “Pacific Ocean Warming at Fastest Rate in 10,000 Years”.
Click to expand...

He sums:



> Given all the publicity about the supposed unprecedentedness of the recent increase in Rosenthal et al 2013, *the data in the article offers little support for the assertion that the modern rate of increase is 15 times greater than any previous increase – or, indeed, for the weaker proposition that the modern increase is unprecedented.* Moreover, it stands against claims that modern temperatures are themselves unprecedented, not only within the Holocene, but within the last two millennia.


Mikey, Mikey, Mikey...


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

NYTimes Calls this Blog ‘Hostile’ to the IPCC



> Gillis reports:
> 
> _The leak of the new draft occurred on a blog hostile to the intergovernmental panel. [link to this site in the original]_​
> That’s one way of putting it. Another way would have been to observe that this blog is written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise – the author of two books about the IPCC.


Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes:



> “If you want to make a conservative angry — lie to him. If you want to make a liberal angry — tell him the truth.” -Unknown


Gillis must be one of them there progressives...

You go, girl!


----------



## FeXL

Two of warmist's best have teamed together & produced another steaming pile, _The Subterranean War on Science_. The horror! Yup, Mikey Mann & Stephan Lewandowsky.

Mann and Lewandowsky go psychotic on climate skeptics



> Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky have a new paper out that redefines the term “climate ugliness”. Apparently FOIA requests are “harassment”. And Internet blogs “wrongly sidestep peer-reviewed literature”. Oh Mann, tell that to the IPCC who used magazine articles as sources for AR4. The title suggests all this is happening “subterranean” when in fact blogs are all out in the open, while Dr. Mann continues to fight expensive legal battles to hide his publicly funded emails at the University of Virginia and imagines the Koch brothers behind every virtual rock and tree.


Funny, the paper doesn't come across as the author's telegraphing themselves at all. 

No, really.

There is one statement in the article I endorse wholeheartedly:



> As in most cases of intimidation and bullying, we believe that daylight is the best disinfectant.


Bingo, boyz. How's about we start with some emails, Mikey. The ones you've gone to court to suppress? Then we could talk about some code & data from a few of your papers which hasn't seen the light of day yet, either.

Oh, the iron...


----------



## FeXL

About that canary in the coal mine...

Most Arctic Sea Ice For A Decade


----------



## FeXL

Easterbrook takes on Miller's Moss.

Miller et al.’s “Unprecedented Recent Summer Warmth in Arctic Canada”: Bad assumptions, poor logic, and contrary to other evidence of Arctic temperatures.



> Miller et al. radiocarbon dated 145 rooted tundra plants revealed by receding ice in the eastern Canadian Arctic and contend that it constitutes the first direct evidence that recent temperatures now exceed those of any century in the Holocene, including the Holocene Thermal Maximum. They further contend that (1) average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years were higher than any century in the past 44,000 years and suggest that present temperatures have not been exceeded in the past ~120,000 years, at or near the end of the last interglaciation, and (2) they conclude that this ‘unprecedented’ warming was caused by anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases. So let’s look at some of the assumptions that form the basis for their conclusions and compare their conclusions to other Arctic data.


He asks some interesting & pointed questions, then sums as follows:



> From the foregoing data and analyses, what is abundantly clear is that the Miller et al. paper is so badly flawed with unwarranted assumptions, poorly thought out assertions, and astonishingly bad logic that their conclusion “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be considered valid. How could reputable scientists come to such incorrect conclusions? Perhaps the last sentence in their conclusions section gives us a clue: “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.” Even if the conclusions in the paper were correct, they wouldn’t prove anything about CO2 as the cause of climatic warming, so this statement suggests that the real purpose of the paper was to push CO2 at the expense of objective science.


Good read, lots of visuals to aid his dissection.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard illustrates the adjustments to the US surface temperature record.

NASA : Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures



> As of 1999, NASA showed that US temperatures peaked in the 1930s, and had been declining sharply ever since. Note that 1934 was more than half a degree warmer than 1998 in the 1999 GISS graph below.


Again, why? And, almost invariably, why is the past cooling & the present warming? It's statistically nearly impossible...


----------



## FeXL

Further debunking warmist claims of more severe weather.

US Tornado Count So Low That It’s Invaded The Legend…



> US Tornadoes are currently on pace for a record low annual tornado count, which has penetrated deep into the legend in the graph above and is relevant globally, as the US represents about 75 percent of the world’s recorded tornadoes.


The interesting thing about this small number is that NOAA has far superior tools to track tornadoes than they did decades ago. Tornadoes which may have passed beneath the radar (pun intended) in the 70's are now being counted. So, even with those extra tornadoes, there is a record low approaching.


----------



## FeXL

Good post on the statistics of "The Pause". Nick Stokes provides additional commentary. Much of the discussion continues in the comments.

Statistical Significances – How Long Is “The Pause”? (Now Includes September Data)



> RSS for October has just come out and the value was 0.207. As a result, RSS has now reached the 204 month or 17 year mark. The slope over the last 17 years is -0.000122111 per year.


In a similar vein:

RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years



> And of course, 204 months is equal to 17 years. In the “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale” Benjamin Santer et al. stated that:
> 
> _“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”_​


Related, in comments from the first link in the post:



> _Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
> ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’_​


Wonder if anyone is worried yet.

That said, again, much of the story in the comments of the second link. Love the humour in the first one. Great summary of the situation from rgbatduke (RG Brown, Physics, Duke University).


----------



## FeXL

For reason unknown, I rarely link to the Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup. Today I include it.

One of the topics they address is the new Executive Order signed by Obama on Friday regarding climate weirding, or whatever it's called this week.



> The new executive order states: “The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. *These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges,* and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures.”


Bold mine.

He must be talking about Obamacare, no?

That said, take a look at the balance of his list. Regular readers here will know just how far out of touch with reality this guy is...


----------



## FeXL

William Briggs writes briefly about the mess from Lewandowsky & Mann.

The Supraterranean War On Sanity: Scientists Versus Civilians



> He and his co-authors are amazed—amazed!—that after years of nannying the citizenry over how much pop they can drink, what time they should go to bed; that after decades of stridently insisting that citizens should stay away from deadly potato chips, ice cream, popcorn; after the increasing hectoring of citizens about the sacking in which they carry their groceries, of what type of water containers are forbidden and on and on and ever on, that *citizens are beginning to push back and tell the experts to mind their own damn business.*


Bold mine.

Yup.

Further:



> Mann is a pest, an intellectual lightweight who in his imagination sees himself sparring with the big boys, but who puts on his glasses and whimpers at the first sign of trouble. Somebody dared asked for proof of his statistical, government-funded ravings and the poor dear was reduced to a blubbering mess.


Again, yup...


----------



## FeXL

S. Fred Singer of the NIPCC posts about three areas of criticism levied against the AR5 SPM.

Non-governmental climate scientists slam the UN's IPCC



> The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of their Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of its fifth assessment report (AR5) on September 27, 2013. This new SPM reveals that the IPCC has retreated from about a dozen alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists who are prominently associated with the IPCC. Their SPM also contains more than a dozen misleading or untrue statements, plus about another dozen statements that mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.


Some of this has been addressed before. A refresher is always good.


----------



## FeXL

Joanne writes about Rosenthal _et al._

Ocean heat content around Indonesia shows Medieval Warm Period and 2C warmth in holocene



> Rosenthal et al have put out quite a humdinger of a paper. They’ve reconstructed the temperature of the water flowing out of the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last 10,000 years and as deep as 900m. The Indonesian Throughflow is pretty significant in global ocean currents. There’s narrow routes for Pacific upper waters to squeeze through to the Indian Ocean through the Makassar and Lombok Straits, and via the Lifamatola Passage through the Banda Sea, and water comes in from both the North and South Pacific.


Further:



> Points to note (assuming the study is right):
> 
> 1. Temperatures started rising around 1700AD – long before our carbon emissions.
> 2. That temperatures were much warmer (0.65C) in 1100AD than they were in 1950.
> 3. 8,000 years ago water was 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer — isn’t that meant to be a global catastrophe? Apparently coral reefs, fish, and turtles survived.


Wait...on point 3. Haven't we heard that somewhere else?


----------



## FeXL

There was a paper that came out a couple days back, categorizing some scientists' scepticism as to branch of science they were studying. I didn't link to it then, didn't find it that interesting. Judith Curry does so here. The reason I include it today is because of a comment she made about "consensus".

Chemistry’s climate of skepticism

The comment:




> Agreed that very uninteresting and un-illuminating questions are being asked in most of these surveys. Bray and von Storch seem to be asking the most meaningful questions.
> 
> While in ‘normal’ science, you would expect a range of perspectives on a topic where there is acknowledged uncertainty and ignorance, in climate science with its manufactured consensus, clearly draws the line between two camps. A totally crazy situation (well an unscientific one anyways). *I always find it to be encouraging when there are signs of scientists thinking for themselves about this issue, rather than reflexively signing on to agree with a manufactured consensus (a manufactured consensus is one that arises from an explicit consensus building activity; in fact, any topic where one is discussing the existence or not of a consensus pretty much tells you that it is a manufactured consensus.)*


My bold.

Bingo.

I would extend her statement to include non-scientists, as well. As I've noted before: Question everything. Don't turn into a sheep being led to slaughter.


----------



## FeXL

Recall all the horror stories about the Maldives Islands falling prey to rising sea levels? Well, developers for 30 new hotels there are saying, "Not. So. Much."

Developers Dismiss Sea Level Rise Claims – Plan To Build 30 New Luxury Hotels In The Maldives – Nasheed’s Cash Machine



> _30 additional new luxury class hotel complexes are planned for the next 6 to 10 years, never mind the countless smaller homes. Tourism is currently increasing 20% annually.”_​


Further:



> Kulke writes, _“Environmental protection in the Maldives is practically non-existent.”_
> 
> Moreover he suggests that the climate change issue is being used by Nasheed to generate lots of cash:
> 
> _At the big climate conferences – and supposedly also in Warsaw in two weeks – Nasheed meets regularly to milk cash compensation from climate-sinning countries on behalf of his country and other island nations (on which environmental protection plays a subordinate role). *Almost the entire supply of energy on the island for the millions of tourists flowing in, by the way, is produced by diesel generators, this while Nasheed continues to press for foreign countries to switch over to renewable energies.”*_​


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

The comment by Duke physics professor Dr. Robert Brown (rgbatduke) that I referenced in post 3885 yesterday has been fleshed out & elevated to a post. Again, more in the comments.

‘Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring.’



> We (the world) didn’t have an unusual number of floods, we don’t seem to have any major droughts going on, total polar ice is unremarkable, arctic ice bottomed out well within the tolerances slowly being established by its absurdly short baseline, antarctic ice set a maximum record (but just barely, hardly newsworthy) in ITS absurdly short baseline, the LTT temperatures were downright boring, and in spite of the absurdly large spikes in GASTA in GISS vs HADCRUT4 on a so-called “temperature anomaly” relative to a GAST baseline nobody can measure to within a whole degree centigrade, neither one of them did more than bounce around in near-neutral, however much the “trend” in GISS is amplified every second or third month by its extra-high endpoint.
> 
> The US spent months of the summer setting cold temperature records, but still, aside from making the summer remarkably pleasant in an anecdotal sort of way (the kind you tell your grandchildren when they experience a more extreme weather, “Eh, sonny, I remember the summer of ’13, aye, that was a good one, gentle as a virgin’s kiss outdoors it was…”) it was unremarked on at the time.


Yet, you have Obama doing his political freak thing in order to justify pushing through an executive order on climate change...


----------



## eMacMan

So I am posting this more or less as an illustration of how calculations can be tailored to show whatever one likes.

In this case we are talking about earth-like planets within the Goldiloks zone.

So far the empirical data shows an abundance of planets. They have an impressive number of non-earth-like planets in the goldiloks zone. They have even discovered a handful of earth like planets of which zero reside in the that critical zone, although I believe there is one that because it keeps the same face towards its sun may have a small habitable zone.

From this data Astronomers have managed to extrapolate at least 8.8 Billion earth-like planets in this galaxy within the Goldi-loks zone.



> WASHINGTON (AP) — Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life.
> 
> 
> Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone.
> 
> 
> The study was published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
> 
> 
> ...


An interesting and very impressive number and it could easily be exaggerated by a factor of 1000 or more.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate models – worse than we thought



> Everyone has read that over the past 10-15 years, most climate models’ forecasts of the rate of global warming have been wrong. Most predicted a hefty warming of the earth’s average surface temperature to have taken place, while there was no significant change in the real world.
> 
> But very few people know that the same situation has persisted for 25, going on 35 years, or that over the past 50-60 years (since the middle of the 20th century), the same models expected about 33 percent more warming to have taken place than was observed.


----------



## FeXL

They just about lost me at paragraph 2, with the usual nod to AGW, but there is some interesting data about ice cores.

The oldest ice core – Finding a 1.5 million-year record of Earth’s climate 



> How far into the past can ice-core records go? Scientists have now identified regions in Antarctica they say could store information about Earth’s climate and greenhouse gases extending as far back as 1.5 million years, almost twice as old as the oldest ice core drilled to date. The results are published in Climate of the Past, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).


----------



## FeXL

Like all predictions, we will have to see if this one pans out. Even if it is totally wrong, it's no worse than the GCM's...  That said:

CERN scientist says another Maunder Minimum in solar activity could occur by 2015



> Dr. Jasper Kirkby, head of the CLOUD Experiment at CERN in Geneva notes in the video lecture below that if one extrapolates the current lull in solar activity, an extended period of no sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum could occur by 2015. The Maunder Minimum was responsible for the Little Ice Age and lasted for 70 years.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Like all predictions, we will have to see if this one pans out. Even if it is totally wrong, it's no worse than the GCM's...  That said:
> 
> CERN scientist says another Maunder Minimum in solar activity could occur by 2015


I do hope they are wrong on this one as my part of the world might become nearly uninhabitable.


----------



## FeXL

Lubos talks about an article in the Boston Globe about harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon.

Boston Globe: hit piece on Willie Soon

He sums:



> There are just so many fundamentally wrong things about the integrity and morality of the likes of Christopher Rowland that it is impossible to negotiate with them. They have to be treated as what they are, the enemies of science and the human civilization. *Scum.*


Um, bold mine.

Nicely put...


----------



## FeXL

Donna has been making the headlines lately.

The IPCC’s ‘Sharpest Critic’



> A few days ago the Washington Examiner ran an article about my latest book. Written by meteorologist Anthony Sader, the piece is called The journalist and the IPCC.
> 
> My favourite line: “Her new book…is folksy in its style and compelling in its content.”
> 
> I’ve also just realized that I was quoted in the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel some weeks after I was interviewed by reporter Axel Bojanowski.


Give 'em hell...


----------



## FeXL

Want to see the US Gov't approved (read: cherry-picked) temperature trend in your locality?

Politicized Congressional Temperature Trends



> Now if skeptics did something like this, except show cherry-picked periods that showed a cooling in a larger century scale dataset, and then offer a link to say, “Heartland” touting free market solutions, our hotheaded friends would start caterwauling to high heaven. “Tamino” aka Grant Foster would have a graphical conniption fit, Gavin would issue smug proclamations on Twitter, and there would be a campaign started to discredit it.
> 
> But it’s OK when _they_ do it.


Italics from the link.

Of course it is...


----------



## FeXL

Tim Ball on warmist Spin Doctors.

Public Relations (Spin Doctors) Deliberately Deceived Public About Global Warming and Climate Change

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, on alternate religions.

John Howard: One Religion is Enough



> _“I chose the…title largely in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate substantial and and costly responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe…*To them the cause has become a substitute religion.*” _


Bold mine.

He lists 5 "broad conclusions" which are interesting, although “fracking” is a term I've been aware of for decades.

Judith closes with a quote from Dr Richard S. Lindzen:



> _“This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”_


Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

A large cyclone, Haiyan, passed through the Philippines yesterday. Although sizeable, the wind speed was not a record breaker, despite the spin doctors' best efforts.

Super Typhoon Haiyan, ‘…as intense as a tropical cyclone can get. ‘

Of course, Heidi Cullen was all over this with her own particular brand of BS about the cause being "deep warm water". 

Tisdale debunks this:



> Lots of the typical BS accumulating already about Typhoon Haiyan. Let’s push some of it aside and present the sea surface temperature anomalies for the early portion of Haiyan’s storm track.
> 
> There was nothing unusually warm about the sea surface temperature anomalies for the early portion of Typhoon Haiyan’s storm track last week, the week of Wednesday October 30, 2013. We’ll have to wait for Monday to see what the values were for this week.


Goddard has more:

Washington Post Yesterday Vs. Today



> Jeff Masters’ claim of 195 MPH – worst hurricane ever at landfall – was complete bull****, but exactly what he wanted. He got his big lie out all over the Internet and is now sacred and unassailable knowledge of the alarmist community.


Further from Goddard:

It Is That New Kind Of Category Five Hurricane, With 22 MPH Winds

With added snark in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

While we're delivering the snark...

Understanding The Difference Between Big Oil Money And Big Government Money



> Scientists who take money from big oil are evil, but scientists who take money from big government are pure of heart. Government scientists cheat, lie and tamper with data for your own good – and just don’t get enough respect for their noble efforts.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that global sea level trend...

Global Sea Level Trend – 1.08 mm/year



> NOAA keeps records on 199 tide gauges which have been active this century. The average sea level rise rate is 1.08 mm/year for that set of gauges – one third of the claimed University of Colorado 3.2 mm/year trend. Eighty-six percent of the tide gauges show sea level rise slower than the fraudulent official 3.2 mm/year.


----------



## FeXL

The comment I post after the article link really sums it up for me.

Claim: Safe long term storage of CO2 is possible



> From the GFZ GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Helmholtz Centre , probably too little too late, as CO2 sequestration projects worldwide are closing.


Comment:



> So wait greens don’t like fracking because you pump various things into the ground. And greens don’t like storing nuclear waste in underground facilities. But pumping CO2 into the ground i great?




Other comments also hit the mark, have a look.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lewandowsky & Mann.

Stephan Lewandowsky’s ethical lapses allowed his science to be published without oversight



> As if there could be any more ludicrous antics from this plonker, we now find that Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky pulled a bait and switch on ethical approvals for his psychological research papers at the University of Western Australia that were designed from the start to smear climate skeptics. It’s so unreal, it can only be called science fiction, or perhaps _Lewdicrous SciFi_.


Bishop Hill's take:

Lewcrative



> The University of Western Australia seems entirely untroubled by all this. To the best of my knowledge their only response has been a shrug of the corporate shoulders. But as one surveys the stories of the various scandals at universities that have been covered at BH it becomes increasingly clear that there is almost nothing a university researcher or official can do that will lead to disciplinary action being taken against them. The only thing that seems to happen to miscreants is to be showered with awards - named chairs, awards from the Royal Society, that sort of thing.
> 
> It's lucrative, this academic misconduct business.


Jeff Condon has more:

The Revenge of Lewandowsky



> Recently Lewandowsky et Mann (birds of a feather?) published yet another pro-government rant claiming to be science related.
> 
> It is hardly worth reading but read it I did: The Subterranean War on Science. My willingness to read that is proof that I am literally as dumb as a rock. Don’t make the same mistake!
> 
> The article is one of the most disgusting pieces I have yet read from the “Climate Science™” community. It is written as though it actually has supporting references but the article is beyond reprehensible in content. *It has literally zero scientific value and wouldn’t make the cut at a blog but somehow a “journal” managed to publish it.*


Bold mine.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Sound familiar?

Friday Funny: Neanderthal Campfires



> The scene: some 10-12,000 years ago. It is the late Pleistocene, the end of the last ice age. Neanderthal man is just beginning to notice that the climate is getting warmer. At that time, the ocean shoreline on the North American west coast is about 10-25 miles farther out than now. The east coast is even broader, generally from 30 to 100 miles farther out. Imagine now the fear that struck the hearts of the Neanderthal people as they watched the shoreline inch forward year after year as the land they knew and loved was inexorably claimed by an unmerciful ocean.


Good for a smile...


----------



## FeXL

Bishop Hill on cyclones, warmist political opportunism and a paper to debunk the BS.

Storms and global warming



> The landfall of supertyphoon Haiyan has led to a predictable upsurge in attempts by unscrupulous environmentalists to turn the drama into a political opportunity.


----------



## FeXL

Two tidbits of information you won't find in the MSM.

Sioux Falls, SD breaks snowfall record

Record snowfall in Spokane

I know, I know. The models predicted it...


----------



## eMacMan

A couple of thoughts on fracking.

There are two very different problems.

Fracking can fracture the cap rocks which trap oil/gas, allowing petroleum and ground water to mix. Since this can make it harder to recover oil or gas, companies try hard not to do this.

Fracking chemicals can and often do contaminate aquifers. Any one doing fracking should be prepared to pay the costs to offset aquifer damage and they can be far greater than the profits from additional oil production.

Long term we need to realize that clean water is a more valuable resource than oil and make decisions accordingly.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the wind speed reports from Haiyan.

Seems that there were issues with the BBC & imperial/metric conversions.

Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda – another overhyped storm that didn’t match early reports

More:

Shock News : Jeff Masters’ Most Powerful Hurricane Ever Was Only A Category 4



> Jeff Masters exaggerated the wind speeds by 50 MPH and got thousands of news publications to print his lies, which are now the sacred legend of the climate religion.


Goddard speaks about the "Press Corpse":

The New Normal For Climate Scum


----------



## FeXL

Josh has a new cartoon about the latest Lewandowsky/Mann crock.

Saturday Silliness: The Zero of all sums = ooommmm

PS "sum" in Latin basically means "I am".

<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Further on Haiyan, as well as links to help out.

Tropical Cyclone Heat Potential – It’s All in the Presentation

To help:

An ethical challenge for Greg Laden – put your money where your mouth is



> Yesterday, Mr. Laden claimed WUWT had sunk to a “new low” for daring to question the wind speeds of Typhoon Haiyan hyped in the media with ground measurements reported by the Philippine Meteorological Agency. Our position was the media poorly reported on the storm, made egregious errors that we documented, and that this led to inflated wind speed numbers given to the public, such as 235 kilometers per hour being reported as 235 miles per hour, to give an example.


----------



## FeXL

The Aussies get it...

Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism”



> The UN wants $100 billion from wealthier countries (about $2.4 billion from Australians or $100 a person). The Australian government has produced a position statement for the Warsaw UNFCCC conference. It is unusually brutal. I don’t think I remember seeing the phrase about socialism “masquerading as environmentalism” in an official statement before. (I’m sure readers will correct me). It’s good to see some recognition that the science has become less clear, and that it may become more so.


Unfortunately we are not as prescient...


----------



## FeXL

Some historical perspectives on Typhoon Haiyan-Yolanda



> While we wait for wacky antagonist Greg Laden to make a decision on whether he’ll chip and and help the relief effort, here are some useful bits of information that help put this storm into the perspective of “worst ever” claims, and opportunistic claims about it being a product of global warming, like Greenpeace is doing


While most deaths are tragic, the real travesty comes when idiots (not the term I want to use) lie about numbers for personal & political gain.

NDRRMC confirms 1,774 fatalities, most are from Eastern Visayas | News | GMA News Online

Yes, 1774 deaths but far short of the >10,000 trumpeted in MSM, along with the hue & cry about global warming being the cause.

Even The New York Times Is Starting To Report Facts



> 195 MPH is down to the 140 range, and the 40 foot storm surge is down to 13 feet. The death count was also exaggerated.


A tragedy, yes. However, instead of spending billions of dollars chasing a ghost, let's spend money on something constructive, like better warning systems, better plans for emergency evacuations, hurricane shelters, something, anything that will actually save lives.


----------



## FeXL

Busted messaging: CFC’s cause warming AND cooling



> From the _make up your freaking minds_ department comes this oopsy juxtaposition of alarmist messaging.
> 
> In an attempt to explain “the pause”, researchers are now grasping for explanations


The first comment tells it all:



> Heads, we win, tails, you lose…


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

A blurb on statistics.

Raising the bar on statistical significance



> The lack of reproducibility of scientific research undermines public confidence in science and leads to the misuse of resources when researchers attempt to replicate and extend fallacious research findings. Using recent developments in Bayesian hypothesis testing, a root cause of nonreproducibility is traced to the conduct of significance tests at inappropriately high levels of significance. Modifications of common standards of evidence are proposed to reduce the rate of nonreproducibility of scientific research by a factor of 5 or greater.


There is a link inside which provides a primer for statistical significance & P-values.

There is also a lengthy comment by Robert Brown at Duke applied to probabilities in coin tossing which begins:



> Since this is something of my game, I’ll summarize the idea. In Bayesian probability analysis, one rarely just states hypotheses. One states hypotheses based on various assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions are actually stated, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are (in some rigorously defensible sense) true and sufficiently accurate beyond reasonable doubt — the assumption of Galilean or Newtonian gravity for near-Earth-surface physics problems — and sometimes they are basically little more than educated guesses with little or no solid evidence.


His observations are clear & well worth reading.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models involved.

Our new paper: El Nino warming reduces climate sensitivity to 1.3 deg. C



> Our new paper has finally appeared in Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science (APJAS). Entitled “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model“, we use a time-dependent forcing-feedback model of global average ocean temperature as a function of depth to explain the Levitus record ocean temperature variations and trends since 1955.


That noted, the model used isn't one of the garbage ones employed by TIPCC™, it's a simple single dimension example.

Two things of note. First:



> So, when the Earth went through a ~30 year period of more intense El Nino activity after the mid 1970s, a portion of the warming we experienced was caused by the more frequent El Nino activity. (Although not in the paper, we also found that the model explains the warming before 1940 as a response to stronger El Nino activity back then, as well as the slight cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s from stronger La Nina activity).


Second:



> Finally, *this study leaves open the question of what other natural warming mechanisms there might be out there. We have only addressed ENSO, which alone reduced the diagnosed climate sensitivity in response to increasing CO2 to only 1.3 deg. C*, a level I would consider benign or even beneficial. We say nothing about what else might be contributing to warming — I suspect we have already rocked the boat too much.


Bold mine.

That bears repeating: Reduced to 1.3° C per doubling on ENSO data alone. Not counting any other natural warming mechanisms.


----------



## FeXL

Another headline you won't see in the MSM.

56% Of The US Below Normal Temperature In 2013


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale on Stefan Rahmstorf at RC.

Comments on Stefan Rahmstorf’s Post at RealClimate “What ocean heating reveals about global warming”



> As I’ve noted in previous posts, I am not criticizing the efforts by the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) to assemble data for its ocean heat content data. It was (and is) a monumental (ongoing) task but there’s simply little source data before the ARGO era. Ocean heat content data is chock full of problems and uncertainties as a result.


It's rather lengthy, but a good read.


----------



## FeXL

<so...(yawn)...sleepy>

So, this week the UN is hosting its annual climate summit in Warsaw. Donna will be attending as an accredited journalist. She has a few words on that, as well as Obama's visit to the one in Hopenchangin'...

Inside the Warsaw Climate Summit



> German chancellor Angela Merkel is preoccupied with finding partners with whom to form her new government. Paris will be hosting the 2015 climate summit, so France’s focus is there. UK leaders, meanwhile, are coping with public outrage over rising home heating bills. Even slow learner British politicians are starting to realize that stricter emissions targets will push those bills higher.
> 
> UN climate official Christiana Figueres recently alienated Australia when she had the temerity to publicly criticize its election results, so it’s no surprise that the Aussies aren’t sending any high-ranking officials. And then there’s America.


However, if the high number of people attending a rally against a climate treaty are any indication, it seems the Poles aren't really interested. 

CFACT rallies 50,000+ Poles against climate treaty



> Before what was one of the largest audienWarsaw climate rally crowdces to ever hear a speech denouncing UN global warming policies, Rothbard said he was honored to stand with the Poles in a “new battle for freedom against those who would use environmental and climate alarmism to steal away our liberties and give international bureaucrats control over our energy sources, our daily lives, our prosperity, and our national sovereignty.”
> 
> The address was carried live on national television and covered by a large number of international media outlets. It took place just as the UN was kicking off its COP19 climate conference a few kilometers away.
> 
> Rothbard noted that at last year’s COP meeting, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said that what the UN was undertaking is “a complete economic transformation of the world.”


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I posted a link to a story wherein the Aussies noted they weren't going to give the UN billions of dollars for climate policy. I noted there that I thought Canada wasn't as prescient.

Apparently, we're at least part way there...

Canada Joins Australia As The Only Two Western Nations Demonstrating Sanity In Government



> Today, Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, issued the following statement on behalf of the Government of Canada on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s introduction of legislation to repeal the carbon tax:
> 
> _“Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message._


Now, if I could discover that we weren't sending cash to support the UN's climate policy, I'd be smiling all damn week...


----------



## FeXL

Another paper confirming CO2 levels lag temperature changes.

New paper finds ice core CO2 levels lag temperature by up to 5,000 years 

Abstract (open access paper)



> The reconstruction of the stable carbon isotope evolution in atmospheric CO2 (δ13Catm), as archived in Antarctic ice cores, bears the potential to disentangle the contributions of the different carbon cycle fluxes causing past CO2 variations. Here we present a new record of δ13Catm before, during and after the Marine Isotope Stage 5.5 (155 000 to 105 000 yr BP). The dataset is archived on the data repository PANGEA® (Data Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science) under 10.1594/PANGAEA.817041. The record was derived with a well established sublimation method using ice from the EPICA Dome C (EDC) and the Talos Dome ice cores in East Antarctica. We find a 0.4‰ shift to heavier values between the mean δ13Catm level in the Penultimate (~ 140 000 yr BP) and Last Glacial Maximum (~ 22 000 yr BP), which can be explained by either (i) changes in the isotopic composition or (ii) intensity of the carbon input fluxes to the combined ocean/atmosphere carbon reservoir or (iii) by long-term peat buildup. Our isotopic data suggest that the carbon cycle evolution along Termination II and the subsequent interglacial was controlled by essentially the same processes as during the last 24 000 yr, but with different phasing and magnitudes. Furthermore, *a 5000 yr lag in the CO2 decline relative to EDC [East Antarctic] temperatures is confirmed during the glacial inception at the end of MIS5.5 (120.000 [years ago]).* Based on our isotopic data this lag can be explained by terrestrial carbon release and carbonate compensation.


Bold from the link.

In reading the paper, an observation jumped out at me from near the end of page 2512:



> Finally at 115 000 yr BP, the beginning of interval V, CO2 drops by 40 ppm in 10 000 yr to 240 ppm.


So, they were able to determine that CO2 concentrations were moving by as much as 40ppm, 115,000 years ago, *without anthropogenic input.* 

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

New book out.

A Skeptic’s Christmas wish list – _Taxing Air_, by Carter and Spooner



> This is a book like no other. Carter and Spooner make a special combination. Readers here will know Bob Carter, who is a well known long-standing skeptical marine geologist, who has written Climate: the Counter Consensus (2010) and published countless papers. He’s formerly a Professor and Head of Earth Sciences at James Cook University
> 
> ...
> 
> People may not realize that John Spooner is a prize winning cartoonist for The-not-so-skeptical-Age daily newspaper in Melbourne. He has won too many prizes to list (see here) and is a brilliant political satirist with exceptional skill at the art of caricatures.


Spooner:



> _“Every cartoonist and satirist in the world, not to mention the investigative reporters, should by now have had their bull**** detectors on high alert. *If the evidence was so good and the sceptical scientists were so weak, wrong and so few in number, then why the need for such rancorous politics? If you have the UN, the EU, the banks, the financial markets, most of the clergy and the media on your side, then why this dishonorable nastiness as well?* I’ve always hated bullies…”_


Bold mine.

Good questions...


----------



## FeXL

Further in the wake of Haiyan.

Not even TIPCC™ believes in increased cyclones due to global warming.

Deeply Conflicted About Weather Extremes 

From AR5:



> _"Current datasets indicate *no significant observed trends* in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … *No robust trends* in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin... In summary, *this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust*, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities"_


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

So, about those Warsaw climate talks...

The article I link to below talks about how only 3 in 10 countries are sending ministers to attend. Fine, whatever. People have lost interest in being lied to on a regular basis.

The number that caught my eye is that there are going to be *over 10,000 people* involved in this spectacle. For people who are so keen on saving Planet Earth from warming due to anthropogenic CO2, how much CO2 do you suppose the travels of these 10,000+ people pumped into the atmosphere?

Warsaw climate talks: nearly 3 in 10 countries not sending ministers



> According to statistics released by the UN, over 10,000 people will spend the next two weeks swarming through its corridors, busily going about their business of trying to find a solution to climate change.
> 
> But only 134 of these will be ministers, in spite of the fact that there will be 189 countries attending the conference.


----------



## FeXL

A "news" article from the dark side.

If you can manage to hold your gorge down, have a look at what passes for "responsible journalism" these days.

2013 so far seventh hottest year on record: WMO

They've managed to make 2013 the 7th hottest on record, yet they've only used temps from the first 9 months. I'd like to ask, why bother with 9 whole months? Why not write the year off based on a few of the hottest weeks? Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg for these geniuses. Read the FUD, the lies, the half truths and spot the omissions.

Jeezuz...

Oh, there's a poll that needs help, too...


----------



## FeXL

Tim Ball has an excellent essay regarding TIPCC's™ dealings with CO2 concentrations. His final section (unnumbered, but after section 8), _IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels_ is a must read. It ties in with yesterdays post about CO2 concentrations & variability over 100,000 years ago.

Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information



> A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
> 
> Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
> 
> In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
> 
> _*“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”*​_


Bold mine.

Further:



> Beck found,
> 
> “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 *the latter showing more than 400 ppm.*”


Wait...wha...? 400 ppm? Isn't that were we are now?

Recall also that current measurements are taken on the slopes of Mauna Loa, an active volcano that emits CO2.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Projection of future sea level change relies on the understanding of present sea-level trend and how it has varied in the past. Here we investigate the global-mean sea level (GMSL) change during 1993-2012 using Empirical Mode Decomposition, in an attempt to distinguish the trend over this period from the internannual variability. I*t is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993-2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade,* as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level. Recent rapid recovery of the rising GMSL from its dramatic drop during the 2011 La Niña introduced a large uncertainty in the estimation of the sea level trend, but *the decelerated rise of the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] appears to be intact.*


Bold from the link.

From the paper highlights:



> • Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.


Huh? What about all that alleged heat going into the oceans? Shouldn't that be accelerating thermal expansion, rather than slowing it down?


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another erroneous assumption of the global carbon cycle 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Stratospheric ozone depletion and emission of greenhouse gases lead to a trend of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) towards its high-index polarity. *The positive phase of the SAM is characterised by stronger than usual westerly winds that induce changes in the physical carbon transport.* Changes in the natural carbon budget of the upper 100 m of the Southern Ocean in response to a positive SAM phase are explored with a coupled ecosystem-general circulation model and regression analysis. *Previously overlooked processes that are important for the upper ocean carbon budget* during a positive SAM period are identified, namely export production and downward transport of carbon north of the Polar Front (PF) as large as the upwelling in the south. The limiting micronutrient iron is brought into the surface layer by upwelling and stimulates phytoplankton growth and export production, but only in summer. *This leads to a drawdown of carbon and less summertime outgassing (or more uptake) of natural CO2. In winter, biological mechanisms are inactive and the surface ocean equilibrates with the atmosphere by releasing CO2. In the annual mean,* the upper ocean region south of the PF l*oses more carbon by additional export production [plankton photosynthesis converting CO2 to O2 and H2O] than by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere,* highlighting the role of the biological carbon pump in response to a positive SAM event.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Considering all the FUD re: Haiyan, this is timely.

New paper finds Pacific cyclone activity is at the lowest levels of the past 5,000 years 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> We lack an understanding of the geographic and temporal controls on South Pacific cyclone activity. Overwash records from backbarrier salt marshes and coastal ponds have been used to reconstruct tropical cyclone strikes in the North Atlantic basin. However, these specific backbarrier environments are scarce in the South Pacific, with cyclone records limited primarily to the period of modern observation.*This instrumental record suggests a correlation with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO),* but longer records are necessary to test this relationship over geologic timescales and explore other potential climate drivers of tropical cyclone variability. Deep lagoons behind coral reefs are widespread in the Pacific and provide an alternative setting for developing long-term sedimentary reconstructions of tropical cyclone occurrence. Coarse-grained event deposits within the sediments of a back-reef lagoon surrounding Tahaa reveal a 5000-year record of cyclone occurrences. Timing of recent high-energy deposits matches well with observed tropical cyclone strikes and indicates coarse deposits are storm derived. *Longer records show tropical cyclone activity was higher from 5000 to 3800 and 2900 to 500 yrs BP.* Comparison to records from the North Pacific (out-of-phase) and North Atlantic (in phase) *suggests a coordinated pattern of storm activity across tropical cyclone basins over the mid-late Holocene.* The changes in tropical cyclone activity we observe in the South Pacific and across other basins may be related to ENSO as well as precession driven changes in ocean-atmosphere thermal gradients.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "settled" climate science. (h/t to The Hockey Shtick)

German scientists discover bacteria that make ice, clouds and rain



> Scientists have discovered that a humble species of bacteria may play a major role in producing planetary climates by "seeding" clouds with ice-producing proteins.
> 
> Scientists have known for decades that bacterial species such as Pseudomonas syringae produce proteins on their outer membranes that somehow enable water to freeze at higher-than-usual temperatures. These proteins cause ice to form on plants, damaging the plant's tissues and allowing the bacteria to invade and feed.
> 
> But when the bacteria die, ice-forming proteins can enter the atmosphere and actually cause rain to form in the clouds above. Because these bacteria are so prolific, they may have a significant effect on the global climate.


----------



## FeXL

More UN malfeasance...

A climate treaty without a vote? Russia protests UN’s shocking “consensus” procedure



> On October 28th, Russia sent a strongly worded letter [Read it here] to the UNFCCC secretariat decrying the UN’s use of UNFCCC Russia letterhead “consensus” rather than permitting nations to vote on matters as important as conference outcomes. “Decision-making in the UNFCCC process has suffered evident setbacks over the past few years with serious procedural and legal flaws being multiplied, transparency eroding, frequency of dubious proceedings acquiring alarming magnitude and conduct of business deviating” from UNFCCC rules, Russia said.


----------



## FeXL

So, despite all his FUD & rhetoric to the contrary, Obama's backtracking out of a $100 billion commitment to fight climate change.

Blowing hot air: U.S. reneges on funding pledge to fight global warming



> The Obama administration is among a handful of governments backtracking on a $100 billion promise they made to help poor countries fight climate change, a report finds.
> 
> As the United Nations gathers in Poland this week to assess international efforts to fight climate change, a report from development advocacy group Oxfam says there has been a lot of confusion and “smoke and mirrors” about who promised what.


Obama? Smoke? Mirrors? Say it ain't so...

Also, dig this from Oxfam spokeswoman, Kelly Dent:



> “We know the seasons are changing and oftentimes farmers plant their crops at the wrong time, because they don’t have the information they need,” Ms. Dent said. “In the past, the seasons were more predictable. But these days it’s not the same time each year.”


I grew up on a mixed farm, livestock & dryland grain. Funny, in the 20 odd years I spent there, not once did dad or any of the neighbours try seeding in February, no matter how nice that Chinook wind made it seem. I'm thinking that even the dumbest of my 4-H calves knew more about planting season than any dozen spokespeople from Oxfam...


----------



## FeXL

OK, long post coming up...

First, Judith Curry links to two papers that deal with uncertainty in surface temperature sets.

Uncertainty in SST measurements and data sets

She notes:



> The first paper, by John Kennedy of UK Met Office, provides a comprehensive and much needed uncertainty analysis of sea surface temperature measurements and analyses


On the second: "The second paper attempts to slay the uncertainty monster."

Fine. This paper deals with the infilling of missing temperature data due to very few measuring stations, such as in the polar regions & Africa. It is also the most controversial of the two.

The author's use 3 different methods to infill data, noted at the link. Also at the link is another link to an analysis done in _The Guardian._ Unfortunately, Scooter has his grubby little biased paws all over that. 

The rub comes in when you take a look at the temperature reconstruction. Fine black line in the first figure is MET Office (HadCRUT4) temperature record, heavy black line is reconstruction. Fine red line is MET trend, heavy red line is reconstruction trend. 

First observation: HadCRUT4? Seriously?

Second: notice anything familiar about the difference between the two slopes? Why is it that every temperature reconstruction almost without exception, whether over a period of 100 years or 10, is the past cooled & the present warmed?

From the comments:



> Step 1: Take a dataset riddled with errors and biases, leading to error bands larger than the effect that you want to “find”.
> 
> Step 2: Declare that the dataset is wonderful as is, and perfectly good for informing thousand trillion dollar decisions.
> 
> Step 3: Selectively eliminate some of the errors in the dataset that drive the results toward your pre-selected “finding”. It’s worse than we thought!
> 
> Step 4: Declare the newly improved dataset is wonderful as is, and perfectly good for informing thousand trillion dollar decisions, while the old dataset is now hopelessly biased and useless for decision making, especially if the recent data in that version is trending in inconvenient directions.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.


Yup.

Much of the story is in the comments, including posts from both authors (kudos for that).

Lubos offers his input.

Molecule painter and icy pal double the warming trend since 1997



> *But we must ask: Is there any reason for such a "hybrid" dataset to tell us some more accurate information about the global warming trend than the non-hybrid datasets?*
> 
> I am convinced that the answer is No. A paradoxical feature of their conclusion is that they used the satellite data to increase the (small) warming trend seen at HadCRUT – even though the satellite data actually show a cooling trend since 1997 or 1998. That's ironic, you could say. Why wouldn't you prefer to use the satellites for the whole Earth, anyway?


Bold from the link.

Both sites very good reads.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Curry's discussion of Cowtan & Way.

Curry on the Cowtan & Way ‘pausebuster’: ‘Is there anything useful [in it]?”

Scooter!:



> What is really funny is how Dana Nuccitelli has done an about-face since the satellite data now supports his argument. In his Guardian 97% piece [cited in Dr. Curry's article] he’s all for this method.
> 
> But, just two years ago he was trashing the UAH satellite data on SKS as “misinformation”.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Dana thinks UAH data is apparently OK today. What a plonker.


Yep.

Cowtan notes:



> _“No difficult scientific problem is ever solved in a single paper. I don’t expect our paper to be the last word on this, but I hope we have advanced the discussion._


Kudos.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting read on the differing philosophies of warmist & sceptics.

What makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on?



> The skeptic recognizes that responses are, and should be, proportional to the triggering event: a minor problem should not have elicited a large preventative measure if a small one would have sufficed. Energy – emotional, physical, social – is liimited and should be used wisely and sparingly if possible. *To determine the details and hence the level of action that is appropriate, of course, one needs facts. And facts are not determined in policy summaries but in the field and the laboratory. Facts are not nailed down by consensus, i.e. group opinion, but by falsifiable testing. The skeptic, in his hunt for facts, is forced to read and question.* Arguably having this desire for Representational Certainty is where the various skeptics or luke-warmers like Pielke, Lindzen, Watts and ourselves come in.


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

I didn't "get it" until the first sentence of the second paragraph... 

Warsaw COP19 report– there’s something in the water



> This week UN delegates opened the current Warsaw Climate change Conference with hopes of engineering a renewed agreement to curb human-driven global warming just as effective as the last, however a new and catastrophic issue is emerging which threatens to derail the impressive progress made to date.


More smiles:

Friday Funny



> Every once in awhile something comes along that lets you know you made a difference while generating a laugh at the same time.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, CHIMP3 & CHIMP5 GCM's are massive programs which base their output largely on raised CO2 sensitivity. We all know what kind of results we get from them.

New paper finds simple laptop computer program reproduces the flawed climate projections of supercomputer climate models 

Here, the author's use 3 variables on a laptop & end up with comparable results. While I would hardly hail duplicating CHIMP5 output as any kind of success, they did discover this:



> Despite its lack of complexity the simpler model did an amazingly good job, reproducing all but 0.16°C of the warming predicted by the complex climate models under the same circumstances. *This suggests that the three processes upon which the simple model is based control most of the variation in Earth’s climate.*


My bold.

Interestingly enough, this program on a laptop only takes seconds, as opposed to weeks.

Now, if they just got rid of the whole CO2 variable, they may be able to actually model something in climate accurately & quickly...


----------



## FeXL

Alarmist climate scientists have abused the public trust in science, inflicted serious and long-lived damage



> *In climate alarmism the perceived righteousness of the cause has led to a wholesale abandonment of what had previously been considered to be proper scientific practice. In climate research it has become widespread and accepted practice to refuse to reveal methods and materials, ignore opposing evidence, misrepresent findings, exaggerate confidence, suppress publication of conflicting findings and use personal denigration to discredit anyone who dares to raise questions about the latest and endless streams of claims and assertions. While such malpractice has become pervasive, it will usually involve just complex technical matter at a time, requiring a considerable level of background knowledge if arguments are to be fully understand.
> 
> However, the fundamental ethical issues are something everyone can understand and it is here where the alarmists have done the most to discredit themselves. Whenever clear evidence of dishonest behaviour by AGW proponents has been exposed, instead of simply condemning it they have followed a pattern of first trying to deny it then, when that fails, attempting to justify it. Finally, when mis-information has been thoroughly exposed, they seek to trivialise “mistakes” as being of no importance in any case. In doing this they have make it clear that any regard for truth is subordinate to the righteousness of their cause.*


Bold from the link.

The end justifies the means, anyone?


----------



## FeXL

Three links on Warsaw COP.

Warmist John Vidal on COP meetings: "It is done in a complete miasma of secrecy and corridor stuff...It's a shambles frankly...something out of the 18th century almost"



> The diplomats are not accountable, the delegations keep themselves to themselves, nobody talks to each other, journalists basically are spoon-fed stuff by their governments. And so there is very, very little real understanding of the scale of what's happening or the importance of what is happening. So I think a big part of the problem, actually, is the meetings themselves.


Initial Dispatch: the Warsaw Climate Summit



> Since different nations (and blocs of nations) have different approaches and perspectives on what any international treaty should include, and since climate change is allegedly a planetary emergency, summits such as this one are supposed to be focused on one thing: saving our skins, finding common ground.
> 
> So why in the world are there exhibit booths on two floors of Poland’s absolutely stunning National Stadium from a long list of groups promoting their own agendas? What are those people doing there?


Newsbytes: Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit By Ditching CO2 Target



> Japan set a new target for greenhouse gas emissions that critics say will set back United Nations talks for a treaty limiting fossil fuel emissions. The new target effectively reverses course from the goal set four years ago by allowing a 3.1 per cent increase in emissions from 1990 levels rather than seeking a 25 per cent cut.


Wonder if that's what happens when you shut down nuclear power stations...

And, more FUD:

UN climate conference COP19 tells blatant lies to the public about sea level rise & snow cover 



> The UN COP19 climate conference public educational materials entitled "Do people have an influence on the climate change?" make the blatantly false claim that "during the last hundred years...the sea level increased for the first time since the last ice age (over 20cm since 1870, and the pace of the increase is getting faster)," thereby implying man is the cause of sea level rise and that the rise is accelerating.


However:



> Fact Check:
> 
> Sea levels have been rising naturally for the past 20,000 years since the peak of the last ice age, and at much, much faster rates in the past (up to 40 times faster than today). Sea level rise greatly decelerated about 8,000 years ago to rates similar to today:


Nice chart on Post Glacial Sea Level Rise.


----------



## FeXL

Jo elaborates on my decelerating sea level post from the 14th.

Sea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.



> A new paper shows that sea levels rose faster in the ten years from 1993-2003 than they have since. Sea levels are still rising but the rate has slowed since 2004. This does not suggest that the missing energy from the atmosphere has snuck into the ocean, but rather that the oceans and the atmosphere were both warming faster in the 1990′s, then as coal power ramped up in China and billions of tons of CO2 was released, both the atmosphere and the ocean did not gain more energy per year, but less. *That message again — something else appears to be the main driver the climate, not CO2.*


My bold.

She goes on to explain total sea level rise, steric sea level rise & ocean mass.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Three links on Volcanoes.

Another known unknown – volcanic outgassing of CO2



> In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.


Must be more of that settled science...

And, a paper on the discovery of a new subsurface Antarctic volcano:

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet1, 2, 3, 4. Volcanic activity progressed from north to south in the Executive Committee mountain range between the Miocene and Holocene epochs, but there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity5, 6, 7. Here we use a recently deployed seismic network to show that in 2010 and 2011, two swarms of seismic activity occurred at 25–40 km depth beneath subglacial topographic and magnetic highs, located 55 km south of the youngest subaerial volcano in the Executive Committee Range. We interpret the swarm events as deep long-period earthquakes based on their unusual frequency content. Such earthquakes occur beneath active volcanoes, are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions8, 9, 10, 11. We also use radar profiles to identify a prominent ash layer in the ice overlying the seismic swarm. Located at 1,400 m depth, the ash layer is about 8,000 years old and was probably sourced from the nearby Mount Waesche volcano. Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.


One of the authors notes:



> On the other hand a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice—many lakes full,” says Wiens. This water will rush beneath the ice towards the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.
> 
> *By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.*


Bold mine.

I recall a field trip during one of my university geology classes to SE Alberta. We went to a location where the local bedrock lay bare. The bedrock surface was striated by ice movement from the last glaciation. You could put a compass down & read exactly what the direction of travel was. What amount of force does it take for ice to score solid rock? Amazing. 

That said, I have questions regarding this whole "meltwater lubricating bedrock" thing. Is it possible for a thin film of water, with a relatively low surface tension, to lubricate the contact point between glacial ice a mile or more thick & solid bedrock? Hmmm...

Here's another take on the Antarctic volcano:

Could volcanoes be causing Antarctic ice loss?



> The average temperature on the surface of Antarctica is -45C [-49F], and thus the atmosphere and greenhouse gases cannot melt the surface. However, this new paper discovered by accident an active volcano that may cause significant ice melt 1 kilometer below the surface. There could be many other such undiscovered volcanoes below the ice caps of both Antarctica and Greenland melting the ice naturally from below.


----------



## FeXL

I've noted before my dislike of the term "ocean acidification" in regards to ocean pH. Ocean water has a basic pH (~8.1 currently) and the movement of that number lower means the pH is is becoming neutralized, *NOT* acidified. If the pH of ocean water actually ever goes below 7, then it is becoming acidified.

All that noted:

New paper shows ocean 'acidification' was about the same during the last interglacial period as today 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Recent concern over the effects of ocean acidification upon calcifying organisms has highlighted the aragonitic shelled thecosomatous pteropods as being at a high risk. Both in-situ and laboratory studies have shown that an increased dissolved CO2 concentration, leading to decreased water pH and low carbonate concentration, causes reduced calcification rates and enhanced dissolution in the shells of living pteropods. In fossil records unaffected by post-depositional dissolution, this in-life shell dissolution can be detected. Here we present the first evidence of variations of in-life pteropod shell dissolution due to variations in surface water carbonate concentration during the Late Pleistocene by analysing the surface layer of pteropod shells in marine sediment cores from the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean. In-life shell dissolution was determined by applying the _Limacina_ Dissolution Index (LDX) to the sub-tropical pteropod _Limacina inflata_. Average shell size information shows that high in-life dissolution is accompanied by smaller shell sizes in _L. inflata_, which may indicate a reduction in calcification rate. Comparison of the LDX profile to Late Pleistocene Vostok atmospheric CO2 concentrations, shows that in-life pteropod dissolution is closely associated to variations in past ocean carbonate saturation. This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene.


Highlights:



> •In-life dissolution of fossil pteropod shells was examined using the LDX scale.
> •Average shell diameter was used as an indicator of calcification rate.
> •LDX shows significant correlation to CO2 and surface water carbonate concentration.
> •*Smaller, more corroded shells were found during interglacial periods.*
> •*Larger, pristine shells were found during glacial periods.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Donna get a chance for her input.

I’m Invited



> I have been officially invited to make a [written] submission to [the UK Energy and Climate Change Select Committee]. In the words of the gentleman who contacted me: “The Committee specifically expressed a desire to hear from you.”


----------



## FeXL

Reality is Absent from Michael Mann’s Activist Article on Typhoon Haiyan



> A week after typhoon Haiyan stormed through the Philippines, the website EcoWatch ran an article by Michael Mann. The blog post was titled Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action. Michael Mann began with a commendable request for Philippine Red Cross Donations. But after that, once again, we have an activist celebrity—one who masquerades as a climate scientist—using the misfortunes of others in efforts to advance a political agenda. And to make the effort even more futile on Mann’s part, much of the evidence he presented has no basis in reality.


Did anyone really expect anything different?


----------



## FeXL

US tax dollars at work...

Link to Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup. Scroll down to "Number of the Week".



> $22.2 Billion US v. 24.7 Billion US. The November 2 TWTW reported that a White House report to Congress stated that the Federal government spent $22.2 Billion on climate change issues in FY 2013 (which ended on September 30, 2013). Medical researcher Martin Mangino remarked that this is almost as much as the Federal government spends on medical research, including clinical trials.
> 
> According to the web site of the National Institutes of Health, its total budget authority for FY 2013 was $30.9 Billion, of which 80% ($24.7 Billion) went to medical research. The table on the Research/Disease Areas showed that of the $24.7 Billion, $11,018 went to Clinical Research. *The US is spending about one-half as much on clinical research on known threats to human health as it is spending on the speculative threat from human-caused global warming/climate change.*


Bold mine.

Brilliant.

Other items of interest on the scroll down.


----------



## FeXL

A longish article about the correlation between "significant documented events in human civilization over the last 18,000 years and documented climatic changes over the same period. "

Climate and Human Civilization over the last 18,000 years



> This document is meant to explain the accompanying poster and expand on the poster’s content. Some references to the images and data shown in the poster are on the poster and others are in the bibliography. I’ve done my best to verify the accuracy of the content by checking multiple sources. When references had different dates for the same event, I chose the most commonly cited date or the date from the most prestigious sources. I considered dates from articles in Nature, Science, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Steven Mithen’s book2 to be the most reliable.


He concludes:



> In general, the best times for man in the last 18,000 years are the warmer periods. The times of the disruption of civilization are the cooler and more arid times. *This is quite consistent and since we have not seen unusual warming in the present warm period, relative to other warming events in the last 18,000 years, it seem doubtful that this warming period will be a problem for man to adapt to.* Much of the last 18,000 years is characterized with much more rapid sea-level rise than we see today and this has caused a lot of disruption as it will in the future. But, the current rise in sea level is very slow relative to sea level rise during most of man’s civilized period. Our current warming and the current rate of sea level rise are very unspectacular.


Bold mine.

And offers this quote from Steven Mithen, 2003:



> “The next century of human-made global warming is predicted to be far less extreme than that which occurred at 9600 BC. *At the end of the Younger Dryas, mean global temperature had risen by 7°C in fifty years, whereas the predicted rise for the next hundred years is less than 3°C. The end of the last ice age led to a 120 meter increase in sea level, whereas that predicted for the next fifty years is a paltry 32 centimeters at most,*…”


Bold mine.

Assuming, of course, that the modelled 3° increase is anywhere near accurate <snort>...


----------



## FeXL

Nice. Wonder if this is the same ham-handedness they employ with the balance of their research in the field...

Climate Scientists Murder World’s Oldest Creature



> A group of “climate change experts” that discovered a 507-year-old clam that was the world’s oldest known creature killed it in the process of determining its age.


----------



## FeXL

Three links on COP19 in Warsaw.

COP19 – Now The Fifth Successive UNFCCC Failure Is Complete



> _“Politically impossible to present to domestic audiences”_ or more accurately put the people of the industrialized world no longer believe the Green prophets of false doom and gloom scenarios, so giving away billions to support Agenda 21 wealth redistribution objectives is electoral suicide.


Yup.

Donna vents:

What a Nasty, Scandalously Rigged System



> I’ve often wondered why practically every news story written about UN climate negotiations contains quotes from green activists. Well, that mystery has now been solved.
> 
> As week number two of the Warsaw summit kicked into high gear this morning (following a weekend lull), the degree to which activist groups are embedded in the climate negotiation process became horrifyingly clear.


Further from her on the same topic:

Today’s Climate Summit Press Conferences



> *Unlike the public – which is barred from attending the currently-in-progress Warsaw summit – these activists are permitted to set up booths and to distribute mountains of literature/green propaganda.* They are given ample opportunity to lobby delegates one-on-one, and to schmooze with the international press corps.
> 
> But it’s worse than that. *The UN also gives these groups access to top-notch press conference facilities.* In some cases, repeatedly.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Matt Ridley on the Bolt Report on Haiyan and Carbon Tax



> _MATT RIDLEY: Well, this is ridiculous. I mean, storms and weather events happen. They’ve always happened. There’ve been much stronger typhoons in the past. This isn’t the strongest one that’s ever recorded or anything like that. They’re gonna happen, whatever. And to blame this on climate change is a bit like shamanism. It’s witchdoctory. It’s going back 10,000 years to try and blame every weather event on mankind._


Transcript & video of interview.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out on a new climate proxy.

Inverse Underwater Hockey Sticks?

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Northern Hemisphere sea ice has been declining sharply over the past decades and 2012 exhibited the lowest Arctic summer sea-ice cover in historic times. Whereas ongoing changes are closely monitored through satellite observations, we have only limited data of past Arctic sea-ice cover derived from short historical records, indirect terrestrial proxies, and low-resolution marine sediment cores. A multicentury time series from extremely long-lived annual increment-forming crustose coralline algal buildups now provides the first high-resolution in situ marine proxy for sea-ice cover. Growth and Mg/Ca ratios of these Arctic-wide occurring calcified algae are sensitive to changes in both temperature and solar radiation. Growth sharply declines with increasing sea-ice blockage of light from the benthic algal habitat. The 646-y multisite record from the Canadian Arctic indicates that during the Little Ice Age, sea ice was extensive but highly variable on subdecadal time scales and coincided with an expansion of ice-dependent Thule/Labrador Inuit sea mammal hunters in the region. The past 150 y instead have been characterized by sea ice exhibiting multidecadal variability with a long-term decline distinctly steeper than at any time since the 14th century.


The authors give the usual nod to Arctic ice retreat, despite the fact that current Arctic ice extent & thickness is at its highest in years.

That said, what does this research actually show? The first comment:



> Great to have some actual climate science practiced & published now & then.
> 
> As expected, the Little Ice Age had already begun by the 1360s, & Arctic ice cover has decreased during the past 150 years, as climate recovered from the LIA, which ended around 1860, after double bottoming during the sunspot Minima of Maunder c. 1645-1715 & Dalton c. 1790-1830.
> 
> Just the normal fluctuations of the Holocene, although with a disturbing longer-term (millennial scale) downtrend.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Perspective on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Same headline, different year



> Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tonnes – according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA).


The perspective? Mankind's 4% (36 billion tonnes) contribution compared to nature's 96% contribution (864 billion tonnes). And, that's if volcanic outgassing numbers don't get revised upwards. Again...


----------



## FeXL

Long post.

Cowtan & Way, 2013 are still generating headlines. Here are 5 more interrelated links.

In the first two, Steve McIntyre & Bod Tisdale, respectively, notice a breakpoint in the data at 2005.

Cowtan and Way 2013



> There has been some discussion of Cowtan and Way 2013 take on HadCRUT4 at Lucia’s, Judy Curry’s, Nick Stokes and elsewhere. HadCRUt4 has run cooler than other datasets (including UAH satellite) in recent years. Cowtan and Way observe that HadCRU does not estimate temperature in many Arctic gridcells. Because Arctic temperatures have risen more than low-latitude temperatures, they state that recent HadCRU temperatures are biased low. (Since GISS extrapolates into the Arctic, it is less affected by this bias.)


Robert Way enters the comments. McIntyre also notes how Way was part of the secret SS forum and how Way showed grudging respect.

On Cowtan and Way (2013) “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”



> The recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends made the rounds in the climate change blogosphere. Posts at RealClimate (here) and at SkepticalScience (here) looked on the paper as the second coming of…errr…Hansen’s GISTEMP maybe, saying Cowtan and Way (2013) proved the UKMO HADCRUT4 data underreports by half the warming of global surface temperatures since 1997. The posts at WattsUpWithThat (here) and at Judith Curry’s blog (here) weren’t so flattering, to put it mildly.


Caution: models used. There's a new paper out that appears to disagree with Cowtan & Way, 2013, stating that:



> "Our analysis shows that the warming structure in the recent period (roughly from 1998) differs greatly from that in the earlier period. In the recent period, the surface was not clearly warming in summer, and 500 hPa air [closest to the surface] became colder in autumn. Before 1998, however, all the layers at 500 hPa or below were warming."


New paper finds warming has also 'paused' in the Arctic; debunks warmist study that claimed to get rid of the 'pause'

Abstract (open access)



> There has been growing interest in the vertical structure of the recent Arctic warming. We investigated temperatures at the surface, 925, 700, 500 and 300 hPa levels in the Arctic (north of 70° N) using observations and four reanalyses: ERA-Interim, CFSR, MERRA and NCEP II. For the period 1979–2011, the layers at 500 hPa and below show a warming trend in all seasons in all the chosen reanalyses and observations. Restricting the analysis to the 1998–2011 period, however, all the reanalyses show a cooling trend in the Arctic-mean 500 hPa temperature in autumn, and this also applies to both observations and the reanalyses when restricting the analysis to the locations with available IGRA radiosoundings. During this period, the surface observations mainly representing land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean reveal no summertime trend, in contrast with the reanalyses whether restricted to the locations of the available surface observations or not.
> 
> In evaluating the reanalyses with observations, we find that the reanalyses agree better with each other at the available IGRA sounding locations than for the Arctic average, perhaps because the sounding observations were assimilated into reanalyses. Conversely, using the reanalysis data only from locations matching available surface (air) temperature observations does not improve the agreement between the reanalyses. At 925 hPa, CFSR deviates from the other three reanalyses, especially in summer after 2000, and it also deviates more from the IGRA radiosoundings than the other reanalyses do. The CFSR error in summer T925 is due mainly to underestimations in the Canadian-Atlantic sector between 120° W and 0°. The other reanalyses also have negative biases in this longitude band.


Concluding remark:



> In this study, we have examined the Arctic warming structure from 1979 to 2011 in observations and reanalyses. *Our analysis shows that the warming structure in the recent period (roughly from 1998) differs greatly from that in the earlier period.* In the recent period, *the surface was not clearly warming in summer, and 500 hPa air became colder in autumn.* Before *1998*, however, all the layers at 500 hPa or below were warming. These findings are supported by multiple reanalyses together with observations. The cooling trend in both observations and the reanalyses at 500 hPa in fall since 1998 has not been sufficiently recognized in earlier studies.
> 
> While examining the warming structure, *we have also examined the validity of the reanalyses* in surface-air and upper-level temperatures.We have shown for the 1998–2011 period that all the reanalyses reveal warming trends at the surface in all the seasons, while GISTEMP shows no trend in summer. At the 925 hPa level, CFSR shows larger Arctic mean bias than NCEP II in summer (especially after the year 2000), although CFSR is supposedly an improvement over the NCEP II. This CFSR error was shown to arise primarily from the 120 W–0 longitude band. It is our hope that this study will stimulate further investigations into the root cause of the reanalysis errors and biases. *Our results also suggest that studies of the Arctic climate based on reanalyses should be undertaken with extreme caution."*


Bold from the link.

Judith posts about the above paper and another.


Uncertainty in Arctic temperatures

She comments:



> These two papers provide additional background on the available data sets for Arctic Ocean surface temperatures. In addition to the surface buoys and the reanalysis data sets, there are also field observations from a number of experiments over the past several decades. So there is some information; the challenge is to usefully evaluate the information that is available, and assess the uncertainties.
> 
> Both papers raise interesting issues regarding the Arctic atmosphere, identifying a shift circa 1998. Piecing together the coupled variability of the Arctic atmosphere, sea ice and ocean is a substantial challenge


Judith posts about the size of the Arctic Ocean.

The 2.8% effect



> While we discuss the uncertainties in estimates of Arctic Ocean temperatures and its trends, it is useful to put into perspective its relatively small size.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is Figure 11.25 from the IPCC AR5 (discussed previously on Implications for climate models of their growing disagreement with observations). Ed Hawkins has added a blue line to show Cowtan and Way’s global temperature analysis. *While Cowtan and Way is slightly warmer than HadCRUT4 for the past decade, their analysis doesn’t change the pause story very much when shown in this context.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Further on solar activity during the 20th century.

New paper confirms the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century 

Abstract (open access)



> We present a new reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF, B) for 1846–2012 with a full analysis of errors, based on the homogeneously constructed IDV(1d) composite of geomagnetic activity presented in Part 1 (Lockwood et al., 2013a). Analysis of the dependence of the commonly used geomagnetic indices on solar wind parameters is presented which helps explain why annual means of interdiurnal range data, such as the new composite, depend only on the IMF with only a very weak influence of the solar wind flow speed. The best results are obtained using a polynomial (rather than a linear) fit of the form B = χ · (IDV(1d) − β)α with best-fit coefficients χ = 3.469, β = 1.393 nT, and α = 0.420. The results are contrasted with the reconstruction of the IMF since 1835 by Svalgaard and Cliver (2010).


Interesting comments regarding Leif Svalgaard's observations as a reviewer at the link just under the Abstract. The comments come from the paper.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting.

NCAR scientist admits IPCC may be wrong on clouds, may have a net cooling effect instead of warming



> Cloud expert Dr. Greg Holland, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says in a Huff Post article today, "The current consensus on this from the IPCC is that the clouds are in the net warming. *Not real sure. There is a possibility that the other effects are dominating and they could be cooling.* So this is one of those areas that we need to know a lot more."


Bold from the link.

Video & transcript of interview.


----------



## FeXL

New paper: Arctic temperatures peaked before 1950, declining since



> A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs temperatures over the past 1100 years from Eastern Arctic ice cores. The dating was done by Oxygen 18 isotope dating and the O18 data shows the highest Eastern Arctic temperatures of the 20th century occurred in the 1920′s-1940′s. The data shows that after that peak, there was a cooling or a warming ‘pause’ over the remainder of the 20th century.


Abstract (open access)



> Understanding recent Arctic climate change requires detailed information on past changes, in particular on a regional scale. The extension of the depth–age relation of the Akademii Nauk (AN) ice core from Severnaya Zemlya (SZ) to the last 1100 yr provides new perspectives on past climate fluctuations in the Barents and Kara seas region. Here, we present the easternmost high-resolution ice-core climate proxy records (δ18O and sodium) from the Arctic. Multi-annual AN δ18O data as near-surface air-temperature proxies reveal major temperature changes over the last millennium, including the absolute minimum around 1800 and the unprecedented warming to a *double-peak maximum in the early 20th century.* The long-term cooling trend in δ18O is related to a decline in summer insolation but also to the growth of the AN ice cap as indicated by decreasing sodium concentrations. Neither a pronounced Medieval Climate Anomaly nor a Little Ice Age are detectable in the AN δ18O record. In contrast, there is evidence of several abrupt warming and cooling events, such as in the 15th and 16th centuries, partly accompanied by corresponding changes in sodium concentrations. These abrupt changes are assumed to be related to sea-ice cover variability in the Barents and Kara seas region, which might be caused by shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns. *Our results indicate a significant impact of internal climate variability on Arctic climate change in the last millennium.*


Bold from the link.

So, what do you s'pose caused all that variability over the last thousand years? Michelangelo & Da Vinci cruising Rome in a 4 by 4?


----------



## FeXL

Couple more on Cowtan & Way.

Why The Global Warming ‘Pause’ Hasn’t Gone Away



> The ‘pause’ seen in the land and ocean global surface temperature during the last 16 years is one of the major talking points of climate science. It has been said by some politicians and journalists that ‘sceptics’ have used the ‘pause’ to undermine climate science. Actually there are a great many scientists and others working hard to understand the ‘pause.’ *The ‘Pause’ IS climate science.*


My bold.

Yup.

Cowtan & Way off course



> Dr. Whitehouse’s elegant argument used a technique in which Socrates delighted. He stood on the authors’ own ground, accepted for the sake of argument that they had used various techniques to fill in missing data from the Arctic, where few temperature measurements are taken, and still demonstrated that their premises did not validly entail their conclusion.


Further:



> As Dr. Whitehouse said, HadCRUTt4 already takes into account the missing data in its monthly estimates of coverage uncertainty. For good measure and good measurement, it also includes estimates for measurement uncertainty and bias uncertainty.
> 
> Taking into account these three sources of uncertainty in measuring global mean surface temperature, the error bars are an impressive 0.15 Cº – almost a sixth of a Celsius degree – either side of the central estimate.
> 
> *The fundamental conceptual error that Cowtan & Way had made lay in their failure to realize that large uncertainties do not reduce the length of The Pause: they actually increase it.*


My bold.


----------



## MacDoc

snort - got your blinders on eh



> *Globe’s Unbroken Warm Streak Approaches 29 Years*
> 
> Published: November 19th, 2013
> 
> Brian Kahn By Brian Kahn
> 
> *The globe’s unbroken hot streak is inching closer to 29 years, with new data showing that October was the 344th consecutive month with global average surface temperatures above the 20th century average. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released on Monday, the global average surface temperature for the month of October was 1.13°F above the 20th century average (1961-1990) for the month. That’s enough to make this the seventh-warmest October on record in what is also likely to be the seventh-warmest year on record, according to a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization. The last time the globe had a cooler-than-average month was February 1985, and the last cooler-than-average October occurred in 1976, shortly before Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in that year's presidential election.
> 
> Global temperature departures from average for October 2013, which was the seventh-warmest October on record.
> Credit: NOAA
> Australia is among the red areas on this month's temperature map. The country continued its streak of 15 straight months with above average temperatures. This October was 2.57°F above average, making it the nation's seventh-warmest October and keeping Australia on track to have its hottest year ever. Some areas within the country dealt with even more extreme heat. For example, temperatures were 6.48°F above the long-term average in Sydney, according to Australia's Climate Council. That helped fuel intense bushfires, with thick smoke darkening the skies above the city for days and leading to some of the poorest air quality on record there. Brisbane's average temperature in October was 83.84°F, its hottest on record for the month.
> 
> Above average temperatures extended to the opposite end of the globe as well, where Alaska had its record-warmest October with temperatures running 8.8°F above average.


Globe's Unbroken Warm Streak Approaches 29 Years | Climate Central

gabble all you want...this is reality...










it's getting hotter
we're responsible.


----------



## FeXL

The paper is an interesting read. Somewhat technical but readable.

New paper finds evidence of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate on a regional scale 



> A new paper published in Annales Geophysicae finds "an indirect indication of possible relationships between the variability of galactic cosmic rays and climate change on a regional scale," supportive of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate. The authors find climate patterns in southern Brazil correlated to 11-22 year solar cycles and El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] cycles. ENSO, in turn, has been linked to solar activity and lunisolar cycles.



Abstract (open access)



> *Possible direct or indirect climatic effects related to solar variability and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) were investigated in the southern Brazil region by means of the annual mean temperatures from four weather stations 2 degrees of latitude apart over the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA) region.* Four maximum temperature peaks are evident at all stations in 1940, 1958, 1977 and 2002. A spectral analysis indicates the occurrence of periodicities between 2 and 7 yr, most likely associated with *ENSO, and periodicities of approximately 11 and 22 yr, normally associated with solar variability.* Cross-wavelet analysis indicated that the signal associated with the 22 yr solar magnetic cycle was more persistent in the last decades, while the 11 yr sunspot cycle and ENSO periodicities were intermittent. Phase-angle analysis revealed that temperature variations and the 22 yr solar cycle were in anti-phase near the SAMA center. *Results show an indirect indication of possible relationships between the variability of galactic cosmic rays and climate change on a regional scale.*


----------



## FeXL

New paper explains how natural ocean oscillations control clouds and temperature thousands of miles away



> A new paper published in Climate Dynamics finds a mechanism by which the natural North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] controls atmospheric waves that affect cloud formation, which in turn controls surface temperatures and crop yields in far-away NE China [over 8,000 miles from the Atlantic].


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Forecasting grain production is of strategic importance in considerations of climate change and growing population. Here we show that the springtime North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is significantly correlated to the year-to-year increment of maize and rice yield in Northeast China (NEC). The physical mechanism for this relationship was investigated. Springtime NAO can induce sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTAs) in the North Atlantic, which display a tripole pattern and are similar to the empirical mode pattern in spring. The spring Atlantic SSTA pattern that could persists to summer, can trigger a high-level tropospheric Rossby wave response in the Eurasia continent, resulting in atmospheric circulation anomalies over the Siberia-Mongolia region, which is unfavorable (favorable) for cold surges that affect NEC. Weaker (stronger) cold surges can accordingly reduce (increase) cloud amount, resulting in an increase (a decrease) in daily maximum temperature and a decrease (an increase) in daily minimum temperature, thereby leading to an increase (a decrease) in diurnal temperature range. And summer-mean daily minimum temperature and diurnal temperature range are most significantly related to the NEC crop yields.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen's NASA GISS data confirm the Arctic was warmer from 1920-1940 and cooled 1940-2000



> A 2005 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science shows NASA GISS data demonstrating that 20th century Arctic temperatures peaked between 1920 to 1940, followed by a decline over the remainder of the 20th century.


Further:



> *The paper corroborates a new paper finding ice core proxy temperatures and 4 meteorological datasets show that 20th century Arctic temperatures peaked between 1920-1940 and cooled to the end of the record in 2000.*


My bold.

That paper is the one in post 3958 above.

Abstract (open access)



> Changes in fish distribution and climate in the North Atlantic have been observed for millennia by seafaring peoples, chronicled in many historical anecdotes, and recently studied systematically. For temperate to Arctic North Atlantic fish, a literature compendium of limits of temperature, salinity, and depth during feeding and spawning was used to investigate factors that influence distribution. Latitude and depth were negatively correlated with species number and density. Peak numbers of species feed at 0–4°C, but spawn at 2–7°C and salinities of 32.5–33.5. Principal components of feeding depths and temperatures suggested four groups of species: (i) small pelagics characterized by shallow habitat and cooler temperatures; (ii) most groundfish in deeper and warmer waters; (iii) warm-water large pelagics; and (iv) deepwater species. Spawning temperatures, salinities, depths, and timing produced groupings consistent with feeding components for pelagics, but differing for distant migrants such as tunas. Principal components (PCA) of spawning characteristics explained 56% of the variance in species resilience (doubling time), while PCA of feeding characteristics explained only 23%. We infer that the small pelagics capelin _(Mallotus villosus)_ and herring _(Clupea harengus)_ react strongly and quickly to climate change because of their physiological limits and potential for fast population growth. Verification comes from Icelandic and Greenland waters, which warmed considerably during 1920–1940, and where capelin, herring, cod _(Gadus morhua)_, and other species shifted north very quickly.


----------



## FeXL

On those tornadoes last week.

Weekend Tornado Surge Bumps 2013 Up To Quietest Tornado Season On Record


----------



## FeXL

Understanding Climate Justice



> _CU to study impact of climate change on Boulder prairie dogs
> 
> Researchers in Boulder, Kansas receive $850,000 grant for project._


Gophers? Seriously?


----------



## FeXL

On carbon trading.

London Bankers abandon trading — 70% of jobs gone: “it’s over” says Executive



> At least someone once thought London was the home of carbon finance. Now, not so much. According to the Financial Times, JP Morgan has scaled down their carbon trading team, Morgan Stanley traders are now “part time”, Barclays sold theirs last year, Deutsche Bank closed the office, and UBS shut its climate change advisory panel. Then there is a slew of smaller fish cutting back: EcoSecurities, Camco Clean Energy, Nedbank, Sindacatum, and TFS Green.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> snort - got your blinders on eh
> 
> gabble all you want...this is reality...
> 
> it's getting hotter
> we're responsible.


MacDoc! Hey, how the hell are ya? Haven't seen ya since the last time I wiped up the floor with you!

Before I go any further, I just wanted to address your last line. Yep, the "we're responsible" one. If anybody on these boards is responsible for climate change due to increased anthropogenic emissions, it's you, you jet-setting hypocrite...

OK, let's look at what 29 years of global warming looks like, shall we?

October 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update

Take a look at that first graph, will ya? Approximate a trend line from 1998 through today, use a ruler on the screen, if you want. Eyeballin' it will be close enough. Check out that flatline. Helluva warming streak, idn't it? Seventeen years, 204 months, more or less. Hey, wasn't a 17 year hiatus s'pose ta rule out the GCM's as credible? (snort, like they ever had any...)

BTW, you'll note that graph has the temperature record from GISS, HADCRUT4 &, interestingly enough, NCDC (the blue line). Just in case you don't know, NCDC is the one that furnishes NOAA with their data.

Question: If NCDC (and GISS and HADCRUT4, for that matter) don't show 29 years of warming, how can NOAA?

Why don't you puzzle over that confounding reality the next time yer flying over the Pacific, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere...

Have a day!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> MacDoc! Hey, how the hell are ya? Haven't seen ya since the last time I wiped up the floor with you!


That "projected temperature" graph--based on nothing--had me rolling on the floor! Why not just put dollar signs on on one axis and say we're all getting rich while you're at it.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> That "projected temperature" graph--based on nothing--had me rolling on the floor! Why not just put dollar signs on on one axis and say we're all getting rich while you're at it.


Yeah, looks like an overdose of Cialis, right down to the throbbing red color...


----------



## FeXL

More on Cowtan & Way.

Could the Perspectives of Cowtan and Way Negate RSS’s 17 Year Pause?



> My conclusion is that even if we had accurate data to the north pole, it may have pushed the 17.0 years back a month, or possibly two months at the very most. When we get the RSS data for November, it may well show a pause of 17 years and one or two months. *If that is the case, then Cowtan and Way will have negligible implications for RSS.* Furthermore, it will make the discrepancy between HadCRUT4 and RSS become larger that it already is.


Bold mine.

A guest poster makes some observations:

Cowtan and Way – The Magician’s ‘Red Scarf Trick’ with Linear Trend Lines



> From 1979 to around 2005 or 2006, the new technique does not produce anything different than what we already had. Sometimes their data is a few hundredths of a degree higher, sometimes a few hundredths of a degree lower. If it had been any closer a match, I, for one, would have called foul….it would have been suspicious that a major change in the method would produce exactly the same results. There are no signs of a long-term bias—warm or cool—in the Met Office data compared to their new Global.
> 
> In 2005, 2006, and the first part of 2007 there seems to be some discernible differences, still in the one or two hundredths of a degree range, which disappear for a year or more beginning what looks like mid-2007 and lasts until 2009 (the right edge of the yellow box). There is something definitely different in the last few years of the data.
> 
> What that difference is, I don’t know, nor do I have any idea why it is different and *only* in those last few years……but it seems highly unlikely to me that a long-standing cool-biasing methodological error (regarding infilling or not of Arctic data) at the MET OFFICE becomes visible only in the last few years of a 33 year data set.


Emphasis from the link.

Good question.


----------



## MacDoc

Gotta love the rightwingdings grasp on science...










meanwhile methane again..

....did not think the scale was of concern but this raises the issue. Older article but had not seen it and combined with the latest info out of the article thought events seem to be unfolding in a risky manner.. 5 years ago



> in the case of the East Siberian Shelf (ESS), shallow sediments have not been considered a methane source to the hydrosphere or atmosphere because seabed permafrost (defined as sediments with a 2-year mean temperature below 0 ̊C), which is considered to underlay most of the ESS, acts as an impermeable lid, preventing methane escape. *However, our recent data showed extreme methane supersaturation of surface water, implying high sea-to-air fluxes*.
> 
> Extremely high concentrations of methane (up to 8 ppm) in the atmospheric layer above the sea surface along with anomalously high concentrations of dissolved methane in the water column (up to 560 nM, or 12000% of super saturation), registered during a summertime cruise over the ESS in September 2005, were analyzed together with available data obtained during previous and subsequent expeditions to distinguish between possible methane sources of different origin, potential, and mobility. Using indirect evidence it was shown that one such source may be highly potential and extremely mobile shallow methane hydrates, whose stability zone is seabed permafrost-related and could be disturbed upon permafrost development, degradation, and thawing. Further immobilization of stored methane could cause abrupt methane release and unpredictable climatic consequences.
> The total area of submarine permafrost within the Siberian Arctic shelf is estimated to be more than one and half million square kilometers. Amount of methane hydrate deposited beneath and/or within submarine relic permafrost is estimated to be at least 540 Gt. Amount of free gas, accumulated beneath the hydrate deposits, is expected to be about 2/3 of the amount of hydrates or 360 Gt. Additionally as much as 500 Gt of carbon could be stored within as minimum as a 25 m-thick permafrost body of this type. The total value of ESS carbon pool is, thus, not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon. Since the area of geological disjunctives (fault zones, tectonically and seismically active areas) within the Siberian Arctic shelf composes not less than 1-2% of the total area and area of open taliks (area of melt through permafrost), acting as a pathway for methane escape within the Siberian Arctic shelf reaches up to 5-10% of the total area, *we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time.*


http://meetings.copernicus.org/www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf

Updated to 2013 ....



> *Methane Levels going through the Roof*
> On November 9, 2013, methane readings well over 2600 ppb were recorded at multiple altitudes, as illustrated by the image below.
> 
> On November 9, 2013, p.m., methane readings were recorded as high as 2662 parts per billion (ppb), at 586 millibars (mb) pressure, which corresponds with an altitude of 14384.6 feet or 4384.4 meters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these high levels occur? Methane levels were low on the southern hemisphere and, while there were some areas with high readings over North America and Asia,* there were no areas as wide and bright yellow as over the Arctic Ocean (the color yellow indicating readings of 1950 ppb and higher on above map).*


Dancing with the devil...:and some in denial of reality.... rolleyes:


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre talks about his history with Way at SS secret forum. Very revealing. The impression I get is generally favourable towards Way as he stands up on occasion for McIntyre's methodology. Way expresses concern in the comments (where much of the story resides) over his observations at SS becoming public knowledge. 

Behind the SKS Curtain



> In today’s post, I’ve re-examined Robert Way’s contributions to the secret SKS forum, where both he and Cowtan (Kevin C) have been long-time contributors. In my first post, I took exception to Way calling me a “conspiracy wackjob”. However, relative to the tenor of other SKS posts in which their colleagues fantasize about “ripping” out Anthony Watts’ throat and Anthony and I being perp-walked in handcuffs, Way’s language was relatively mild.
> 
> In addition, re-reading the relevant threads, other than a couple of occasions (ones to which I had taken exception), Way’s language was mostly temperate and well-removed from the conspiratorial fantasies about the “Denial Machine” that pervade too much of the SKS forum. In addition, this re-reading showed that, on numerous occasions, Way had agreed with Climate Audit critiques, sometimes in very forceful terms and usually against SKS forum opposition. Way typically accompanied these agreements with sideswipes to evidence his disdain for Climate Audit, but seldom, if ever, contradicted things that I had actually said.
> 
> I think that readers will be surprised at the degree of Way’s endorsement of the Climate Audit critique of Team paleoclimate practices.


This comment from Brandon nails it.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, two posts in two days! Honoured!



MacDoc said:


> Gotta love the rightwingdings grasp on science...


I dunno, sounds like the identical difficulty with science that certain lefty computer salesmen have. That, & he's a politician. Do you put any stock in what _any_ of them have to say about _anything_? Pulease...



MacDoc said:


> Dancing with the devil...:and some in denial of reality.... rolleyes:


So, lemme get this progressive version of "reality" straight...

After you repeatedly get your butt handed to you with your baseless arguments about CO2 dealing a death blow to the planet, you move the goalposts and switch to methane, which, according to even Wiki, is even less of an issue than CO2. Is that the thrust?

If you really want to address the biggest GHG, why don't you bring up dihyrogen monoxide? Now that's some scary stuff, man...


----------



## FeXL

Scafetta 2013: Simple solar astronomical model beats IPCC climate models



> Nicola Scafetta has a new paper (in long line of papers) on a semi-empirical model which has a better fit than Global Circulation Models (CGM) favored by the IPCC. We ought be careful not to read too much into it, but nor to ignore the message in it about the grand failure of the GCM’s. *Scafetta used Fourier analysis to find six cycles, then uses those six cycles to produce a climate model he runs for as long as 2000 years which seems to match the best multiproxies.*


Bold mine.

Imagine that. A simple model based on natural cycles that outperforms CHIMP GCM's. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

The skillful predictions of climate science



> In 2007, a team of climate scientists from the UK Met Office led by Doug Smith wrote a paper “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”, published in the journal Science. Although published in 2007, the paper made predictions for the decade 2004-2014. (Presumably the work was started around 2004 and it took some time for the paper to be published).


Whaddya s'pose the results were?



> These predictions have turned out to be wrong. We are almost into 2014 and there has been no warming at all since 2004. Of the years since 2009, none of them have broken the record of 1998 according to HADCRUT3 data. Using HADCRUT4, 2010 is warmer by a meaningless 0.01°C (that’s one tenth of the error estimate).


Yup. But, hey, there's a new, improved model coming out! However, the taste of cold crow must still be in their mouths, 'cause now "...the forecast is experimental".

Of course it is...

More (links back to above article):

Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat


----------



## FeXL

I've noted before that I don't normally link to these kind of studies. That said, the fact that stood out for me was that these copepods were exposed to water in the presence of 3300ppm CO2 for a month with no change in survivability. Yes, it was only a month but it pushes the envelope at over 8 times our current CO2 concentration.

New paper finds ocean crustaceans not affected by CO2 levels 8 times higher than the present 

Abstract (open access)



> The impact of medium-term exposure to CO2-acidified seawater on survival, growth and development was investigated in the North Atlantic copepod _Calanus finmarchicus_. Using a custom developed experimental system, fertilized eggs and subsequent development stages were exposed to normal seawater (390 ppm CO2) or one of three different levels of CO2-induced acidification (3300, 7300, 9700 ppm CO2). *Following the 28-day exposure period, survival was found to be unaffected by exposure to 3300 ppm CO2,* but significantly reduced at 7300 and 9700 ppm CO2. Also, the proportion of copepodite stages IV to VI observed in the different treatments was significantly affected in a manner that may indicate a CO2-induced retardation of the rate of ontogenetic development. Morphometric analysis revealed a significant increase in size (prosome length) and lipid storage volume in stage IV copepodites exposed to 3300 ppm CO2 and reduced size in stage III copepodites exposed to 7300 ppm CO2. *Together, the findings indicate that apCO2 level ≤2000 ppm (the highest CO2 level expected by the year 2300) will probably not directly affect survival in C. finmarchicus*. Longer term experiments at more moderate CO2 levels are, however, necessary before the possibility that growth and development may be affected below 2000 ppm CO2 can be ruled out.


Bold from the link.

Unfortunately, the author's give the usual nod to AGW and, in the first paragraph of the Introduction, note that:



> The rate of change in the atmospheric CO2 con- centration and ocean pH experienced over the last century is up to a hundred times faster than any change observed during the past 650 000 yr (Siegenthaler et al., 2005).


There is more recent research that indicates otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

American Geophysical Union adds legal counseling to its Fall Meeting agenda, citing scientists' need to defend against increasing attacks on research, correspondence and public statements.



> The American Geophysical Union, representing more than 62,000 Earth, atmospheric and space scientists worldwide, has teamed with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to make lawyers available for confidential sessions with scientists at its annual meeting next month.
> 
> Legal counseling is not a typical agenda item for a science confab, but it's become an important one in today's political climate, scientists say.


Perhaps if there wasn't so much lying, politicking, malfeasance & outright deceit in the climate science community in the first place, they wouldn't need to be lawyering up...


----------



## FeXL

Somebody gets it...

Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket



> Reports out of Warsaw, Poland, say that 132 nations walked out of the United Nations climate conference Wednesday. Are they upset over global warming? No, they just want more money from rich countries.
> 
> As the U.N. Conference of the Parties droned on toward the end of its two-week meeting, "representatives of most of the world's poor countries" staged a walkout, the British Guardian said, over a "compensation row."
> 
> *More specifically, they quit because they felt the rich countries weren't pouring enough money into their treasuries — from where it typically ends up in the hands of a kleptocratic ruling class.
> 
> That, of course, is almost entirely what the global warming scare is about: wealth transfer.*


Yup.

Don't let the door hit ya on the backside on the way out...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Greenland ice sheet is 'insensitive' to surface melt; lowers sea level projections



> In 2012, the mainstream media breathlessly reported that a brief 4-day surface melt over the Greenland ice sheet represented evidence of man-made global warming and an impending rise in sea levels due to melting and sliding of the Greenland ice sheet. However, a new paper published in PNAS finds the "Greenland ice sheet motion is insensitive to exceptional meltwater forcing." The paper adds to other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that Greenland is resistant to thaw and sea level rise projections greatly exaggerated.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Changes to the dynamics of the Greenland ice sheet can be forced by various mechanisms including surface-melt–induced ice acceleration and oceanic forcing of marine-terminating glaciers. We use observations of ice motion to examine the surface melt–induced dynamic response of a land-terminating outlet glacier in southwest Greenland to the exceptional melting observed in 2012. During summer, meltwater generated on the Greenland ice sheet surface accesses the ice sheet bed, lubricating basal motion and resulting in periods of faster ice flow. However, the net impact of varying meltwater volumes upon seasonal and annual ice flow, and thus sea level rise, remains unclear. We show that two extreme melt events (98.6% of the Greenland ice sheet surface experienced melting on July 12, the most significant melt event since 1889, and 79.2% on July 29) and summer ice sheet runoff ∼3.9σ above the 1958–2011 mean resulted in enhanced summer ice motion relative to the average melt year of 2009. However, despite record summer melting, subsequent reduced winter ice motion resulted in 6% less net annual ice motion in 2012 than in 2009. *Our findings suggest that surface melt–induced acceleration of land-terminating regions of the ice sheet will remain insignificant even under extreme melting scenarios.*


Bold mine.

I'm not crazy about how the authors characterize the melt last summer on Greenland. They still manage to convey panic in the face of what was a couple of warm days in Greenland where the surface melted a bit. It wasn't complete & catastrophic meltdown.

The authors note:



> Significance
> 
> During summer, meltwater generated on the Greenland ice sheet surface accesses the ice sheet bed, lubricating basal motion and resulting in periods of faster ice flow. However, the net impact of varying meltwater volumes upon seasonal and annual ice flow, and thus sea level rise, remains unclear. In 2012, despite record ice sheet runoff, including two extreme melt events, ice at a land-terminating margin flowed more slowly than in the average melt year of 2009, due principally to slower winter flow following faster summer flow. *Our findings suggest that annual motion of land-terminating margins of the ice sheet, and thus the projected dynamic contribution of these margins to sea level rise, is insensitive to melt volumes commensurate with temperature projections for 2100.*


Bold mine.

I still have issues with this whole "meltwater as glacier lubricant" thing. Need to bone up on that...


----------



## FeXL

Guest post on Judith Curry's blog about what Greg Goodman terms "This is signal processing more tha[n] stats," on data.

Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’



> Running means are often used as a simple low pass filter (usually without understanding its defects). Often it is referred to as a “smoother”.
> 
> In fact it does not even “smooth” too well either since it lets through enough high frequencies to give a spiky result.
> 
> Running means are fast and easy to implement. Since most people have some understanding of what an average does, the idea of a running average seems easily understood. Sadly it’s not that simple and running averages often cause serious corruption of the data.


Non-technical & a very good read. Amazing to see the corruption in raw data that a "simple" smoothing can result in.


----------



## FeXL

So, another "barely" sociological examination of sceptics. I just don't understand the fascination...

Skeptically mapping why Big-government research is often a waste of money



> This study on “skeptics” came out in the weeks just before the Australian election. I had quite some fun with it, then promptly forgot it. (You’ll see why soon).
> 
> But Amelia Sharman, of The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, seems genuinely interested, claiming skeptics haven’t been studied much, suggesting skeptical blogs are quite important, and wait for it, discovering that *the thing that makes the most central skeptical blogs popular is that they are interested in the science*.
> 
> *Despite all the rumors that we are an organized funded campaign of political ideologues, she discovered we are not densely connected, not-centrally-organized, and what ho, we value a command of scientific knowledge.* If perhaps she was hoping to uncover some secret structure that would reveal a coordinated chain of command, she must have been disappointed.


Bold mine.

Little bit long, but good enough for entertainment value, especially from the "Who knew: Skeptics like to read about science?" subheading on down. Did you know that sceptic bloggers are an "alternative knowledge network"?

Kewl...


----------



## FeXL

Willis educates on violin plots of data distribution & compares model output with them. Surprise, some glaring differences.

One Model, One Vote



> Through the good offices of Nic Lewis and Piers Forster, who have my thanks, I’ve gotten a set of 20 matched model forcing inputs and corresponding surface temperature outputs, as used by the IPCC. These are the individual models whose average I discussed in my post called Model Climate Sensitivity Calculated Directly From Model Results. I thought I’d investigate the temperatures first, and compare the model results to the HadCRUT and other observational surface temperature datasets. I start by comparing the datasets themselves. One of my favorite tools for comparing datasets is the “violin plot”.


There is also (from the comments) an excellent definition of the differences between "hindcasting" & "training" in models"



> the climate models confuse hindcasting with training. *When you let the model see the past you are training. Of course the model can memorize the past and repeat it. A parrot can do the same.*
> 
> *Hindcasting occurs when you don’t show the model the past and it can predict it anyways.* This proves that the model likely has some skill. To date no climate model has demonstrated this ability. Let me repeat, no climate model to date has demonstrated any skill at hindcasting.
> 
> For example, given the current position of a planet and its current motion, gravitational models can predict with some accuracy its past position. We can verify this using historical records, which gives us great confidence in the accuracy of gravitational models. We don’t need to wait to see if the model is accurate in the future, because it has correctly predicted the past without knowing the past. This gives us confidence the models can predict the future.
> 
> However, what if we trained the models by telling them the past position of the planet. Would this give us any confidence in the ability of the model to make predictions about the past or future? No, because all the model need do is parrot what it has learned. This requires no ability to predict, it requires the ability to mimic. That is what we see with climate models, they mimic the builders, they don’t have any skill to predict.


Bold mine.

Very good read, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

An unfortunate story in a guest post by Jim Steele, Director Emeritus, Sierra Nevada Field Campus San Francisco State University.

Contrasting Good and Bad Science: Disease, Climate Change and the Case of the Golden Toad



> As MIT’s world-renowned oceanographer Carl Wunsch warned “Convenient assumptions should not be turned prematurely into “facts,” nor uncertainties and ambiguities suppressed…_*Anyone can write a model*: the challenge is to demonstrate its accuracy and precision_…Otherwise, the scientific debate is controlled by the most articulate, colorful, or adamant players. (emphasis added)”1 As presented here before, the extinction of the Golden Toad illustrates the great abyss that separates the rigor of good medical science from the opportunistic models trumpeted by a few articulate and adamant climate scientists. *The lack of substance in climate propaganda is revealed when we compare the details that led epidemiologists to blame a fungus and modern transportation for the Golden Toad’s extinction.*


First bold from the link, second bold mine.

It's a long read but an perfect example of sporting blinders while allegedly conducting science.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Gotta love the rightwingdings grasp on science...


Left wing wingnut, meet reality. From Snopes:



> _Wouldn't it be ironic if_ in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman...


----------



## FeXL

Stefan Rahmstorf and the consensus of experts on sea level -vs- reality, reality wins



> The basic premise of Stefan Rahmstorf’s claim is that sea level rise will accelerate before the end of the century. So far there has been no evidence of acceleration, it appears entirely linear no matter whether we look at tide gauges or satellite measurements.
> 
> ...
> 
> As you can see, the sea level rise rate widely varied during the 20th century. It reached about 4 mm/year around 1911, and again in the 1930s, 1950s and around 1980. It was much lower in the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and mid-1980s.


From the comments:



> *Please recall that at the LGM [Last Glacial Maximum] ~19,000 years ago, sea levels were at their all time lowest in geologic history. That is because a significant fraction of the world’s water was on land in the form of continental ice sheets.
> 
> Since then much land ice has melted, but sea levels have yet to reach Tertiary norms.*
> 
> Should sea levels stop rising, it would be because ice is once again accumulating on land, signaling neoglaciation and the return of Ice Age stadial conditions. Indeed, that’s already happening on a multi-millenial scale.
> 
> Which would be (indeed is) a BAD thing for humanity and Life in General.


My bold.

Careful what they wish for...


----------



## FeXL

When I ran across this article today, I had some issues with some of the statements. Those, & then some, are addressed in the comments by Easterbrook, among others.

Study: Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller 3000-5000 years ago than today

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Reconstructions of ice sheet fluctuations during the Holocene, which encompassed cooler and warmer conditions than those that are captured in the historic record, help to elucidate ice margin sensitivity to climate change. We used amino acid geochronology to constrain the history of the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin during intervals of relative warmth in the middle Holocene. We measured the extent of amino acid racemization in 251 ice sheet-reworked marine bivalve shells from three locations spanning western Greenland. A significant relationship between shell age and the ratio of aspartic acid (Asp) isomers (Asp D/L) was revealed using Bayesian model fitting on 20 radiocarbon-dated shell fragments. The range of Asp-inferred bivalve ages at each site corresponds well with independent records of early Holocene ice retreat and late Holocene ice advance. Furthermore, the frequency of Asp-inferred bivalve ages from the three widely separated locations is nearly identical, with most ages between 5 and 3 ka, coinciding with optimum oceanic conditions. Because ice margin changes in western Greenland are tightly linked with oceanographic conditions, the distribution of reworked bivalve ages provides important information about relative ice margin position during smaller-than-present ice sheet configurations. This approach adds a new chronometer to our toolkit for constraining smaller-than-present ice sheet configurations and may have wide applicability around Greenland.


Don Easterbrook's comments here & here. Doug Proctor's here.


----------



## FeXL

Austrian Meteorologists Stupefied Into Silence! Data From Alps Show Marked Cooling Over Last 2-3 Decades!



> Evaluated data from the Austrian ZAMG meteorological institute now unmistakably show that the *Alps have been cooling over the last 20 years and longer,* _“at some places massively“_ thus crassly contradicting all the loud claims, projections, and model sceanrios made earlier by global warming scientists.


Bold from the link.

More:



> According to an expert review conducted by the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), the Austrian state weather service, using weather data from the last 20 years or more: _“Winters there indeed are shown to have gotten colder over the last 20 years, and in some places quite massively. The last two winters at Kitzbühel were in fact the coldest of the last 20 years.”_
> 
> Jung then writes that also four other high elevation stations in the Alps were assessed: Zugspitze in Germany, Schmittenhöhe in Austria, Sonnblick in Austria and Säntis in Switzerland. Result:
> 
> _"They all yielded the same amazing result: Winters in the Alps over the last decades have become significantly colder, the data show.”_


----------



## FeXL

An interesting twist, graphically depicted.

21st Century Temperature Sensitivity



> Since the start of the 21st century, temperatures have declined 0.03ºC with each additional 10 PPM of CO2.


----------



## FeXL

Opinion piece.

Is Greenpeace facing its Warsawgrad?



> Switching to our times, one might well get the impression that in the decades-long war of Greenpeace, WWF and their countless NGO brethren for control of the public opinion about the so-called global warming threat allegedly caused by human CO2 emissions, such a turning point has been reached. The UN meeting in Warsaw (Poland), where further measures to curb these emissions should have been laid on keel, has seen a number of leading countries bluntly refusing to continue supporting the scam while many others stayed on the sidelines, paying lip-service to the noble cause of saving the climate and the planet while abstaining from any sizeable commitments.


----------



## FeXL

Couple on Cowtan & Way and data coverage.

Data Coverage in Cowtan and Way



> It is quite obvious that the losses occurred in those areas which were already short of temperature information thereby exacerbating the problems inherent in trying to create a reliable reconstruction of the gridded temperatures in the polar regions. I would suggest that the paper’s observation that “coverage is very slightly reduced” understates the impact of these reductions by ignoring the geography of where they occur.


Further on the above:

On data losses -vs- geography in Cowtan and Way 2013: data dropout may account for most of the recent observed differences



> At Climate Audit, Roman M. has a very interesting analysis that shows the surface grid cell losses from HadCRUT4 in C&W. It hones in on the issue of why the temperature differences from 2005 are much more significant than the earlier part of the record. Data loss seems to be recently seasonally large, especially in the Antarctic, something C&W seems not to have considered important enough to dedicate more than a passing note about. *Roman’s analysis was made possible by the fact that C&W provided data and code here, something not so common these days, so some props are in order.*


Bold mine.

I agree, it is important to acknowledge the inclusion of data & code. Good on them.


----------



## FeXL

On the other hand, bad on the EU...

EU gives 20% (sic) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change



> _20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change, climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced in Warsaw today.
> 
> This equates to €180 billion on climate spending between 2014 and 2020, which will be used to reduce emissions domestically and help developing countries adapt to climate change—three times what was provided in the previous budget.
> 
> Much of this will be spent on domestic projects, helping with the development of climate-smart agriculture, energy efficiency and the transport sector._​


----------



## FeXL

Judith has a "Week In Review" post, headlining a couple of interviews with Hans von Storch, the Mann vs Muller Op-Eds and a couple of posts from the Scottish Sceptic blog.

Week in review

I found the first of the 3 sections (von Storch) the most interesting, especially this comment:



> _At the 29-minute mark von Storch says he sees himself as someone who needs a lot of time before he is convinced of anything. I was surprised to hear him call both Science and Nature “pretty bad journals” when it comes to the quality of their articles. Hans von Storch cites an article published by Science claiming that the climate was going to tip in the year 2047, calling the report “a real doozy“. He says that science journals must remain sufficiently critical and not let themselves get caught up with the zeitgeist. Von Storch admits that he has not always been popular among the community._​


I bet he's going to be a lot less popular with The Team after that observation.


----------



## FeXL

Steven notes the frequency of 40° C days at US temperature stations operational since at least 1930.

US Summer Temperatures Have Cooled Dramatically Since The 1930′s



> Summer temperatures in the US were much hotter during the 1930′s than in any recent years.


----------



## FeXL

Sen. Whitehouse: Not the sharpest tool in the shed...


Are the ‘climate will affect sports stadiums’ claims of U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse the dumbest ever?



> _ Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) warns sports stadiums are at risk from the “sea level rise effects of climate change,” and that climate change specifically threatens hockey and skiing.
> 
> “We see significant sports facilities, the palaces of – of sport that are at risk from the storm, climate, sea-level rise effects of climate change,” Sen. Whitehouse said today following a *closed-door climate discussion* with executives from the NFL, NHL and NBA._​


Bold mine.

Wouldn't want any actual truth sneaking into those scary climate meetings, now, would we...

In sum:

Drats. _Surely_ there must be a sports stadium somewhere in the USA that is threatened in the near future by sea level rise, so that closed door meetings with sports franchises with the highly distinguished senator from Rhode Island can make his sales pitch factual?

The facts suggest Senator Whitehouse doesn’t even fit the definition of _useful_ idiot.

Italics from the link.

Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

There has been some recent praise directed towards the Chinese for their emissions "reductions". Are the reported cuts legit?

China’s “Emission Cuts” Not What They Seem



> Just to put the China numbers into perspective, their current emissions are 27% of the global figure, so a doubling would add another quarter.
> 
> Such an increase would be one and a half times the combined emissions of the whole of the EU, Russia and the rest of Europe and Eurasia.
> 
> All of this rather begs the question – if CO2 is really such a problem, why are not the UN, Greenpeace, UNFCC, Western politicians, activist scientists and all the other hangers on jumping up and down and demanding that China starts making real cuts now?


Not. So, Much.


----------



## CubaMark

*US is pumping 50% more methane into atmosphere than government says, scientists warn*
*New figures effectively cancel out perceived benefits of switch from coal to natural gas*

_Scientists have warned that the US is pumping out 50 per cent more methane than it publishes in government estimates, effectively cancelling out efforts to cut CO2 emissions.

The study is one of the most comprehensive attempts to monitor greenhouse gases ever carried out, based on more than 13,000 measurements between 2007 and 2008.

It estimates that the US poured nearly 50 million tons of methane into the air during the period – compared to the 32 million tons estimated by the US Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), or the 29 million tons registered by the European Commission.

The gas is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2, and scientists said the new figures meant methane contributed as much to global warming as all the emissions from the US’s cars, trucks and planes in a six-month period.

“Something is very much off in the inventories,”_​

(IndependentUK)


----------



## Macfury

The old bait-and-switch. Once carbon fell of the radar, methane was nominated to replace it, particularly in light of the marvelous benefits of natural gas vs. coal. It's really all about preventing western nations from enjoying the benefit of inexpensive power.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The old bait-and-switch. Once carbon fell of the radar, methane was nominated to replace it, particularly in light of the marvelous benefits of natural gas vs. coal. It's really all about preventing western nations from enjoying the benefit of inexpensive power.


I would also add TIPPC™ has outright admitted to it being a system to redistribute wealth across the planet.


----------



## FeXL

So, some of you may have heard about warmists recently using a new unit of measure for global warming, namely the "Hiroshima". It is equivalent to the amount of energy in the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

Frankly, I think that this is in such poor taste it isn't even funny but, leave it to the warmists (after all, they came out with the 10:10 video...). In addition and, in even poorer taste, the idiots over at SS have developed a new app along the same line. 

I post this for one reason only: to illustrate exactly what class of people we are dealing with here:

The 4hiroshimas app – propaganda of the worst kind



> The kidz at Skeptical Science (SkS) have made fools of themselves again, creating an app that is not only morally wrong, but the clearest case of science propaganda disguised as climate information I’ve ever seen.


Not only that, but the premise is so full of holes only they could come up with it...


----------



## FeXL

Probably the last post I'll make on the nuclear bomb metric...

2.1 Billion Nuclear Bombs Of Accumulated Heat Produce 0.00C Warming


----------



## FeXL

Pielke, Jr. graphs the truth about US hurricane landfalls.

Graphs of the Day: Major US Hurricane Drought Continues 



> The five-year period ending 2013 has seen 2 hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900. Two other five-year periods have seen 3 landfalls (years ending in 1984 and 1994). Prior to 1970 the fewest landfalls over a five-year period was 6. From 1940 to 1957, every 5-year period had more than 10 hurricane landfalls (1904-1920 was almost as active).


Anthony comments as well.

2013: slowest Atlantic hurricane season in 30 years



> No mention of the failure of the predictions in 2013, nor the fact that this year goes against wild claims made by alarmists of increasing hurricanes due to global warming, something Pielke Jr. also illustrates with a new graph


From the Hockey Shtick:

NOAA: 2013 had fewest hurricanes since 1982 and no major hurricanes formed


----------



## FeXL

So you want to talk methane. Fine...

Methane estimates from the Arctic double, but there’s no cause for alarm



> From the University of Alaska, Fairbanks
> 
> The seafloor off the coast of Northern Siberia is releasing more than twice the amount of methane as previously estimated, according to new research results published in the Nov. 24 edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.
> 
> The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is venting at least 17 teragrams of the methane into the atmosphere each year. A teragram is equal to 1 million tons.


OK, so how significant is that?



> The estimated total emissions totals 600 Tg/a, sinks total 580 Tg/a. The previous estimates of CH4 emissions are already accounted for somewhere in the table above, perhaps with oceans, then it adds 8.5 TG/a to the balance sheet.
> 
> *8.5/600 is a 1.4% increase, hardly anything dramatic.* It may be even be below or near the error band for these estimates.


Ed Zachery...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

In an effort to explain "The Pause", many warmists have taken to volcanic activity as the excuse du jour.

New paper rules out volcanoes as the cause of the 'pause'



> The authors find volcanic eruptions were only responsible for ~0.025C cooling over the 5 year period from 2008-2012, a rate of 0.005C cooling per year. By contrast, the globe was warming at a rate of 0.017C/year from 1979-2000 before the 'pause' in global warming, a rate that was 3.4 times higher than the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions calculated in this new paper. In addition, volcanic activity was much greater before the 'pause' than after.
> 
> Thus, volcanic activity can effectively be ruled out as an IPCC excuse for no global warming over the past 17 years.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The slow-down in global warming over the last decade has lead to significant debate about whether the causes are of natural or anthropogenic origin. Using an ensemble of HadGEM2-ES coupled climate model simulations we investigate the impact of overlooked modest volcanic eruptions. We deduce a global mean cooling of around −0.02 to −0.03 K over the period 2008–2012. Thus while these eruptions do cause a cooling of the Earth and may therefore contribute to the slow-down in global warming, they do not appear to be the sole or primary cause.


----------



## FeXL

There have been a number of papers published trying to draw a connection between sunspots and global temps. These have had varying success, I've posted links to a few in the past.

There is a new monograph out by mechanical engineer Dan Pangburn in which he employs both ocean oscillation amplitude & time factors of sunspots. He manages a correlation of 0.9048 (90.48%) to the temperature record.

Calculated Mean Global Temperatures 1610-2012

Calculus notwithstanding, it's not a difficult read.


----------



## FeXL

With little direct connection with climate change, Spencer offers a graphical puzzle.

The Magical Mystery Climate Index



> It’s the sum of 3 terms: a linear trend, an annual cycle, and a 6.5 year cycle:
> 
> ...
> 
> Why did I do this? As a couple of people already guessed, it was mostly to show how a linear trend superimposed upon a cycle can yield periods of rapid change, followed by no change, then rapid change once again. In other words, a linear trend combined with a sinusoidal cycle can lead to plateaus.


Interesting, seeing as the planet has seen these in it's temperature record in the not too distant past...


----------



## FeXL

Coming up on the anniversary of the release of the Climategate emails in 2009, more emails from the first batch.

A hilarious view of Climategate I’ve never read before

Thoroughly enjoyable.


----------



## FeXL

Link to a very good 3 minute video on the complexities of measuring sea level (and the subsequent question, how can we possibly know what the current sea level is with any degree of accuracy...).

A bunch of stuff I’ll bet you never knew about sea level


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Real pollution (not ‘carbon’ pollution) increases storm clouds



> From the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: A common theme among climate alarmists is that the wrongly named ‘carbon pollution’ aka carbon dioxide, increases the frequency and intensity of storms. Observational data show that NOT to be true, and this new study shows why real pollution (aerosols) results in larger, deeper and longer lasting storm clouds, leading to colder days and warmer nights – Anthony


Abstract (open access)



> Deep convective clouds (DCCs) play a crucial role in the general circulation, energy, and hydrological cycle of our climate system. Aerosol particles can influence DCCs by altering cloud properties, precipitation regimes, and radiation balance. Previous studies reported both invigoration and suppression of DCCs by aerosols, but few were concerned with the whole life cycle of DCC. By conducting multiple monthlong cloud-resolving simulations with spectral-bin cloud microphysics that capture the observed macrophysical and microphysical properties of summer convective clouds and precipitation in the tropics and midlatitudes, this study provides a comprehensive view of how aerosols affect cloud cover, cloud top height, and radiative forcing. We found that although the widely accepted theory of DCC invigoration due to aerosol’s thermodynamic effect (additional latent heat release from freezing of greater amount of cloud water) may work during the growing stage, it is microphysical effect influenced by aerosols that drives the dramatic increase in cloud cover, cloud top height, and cloud thickness at the mature and dissipation stages by inducing larger amounts of smaller but longer-lasting ice particles in the stratiform/anvils of DCCs, even when thermodynamic invigoration of convection is absent. The thermodynamic invigoration effect contributes up to ∼27% of total increase in cloud cover. The overall aerosol indirect effect is an atmospheric radiative warming (3–5 W⋅m−2) and a surface cooling (−5 to −8 W⋅m−2). The modeling findings are confirmed by the analyses of ample measurements made at three sites of distinctly different environments.


----------



## FeXL

COP-19 over.

UN Climate Conference Concludes Inconclusively



> “For the third year in a row the (member) countries have found a new way to say absolutely nothing,” asserted Oxfam director Winnie Byanyima, as the U.N.’s annual climate change conference limped inconsequentially to its end on Saturday in Warsaw.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

People just not paying attention to the hype any more.

NY Times climate news shrinks 30% — another signpost in the decline of The Great Global Warming Scam



> In the second half of 2013 we’ve had the fanfare release of the once-every-five-years AR5 report (as well as the more comprehensive and accurate NIPCC report) as well as the usual yearly two week junket. You might notice those small blips on the graph.
> 
> The cause is declining in popularity, but we’re still at the stage where the major players are pretending to go along — “it’s only structural” — and saying how much they are concerned even as their actions suggest the opposite. Look for the next shift where people don’t bother pretending.
> 
> *One day people will rush to declare that they never really believed it.*


My bold.

Can't come soon enough...


----------



## FeXL

On sea ice.

Global Sea Ice Area Highest In 25 Years, 6th Highest On Record



> It has been 25 years since Hansen predicted the demise of polar sea ice. Gaia has celebrated the date by producing the most polar sea ice in the last 25 years.


Arctic Sea Ice Extent Same As 40 Years Ago



> NSIDC cleverly starts their graphs in 1978, the year of peak Arctic ice. This creates the impression that there is a linear downwards trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> What NSIDC is hiding is that there were satellite measurements much earlier than 1978, which showed that 1978 was the peak ice extent. The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report. I added the red circle to show NSIDC’s misleading start date.


Lies, statistics & warmist climate "science"...


----------



## FeXL

Further on islands slipping beneath the surface of the sea...


About 2,740,000 results



> A Google search for _kiribati drown_ produces about 2,740,000 results.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is a heart rending story. *Too bad no one reporting on this has an IQ over 30, and they can’t look up the tide gauge data for themselves. Sea level has been falling at Kiribati over the last 20 years.*


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Recall Donna was in Warsaw for COP-19.

That Silly Coal Speech



> Christiana Figueres is a United Nations employee. To be precise, she’s an unelected bureaucrat. As Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC – which stands for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – her job is to keep that climate treaty alive.
> 
> ...
> 
> Last week, when she addressed a meeting of the World Coal Association in Warsaw, I was one of the journalists in attendance. Most of her remarks amount to unmitigated nonsense...


Donna, you gotta get down off that fence & tell us how you really feel...


----------



## FeXL

More of that "settled" science...

Lakes discovered beneath Greenland ice sheet

Abstract (open access)



> Subglacial lakes are an established and important component of the basal hydrological system of the Antarctic ice sheets, but none have been reported from Greenland. Here, we present airborne radio echo-sounding (RES) measurements that provide the first clear evidence for the existence of subglacial lakes in Greenland. Two lakes, with areas ~8 and ~10 km2, are found in the northwest sector of the ice sheet, ~40 km from the ice margin, and below 757 and 809 m of ice, respectively. The setting of the Greenland lakes differs from those of Antarctic subglacial lakes, being beneath relatively thin and cold ice, pointing to a fundamental difference in their nature and genesis. Possibilities that the lakes consist of either ancient saline water in a closed system or are part of a fresh, modern open hydrological system are discussed, with the latter interpretation considered more likely.


----------



## FeXL

GISS Data Confirm Winters Definitely Getting Colder Over Northern Hemisphere Continents Since 1995!



> Note that temperatures for latitudes 40 to 60 degrees north are trending colder for most of the winter, from mid-November to mid-February, the coldest period for a month centered on the 1st of February. On the rim of Antarctica, the trending-colder month is June, the Antipodes mid-winter.
> 
> ...
> 
> Note that nearly all the continental areas in the northern hemisphere where people actually live, with the exception of India, are experiencing colder winters. The chart also shows Europe’s Alps region is getting significantly colder in the winter time, too, just as German meteorologist Dominik Jung found when evaluating data from the Austrian Weather Service, read: Austrian meteorologists stupefied.


Interesting graph inside.


----------



## FeXL

Robert Way (of Cowtan & Way, 2013 fame) brought a new paper on dendro chronologies to the attention of Steve McIntyre. McIntyre has had a look at it.

Bristlecone Addiction in Shi et al 2013



> Robert correctly observed that Shi et al was well within the multiproxy specialization of Climate Audit and warranted coverage here. However, now that I’ve examined it, I can report that it is reliant on the same Graybill bristlecone chronologies that were used in Mann et al 1998-99. While critics of Climate Audit have taken exception to my labeling the dependence of paleoclimatologists on bristlecone chronologies as an “addiction”, until paleoclimatologists cease the repeated use of this problematic data in supposedly “independent” reconstructions, I think that the term remains justified.


He concludes:



> But the main problem is the longstanding one: if you take a small subpopulation of hockeystick shaped bristlecones and mix them with a population of “proxies” that are indistinguishable from white noise/red noise and apply typical multiproxy recipes, you will get back a HS-shaped reconstruction. When you remove the bristlecones and the Briffa chronologies, is there still a HS reconstruction? I’ll start by examining the no-dendro chronology tomorrow.


Look forward to it.


----------



## FeXL

So, "The Meeting" between the Royal Society & Nigel Lawson, as well as other members of the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) has finally occurred. There's a bit of history here.



> The origins go back almost a year, to a lecture by the president of the Royal Society, the biologist Sir Paul Nurse. In it he chose to launch a gratuitous personal attack on me, making a number of palpably false allegations. I wrote to him, pointing out his errors, and he replied — somewhat changing his tune — conceding that ‘it is quite legitimate for both of us to talk about climate change policy, but before doing so we need to have access to the highest quality climate science. I am not sure you are receiving the best advice, and I would be very happy to put you in contact with distinguished active climate research scientists if you think that would be useful.’
> 
> I readily accepted his offer: hence, at long last, this month’s meeting in the House of Lords.


Bishop Hill highlights a comment by Lawson here.



> But what did emerge was that, if anyone needed educating, it was them. Despite the fact that they were headed by Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute, which has pronounced views on climate policy, and a member of the Climate Change Committee, which is concerned with the implementation of the Climate Change Act, they were very reluctant to engage on the crucial issue of climate change policy at all.


The meeting was off limits to viewing by anybody. No minutes, no texting, all very secret.

As such, Josh has drawn a cartoon for everyone:

From the Top. It's Secret - Josh 246

<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

About the planet's energy budget.

Is Earth in energy deficit?



> The CFSR Net Radiance data indicate radiative deficit following the El Chichon volcanic eruption in 1982, and again following the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991. Also, the peak net radiative surplus appears during 1997 which coincides with the anomalously warm El Nino event. *I was quite surprised, however, to note that the years 2001 through 2008 indicate net radiative deficit and that the overall trend was toward decreasing net radiance.*


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Study: lack of cloud physics biased climate models high



> So the cloud error in models is an order of magnitude greater than the forcing effect of Co2 claimed by the IPCC. That’s no small potatoes. The de Szoeke et al. paper also speaks to what Willis Eschenbach has been saying about clouds in the tropics.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Widespread stratocumulus clouds were observed on nine transects from seven research cruises to the southeastern tropical Pacific Ocean along 20°S, 75°–85°W in October–November of 2001–08. The nine transects sample a unique combination of synoptic and interannual variability affecting the clouds; their ensemble diagnoses longitude–vertical sections of the atmosphere, diurnal cycles of cloud properties and drizzle statistics, and the effect of stratocumulus clouds on surface radiation. Mean cloud fraction was 0.88, and 67% of 10-min overhead cloud fraction observations were overcast. Clouds cleared in the afternoon [1500 local time (LT)] to a minimum of fraction of 0.7. Precipitation radar found strong drizzle with reflectivity above 40 dBZ.
> 
> Cloud-base (CB) heights rise with longitude from 1.0 km at 75°W to 1.2 km at 85°W in the mean, but the slope varies from cruise to cruise. CB–lifting condensation level (LCL) displacement, a measure of decoupling, increases westward. At night CB–LCL is 0–200 m and increases 400 m from dawn to 1600 LT, before collapsing in the evening.
> 
> Despite zonal gradients in boundary layer and cloud vertical structure, surface radiation and cloud radiative forcing are relatively uniform in longitude. When present, clouds reduce solar radiation by 160 W m−2 and radiate 70 W m−2 more downward longwave radiation than clear skies. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the twentieth century show 40 ± 20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.


----------



## FeXL

The Germans are getting it.

Europe Climate Policy Blows Engine…”Giant Failure” … Scientists “Failed Tricking Their Way Past Democracy” … Mood Of Resignation



> The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) has written a blistering criticism of Hans Schellnhuber’s WBGU and climate activists’ efforts to impose a green authoritarian society over the rest of the world. They overshot and missed the curve. The FAZ introduction reads:
> 
> _The rescue of the planet gets cancelled. The climate advisory council to the government played high stakes poker. And lost. They failed at tricking their way past democracy.”_​
> In the eyes of one Germany’s leading flagship national dailies, the renowned FAZ, the attempted green coup led by a small group of elitist scientists and a mass of activists has come to grinding halt.


Yup.


----------



## SINC

The unravelling continues, slowly but surely.


----------



## MacDoc

*denial of the obvious*

hehe the blind and the stupid ....

I see the anti-evo and anti-agw have joined forces....

Creationists and climate change: Political union of science critics.

brilliant fellow travellers your aligning with ....


----------



## eMacMan

The religious comparisons between Creationists and the AGW crowd are so blatantly obvious as to be completely undeniable.


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps in the hearts and minds of all the anti climate change bloggers, but in the scheme of things, that's all they are. 

Bloggers.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Perhaps in the hearts and minds of all the anti climate change bloggers, but in the scheme of things, that's all they are.
> 
> Bloggers.


Yeah, they're kinda like trolls. Can't help themselves.


----------



## eMacMan

> The religious comparisons between Creationists and the AGW crowd are so blatantly obvious as to be completely undeniable.





groovetube said:


> Perhaps in the hearts and minds of all the anti climate change bloggers, but in the scheme of things, that's all they are.
> 
> Bloggers.


Yep they both accept pure fiction at face value and denigrate any and all who dare point out the logic fails in their holy books.

All hail, the great Goracle!

Come to think of it. Jeder Mann heil das Goracle has a nice punny ring to it as well.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Yep they both accept pure fiction at face value and denigrate any and all who dare point out the logic fails in their holy books.
> 
> All hail, the great Goracle!


Ha ha. Well my guess, is this all have proven something, that's for sure.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Perhaps in the hearts and minds of all the anti climate change bloggers, but in the scheme of things, that's all they are.
> 
> Bloggers.


Hey, groove, take your crack pipe, your trolling & your complete lack of knowledge on any subject back to the political threads where they'll feel right at home...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> hehe the blind and the stupid ....


As opposed to, say, haha the dumb & the ignorant? Chris Mooney? Serious?



MacDoc said:


> I see the anti-evo and anti-agw have joined forces....
> 
> Creationists and climate change: Political union of science critics.


Ah, the old ad hom attack. I've been missing the paucity of those...

The mark of a 4th rate poster is to leave the audience wondering exactly what the hell his point was.

What is your point, MacDoc?

That religion & science cannot mix? We've been down this road with Dr. Spencer before but, apparently you require a revisit. 

Every heard of Katharine Hayhoe? She's an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech, a staunch warmist and has been in the news a fair bit this last year. She's also an evangelical Christian. Obviously she's a fruit loop and a whacko and should be totally ignored. Not because of her seriously screwed up acceptance of AGW, but because she's religious. You may have also heard of John Cook from one of your favorites sources of warmist misinformation, the SS blog. He, too is a Christian. Again, obviously nuts because he's religious, not because he actually believes in AGW. 

Just two among many religious warmists. Do try to keep up.



MacDoc said:


> brilliant fellow travellers *your* aligning with ....


More ad homs. Guilt by association. Lovin' 'em, 'cause it means you got bugger all else.

I don't care if the purple people eater is on the same side of the argument as me. I don't hide myself among the warmth & comfort of the biggest group and squawk "consensus" like you insecure bandwagon individuals do. Little bit more secure than that, little more spine there. I align myself with the science. Good, old-fashioned empirical evidence. Have you heard of that before? It existed long before computer models, continues to reign today & ultimately will be the tool that ends all this AGW bull****e. 

Oh, BTW, the bold above? It's "you're", not your. Instead of posting all dem rollin' eyes, your time would be better spent in a remedial grade school spelling class...


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting technology. Stunning image at the link. The stratigraphy is amazing. I wonder what the resolution is.

A new look at Greenland’s ice sheet and the bedrock below



> This bedrock-mapping radar is known as the Multichannel Coherent Radar Depth Sounder or MCoRDS. MCoRDS measures ice thickness and maps sub-glacial rock by sending radar waves down through thick polar ice. This ice-penetrating radar is the result of efforts that started with a collaboration between NASA and the National Science Foundation 20 years ago.


I like this comment:



> Striking image, waiting for the micro stratigraphy of the Greenland icecap study. I’m surprised how conforamable the layers are. I imagined that there would be some sort of evidence of significant movement in the past (deformation or significant truncation) or perhaps evidence of how the ice accumulated (onlap, progradation).
> 
> They ought to study from a perspective of sequence stratigraphy – would be fun! :-D


----------



## FeXL

From the it's weather, not climate department.

So, how many of you heard anything on MSM about all the cold temperature records being broken in the US over the last week? 

More than 1000 cold snowy records set in US, one small media outlet covers it



> In a cold snap last week nearly 1,400 records were broken in the US. 886 places recorded the lowest maximum, 325 recorded the coldest minimum, and 127 places recorded the highest snowfall.


Me neither...


----------



## SINC

But, or it that butt, it's all caused because the earth getting warmer due to AGW. Or is it?


----------



## FeXL

Sure. According to the warmist's models, AGW causes more/less snow, more/less rain, higher/lower temps, more/less clouds. Hard to lose an argument when you got both sides covered...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cowtan & Way, 2013. The author looks for alternate data sets to confirm/deny CW2013's conclusion of warming in Africa & the Arctic and concomitant errors in HadCRUT4.

Cowtan & Way and signs of cooling

The author poses two questions:



> 1. Where did they obtain data such data that would support a “two and a half times greater” rise of global temperature anomaly _“trends starting in 1997 or 1998”_ in their _“hybrid global reconstruction”_ when compared to HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly data-set?
> 2. What such data really show and whether such data agree with other data or not?
> 
> Because the main rationale of their analysis seems to me being that there is some missing coverage for the HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly dataset _“with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa”_ and that it is the alleged reason why the HadCRUT4 data-set is purportedly biased, first what I have looked for was whether there actually are other data covering the regions and what trends one can find there.


Italics from the link.

Part of his conclusion:



> It very much looks that *the trend break-point in the Cowtan and Way data is itself a result of a bias, and miserable failure*, likely when trying to account for the positive polar amplification – the problem is that most likely in times when there is quite likely a negative one.
> 
> It very much looks there quite is no reason to believe there is a warming trend in the global surface temperatures at least since 2005 – and even much less because of a bias in the global surface temperature anomalies due to the allegedly insufficient coverage in the tropical and polar regions.
> 
> In fact the global sea-ice data supported by multiple other data-sets give quite a very compelling evidence to the contrary.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Donna has more from COP-19

Anti-Democratic Green Activism



> You can see the BBC’s coverage here and the Guardian‘s here. Officially, the summit ran from Monday, November 11 to Friday November 22. We’re told that, on Thursday the 21st,
> 
> _around 800 people from organisations including Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, the [International Trade Union] Confederation and ActionAid, handed back their registration badges to the UN and left Poland’s national stadium, where the talks are being held._​
> These news clippings tell us that *the activists were impatient, angry, and annoyed. What they don’t say is what they were doing there in the first place. Why should we care if they walked out?* Why does the BBC consider this news?


My bold.

Exactly.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds rivers and lakes are large net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere



> A new paper published in Nature finds inland waters such as rivers and lakes are large annual net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. The authors find inland waters contribute 2.1 Petagrams/yr of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is much larger than previously thought and equivalent to 35% of man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels of 6 Petagrams/yr.
> 
> According to the authors, "The source of inland water CO2 is still not known with certainty and new studies are needed to research the mechanisms controlling CO2 evasion globally." The paper adds to many other recent peer-reviewed publications finding prior assumptions of the global carbon cycle to be highly erroneous and natural net sources much higher than previously believed, thus net contributions of man-made CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels may be highly exaggerated.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Carbon dioxide (CO2) transfer from inland waters to the atmosphere, known as CO2 evasion, is a component of the global carbon cycle. Global estimates of CO2 evasion have been hampered, however, by the lack of a framework for estimating the inland water surface area and gas transfer velocity and by the absence of a global CO2 database. Here we report regional variations in global inland water surface area, dissolved CO2 and gas transfer velocity. We obtain global CO2 evasion rates of 1.8  petagrams of carbon (Pg C) per year from streams and rivers and 0.32  Pg C yr−1 from lakes and reservoirs, where the upper and lower limits are respectively the 5th and 95th confidence interval percentiles. *The resulting global evasion rate of 2.1 Pg C yr−1 is higher than previous estimates owing to a larger stream and river evasion rate.* Our analysis predicts global hotspots in stream and river evasion, with about 70 per cent of the flux occurring over just 20 per cent of the land surface. The source of inland water CO2 is still not known with certainty and new studies are needed to research the mechanisms controlling CO2 evasion globally.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds severe drought is more common during cold periods, droughts driven by solar activity 



> A new paper under open review for Climate of the Past finds severe droughts in Eastern China were much more common during the Little Ice Age than during the current warm period, and that no severe droughts occurred in E. China during the past 357 years from 1642-1999. Data from the paper demonstrates there is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or unnatural regarding 20th century drought in Eastern China. The authors also find solar activity was the primary driver of most of the severe droughts over the past millennium.


Abstract (open access)



> We use proxy data and modeled data from 1000 yr model simulations with a variety of climate forcings to examine the occurrence of severe events of persistent drought over eastern China during the last millennium and to diagnose the mechanisms. Results show that the model was able to simulate many aspects of the low-frequency (periods greater than 10 yr) variations of precipitation over eastern China during the last millennium, including most of the severe persistent droughts such as those in the 1130s, 1200s, 1350s, 1430s, 1480s, and the late 1630s–mid-1640s. These six droughts are identified both in the proxy data and in the modeled data and are consistent with each other in terms of drought intensity, duration, and spatial coverage.
> 
> Our analyses suggest that monsoon circulation can lock into a drought-prone mode that may last for years to decades and supports the suggestion that generally reduced monsoon in eastern Asia were associated with the land–sea thermal contrast. Study on the wavelet transform and spectral analysis reveals six well-captured events occurred all at the drought stages of statistically significant 15–35 yr timescale. A modeled data intercomparison suggests that solar activity is the primary driver in the occurrence of the 1130s, 1350s, 1480s, and late 1630s–mid-1640s droughts. Although the El-Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) plays an important role in monsoon variability, a temporally consistent relationship between the droughts and SST pattern in the Pacific Ocean could not be found in the model. Our analyses also indicate that large volcanic eruptions play a role as an amplifier in the drought of 1635–1645 and caused the model to overestimate the decreasing trends in summer precipitation over eastern China during the mid-1830s and the mid-1960s.


Also from the paper:



> *The solar activities are the ultimate driver of four severe persistent droughts over eastern China, as evidenced by the ability of the model to reproduce these when only the solar forcing is specified.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Global Sea Ice Update Dec 3, 2013 



> Global Sea Ice is above the 1981-2010 mean by 600,000 sq km.


Further:

Global sea ice areal extent at highest level since 1994; southern hemisphere continues on an amazing run



> The southern hemisphere sea ice areal extent continues its recent impressive run at daily record high levels when compared to all prior years in the satellite record-keeping era which began in 1979. This stretch of daily record high sea ice areal extent in the southern hemisphere has actually been occurring for the past several weeks. In fact, the southern hemisphere sea ice areal extent has had quite an amazing run during the past few years from below normal levels to the current well above normal values (above map courtesy University of Illinois "cryosphere"). On a global basis, sea ice areal extent is currently above normal and, in fact, has now reached levels not seen since around 1994 - thanks in large part to the happenings in the southern hemisphere.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the role of clouds on surface temps.

IPCC Finds The Important Natural Climate Driver – Solar Surface Radiation Intensity – But Then Ignores It!



> Already the temperature rise of 0.6°C between 1910 and 1940 cannot be explained by the CO2 effect because the CO2 concentration increased by less than 10 ppm during the period (from 298 to 307 ppm). Then from 1940 to 1975 the temperature fell 0.2°C – and certainly not because of a CO2 drop. The renewed temperature increase of 0.6°C from 1980 to 1998 was the initiator of the CO2 hypothesis. However, the temperature increase can be better explained by the increase in SSR [Surface Solar Radiation, the amount of solar energy that reaches earth's surface] intensity. The fact that the predicted continued temperature increase never materialized, and that there’s been a slight drop since 2000, completely contradicts the CO2 hypothesis.


----------



## FeXL

There's a new paper out on rapid climate change during the Younger Dryas (ca 12,000 BP). The researchers compare varves (stratigraphic lake sediments) with volcanic ash deposits. The paper is interesting enough on its own but, as shown in the comments, appears to pose more questions than it answers.

Rapid climate changes in the younger Dryas, but with a 120 year time lag

The main concern:



> The ash of the Katla volcanic eruption thus was deposited at the same time in the Eifel and in Norway. The sediments of the Eifel maar lake depict the rapid warming 100 years before the volcanic ash, while it is seen in the southern Norwegian lake sediment 20 years after the volcanic eruption. The same warming, but with a 120 difference in timing between the about 1200 km distant locations?


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

New ice core record shows climate variability in West Antarctica



> A 308-year ice core record provides new data on climate variability in coastal West Antarctica and shows that a clear warming trend has occurred in recent decades. To study climate over the past 3 centuries, Thomas et al. analyzed stable isotopes in the ice core, which provide a record of past temperatures. They observe that climate variability in coastal West Antarctica is strongly driven by sea surface temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the tropical Pacific.
> 
> The authors report that their ice core record shows that the region warmed since the late 1950s at a rate similar to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica.
> 
> However, *the authors note that this recent warming trend is similar in magnitude to warming and cooling trends that occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries in their record,* indicating that in this coastal West Antarctic location *the effects of human-induced climate change in recent years have not exceeded natural climate variability over the past 300 years.*


Bold mine.

Nothing unnatural, unique or unprecedented going on with West Antarctic temps? Who knew...

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> We present a new stable isotope record from Ellsworth Land which provides a valuable 308 year record (1702–2009) of climate variability from coastal West Antarctica. Climate variability at this site is strongly forced by sea surface temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the tropical Pacific and related to local sea ice conditions. The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica; however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, suggesting that at present, the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years.


I agree with this comment:



> Doesn’t ‘variability within the natural range’ nullify ‘anthropogenic climate drivers’ altogether?


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

It's Christmas time and the fruit loops & whackos are out in force again. However, this year the garbage is so bad, even MSM is mocking it...

CNN mocks Greenpeace’s “Save Santa’s Home” video



> In the CNN video, Moos quoted a commenter at the YouTube post of the Greenpeace video who wrote:
> 
> _Hope that you are proud of yourselves green piece (sic) for scaring innocent children with your bully boy tactics as usual._​
> That’s right. CNN cited a critic of Greenpeace in its story. That represents amazing progress for truth (if not grammar) in MSM coverage of the climate issue.


----------



## FeXL

Steve McIntyre has a couple of posts on varves. 

As I noted above, varves are lake sediments. A single varve (= one year) can contain sediments that are usually more coarse (silt) in spring (due to meltwater & rain runoff) and more fine (clay) in winter due to lower precipitation and/or freeze over. These define themselves as more or less visible alternate light & dark pairings in the sediment which remain even as the deposits harden into mudstone or similar. To determine the age of a set of varves is a matter of counting these strata along with dating by other geological indicators, eg. volcanic ash in the varves themselves, a rock formation of a known age above or below the varves, etc.

More on Hvitarvatn Varves



> In a previous post on PAGES2K Arctic, I pointed out that they had used the Hvitarvatn, Iceland series (PAGES2K version shown below), upside-down to the interpretation of the original authors (Miller et al), who had interpreted thick varves as evidence of the Little Ice Age. A few days ago, Miller and coauthors archived a variety of series from Hvitarvatn, prompting me to review this data.


The “Canonical” Varve Thickness Series



> Shi et al 2013 use the following five varve thickness series, all of which have become widely used in multiproxy series since their introduction in Kaufman et al 2009: Big Round Lake and Donard Lake, Baffin Island; Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island; and Blue Lake and Iceberg Lake, Alaska. Some of these proxies have been discussed from time to time, with an especially detailed discussion of Iceberg Lake (see tag here.)


Non-technical, good reads both.


----------



## FeXL

The Boston Globe gets it...

Majority rules on climate science?



> Science isn’t settled by majority vote, and invoking “consensus” to shut off debate is authoritarian and anti-scientific. There are always inconvenient truths to challenge what the majority thinks it knows. Ninety-seven percent of experts may be impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. That’s no reason to silence those who insist the emperor is naked.


----------



## FeXL

Further on NOAA temperature adjustments.

Smoking Gun That NCDC Temperature Adjustments Are A Complete Fraud



> Raw US HCN data matches RSS satellite US data very closely. This tells us that the raw data is fine, and there is no need to adjust it.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the problem for NOAA is that the raw data doesn’t show any warming, which means no funding, so they cheat by cooling the past and warming the present. The next graph compares their tampered data with the RSS satellite data. *The tampered data diverges from satellite data by 1.4ºC per century.*


----------



## FeXL

Scooter flies off the rails on Twitter...

The self induced implosion of Dana Nuccitelli

Observations about Scooter:



> What he did do is move the goalposts.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rather than apologize, Dana twisted himself into semantic knots in an effort to show that Roger was in the wrong.
> 
> ...
> 
> In comments, the vitriol flowed as Dana dug his own hole even deeper.
> 
> ...
> 
> Stop playing the victim card. It’s unbecoming.


That sounds so...familiar. Ah, yes:



> *All of this could have been avoided by a simple admission of making a mistake, and offering an apology. Everybody would have been moving on.*
> 
> Instead, we have a spectacle of unprecedented stubbornness, coupled with the sort of egotistical stonewalling we’d expect to see from a politician, something that people are going to remember for quite some time.


Bold mine.

Yup. Almost like I'd said it myself...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper.

How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change [Part 3] 



> A new paper published in Earth System Dynamics finds the earth's water [hydrologic] cycle is 31% more sensitive to solar-induced warming than to 'greenhouse' warming. As the paper notes, current climate models incorrectly assume the hydrologic cycle is equally sensitive to solar and greenhouse forcing. Thus, this is yet another means by which climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change.


Abstract (open access)



> The global hydrologic cycle is likely to increase in strength with global warming, although some studies indicate that warming due to solar absorption may result in a different sensitivity than warming due to an elevated greenhouse effect. Here we show that these sensitivities of the hydrologic cycle can be derived analytically from an extremely simple surface energy balance model that is constrained by the assumption that vertical convective exchange within the atmosphere operates at the thermodynamic limit of maximum power. Using current climatic mean conditions, this model predicts a sensitivity of the hydrologic cycle of *2.2% K−1 to greenhouse-induced surface warming* which is the sensitivity reported from climate models. The sensitivity to *solar-induced warming* includes an additional term, which *increases the total sensitivity to 3.2% K−1.* These sensitivities are explained by shifts in the turbulent fluxes in the case of greenhouse-induced warming, which is proportional to the change in slope of the saturation vapor pressure, and in terms of an additional increase in turbulent fluxes in the case of solar radiation-induced warming. We illustrate an implication of this explanation for geoengineering, which aims to undo surface temperature differences by solar radiation management. Our results show that when such an intervention compensates surface warming, it cannot simultaneously compensate the changes in hydrologic cycling because of the differences in sensitivities for solar vs. greenhouse-induced surface warming. We conclude that the sensitivity of the hydrologic cycle to surface temperature can be understood and predicted with very simple physical considerations but this needs to reflect on the different roles that solar and terrestrial radiation play in forcing the hydrologic cycle.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: treemometers used.

New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Turkey 



> A new paper published in Climate Dynamics finds another non-hockey-stick in Turkey, with temperatures at the end of the record in 2000 lower than at the beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries and during parts of the Little Ice Age.
> 
> The reconstructed Turkish temperature data shows nothing unprecedented, unusual, or unnatural during the 20th century in comparison to the past 875 years and adds to over 1,100 non-hockey-sticks published in the peer-reviewed literature.


Abstract (open access, link to paper inside)



> In the eastern Mediterranean in general and in Turkey in particular, temperature reconstructions based on tree rings have not been achieved so far. Furthermore, centennial-long chronologies of stable isotopes are generally also missing. Recent studies have identified the tree species Juniperus excelsa as one of the most promising tree species in Turkey for developing long climate sensitive stable carbon isotope chronologies because this species is long-living and thus has the ability to capture low-frequency climate signals. We were able to develop a statistically robust, precisely dated and annually resolved chronology back to AD 1125. We proved that variability of δ13C in tree rings of J. excelsa is mainly dependent on winter-to-spring temperatures (January–May). *Low-frequency trends, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to-spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record, nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study.* Comparisons with other northern-hemispherical proxy data showed that similar low-frequency signals are present until the beginning of the twentieth century when the other proxies derived from further north indicate a significant warming while the winter-to-spring temperature proxy from SW-Turkey does not. Correlation analyses including our temperature reconstruction and seven well-known climate indices suggest that various atmospheric oscillation patterns are capable of influencing the temperature variations in SW-Turkey.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Saturday Smiles.

Denier land: How deniers view global warming

"Think of the children..." ROTFLMAO :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

The Effects Of Environmentalist and Climate Alarmist Crying Wolf Begin To Appear



> As [David] Suzuki’s campaign to use environmentalism for a political agenda fails he lashes out, blaming others for the failure. It parallels what is happening in the climate alarmist community. The comments and claims become more extreme, but achieve the opposite of their goal. It is necessary to consider the further negative effects of their exploitation and deceptions. *What is the damage to the credibility of science? Can we pursue environmentalism with rational, science based, prioritized policies?*


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

So, the same CHIMP5 models that can't forecast or hindcast climate are now being used to predict 21st century tropical cyclone frequency. The ultimate irony is that the predictions call for a 6%-40% reduction...

New paper predicts tropical cyclones will decrease 6%-40% over the 21st century 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The influence of model biases on projected future changes in the frequency of occurrence of tropical cyclones (FOCs) was investigated using a new empirical statistical method. Assessments were made of present-day (1979–2003) simulations and future (2075–2099) projections, using atmospheric general circulation models under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B scenario and the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) models under the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The models project significant decreases in global-total FOCs, by approximately 6%–40%; however, model biases introduce an uncertainty of approximately 10% in the total future changes. The influence of biases depends on the model physics rather than model resolutions and emission scenarios. In general, the biases result in overestimates of projected future changes in basin-total FOCs in the North Indian Ocean (by +18%) and South Atlantic Ocean (+143%), and underestimates in the western North Pacific Ocean (−27%), eastern North Pacific Ocean (−29%), and North Atlantic Ocean (−53%). The calibration of model performance using the smaller bias influence appears crucial to deriving meaningful signals in future FOC projections. To obtain more reliable projections, ensemble averages were calculated using the models less influence by model biases. Results indicate marked decreases in projected FOCs in the basins of the Southern Hemisphere, the Bay of Bengal, western North Pacific Ocean, eastern North Pacific, and the Caribbean Sea, and increases in the Arabian Sea and the subtropical central Pacific Ocean.


----------



## FeXL

So, using empirical observations of natural cycles, German scientists have made a prediction that global temps will drop to 1870 levels by 2100.

I advise caution here, as any prediction is only as good as the final solution.

German Scientists Show Climate Driven By Natural Cycles – Global Temperature To Drop To 1870 Levels By 2100!



> The present “stagnation” of global temperature (Fig. 5) is essentially due to the AMO/PDO: the solar de Vries cycle is presently at its maximum. Around this maximum it changes negligibly. The AMO/PDO is presently beyond its maximum, corresponding to the small decrease of global temperature. Its next minimum will be 2035. The temperature can expected to be then similar to the last AMO/PDO minimum of 1940. *Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the “little ice age” of 1870.*
> 
> It accounts for the long temperature rise since 1870. One may note, that the stronger temperature increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, which is “officially” argued to prove warming by CO2, is essentially due to the AMO/PDO cycle.


Bold from the link.

Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Lubos comments on a post at RC disparaging TIPCC's™ lukewarm AR5 report.

Reply to RealClimate's attack against the IPCC

He notes:



> But once you remove this dozen of hardcore fraudsters, the tone of the climatological community radically alters. *The climate hysteria is mostly powered by thousands of blinded and scientifically illiterate green activists and Luddites, a couple of folks who are making millions of dollars out of the "renewable technologies", some inkspillers who were partly brainwashed and who partly love to write repetitive articles about the same "fatal threat" all the time and be paid new money for each copy of this trash, and a dozen or two of corrupt and politicized left-wing climatologists.* Hundreds of other climate scientists have been sort of "playing the game" with the hardcore demagogues within the climatological community but it's obvious that if you decapitate the octopus, something has to change.


My bold.

Lovin' it...


----------



## FeXL

The desperation is palpable.

The bogosity of Winter Storm Bodil



> Sadly, even the Danes have picked up the Weather Channel’s silly naming of non tropical and winter storms. It even has a Wikipedia page. This photo of winter storm “Bodil” is circulating today on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media as it approaches Denmark
> 
> ...
> 
> One look at the mesocyclone in that locale told me it was bogus, not only is it meteorologically unlikely, the light is all wrong. It’s comically bad. *But the hilarity has to do with the fact that the image is doubly bogus. It has been photoshopped twice. Once to put the storm over the city, and a second time to take out the logo identifying it as a gag image produced by a satire website.*


My bold.

I guess when ya got no science, ya use Photoshop...


----------



## FeXL

Good correlation between sea levels & global temps over the last 1000 years.

Intelligence and the hockey stick



> Water expands a little as it warms. This thermosteric expansion makes sea level rise in warmer weather and fall in cooler weather. I looked for a reconstruction of sea level rise over the past millennium and, thanks to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian, who reads everything, I came across a graph from Grinsted et al. (2009).


Further:



> Nevertheless, it was clear that the weather had been warm enough in the Middle Ages to push sea level up by 20 cm, and cool enough in the Little Ice age to push it down by 20 cm. This profile did not fit the hockey stick (Fig. 3), but it did fit the IPCC’s 1990 schematic showing both the MWP and the LIA (Fig. 4).


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I ran across an introduction to a new paper by Trenberth and Fasullo on Judith Curry's site. It's paywalled, so I didn't get past the Abstract. That said, even the Abstract was less than inspirational & I left it at that, without a link.

Tisdale expands on the paper here, addressing the cherry pick.

Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive



> From the last sentence of the abstract, Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) argues that:
> 
> Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.
> 
> ...
> 
> Midway through the paper, Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) begin a paragraph with:
> 
> Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the hiatus in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
> 
> But then Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) turn around and cherry pick the end year of the “hiatus” in their Figure 4 (shown below as my Figure 1). In it they attempt to show the similarities in global surface temperatures between two recent 12-year periods.


Trenberth is still going on that the deep oceans are warming, despite the fact that he offers no plausible explanation on how the heat passes through the water column undetected.


----------



## FeXL

And, from the It's weather, not climate department.

Texas Storm Setting Temperature, Snow Records



> Highs at Abilene (25F) and San Angelo (31F) on Friday were the lowest ever for Dec. 6, breaking marks from 1972.
> 
> A half-inch of snow Thursday in Wichita Falls is the most ever for that day since records began in 1897. A trace of snow at Waco was the most for Friday since 1944.
> 
> And 0.4 inches of snow Friday at Dallas-Fort Worth is also a record for Dec. 6. Previously, a trace was reported in 1969.
> 
> In South Texas, the high of 39 Friday at Del Rio was the lowest ever for Dec. 6.


35 Zoo Animals Freeze To Death In Northern Mexico



> Temperatures have dropped to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 13 Celsius) in the area, the coldest weather in 60 years.


----------



## FeXL

Curry has an interesting post about communicating uncertainty. Frankly, I have no issue with informed uncertainty. "We really don't have an answer for the results empirically observed before you. All we know is that, by elimination, it isn't any of the heretofore proposed theories." is a legitimate response, in my eyes. And, it is far superior to concocting some half-assed excuse that will, in all likelihood, backfire on you in the future, long after it's gone public & that cold crow is simply inedible.

In the post she links to two other posts, one by freshly minted PhD Tamsin Edwards and another by Roland Jackson. I can particularly relate to Jackson's points #2, 5, 6. 

In fact, these three underly much of my MO in posting to the GHG threads. Although none of us are of the hallowed "Climate Science" genre, most of us aren't stupid, either.

Public engagement and communicating uncertainty

Judith sums:



> Now all of this sort of seems to be common sense, no? *Approach the issue of communicating climate science to the public in context of uncertainty and risk, with honesty and a dose of humility, and all will be well, no?*
> 
> So why is there such a perception of a ‘communication problem’ surrounding climate science among climate scientists and scientific organizations? It is because they expect their science to be translated into the ‘obvious’ policy prescriptions that they believe obviously follows from their science. This unfortunate linear thinking, motivated and institutionalized by the UNFCCC/IPCC, has led climate communication efforts in the direction of propaganda, which gives rise to public skepticism and loss of trust.


All emphasis mine.

She also notes the excellent discussion in Tamsin's comments.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> And, from the It's weather, not climate department.


Just saying" . . .

Satellite finds Antarctica set Earth record low of 135.8 below


----------



## FeXL

Yep, and right at the peak of the highest atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent history. Interestingly enough, the world record for hottest temp was recorded at Death Valley over a hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were significantly lower.

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Nic Lewis has a post at Climate Audit comparing observational evidence in AR5 (they had observational evidence in AR5? <snort>) with the CHIMP5 models on TCR (Transient Climate Response), sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its/the CMIP5 models’ TCR ranges?

He finds a discrepancy:



> So, in their capacity as authors of Otto et al. (2013), we have fourteen lead or coordinating lead authors of the WG1 chapters relevant to climate sensitivity stating that the most reliable data and methodology give ‘likely’ and 5–95% ranges for TCR of 1.1–1.7°C and 0.9–2.0°C, respectively. They go on to suggest that some CMIP5 models have TCRs that are too high to be consistent with recent observations. On the other hand, we have Chapter 12, Box 12.2, stating that the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs agree well. Were the Chapter 10 and 12 authors misled by the flawed TCR estimates included in Figure 10.20a? Or, given the key role of the CMIP5 models in AR5, did the IPCC process offer the authors little choice but to endorse the CMIP5 models’ range of TCR values?


Technical read, good info.

Bishop Hill comments:



> Why would all these IPCC bigwigs say one thing in the primary literature and something completely different in the IPCC report?
> 
> I just can't imagine.


----------



## FeXL

Jo Nova & Geoff Sherrington offer their interpretation skills, gratis.

IPCC spin translated – the leaked Synopsis admits 97% of models fail



> The IPCC Synthesis Report first order draft has been leaked (h/t Tallbloke) . It is part of the big Fifth Assessment report see the parts already released here. The Synthesis Report supposedly summarizes the science. In the real world the topic du jour is the plateau, pause, or hiatus in warming which the IPCC can no longer ignore. Instead the masters of keyword phrases test new bounds in saying things that are technically correct, while not stating the bleeding obvious. Luckily we are here to help them. : -)


In addition, from the comments:



> No need to be mournful, this is great news.
> _IPCC: *The radiative forcing of the climate system has been increasing to a lesser rate* over the period 1998-2011 compared to 1984 to 1998 or 1951-2011, *due to a negative forcing trend from* volcanic eruptions and the *downward phase of the solar cycle over 2000-2009.*_
> 
> They said it! They actually said it. They have attributed some climate change to solar cycles!
> This is the thin end of the wedge. They are cooked now.


Emphasis from the link.

Indeed...


----------



## groovetube

Illustration imagines a flooded future Toronto | Toronto Star

Quite an eye popping image to be sure.

EDIT: This post was placed here because the subject matter was climate change. It wasn't an invitation for a pair of 3 year olds to flip out.


----------



## FeXL

Eye-popping BS, perhaps. The methane did bring a tear to my eye.

Can't actually contribute to the thread topic so we throw in some pretty pictures? Any hints as to what relationship, at any level, direct or otherwise, this has with the thread topic? 

Didn't think so...

As such, quit trolling and the Sci-Fi Thread is over there=======>


----------



## FeXL

Back on topic.

Dr. William Gray (of hurricane forecasting fame) on models.

On the Futility of Long-Range Numerical Climate Prediction



> The still-strong—but false—belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.


----------



## FeXL

New technology.

Satellite will launch in 2015 to measure Earth's radiation budget for the first time 



> A satellite scheduled to launch in 2015 will "measure the absolute imbalance in the Earth's radiation budget for the first time, giving scientists valuable information to study our climate," i.e. whether increased greenhouse gases have caused an imbalance of approximately 1% in Earth's radiation budget.
> 
> Climate models have long predicted that the Earth's radiation budget should demonstrate heat "trapping" by CO2 to allegedly reduce outgoing longwave radiation to space. However, observations have instead shown the opposite of an increase in outgoing longwave radiation over the past 62 years, which proves that there is no observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or future climate.


----------



## FeXL

Ya know all that "Big Oil" money sceptics are s'pose ta be getting? More & more it seems the actual recipients are the warmists.

Morano Smacks Down Sierra Club Director: ‘Sierra Club Took 26 Million From Natural Gas’



> For years, climate alarmists have dishonestly accused global warming skeptics of taking money from Big Oil to do their bidding.
> 
> On CNN’s 11th Hour Tuesday, when Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune made such a claim, Climate Depot’s Marc Morano marvelously fired back, *“The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded”*


Bold mine.

Yup...


----------



## groovetube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU


----------



## FeXL

This could just as easily been posted in "The Science Thread". However, as the topic has been broached here before...

There's been some discussion on the three GHG threads over the years about "prestigious" journals like _Nature_ & _Science_ and associated so-called "quality" peer-review along with all associated objectivity, etc.

Freshly minted Nobel Peace Prize winning biologist Dr. Randy Schekman from UC Berkeley has just noted that neither he, nor his lab, will ever submit another paper for publication with them again, along with _Cell_. His observations have created something of a stir.

Science Journals Distort the Scientific Process: Nobel Winner 



> Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.
> 
> ...
> 
> These luxury journals are supposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research. Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as a proxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grants and professorships. But the big journals' reputations are only partly warranted. While they publish many outstanding papers, they do not publish _only_ outstanding papers. Neither are they the only publishers of outstanding research.


Italics from the link.

Nobel Winner boycotts journals Nature, Science, and Cell for damage to science



> Chiefly, he points out that the “luxury” journals manage themselves as brand-names, and choose papers for reasons other than their scientific advances. The journals seek “sexy”, provocative papers that will improve their citation rating and impact factor.


What does he prefer?



> *There is a better way, through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody to read, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote.* Born on the web, they can accept all papers that meet quality standards, with no artificial caps. *Many are edited by working scientists, who can assess the worth of papers without regard for citations.* As I know from my editorship of eLife, an open access journal funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society, they are publishing world-class science every week.


Bold mine.

It's been mentioned on this thread before. I endorsed the concept of open review then & do so again.

Fresh Nobelist Schekman boycotts glossy journals



> At any rate, it's good that Schekman has at least ignited the debate about the bastardization of science done with the help of the glossy journals.


Good on him.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale addresses Scooter's observations about Trenberth and Fasullo (2013).

More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?”



> We discussed the Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) paper “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?” in the recent post Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive. Since then, Dana Nuccitelli published a post at TheGuardian—cross posted at SkepticalScience—extolling the greatness of Trenberth and Fasullo (2013).


----------



## SINC

I see our resident troll is messing up this thread with derails too. Small mind and all, the poor chap even thinks he has a fan club. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

:lmao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqkjJM3ZpKY


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> I see our resident troll is messing up this thread with derails too. Small mind and all, the poor chap even thinks he has a fan club. :lmao:


He does. He finds him in the mirror. Every day. "Let's see, there's me, and me, and me, and me, and me..."

His transparent & tawdry attempts at deflection mean nothing. He's merely embarrassing himself (even further, if that's possible). Let him troll away, nobody cares, neither here nor anywhere else. More Content Free Posts for his post count.

He just had his butt handed to him (again, I might add) in the Knockout thread, he's merely striking out the only way he's capable: cowardly hiding behind an anonymous keyboard.

The good thing is, I don't have Flash enabled so I can't even see the wonderful videos he's posting. Laughingly, all I see is a big stylized "F". I mentally add the "U" and the irony is complete. 

You go, groove, your huddled reflection awaits. In the mean time, well over a hundred people a day will continue to visit this thread to learn about "settled science" and discover how little you know about the actual topic.

Carry on...


----------



## groovetube

After the deluge: time to look again at our flood defences - Telegraph

I wonder how much preparedness is being planned for what seems like more and more floods, the image I posted of Toronto may or not be that bad, but something to think about as one buys their retirement home.


----------



## Macfury

There aren't "more and more floods" just greater damage due to people building on flood plains. Once you get that straight, it's easy.


----------



## groovetube

actually I have zero interest in the useless endless arguments and foot stampings of yes climate change is real, OH NO it's NOT oh yes it is my great grandfather told me so and on and on.

I like to post things of interest from time to time and no amount of 3 years screaming for attention on the attack is going to interest me in this useless exercise.

Don't like my post? Too bloody bad! This thread isn't owned by anyone and people are free to post things of interest despite being harassed by someone needy.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> actually I have zero interest in the useless endless arguments and foot stampings of yes climate change is real, OH NO it's NOT oh yes it is my great grandfather told me so and on and on.
> 
> I like to post things of interest from time to time and no amount of 3 years screaming for attention on the attack is going to interest me in this useless exercise.
> 
> Don't like my post? Too bloody bad! This thread isn't owned by anyone and people are free to post things of interest despite being harassed by some asswipe.


^

Give him time and he will be using the same dirty rotten language he used against me on MacMagic. He's slowly sinking into that cesspool of language that he uses over there. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46939750/groove meltdown copy 2.png

And yes groove, I copied it before you read my post and deleted the offensive asswipe comment. Funny how someone you have on ignore is read by you so quickly isn't it? You can't continue with the gutter language, edit it out and not be caught. 'Course when you live using that kind of foul language daily, it's hard to avoid getting caught with your pants down. And one thing is for sure, you are not the victim here, those you abuse are the real victims. I for one refuse to take that kind of behaviour from a little man.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> actually I have zero interest in the useless endless arguments and foot stampings of yes climate change is real, OH NO it's NOT oh yes it is my great grandfather told me so and on and on.


Then why are you visiting this thread in the first place? If you're not here to learn something or to educate someone, all that remains is trolling.

And, the discussion is only useless if you don't understand what's going on in the first place. QED...



groovetube said:


> I like to post things of interest from time to time and no amount of 3 years screaming for attention on the attack is going to interest me in this useless exercise.


I'm sure there's some English in here someplace. I couldn't find any, though. My take, with SWAG interpretation: "My petulant 3 year old attitude means I'm going to post something useless here, just because I think it's going to pi$$ somebody off."



groovetube said:


> Don't like my post? Too bloody bad! This thread isn't owned by anyone and people are free to post things of interest despite being harassed by someone needy.


Post away! Let's have something with substance in it though, something that can can be discussed, argued, something, anything. Don't just leave a great steaming load in the middle of the thread and abandon it without comment. "Oh, I'm so good. I just made a post. See it steam?." Or, "Oh, it's interesting. Totally..." What a crock.

Shore up your post count in the Political Threads where your particular brand of BS fits. 

This thread prefers red meat...


----------



## FeXL

Donna's on a tear again... 

IPCC Officials Keen to Remake the World



> When someone decries the public’s values, rebukes democratically elected leaders, and advocates a long list of measures that would add expense, inconvenience, and discomfort to ordinary people’s lives, they are not being policy neutral. Rather, they are exhibiting an enthusiasm for remaking the world from top to bottom.
> 
> IPCC leaders have demonstrated no ability to conduct themselves in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

One of the big discussions in attempting to discover just how much effect atmospheric CO2 affects our climate is via a process known as CO2 residence: how long does emitted CO2, either natural or man made, last in the atmosphere? As there is no chemical difference between the two, how do you go about this?

Recall back in the 40's & 50'sall the atomic bomb testing that was going on. These tests were leaving a form of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, carbon 14 (C14). As in all things radioactive, C14 has a half life and all we have to do is measure the decay, plug it into a formula, done. Correct? Not quite that easy.

Article at the link doesn't provide any solid answers as to what actual CO2 residency is, but outlines some of the difficulties.

How's your calculus? 

CO2 Residence Times, Take Two



> In a recent post Christopher Monckton identified me as a proponent of the following proposition: The observed decay of bomb-generated atmospheric-carbon-14 concentration does not tell us how fast elevated atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels would subside if we discontinued the elevated emissions that are causing them. He was entirely justified in doing so; I had gone out of my way to bring that argument to his attention.
> 
> But I was merely passing along an argument to which a previous WUWT post had alerted me, and the truth is that I’m not at all sure what the answer is. Moreover, semantic issues diverted the ensuing discussion from what Lord Monckton probably intended to elicit. So, at least in my view, we failed to join issue.
> 
> In this post I will attempt to remedy that failure by explaining the weakness that afflicts the position attributed (again, understandably) to me. I hasten to add that I don’t profess to have the answer, so be forewarned that no conclusion lies at the end of this post. But I do hope to make clearer where at least this layman thinks the real questions lie.


Good read, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

More from the It's weather, not climate department.

83% Of The US Below Normal Temperature For The Last 60 Days



> US temperatures have been averaging 1.5ºF below normal over the last 60 days.


----------



## eMacMan

Chalk up another global warming record



> They found that a high ridge in the East Antarctic Plateau contains pockets of trapped air that dipped as low as minus 136 Fahrenheit on Aug. 10, 2010, researchers said at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
> The previous record low was minus 128.6 F (minus 89.2 C), set in 1983 at the Russian Vostok Research Station in East Antarctica, said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
> “We had a suspicion this Antarctic ridge was likely to be extremely cold, and colder than Vostok because it’s higher up the hill,” Scambos said in a statement.
> The temperatures are about 50 degrees F colder than anything recorded in Alaska or Siberia.


Scientists discover new record low temperature in Antarctica - The Globe and Mail

Because this is from satellite data it is possible that the real temp was a degree or two colder as satellite temps conveniently seem to register a bit higher than ground stations.


----------



## MacDoc

and what exactly oh wise one does this have to do with AGW??

You DO know that C02 only traps outgoing IR??

Just how much IR outogin would be present do ya think in antipodes winter...??

see it just this sort of complete and total incomprehension of the physics that make the deniers so laughable. Course if they understood the physics they'd not be AGW deniers in the first place.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> and what exactly oh wise one does this have to do with AGW??
> 
> You DO know that C02 only traps outgoing IR??
> 
> Just how much IR outogin would be present do ya think in antipodes winter...??
> 
> see it just this sort of complete and total incomprehension of the physics that make the deniers so laughable. Course if they understood the physics they'd not be AGW deniers in the first place.


Can't have it both ways. Claiming catastrophic global warming as the South pole sets new record lows and the Northpole is showing the biggest annual ice build-up in 25 years. It may be an inconvenient truth but this is called cooling!

BTW How convenient that CO2 reflects outgoing but not incoming IR radiation. Actually IR is a complete misnomer here. It's a much, much narrower (.1Å) bandwidth, I can't recall the exact frequency but it is somewhere in one of the Global Warming threads.

Still I admire the religious fervor displayed by the true believers. I mean believing that CO2 is a oneway mirror; that increasing atmospheric CO2 from .038% to 0.039% will cause a catastrophic climate failure; that stealing $7Trillion$ from those who do not have it to give will save the planet.................... The great Goreacle :lmao: is laughing all the way to the vault.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and what exactly oh wise one does this have to do with AGW??


Absolutely nothing.

It is, however, the sceptic equivalent of warmists posting every fricking warming record as some sort of proof of their hypothesis. If you look back on these threads, you, yourself have done the same, especially with regard to Australia not so long ago. 

Want me to pull up a couple of links?


----------



## FeXL

Donna is incredulous.

IPCC Called a ‘Global Thinker of 2013′



> The fact of the matter is that while we were told to expect an “inexorably warming world” (see p. 5 of the Worldwatch Institute’s _State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World_ report), the global average temperature hasn’t risen for 16 years. Even the _Los Angeles Times_ knows there’s a genuine debate taking place in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, among IPCC-linked personnel no less, as to what this means:
> 
> IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month’s Nature Climate Change that said *climate models had “significantly” overestimated global warming over the last 20 years* — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.
> 
> *The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, *Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero. [bold added]​
> If an IPCC official admits that climate models are off by a factor of four, the discrepancy between those models and the real world is a rather important issue. But Foreign Policy, which pretends to be a sophisticated magazine, apparently considers it an irrelevant distraction. It’s prepared to dismiss a 16-year lull in temperature that was predicted by no one as nothing more than a “favorite argument” of “climate-change deniers.”


Bold from the link.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Friday Funny? Meet the new spokesperson for ‘I Heart Climate Scientists’

I guess the irony of both topics being fictitious is lost on them...


----------



## FeXL

Further from the It's weather, not climate department. Again, not found in MSM...

Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week



> Compare to 98 high temperature records, and 141 high minimum temperature records
> 
> Quite an imbalance in weather records this week. Even the AGU fall meeting in San Francisco where the best and brightest global warming scientists were meeting was surrounded by record (such as 25F in San Jose Dec 9th) and near record setting low temperatures, though the irony was lost on many of them.


----------



## FeXL

Attempting to maintain the funding, I mean, FUD, there's been some hand-wringing about rising Arctic methane levels.

Defusing the Arctic Methane Time Bomb

So, how do you check if a warming Arctic releases greater qty's of methane? You build a greenhouse on tundra & gradually warm the interior, all the while measuring methane emissions. What did they discover?



> In the Alaska experiment, they warmed the permafrost by 2°C over a 20-yr period (10 times the actual rate of warming since the 1800s) and there wasn’t the slightest hint of an accelerated methane release.


The link lists a few referenced articles.


----------



## FeXL

Dr. Leif Svalgaard on the current solar cycle.

Leif Svalgaard at AGU on the Current Solar Cycle: ‘None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle’



> [The AGU solar scientists] agreed that the current solar cycle is on track to be the weakest in 100 years and that is an unprecedented opportunity for studying the Sun during this period. While the weak solar cycle trend is not new for the Sun, it is new and interesting for scientists who observe and measure it today with modern instruments and methods.


This is interesting because there is an unclear connection between the temperature record and solar cycles. Weak solar maximums can tie in with lower global temperatures. One must be cautious, however, as correlation does not equal causation. There are many factors at work. That said, Svensmark believes there is a connection through cloud cover and galactic cosmic rays, as noted on this thread before.


----------



## FeXL

David Middleton puts together a top 10 list in the style of Letterman.

Dave’s Top Ten Reasons Why the Oil Industry Doesn’t Spend its Billions on Disproving the Junk Science of AGW 

He starts:



> 10) It’s impossible to prove a negative.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Anthony details a few observations about his attending the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union recently.

A few post-event thoughts about the AGU Fall Meeting: the good, the bad, and the ugly



> On my first day at the AGU Fall Meeting, I highlighted some of the zany things about the meeting, such as “gas sucks” girl and Richard Alley’s open mic night at a local bar.
> 
> Today I’ll point out some of the more in-depth observations from my experience there, including the positives and the negatives, and some of the ugly ones too.


----------



## FeXL

"We're doing it for the sake of the planet. No, really..."

EXPOSED: David Rose rips UK climate change committee for being on the take



> The Mail on Sunday today reveals the extraordinary web of political and financial interests creating dozens of eco-millionaires from green levies on household energy bills.
> 
> A three-month investigation shows that some of the most outspoken campaigners who demand that consumers pay the colossal price of shifting to renewable energy are also getting rich from their efforts.
> 
> ...
> 
> Four of the nine-person Climate Change Committee, the official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until very recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the It's weather, not climate department.

Snowing in Egypt for first time in years

First snow in Cairo in over a hundred years. Interestingly, that last snow fell during old Sol's last low solar cycle maxima, over a hundred years ago, too...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Global Warming causing everything.

1989 : NASA Blamed Thickening Ice In Greenland On Global Warming


----------



## MacDoc

nothing to see here....move on move on 

Pay me now or pay me later...



> ‘Sand wars’ come to New England coast
> 
> As weather worsens, New England’s sea levels are rising fast — as are the stakes
> 
> By Beth Daley | NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING DECEMBER 15, 2013
> 
> Large waves crashed over sand barriers, destroying the decks of homes along the beach on Plum Island during a storm last winter.
> ARAM BOGHOSIAN FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Large waves crashed over sand barriers, destroying the decks of homes along the beach on Plum Island during a storm last winter.
> 
> Sand is becoming New England coastal dwellers’ most coveted and controversial commodity as they try to fortify beaches against rising seas and severe erosion caused by violent storms.


snip



> *The stakes are rising with sea levels. New England seas are rising at an annual rate three to four times faster than the global average.* Scientists predict that the ocean here could rise 3 feet by the end of the century and that this region could see more powerful storms like those in 2011 and 2012 because of climate change. The one-two punch of powerful storm surges atop higher seas is expected to mean more erosion and flooding — reaching farther inland.


Sand wars come to New England coast - Metro - The Boston Globe


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you'll notice that this "investigative" report delicately avoids any notion of what the current sea levels are, then just tossess in a non-corroborated boogeyman of 3-foot ocean level rises. The sotrms are no worse than they have ever been. The problem is increased real estate development on beachfronts.

So there is literally "nothing to see here," as you say.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> nothing to see here....move on move on
> 
> Pay me now or pay me later...
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> 
> 
> Sand wars come to New England coast - Metro - The Boston Globe


It certainly is agreed upon among scientists across the globe.

Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says - NBC News.com


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> nothing to see here....move on move on


Blah, blah, blah...

Let's examine this a bit closer, shall we? Start with the quote (love the colours, BTW...):



> The stakes are rising with sea levels. New England seas are rising at an annual rate three to four times faster than the global average. Scientists predict that the ocean here could rise 3 feet by the end of the century and that this region could see more powerful storms like those in 2011 and 2012 because of climate change. The one-two punch of powerful storm surges atop higher seas is expected to mean more erosion and flooding — reaching farther inland.


Have a couple questions for ya, MacDoc. groove, too, seeing as you've chosen (poorly, I may add) to jump on this bandwagon as well.

1. Does, or does not, water seek to find the lowest level? (Answer: does.)
2. If you answered "does" to question 1, using the facts found in answer 1, please explain how it is physically possible for sea levels to rise "three to four times faster than the global average" in one location on the planet and have no corresponding effect anywhere else on the planet. (Answer: you can't.)
3. If you answered "you can't" to question 2, you get an "E" for effort. Now, for that elusive "A", please provide a 2 word response which addresses all this foolishness. (Answer: Isostatic rebound)
4. If you answered "Isostatic rebound" to question 3, congratulations! You may go to the head of the class. If you did not, I suggest a bit of remedial reading homework to bone up on the subject at hand. After you put on the dunce caps and stand in the corner for the balance of the period...

As Macfury noted, there really is nothing to see here. It's a well known & well researched fact that New England's shores are dropping. Really, MacDoc (and groove), this is elementary stuff, equivalent to about grade 4 Climate School. The rest of us have moved far past this point. Let's try harder, shall we?


----------



## MacDoc

> *On letters from climate-change deniers*
> 
> By Paul Thornton
> October 8, 2013, 3:21 p.m.
> 
> A piece this weekend debunking the claim that Congress and the president are exempted from Obamacare has drawn a harsh reaction from some readers and conservative bloggers. But their umbrage wasn't with the piece's explanation of why letters making this claim do not get published.
> 
> Rather, they were upset by the statement that letters "[saying] there's no sign humans have caused climate change" do not get printed. Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters blogged about it over the weekend:
> 
> "It's one thing for a news outlet to advance the as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming; it's quite another to admit that you won't publish views that oppose it.
> 
> "As amazing as it may seem, that's exactly what the Los Angeles Times did Saturday in an article by editorial writer Jon Healey....
> 
> "So letters to the editor 'that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change ... do not get printed.'
> 
> "That's quite a statement coming from an editorial writer not named Al Gore."
> 
> Point of order: Jon Healey didn't write that intro, and neither did Al Gore; as The Times' letters editor, I did. It ran without a byline because it was intended to be a straightforward editor's note introducing the piece; my apologies if that caused any confusion. Healey was responsible for everything beneath the boldface subhead, "Editorial writer Jon Healey explains why this claim in the debate over the healthcare law is off-base."
> 
> As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they "deny" it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
> 
> Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
> 
> And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
> 
> *Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; *when one does run, a correction is published.
> 
> *Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.*
> 
> 
> On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> It certainly is agreed upon among scientists across the globe.
> 
> Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says - NBC News.com


Gee, groove, that's a pretty interesting story. Let's talk about it a bit, shall we?



> It certainly is agreed upon among scientists across the globe.


This statement is a logical fallacy. Just because a whole bunch of people say it's so, does not make it so. You will find it under "bandwagon" at the link.



> By the time today's preschoolers are babysitting their grandkids, global sea levels are likely to be pushing 2 feet higher than they are now and on the way to topping 8 feet above current levels by the year 2200, according to a new study.


Funny, during the Eemian (you do know what the Eemian is, don't you, groove?), sea levels were much higher than they are now. How does this reconcile with CO2 being the cause when Eemian concentrations were ~270ppm?



> Today's pace of sea level rise is about twice as fast compared to historical standards, the team concluded. Going forward, seas will be pushed higher as rising temperatures force the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to disintegrate...


Actually, there is peer-reviewed evidence linked to on this thread that shows periods of the Holocene had rates of sea level rise much faster than today. You do know what the Holocene is, right groove?

As to the claims of higher temps, where are they? Global temps have plateaued for the last 17 years, on all official global temperature records.



> The sleeping giant is the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, a process that is slow to start and slow to stop. "We cannot expect that, once moving, big ice masses will screech to a halt," he explained. "So we better get used to sea level rising, and rising increasingly quickly."


What kind of a crock is this? Big ice masses, glaciers, by definition do not stop. Slowly, inexorably, fractions of an inch at a time, but they always move. They may melt on the front faster than they are being fed from the rear but the motion does not stop. And, with global ice levels at the norm, Antarctic ice at record breaking levels and Arctic ice within a standard deviation of the norm, what melt are we talking about here?



> And that's assuming atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide stabilize at around 400 parts per million, a milestone that was crossed in May for the first time in more than 3 million years.


Couple things here. First, why is 400 ppm the magic number? There really isn't much difference between 398 and 400 but 400 just fuels the FUD more. Second, this happened before, 3 million years ago? What was the cause then? Cro-magnon SUV's? What makes todays 400 ppm different from the past? Anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2 are chemically indistinguishable from each other. In addition, what about the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been an order of magnitude and then some higher in earth's geologic past. Both with warmer global temps than we have now and colder global temps than we have now. What is unique about today's situation? (Answer: nothing.)



> The finding, reported this week in the journal Scientific Reports, is consistent with the amount of sea level rise the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said is likely under a so-called business-as-usual scenario where no action is taken to curb global greenhouse gas emissions.


TIPCC™? Serious? This requires no further redress. It speaks for itself. As to the "business-as-usual scenario", you may want to source the first mention of that phrase in climatology and go back to a certain graph that was generated in 1988 by a certain person who made a bunch of brash predictions that have not seen fruition yet. With your in depth knowledge on this subject, you do know of whom I'm speaking and what graph I'm talking about, right?



> The study confirms, from a geological perspective, that our current greenhouse gas emissions are committing our planet to a sea level rise of several meters," Stefan Rahmstorf, an expert on sea level rise at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told NBC News in an email.


So, what evidence? As has been noted, what correlation is there between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level rise? Sure, since the late 19th century CO2 concentrations have been rising along with sea levels. What about the first 10,000 years or so of the Holocene, when atmospheric CO2 levels more or less flatlined, yet rates of sea level rise were both faster and slower than current? Where's the connection?



> They found that the current rate of rise is about two times faster than it was during any other period between ice ages, known as interglacials.


They'd better check that data, for two reasons. One, this isn't the fastest it's ever been and two, since 2004, sea level rise rates have decelerated. Peer-reviewed research, posted on this thread.



> In fact, *the current pace of sea level rise is on the high end of "normal,"* given what is known about the physical processes that govern the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, the team found.


Ah, finally, some truth, buried on the third to last paragraph in the article. How do they know it's normal? Must have happened before, then, no? What was the cause at that point? Then why all the FUD?



> "This is interesting, because that might indicate that we understand ice physics well enough, and that we do not yet have to start thinking about processes that we don't understand, or even know about," Rohling said.


Wait, I thought the science was settled.



> Several studies indicate that the ice there could disappear when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reach 1,000 parts per million.


Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Add 'em all up and you've still got sweet FA...

Nice try, groove. Next?

PS You may think you are imposing an inconvenience on me by composing posts as long as this. Not by a stretch. I have no problem showing every visitor to this thread how ineffective & futile your efforts to promote your baseless case really are. Have a nice day...


----------



## eMacMan

We need to address a geological issue here. Coast lines are not static. To some extent this is related to changing climate which is also is not static. Whether you believe in God or just Mother Nature, neither of these controlling entities designed either shorelines or climate to be static.

However there are other factors as well. Shoreline waves continually erode the coast lines. Soft rocks like sandstones can erode very quickly. Harder rock such as chert much more slowly. But they do erode. 

Even in the past 10,000 years I believe there is now ample evidence for at least three "Atlantis" style city sinkings and very possibly more. These happening about the time the real ice age meltdowns occurred and sea levels rose orders of magnitude more quickly than the current, "Everyone panic and give us all your money" levels claimed by the AGW scammers.

Add in big movers like volcanoes, earthquakes and continental drift and you begin to get an idea of how unstable are shorelines really are.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


>


Hey, two posts in one day again! Thx! Nice colours, again. Loving that red. It matches your bloodshot eyes...



> Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.


MacDoc, this isn't even a question. You haven't been paying attention. Again.

The key question to this whole issue is, "How much of an effect are anthropogenic CO2 emissions having on the climate?"

1%? 10%? It cannot be even that much because this planet has seen CO2 concentrations greater than 4000ppm in the past. *If CO2 concentration truly is the sole metric of global warming, none of us would be here writing about this today.* The planet would have been toast hundreds of millions of years ago.

Stamp your feet, rend your hair, blow snot all over your keyboard & monitor. It matters not. The facts are the facts and they do not support your argument...

PS The goof from LA Times is an editor, not a scientist. He is not in a position to decide what "science" gets published & what "science" does not. It is incumbent upon him to publish both sides of the story. There is a very real story in the sceptic viewpoint. He may call it what he wants, he may rationalize it any way he desires. He is censoring half of the issue.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


>





> "So letters to the editor 'that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change ... do not get printed.'


So a left-wing newspaper like the _LA Times_ won't print letters disagreeing with a stance in which it has a vested interest? Real shocker there...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that carbon tax thing.

Remind me again why the west needs a carbon tax?

Interesting graphical representations of where anthropogenic CO2 really is coming from.


----------



## FeXL

More from the It's weather, not climate department.

Over half the USA covered in snow, the most in 11 years



> Paging Dr. David Viner, [snowy] white courtesy phone please


<snort> Yeah, I added the snowy part

You all remember the venerable Dr. Viner of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. In 2000 he predicted that snowfalls were a thing of the past and that <ahem> "Children just aren't going to know what snow is,".

And they wonder why sceptics question...everything.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, here's a gooder. Top EPA climate change guy cuts work on a regular basis because, get this, he's an undercover agent for the CIA.

Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds



> The EPA’s highest-paid employee and top expert on climate change engaged in “crime of massive proportions” by pretending to be working as an undercover agent for the CIA so he could avoid doing his real job for years, according to federal prosecutors and the agency's top investigator on the case.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the BBC conflicts of interest.

Climate Fat Cats exposed with naked conflicts of interest. Where was The BBC?



> It’s the new business model really. Why work for customers and compete in the free market? Instead scare the public, sell them the “answer”, and to make sure they pay, convince the government that you need grants and gravy (or you’ll call them names). Pretty soon, the government forces the public to pay, disguises and splits the payments into a thousand parts, and tells the people it is for their own good. The fun ramps up when the government hires you back to advise it on how to keep the gravy flowing to you.


I gotta change my business model...


----------



## FeXL

Just a quick, general post by Jeff Condon.

In the News



> There has been a ton of interesting activity in the climate world and I’m tired of missing out on it. In case you haven’t noticed, Nic Lewis has established himself as a top expert on climate model performance. I don’t believe anyone in the climate community is turning out work to the quality and detail level that he is doing and eventually they will be forced to notice. Just because this is a “skeptic” blog, don’t assume Nic will take any of the opinions here as his own, they are mine. I’ve learned to trust his work though and that is admittedly the same problem much of the climate community suffers from, although their trust is based on something else.


----------



## FeXL

So, new ShowTime series appearing next spring. I don't recommend you watch it. As a matter of fact, you may want to send a letter to the creator's of this gem & tell them exactly what you think. Something, say, along the lines of what Tisdale has put together?

Open Letter to the Executive Producers of YEARS of LIVING DANGEROUSLY



> In other words, you’re trying to link recent weather events around the globe to increased emissions of manmade greenhouse gases. There are two basic problems: one is based on science; the other is how the series will be perceived by the public.


He's too kind and the letter is far too long to capture the attention of an actor, but his points are clear & salient.

BTW, why am I not surprised that James Cameron is at the forefront of this...


----------



## MacDoc

the AGW denier.....










overwhelming evidence....

The Dutch on the other hand.....are doing something about it....



> *The Dutch are doing more than putting their fingers in the dikes;* the prospect of global warming and a melting Greenland has convinced the government in the Netherlands to spend $1.3 billion per year over the next century on massive infrastructure projects. The reason is simple, as most readers know: One-quarter of this venerable European country lies below sea level.
> The most pressing public works initiatives involve raising and enhancing the dikes and reinforcing storm barriers. But many other projects will be considered, including one that would move billions of tons of sand to extend the Dutch shoreline by a kilometer. These are just a few of many decisions the Dutch government will need to take over next few years, according to a recently commissioned government report.
> 
> In addition to remaking the Dutch infrastructure, the government plans to bring modern technology to bear. Dutch engineers are working with IBM to test a system of sensors that could eventually replace the army of volunteers that now fans out to inspect the dikes during storms. IBM is also creating a software system that collects and analyzes weather, rainfall and water-level data, so local governments and emergency responders will have the best information available when floods threaten and evacuation becomes necessary.
> “We have the best system of flood protection in the world today, but we have to start preparing for the future,” says Cees Veerman, a former agriculture minister who headed a recent government commission on climate change mitigation. Veerman’s expert panel has told the government to prepare for a sea level rise of 4 feet over the next 90 years, and 13 feet by 2200. “Climate change and rising sea levels will affect our coastal defenses and our rivers… We must take action now to ensure that our citizens are safe in the centuries to come.”
> As the risk of sounding like Dr. Doom, construction companies that specialize in flood protection will find no shortage of opportunities in the years ahead. I believe that many countries would be wise to follow the Dutch lead, in more ways than one. Not only are the Dutch acting early, but they have also pioneered most of the best engineering solutions for flood abatement.
> Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Maryland… are you listening?


Fingers in the Dikes: Dutch Invest $1.3 Billion Against Rising Seas


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The Dutch on the other hand.....are doing something about it....


The Dutch get it:



> *The next step will be for the government to pass a law to fund the project *and begin work on the large projects called for in the report.


None of the work has been approved or scheduled--it's just another agency trying to create a project for itself!!


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The Dutch on the other hand.....are doing something about it....


Again, let's take a look at this wunnerful little story you've linked to...



> ..Cees Veerman, a former agriculture minister who headed a recent government commission on climate change mitigation. Veerman’s expert panel has told the government to prepare for a sea level rise of 4 feet over the next 90 years


An _agriculture minister_. Well, salute! Another climate expert, obviously. What's funny about this, Davey boy, is that if I posted anything climate related written by an _agriculture minister_, you'd be laughing your backside off!

That said, let's take a look at the _agriculture minister's_ number's, shall we? He notes a 4 foot rise in sea levels in 90 years. Fine. Fortunately, we have this freshly minted report by the International Pack of Climate Crooks, AR5. Ink isn't even dry yet. Obviously the newest & greatest data, right? What do they have to say?



> It is _very likely_ that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is _likely_ that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.


Most interesting, non? So, let's use their numbers at both rates. 1.7mm/yr X 90 years = 153mm or 6 inches. 3.2mm/yr X 90 years = 288mm or 11.3 inches.

Both just a _wee_ bit short of 4 feet, wouldn't you say? And, before you go mouthing off about sea level rise accelerating, it's not. Peer-reviewed research linked to on this thread indicates that sea level rise has been decelerating since 2003.

I'll leave you to explain to your adoring fan, groovetube, why those numbers just don't line up.

Perhaps the _agriculture minister_ was sniffing a bit too much methane on the farm, behind all the little animals...

Next?


----------



## eMacMan

Feels like the faithful are really having to stretch to find anything resembling support for their beliefs. That said the Dutch are extremely vulnerable even if sea levels drop a bit, so spending money on their first line of defense does make sense. Compare that to: Diverting $7Trillion$+ to the Banksters and the Goreacle in the deluded belief that climate should be static and lining those vaults will somehow make it so.

A comment on replacing those volunteers. Having seen first hand what can happen when officials rely on technology rather than volunteers, I will take the volunteer system every time.

What it boils down to is this. If a volunteer screws up and fails to deliver a warning it's his hide, family and home he puts at risk. Also a sensor is not going to go bashing down the mayors door if he fails to promptly respond to a warning.


----------



## FeXL

The Chiefio explains difficulties with relying on historic TSI measurements.

Does Anybody Real Know What TSI It Is?



> The basic problem is that we don’t measure TSI as defined. We measured a subset of the spectrum near earth for most of the record. Only recently do we have really decent data.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard provides links to two graphs showing how CRU & NOAA have "adjusted" the temperature record.

CRU Cheating Just As Bad As GISS Cheating



> They have erased the warmth from 1890 to 1960, and in particular the hot 1930′s


NOAA Cheating Just As Bad As GISS Cheating



> Like GISS and CRU, the NOAA temperature record is a complete fraud.


----------



## FeXL

Curry talks about trusting models.

How far should we trust models?



> I think Turney’s analysis is insightful, and very well written to serve the public understanding of this complex issue.
> 
> The epistemology of computer simulations is a growing subspecialty in the philosophy of science, and we are even seeing the development of a community of philosophers of science that focus on climate modeling. I have been avidly reading this literature, and Eric Winsberg is definitely someone who is providing insights.


----------



## FeXL

Nature proves Al Gore wrong again



> The great bloviator has been _pwned_ again, by the actions of nature itself. In Germany, five years ago this past Saturday, Al Gore claimed that the _“Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”_ .


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper out, model based. They analyze carbon residence time. However, as noted in the comment linked to below, they're now talking about carbon in plants, not the atmosphere. (!)

Apparently, 4 degrees spells climate doom

From the comments:



> Wait a minute, all the discussion of residence time has referred to CO2 in the atmosphere, not plants. In the very first sentence they have re-defined this as “the length of time carbon remains in vegetation during the global carbon cycle – known as ‘residence time’ -”. *This is a bait and switch as non-one is concerned with residence time in plants, only in the atmosphere.*
> 
> And even more junk when they use 4 degrees as the end of the world scenario, but the effect on plants is the supposed widespread drought that this 4 degree rise creates. Really? Such a rise in temperature is going to remove water vapour from the atmosphere? Despite the fact that such an increase would release a great deal of frozen water from glaciers and get it into liquid form where it will evaporate easier? The simplistic idea that warmer equals drier is the complete opposite of the basic CAGW meme that CO2 effect in the atmosphere is amplified by the increased water vapour which it causes.
> 
> No, pile of junk from the first to the last. No basis in physical or biological fact (as the people who have pointed out how well plants grow at a wide range of temperatures have already pointed out).


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc's favorite royalty asks,

Whither went the warmer weather?



> The Long Pause just got three months longer. Last month, the RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies showed no global warming for exactly 204 months – the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Santer as demonstrating that the models are in fundamental error.
> 
> The sharp drop in global temperature in the past month has made itself felt, and not just in the deep snow across much of North America and the Middle East. The RSS data to November 2013, just available after a delay caused by trouble with the on-board ephemeris on one of the satellites, show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months.


Further:



> Yet the mainstream news media, having backed the wrong horse, cannot bear to tear up their betting slips and move along. They thought they had a hot tip on global warming. They were naïve enough to believe Scientists Say was a dead cert. Yet the spavined nag on which they had bet the ranch fell at the first fence.
> 
> *The inventiveness with which They wriggle is impressive. Maybe all that air pollution from China is like a parasol. Maybe the warming somehow snuck sneakily past the upper 2000 feet of the ocean so that it didn’t notice, and perhaps it’s lurking in the benthic strata where we can’t measure it. Maybe it’s just waiting to come out when we least expect it and say, “Boo!”.*


Yup, my bold.


----------



## MacDoc

*It's getting warmer..we're responsible*

For those few remaining under the delusion that AGW has stopped...



> *2013 Brings Warmest November Since At Least 1880*
> By MARCIA DUNN 12/17/13 01:49 PM ET EST AP
> 
> CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — November was a hot month for planet Earth.
> 
> Government scientists reported Tuesday that last month set a heat record. They say it was the warmest November on record, across Earth, since record-keeping began in 1880.
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says average global temperature, for water and land surfaces combined, was 56.6 degrees (13.7 Celsius). That's 1.4 degrees (0.78 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.
> 
> It was the 37th consecutive November with above-average temperatures. The last below-average November was in 1976.
> 
> It was also the 345th straight month with above-average temperatures. That's almost 29 years.
> 
> Among the November hot spots: much of Eurasia, Central America and the Indian Ocean. In Russia, it was the warmest November on record.* But parts of North America were cooler than average*.


2013 Brings Warmest November Since At Least 1880

this is local due to the Arctic dipole weather pattern....


----------



## SINC

Isn't it time to ditch the Halloween Sale now on crap in your sig? It does however kind of match your behind the times view of the pause in AGW.


----------



## Macfury

It's embarrassing, because it's completely in line with a cessation in global warming. If the temperature remains exactly stable, or even declines slightly, it will continue to be "above average" until enough months have passed. Then it will be just "average." In the meantime, RSS satellite data shows no warming at all for 204 consecutive months, as of the end of November, 2013:


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> For those few remaining under the delusion that AGW has stopped...


Pardon me for pointing out the blatantly obvious, but weren't you just chewing out eMacMan for posting a new low temperature record in the Antarctic?

That said, on what planet does your weather, not climate, temperature post fit the narrative any better?

Do as I say, not as I do? Is that the thrust? No double standards here, nosiree.

If you weren't so sad you'd be hilarious...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Pardon me for pointing out the blatantly obvious, but weren't you just chewing out eMacMan for posting a new low temperature record in the Antarctic?
> 
> That said, on what planet does your weather, not climate, temperature post fit the narrative any better?
> 
> Do as I say, not as I do? Is that the thrust? No double standards here, nosiree.
> 
> If you weren't so sad you'd be hilarious...


He just runs it up his dipole to see if anyone salutes...


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> For those few remaining under the delusion that AGW has stopped...
> 
> 
> 
> 2013 Brings Warmest November Since At Least 1880
> 
> this is local due to the Arctic dipole weather pattern....


Should almost offset one of the coldest Decembers on record.


----------



## FeXL

Donna on doubt.

Doubt is Not a Sin



> When I began researching climate change, that servile “trust the experts” posture was a warning beacon. Anyone who expects me to check my brain at the door for the sake of the planet (aka communal salvation), is no friend of mine. Nor are they a friend of that pesky precept known as free speech.


----------



## FeXL

"Big Oil" sponsorship at the AGU Fall Meeting.

A side of the AGU Fall Meeting sure to cause some alarmists to go postal



> However, this bit of a surprise juxtaposition was sent to me by WUWT regular “Jabba the cat” and is worth highlighting, because I’m pretty sure that if skeptics had a conference with these sponsors, we’d be vociferously vilified with sponsors like these.


----------



## FeXL

More integrity from Cook & SS.

Skeptical Science’s John Cook – Making **** Up



> Last week, John Cook published a piece in the Europhysics News magazine in which he, quite literally, fabricates a quote. You can see the details here, but basically, he took the old quote about a campaign to “reposition global warming as theory (rather than fact)” and changed it to “reposition fact as theory.” It’s mind-boggling.


----------



## FeXL

"Fixing" Iceland's temperature record.

More NASA GISS temperature tampering, this time in Iceland & surrounding subarctic 



> GISS shows that the temperature rise in most of the Iceland should have been between 0.5 and 1 degrees. *Iceland's own weather reports now show that the temperature increase between these years was zero .*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Have one here from the "Settled Science" department. A large number of lakes discovered under the ice sheets in Antarctica.

Antarctica's Soggy Bottom: New Lakes & Streams Found



> Dimples in Antarctica's vast ice sheet frequently pop up and down like creatures in the arcade game "Whac-A-Mole" — a sign that water is forcing its way through a vast network of channels and lakes under the ice, researchers said last week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
> 
> Scientists reported new evidence of many previously unknown "active" lakes and hollows, which fill and drain like a bathtub, as well as better maps of the drainages connecting these basins.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper out.

New paper suggests land-use changes played a big role in global warming 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Surface albedo changes from anthropogenic land cover change (ALCC) represent the second-largest negative radiative forcing behind aerosol during the industrial era. Using a new reconstruction of ALCC during the Holocene era by Kaplan et al. [2011], we quantify the local and global temperature response induced by Holocene ALCC in the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4). We find that Holocene ALCC cause a global cooling of 0.17 °C due to the biogeophysical effects of land-atmosphere exchange of momentum, moisture, radiative and heat fluxes. On the global scale, the biogeochemical effects of Holocene ALCC from carbon emissions dominate the biogeophysical effects by causing 0.9 °C global warming. *The net effects of Holocene ALCC [anthropogenic land cover change] amount to a global warming of 0.73 °C during the pre-industrial era, which is comparable to the ~0.8 °C warming during industrial times.* On local to regional scales, such as parts of Europe, North America and Asia, the biogeophysical effects of Holocene ALCC are significant and comparable to the biogeochemical effect.


Bold from the link.

So, land use changes were responsible for 0.73 °C of global warming in pre-industrial times. Post-industrial, we've have around 0.8 °C of warming. It wouldn't be out of line to suggest that post-industrial land use changes have contributed significantly to global warming. Doesn't leave a lot to pin on CO2, does it...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

New paper finds the Gulf Stream has not slowed down, contradicts alarmist's claims

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slow-down, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease.* Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface-layer transport of 1.35x105 m2 s-1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20-year period. *This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2-4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea-level rise along the U.S. coast north of Cape Hatteras.* Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.


Bold from the first link.

Amazing. They have actual, observable, empirical evidence, instead of model output...


----------



## FeXL

I've noted how stupid, irreverent and insulting the latest warmist metric of "global warming" is, the Hiroshima bomb equivalent. Now, Scooter has come up with yet another metric, surprisingly even stupider.

Cook's 'Skeptical Science' new global warming scare tactic: cuddly kitten sneezes 

The authors' 5 point comment, in moderation at _The Guardian_, inside.

Just shaking my head...


----------



## FeXL

Going Bananas: Another Climate Change Hustle

So, apparently there's a banana crisis in Costa Rica this year. Guess the culprit?



> The Director of the Costa Rican Agriculture and Livestock Ministry’s State Phytosanitary Services, Magda González, told the San José Tico Times, “Climate change, by affecting temperature, favors the conditions under which [the insects] reproduce.” González estimated that the rising temperature and concomitant changes in precipitation patterns could shorten the reproduction cycle of the insect pests by a third. “I can tell you with near certainty that climate change is behind these pests.”


Yup.

Unfortunately, the graph at the link indicates that there is a positive correlation between temperatures and banana output. Knowing the slope of CO2 over the same period of time provides another positive correlation.

The author notes:



> While it is probably not out completely out of the question that some sort of weather influence may, in part, play some role in the current affliction of the Costa Rica banana crop, to implicate human-caused global warming, you’d have to have gone completely…, well, you know.


He sums, rather nicely, I thought:



> But climate policy has always functioned best in a data-free environment


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

This boils down to an observed 50% increase in CO2 north of 45°N over two distinct time periods. The numbers were plugged into CHIMP 5 and the models were unable to account for the increase.

Reconstructing the Increasing "Breath" of Earth's Biosphere

In sum:



> What it means
> Graven et al. conclude their paper by stating that "the inability of the CMIP5 models to account for the observed increase in the amplitude of atmospheric CO2 indicates that they underestimate the widespread ecological changes that occurred over the past 50 years and are likely to under-predict future changes."


----------



## FeXL

JoNova talks about SS's widget.

Sun dumps 500 times as many Hiroshima bombs of energy as “climate change”



> The Sks widget performs a valuable service, advertising the bloggers who don’t understand big numbers or trends, and who struggle with statistical significance. *If someone wants to show they think-with-the-herd, and not with their brain, the SkepticalScience widget is perfect. I thank the team at SkS for helping us to identify the gullible fashion-victims of science.*


Bold mine.

So, MacDoc... Got yours?


----------



## FeXL

More on adjustments.

There Is No Physical Mechanism Which Can Explain NOAA’s Adjustments



> UHI would require a linear adjustment – in the other direction.


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

They Just Want An Honest Debate



> Reddit has banned skeptics, because alarmists weren’t able to counter skeptic’s arguments


----------



## FeXL

Judith links to a couple of articles on Thought Leaders. I found it a touch on the dry side but did find a quote near the end that caught my eye.

The blogosphere and thought leaders



> The bottom line is that fields with high societal relevance – economics and climate change are prime examples – is that thought leadership requires a response time substantially more rapid that the academic publication and comment/response cycle. *Blogs and working papers posted on the internet are moving the scientific and public debate much more rapidly than was previously possible.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Ran across this tweet today. If you click on the graph you get an enlarged version. I don't know where the graph came from but there is a quote on the left-most column. 

I searched the quote & got a hit on a paper from 2005 on analyzing juniper wood from the La Brea tar pits. The analysis includes both dating the wood samples and determining atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time. The paper is available in its entirety at the link, I won't post the Abstract.

Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

Quick botany lesson: Three basic types of plant photosynthesis- C3, C4 & CAM. The junipers in this study are C3 (as are most plants). This is the type of photosynthesis you first learned about in grade school. These plants function less well in low atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The paper gives evidence that glacial CO2 concentrations dropped as low as 113ppm. The authors note:



> *We found evidence for severe and sustained carbon starvation in glacial Juniperus trees at La Brea.* Both Δ and c i/c a (Fig. 3) were similar in both modern and full-glacial trees (P = 0.60 for Δ, P = 0.50 for c i/c a), even though atmospheric [CO2] reached minimum values during the last glacial period (2). *As a result, leaves of full-glacial trees had extremely low calculated c i values (averaging 113 ppm)* that were 25% lower than in leaves of postglacial trees (c i of 150 ppm between 7.665 and 12.450 kyr B.P.), and 40% lower than in leaves of modern trees (average c i of 187 ppm, Fig. 4). *Glacial c i values of 113 ppm are unprecedented in modern vegetation and are much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis (ca. 40–70 ppm for C3 plants; c i where carbon uptake from photosynthesis is equal to carbon lost from respiration). This level is critical when considering that plants must operate well above compensating c i to achieve sufficient photosynthetic rates for adequate growth and reproduction and for maintaining long-term survival (6).* These low c i values were not unique to southern California, because glacial leaves of Pinus flexilis from the Great Basin exhibited c i values of 110 ppm (19), supporting the notion that trees in nearby regions were also carbon-starved during the last glacial period.


To repeat: severe carbon starvation at 118 ppm.

More:



> Based on these low calculated c i values, the productivity of ancient trees, along with other C3 species, was greatly diminished during the last glacial period.
> 
> ...
> 
> From these relationships (5), we estimate that *productivity was reduced by ≈40%* for Juniperus operating between postglacial (between 7.665 and 12.450 kyr B.P.) and full-glacial c i values, and *was reduced by ≈55% between modern and full-glacial c i values.*


What does this all mean?

First off, it should be obvious that plant life reduces its productivity at lower CO2 concentrations. And, if reduced enough, can actually reach carbon starvation whereby the plant may no longer reproduce. So, CO2 is plant food, not toxic poison. Pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were ~270ppm, barely double the level that produced severe carbon starvation in the junipers analyzed.

In addition, peer-reviewed research linked to on this thread shows the planet greening with CO2 levels approaching 400ppm. Historically, 400 ppm is on the low end of the CO2 concentration scale, as indicated by the graph on the tweet. The planet managed to get through 7000ppm CO2 without burning up. We'll get through where it is now and the foreseeable future just fine.


----------



## MacDoc

*tossed out of science discussions again..climate change denial a failed meme*

hehe - the pool toi **** in is shrinking rapidly for the climate deniers....

factually incorrect again....even on Reddit..



> T*here is a de facto ban of climate denial in /r/science, yes,*” Allen told ThinkProgress on Tuesday. *“We require submissions to /r/science to be related to recent publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals which effectively excludes any climate denial.”*
> 
> The news broke on Monday that Reddit’s popular science forum had been enacting the ban when Allen published a post on the popular environmental news site Grist. The announcement sparked outrage on Reddit, which is a website with pages about every topic under the sun. Users post links and text on these pages, which other users vote positively (upvote) or negatively (downvote), so that the most popular posts are at the top of the page.
> Allen’s announcement quickly rose to the top of /r/science’s front page. “Candy coated censorship!” one said. “Insecure dictators,” said another.
> 
> “Since when is science so concrete that differing opinions are not allowed?” another user complained. “Its actually this sort of behavior that FUELS ‘deniers.’ If man made global warming is so real, why are so many of you NOT willing to discuss it?”
> 
> The answer, Allen said, is that the conversation surrounding global warming constantly tends to wade off into a non-scientific, personal debate that is inappropriate for a science discussion forum. *“Statements on /r/science must be supported by meaningfully peer-reviewed science,*” Allen said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where there is no consensus we ask users to support their comments with links to studies and publications. *However, the consensus is so overwhelming in the case of climate change that it would effectively be like allowing people to come into a submission on vaccinations and throw around the claim that vaccines cause autism.*
> Our policy limits both deniers and skeptics to the extent that /r/science is for the discussion of current, peer-reviewed research and climate skepticism doesn’t have much to show in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> In his piece on Grist, Allen also noted that, while evolution and vaccines do have their disparagers, “no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.”
> 
> Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground.
> 
> Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors.
> 
> … After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit.
> 
> These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.
> 
> They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.
Click to expand...

Why Reddit's Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers | ThinkProgress


----------



## Macfury

Are you serious MacDoc? You think it's some sort of news that Reddit muzzles its readers? And this muzzling proves... what?

The Reddit editor cites the massive influence of those who disagree with climate alarmism as its primary reasoning. I expect to see more of this as ACC alarmists continue to lose "market share" in the real world.

How are those international climate accords working for you these days, MacDoc?


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> hehe - the pool toi **** in is shrinking rapidly for the climate deniers....
> 
> factually incorrect again....even on Reddit..
> 
> 
> 
> Why Reddit's Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers | ThinkProgress





> Where there is no consensus we ask users to support their comments with links to studies and publications. However, the consensus is so overwhelming in the case of climate change that it would effectively be like allowing people to come into a submission on vaccinations and throw around the claim that vaccines cause autism.
> *Our policy limits both deniers and skeptics to the extent that /r/science is for the discussion of current, peer-reviewed research and climate skepticism doesn’t have much to show in that regard.*


OUCH!
:clap:


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> hehe - the pool toi **** in is shrinking rapidly for the climate deniers....
> 
> factually incorrect again....even on Reddit..





groovetube said:


> OUCH!
> :clap:


First off, nobody is denying climate, you doddering old fool. Second, nobody is denying climate change. Third, apparently both you idiots missed this earlier. I'll post again, just to make sure you have a look...

They Just Want An Honest Debate



> *Reddit has banned skeptics, because alarmists weren’t able to counter skeptic’s arguments*


For the same reasons SS, RC, DSB & other POS warmist blogs have their comments moderated &, ultimately, censored: They can't handle an even playing field. Funny, that, 'cause if all this knowledge, all this evidence, all these empirical observations are there to refute the sceptical argument, you'd think they'd just put sceptics in their place, non? They don't have any answers for the rather pointed questions sceptics are asking so they merely pretend the questions were never really there. Things that make you go hmmm...

Oh, and groove, perhaps you could provide some of that peer-reviewed science your so familiar with to back up the warmist side of the argument for a 17+ year plateau in global temperatures...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Oh, and groove, perhaps you could provide some of that peer-reviewed science your so familiar with to back up the warmist side of the argument for a 17+ year plateau in global temperatures...


_Sound of rusty bolts rattling around an old tin can._


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> _Sound of rusty bolts rattling around an old tin can._


Ah. I thought it was a broken drumstick inside a snare with a hole in the skin...


----------



## FeXL

So, MacDoc & his sidekick, groove, seem easily impressed by a mere editor's words about sceptics and his childish actions to suppress dissent.

In that case, they should be stunned (stunned!) by a genuine physicist's opinion about censorship.

Reddit: a major "share a random URL" server bans climate skeptics



> There are lots of inconsistencies in Allen's text but what is beyond doubt is that he is absolutely determined to harm all the people who are not as deluded as himself when it comes to myths, lies, and fabricated emotions sold as "global warming" or "climate change". In the name of these artificially fabricated pseudoscientific superstitions, he wants to break all rules of a civilized society, he wants to **** on human rights and freedoms of all the types.
> 
> The story is sad or alarming but on the other hand, I must admit that it also sounds comical if I imagine that your, Richard Lindzen's, or my account would be suspended by the true local "giant of science", a mental midget like Mr Allen himself who has proclaimed himself to be the protector of the scientific correctness. *A mental midget who can't see he is a mental midget at all – a funny concept, we could say.*
> 
> Fortunately, Mr Allen is an inconsequential hack on a server run by himself and other trolls.


I've never been to "Reddit" and I'm even less inclined than before. However, Lubos has a snapshot of the logo. Am I seeing what I'm thinking I'm seeing? Are those cartoon characters all holding each others _penises_?

You go, MacDoc. And, please, take groovetube with you...


----------



## FeXL

Amazing how quiet the peanut gallery gets when it's revealed how farcical their "sources" are.

When I went to the U of Lethbridge I read hundreds of papers via Interlibrary Loan dating back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as part of the research for two unpublished papers I wrote. Most of these were from the venerable Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, although there were many from other respected publishers as well. Part of the research for those two papers took me to places like the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology here in Alberta and the Royal Ontario Museum, as well as McMaster University. I've been to U of Calgary, U of Edmonton, UBC and U of Victoria and the Royal British Columbia Museum. I've also been to the Museum of the Rockies in Montana as well as a whole host of lesser museums & places of higher learning. I've been to Rome & Florence & experienced firsthand the rush of the Renaissance and a thousand years of history prior to that.

Absolutely none, zero, of these wonderful publishing houses, fantastic institutes of learning and veritable repositories of knowledge, art and architecture had a repeating cartoon image of one "thing's" hand stroking another "thing's" penis as a logo. Nothing even close. Looks more like it belongs on a porn site, no? Telegraphing, perhaps?

Face it, boyz. You've been pwned. And (wait for it...) largely by your own hand.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now, quietly go & play with the other children where your foolishness is appreciated...


----------



## FeXL

And, just in case our very own Reddit Boyz haven't provided enough smiles for the day, here's a nice twist on _'Twas The Night Before Christmas._

‘Twas the nightmare before Christmas



> ‘Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the news,
> There were reports of record cold, so many were confused.
> Told global warming is why we should care,
> And that the point of no return would soon be here.


But wait!

There is also a little parable from the Sceptic Bible in the comments.



> And I went unto the Warmists and said Fear Not! For the CO2 is logarithmic and the T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics.


----------



## FeXL

Thought provoking article on a linear response in climate sensitivity.


The Fatal Lure of Assumed Linearity



> In other words, the idea is that the change in temperature is a linear function of the change in TOA forcing. I doubt it greatly myself, I don’t think the world is that simple, but assuming linearity makes the calculations so simple that people can’t seem to break away from it.
> 
> Now, of course people know it’s not really linear … but when I point that out, often the claim is made that it’s close enough to linear over the range of interest that we can assume linearity with little error.


He has four graphs as visual aids, the non-linear response is very evident. Well done! Excellent, non-technical read.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale has some questions.

If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans…



> [W]hy is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins *should* be warming?


Bold from the link.

In the comments he provides a link to ARGO FAQ on accuracy. The whole page is a good overview of the sustem.


----------



## FeXL

Analysis finds NOAA satellite data is incompatible with theory of man-made global warming



> Previous posts by Dr. Noor van Andel have demonstrated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is falsified by observations over the past 62 years which show outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases has significantly increased, rather than decreased as predicted by the AGW theory. The observations instead show the 'greenhouse effect' has decreased over the past 62 years instead of increased due to an exponential rise in greenhouse gases.
> 
> ...
> 
> In a new post at Australian biologist Jennifer Marohasy's site, spectroscopist and engineer Michael Hammer comes to the same conclusion finding the last 30 years of NOAA satellite data is incompatible with AGW theory


Good read. Non technical, the complete original PDF of the article, too.

Judging by how NOAA self-servingly "treats" it's temperature data, I'm sure a correction will be along shortly to fix the OLR data oversight...


----------



## FeXL

New paper.

Climate change caused African lakes to dry up 90 meters in less than 100 years! 



> A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology finds Kenya experienced exceptional climate change 5,000 years ago at the end of the Holocene Climate Optimum, when lake levels decreased 90 meters [296 feet] in less than 100 years. According to the authors, "Rapidly decreasing water levels of up to 90 meters over less than a hundred years are best explained by changes in solar irradiation either reducing the East African-Indian atmospheric pressure gradient and preventing the Congo Air Boundary from reaching the study area, or reducing the overall humidity in the atmosphere, or a combination of both these effects."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The water-level record from the 300 m deep paleo-lake Suguta (Northern Kenya Rift) during the African Humid Period (AHP, 15–5 ka BP) helps to explain decadal to centennial intensity variations in the West African Monsoon (WAM) and the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM). This water-level record was derived from three different sources: (1) grainsize variations in radiocarbon dated and reservoir corrected lacustrine sediments, (2) the altitudes and ages of paleo-shorelines within the basin, and (3) the results of hydro-balance modeling, providing important insights into the character of water level variations (abrupt or gradual) in the amplifier paleo-Lake Suguta. The results of this comprehensive analyses suggest that the AHP highstand in the Suguta Valley was the direct consequence of a northeastwards shift in the Congo Air Boundary (CAB), which was in turn caused by an enhanced atmospheric pressure gradient between East Africa and India during a northern hemisphere insolation maximum. *Rapidly decreasing water levels of up to 90 meters over less than a hundred years are best explained by changes in solar irradiation either reducing the East African-Indian atmospheric pressure gradient and preventing the CAB from reaching the study area, or reducing the overall humidity in the atmosphere, or a combination of both these effects.* In contrast, although not well documented in our record we hypothesize a gradual end of the AHP despite an abrupt change in the source of precipitation when a decreasing pressure gradient between Asia and Africa prevented the CAB from reaching the Suguta Valley. The abruptness was probably buffered by a contemporaneous change in precession producing an insolation maximum at the equator during October. Whether or not this is the case, the water-level record from the Suguta Valley demonstrates the importance of both orbitally-controlled insolation variations and *short-term changes in solar irradiation* as factors affecting the significant water level variations in East African rift lakes.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Donna's receiving some long due recognition.

I’m Invited – Parts 2 & 3



> I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.


Good for her.


----------



## FeXL

December 16 Global Sea Ice Area Is Second Highest On Record, And Highest In 25 Years



> It is closing in on an all-time record.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the It's weather, not climate department, sceptic style.

Jerusalem breaks 134-year-old snowfall record



> “The storm that began this past weekend and lasted four days broke the Jerusalem snowfall record since 1879,” says this news website. “The snow piled up to a height of 40 to 60 centimeters (16 to 23½ inches), and an especially great quantity of snow fell in the mountains of northern Israel, reaching a height of 70 centimeters (28 inches).”


Twenty-eight inches of global warming. 134 year old record. Amazing...


----------



## FeXL

Government Scientists Couldn’t Find Any Climate Change, So They Simply Manufactured It



> *U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend*
> 
> New York Times Published: January 26, 1989
> 
> *After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.*


My, my, how times change...


----------



## FeXL

Paper from 2002 explores possible connections between old Sol & climate change.

Paper finds solar activity explains climate change over past 200,000 years 

Abstract (screen caps of paper at link)



> The production of 10Be in the Earth’s atmosphere depends on the galactic cosmic ray influx that, in turn, is affected by the solar surface magnetic activity and the geomagnetic dipole strength. Using the estimated changes in 10Be production rate and the geomagnetic field intensity, variations in solar activity are calculated for the last 200 ka. *Large variations in the solar activity are evident* with the Sun experiencing periods of normal, enhanced and suppressed activity. *The marine δ18O [temperature proxy] record and solar modulation are strongly correlated at the 100 ka timescale. It is proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100 ka glacial–interglacial cycles.* However, the 10Be production rate variations may have been under-estimated during the interval between 115 ka and 125 ka and may have biased the results. Future tests of the hypothesis are discussed.


The author sums:



> *"In summary, it is evident that while there are strong correlations between solar activity and climate at different timescales, more work is needed towards finding mechanisms that change solar activity in the first place, and that explain the physical link between solar magnetism and climate." "The long term solar activity and the Earth's surface temperature appear to be directly related. The variations in solar activity may control the 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycles providing a more tangible astronomical forcing* than the estimated changes in solar insolation [Milankovitch Cycles] or cosmic dust accretion rates."


All bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Another older paper, authored by Joan Feynman (sister of Richard Feynman), supports Svensmark's cosmic ray theory.

Paper strongly supports the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate 

Abstract (PDF link to paper inside)



> High energy cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds and thus impact weather and climate. *Due to systematic solar wind changes, the intensity of cosmic rays incident on the magnetopause has decreased markedly during this century.* The pattern of cosmic ray precipitation through the magnetosphere to the upper troposphere has also changed. *Early in the century, the part of the troposphere open to cosmic rays of all energies was typically confined to a relatively small high-latitude region. As the century progressed the size of this region increased by over 25% and there was a 6.5° equatorward shift in the yearly averaged latitudinal position of the subauroral region in which cloud cover has been shown to be cosmic ray flux dependent. We suggest these changes in cosmic ray intensity and latitude distribution may have influenced climate change during the last 100 years.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the usual suspects was bleating about hot November, warmest evah, etc (despite that it's weather, not climate). Coupla links on that.

November 2013 Russian “Hotspot” – Alarmists Are Overlooking Something



> It might be true that Russian land surface air temperatures were at record levels for the month of November, but NOAA failed to present something that’s blatantly obvious in the data. *In 1988, surface air temperature anomalies for much of Russia shifted upwards by more than 1 deg C.*


And,


Claim: November 2013 is the ‘warmest ever’ – but will the real November 2013 temperature please stand up?



> But, *according to satellite temperatures, the ranking claimed by NCDC isn’t anywhere near to “record warmest”.* Dr. John Christy gives these values for the satellite data sources of global temperature and their ranks:
> 
> _* UAH Nov 2013 9th warmest Nov (0.20 C cooler than warmest Nov.)
> * RSS Nov 2013 16th warmest Nov (0.22 C cooler than warmest Nov.)​_
> And, when we look at the UAH map of the world, while Russia was certainly warmer, it wasn’t as warm as NCDC makes it to be:


All bold mine.

Those nasty UAH satellites. Not in the hands of the warmists & therefore unable to be manipulated to their liking. Go figger...


----------



## FeXL

I found this very interesting. There have been a number of studies done recently (some peer-reviewed, some not) that have examined climate sensitivity: the amount global temperatures are estimated to go up with a doubling of CO2. TIPCC™ estimates 3°C. The average of the other 13? *0.46°C.*

Observations show IPCC exaggerates anthropogenic global warming by a factor of 7 



> A compilation of at least 13 studies based upon satellite and ocean observations demonstrate climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels after all feedbacks is only about 0.4 C, which is 7.5 times less than the 3C claimed by the IPCC.


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

See this smile? ->

This is _schadenfruede_.

For global warming believers, 2013 was the year from Hell



> 2013 was the best of years for climate skeptics; the worst of years for climate change enthusiasts for whom any change – or absence of change — in the weather served as irrefutable proof of climate change. The enthusiasts fell into disbelief that everyone didn’t pooh-pooh the failure of the climate models to perform as advertised. That governments and the public would abandon the duty to stop climate change was in their minds no more thinkable than Hell freezing over. Which the way things are going for them, may happen in 2014.


What I would term a "satisfying" read...


----------



## FeXL

New paper.

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate



> The authors find when the PDO is in phase with the 11 year sunspot cycle, the pattern of sea level pressures and surface temperatures shift in comparison to when they are out of phase. The authors also find the NAO is amplified when it is in phase with the sunspot cycle.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> When the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] is in phase with the 11 year sunspot cycle there are positive SLP [sea level pressure] anomalies in the Gulf of Alaska, nearly no anomalous zonal SLP gradient across the equatorial Pacific, and a mix of small positive and negative SST [sea surface temperature] anomalies there. When the two indices are out of phase, positive SLP anomalies extend farther south in the Gulf of Alaska and west into eastern Russia, with a strengthened anomalous zonal equatorial Pacific SLP gradient and larger magnitude and more extensive negative SST anomalies along the equatorial Pacific. In the North Atlantic, when the NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation] is in phase with the sunspot peaks, there is an intensified positive NAO SLP pattern. When the NAO is out of phase with the peaks, there is the opposite pattern (negative NAO). The relationships are physically consistent with previously identified processes and mechanisms, and point the way to further research.


----------



## FeXL

Couple more opinions on the censorship over at our peter pulling buddys' website.

Critics blast Reddit over climate-change skeptic ban



> Brendan O’Neill, in a blog post for the UK Daily Telegraph, said Reddit has “ripped its own reputation to shreds,” and described the move as “*political censorship, designed to silence the expression of dissent about climate-change alarmism* on one of the Internet’s most popular user-generated forums.”


More:



> James Delingpole, columnist, climate skeptic and author of “The Little Green Book Of Eco Fascism,” was even louder in his criticism.
> 
> “*The greenies* -- and their many useful idiots in the liberal media -- *are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory*,” Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that *Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don't support you, then close down the argument.*”


Yup.

Further (What's this? Backpedalling? Too late, the damage is done):



> Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” *his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”*


All bold mine.

Reddit gives up on debate, bans “deniers” and repositions as low traffic propaganda unit



> I’d like to thank them for sending more traffic to skeptical bloggers as they stop pretending to be on the “front line” in science. Though to be honest, I don’t expect to notice the difference: their “environment” page is positively _raging_ along, with most posts getting only 1-2 comments. “Front page of the Internet” my foot.


More:



> *I think the real issue here is that Reddit attracts a pretty low base “scientist”,* and the flame wars make it pointless. *Reddit’s answer was not to raise standards* by insisting that both sides stick to logic and reason (which would have blocked most of the fans of man-made global warming as well) *but to block one side and allow the other to keep parroting fallacies.*


All bold mine, italics from the link.

At this rate, soon there won't be another person there to pull peters with...


----------



## MacDoc

*Yes Virginia indeed there is a climate change conspiracy..*

Hope you are getting paid for your nonsense....



> *Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort*
> 55 minutes ago
> 
> A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
> Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.
> The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
> Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
> Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort
> The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
> To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.
> Key findings include:
> *Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. *The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
> Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
> Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
> Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.
> "The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
> 
> 
> 
> more
> 
> Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort
Click to expand...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Hope you are getting paid for your nonsense....


I do this strictly for the enjoyment of watching warmists like you twist like a kite in the wind. Especially this year. 

In the last couple of weeks I've posted links to posts showing that Big Oil alone has funded warmists and environmentalists to the tune of millions of dollars. Funny, you were pretty quiet about those.

Oh, BTW, was this wunnerful little article "Reddit" approved? You know, your hand on someone else's penis and all? Groove should be along shortly (no pun intended) to help out...

OK, let's look at these numbers & offer a bit of perspective, shall we? 

$558 million dollars over the course of 8 years. Wow. Brutal. Seventy million dollars a year, right? That's a lot of cash. 

I have a link here to a little story that came out in October, you may have seen it. It was covered by a number of news agencies. Something about warmists spending *a billion dollars a day last year alone* (that's a link, click it & learn something), to fight a problem in the near complete absence of supporting empirical evidence. Just in case you're having trouble with the math, that's significantly more in one day by the warmists than the complete 8 year total in your precious study on sceptics. 

MacDoc, your grasp of reality has long since slipped away. You may wish to examine this quote in some detail:



> Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane—Philip K. Dick (1928 - 1982)


Have a nice day.


----------



## FeXL

C'mon, MacDoc, crickets? No witty repartee, no _ad homs_, no name-calling? No links to SS, RC or DSB? Nothing? Most would tire of having their arguments systematically disemboweled in public like this. I'm sure you, however, will be back with more nonsense for debunking soon. A lesser man would throw up his hands in frustration but you seem to thrive on the drubbings. 

Isn't that known as masochism?

Well, whatever floats your little Reddit boat. Speaking of which, where's your buddy? Haven't seen him here since he publicly embarrassed himself, either. Probably over at one of the other fora, coming up with inventive new names to call me.

At any rate, back to work...


----------



## FeXL

Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’



> Among the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a live grenade nestles in the straw.
> 
> It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.


Decent enough credentials, no?

Darriulat notes:



> The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is *shocking and deeply unscientific*. For a scientist, *this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary.* The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is *far from being the case.*


Further:



> When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: *either they speak as scientists* and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…*or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter*…they have *distorted* the scientific message into an alarmist message…


All bold from the link.

Beautifully noted.


----------



## FeXL

Over The Last 8,000 Years, Sea Level Has Risen 14 Metres – While Temperatures Declined

Good superposition of two graphs. I'd add a third, global CO2 concentrations. Then let the models try to explain that...


----------



## FeXL

Steven has a few good ones this morning.

The Antarctic Ross Ice Shelf Retreated 15 Feet Per Day Between 1900 And 1930

Amazing that, no? Even more difficult to explain since the official temperature agencies have "fixed" that time period, downwards.


----------



## FeXL

WTF?

Reality Is A Denier



> I saw an interesting comment on a discussion forum the other day
> 
> _“Wood for trees is a well known denier site”_​
> Wood for Trees is a graphing site which allows you to plot out temperature data sets, among other things. *Apparently actual data is biased towards deniers*, which gives the site a bad reputation among alarmists.


Sucks to be a warmist, then...


----------



## FeXL

The Dirty Little Secret Of Polar Amplification



> We have reached the summer solstice in Antarctica, and *record amounts of sea ice* are reflecting light back into space and cooling the planet, a full 30º away from the pole – where the sun is high in the sky.


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Nice animated GIF.

Thirteen Years Of NASA Data Tampering – In Six Seconds



> The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures – from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered* with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930′s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
> 
> Earlier versions showed even more of a decline, but I can’t locate digital data for them.


----------



## FeXL

A private sector geologist gives some perspective on sea level rise. I especially recommend scrolling down to his _Figure 1. Sea 1evel rise since the late Pleistocene from Tahitian corals, tide gauges and satellite altimetry_ and enlarging.

Oh say can you see modern sea level rise from a geological perspective?

He starts:



> Definition of climate “expert”: A parrot that can only say, “things are worse than we thought.”


Yup. That pretty much sets the tone.

Excellent read, non-technical, lots of visual aids.


----------



## FeXL

Willis writes about the global heat engine.

The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine



> I’ve been reflecting over the last few days about how the climate system of the earth functions as a giant natural heat engine. A “heat engine”, whether natural or man-made, is a mechanism that converts heat into mechanical energy of some kind. In the case of the climate system, the heat of the sun is converted into the mechanical energy of the ocean and the atmosphere. The seawater and atmosphere are what are called the “working fluids” of the heat engine. The movement of the air and the seawater transports an almost unimaginably large amount of heat from the tropics to the poles. Now, none of the above are new ideas, or are original with me. I simply got to wondering about what the CERES data could show regarding the poleward transport of that energy by the climate heat engine. Figure 1 gives that result


Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

A paper on the solar spectrum from 2009 is discussed.

How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change



> A paper published in _Geophysical Research Letters_ finds another means by which climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change. The paper notes that climate models consider total solar irradiance [TSI], but ignore the large shifts in wavelength distributions during solar cycles. The most energetic wavelengths from the Sun in the UV can vary up to 100% over solar cycles, and have significant effects on climate via stratospheric ozone.
> According to the authors, "These findings _need to be incorporated into Earth-climate [models]_ since the solar forcing induced by these differential trends are _inherently different_ from the relatively flat spectral contributions employed in the IPCC assessments."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on-board the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite provides the first multi-year continuous measurements of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variability from 200–2400 nm, accounting for about 97% of the total solar irradiance (TSI). In addition to irradiance modulation from active region passage, the SSI values for *wavelengths with a brightness temperature greater than 5770 K show a brightening with decreasing solar activity, whereas those with lower brightness temperatures show a dimming.* These results demonstrate that different parts of the solar atmosphere contribute differently to the TSI with the behavior in the deep photospheric layers giving an opposing and nearly compensating trend to that in the upper photospheric and lower chromospheric layers. *These findings need to be incorporated into Earth-climate assessments since the solar forcing induced by these differential trends are inherently different from the relatively flat spectral contributions employed in the IPCC assessments.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Global Sea Ice Area Closing In On Record High



> *Global sea ice area is second highest on record for the date after 1988, and closing in the #1 spot.* Antarctic ice is melting very slowly this summer, due to record cold Antarctic temperatures.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

The CET (Central English Temperature) record is the longest running record in the world. According to their readings:

England Temperatures Dropping Like A Rock



> Over the past decade, temperatures in England have been dropping at a rate of 11ºC per century.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

2012 : Experts Predicted Demise Of Penguins From Melting Sea Ice



> Working with Julienne Stroeve, another sea ice specialist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Holland ultimately recommended five distinct models. “We picked the models based on how well they calculated the sea ice cover for the 20th century,” she says. “If a model predicted an outcome that matched what was actually observed, we felt it was likely that its projections of sea ice change in the future could be trusted.”


Actually observed, huh...


----------



## FeXL

Polar Scientists Just Can’t Get A Break



> Antarctica’s crumbling Larsen B Ice Shelf is poised to finally finish its collapse, a researcher said Tuesday here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
> 
> “It’s possible that if there’s a summer warm enough to clear out the sea ice, it will simply fall apart,” he said.
> 
> But Antarctica hasn’t had a very warm summer since 2006, so for now, the scientists wait and watch.


So, these fruit loops & whackos think a breaking ice shelf is a sign of anthropogenic global warming.

I think that if these shelves don't break, it's a sign that our skinny little interglacial is ending and Big Ice™ is on its way...


----------



## FeXL

One more reason why I don't like the search engine that will not be named and use DuckDuckGo instead...

Ministry Of Truth Back On Top Of Their Game



> Google News archives used to be searchable for historical information, but no more. Until a few days ago, this search returned hundreds of items. Now it returns nothing.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is difficult to control the past when there is an historical record available.


----------



## FeXL

Sunday smiles. Lovin' it! Good read.

Wasn't 100% sure on the definition of prat, had to look it up. 



> Urban Dictionary: Basically someone whos a major idiot, or is delusional and dumb. Acts against logic and thinks hes self-righteous.


Wait just a minute...Is that a paradiddle I hear in the background?

Climate Prat of 2013 – We have a winnah!

Spoiler: Scooter wins. 

Language warning.


----------



## FeXL

Judith has a post on scientists & advocacy. Up front I'll note that, as far as I'm concerned, there is no room in science for advocacy. Period. Reproducible empirical results will stand on their own. The second that a "scientist" takes a position, things start heading to hell in a handbasket. Some days on the back of a rocket sled...

Rethinking climate advocacy

She quotes Gavin Schmidt who gave a talk at the AGU meeting not long ago:



> The ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently ind ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.


I find that even noting that there should be a tradeoff between honesty & _anything_ is an issue in & of itself. Assuming a sum total of 100%, how much honesty is acceptable? 1%? 10%? 99%? Does anybody think that anything less than 100% honesty is vital to science?

Fortunately, Judith goes on to note:



> So I remain with Tamsin Edwards on this one: climate scientists should avoid advocacy related to public policy related to climate science research findings.


As I noted up top, I'd add that all scientists should avoid advocacy, period.


----------



## FeXL

So much for climate prognostication...

1986 : Leading Experts – 6 Degrees Warming By 2010, Eight Degrees By 2030, With 4.5 Feet Of Sea Level Rise



> _Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Dr. Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.
> 
> While the effect of small increases in global temperature is now unclear, Andrew Maguire, vice president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research and policy group, said that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is foreseen would cause a rise of 3 to 8 degrees in temperature by the 2030′s. He said this would devastate agriculture in the United States and elsewhere, and would cause a rise in sea level of some 4.5 feet as polar ice melted._


----------



## FeXL

Three on tampering with, I mean, adjusting temperature data...

Phil Shows That He Is Just As Good At Rewriting History As Jimmy And Tom

NASA : Cooling The Past Down Under Too



> Prior to 1960, people all over the world always read temperatures too high. This was probably because they were very short and had to look up at the glass thermometer.


Veteran Meteorologist Joe Bastardi On NASA November Temperature: “A Fraudulent Report… Tampering With Data”



> Joe Bastardi at his Saturday Summary here tells us what’s already known: The claim that November 2013 was the hottest month ever is fraudulent. He slams NASA and NOAA for picking data that solely suits an agenda.


----------



## FeXL

A new tornado reference.

Introducing The New Dana Nuccitelli Commemorative WUWT Tornado Reference Page



> We would like to dedicate this page to Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science infamy, who single-handedly managed to get Keith Kloor, Roger Pielke Jr., William Connolley, Thomas Fuller, Harold Brooks and countless others, all on the same side of a debate.


Well done, Scooter. Kudos...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper out.

Claim: Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

Abstract (and only because I wish to mock it), piecemeal.



> The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere1.


True



> Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly2, 3, 4, 5 (AD 950–1250; ref. 1).


So, cooling is associated with low solar activity but, the converse is not true? Please explain that logic. Also, a very unclear statement: "solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly". Does this mean that the MCA (BTW, the more politically correct way of saying Medieval Warming Period) was regional (it most certainly has been proven to be a worldwide effect) or that portions of the warming during the MCA was due to solar, along with the concomitant question, how does that work?



> The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained5, 6, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude7, 8, 9. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions10, 11, 12, 13.


I'm sorry, did you just mention models? And, a new weasel word, "tentatively".



> Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions14 for the past millennium.


Sure as hell, they said models.



> Our methodology15 also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output.


Really. They accounted for uncertainties in model output. Good. After they removed the models from the equation then what, pray tell, did they base their conclusions upon?



> We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.


Really. Volcanoes, you say. Funny, we've had a few sizeable volcanoes in the not too distant past (El Chichon & Mt. Pinatubo), their effect on global temps can be measured along the order of a few years. How many volcanoes would it take to cool temps for a millenium, a few years effect by each, and where is the evidence of all these volcanoes?

And, greenhouse gas concentrations. OK, what do your models say about the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations over the course of the last 17 years & the corresponding temperature plateau? How about the mid-20th century cooling, far longer than our current hiatus, while CO2 levels climbed inexorably?

Pfft...

Much of the story in the comments, this one sums it for me:



> I love the logic here. (Not)
> 
> First they assume a cause. (Volcano’s)
> 
> Then, they define “climate change” in such a way that it only includes changes which can be attributed to the cause that they have already chosen.
> 
> Then they write up a study, and claim that this study “Proves” that they have invalidated all other sources of “climate change”, in favor of their pre-selected “cause”.
> 
> brilliant, I suppose, but only for those who are impressed by academic gamesmanship.


----------



## FeXL

More settled science.

Enormous Aquifer Discovered Under Greenland Ice Sheet



> From NASA, I had to laugh at this statement:
> 
> _The water in the aquifer has the potential to raise global sea level by 0.016 inches (0.4 mm)._​
> That’s assuming it can get out sometime in the distant future. Greenland’s topography under the ice is bowl shaped.


Same thing I thought, too.


----------



## FeXL

Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

A number of interpretations of the ruling made in the comments, none of them looking good for Mikey. Some of them note that he won't have to go into discovery. That would be too bad, I've ben looking forward to that...


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back one of the usual suspects posted an article about all the cash that sceptics are getting. I promptly put that number into perspective &, like always when he gets his butt handed to him, crickets.

Further:

Claim: Dark Money Conspiracy – star “deniers” are scripted performers

The first comment nails it:



> ‘sock puppets in the pay of “dark money” from big oil.’
> 
> Great news. Where’s mine? Who’s nicked my pay cheque?
> 
> In case the UK branch of Sceptics International Fry The Planet Eat Babies Roast the Grandkids Corp has another PAYG gettogether after Christmas in the pub, I’ll need a few quid to buy my Fish and Chips and bus fare (£7 and £1.90 respectively – a total of about $13US)
> 
> Confession: I once had a free cup of coffee – and TWO chocolate chip cookies courtesy of the high rolling GWPF. And I saw Josh the Cartoonist buying McSteve a beer.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

Further on the "Trust us, it's anthropogenic CO2 output wot dunnit" department, we have this:



> "During the last interglacial, the [sea ice proxy at 2 sites in Antarctica] are only half of the Holocene levels, *in line with higher temperatures during that period,* indicating much reduced sea ice extent in the Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean."


More from the link:



> Prior research has also shown that Antarctic sea ice has markedly increased over past 7000 years since the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were significantly higher than the present.
> 
> *During the last interglacial, sea levels were 31 feet higher than the present, sea ice extent much less than the present, and Greenland was 8C warmer than the present, all with "safe" levels of CO2.* There is no evidence the current interglacial is any different.


My bold.

New paper finds Antarctica had much less sea ice during the last interglacial 

Abstract (open access)



> In this study we report on new non-sea salt calcium (nssCa2+, mineral dust proxy) and sea salt sodium (ssNa+, sea ice proxy) records along the East Antarctic Talos Dome deep ice core in centennial resolution reaching back 150 thousand years (ka) before present. During glacial conditions nssCa2+ fluxes in Talos Dome are strongly related to temperature as has been observed before in other deep Antarctic ice core records, and has been associated with synchronous changes in the main source region (southern South America) during climate variations in the last glacial. However, during warmer climate conditions Talos Dome mineral dust input is clearly elevated compared to other records mainly due to the contribution of additional local dust sources in the Ross Sea area. Based on a simple transport model, we compare nssCa2+ fluxes of different East Antarctic ice cores. From this multi-site comparison we conclude that changes in transport efficiency or atmospheric lifetime of dust particles do have a minor effect compared to source strength changes on the large-scale concentration changes observed in Antarctic ice cores during climate variations of the past 150 ka. Our transport model applied on ice core data is further validated by climate model data.
> 
> The availability of multiple East Antarctic nssCa2+ records also allows for a revision of a former estimate on the atmospheric CO2sensitivity to reduced dust induced iron fertilisation in the Southern Ocean during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene (T1). While a former estimate based on the EPICA Dome C (EDC) record only suggested 20 ppm, we find that reduced dust induced iron fertilisation in the Southern Ocean may be responsible for up to 40 ppm of the total atmospheric CO2 increase during T1. During the last interglacial, ssNa+ [sea ice proxy] levels of EDC and EPICA Dronning Maud Land (EDML) are only half of the Holocene levels, in line with higher temperatures during that period, indicating much reduced sea ice extent in the Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. In contrast, Holocene ssNa+ flux in Talos Dome is about the same as during the last interglacial, indicating that there was similar ice cover present in the Ross Sea area during MIS 5.5 as during the Holocene.


----------



## FeXL

So much for that polar warming.

Those Stubborn Facts: 35-Year Cooling of South Pole Confirmed By NASA - Antarctica Ice Sheets Safe



> The IPCC's climate science has long claimed that human CO2 emissions are producing an accelerated global warming, with a "runaway" warming trend, which is then being amplified in the north and south polar extremes. *This dangerous warming is, of course, causing the ice sheets to melt, unleashing catastrophic sea level rise, and thus swamping coastal regions and low-lying islands, as we speak!*
> 
> Hmmm.....despite over 845 billion tons of human CO2 emissions being added to the biosphere since 1978, that predicted dangerous warming, and associated catastrophes, have yet to materialize.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

1958 : New York Times Reported That Arctic Sea Ice Had Lost Half Its Volume

In addition, excellent news article in the comments, here in its entirety:



> “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
> 
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
> 
> Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
> 
> Washington Post on *November 2, 1922*


Bold mine.

Yup, unprecedented...


----------



## FeXL

99% Certainty Update



> In 1997, GISS showed that the Southern Hemisphere warmed from 1882 to 1910. Now they show the exact opposite.


GISS 1997 : 80% Of Northern Hemisphere Warming Occurred Prior To 1940



> In 1997, GISS showed 0.8ºC warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1885 to 1940 – when CO2 was 310 PPM. Over the next 45 years, only 0.2ºC additional warming has occurred.


----------



## MacDoc

The world IS moving on...



> *UN climate talks end with deal on curbing emissions .*.. - France 24
> www.france24.com/.../20131123-agreement-reached-un-climate-talks-w...‎
> Nov 23, 2013 - Climate negotiations in Warsaw drew to a close a day late on Saturday after wealthy and ... on sharing responsibility for climate change and agreeing to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. ... Latest update : 2013-11-24 ...


and China and the US have reached a substantial agreement.....your progress argument is as flawed as your science crap.



> Climate change deal: U.S., China sign 'groundbreaking' deal
> 
> WASHINGTON – The world’s two biggest polluters have signed what could be a groundbreaking agreement and “call to action” on the fight against escalating climate change.
> 
> The United States and China announced Sunday they would accelerate action to reduce greenhouse gases by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy.
> 
> But while the listed actions sound relatively mundane, *the words that accompanied the announcement were not. In a joint and quite powerful statement on the dangers of climate change, the two sides said they “consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.*”


covered even by the National Pest

Climate change deal: U.S., China sign ‘groundbreaking’ deal | National Post

The attempt to mislead and confuse is failing. Heartland is a joke.
Sponsors are pulling out and you and your ilk are reduced to tailing after the idjits in the anti-evolution crowd just to woo the ignorant on the right.

Even the likes of Exxon have moved on......



> Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is ...
> breakingenergy.com/.../exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk...‎
> May 29, 2013 - *ExxonMobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson acknowledged the risks posed by climate change at the company's annual meeting on May 29,*


Move on...there are difficult policy decisions to make and your shrill voices in denial is just something to laugh at, not to listen to.

So .....is the head of Exxon wrong??.....

or are you??


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, some of those links go back to the spring. Nothing has happened since as a result of these agreements to talk big... and do nothing.

And yes, the head of Exxon is wrong about AGW--he is making a business case for higher fossil fuel prices. Once they can make a business case for pretending AGW is real, they're all on board. If you told the Button Manufacturers of America that wearing more buttons cured the common cold, they would be all over it.


----------



## eMacMan

Of course big oil is all for promoting the AGW myth. Higher prices from a captive consumer base=higher profits=bigger exec bonuses.

At least it clearly establishes once and for all that big oil is not funding sceptic science. This despite the Goreacles claims to the contrary.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The world IS moving on...


Oh, the iron... 

Yes, it is, my friend. As I noted to your little Reddit buddy, groove, on another thread: I do not think it means what _you_ think it means.

The world has come far past the lies & bluster that warmists have been spreading for years.

And, if you think that anything useful actually came out of the Charlie Foxtrot in Warsaw, you are even more disillusioned than I gave you credit for...



MacDoc said:


> covered even by the National Pest


Ooooo, the NP. Be still my beating heat.

Wait, is that a logically flawed appeal to authority? Hmmm...



MacDoc said:


> The attempt to mislead and confuse is failing.


As I noted above, the iron...



MacDoc said:


> Heartland is a joke.


You do go on, don't you? A dozen snarks in a post, all of them thrown together in some sort of progressive jumble, no head, no tail, no sense whatsoever.

I know it's difficult for a genius like you to come across with a clear & concise argument but, we must do better, no? Is your teleprompter not working well? You'd think a computer salesman would be able to figger that out. I know! Call Obie!!



MacDoc said:


> Sponsors are pulling out and you and your ilk are reduced to tailing after the idjits in the anti-evolution crowd just to woo the ignorant on the right.


Ah, yes, the ad homs. Don't forget, my corpulent friend: there exists religious warmists, too...



MacDoc said:


> Even the likes of Exxon have moved on......


Again, the iron... Yes, now they're funding warmists.



MacDoc said:


> Move on...there are difficult policy decisions to make


Agreed. Now, are we just to throw the lot of the liars in jail or should we extract a bit more pleasure & park their butts on that allegedly melting southern most continent? Perhaps we could furnish them with rubber hammers to speed the process along...



MacDoc said:


> and your shrill voices in denial is just something to laugh at, not to listen to.


Again, the iron...



MacDoc said:


> So .....is the head of Exxon wrong??.....


I think, nope, I know this is definitely a logically flawed appeal to authority.

Tell ya what, seeing as you appear to like this sort of argument, let me answer your question with another: Was the head of Enron wrong?



MacDoc said:


> or are you??


Telegraphing, MacDoc? And, you know I jes' luvs me dem rollin' eyeballs...

Best of the holiday season to you, MacDoc. Merry Ho Ho!!


----------



## FeXL

Have a passel of Boxing Day snark from the master...

1982 Shock News : NASA Scientist Said That Harsh Winters Are Caused By Low Solar Activity



> _A relatively tiny but persistent decrease in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth’s surface in 1980 and 1981 may have helped cause this year’s unusually severe winter, a senior scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology suggested yesterday._​


And now?



> NASA scientists are much smarter now, and know that cold winters are caused by an overheated Arctic.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

1976 : New York Times Said That Cold Periods Have Extreme/Unstable Weather



> Cool periods produce greater climatic instability. Climatic events are then more extreme.


Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

1976 Shock News : New York Times Said That There Was An MWP, LIA And Global Cooling

It's amazing that all of this knowledge was never printed in a paper or textbook, someplace handy where today's warmists could read it & re-learn what the field knew tens of years ago...


----------



## FeXL

NASA Has Nearly Doubled Their Reported Global Warming Over The Last 13 Years



> The graph below shows global land temperatures 2001 version (red) and 2013 version (blue) normalized to 1998. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, they report nearly double the amount of 1880-2000 global warming as they did 13 years ago.


"Trust us, we're climate scientists..."


----------



## FeXL

So, with the bare rock of Antarctica soon to be showing (due to all this "anthropogenic global warming"), we have some fruit loops & whackos sailing about the seas of Antarctica, looking for some place, any place, with ice.

Guardian Global Warming Journalists Trapped In Non-Existent Melted Antarctic Sea Ice

Guess they found some...


----------



## FeXL

1989 NYT Editorial Slammed Hansen For Pushing Climate BS



> *The computer models of the greenhouse effect are indeed ”evolving” -they’re somewhere around the amoeba stage.*


Bold from the link.

Now, they're much closer to a paramecium. Wait, is a paramecium more, or less advanced, than an amoeba?


----------



## FeXL

OK, enough snark. Who posts that stuff, anyways? 

New paper out and more settled science.

New paper: Clouds blown by the solar wind

Abstract (open access)



> In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance, cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.


First off, this, from the Department of the Blindingly Obvious:



> Although climate models are highly sophisticated and include many effects, *they are not perfect and observational evidences are modest and ambiguous.*


What? :yikes: That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out on Arctic sea ice.

New paper finds Arctic sea ice extent has increased over the last few centuries 

Abstract (open access, PDF link inside)



> Sea ice cover extent expressed in terms of mean annual concentration was reconstructed from the application of the modern analogue technique to dinocyst assemblages. The use of an updated database, which includes 1492 sites and 66 taxa, yields sea ice concentration estimates with an accuracy of `1.1/ 10. Holocene reconstructions of sea ice cover were made from dinocyst counts in 35 cores of the northern North Atlantic and Arctic seas. In the Canadian Arctic, the results show high sea ice concentration (>7/10) with little variations throughout the interval. In contrast, in Arctic areas such as the Chukchi Sea and the Barents Sea, the reconstructions show large amplitude variations of sea ice cover suggesting millennial type oscillations with a pacing almost opposite in western vs. eastern Arctic. Other records show tenuous changes with some regionalism either in trends or sea ice cover variability. During the mid-Holocene, and notably at 6 ` 0.5 ka, minimum sea ice concentration is recorded in the eastern Fram Strait, northern Baffin Bay and Labrador Sea. However, this minimum cannot be extrapolated at the scale of the Arctic and circum-Arctic. The comparison of recent observations and reconstructions suggests larger variations in the Arctic sea ice cover during the last decades than throughout the Holocene.





> Excerpt:
> 
> _"Records having a resolution suitable to document sea ice cover variations over the last centuries have been obtained from the Mackenzie slope, the Beaufort Sea (Richerol et al., 2008; Bringué and Rochon, 2012; Durantou et al., 2012), and the Chukchi Shelf (core B5; de Vernal et al., 2008; Kinnard et al., 2011). At the Beaufort Sea sites, the variations are of limited amplitude and the estimates are close to “modern” observations, but a*ll records show an increase of the sea ice cover over the last centuries.* At the Chukchi site, the record shows large amplitude variations with *a distinct trend for an increased sea ice cover towards modern values over the last centuries.*"_​


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Top Scientists : Either Shrinking Or Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice Is A Sign Of Global Warming Catastrophe


----------



## FeXL

Further on those "adjustments".

GISS Has Increased The 1880-1996 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Trend By 52% Since 1997



> In 1997, GISS showed the 1880-1996 Southern Hemisphere land temperature trend at .43ºC/century. Now it is 0.65ºC/century. That is an increase of 52% in the same data set since 1997.


----------



## FeXL

Another essay on heat engines, tying into the post I made on Dec. 22 from Willis.

Climate as a heat engine



> It may seem a bit strange to view the weather system as a kind of machine and compare it with engineered constructs like an automobile engine, but it is sound physics because all such systems are bound by the same fundamental physical laws and they utilizes the same basic phenomena to create movement from heat.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, so much for that unprecedented thing...

New paper finds all of Greenland and West Antarctica melted & sea levels 79 feet higher during a prior interglacial 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> We present the first U-series ages of corals from emergent marine deposits on the Canary Islands. Deposits at + 20 m are 481 ± 39 ka, possibly correlative to marine isotope stage (or MIS) 11, while those at + 12 and + 8 m are 120.5 ± 0.8 ka and 130.2 ± 0.8 ka, respectively, correlative to MIS 5.5. The age, elevations, and uplift rates derived from MIS 5.5 deposits on the Canary Islands allow calculations of hypothetical palaeo-sea levels during the MIS 11 high sea stand. *Estimates indicate that the MIS 11 high sea stand likely was at least + 9 m (relative to present sea level) and could have been as high as + 24 m. The most conservative estimates of palaeo-sea level during MIS 11 would require an ice mass loss equivalent to all of the modern Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; the more extreme estimates would require additional ice mass loss from the East Antarctic ice sheet.* Extralimital southern species of mollusks, found in both MIS 11 and MIS 5.5 deposits on the Canary Islands, imply *warmer-than-modern sea surface temperatures during at least a part of MIS 11 and much warmer sea surface temperatures during at least a part of MIS 5.5*. Both MIS 11 and MIS 5.5 marine deposits on the Canary Islands contain extralimital northern species of mollusks as well, indicating cooler-than-present waters at times during these interglacial periods. We hypothesize that the co-occurrence of extralimital southern and northern species of marine invertebrates in the fossil record of the Canary Islands reflects its geographic location with respect to major synoptic-scale controls on climate and ocean currents. Previous interglacials may have been characterized by early, insolation-forced warming, along with northward migration of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), accompanied by weakened trade winds and diminished upwelling. This allowed the arrival of extralimital southern taxa from the tropical Senegalese faunal province. During later parts of the MIS 11 and 5.5 interglacials, decreased insolation may have resulted in southward migration of the ITCZ, strengthened trade winds, and re-establishment of upwelling. Such conditions may have brought about not only local extinction of the Senegalese fauna, but allowed southward migration of the cooler-water Mediterranean fauna to the Canary Islands in the later parts of interglacials, a complex palaeoclimate record that is mirrored in the deep-sea core record.


Bold from the first link.

All this during "safe" atmospheric CO2 concentrations...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the iron...

Australian climate change professor who warned about melting East Antarctic remains trapped in thick ice 



> Chris Turney, the leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (and Professor of Climate Change at the University of New South Wales) who, together with 73 scientists, tourists and crew is trapped in thick Antarctic ice, is still waiting to be rescued.


----------



## FeXL

One Third Of Reported GISS Tropical Warming Is Due To Alterations To Data Since 1997


----------



## FeXL

Antarctic Sea Ice 26% Above Normal



> Walt Meier used to claim that positive Antarctic ice anomalies were smaller than negative Arctic ice anomalies, and only occurred in the Southern winter.
> 
> Massive fail on both counts.


----------



## MacDoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M

lovely graphic


----------



## FeXL

Aw... The music was so touching, too. :-( Unfortunately for you and very typical of warmist cherry picking, Arctic ice is only part of the story.

So, you do know that Arctic & Antarctic sea ice cycles oppose each other, don't you? When one is high, the other is low? Nearly every other computer salesman in the world does. Easily seen here. Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page to "Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, 1979-2012". Nice graph, huh?

And, with Antarctic sea ice at a peak (which it currently is, above the 30 year average every day for the last two years), where do you expect Arctic ice to be? Yes, somewhere near the bottom of the cycle, right? Just look at the nice pictures, nod your thick skull and say, "Right again, FeXL."

A much more telling metric would be, how much sea ice is there worldwide? As in combined polar totals. How much change has there been since, say, 1979? There's a nice little chart right here.

Total global sea ice on the top, Arctic sea ice in the middle, Antarctic sea ice on the bottom. Not much of a trend in total sea ice either way, is there? Certainly nothing that would indicate massive planetary warming due to a linear relationship with steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is there?

If you'd like more info on global ice, your favorite weatherman has a whole page dedicated to destroying your argument here.

MacDoc, I do so love these little quizzes you throw at me every so often. Not only do you gitcher self a eddication, it shows the audience just how little water the warmist argument holds. Come back soon.

Have a day!


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Oh, the iron...
> 
> Australian climate change professor who warned about melting East Antarctic remains trapped in thick ice


Despite this being midsummer at the South Pole, three different icebreakers tried and failed to rescue the intrepid warming alarmists. They were choppered out today leaving the Antarctic sea ice pretty much intact.

Their warmist alarms have turned allegorical.


----------



## eMacMan

And from the other end of the world back in September comes this gem.

Global Warming Tour Cut Off By--Wait for It-- Too Much Ice! - Michael Schaus - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 1



> In an effort to highlight the impacts of global warming, four fun  loving environmentalists decided to row the Northwest Passage in Canada, which used to be cut off by ice accumulation.
> Unfortunately, their trek was cut short by seasonally cold temperatures and – you guessed it – ice.
> 
> 
> “After learning that ice choked much of the route ahead, the group decided to end their trip at Cambridge Bay, about halfway to Pond Inlet,” reported CBC.
> 
> 
> Apparently there is just not enough global warming happening right now. (Maybe the group should have driven around town in a Hummer a few times before attempting their publicity stunt.)
> 
> 
> 
> According to a report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been a 60 percent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year......


There's now so much ice that even the climate crooks can see it.


----------



## eMacMan

eMacMan said:


> Despite this being midsummer at the South Pole, three different icebreakers tried and failed to rescue the intrepid warming alarmists. They were choppered out today leaving the Antarctic sea ice pretty much intact.
> 
> Their warmist alarms have turned allegorical.


*EDIT; They were to have been choppered out. Seems there was a bit of a glitch in the form of a blizzard. They will be choppered out as soon as the weather clears.*


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Despite this being midsummer at the South Pole, three different icebreakers tried and failed to rescue the intrepid warming alarmists. They were choppered out today leaving the Antarctic sea ice pretty much intact.
> 
> Their warmist alarms have turned allegorical.


HARDLY! Summer began10 days ago.

The the winds blow sea ice in...the winds will blow sea ice out. Just a waiting game.

Slow news time for the media, big news about very little.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Slow news time for the media, big news about very little.


Spin, spin, spin...

Just ignore the irony of the warmist media and assorted fruit loops & whackos out on a junket along with a couple warmist climate scientists trying to prove anthropogenic global warming and getting caught in the grip of an ice field that wasn't there 100 years ago when the very people whose trip they were attempting to emulate negotiated successfully to ice free Commonwealth Bay.

Summed up perfectly in this tweet:



> BBC/Guardian global warming research/propaganda cruise trapped by record breaking irony


Hilarious. And, dangerous, for those who now must come to their rescue.

In addition, what sort of expenses have already been incurred and which particular sect of taxpayers will be on the hook for all of this? Whaddya s'pose it costs to run an icebreaker from Seattle to Antarctica & back? On top of everything else that has already been spent?

Let's ask a couple more questions, shall we?



> Now, with such a fantastic failure in full world view, questions are going to start being asked. For example, with advanced tools at their disposal (that Mawson never had) such as near real-time satellite imaging of Antarctic sea ice, GPS navigation, on-board Internet, radar, and satellite communications, one wonders how these folks managed to get themselves stuck at all. Was it simple incompetence of ignoring the signs and data at their disposal combined with “full steam ahead” fever? Even the captain of the Aurora Australis had the good sense to turn back knowing he’d reached the limits of the ship on his rescue attempt. Or, was it some sort of publicity stunt to draw attention?


More:



> People are realizing that there’s no real science being done on this trip, and that it seems to be little more than a chartered party boat for Antarctic enthusiasts and media.
> 
> ...
> 
> And when the trip is nothing more than a party for your friends and media, disguised as a “scientific expedition”, one wonders if there shouldn’t be some moratorium on such trips.


Further:

Third icebreaker abandons rescue of climate scientists boat in Antarctica, media fog, obscure, don’t say “climate”



> A month ago the mission of the $1.5m expedition was “to answer questions about climate change”. Now the ABC describes the Australasian expedition as “a Russian ship stuck in sea ice in Antarctica.” The BBC has a reporter on board, and it only took 8 hours for the news to reach the BBC feed. _Who is spinning the message to neutralize an embarrassing story then?_
> Let there be no doubt, the mission was to document and record scientific changes in Antarctica and to broadcast that to the world. Most scientific missions don’t have a dedicated media team, but this one named a staff of five journalists. There is a journalist and a documentary maker from the Guardian as well as a senior producer from the Science Unit at the BBC world service. (See the media list.) If they’d discovered less sea ice, fewer penguins, or big cracks, we know the images would be all over the mass media and it would be evidence for “climate change”.


Italics from the link.

A million and a half bucks of taxpayers money <shaking my head>...

Richard Tol tweeted:



> There has been a strong and statistically significant upward trend in climate-change-related public-relations disasters


Beautiful.

But, move on, folks. Nothing to see here...


----------



## FeXL

The Global Warming Prophecy



> Today, although fewer people are religious, ancient fears dwell still in our hearts and psyches. Many people now fervently believe we are sinners against Mother Earth – and that she herself will punish us if we don’t repent.
> 
> Computer simulations created by climate modelers are now in sync with old, mouldy narratives. A new source of an old prophecy has emerged. Doom is upon us. The scientist’s computer tells us so.


----------



## FeXL

Willis talks at length about a much-cited paper from '94 and provides evidence of incorrect conclusions.


Cancelling the Tropical Cancellation



> Now, as you can see from Figure 2, the Kiehl hypothesis of cancellation has a big problem. The CERES results do not bear out Kiehl’s claims in the slightest. Instead, they support my hypothesis that increased tropical clouds cool the surface. As you can see, on average the loss from the reflected sunlight is about 20% or so greater than the gain from increased IR. This means that there is no cancellation. Instead, the clouds have a net cooling effect.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

More on ice locked global warming ships.

Global Warming Science Boat May Be Trapped For Years In Non-Existent Ice



> Antarctic sea ice area is the highest on record for the date, up 20% since the 1970′s.


Winter jolly



> To be fair, there are some genuine climate scientists on board too, but with many of their fellow travellers clearly occupying the "free holiday" category the impression you get is of a carbon guzzling boondoggle rather than a research trip.


----------



## FeXL

Leading Expert Modeler Tells Why Climate Models Hardly Better Than Hocus Pocus: “Welcome To Wonderland”!

It's a 52 minute video by Canadian scientist Dr. Christopher Essex of the U of Western Ontario. Yeah, it seems long. I invite you to click on the link & watch for a few minutes. I was captivated immediately.

The thing that stood out for me?



> In the early 1980s Prof. Essex got a post doc at the Canadian Climate Center with the general circulation model group who had a desire “to do some definitive things“. Essex recalls:
> 
> _Some big wheels there sat me down in this room and said we want you to come up with the smoking gun that will prove global warming.”​_
> So clearly, from the very beginning, this was all about putting mankind on the dock.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost the _Australian_...

Skeptical view makes Australian front page: climate madness, dishonesty, fraud, deception, lies and exploitation says Maurice Newman



> The giant boondoggle is coming undone.
> 
> What makes this article remarkable is the strong language coming from a credible source on the front page of a major national daily. We have crossed another line in the decline and fall of the Great Global Warming Scare. Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council , was Chairman of the ABC, and of the board of the Australian Stock Exchange. He was Chancellor of Macquarie University until 2008. The Op-Ed and news article today sums up the worst of the last five years of climate, and is the first time I can recall seeing a well respected commentator use such unequivocal and damning language and so prominently. There is no hedging here, no pandering.


More:



> “IN his marvellous chronicle of human gullibility, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay wrote: *“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”*
> 
> It’s a pity Mackay did not live long enough to include anthropogenic global warming in his list of popular delusions. There has been none bigger.


My bold.

As Jo notes, helluva way to end 2013.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been a couple posts recently about the atmospheric heat pump. Willis talks here about the gas pedal.

The Thermostatic Throttle



> I have further said that the tropical albedo is a threshold-based and extremely non-linear function of the temperature. So I thought I’d use the CERES satellite data to take a look at how strong this climate throttle is in watts per square metre (W/m2), and exactly where the throttle is located. If such a throttle exists, one of its characteristic features would be that _the amount of solar energy reflected must increase with increasing temperature._


Italics from the link.

Good read.


----------



## MacDoc

*suck it up - 2013 5th warmest ever without an El Nino - 7th overall*

5th warmest without an El Nino



> *Toasty November Vaults 2013 Into Top 5 Warmest Years* | Climate ...
> 
> www.climatecentral.org/.../toasty-november-vaults-2013-into-to...‎
> by Andrew Freedman - in 1,154 Google+ circles
> Dec 17, 2013 -* That puts 2013 on track to be the warmest year on record without an El Niño event*, depending on where December temperatures rank. El Niño ...
> 
> *Last month was the warmest November since record-keeping began 134 years ago, *the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Tuesday. The latest data, combined with more recently reported by NASA, showed a record global average surface temperature for November, particularly in Eurasia, where Russia experienced its warmest November in history.
> 
> According to NOAA, the global average surface temperature for November was 1.4°F above the long-term average for the month, and much of Russia, northwest Kazakhstan, south India, southern Madagascar, parts of the central and south Indian Ocean, and areas of the Pacific Ocean were record warm. That surpassed the previous record-holder of November 2004 by 0.05°F, and is the 6th-highest monthly departure from average of any month on record, according to NOAA.
> 
> Russia had its warmest November since records began there in 1891, with some parts of the country, including Siberia and the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea,* seeing temperatures that were more than 14°F above the typical monthly average.*













We'll see the final tally in a few days but not much will change for the year...

*Welcome to 2014 of the Holocene.....*


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> suck it up - 2013 5th warmest ever without an El Nino - 7th overall


Suck it down--NOAA and NASA have been altering historical temperature data for years to achieve these so-called records. By next year, 2013 may be the warmest year on record!


----------



## MacDoc

*tick tock the clock is running out on coal*



> *Fossil fuel divestment goes global*
> 
> As groups, such as the Carbon Tracker initiative, work to shine light on the dangers of continued investment in fossil fuels, 2013 saw some of the world’s largest public financial institutions move to halt coal investment. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund announced new policies limiting what fossil fuel projects can be funded. The European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the US Ex-Im followed suit.
> 
> A host of private sector firms are also moving their investment away from dirty energy, while governments, including in the US, the UK, China and the Nordic countries, are re-assessing the support they will provide coal in the future.
> 
> These announcements have run in parallel with a burgeoning divestment movement that started strong in the US and has now moved across Australia and Europe. The movement calls on educational and religious institutions, along with city and state governments to lead the way in divestment and has already seen successes including Providence City Council, San Francisco State University, the United Church of Christ and the Quakers of Britain.
> 
> “Not only is fossil fuels a rogue industry, it’s also a bad bet,” said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, the organisation leading the divestment campaign. “Those carbon numbers make it clear that the industry sits on a ‘Carbon Bubble’, with €13 trillion worth of fuel it can’t sell if the planet takes even minimal action against climate change.”
> 
> - See more at: A year in the climate movement: 2013 highlights » TckTckTck | The Global Call for Climate Action





> “*Mother of all risks”: Business wake up to climate threat*
> 
> In the wake of the IPCC’s latest report, businesses around the world appear to be waking up to the threats of climate change and the opportunities of tackling it.[HILITE] Business leaders PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) urged governments to do much more to tackle the problem, describing it as the “mother of all risks”, while nearly 700 companies signed onto the ‘Climate Declaration’ saying tackling climate change offers “one of America’s greatest economic opportunities.”[/HILITE]
> 
> Investors are waking up to the problem too. While the majority have a long way to go in understanding climate risk, one survey of asset owners and managers, responsible for $14 trillion, showed that climate risk analysis is an increasing factor in investment decisions, while[HILITE] investors worth $87 trillion – that’s one third of the World’s invested capital – have called on public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change plans.[/HILITE]
> 
> [HILITE]Even some of the world’s direst companies have begun pricing carbon into their own long-term planning process[/HILITE], according to a recent report from CDP. That includes the likes of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillipes, Chevron, BP, Shell and Delta Air Lines.
> 
> - See more at: A year in the climate movement: 2013 highlights » TckTckTck | The Global Call for Climate Action


remember when it was okay to smoke on a plane?? Getting there with carbon emissons...just not done..


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> ick tock the clock is running out on coal


Ring in the new with the cheap fossil fuel that is replacing it--shale sourced natural gas!

In the meantime, we'll sell that coal to China, as they close three coal-fired power plants and build 100 new ones in the country's west.


----------



## MacDoc

*Wilder, wetter, hotter and colder....*

and that's only the last weekend in December....



> The weekend before Christmas proved nightmarish for many travelers and surreal for holiday shoppers, as Winter Storm Gemini tied up air travel and record warmth forced East Coast residents to hang up their coats and don short sleeves instead.
> 
> Now, this freakish weather is being etched into the record books. Let's step through some of the highlights, starting with the record warmth.
> 
> *Historic December Heat*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observed highs on Saturday, Dec. 21, 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observed highs on Sunday, Dec. 22, 2013.
> 
> Persistent southerly winds brought a massive influx of warm air north from the tropics, sending temperatures to record levels in at least 18 states. Dozens of daily records were broken.
> 
> More significant, however, are the monthly records that were broken in several large East Coast cities with very long periods of weather record-keeping. The following cities tied or broke all-time record highs for the month of December:
> 
> Augusta, Ga.: Saturday's high of 83 broke its all-time December record high of 82 previously set eight times, as early as 1967 and as recently as Dec. 6, 2013.
> 
> Norfolk, Va.: Sunday's high of 81 broke its all-time December record high of 80 previously set three times, as early as 1978 and as recently as Dec. 6, 2013.
> 
> Jacksonville, Fla.: Sunday's high of 84 tied its all-time December record high previously set eight times, as early as 1956 and as recently as Dec. 9, 2013.
> 
> Savannah, Ga.: Sunday's high of 82 tied its all-time December record high previously set four times, as early as 1967 and as recently as Dec. 6, 2013.
> 
> All four cities have weather records dating to the 1870s. Notably, in all four cities, the top 10 warmest December days on record have all occurred since 1956, and all four had just tied their December record high a few weeks ago – strong hints that climate change may be upping the odds of balmy December temperatures.
> 
> The record warmth wasn't limited to the daytime hours; the tropical air mass also kept nighttime temperatures unusually high. The National Weather Service in Sterling, Va., said Saturday night was "the warmest December night in the recorded history of the Baltimore-Washington metro area" by an impressive margin of six to nine degrees.
> 
> Since low-temperature records are measured from midnight to midnight – essentially capturing parts of two nights – the final numbers are not quite that extreme, but at least three major cities still set all-time December records for the warmest calendar-day lows ever observed:
> 
> Baltimore: Sunday's low of 62 crushed the previous December record of 59 set Dec. 23, 1990.
> New York City: Sunday's low of 61 broke the previous December record of 59 on Dec. 4, 1998.
> Philadelphia: Sunday's low of 59 broke the previous December record of 58 set Dec. 23, 1990 and Dec. 5, 1973.
> 
> All three of these cities have very long records of weather data dating back to the early 1870s, which means these monthly records are especially significant. Baltimore's record was even more impressive because it is the warmest daily low ever recorded there in all of meteorological winter – the months of December, January, and February.
> 
> Despite the exceptional warmth recently, the total number of record highs nationally since Jan. 1 remains slightly lower than the number of record lows. This is a radical departure from 2012, when record highs outnumbered record lows by a 5-to-1 margin, according to statistics compiled by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24-hour rainfall ending 7 a.m. EST Sunday, Dec. 22, 2013. (Image credit: NOAA)
> 
> *Unprecedented Rainfall*
> 
> The air mass that brought the record warmth also carried extraordinary amounts of tropical moisture. This was wrung out by a large storm system, leading to a multi-state area of very heavy rainfall. Several locations broke December records for single-day rainfall:
> 
> Paducah, Ky.: Saturday's rainfall of 5.26 inches surpassed the previous December one-day record of 4.65 inches set Dec. 3, 1982. Records in Paducah began in 1937.
> Pine Bluff, Ark.: Saturday's rainfall of 4.94 inches surpassed the previous record of 4.70 inches set Christmas Day, 1987. Records in Pine Bluff date back to the late 19th century.
> Cape Girardeau, Mo.: Saturday's rainfall of 4.12 inches beat the previous record of 3.92 inches set Dec. 24, 1982. Here, the period of record is relatively short, back to only 1960.
> In addition, Indianapolis picked up 2.57 inches of rain, second only to the 3.46 inches they saw way back on Dec. 3, 1873. Evansville, Ind., also had its second-wettest December day on record, narrowly missing a record set in 1932.
> 
> Not only were daily and monthly records broken, but the heavy rainfall pushed Macon, Ga., to its wettest calendar year on record; with exactly 4 inches of rain Sunday into Monday, the 2013 total of 70.47 inches has obliterated the city's old record of 67.80 inches in 1929.
> 
> The exceptionally moist tropical air mass also set all-time December records for total atmospheric moisture ("precipitable water" in meteorological jargon) as recorded by weather balloons at Wilmington, Ohio, and Nashville, Tenn. Saturday evening.
> 
> The widespread nature of the heavy rainfall – some of it falling on frozen ground – led to serious flooding from the Ohio Valley to eastern Arkansas, as many rivers quickly rose above flood stage in response to the runoff.
> 
> Climate scientists widely agree that the frequency of heavy precipitation events such as this will increase as the average global temperature increases due to climate change.


Record Highs, Extreme Rainfall Mark Historic Weekend Before Christmas - weather.com Weekend Outlook


----------



## Macfury

Is it weather or climate, MacDoc? If you want to play that game:

Cold facts: More record lows than highs in USA in 2013


----------



## MacDoc

*meanwhile down under the heat goes one*



> *Experts see more freakish hot weather*
> Date
> *January 1, 2014*
> 
> *Australia's hottest-ever year, and Canberra's second-hottest year on record, could have been even worse were it not for neutral El Nino conditions and early monsoons, according to weather experts, one of whom described 2013's extremes as "freakish".*
> 
> And after a hotter and drier-than-usual December, Canberra's fire services are geared up for a potentially dangerous month to come as the outlook for January predicts a higher chance of dry conditions.
> 
> For Canberra, 2013 narrowly missed being the city's hottest year on record, with an average temperature across the year of 21.7 degrees - just .05 degrees cooler than the record-breaking 2006.
> 
> Around the country, all capital cities recorded temperatures in their top-10 hottest for the year. Sydney and Adelaide sizzled through their hottest years ever. Despite "blitzing" hot weather records, University of NSW climate expert Sarah Perkins said 2013's heat was not a surprise after a pattern of more heat extremes and fewer cold-weather records over the past three decades.
> 
> *Dr Perkins said the multitude of records broken in 2013 (hottest year, hottest month, hottest day) was made extraordinary by the fact that the El Nino Southern Oscillation index was neutral,* with no tendency for the hotter, drier weather typically associated with El Nino summers.
> 
> "The last two summers have both fallen as neutral summers, and we've seen quite record-breaking conditions. So if we were to have an El Nino year in one of these two summers it certainly would have seen more amplified extremes," she said. "If it weren't for human-induced climate change, occasionally a record would be broken here or there, but you certainly wouldn't get nearly as many in one year. That's a very freakish thing to have."
> 
> Read more: Experts see more freakish hot weather


what was that about global warming isn't real?? 

I here there was a record cold in stratosphere lately that some denier rag was trumpeting on about ...made for a good laugh.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> what was that about global warming isn't real??
> 
> I here there was a record cold in stratosphere lately that some denier rag was trumpeting on about ...made for a good laugh.


The fact that you did not read the article makes for a good laugh:



> "I don't think it can be used as the one and only year or to say 'look at this hot year, it's all due to human-induced climate change'. It's very difficult to nut out the exact contribution of human-induced climate change to this year … or to any of the records we saw broken this year."


----------



## eMacMan

Again it should be noted that NASAs temps are satellite based and do not correlate at all precisely to more conventional measurements. Nor does accuracy of these measurements match the claimed precision. For example it is possible for an instrument to measure to 3 or 4 decimal places with an accuracy of less than one decimal place. Beyond that instruments change over time so measurements taken today cannot with certainty be compared to measurements taken just thirty years ago.

IOW NASA temps can only be reliably compared to NASA temps from the same instrumentation and that at most dates back 15 or 20 years, hardly a sufficient period of time to make any climate claims what-so-ever.

Just three or four years ago NASA showed our part of the world as slightly above average for the year when in fact the entire province of AB had recorded one of its coldest years on record, records that dated back over 100 years.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Just three or four years ago NASA showed our part of the world as slightly above average for the year when in fact the entire province of AB had recorded one of its coldest years on record, records that dated back over 100 years.


That was due to the removal of most of the northern climate reporting stations. They now estimate the temperature of the north using just a few climate stations and extrapolating from stations based in the south.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> That was due to the removal of most of the northern climate reporting stations. They now estimate the temperature of the north using just a few climate stations and extrapolating from stations based in the south.


Because satellites do not measure air temps the ground control has to be very well managed. For example a control station on a north facing limestone slope will produce completely erroneous results on a south facing granite slope perhaps only a few kilometers away. Things like vegetation, snow and ice can further skew these "readings". 

The only source of temps we have that date back more than a few years are ground stations. Even here as urban areas build up, asphalt is added, trees grow or are chopped down, the microclimate can shift often by several degrees. In most cases the "climatologists" have adjusted older temps downwards in an attempt to make their models look better. However if anything these older temps should be adjusted somewhat higher to compensate for the growing urban heat island that now surrounds many of those stations. 

IOW we do not yet have a reliable method of determining the planets temperature today let alone determining what it was 200 or 500 years ago. 

Still that does not stop a bunch of joy riding warmists from incurring considerable outside carbon expenditures to effect their rescue. Perhaps they were too drunk to notice that pack ice closing in, or maybe just to dumb to turn around when it was brought to their attention.


----------



## eMacMan

Much as I hate to do it it is time to once again follow the money trail.

How is it that warming alarmists propose to save the planet. By taking 7 $Trillion$ of dollars and diverting it to our "$avior$". Who are these $avior$? 

One of them is the Great Al Goreacle. He will buy carbon credits, perhaps from his rich buds who do not really have any credits to sell, then sell them to you and I at massive profits. If I were really cynical I might point out that the lack of any serious audit process would allow him to sell the same credits several times over. Does The Great Goreacle truly believe in the warming threat. So much so that his main house consumes about 20 times the national average for electricity and I believe about 10 times the US average for natural gas. That of course does not include his remaining 3 or 4 mansions, the private jets and limos..........

The other diversion is carbon taxation. Now other than Iran and Saudi Arabia, every nation on the planet is in hock to its eyeballs to the banksters. IOW those carbon taxes will go directly to the banksters. They will not pass go, they will not be used to reduce CO2 outputs, the planet will be poorer and the banksters will be richer.

The only way either of these schemes can significantly reduce man-made CO2 is by making people homeless or driving them to suicide. 

How much will it cost the average Canadian? The Church of Climatology claims a mere thousand dollars a head. However 90% of the worlds population does not have a thousand to give. So we are talking closer to ten thousand dollars a head. But wait this is Canada, while we have only .5% of the worlds population, thanks to a very cold climate and a very spread out nation we are supposedly responsible for 1% of the worlds man-made CO2, so that makes our share about $20,000/head.

Now I don't know how other Canadians feel, but my wife and I have far better ways to spend $40,000 than simply handing it to the banksters and/or Al Gore. Things like heating our home for the next 10 to 15 years come to mind.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> and that's only the last weekend in December....


Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk...

Boy, you sure got us sceptics now, doncha, MacDoc?

Serious? How the mighty have fallen. From 97% consensus to models to more/less rain, more/less wind, more/less snow to settled science and more. You had more "scientists" supporting this garbage than not and, just like geocentrism and a veritable host of incorrect theories, you lost. You had both sides of the argument covered and you still lost. You had "settled science" & it still failed you.

And now, you're reduced to cherry picking local weather reports (not climate) to support an hypothesis that's so full of holes you couldn't use it for a strainer to catch diesel locomotives. Is that the thrust?

Stop publicly embarrassing yourself, MacDoc. You chose the wrong side & you lost. Admit it gracefully & just leave. Don't let the door hit you on your a$$ on the way out...


----------



## eMacMan

Some good news for the global warming alarmists. It appears they will for the moment avoid the fate they have been trying to foist onto much of the general population. They will not spend the remainder of their lives trapped on an ice floe,



> *(CNN)* -- After 10 days stranded far from home, all 52 passengers from a ship stuck in Antarctic ice have now been transferred by helicopter to an Australian icebreaker.
> 
> 
> "It's 100% we're off! A huge thanks to all," tweeted Chris Turney, an Australian professor among the group of scientists, journalists and tourists marooned on the ship.
> 
> 
> A helicopter from a nearby Chinese icebreaker ferried passengers Thursday to the Australian icebreaker, the Aurora Australis.
> 
> 
> The rescue is the latest chapter in a saga that began Christmas Eve after the Russian-flagged MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in unusually thick ice.
> 
> 
> Officials abandoned a succession of other rescue attempts in recent days because of the treacherous conditions in the region.
> 
> 
> High spirits stuck in Antarctic ice
> Earlier Thursday, Australian authorities had said a plan involving the helicopter and a barge was put on hold because of shifting ice conditions.
> 
> 
> But the new approach, which skipped the use of the barge, got under way later in the day. Turney posted videos showing the helicopter arriving on a makeshift helipad on the ice near the trapped ship and taking off into the crisp blue sky.
> 
> 
> Robert Darvill, chief mate on the Aurora Australis, told CNN that the 52 new passengers on board were very happy to be there and kept thanking the icebreaker's crew for their efforts.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate Craziness of the Week: only the ‘cooler’ models are wrong – the rest say 4ºC of warming by 2100



> Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.


At least!



> _“Our research has shown *climate models* indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times *are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation*,”​_


Bold mine.

Ya don't say...



> “When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that *global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.*”


Bold mine.

And yet, _YET_, the much vaunted TIPCC™, that last bastion of climate truth, the veritable International Pack of Climate Crooks, has just recently snuck in a much lower sensitivity into the AR5 final draft:

IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft



> But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range


Then, we have numerous independent papers over the course of the last year or so, many linked to on this thread, indicating even much lower sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

Things that make you go, hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

So, those frozen Antarctic global warming seekers? Well, they ended up getting weather reports from, of all people, a bunch of sceptics, in the search for a solution to getting out of the icefield.

WUWT and WeatherBell help KUSI-TV with a weather forecasting request from ice-trapped ship in Antarctica _Akademik Shokalskiy_



> Today, while shopping at lunchtime for some last minute year end supplies, I got one of the strangest cell-phone calls ever. It was from my friend John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel and Chief meteorologist at KUSI-TV in San Diego. He was calling via cell phone from his car, and he was on his way into the TV station early.
> 
> He started off by saying, “Anthony, we have a really strange situation here”.
> 
> Then to my surprise, he relayed a conversation he had just had; a person on the _Akademik Shokalskiy_ had reached out, because they didn’t have adequate weather data on-board. At first, I thought John was pulling my leg, but then as he gave more details, I realized he was serious.


Again, the iron...


----------



## FeXL

I just shake my head...

Another Conservation Success Story Hijacked by Climate Alarmists

So, there's a new paper out, titled, “Poleward expansion of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased frequency of extreme cold events”. As the title sums, basically what they are arguing is that there has been a decrease in frequency of cold events & mangroves have taken advantage of the warmth & their northern range is increasing due to that.

However, there is one small, tiny, niggling fly in that ointment jar...

In the very area that had been studied:



> In April of 2010 there was a call for volunteers “needed to help with *plantings*, site maintenance, follow-up monitoring, and plant care at the mangrove nursery located on the grounds of the St. Sebastian River Preserve State Park. P*lanting events* will be scheduled in the spring, and follow-up monitoring, site maintenance, and nursery work days are scheduled year round.”


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole covering both sides of the argument thing, snowfall edition.

Global warming causes lessmore snow 

A rather nice treatise...


----------



## FeXL

Settled Science Update



> CRUTEM4 shows no warming from 1866-1910, but in 1997 GISS land temps showed a strong warming trend during that period.


----------



## FeXL

Arctic Ice Thickness In 1940 Was The Same As Today



> In 1940, scientists reported that Arctic sea ice had lost 40% of its thickness, down to 218 cm.
> 
> ...
> 
> That is about the same thickness as the Arctic currently averages.


Hate when that happens...


----------



## FeXL

Willis ruminates about Ocean Heat Content.

Ocean Heat Content Variations—Satellites vs Oceanographers



> I got to looking at the numbers for how much energy is exported from the tropics each month by this great heat engine we call the climate. As I discussed in The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine, at all times the tropics are receiving more energy than they are radiating to space. The excess is exported from the tropics to the poles, and radiated to space from there. Ruminating about the numbers, I realized that I could use the satellite data to check the oceanographers data regarding the flow of energy into and out of the ocean. Here’s how.


Good read, excellent graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale presents 7 rather pointed questions for climate scientists.

Questions Policymakers Should Be Asking Climate Scientists Who Receive Government Funding



> Even before the study of human-induced global warming became fashionable, tax dollars had funded a major portion of that research. Government organizations continue to supply the vast majority of the moneys for those research efforts. *Yet with the tens of billions of dollars expended over the past couple of decades, there has been little increase in our understanding of what the future might bring.*


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

An assessment of 2013 Antarctic sea ice extent.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Stats For 2013 



> 2013 was a banner year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. I enjoy my small role in publicizing this data because the “climate science” profession prefers to ignore Antarctic Sea Ice. Of course it is a little harder for the MSM to ignore Antarctica this year when a ship of “scientists” searching for publicity about lower sea ice caused by “global warming” get stuck in the ice.


So, with all this "global warming" we've had recently, you'd expect older ice records to still be standing, correct? No new records at all, right?



> 2013 now has the 2nd highest number of daily records (behind 2008). 2013 also has by far the most “Top 2″ days in a year. *Only 1979 is left in the list of daily records from before 2000.*


Bold mine.

That's gonna leave a mark...

December 31 Global Sea Ice Area Was The Largest Ever Recorded



> Climate experts say that global warming is melting sea ice faster than expected, which is why the poles currently have the most sea ice ever measured for the date.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, with all the wunnerful <snort> work by Lew & Crew™ on what makes sceptics tick, let's have a gander at what makes warmists what they are.

Climate change is cyclical, not man-made

Subtitled: *Climate change experts no more likely to be right than dart throwing monkeys*

Bold mine.

Precisely. Which, in case you hadn't already figgered it out, is exactly why I call the GCM's CHIMP3 & CHIMP5.



> Experts are sustained in their beliefs by a professional culture that supports them. Austerians (those who believe that austerity is the only way) have their own network of support, as do the Keynesians who oppose them. Anthroprocene climatologists who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming have their own network of support among climate change researchers and politicians while the skeptical climate scientists also have their support networks. All remain ignorant of their ignorance and are sustained in their belief systems by selected use of evidence and by the support of stalwarts. These supportive networks and environments help sustain the illusion of validity. *It is an illusion because evidence which demonstrates contrary views to those of the “experts” are dismissed and denied – the expert position, whatever it may be, is valid simply because they are expert.*


Ah, yes, the old appeal to authority...


----------



## MacDoc

*For those that think AGW is just driving warmth.....*

AGW and the Arctic Dipole ...see where the jet stream is?? That is driving insane weather in North America and Britain










Greenland and Alaska are both warmer than central Canada as is a good chunk of Mars.
still heading down here










warmer to the north



> Nuuk, Greenland
> Friday 8:00 AM
> Clear
> undefined
> [HILITE]-5°C | °F[/HILITE]
> Precipitation: 0%
> Humidity: 46%
> Wind: 16 km/h
> TemperaturePrecipitationWind


While this is not climate....it IS climate driven as the Arctic warms. Good read for those inclined to understand..

Warm Arctic - cold continents: climate impacts of the newly open Arctic Sea | Overland | Polar Research

snip.....



> Arctic amplification is a consequence of the atmospheric general circulation on the planet, enhanced locally by sea ice and land processes. Ice albedo feedback (insolation) is well known, but a main feature in recent years is the change in upper ocean heat storage in newly sea ice-free ocean areas, the sea-ice insulation feedback. The release of this stored heat to the atmosphere affects tropospheric wind fields which in turn impacts atmospheric and oceanic advection of heat and thus the distribution of sea ice.
> Direct observations of such changes were made on recent cruises of the Japanese research vessel Marai (Inoue & Hori 2011).
> 
> The sensitivity of one-way shifts in Arctic climate to multiple amplification processes may be greater than previously recognized (Miller et al. 2010; AMAP 2011; Serreze & Barry 2011). This amplification can be driven by internal or external forcing or both, as observed during the ETCW and in the previous decade.
> 
> Increased atmospheric temperatures over loss of sea ice areas, creates* a meander in the polar vortex flow which will have different downstream effects in different years*. Given a continuing trend for increased temperatures and thinner sea ice in the Arctic, modelling results and the data from recent late autumns*, December 2008, 2009 and 2010, [HILITE]suggest that the frequency of an autumn warm Arctic—cold continents climate pattern will increase[/HILITE],* but because of competing processes, such as changes in Arctic stratospheric flow and the chaotic nature of atmospheric circulation in the sub-Arctic including blocking events, it will not be clearly manifest in the same way in every year.


Sure is manifest this year......brrrrrrr

Climate change means extremes....we certainly are seeing it and the insurance companies are wincing.....and the deniers go on denying the obvious tho a few like Exxon and some other fossil fuel companies are openly admitting the change and the risk.....

makes me wonder about those that didn't get the memo.


----------



## eMacMan

Ah so. Every one freezing their a55es off, antarctic ice packs at record levels, arctic ice packs increasing at an almost scary rate = global warming.

Somehow that's supposed to convince Canadian sceptics to fork over $20,000 to the big banks and Al Gore in the hopes of freezing climate change????

If you really believe that MD why not just put up an extra $40,000 to cover my wife's and my share?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> AGW and the Arctic Dipole ...see where the jet stream is?? That is driving insane weather in North America and Britain


The weather is not "insane." This is the normal weather chaos of the planet, which does not bend its will to our wishes.



MacDoc said:


> Climate change means extremes....we certainly are seeing it and the insurance companies are wincing


What does climate change (the natural state of the world) have to do with insurance payouts? Has the lack of hurricanes and tornadoes this year not fattened their bank accounts?



MacDoc said:


> ... a few like Exxon and some other fossil fuel companies are openly admitting the change and the risk.....


You've already been taken to the woodshed over this. The Exxon board of directors have openly seen profit in playing along with the AGW nutters. Again, if enough people believed that elves were causing the price of oil to rise, Exxon would agree with them.

Meanwhile, the world is abandoning the AGW hypothesis in droves. How are those international agreements coming along Maccy D?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> AGW and the Arctic Dipole ...see where the jet stream is?? That is driving insane weather in North America and Britain


Your histrionics are hilarious.

So, what's the thrust here? AGW is what causes the jet stream? Or causes the jet stream to move? I'm sure you've got a point to make, somewhere, somehow. Just WTF it is, nobody will ever know.

And, thank you for acknowledging that it's just weather, something that every living thing on this planet experiences every day. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about any of our current weather patterns. So it's cold in Mississauga. Waaaaah...



MacDoc said:


> Greenland and Alaska are both warmer than central Canada as is a good chunk of Mars.


So it's warmer in Greenland & Alaska than central Canada. Again, so what? It's not the first time this has happened. Jet streams move all the time. Not only that, but there are local weather patterns that make temperatures warmer or colder than areas around you all the time. We can get a chinook here that covers 10's of thousands of square miles, raising the temps 20° higher than those 500 miles or more south of us.

Weather, not climate.

You've completely lost your grip on reality. Mars? Jeezuz...



MacDoc said:


> While this is not climate....it IS climate driven as the Arctic warms.


Yeah, here we are, in the dead of winter, Antarctic sea ice at previously unrecorded highs, Arctic sea ice 60% higher than last year, total global sea ice above the norm and somehow, somewhere, there is Arctic warming because it's cold in Mississauga.



MacDoc said:


> Good read for those inclined to understand..


You were so close with this one, too.

What you should have noted was it's a "Good read for those intelligent enough to digest what is actually being said".

See Fig 2a? What is the cause of warmer temps from ~10,000 years ago to about 3000 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were "optimal"? What empirical evidence do we have that indicates the early 20th century warming and the late 20th century warming were any different?

See Fig 2b? As the planet climbs out of the Little Ice Age, ending in the 19th century, what would you expect the graph to look like? In addition, did you cast your critical eye over those error bars? (kudos to the authors for actually using error bars)

In addition, where does the Arctic temperature data come from? There are so few weather stations in the Arctic you could drive a 1000km wide cyclone through & not get a sensor to notice it.

Plus, a ton of models have been used in the paper, both from the past & to predict the future. Seriously? Models? How about some empirical evidence, say from the massive increase in Arctic ice in 2013? What do the models say about that? You're right, nothing. None of them predicted it.

There is some good information in the paper, thank you for the read. However, in your desperate attempt to pin this on mankind, you fall way short of your goal. CO2 concentration is not mentioned in the paper anywhere. And anthropogenic (as in anthropogenic global warming) appears twice, here:



> This forcing may be episodic in the form of intrinsic variability expressed as atmospheric and oceanic circulation anomalies originating in the Arctic or at lower latitudes, persistent from an emerging influence from increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, or most likely from a combination of the two.


and here:



> The ultimate cause of the ETCW remains unsettled. Whether intrinsic variability or some form of natural or anthropogenic forcing was a leading factor in the emergence of the ETCW is still debated


The first instance does not directly attribute a percentage or even broadly speculate as to how much of an effect the anthropogenic factor is.

The second instance is even more vague.



MacDoc said:


> Climate change means extremes


Why? As I noted, there is nothing unusual nor unprecedented in today's _weather_ patterns, nor in the climate in your lifetime, nor anytime else.

And, empirical evidence indicates that there have been fewer examples of extreme weather since the late 20th century warming. Unfortunately, this is entirely opposite to what your wunnerful models predicted. Same with the modelled temps...



MacDoc said:


> ....we certainly are seeing it


What, Mississauga gets a cold streak & the sky is falling?



MacDoc said:


> and the insurance companies are wincing


The insurance companies are smiling all the way to the bank. Have your rates gone down? Mine, neither. No conflict of interest there...



MacDoc said:


> .....and the deniers go on denying the obvious tho a few like Exxon and some other fossil fuel companies are openly admitting the change and the risk.....


What are the deniers denying? That weather & climate both change? Independent of atmospheric CO2 concentrations? It appears to me that is exactly what warmists are denying...



MacDoc said:


> makes me wonder about those that didn't get the memo.


Ah, more's the shame. I'm not on the Goreacle's email list, like you...


----------



## eMacMan

I too failed to make the Great Goreacles mailing list. No doubt my telling the bum where he could shove his carbon credit scam has much to do with this mysterious omission.


----------



## eMacMan

The bill for that Antarctic AGW joy ride just keeps on rising. Now the Yanks are having to rescue the Chinese who went to rescue the Russians who were trapped with all those Aussie eco-partiers on board.



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is sending a heavy icebreaker to help free a Russian ship and a Chinese icebreaker gripped by Antarctic ice, the Coast Guard said on Saturday.
> 
> The Polar Star is responding to a request for assistance from Australian authorities as well as from the Russian and Chinese governments, it said in a statement.
> 
> 
> "The U.S. Coast Guard stands ready to respond to Australia's request," Coast Guard Pacific Area Commander Vice Admiral Paul Zukunft said. "Our highest priority is safety of life at sea, which is why we are assisting in breaking a navigational path for both of these vessels."
> 
> 
> A Chinese icebreaker that helped rescue 52 passengers from a Russian ship stranded in Antarctic ice found itself stuck in heavy ice on Friday.
> 
> 
> The Snow Dragon ferried the passengers from the stranded Russian ship to an Australian icebreaker late on Thursday. It now had concerns about its own ability to move through heavy ice, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority said.
> 
> 
> The Russian-owned research ship left New Zealand on November 28 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of an Antarctic journey led by Australian explorer Douglas Mawson.


U.S. breaker to help Russian, Chinese ships stuck in Antarctic ice

Sort of reminds me of this old favourite:
Corb Lund - Truck Got Stuck - YouTube


----------



## Macfury

Some more brutally cold weather coming down the pipe here, courtesy of global warming. When I was a kid, we called it a "cold snap."


----------



## SINC

-44° wind chill here this morning and we call it what we've always called it, a FAM, the AM being Arctic Mass.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Some more brutally cold weather coming down the pipe here, courtesy of global warming. When I was a kid, we called it a "cold snap."


We tended to add a modifier and drop the "snap", but not in front of our parents of course.


----------



## MacDoc

Here is a good tho very nerdy explanation of the jet stream meandering and wreaking havoc. Get used to the wild weather - more to come....welcome to the Anthropocene.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

We call these small storms and cold weather. It's the jet stream and it has never been predictable. Welcome to the Idiocene.


----------



## eMacMan

It's a lot of fun watching the warming alarmists, trying to blame an ordinary cold snap on AGW. Seems despite ample hot air from the warming alarmists, TO and points south are freezing their asses off in January. Who would have ever even considered such a thing as being possible. But to state the obvious: "Warming it ain't"

As cold snaps go this one has not yet frozen the Florida Citrus crops. Something that happens quite regularly and almost always pumps up the price of frozen OJ.

All I can suggest is that the alarmist camp needs to redouble its output of hot air. With a good concerted effort Torontonians could see warmer temps perhaps as early as March. 

I think the alarmists should take this challenge very seriously. If things don't warm up in a month or two, their failure to produce sufficient hot air could plunge us into the next ice-age.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Get used to the wild weather - more to come


Having read your histrionics about cold weather (weather, not climate) got me to thinking...What about historical records?

So, got me a search engine out, looked for historical data in Mississauga. Closest I could find is Pearson. If you can find anything that contradicts this, feel free to supply a link. Otherwise, please take your p!ssing & moaning about cold weather elsewhere. It's been far colder in the past. You ain't near a record.

First off, the historical temperature statistics.

Let's have a look at the coldest temp recorded for December. Minus 31.1°C in 1942. January? Minus 31.3 in 1982. That's frosty, it was -31° at the soccer complex near our hotel in Calgary yesterday morning.

Now, let's have a look at recorded and predicted temps for December 2013 and January 2014.

Coldest I can find in December was -18 on Dec 16, a full 13 degrees warmer than the record. In addition, there was a single day in December that had a high of -10 or less, Dec 14. There were 12 whole days that had a low of -10 or less, averaging to -13.6°C. Brutal... <snort>

Let's see what January's chart reads. Coldest temp recorded this month so far, -24°, a full 7 degrees warmer than the record. Two days of highs -10 or less so far this month, only one more predicted, that being tomorrow. Average of those three is -14.3°C. Lows, 5 days of -10 or less recorded so far, 16 more days predicted, none lower than the -22° called for tonite. Again, a full nine degrees warmer than the record. 

Average? Who cares, it's nowhere near a record. It's a cold snap. You are right on one thing: there's gonna be a lot more. However, it sure as hell ain't because of some screwball hypothesis generated by some goofy CHIMP5 programmer predicting warm/cold, wet/dry due to 0.04% of atmospheric CO2.

Take a look up, way up, see that big old yellow ball in the sky? That's what causes both weather & climate. Get used to it...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that accelerating rate of sea level rise.

Veteran Meteorologist: “Old And New Data Show Sea Level Rise Deceleration”…Alarmist Projections “Contradicted”



> "The constant stream of alarm reports of supposedly dramatic sea level rise at present and in the future cannot be confirmed by observations. Rather, the data as a whole contradict it. *Worldwide neither tide gauges nor satellite data indicate an acceleration in sea level rise. Rather they show a weakening.* There is a glaring contradiction between earlier and current statements from a number of institutes, climate models and the IPCC. Moreover there are strong indications that the satellite data showing higher values were “over-corrected”


My bold.

More:

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Also Confirms No Sea Level Acceleration…Desperate Pachauri Insisting No Acceleration “Is An Acceleration”!



> You just gotta love it. So even though the observations show there is no real detectable acceleration in sea level rise, Pachauri “_insists that this is an acceleration“_. It’s all in their fantasies and crystal ball models. None of it is real. This is what the panic is based on.


Italics from the link.

Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

NASA Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures



> In order to hide America’s hot past, NASA has knocked 0.7ºC off 1934 temperatures relative to 1998. Graph shows their 1998 version in red, and current version in blue – normalized to 1998.


----------



## FeXL

More from the It's weather, not climate department, sceptic style.

New record low set in the coldest city in the continental USA – much of the country headed for a deep freeze



> International Falls, MN set a new record with -42ºF.
> 
> ...
> 
> The International Falls, MN Airport had a record of 8 days with a temperature of less than -30 F in December. This breaks the old record of 7 days. The coldest temperature was -37 on the morning of the 30th. The high temperature for the month was 34 degrees on the 27th.


----------



## FeXL

Tim Ball talks about energy transfer in monsoons.

Severe Limitations of IPCC Understanding And Explanation Of Monsoons As Mechanisms Of Massive Energy Transfer.



> Two recent articles by Willis Eschenbach here and here speak to the massive energy transfer from the surplus region of the atmosphere to the deficit region (See Figure 1(A). Even a small change in this energy transfer swamps a human caused CO2 warming signal. Monsoons are a major part of that transfer. They also cause scientific and therefore political grief for the IPCC and their associates. Typically, scientific gyrations to avoid identifying anything that challenges the hypothesis only serve to undermine it.


Longish but a good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that shrinking global ice metric.

Global Sea Ice Area #1 For Date And Poised To Blow Away All January Records

Again. Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

2013 Was Not A Good Year For Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change Disruption Weirding Ocean Acidification Extreme Weather, etc.



> Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed. The apparent complete failure of the CAGW narrative in 2013 could make the most fundamentalist agnostic wonder if Mother Nature sometimes takes sides, aka the Gore Effect, but before we praise Gaia, let’s take a look at some CAGW predictions and the associated 2013 data.


----------



## FeXL

Willis has been pounding away at NASA's CERES (Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System) data for the last little while. Here, he compares it to Levitus ocean heat content (OHC) data & expresses his preference.

New CERES Data and Ocean Heat Content



> Remember that the tight grouping of the CERES data is the net of three different datasets—solar, reflected solar, and longwave. If you can get that tight a group from three datasets, it indicates that even though their accuracy is not all that hot, their precision is quite good. It is for that reason that I put much more weight on the CERES data than the Levitus data.


Good read, salient points. Figure 4 is especially revealing.


----------



## FeXL

Further on failed Antarctic global warming missions & the Cli-Tanic.

The Cli-Tanic #spiritofmawson Hotsheet for Sunday January 5th



> The gift that just keeps on giving.


Yup.


----------



## MacDoc

*In case you were wondering why the weather....*

Here is a good tho very nerdy explanation of the jet stream meandering and wreaking havoc in the northern hemisphere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo

and a broader explanation



> Polar Warmth and Rossby Wave Pattern Going into Winter 2013-2014


Winter 2013-2014: Sea Ice Loss Locks Jet Stream into Severe Winter Storm Pattern For Most of US | robertscribbler

and some papers for your perusal ...which you won't
Weather extremes provoked by trapping of giant waves in the atmosphere â€” PIK Research Portal

Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes

Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes - Francis - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

sow the wind.....



> Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2013, the Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed, with temperatures 1.2C above the long-term average.
> 
> The bureau said the new high, which breaks the record set in 2005 by 0.17C, “continues the trend” of steadily rising temperatures in Australia, which has seen the country warm by about 1C since 1950.
> 
> The year saw a number of individual records fall, including: The warmest summer and spring seasons ever recorded.
> 
> 7 January was the hottest summer day ever recorded, at a national average maximum of 40.3C.
> 
> January’s heatwave set records for the hottest day, week and month on record, as well as a new record for the number of consecutive days the national average temperature exceeded 39C – seven days between 2 and 8 January.
> 
> The highest temperature recorded in 2013 was in Moomba in South Australia, where the mercury rose to 49.6C – the highest in Australia since 1998.
> 
> 31 August was the warmest-ever winter day at 29.9C.
> 
> South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory all broke their annual average temperature records, while all other states ranked in their top four years.
> 
> Overall, 2013 was 1.2C above the long-term average of 21.8C set between 1961 and 1990. The 10-year mean temperature for 2004 to 2013 was 0.5C above this average, with just one year in the past decade, 2011, cooler than average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2013 annual mean temperatures compared to historical temperature records
> 2013 annual mean temperatures compared to historical temperature records. Click here Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology
> In its annual climate statement report, the bureau highlighted the influence of carbon emissions upon the warming trend, stating: “The Australian region warming is very similar to that seen at the global scale and the past year emphasises that the warming trend continues.


Australia's hottest year recorded in 2013 | World news | theguardian.com

but do keep peddling the snake oil denial....funding running a bit dry and even Exxon acknowledging the risk.....



> Times they are changing: Exxon acknowledges climate change ...
> rabble.ca › Blogs › John Bennett's blog‎
> Jun 28, 2012 -* Finally an honest oil CEO speaks the truth on climate change. According to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, climate change is happening*


you miss the memo??


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, this is just recycled drivel that you've posted here before--and that has already been dealt with. Have you not received the memo?


----------



## FeXL

New paper out (in _Science_, for those who care), on recent decreases in melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Caution: models used.

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest ever recorded, global warming is not eroding it' 



> Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Pine Island Glacier has thinned and accelerated over recent decades, significantly contributing to global sea-level rise. Increased oceanic melting of its ice shelf is thought to have triggered those changes. Observations and numerical modeling reveal large fluctuations in the ocean heat available in the adjacent bay and enhanced sensitivity of ice shelf melting to water temperatures at intermediate depth, as a seabed ridge blocks the deepest and warmest waters from reaching the thickest ice. Oceanic melting decreased by 50% between January 2010 and 2012, with ocean conditions in 2012 partly attributable to atmospheric forcing associated with a strong La Niña event. Both atmospheric variability and local ice shelf and seabed geometry play fundamental roles in determining the response of the Antarctic Ice Sheet to climate.





> Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:
> 
> *"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."*


Bold from the first link.

I know, I know. Global warming actually means global cooling. Or something...


----------



## MacDoc

*amazing what blockheads the deep freeze cracks....*



> In what is being considered a first by a member of the federal Conservatives, Kitchener-Waterloo MP Peter Braid stated publicly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics *that recent extreme weather and climate change are connected.*
> 
> “We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change,” Braid told host Evan Solomon on Monday. “With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto, with the extreme cold across the country.”
> 
> Solomon later asked Braid to confirm he was saying that extreme weather and climate change are related, to which Braid replied, “Absolutely, I’m confirming I said that.”
> 
> The statement comes on the same day that two people were arrested in Vancouver after they came within centimetres of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and displayed signs protesting the government’s policies on climate change.


Conservative MP Peter Braid says extreme weather and climate change linked - Kitchener-Waterloo - CBC News


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc, it's all weather. Not f'ing climate. Get a grip. You've not only lost the argument, you're losing your marbles. Retreat gracefully, tend to your wounds & quit embarrassing yourself in public.

That said, if you insist on this malarkey, let's take your argument apart, piece by bleeding piece. Again. First link, by Scribbler. (Oh, the iron...) Just read the comments, too. Anybody who would use the term "denier" (as Scribbler does) to describe anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid is nothing more than a first class a$$hat. Immediately he gets lumped in with the rest of the dirtbags from SS, RS DSB, etc.

How about a look at a single paragraph, shall we? First, in it's entirety.



> But since 1979, massive volumes of sea ice have been lost due to an immense and ongoing human caused warming trend taking hold in the Arctic. As human greenhouse gas emissions sky-rocketed, Arctic temperatures rapidly increased far faster than the global average. By this year, human greenhouse gas emissions had driven CO2 levels to the highest seen in more than 3 million years while Arctic temperatures are now warmer than at any time in the past 150,000 years. Sea ice retreat has been equally unprecedented with average winter values now 15-20% below extent measures seen during 1979 and with end summer sea ice extent values now a stunning 35-50% below that of 1979. Sea ice volume, the measure of total ice including its thickness, has shown even more stunning losses since 1979 with seasonal winter values 30-35% lower than in 1979 and end summer values between 65 and 80% lower during recent years.


Now, piecemeal.



> But since 1979, massive volumes of sea ice have been lost


Where? Did you bother to check those global ice graphs I linked to? Funny, you say I won't check out your links (which I usually do) but I'm betting a cool million bucks you didn't click on a link that included "wattsupwiththat". Go back to that page, show me the loss in total global ice.



> due to an immense and ongoing human caused warming trend taking hold in the Arctic.


What, exactly, means immense? Is that a degree/decade? Two degrees? Five? 10? According to the very same page I linked to (RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present), the trend is 0.325°K/decade. And, if you take a look at the data, there has been a plateau since at least 2005. So, "immense" is questionable, "ongoing" is a crock. Now, let's talk empirical evidence. What empirical evidence do you, or Mr. Scribbler, or anybody else for that matter, have that the non-existing warming trend in the Arctic is human caused?



> As human greenhouse gas emissions sky-rocketed, Arctic temperatures *rapidly increased far faster* than the global average.


There's some good scientific language. OK, pi$$ poor use of the English language notwithstanding, how about an amount? 10%? 0.001°K/decade? 2.6 Hiroshima's? WTF? Where's the data?

Speaking of which, this whole piece is nothing more than an opinion with no supporting data. No links, no citations, a couple of graphs, one chart, that's it. Where's the empirical evidence?



> By this year, human greenhouse gas emissions had driven CO2 levels to the highest seen in more than 3 million years


Really? CO2 levels were this high 3 million years ago? Just for the helluvit, perhaps you could expound a bit on what caused equivalent CO2 levels back then and then maybe you could try to explain why the selfsame mechanisms aren't doing the same thing today?

While we're talking prehistoric CO2 concentrations, perhaps you could explain why the planet was able to not only survive, but to harbour life at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 7000 ppm during the Paleozoic? Why didn't the planet boil up in some sort of Faustian global warming nightmare as your avatar alludes to? Huh?



> while Arctic temperatures are now warmer than at any time in the past 150,000 years.


Really? We were in the middle of an ice age 150,000 years ago. That lasted until about 130,000 years ago, then we had what is known as the Eemian interglacial until about 115,000 years ago, then we were in another ice age until about 12,000 years ago.

So, what does _Science_ have to say about Eemian interglacial temps from the NEEM ice cores in Greenland?



> The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that *the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period*, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.


I think Greenland qualifies as the Arctic, don't you? D'oh!

I know! Perhaps he meant the Antarctic! In that case, I invite you to go visit the Vostok ice cores. Unfortunately, you'll get the same results. Much warmer during the Eemian than today.  Heavy sigh.



> Sea ice retreat has been equally unprecedented with average winter values now 15-20% below extent measures seen during 1979 and with end summer sea ice extent values now a stunning 35-50% below that of 1979.


Once again, take a look at the ice data link. Pure, unmitigated, bull$hit. Sure, Arctic is down but Antarctic is breaking daily records. Why is it that warmists think this planet has only one pole? Again, it's well know that when one peaks, the other troughs. Look at total global ice. Not only that, but 1979 is a nice cherry pick because it was a peak year.



> Sea ice volume, the measure of total ice including its thickness, has shown even more stunning losses since 1979 with seasonal winter values 30-35% lower than in 1979 and end summer values between 65 and 80% lower during recent years.


Sure, using 2012 as a base year. What about 2013? Ice volume is up 50% over last year & multi-year ice is also up. Again, Antarctic ice is breaking records. Arctic ice is expected to be at a low.

There you have it. One paragraph filled with nothing more than BS. How much truth is there in the rest of the article?

Beneath the paragraph I quoted is a graph, "Arctic Sea Ice Extent (Ver.2)". Interesting Scribbler should use that, it's the same one as Anthony uses on his ice data link. One question: If, as the title of the article notes, "Sea Ice Loss Locks Jet Stream into Severe Winter Storm Pattern For Most of US", where were the severe winter storms in the US for 2012, 2007 & 2011? Surely if a sea ice extent of 5 million square km can trigger such an animal, then 2012's sea ice extent of nearly 2 million km less (~40%) must have triggered an even bigger and longer locked jet stream, no? What about the other two minimum years? Funny, you weren't here last year p!ssing & moaning about how cold it was. Neither the year before, nor in 2007.

Nice try.

From your second link:



> Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.


Where is the empirical evidence of extreme, extraordinary weather? A cold snap in Mississauga that doesn't approach record temperatures? There isn't any. That line of BS has been debunked on this thread any number of times. Go back & read a few posts, learn something.

Re: your third link. I stopped at Stefan Rahmstorf. Serious? This guy can't make a sea level prediction or be civil to a journalist. While I haven't read the paper, I've read about it. Same frozen jet stream theory, same crock.

re: your 4th link. Unfortunately, paywalled. This stood out from the Abstract: "These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss". First, correlation does not mean causation. Second, why this year when sea ice is up 50% over last year? Why not last year when Arctic ice was at a low? Third, Russia's hot streak was in July, nowhere near autumn or winter. The weasel words in the Abstract didn't reassure me, either: "possibly" related, "may" lead. Not much confidence there.

Now, I've read as much as I can of your links, do me the courtesy of the same & go read Anthony's page on Global Sea Ice. Then come back & tell me what you learned.

Penultimately, I have two links to papers discussing the 2010 russian heat wave. Both papers are from a couple of little groups you may have heard of, the first, NOAA, the second, AGU:

Paper the first:

Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands



> “*Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave* in Russia,” said lead author Randall Dole, deputy director of research at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). *“Nor did ocean temperatures or sea ice status in early summer of 2010 suggest what was to come in Russia.”*


More:



> The heat wave was due primarily to a natural phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. *While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880*, the researchers found.


Paper the second (there are actually 2 inside, they echo the findings):

Final words on the 2010 Russian heat wave from AGU: weather, predictable



> *The authors suggest that the heat wave, which lasted from late June to mid-August and was responsible for thousands of deaths, widespread wild fires, and devastating crop loss, fell well within the bounds of natural climate variability.*


Further:



> *The heat wave, while largely predictable on short, weather-driven timescales, appears not to be the product of long-term climate changes. Instead, as discussed by Dole et al. (Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L06702, doi:10.1029/2010GL046582, 2011. See Highlight 4, above), the heat wave falls within the realm of natural variability.*


All bold mine.

Finally, wanna post this drivel a third time or do you want to call it quits now?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Conservative MP Peter Braid says extreme weather and climate change linked - Kitchener-Waterloo - CBC News


So, what's the thrust here?

Politicians are now climate scientists? Politicians can now be trusted because they support your view? Peter Braid is as clueless about AGW as you are?

I'm afraid you'll have to clarify just which of the three you're talking about. I suspect the last...


----------



## Macfury

I'm going to copyright the term "Polar Vornado!"


----------



## eMacMan

*Another Gore-ation*

Sometimes not even hot air can thaw the Great Gorecicle.


----------



## FeXL

A Dane has taken it upon himself to put together a temperature database, using raw data only. That is to say, not the massaged, homogenized, pasteurized, whitewashed, custom tailored version that is so often seen in the "official" records.


The Original Temperatures Project



> The number of adjustments of temperature data appears overwhelming and often undocumented. Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?
> As a sceptic it is my opinion that we need to know for sure. I therefore started out 18 months ago collecting original temperature data and now I have started presenting the results on Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)


Longish, but an excellent read. Much of the story in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Willis milks CERES further.

On The Stability and Symmetry Of The Climate System

He comments on his Figure 1:



> Now, there are several very curious aspects to this figure. The first and most surprising issue is that the hemispheric values for shortwave, and also the hemispheric values for longwave, are nearly identical from hemisphere to hemisphere. Why should that be so? There is much more ocean in the southern hemisphere, for example. There is solid land at the South Pole rather than ocean. In addition, the underlying surface albedos of the two hemispheres are quite different, by about 4 watts per square metre. Also, the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than the northern hemisphere, because the earth’s orbit is elliptical.
> 
> So given all these differences … why should the longwave and shortwave in the two hemispheres be the same?


Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

Experts : Cold Used To Be Caused By Cold, But Is Now Caused By Heat



> How can anyone claim that a rapidly warming Arctic would produce record cold air? How can -65F Arctic air be melting ice? The assertions are ludicrous beyond comprehension.


However, for the real comedy, get this:



> Skeptical Science (the ‘Snopes’ of climate science)...


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I can come up with about a dozen words in half a second that describe SS in far more accurate terms than that...


----------



## FeXL

1989 : NOAA Said That There Had Been No Warming In The US, And No Correlation With Climate Models

My, my. How things change...


----------



## FeXL

Time Magazine Goes Both Ways On The Polar Vortex



> In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> Forty years later, Time Magazine blames the cold polar vortex on global warming


I know, I know.



> At least the 1974 version made sense. Bryan Walsh’s 2014 version makes a complete farce out of science.


We've learned so much more since then...


----------



## FeXL

One from Tim Ball from 2012.

Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions

He sums:



> Low pressure or Cyclonic weather systems track along the Polar Front that separates polar and tropical air and is coincident with Rossby Waves. Intensity of the system is determined by the temperature contrast across the Front so that is the location of most severe weather and heavy precipitation. With Meridional Flow and cold air pushing well south the contrast is greater, storms more intense and precipitation heavier. Because the system is stalled wind damage and rainfall levels are higher. They also orient north /south rather than west/east.
> 
> An objective of the global warming/climate change hysteria is to suggest what is happening is abnormal. This is achieved by cherry-picking events and patterns that support that claim. *When the entire pattern is included and the mechanism explained, people can see that what is happening is normal and similar to similar periods in history.*


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another from 2012, also on the jet stream.

Reliving the 1950s (and 1890s): the 60 year cycle



> We are heading back to the 1950s in our climate and weather. With a positive AMO (last month +0.90 STD) and a negative PDO (last month -1.26 STD), we are most like the early to middle 1950s and late 1950s to early 1960s. Notice how we were in this mode after the super El Nino of 1998 for several years before the strong El Nino fo 2002/03 and the strong second solar max reverted us back to a positive PDO. After 2007, the PDO has settled into the cold Pacific and warm Atlantic mode.


He links to another article, The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle, an excellent read.

Scroll down to "Solar System Influence" at the second link, have a look at the sine wave in the first graph. Now, explain to me why natural cycles works to illustrate the 1880-1940 warming, but AGW is required to explain 1940-2000...


----------



## FeXL

Judith analyzes at length the underlying tone of IPCC's AR5.

IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW



> Evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for anthropogenic factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.


----------



## FeXL

Russian ship ‘Akademik Shokalskiy’ stuck in Antarctic Ice starts moving again, per my forecast – both ships have broken free of ice!

The first comment:



> News headline , Recent thinning of ice in Antarctic clear proof of AGW.


Nailed it...


----------



## FeXL

Willis is still working over CERES data.

Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave

He sums:



> Anyhow, that’s today’s news from CERES … the longwave and the reflected shortwave is strongly negatively correlated, and averages -0.65 globally. This strongly supports my theory that the earth has a strong active thermoregulation system which functions in part by adjusting the albedo (through the regulation of daily tropical cloud onset time) to maintain the earth within a narrow (± 0.3°C over the 20th century) temperature range.


----------



## FeXL

One of the usual suspects here is quick to throw religious belief into the face of sceptical scientists, all the while ignoring the fact that there are religious warmists, as well.

Roy Spencer comments.

Science and religion: Do your own damn Google search



> Why is it that a bible-believing scientist’s views on science are automatically discounted by some people?


More:



> First, the hypocrisy. When warmist scientists like Sir John Houghton use the Bible to support action to fight global warming (e.g. his book Global Warming: The Complete Briefing) that was OK with everyone. Same with Katherine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman.


Also, from the comments:



> *I am only interested in Dr Spencer’s MEASUREMENTS,*
> and those of other organizations trying to get a handle on the facts.
> 
> Religion is completely irrelevant to such mundane matters – provided nobody is actually suppressing “awkward numbers”.


My bold.

Yup.

If you can keep your religion and your science at arm's length from each other, I don't care what belief system you have...


----------



## FeXL

OK, long post coming up, on the polar vortex & causes, as well as what ain't the cause.

This addresses misinformation from one of the usual suspects who thought it was so important, he had to post it twice. Either that or senility kicked in & he forgot he posted it. Or sumthin'...

At any rate, a number of these links cross post to each other & for good reason. More on this at the bottom.

The links herein point to peer-reviewed papers, explanations by climate scientists, explanations from meteorologists and snark from my favorite dirtbag.

First two posts give good explanations as to what it is, the balance debunk unusual, unnatural or unprecedented. Lots of links in the enclosed links, I won't post them all.

A Sober Look At The Northern Polar Vortex



> Currently there is a lot of media hype about the Polar Vortex over North America, but little in the way of coherent explanation as to what a Polar Vortex is and how it affects Earth’s temperature. As such, a Polar Vortex is “caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”


What is a 'polar vortex' and why is it so dangerous?



> Ryan Maue, a Florida-based meteorologist for the private weather service WeatherBELL, described it as a "lobe" of dense, cold air that's normally bound in by a jet stream; this one detached from over the North Pole and brought a whole lot of wind with it.
> 
> "The polar vortex isn’t this entity like a hurricane or nor'easter that develops and goes away. It’s a normal feature that’s part of the polar climate," Maue told The Times


Record cold from global warming causing 'polar vortex' debunked 



> The global warming apologists are struggling to explain the record cold on global warming due to an alleged slowdown in the jet stream keeping a 'polar vortex' alive. However, a recent paper finds no evidence of any unusual or unprecedented changes in the latitude or speed of the North Atlantic jet stream over the past 142 years since 1871. Another paper confirms there is no evidence that climate change has slowed the jet stream or increased frequency of jet stream blocking.


New paper finds nothing unusual or unprecedented about the North Atlantic jet stream



> A paper published today in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society finds no evidence of any unusual or unprecedented changes in the latitude or speed of the North Atlantic jet stream since 1871. According to the authors, "When viewed in this longer term context the variations of recent decades do not appear unusual, and recent values of jet latitude and speed are not unprecedented in the historical record."


New paper debunks claims that 'Arctic amplification' causes extreme weather 

(this one was linked to back in August)



> A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters debunks claims that "Arctic amplification" is causing an increase of extreme weather in North America or the North Atlantic, finding such claims are "an artifact of the methodology" and not real. The paper finds no evidence of an increased frequency of jet stream blocking or a decrease of jet stream speed, a result corroborated by a recent paper finding no significant changes of the jet stream over the past 140 years. The paper debunks claims by climate alarmists such as Heidi Cullen that "Arctic amplification" is causing a "constipated jet stream" leading to increased extreme weather in North America.


The Tenuous Link between Stronger Winter Storms and Global Warming Becomes Even Weaker



> When the new paper by Francis and Vavrus comes to the attention of the mainstream press, it’ll play as if a warming Arctic and declining sea ice—an asserted consequence of human greenhouse gas emissions—has been definitively tied-in to all sorts of weather extremes across the U.S. No mention will be made to the fact that *other research, which is many cases is more robust and detailed, has concluded nearly the opposite.*


Bold mine.

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer refutes claims that global warming is causing record cold



> “Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Happer said in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.


Interesting historical anecdote:



> Like any fluid system at “high Reynolds number,” the jet stream is highly unstable, and from time to time it develops meanders to low latitudes, like the one we have had the past few days. About this time of year in 1777, just before the Battle of Princeton, there was a similar sequence. On January 2, Cornwallis’s men marched south from New York City through cold rain and muddy roads to try to trap George Washington and his little Continental Army in Trenton . On the night of January 2-3, a polar vortex swept across New Jersey, with snow and a very hard freeze. Aided by the extremely cold weather, Washington was able to evacuate his troops and artillery over newly frozen roads and to avoid Cornwallis’s encirclement. Reaching Princeton on the viciously cold morning of January 3, Washington won another battle against the British and escaped to winter quarters in Morristown. Thank you polar vortex!


You don't say...polar vortex in 1777, smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age. And when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were "optimal". Sunovagun...

Further on cold vorticies in cold weather:

1994 Polar Vortex Came During A Cold Year



> 1994 was a cold year, due largely to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. That year also had a lot of Arctic ice. There was a similar polar vortex cold outbreak during that year, and no one was stupid enough to blame it on global warming.


Does the Cold Wave Imply Anything About Global Warming? The Answer is Clearly No.



> The bottom line: the claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument.


Oh, the reason all these links relate to each other alluded to above? Easy. Empirical evidence. It ain't due to AGW, CAGW, ACC or any other form of garbage hypothesis based on faulty computer games...


----------



## FeXL

More settled science...

Now it’s the fungi carbon footprint that isn’t in climate models



> Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere, according to a University of Texas at Austin researcher and his colleagues at Boston University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. *The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.*


My bold.

So, how much of an effect can this have?



> Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.


I'd say that's enough to be significant...


----------



## FeXL

Further on previous polar vortices & links to a coming ice age.

Quote of the week – climate induced ‘extreme weather’ has long been a concern of climate scientists



> The mid-20th Century cooling trend is clearly present in the instrumental record, at least in the northern hemisphere
> 
> ...
> 
> So, why are the warmists so obsessed with denying this? *Is the mid-20th century cooling period so “inconvenient” that it has to be erased from history like the Medieval Warm Period?*


My bold.

Yup.

Much of the story in the comments, including many additional links.


----------



## FeXL

Further on TIPCC™ discarding their models.

The IPCC discards its models



> Last August, I described the terrible bind which was about to face the IPCC Stockholm meeting Can The IPCC Do Revolutionary Science? | Watts Up With That?. Everybody knew the draft SPM was an embarrassment – the climate sensitivity range was far too high, the models were plainly wrong and the temperature ‘hiatus’ was left unexplained.
> 
> The IPCC had only three options – (i) re-run the models and re-draft the whole report, (ii) issue a string of caveats, or (iii) simply bluster on.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Couple more stories on Global Warming research ships getting frozen in Antarctic pack ice.

Australian Antarctic Division head Tony Fleming says they’ll make efforts to recover the cost of #spiritofmawson rescue

And, it seems that Turney wasn't nearly as cozy with AAD (Australian Antarctic Division) as he described.



> Tony Fleming, director of the Australian Antarctic Division tells Louise Maher the AAD wasn’t linked to the Australasian Antarctic Expedition despite an implication by the expedition head that he had an “official stamp of approval”.


More:

Risking lives to promote climate change hype



> Will global warming alarmists ever set aside their hypotheses, hyperbole, models and ideologies long enough to acknowledge what is actually happening in the real world outside their windows? Will they at least do so before setting off on another misguided adventure? Before persuading like-minded or naïve people to join them? Before forcing others to risk life and limb to transport – and rescue – them? If history is any guide, the answer is: Not likely.


----------



## FeXL

Nicely illustrated & summarized look at El Niño and La Niña.

An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events



> El Niños and La Niñas are parts of naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled processes—amazing processes—that produce warm water and redistribute it from the tropical Pacific. When I was first able to fathom the processes, when they finally clicked for me, I was in awe of Mother Nature’s handiwork. Cloud cover, sunlight, ocean heat content, sea surface temperatures, sea level, surface winds, ocean currents, etc., all interwoven, all interdependent, with the events occurring at massive scales. I’ve been sharing their complexity, magnitude and aftereffects ever since. Hopefully, this post will allow you to gain some insight–or spark your interest.


Excellent read.

Also, Tisdale's PDF ebook, _Who Turned on the Heat?_, is reduced in price for a period of time.

Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

You may have heard of John Holdren, senior science advisor to Obie. Have a couple of links relating to him.

Currently, he's a warmist. However, back in '71, along with population alarmist, Paul Ehrlich, he spoke:



> about the probable likelihood of a “new ice age” caused by human activity


John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely

If that doesn't raise a few eyebrows, perhaps this will:



> John Holdren is now not only the “Science Czar” for the United States, but he’s also one of the original leaders of the “alarmist” wing of the Global Warming debate — and *he now promotes the notion that the current climate data points to a looming planetary overheating catastrophe* of unimaginable dimensions. *(He helped make the charts and graphs for Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth,* for example.)


Bold mine.

More:

John Holdren, Pseudoscience Czar, predicted waste heat would doom humanity



> I have to admit to being a little embarrassed for John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar. How did this man ever attain such a lofty position, other than his politics?
> 
> A couple of days ago, Holdren went on the record claiming the recent cold weather was due to global warming. Published research has found no evidence to back up such a claim…there has been no long-term change in the baroclinic wave pattern. Besides, how does a _reduced_ equator-to-pole temperature gradient lead to _more_ baroclinic wave activity?


Further:



> *What is astounding from a science perspective is that Holdren blamed warming on waste heat, the result of humans and their energy use, rather than a slowly increasing greenhouse effect.* He predicted that the localized nature of this waste heat would eventually spread to be a global problem.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Tweet from Goddard.

Hansen : Five degrees warming by 2010 

Not. So. Much.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Spencer's post linked to at the top of this page.

Readfearn and The Guardian: Science is one big long ad-hom



> Maurice Newman’s frank Op-Ed broke lots of rules last week — he used the words “fraud”, “deception”, and the IPCC on the front page of a major national daily paper. But the response to it has been a lower grade of apoplectic than what we are accustomed too. Which says something about the debate. Tick tick tick…
> 
> Graham Readfearn, journalist, has had nearly a whole week to summarize the strongest rebuttals around the world and he’s come up with 600 words of lame names. Newman is a “dizzy” denier, with “tricks on the brain”, and a “conspiracy dial”. Where is the science? Even as ad homs go that is barrel-scraping.


----------



## FeXL

Some Friday smiles.

Global warming meme collection for this week

Added memes in the comments.

I like Scotty...


----------



## FeXL

Three more from Goddard.

Latest From The US Climatologist In Chief



> Last June, US chief climatologist Barack Obama said that global warming was making snow disappear.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now he tells us that global warming causes more frequent occurrences of the record cold air and snow which blanketed the US this week.


I just love that photo of Obie...

Week 50 Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Was Third Highest On Record



> Week 50 Northern Hemisphere snow extent was the third highest on record, and has been trended upwards by almost 10% since 1966. Climate experts tell us that snow is a thing of the past, and skiing is doomed.


1974 New York Times : Global Cooling And Advancing Arctic Ice Threaten The Planet


----------



## MacDoc

*yes Virginia it's getting hotter and we are responsible*

.some serious overturning you have to do boyo



> *About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.*
> By Ashutosh Jogalekar | January 10, 2014 | Comments5
> 
> The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)
> 
> I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.


 About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees. | The Curious Wavefunction, Scientific American Blog Network


----------



## MacDoc

Oh just caught your Goddard crap......Dear Anthony's anonymous blogger with the electrical degree....wow ....such a scientist.XX)

You do understand Global Dimming was a threat until the world cleaned up S02 
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or doesn't that fit the denier mantra....

BTW who is wrong?? you or the head of Exxon.



> Exxon Chief Acknowledges Global Warming From Fossils Fuels ...
> commonsensecanadian.ca/exxon-chief-acknowledges-global-warming-fr...‎
> Jun 29, 2012 - Read this Canadian Press story, via TheTyee.ca, on Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson's recent statement covering global warming, fracking, and other ..


and now a Con party member breaking ranks....


> Conservative MP Peter Braid says extreme weather and climate ...
> ca.news.yahoo.com/conservative-mp-peter-braid-says-extreme-weather-c...‎
> 4 days ago - From Yahoo News Canada: Kitchener-Waterloo Conservative MP and Parliamentary ... Politics Monday that he believes recent extreme weather is linked to climate change. .


..hmmm reality setting in for all but a forlorn few teamed up with the evolution deniers.....
such a pretty pair.....


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> .some serious overturning you have to do boyo


Oooooo, boyo...

First, DSB? Yeah, right. Why not _Mad Magazine_? Or _The National Enquirer_?

Second, consensus?, Yeah, right.

Consensus is a form of logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people think a particular hypothesis is correct. Tell me, MacDoc, 500 years ago how many people were wrong about the consensus of geocentrism?

Don't bother. Every damn one of 'em...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> You do understand Global Dimming was a threat until the world cleaned up S02
> Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From your own link on "global dimming":



> However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, _*a very slight reversal *in the overall trend has been observed_.


Essentially, you don't know what you're talking bout.



MacDoc said:


> BTW who is wrong?? you or the head of Exxon.


I would say that the head of Exxon is wrong and FeXL is right. However, I can find some oil company heads who disagree with your AGW nonsense--I guess you'll believe them as well, simply because you value the opinions of the heads of oil companies...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Oh just caught your Goddard crap......Dear Anthony's anonymous blogger with the electrical degree....wow ....such a scientist.XX)


"Dear Anthony's anonymous blogger"? Where do you get this crap? DSB? And, even if it were true, so what? He could be Jim Hansen's personal assistant, for all I care. It matters not who he is.

And, it doesn't matter if he has an electrical degree or not. That's another logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

Address what he says, not what or whom he is. If you can debunk anything he posts, feel free. You know where his website is. I'll look for "MacDoc" in the comments section. Betting all I'll get is crickets, "boyo"...



MacDoc said:


> You do understand Global Dimming was a threat until the world cleaned up S02


The only dimming I see is in the sky far to the east of me. The stupid is sucking the light right out of the atmosphere. 

I have no idea what this is supposed to address. Can you clarify or is this just another drive-by where you drop a great, steaming load into the middle of a thread & exit with your tail between your legs? 



MacDoc said:


> BTW who is wrong?? you or the head of Exxon.
> 
> and now a Con party member breaking ranks....


Well, now that you ask, it's you and all your warmist buddies. Second, asked & answered. How many more times you going to bring them up? That senility thing, again? Or are you so desperate for material that supports your view you've gotta quote conflict of interest CEO's and Conservative politicians (how that must hurt) twice?



MacDoc said:


> ..hmmm reality setting in for all but a forlorn few


Oh, the iron...



MacDoc said:


> teamed up with the evolution deniers.....
> such a pretty pair.....


Ah, another ad hom. I jes' luvs me when you use them, 'cause it means you ain't got nothing' else. Again, address what he says regarding climate science, not his belief system. Or is it only the religious warmists who have credibility? Again, addressed multiple times in the past. I'm worried about you, old friend. You've really gotta go get that checked...

BTW, where's my ol' rollin' eyes? You know I hate it when you miss dem ol' rollin' eyes...


----------



## MacDoc

*So much for a new ice age....the flip side of the polar vortex*

Norway is basking in springtime temps... 



> *Polar vortex over US brings abnormally mild weather to Scandinavia*
> Weather system disrupts flora and fauna in Nordic countries, with bears reportedly emerging from hibernation
> 
> Rainy weather in Finland is said to have brought many bears out of hibernation early. Photograph: Sylwia Domaradzka/Barcroft Media
> 
> The freezing polar vortex that has gripped the US has extended an abnormally mild winter in Scandinavia and disrupted the seasonal patterns of flora and fauna.
> 
> The weather system that brought snow, ice and record low temperatures to many parts of the United States this week left Iceland, Greenland and Scandinavia much warmer than normal.
> 
> On the back of a generally mild winter, there have been reports of bears emerging early from hibernation in Finland, changes in the behaviour of migratory birds off the coast of Sweden and plants appearing earlier than normal in Norway.
> 
> Scandinavia and Russia's cold weather during the winter comes from a high-pressure system that keeps warmer, more humid air and low-pressure systems with wind and rain from coming up from the Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> The weakening of the jetstream that holds this in place has allowed cold air to spill further south into much of the United States and Canada, while bringing above-average temperatures to parts of Europe.
> 
> The knock-on effects of the vortex follow one of the mildest Decembers in a century in Nordic countries. Ketil Isaksen, a scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, *said the country had been 4.2C above the mean temperature for December with parts of Oslo and south-eastern Norway experiencing the third warmest December on record*. "It was very unusual to see no snow in large areas where it is normal in December. Only in the mountains and certain parts of Norway could you find snow."
> 
> Much of the precipitation in lowland and populated areas had fallen as rain instead of snow, he said. "In general it was a very wet December. Large parts of Norway had up to three times as much rain as normal and the country as a whole had 180% more than average."
> 
> Finland too has seen heavy rain, with flooding in western coastal areas and the majority of Finland's lakes containing record volumes of water.* Temperatures exceeded their normal seasonal average by 4-5C nationwide,* with Helsinki and southern Finland recording the mildest second half of December in 30 years.
> 
> Temperatures in parts of Sweden have fluctuated greatly, at Nikkaluokta falling from 4.7C on 3 December to -40.8C on 9 December, then rising two days later to 7.7C. Many locations measured their warmest December temperatures on record. "In the north, winter has arrived, but in the south it's autumn according to the meteorological definition," the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute said.
> 
> The rainy weather in Finland has reportedly disrupted the winter slumbers of many bears, bringing them out of hibernation early. Heavy rains and high waters may have invaded some dens, forcing the animals to seek new shelter.
> 
> Prof Jon Swenson of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, leader of the Scandinavian bear project, said he was worried about the indirect effects of the warmer weather. "If you go down into southern Europe, it's warmer, and there are some bears that don't hibernate.
> 
> "It doesn't seem to be harmful not to hibernate," he said. "What we are afraid of is that it means there will be more thawing periods … this really stresses the berry-producing plants. This can cause some mortality, and can have a very adverse effect on berry production. And that's what the bears survive on in the autumn, and what they use to get them through the winter. So the results of this mild weather won't be seen for some time."
> 
> Last week, the local Norwegian newspaper Sunnmørsposten published reader *photographs of daffodils emerging as early as 14 December as well as crocuses, daisies, dandelions and honeysuckle.*
> 
> The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Norway chief executive, Nina Jensen, said she was "cautious about drawing conclusions from one mild winter into specific changes in nature", but there were signals that changes were happening.


more 
Polar vortex over US brings abnormally mild weather to Scandinavia | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## eMacMan

That of course seems very logical if the vortex drops down into the US then Arctic climes on the other side of the world should be mild.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Norway is basking in springtime temps...


Once again, how the mighty have fallen. Reduced to citing local weather patterns as some sort of basis to shore up the failed hypothesis of AGW. How sad for you...

First off, it's weather, MacDoc, not climate.

Second, check Scanda-who-via's temperature records. There have been no new records set. Nothing unusual not unprecedented with their current weather.

Third, jeezuz, a cold snap in Mississauga (weather, not climate) gets you pi$$ing & moaning about global warming, and a warm snap in Norway (weather, not climate) gets you pi$$ing & moaning about global warming. 

What a wonderful, universal compound we have here. Is there anything CO2 can't do? Oh, I forgot: It can't raise global temperatures for the last 17 years & three months, even with all the "adjustments" helping out.

Sucks to be you, big guy...

BTW, thx for dem rollin' eyeballs...


----------



## Macfury

Seems this might have a terrible effect on Scandinavia's berry crop--shocking!


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> Seems this might have a terrible effect on Scandinavia's berry crop--shocking!


Yeah, I hear the bears are out and about instead of hibernating ....the berry eating bastards.


----------



## FeXL

kps said:


> ....the berry eating bastards.


rotflmao...


----------



## FeXL

So, five years ago Donna wrote her first blog post questioning global warming.

Five Years Later

In two weeks:



> I will be addressing the Energy and Climate Change Committee of the UK House of Commons


Good on her. Congrats!


----------



## FeXL

I ran across this elsewhere a couple days back & ignored the stupidity of it all. Perhaps it needs more exposure.

Friday Funny – fresh lunacy from Bill McKibben and 350.org



> Ah, you knew it had to happen. Taking a page from the “smoking kills” campaigns, the McKibbenites are petitioning the land of fruits and nuts to put new warning labels on gas pumps warning buyers about the evils of gasoline use as it pertains to global warming.
> 
> And, given that California’s governor Jerry brown was recently scared ****less at AGU by a hyped up presentation by Penn State’s Dr. Richard Alley, he’ll probably help these folks get it into law.


From the comments:



> Warning: One of the liquids, water, used in your engine’s cooling system can cause death if it is in sufficient quantity to inhibit breathing.
> Warning: One of the gases, oxygen, in your vehicle’s tires can create runaway fires if exposed to heat and a flammable material.
> Warning: That same gas, oxygen, which is partially present in your vehicle’s tires, will, in insufficient quantities result in asphyxiation.
> Warning: If you look through any of the windows of your vehicle, and directly at a solar eclipse, the glass on the vehicle will not prevent permanent vision damage.
> Warning: The State of California has determined that the mindset of the State of California can cause permanent injury to Western Civilization.


Sums it for me.


----------



## FeXL

There's a surprise...

Scandal: BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives



> David Rose of the Mail on Sunday tears the BBC a new one, thanks to an “amateur climate blogger”.
> 
> ** Pensioner forces BBC to lift veil on 2006 eco-seminar to top executives
> * Papers reveal influence of top green campaigners including Greenpeace
> * Then-head of news Helen Boaden said it impacted a ‘broad range of output’
> * Yet BBC has spent more than £20,000 in legal fees trying to keep it secret*
> 
> The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.


Bold from the link.

Bishop Hill summarizes:



> The new attention on the BBC’s 28gate seminar has been prompted by disclosure of documents showing how the [UK Government’s] Department for International Development responded to a funding request for funding from the International Broadcasting Trust a body that lobbies broadcasters on behalf of green NGOs. *What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster.* –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 12 January 2014


My bold.


----------



## FeXL

Different than MacDoc's...

CET (Central England Temperature), taking a dump.



> Gonna be a damn PITA for the Global Warming folks to explain why after all that warming, the CET is ‘normal’ and plunging. Couldn’t happen to a nicer set of folks…


Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

Al Gore’s 10-year warning – only 2 years left, still no warming



> In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not shaping up too well…still no statistically significant warming:
> 
> ...
> 
> And if you use RSS version of the satellite data, it will look even worse for Mr. Gore.


C'mon MacDoc. Defend The Goreacle from that nasty Christian scientist...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, & we got a whole ton of snark from the master...

First, on tampered & disappearing temperature records.
Hansen’s Data Tampering Cleared The Path For Mikey’s Fake Hockey Stick



> Mikey chopped down Briffa’s trees to make his hockey stick, and his justification was that it didn’t match (tampered) GISS data.
> 
> ...
> 
> If we compare Briffa’s reconstruction against a legitimate data set, like the 1975 National Academy of Sciences graph – we see a different story.


The Mysterious GISS Mid-1960′s Pivot Point



> NASA tampers with data around a mysterious mid 1960′s pivot point. Temperatures from before 1965 keep getting colder, and temperatures after 1965 keep getting warmer, with successive versions of GISS data.



Mid-1960′s US Pivot Point



> NASA hides the decline in US temperatures by cooling temperatures prior to the mid-1960′s and warming temperatures after the mid-1960′s.
> 
> Note that according to USHCN docs, adjustments were supposed to level off after 1990 – but have actually increased exponentially.


Someone Is Destroying Archived GISS Records



> Sometime after Jan 1, 2014 [the GISS web archive] became an empty html file, as did all of the archived data. The very troubling news for the culprits, is that the archived page was also archived somewhere else – which they don’t know about.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Record Minimums Outnumber Record Maximums By Almost 15:1 So Far In 2014



> Looks like alarmists have a little bit of catching up to do. 188 record minimums and 13 record maximums so far in 2014.


^Finally, a hockey stick worth believing...

December/January 4th Coldest On Record In The US So Far



> December/January so far, is the coldest in the US in 35 years and 4th coldest on record, with no trend since 1895.


Almost 16 Feet Of Snow So Far This Winter In Steamboat Springs, Colorado



> University of Colorado climate experts say that skiing is doomed in Colorado


Gaia Abandons Her Worshippers

(just love the annotations to the map)


----------



## FeXL

Polar news snark.

Global Sea Ice Area Above Normal For 50 Consecutive Days



> *Global sea ice area has been above normal every day since November 20, 2013.* On January 1, global sea ice area set an all-time record high for January.
> 
> IPCC experts say that sea ice on Earth is rapidly disappearing.


My bold. MacDoc?

Climate Alarmists’ Worst Nightmare | Real Science



> Old thick ice filled up the Beaufort Sea during 2013.
> 
> Alarmists have been telling us how important this ice is, and now that it has happened they are in angry denial. Shouldn’t they be happy?


<snort>


Settled Science Update



> Somehow, this doesn’t sound like 99% certainty.


When you've lost the NY Times...


----------



## FeXL

Historical weather snark.

If You Like Your Polar Vortex, You Can Keep Your Polar Vortex



> The temperature fell to 57 degrees below zero at Chester (Montana)


Oh, did I mention this was 1950?

January, 1932 – Lack Of Snow In Upstate New York Threatened The Winter Olympics



> If the weather, which has removed most of the ice and washed the snow from the slopes of the Adirondacks, permits, the coming week-end will see Olympic trals in three sports.


Huh. Unseasonal melting. In January. Eighty-two years ago. Who knew?

January 16-20, 1908 – Melbourne Was Over 40C Every Day



> *The period between 13 and 20 January 1908 remains the most sustained hot spell in Melbourne’s history.* For five consecutive days (16th-20th) the temperature exceeded 40°C (with 39.9°C on the 15th), peaking at 44.2°C on the 17th.


My bold. 

MacDoc, why haven't you reported this?


----------



## FeXL

"More extreme weather" snark.

2013 Blew Away The Record For Fewest US Tornadoes



> 2012 was the first year to have less than 1,000 US tornadoes, and 2013 had even fewer with 900.


Florida Hurricane Frequency Plummeting



> During the 1870′s, Florida averaged about 1.3 hurricanes per year. That average is now less than 0.5, and it has been nine years since Florida was hit by a hurricane – by far the longest such period on record.


Obama Healed The Planet



> Obama’s US hurricane frequency is the lowest on record, and less than 20% of Grover Cleveland.


----------



## FeXL

I read titles like this & the hair on the back of my neck stands straight up. Political policy should be _based_ on empirical science, not inserted into it as an afterthought.

Bring science to climate policy

That said, the author does mention five areas of science "which demand scrutiny before we believe current global warming projections."



> First, climate sensitivity is generally defined as the change in global temperature produced by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. A range of studies over the past five years indicate this may be below or significantly below current values quoted by the IPCC, in which case published modelling projections of future global warming and sea-level rise become over-stated.
> 
> Second, the disconnect between CO2 increase and global temperature change since 1900 which is especially evident in the global warming hiatus of the past 17 years. The mechanisms for this hiatus are not adequately described by consensus science, but there is increasing evidence to suggest natural cyclic change plays a major role in this dichotomy between projections from climate modelling based on anthropogenic global warming theory, and systematic measurement using terrestrial and satellite observation platforms.
> 
> Third, cyclic variations in global sea level which suggest natural cycles of around 60 and 30 years in length. Such cycles, which are deserving of considerable further study, suggest that a significant fraction of the observed rate sea-level rise of past decades may be attributable to the upswing of natural cycles. The consequence, if proven, on projections of future sea-level rise and associated planning and land-use policy, is large.
> 
> Fourth, natural cycles in climate change are increasingly evident from precise studies of temperature records imprinted in cave deposits, ice-cores, corals and deep-sea sediments. These provide mounting evidence that current global warming is not abnormal in a historical context, and variations are subject to a range of natural cyclic phenomena with periods ranging from about 60 years to millennia.
> 
> Finally, causative mechanisms for natural cycles in climate change are an essential complement to observational data showing natural cycles in climate change. Mechanisms involving highly complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays are on the cusp of delivering insights into possible mechanisms.


----------



## MacDoc

*move on move on ....nothing to see here...*



> *Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier, one of the biggest single contributors to world sea-level rise, is melting irreversibly *and could add as much as a centimetre (0.4 inches) to ocean levels in 20 years, a study said Sunday.
> The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with France's Grenoble Alps University.
> Durand and an international team used three different models to forecast the glacier's future based on the "grounding line," which is the area under water where the ice shelf—a sea-floating extension of the continent-covering ice sheet—meets land.
> This line has receded by about 10 kilometres (six miles) in the past decade.
> The grounding line "is probably engaged in an unstable 40-km (25-mile) retreat," said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
> A massive river of ice, the glacier by itself is responsible for 20 percent of total ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet today.
> On average, it shed 20 billion tonnes of ice annually from 1992-2011,* a loss that is likely to increase up to and above 100 billion tonnes each year, said the study.*
> This is equivalent to 3.5-10 millimetres (0.14-0.4 inches) of global average sea-level rise over the next 20 years.


Giant Antarctic glacier beyond point of no return, research says


----------



## Macfury

That might be interesting except for the fact that the Pine Island glacier is melting largely due to:
a) it's own flow patterns
b) underwater volcanic activity

Ultimately, all glaciers have a limited "shelf life"--so to speak.

Surprised that the researchers seem to think that the rest of the world's ice mass will remain stable as this one glacier retreats (based on their models, of course).


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Giant Antarctic glacier beyond point of no return, research says


You accuse me of not reading your links, yet I do. I ask you to reciprocate & yet, it's painfully obvious you don't. I know: hands over ears, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you. typical warmist BS.

This was addressed not only on Jan 6 of this year, but also on Sep 15 last year.

Do try to keep up.

However, for your benefit & for your fawning audience, I'll do a quick recap.

1) Model based results? Tell ya what, Davey-boy. You bring me a model that predicted the current 17 year plateau, we'll talk about model based glacier results. Until then, they're nothing more than a faulty Nintendo 64 game.

2) "is melting irreversibly" Exactly what empirical evidence does the author have to support this statement? Do you honestly believe that, during the next glaciation (which, geologically speaking, is just around the corner), this glacier will still be receding? What a stupid observation...

3) "it shed 20 billion tonnes of ice annually from 1992-2011" First, how much ice did it lose in the 20 years prior to that? And the twenty before? And the 20 before that? And the next? There is no perspective here, nothing to compare it to. "much faster rate than before" What the hell does that mean? The year before? The century before? The millenium? Second, it's a good thing that glaciers melt, that ice caps break off into the seas. Why? 'Cause if they ain't, it means we're in the next ice age.

4) Why cherry pick PIG? What about all the other glaciers, planet-wide, that aren't receding? Why have you still not addressed my years-old question to you about the 15 foot per day recession of the Alaskan Glacier Bay glacier during the late 19th & early 20th century, a period of colder climate and significantly lower atmospheric CO2 concentration that we currently enjoy?

5) From my Jan 6 post:



> Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:
> 
> *"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."*


Better luck next time.

Read a link. Learn something. It'll save both of us a ton of time & you won't look nearly as much a fool...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, in that ever-lengthening list of things that climate models are unable to simulate, guess what else? Yup, that infamous polar vortex.

Papers finding climate models are unable to simulate the Polar Vortex 

There are a number of references summed at the link. More info there if you want to follow up.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, being a sceptic isn't all work, beating up the warmists with empirical evidence. Sometimes you get to laugh at them, too!

From the gift that keeps on giving, I give you cartoons of Global Warming Researchers stuck in Antarctic ice.

Sunday Funnies: Global Warming Ship of Fools Cartoon Roundup 

Enjoy!


----------



## FeXL

Same category as above. 

Akademic Shokalskiy makes it back to port, #spiritofmawson ship of fools still stuck in Antarctica



> The comedy just keeps on coming. Plus, now it seems that Turney failed to get some approvals, and his welcome home may not be all the happy. Maybe he’ll stay in Antarctica.
> 
> After having to prematurely abandon their mission due to being stuck in ice, and having a weather forecast provided that said all they had to do was wait a few more days, which came true, freeing the ship, the intrepid Dr. Turney and his gaggle of global warming geese tourists were evacuated by helicopter to the Aurora Australis, which then sailed to the Australian Casey Station to finish the resupply operations that got interrupted by Turney’s distress call.
> 
> *The #spirtofmawson people are still at Casey Station [in Antarctica], waiting for their ride home, while the Akademic Shokalskiy has made it to port in New Zealand.*


Further:



> What irony that the “trapped” ship has made it back, while the #spiritofmawson fools are still at Casey base, waiting for their ride home.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Further, Tim Ball on the polar vortex.

It’s The Circumpolar Vortex Not The Polar Vortex And Other PR Deceptions

Good read, Figs 5 & 6 especially revealing. Much of the story is in the comments, including a link to a polar view of current Rossby waves. Very interesting.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. Interesting conclusions this one arrives at...

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!



> I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous claims that solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity _can_ explain the pause, and _when solar activity resumes, global warming will return anew._


Italics from the link.

Of course it will...

Oh, in addition:



> I’m also more than a little bit puzzled how the journal editor and the peer reviewers let this sentence pass, everybody makes typos, but this one takes the cake. I kid you not:
> 
> _But secondly, there must be a fair global coverage such that localized climate variations like the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the *El Ninjo/La Ninja* in the Pacific would not affect the result too much._​
> Yes, I really want to see what the *La Ninja* effect looks like.


Bold from the link.

Me, too. Maybe he's the guy that hid Trenberth's missing heat...


----------



## FeXL

Willis is still extracting data from CERES.

CO2 and CERES



> CERES contains a calculated surface dataset that covers twelve years. But in the process, I got surprised by the results of a calculation that for some reason I’d never done before. You know how the IPCC says that if the CO2 doubles, the earth will warm up by 3°C? Here was the question that somehow I’d never asked myself … *how many watts/m2 will the surface downwelling radiation (longwave + shortwave) have to increase by, if the surface temperature rises by 3°C?*


Bold from the link.

Very good question. Willis provides an interesting answer. Again, much of the story is in the comments, along with a suggestion from Robert Brown of Duke as to a follow-up analysis, also from CERES data.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Sure, it's a prediction & it sounds a bit hyperbolic but, with credentials like that, the warmists will feel compelled to click the link on those factors alone! 

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Is So High It May Set A Record For Highest Minimum of All time 



> The Extent for day 10 is 1.48 million sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. And only 220,000 sq km below 2008.
> 
> The highest minimum was in 2008. Sea Ice only fell to 3.69 million sq km on day 51.


Day 51, huh? Late February. We'll see...


----------



## FeXL

By the time you read this post, Jo Nova will have reached a milestone of her own, 200,000 comments, along with nearly half a million unique visitors to her site in 2013. Congrats!

199,984 comments… tick tick tick (Plus almost half a million people visited in 2013)

While having little to do with AGW, a couple comments made me laugh out loud.



> Bulldust
> January 14, 2014 at 10:01 am · Reply
> 
> Just finished reading the article and was about to cross-post, but you beat me to it. I think we are witnessing the death of CAGW as we speak. We are past “Peak Madness” and regular programming can resume.
> 
> 
> Franny by Coal light
> January 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm · Reply
> 
> What does a climate freedom fighter do when the war is won ?
> 
> 
> Siliggy
> January 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm · Reply
> 
> *Keep jumping on the corpse to make sure it stays dead.*


My bold. 

ROTFLMAO!

Got my crampons on...


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of down under, when you've lost the Sydney Morning Herald...

Sydney Morning Herald allows a skeptic to say the games up for climate hysteria



> It really would be remarkable if reality was nibbling away at Fairfax editors. Apparently the circle of believer-territory is shrinking. (First _The Australian_, then Fairfax, lastly the ABC…?)


----------



## FeXL

Further on that 70's ice age scare.

1972 : CRU Chief Said That Earth Would Definitely Cool Over The Next Two Centuries


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

Another Thanks To Dave Burton



> Having the 1975 NAS report in hand completely disarms alarmists. Thanks Dave!
> 
> ...
> 
> It also provides a smoking gun that Mann had no legitimate reason to delete Briffa’s trees, which precisely matched the NAS graph.


----------



## FeXL

Even Phil Jones doesn't believe in "unprecedented".

Phil Jones : 1860-1880 Warming Was Faster Than 1975-2009



> SUV’s must have been a huge problem in 1860.


----------



## FeXL

Judith is preparing testimony for the Senate EPW [Environment and Public Works] hearing.

Forthcoming Senate EPW Hearing on President’s Climate Action Plan



> The Hearing is scheduled for Jan 16, and I have been tapped to testify.
> 
> The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has scheduled a Hearing entitled Review of the President’s Climate Action Plan on January 16.
> 
> For context, the President’s Climate Action Plan was discussed in this previous post.
> 
> Needless to say, I am very bizzy preparing my testimony.


----------



## eMacMan

A number of the Kool-aid drinkers seem a little lost, wandering around as it were with their a55e5 frozen off. 

Oliphant to the rescue.


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well... Seems there are many people out there questioning the "consensus".

WUWT status report: now more popular than Discover Magazine



> People ask me how I do this. *Some assume I must be funded by some massive “big oil” campaign or some “dark money”, but to be honest, it is just me and a few contributors that put up stories a few times a day, plus some Google adwords revenue*, of which wordpress.com takes about half, since they host the site, provide the bandwidth, and manage the advertising. I have no control over it.


My bold.

Look at the metrics...globally & nationally, nearly an order of magnitude higher than unSkeptical nonScience.


----------



## FeXL

NYT Pushes the Rising Tide of Climate Nonsense – This time in the Dominican Republic



> The hills have been progressively denuded, both in the DR and across the border in Haiti, when it rains, when the hurricanes and tropical storms come, the hills send ALL the water hurling down into the streambeds and rivers, they lead downhill — at the bottom of <b>this</b> watershed is Lago Enriquillo.


----------



## FeXL

On Richard Kerr's 5 year old prediction.

No matter if it’s a climatic ‘pause’ or ‘jolt’, still no warming



> “Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…. Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.”
> 
> - _Richard Kerr_, Science (2009)


From F. A. Hayek’s Nobel Prize Lecture in Economics, The Pretense of Knowledge:



> “I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false.”


Yup...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Well, well, well... Seems there are many people out there questioning the "consensus".
> 
> WUWT status report: now more popular than Discover Magazine


Damn! That bastion of science, DeSmogBlog, must be hurting!


----------



## FeXL

Not strictly AGW related, but further on natural cycles.

Do super-tides kick start interglacials ?



> It is proposed that for the last 800,000 years super-tides caused by maxima in orbital eccentricity have been the key factor needed to break up large northern ice sheets to enable the 41,000 year insolation cycle to initiate an interglacial. Insolation alone was sufficient to melt back the ice sheets over the previous 4.4 million years, as observed by the long series of 41,000 year glaciation cycles in the LR04 Do18 stack[1]. The obliquity cycle was broken once an underlying cooling trend had increased glacial ice sheet extent beyond a threshold for “Milankowitch” summer melting.


Nice visual aids, good read.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Damn! That bastion of science, DeSmogBlog, must be hurting!


You'd have to ask MacDoc. Once I figgered their true agenda, I've not been back...


----------



## FeXL

Nice summary of the timeline of Mikey's finest <cough> work...

The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick



> The rise of the so called Hockey Stick graph is pivotal to the story of the rise of the alarm about man made global warming.
> 
> The fall of the Hockey Stick graph is pivotal to the rise of scepticism about man made global warming.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> You'd have to ask MacDoc. Once I figgered their true agenda, I've not been back...


Damn! That bastion of science, MacDoc, must be hurting!


----------



## FeXL

Further on weather, not climate...

New Scientist blames natural Australian heat wave on man-made global warming 



> That was the question my colleagues and I asked ourselves a year ago, when we began looking at the causes of severe heat waves. In particular, we wanted to know what made the 2009 summer heat wave - which set new records for the most days above 40°C in many parts of south-eastern Australia, and which killed hundreds of people - quite so deadly. Were there any hidden culprits behind the record-breaking spell of fierce heat?
> 
> *What we discovered was that a seemingly unrelated tropical cyclone off the Western Australian coast contributed to making the south-eastern Australian heat wave worse.
> 
> And what’s about to happen with this week’s heat is a textbook example of what we found.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Damn! That bastion of science, MacDoc, must be hurting!


Judging by his desperate attempts to link every localized weather event to global warming, I'd concur.

He's even reduced himself to providing links to peer-reviewed, if not erroneous, science...


----------



## FeXL

So, the left biased, global warming endorsing MSM hasn't been giving nearly enough attention to a dead in the water subject. In their wisdom, the Democrats want to "fix" this little problem...

Democrats Plan to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change



> Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.
> 
> Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.


Good. Like they totally own the Obamacare Charlie Foxtrot, let them totally own this. Midterm elections, anyone?


----------



## FeXL

So, there are many GCM's (Global Circulation Models) out there, the CHIMP's which I post about every so often, others and then ECHAM. The latest, new, improved version is ECHAM6. Howzit doing?

The Top Ten Problems of the New-and-Improved ECHAM6 Model



> ...*"a number of stubborn biases endure."* These biases are said by them to be the facts that (1) "there has been relatively little improvement in the representation of precipitation since the introduction of ECHAM3, (2) "precipitation over land is too weak," (3) "there is a global tendency of precipitation features, from the South Pacific Convergence Zone to precipitation over the Gulf Stream, to be shifted too far northward," (4) "biases in the representation of marine boundary layer clouds remain large," (5) "cloud layers appear too infrequently in the simulations," but are (6) "too bright when they do appear," (7) "ECHAM6 continues to have large (3 K) cold biases in upper tropospheric temperatures," (8) "tropical temperature biases only vanish with very high (300-m) vertical resolution in the upper troposphere," (9) "the tropical and mid-latitude convective stability of the troposphere remains more unstable relative to observations, particularly in the southern Hemisphere in its summer season," and (10) "the extra-tropical jets maximize at somewhat lower latitudes than observed."


Bold mine.

Missed it by (holding arms outwards) _that_ much...


----------



## FeXL

Newman says The Party is Over for the IPCC



> The debate is gaining nuance: instead of scientists and deniers, there the public starts to see the argument is about shades of grey. *The real debate has never been about whether greenhouse gases were real, instead it’s about how much global warming will happen.* The cheating tactic of pretending the conflict was about something that nearly everyone agrees upon is like a ticking bomb for alarmists. The fuse has been lit. They will pay for their deception eventually.


Bold mine.

+1000



> We’re at the point where all the past cheating tactics (like bullying, namecalling and dodging debates) are starting to backfire badly. Coming sometime is the steep fall of public opinion on “climate change” down over the Continental Shelf of Abject Derision into the Trenches of Urban Mythology.
> 
> _In the meantime, childish personal attacks on those who point out flaws in IPCC reasoning and advice only increase scepticism. *They are no substitute for empirical evidence and are well into diminishing returns. The party’s over.*
> 
> The Australian_​


Bold mine.

You hear that, MacDoc? Those are the winds of change. Boil them...


----------



## FeXL

More "adjustments".

Almost 2/3 Of GISS Warming Is Fake


----------



## FeXL

The journal Nature embraces ‘the pause’ and ocean cycles as the cause, Trenberth still betting his heat will show up



> From the “settled science” department. It seems even Dr. Kevin Trenberth is now admitting to the cyclic influences of the AMO and PDO on global climate. Neither “carbon” nor “carbon dioxide” is mentioned in this article that cites Trenberth as saying: _“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,”_


Italics from the link.

Trenberth notes:



> The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade.


That must have hurt.

What it shows is the disconnect between CO2 & global temperatures, exactly what the models are predicated upon. This, again, begs the outstanding question: how much is natural & how much man-made?


----------



## FeXL

Steve McIntrye has put together a detailed timeline of our global warming ice-locked researchers' little jaunt.

Ship of Fools



> Like many others, I’ve been intrigued by the misadventures of the Ship of Fools. Dozens of tourist vessels visit the Antarctic without becoming trapped by ice. So it’s entirely valid to inquire into why the one tourist vessel led by a “climate scientist” became trapped by ice.
> 
> The leader of the expedition, Chris Turney (also a secondary Climategate correspondent and co-signer of Lewandowsky’s multisignatory letter in the Conversation), claimed that the incident could not have been predicted. *He said that they were trapped by a sudden “breakout” of multi-year ice (“fast ice”) that had previously been part of the ice shelf and that there was no way that they could have anticipated this.* Turney’s claim has been uncritically accepted by the climate community e.g. Turner of the British Antarctica Survey here.
> 
> However, like other recent claims by Turney, *this claim is bogus. In fact, Turney was trapped by sea ice that had been mobile throughout December 2013.*


My bold.

Thorough & a good read.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Antarctic Sea Ice Trends: Modelled vs. Measured

I'll cut to the chase:



> It is difficult for a climate model to be more wrong than when it _hind_-casts just the _opposite_ of what has been observed to be happening over the past three and a half decades in the real world, which is what most of the CMIP5 models apparently do.


Yeah, italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

One of the weakest areas of knowledge for warmists is history. They are not only remarkably uninformed about global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations from tens & hundreds of millions of years ago, in their search for "unprecedented, unusual, or unnatural" they ignore data from as little as a century ago.

Forgotten: Historic hot temperatures recorded with detail and care in Adelaide



> *Below, notice how commonly those red spikes go about 40C? Adelaide gets scorched nearly every year. It’s summer.*


Sydney Was Over 100 Degrees 10 Out Of 15 Days In The 1905-1906 Heatwave

January 5, 1906 – Mildura Reached 50C



> That was 6C warmer than today’s unprecedented heat


Longest Heatwave In History Was 90 Years Ago. Worst Heatwave Was 100 Years Ago



> The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style...

2013 Had The Fourth Coldest Afternoon Temperatures In US History



> The only years with colder afternoons in the US were 1895, 1912 and (Mt. Pinatubo) 1993.


----------



## FeXL

Are we still a member of this thing?

UN climate chief declares communism best for fighting global warming



> United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that *democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.*
> 
> China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.


M'bold.



> Air pollution readings spiked across China’s capital Beijing on Thursday, prompting residents to don air masks and offices and homes to put electric air purifiers on overdrive.
> 
> *Commuters across Beijing found themselves cloaked in a thick, gray haze as air pollution monitors across the city registered readings over 20 times the recommended exposure levels suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO).*


M'bold, too.

More:

Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It



> Morrissey notes that the same smog blighting China now was a problem five years ago, during the 2008 Olympics. Some sign of "doing it right."


Yep, them commies sure got a handle on it.

Defund the UN!


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style and, not a headline you'll see in the MSM.

NOAA “state of the climate” report: Contiguous US average temperature plummeted 2.9F in 2013



> In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record.


The Pause is strong with this one...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the heels of yesterdays post about Trenberth's tacit acknowledgement of the effects of natural cycles, today we have a new, improved version of the planet's radiation budget.

NASA revises Earth’s Radiation Budget, diminishing some of Trenberth’s claims in the process



> Note that somehow, between 2009 and the present, it was decided (presumably based on CERES measurements) that the Net Absorbed value (which is the extra energy absorbed that would result from increased GHG’s) *would go DOWN from 0.9 w/square meter to 0.6w/square meter – an decrease of one third of the 2009 value.*


M'bold.

Further:



> So with the retained energy (the net absorbed figure) resulting from GHG’s like CO2 dropping by one third since 2009, can we now call off some of the most alarming aspects of global warming theory?


Whaddya say, MacDoc? Or, should I ask, what does DSB say?


----------



## FeXL

The first of many, I'll guess...

Antarctic Sea Ice – 1st Daily Record of 2014 – Day 15



> The old record was broken by 26,500 sq km.


----------



## FeXL

2010 : Salon Predicted That Global Warming Would Make The 2014 Superbowl Warm

From the comments, here's the weather forecast for Superbowl Sunday, Feb 2.


----------



## FeXL

More on "adjustments".

A Good Visualization Of The Increase In Corruption At NASA Since 1999



> Compare that to their current version, which cools the 1930′s by nearly 0.7C relative to present temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

Curry's senate testimony.

Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan



> The hearing was very long; not so much because of questioning of the witnesses, but there was much pontification by the committee members (much more of this than on the House Subcommittees, it seems).
> 
> Several things struck me. *All of the members seem pretty well educated on the topic of climate change. I cannot say the same of the administrators on the first panel.*


----------



## FeXL

So, little unclear hear, but I believe it reads that an on-line, open-access journal that published a paper with a sceptic viewpoint has just been shut down.

AGW inquisition burns a journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics



> Climate extremists such as Phil Plait sometimes bitingly quip when they ask why climate skeptics don't publish in the established scientific journals. The answer has been well-known to pretty much everyone at least since the ClimateGate in 2009: when they do, either their papers are eliminated or destroyed by the alarmist mafia, or the authors are destroyed by the climate mafia, or the journals are destroyed by the climate mafia.
> 
> The new story is another example of the latter category.


----------



## eMacMan

And now even Payne has spotted the cooling.


----------



## MacDoc

*Extremes just getting rolling*

One of the "risks" we've already seen is slated to get worse...



> *Devastating El Niño events to double this century*
> 
> 18:00 19 January 2014 by Michael Slezak
> For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
> 
> *Extreme El Niño events, that can kill tens of thousands of people, will be twice as common this century because of climate change.* The finding adds to the evidence that global warming will cause ever more extreme weather.


Devastating El Niño events to double this century - environment - 19 January 2014 - New Scientist

The Economist take on the last major one in 1997-98 ( fancy that )

snip



> The last major El Niño, during *1997 and 1998, is estimated to have caused up to $45 billion in damage and killed 23,000 people.* It brought flooding to the Americas and Africa, tropical cyclones to Pacific islands, and droughts and wildfires to Australia and south-east Asia.


AGW is not some future event....the consequences are now....El Nino is already a nasty bit of earth violence....we're just feeding the beast.

Peru's flood-hit tourism: Ruined | The Economist


----------



## Macfury

OK, so we have one projection on El Nino events based on...models? Again, if you read your own links:



> _There is a chance_ that climate change has contributed to recent extreme El Niños, Cai says. *The study did not examine that directly...*


Further, the study is based on an _assumption_ of warming--not proof that the Earth will warm. Nothing about AGW.

Then we have a 2010 article from_The Economist_ describing the dollar value of damage attributed to El Nino events in the 1990s. 

Also some reports on a flood-damaged railroad in Peru.

Looks like the railroad has been fixed since that ancient story was published:

PERURAIL : Cusco, Sacred Valley & Machu Picchu Routes, Timetables and Prices : Cusco Tours : Machu Picchu Train : PeruRail.com

Essentially, you collected a bunch of old and unrelated material and thought it proved something about AGW. Looks like that train left the station for Machu Picchu without you...


----------



## FeXL

Well, MF has already hit the high spots, I'll address this:



MacDoc said:


> AGW is not some future event


Herein, you are correct. It's a non-event...


----------



## FeXL

OK, further to my post on Jan 17 about an online journal being shut down. What it boils down to is summed up rather nicely in a comment in one of the second set of threads:



> The issue is that in a targeted topic Special Edition, authors reviewed other authors’ work. Editors wrote papers and reviewed each others’ work. Editors reviewed papers.


In effect, stooping to the same level as warmist "Pal-Review".

Here are links to two immediate reactions. There is some common ground between the two but, also, a fair amount of disparity.

Science paper doubts IPCC, so whole journal gets terminated!


The ‘planetary tidal influence on climate’ fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better

Two more links to reactions a couple days after the fact.

Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason

The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable

Anthony sums:



> After reconsideration of my original story, I find that there is more than enough blame to go around on both sides and that there were warning signs that were ignored.


Much of the story in the comments of all 4 links.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper out. Author's predict an increase in El Nino's. On what is the forecast based? (from the Abstract)



> We estimate the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3; ref. 10) and 5 (CMIP5; ref. 11) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble.


Ah, yes. CHIMP3 & CHIMP5.

Anybody remember _Blazing Saddles_? 

Our Climate Models Are Aglow with Whirling, Transient Nodes of Thought Careening through a Cosmic Vapor of Invention



> Blogger “Andrew” advises that the twitter-sphere is filled with discussions of a new paper claiming that the strengths of the late 20th Century El Niño events were caused by global warming. This argument has been around for years and keeps getting resurrected. Blogger “nevket240” provided a link to the Sydney Morning Herald article by Tom Arup Major El Nino events likely to double in next century, which appears to have initiated the discussions.


Further:

Alarmist becomes skeptic on climate models



> *The core of Cai’s results, that more super El Ninos are likely, was disputed by Kevin Trenberth,* a senior scientist at the National Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
> 
> He said some of the models used in the study overestimate the past number of El Nino events by a wide margin and do a poor job of representing them and their impacts.
> 
> “This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” he said in an email.
> 
> Trenberth also said that some long-range climate models also fail to adequately simulate other natural climate patterns that influence El Nino let alone how they might also shift in a warming world.


M'bold.

When the models have lost Trenberth's support...

Hey, MacDoc, Trenberth doesn't think the models have predictions of future increased effects of El Nino correct. Care to comment?


----------



## FeXL

Further on maladjusted temperature records...

1989 : NOAA Said No Evidence Of US Warming



> NOAA now shows about half a degree warming during that same time period. They have rewritten their own history.


The World’s Stupidest People



> The climate ignored CO2 from 1940 to 1977, but once the PDO shifted in 1977 – Mann-made CO2 decided to get up off its lazy ass and really warm the place up.


Another Smoking Gun From NOAA



> NOAA claims that the raw US minimum temperature trend from 1895-2007 is 0.054/C per decade
> 
> ...
> 
> This is complete BS. The actual 1895-2007 raw minimum trend is 0.020/C per decade. Whatever they are using for “raw” is not the raw data.


I've saved the best for the next post...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> XX)Hey, MacDoc, Trenberth doesn't think the models have predictions of future increased effects of El Nino correct. Care to comment?


MacDoc's posting style reminds me of a volcano. Stuff comes out, but never goes in... and there's almost complete silence between eruptions.


----------



## FeXL

If there was any doubt before...

Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode



> I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments.


What did he find?



> Bottom line is that the NCDC US temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless. *Adjustments that used to go flat after 1990, now go up exponentially. Adjustments which are documented as positive, are implemented as negative.*


M'Bold.

Nice work...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> MacDoc's posting style reminds me of a volcano. Stuff comes out, but never goes in... and there's almost complete silence between eruptions.


I was thinking of another analogy myself. Same terms to describe it, tho...


----------



## FeXL

Once again, a cautionary note: correlation does not mean causation. That said, when you've lost the BBC...

BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age



> Nice hype by Matt Drudge, whose three linked quotes are all from the BBC’s one brief paragraph of text, but the accompanying video (full transcription below) is more substantial, with scientists talking about the likelihood of an extended Maunder Minimum type period low solar activity and the cold temperatures that coincided with the Maunder Minimum during the 1600′s.


----------



## FeXL

So, Mikey doesn't like Judith's Senate testimony.

Mann on advocacy and responsibility



> *JC challenge to MM:* Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.


I believe the ball's back in his court...


----------



## FeXL

Phil Jones on adjustments?

Phil Jones 2012 video: Talks about adjusting SST data up ~.3-.5C after WWII



> Jones remarks of interest start at 5:30. He says average sea and land temperatures “can’t really differ that much as a global average”.
> 
> If he didn’t adjust sea surface temperatures, you’d “have great differences in sea and air temperatures that just couldn’t happen naturally”. I’d agree, UHI and land use change can make such differences and those aren’t natural occurrences, but why adjust SST data up to match?


Curiouser & curiouser...


----------



## FeXL

Easterbrook talks about "The Pause" in the first link but Tisdale has some issues with his description, detailed in the second link.

Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming

Comments on the Nature Article “Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat”



> This post includes an overview of the mistakes people make when they attempt to use the Pacific Decadal Oscillation data as a metric for the dominant mode of variability in the Pacific Ocean. So it contradicts Easterbrook’s post. More detailed discussions of what the PDO data represents and what it doesn’t represent can be found in the posts...


Good discussion in the comments of both.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mann's anti-science Curry tirade.

NYT journalist Revkin disappears critical comments on Michael Mann's anti-science within 1 hour of mention on Twitter 



> NYT journalist Andrew Revkin has disappeared some of his published harsh criticism of Michael Mann, which previously stated "it's counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions" in reference to Mann, disappeared by Revkin less than 1 hour following my tweet addressed to both Revkin and Mann.
> 
> The original article stated that Revkin agreed with Ken Caldeira, Gavin Schmidt, and Steven Schneider that "it's counterproductive [for Michael Mann] to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions." In other words, Mann should stick to objective science instead of "blurring the lines" between science and anti-scientific "value based opinions," but this all-too-true quote was quickly disappeared and replaced with much more obfuscated text


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out, re-emphasizing the eternal question.

New paper asks: 'Would the 'real' temperature dataset please stand up?'; finds 'We have no ability to know' the true temperature data 



> A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters examines 8 datasets of temperature & precipitation observations in China over the past 105 years and finds significant unexplained differences between datasets, concluding,
> 
> _ "Because observations coming from different datasets do have differences, *which one we can believe among the various so-called ‘observed climate datasets’? Indeed, we have no ability to know the ‘truth value*’"_​
> Indeed, two of the Chinese datasets in the paper show there was essentially no warming in China from 1950-2005.


Bold from the link.

Abstract (open access)



> This research compared and evaluated the spatio-temporal similarities and differences of eight widely used gridded datasets. The datasets include daily precipitation over East Asia (EA), the Climate Research Unit (CRU) product, the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) product, the University of Delaware (UDEL) product, Precipitation Reconstruction over Land (PREC/L), the Asian Precipitation Highly Resolved Observational (APHRO) product, the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) dataset from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the National Meteorological Information Center dataset from the China Meteorological Administration (CN05). The meteorological variables focus on surface air temperature (SAT) or precipitation (PR) in China. All datasets presented general agreement on the whole spatio-temporal scale, but some differences appeared for specific periods and regions. On a temporal scale, EA shows the highest amount of PR, while APHRO shows the lowest. CRU and UDEL show higher SAT than IAP or CN05. On a spatial scale, the most significant differences occur in western China for PR and SAT. For PR, the difference between EA and CRU is the largest. When compared with CN05, CRU shows higher SAT in the central and southern Northwest river drainage basin, UDEL exhibits higher SAT over the Southwest river drainage system, and IAP has lower SAT in the Tibetan Plateau. The differences in annual mean PR and SAT primarily come from summer and winter, respectively. Finally, potential factors impacting agreement among gridded climate datasets are discussed, including raw data sources, quality control (QC) schemes, orographic correction, and interpolation techniques. The implications and challenges of these results for climate research are also briefly addressed.





> Excerpt from the conclusion:
> 
> _All of these results bring about a new challenge in the ﬁeld of climate change. So-called ‘observed climate datasets’ play important roles in driving hydrologic models, evaluating global circulation models (GCMs) and regional climate models (RCM). *Because observations coming from different datasets do have differences, which one we can believe among the various so-called ‘observed climate datasets’? Indeed, we have no ability to know the ‘truth value’*; what we need to do is reduce the disagreement among the ‘observed datasets’ and depress their uncertainty._​


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Judith talks about "The Pause", as well.

The case of the missing heat

A comment by Mooney:



> Journalists take heed: Your coverage has consequences. All those media outlets whotrumpeted the global warming “pause” may now be partly responsible for a documented decrease in Americans’ scientific understanding.


Oh, the iron. MSM's biased position on this whole BS CAGW hypothesis is already what is responsible for the dumbing down of the general public. Look in the mirror, boyz...

Judith responds:



> Well, if the scientists don’t understand the cause of the pause, and the public is aware of the pause, then exactly what are we to conclude about the public understanding of climate change? Maybe that the public is not sufficiently ‘sophisticated’ to believe climate model projections that are running much warmer than observations for the past decade?


Exactly.


----------



## FeXL

Donna talks about Judith's Senate report.

The Invisible Judith Curry



> A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.


Bias? What bias...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Easterbrook-Tisdale issue outlined in post 4382 above.

Setting the record straight on ‘the cause of pause in global warming’



> Now I enjoy a spirited discussion of issues as much as anyone and am always willing to discuss any scientific issue, but these unprofessional, insulting remarks are not what I call science and do nothing to advance the understanding of issues. Tisdale completely missed the point of what I said and the basis for saying it. Virtually everything he said was irrelevant to the data that I presented and nothing he said disproves any of my data or my predictions (which so far seem to be right on track). Tisdale missed the boat when he ignored my statement at the outset, “it was clear that PDO drove global climate (Figs. 2,3), but what drove the PDO was not apparent,” and again at the end, “what drives these oceanic/climatic cycles remains equivocal. Correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.”


----------



## FeXL

Post by Tim Ball.

The Climate Dichotomy: A Scientific Not A Political Difference

He sums:



> The IPCC kept climate science marooned half way up Mount Climate Theory. Meanwhile those not caught up in the deliberate corruption, like the Russians and Chinese and a few brave mostly unfunded western scientists pursued the cyclical pattern of climate. The IPCC made chaos out of climate science so it got stuck on the mountain where it remains today. It will stay there until the IPCC is disbanded and the proper scientific method includes re-examining the hypothesis when the data doesn’t fit and consideration of the null hypothesis is allowed.


----------



## FeXL

Australian heatwaves are nothing new



> In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.


Can you imagine the screeching if that heat wave hit today?


----------



## FeXL

Interesting discussion on inductive & deductive reasoning & how they apply to climate science.

The Scientific Method and Climate Science



> Applying these methods to study the climate run into several difficulties
> 
> Scientific observations have to be repeatable and there has to be full information on the circumstances of the observation, the apparatus and the instruments used, and the name and qualifications of the observer.
> 
> These requirements cannot be met with the climate. No observation can be repeated and all the other details change over time.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Donna on Neil Young.

Neil Young’s Hiroshima – Exhibit #10 in the Drama Queen Files



> When an argument is intellectually shallow, its proponents reach for emotionalism and over-the-top language. The latest embarrassing example comes from Canadian-born musician Neil Young.
> 
> Although he lives on a 1,500-acre estate in California, Young has spent the past week on an anti-oil sands music tour north of the border. The stated goal of these benefit concerts is to raise money for a legal challenge to the expansion of the oil sands.
> 
> Ostensibly, Young is concerned about the health and treaty rights of First Nation individuals who live near Fort McMurray, a community of roughly 65,000 in the northern part of the Canadian province of Alberta. *But the real target, the “elephant in the room” as Young himself describes it, is human-caused global warming.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

You'll never guess who just received an award for scientific excellence.

Guess who won an award for understanding Natural Phenomena?



> *The Australian Academy of Science has announced it’s 2014 Academy awards to “celebrate scientific excellence.”*
> 
> To show how excellent, their excellence is, the Frederick White Prize for scientific achievements contributing to the understanding of natural phenomena goes to *Professor Chris Turney*, University of New South Wales.


Yep. Butt-frozen-in-Antarctic-ice guy.

Frankly, this tells me far more about the awarding committee than anything...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> You'll never guess who just received an award for scientific excellence.
> 
> Guess who won an award for understanding Natural Phenomena?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Butt-frozen-in-Antarctic-ice guy.
> 
> Frankly, this tells me far more about the awarding committee than anything...


Was he able to get back down under to accept it or did they have to put that ultimate irony award on ice.


----------



## MacDoc

*The "pause" that isn't*

Just released



> *NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record *(Update)
> 2 hours ago by Seth Borenstein
> NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record
> 
> Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric …more
> Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world.
> 
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013.[HILITE] The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880.[/HILITE]
> 
> NASA, which calculates records in a different manner, said Tuesday that 2013 was the seventh warmest on record, with an average temperature of 58.3 degrees (14.6 Celsius).
> Both agencies said nine of the 10th warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century. The hottest year was 2010.
> 
> A global insurance firm says there were 41 billion-dollar weather disasters last year. Unlike 2012, most of the heat and disasters were outside the United States.


more
NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record (Update)

some "pause" 

still trolling the denier crap I see - no change there.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Was he able to get back down under to accept it or did they have to put that ultimate irony award on ice.


Seriously? I don't think he (they) have made it home yet. Last I heard (last week) they were still in Antarctica. More iron...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Just released
> 
> 
> more
> NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record (Update)
> 
> some "pause"
> 
> still trolling the denier crap I see - no change there.


Get with the program.

NASA and NOAA have been jigging those older numbers for years. Check the unadulterated data set and you'll find the truth.

How is that carbon market working out, MacDoc? And those international agreements to fight climate change? The world is waking up from its warmist delusions.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> some "pause"


Weather, my friend, not climate.

Plus, if there is no pause, then why are so many key warmists not only acknowledging its existence, but are also scrambling to explain it? Patchy & Trenberth, among others? Surely you, a mere acolyte, aren't questioning the acts of your very climate gods, are you? That's not gonna get you into the promised land. Tsk, tsk...

And, it's obvious you missed this little gem, so I'll put it back up for easy access:

Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode

Read it, then come back & tell me how much we should trust NOAA's temperature record.

Plus, the *thermometer* record is quite short. However, there are thousands of those most hallowed of things, the peer reviewed paper, giving evidence via multiple independent proxies, that the MWP a thousand years ago was warmer than now. There is also evidence for multiple warming periods prior to that, including the Minoan & Roman, both of which had temps warmer than today. For that matter, take a look at the complete Holocene & you will see that we are, in fact, much colder than most of the entire 11,000 year history since the end of the last glaciation.

There is no linear correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & global temperatures. Period. Suck it up.

Bleat, screech, gnash your teeth, rend your hair. It matters not. You can't change the empirical evidence, MacDoc. The hypothesis of CAGW was a crock from day one & it is receiving its well deserved comeuppance. Good riddance to bad garbage.

Have a helluva day. I am. Especially after dem ol' rollin' eyes...


----------



## eMacMan

Again it's time people look into how NASA gets its temps. Honestly they do not relate to anything but readings from the same satellite on a different date, even then sun elevation and time of year enter into it.

These are not temps as such and certainly not air temps 2 or 3 feet above the surface. They relate to temps a couple of inches below the ground surface. There is zero historical data to compare to. Changes in vegetation or the presence of snow or ground moisture can all have a big impact on these readings even if one limits to comparing apples and apples.

Throw in algorithms to make the temps match a model and bad numbers become totally worthless. No real attempts have been made to establish anything resembling solid control points.


----------



## FeXL

More rationalization for publishing bad science.

How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half Truths



> If all observations were honestly presented, it would have been both an example of nature’s resilience and an example of the effect of landscape changes on microclimates. By omitting half of the data, their paper manufactured an illusion of extreme climate catastrophe as discussed here.


----------



## FeXL

Amstrup repeats starving polar bear nonsense, features “Ursus bogus”



> As if on cue just before an important polar bear announcement, Steven Amstrup, full time employee of Polar Bears International (PBI), is crying “starving polar bears” yet again, with a laughable twist.


From comments at _The Conversation_:



> _“The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention. *So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate*, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”_


M'bold.

There's an understatement...


----------



## FeXL

So, couple days back I posted a link to a post by Judith Curry in response to Mikey Mann's criticism of her Senate testimony. Since then, there have been a couple more responses to his call for "if you see something, say something".

The Inventor of the Global-Warming ‘Hockeystick’ Doubles Down

Two of the notable responses:



> Dr. Fred Singer: “OK, I want to say something too: I see an ideologue, desperately trying to support a hypothesis that’s been falsified by observations. While the majority of climate alarmists are trying to discover a physical reason that might just save the AGW hypothesis, Mann simply ignores the ‘inconvenient truth’ that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years — while emissions of greenhouse gases have surged globally.”


And,



> Ross McKitrick: “OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself.”


That's definitely my favorite...


----------



## FeXL

On the Antarctic junket bunch: They're baaaaaack...

#spiritofmawson ship of fools apologize for mess, face recovery costs



> Fifty-two passengers rescued from a Russian ship trapped in sea ice have arrived in Hobart aboard the Australian Antarctic vessel Aurora Australis, nearly three weeks after the emergency began.


More:

Antarctic climate scientists finally return: ABC covers for the $2.4m failure. Speedy’s epic poem



> The ABC PR machine covers for their embarrassment — lest anybody think that climate scientists might be clueless. In the ABC’s world an “Australian Research Team” with “60 scientists” left because “scientists believe there is evidence of climate change.” After they got stuck in ice they didn’t predict, and looked like partying fools on an ill-prepared junket, the magic wand of ABC-apologia stopped using the term “climate” and they underwent a magical transformation to become a “Russian Passenger Ship“.
> 
> The sudden lack of accurate reporting was all the more strange given that the ship and the icebreaker had a dedicated on-board media team from BBC World News, the Guardian, and Fairfax news. They had media on satellite connections, but probably needed meteorologists on it instead.


"Speedy", a regular commenter at Jo Nova, has penned a good poem to memorialize the event. In addition, two more poems in the comments, the second in the style of Robert W Service. No small irony there, apparently Mawson was a fan of Service... 

One thing I have difficulty with: That $2.4 million sounds way low. I'll expect that to be upgraded in the not too distant future...


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre's not done with them yet, either...

New Details on the Ship of Fools



> The precise chronology of the Ship of Fools on December 23 has been a topic of interest on skeptic blogs, including my recent post demonstrating the falsity of Turney’s excuses. However, up to today, this chronology had received zero media coverage, despite several reporters from major media on the Ship of Fools.
> 
> Today, there are two stories (BBC and Sydney Morning Herald , both of which contain damning information (especially the latter.) Note embedded link in latter article h/t Bob Koss, with important details not reported in the main article.


University of New South Wales on Sub-Charter



> I don’t know how liability for rescue costs is allocated. However, the fact that the University of New South Wales is a party to the sub-charter places its potential liability in a new light. However, in most legal proceedings, plaintiffs look for the party with the deepest pockets, which, in this case, would be the University of New South Wales.


----------



## FeXL

On Neil Young's Blame Canada tour...

Neil Young Doubles Down on the Crazy



> Maybe the criticism is starting to sting. As Ezra Levant notes, during the final stop on his tour, Young seemed to reign himself in somewhat:
> 
> _All week, he had been comparing the oilsands to Hiroshima, claiming it caused cancer, that there was no reclamation of the land afterwards, that it caused pollution in faraway China, etc.. But then on Sunday, he said he was fine with all of it — he could actually support the expansion of the oilsands — if “the First Nations treaties (are) honoured.”
> 
> Huh? So all that Hiroshima talk was just a bargaining chip to get some legal tinkering?_​
> Young comes across as cynical, stupid or both.


Lots of additional links inside.


----------



## FeXL

Ocean heat content uncertainties



> Central to arguments related to the hiatus and the ‘missing heat’ is the assertion that unusual amounts of heat are being stored in the deep ocean, and that this heat will eventually reappear at the surface. Exactly how good is the ocean heat content data on which this argument is based?


Judith sums:



> All in all, I don’t see a very convincing case for deep ocean sequestration of heat. And even if the heat from surface heating of the ocean did make it into the deep ocean, presumably the only way for this to happen involves mixing (rather than adiabatic processes), so it is very difficult to imagine how this heat could reappear at the surface in light of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Excellent read, good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, weren't you questioning the existence in the pause just a day back, all the while citing NOAA temperatures? Sure, here it is:



MacDoc said:


> some "pause"
> 
> still trolling the denier crap I see - no change there.


Did you click on the PDF link of the press release? Check out the graph on page 10 of the summary. Eyeball me a trend line from 1998-2013. Now, where's the global warming since 1998?

And, that's using their own highly suspect, "adjusted" temperature records.

NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues



> Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within each other’s error bars. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars.
> 
> When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.


In addition:



> Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been.


So, who is really the one FOS here?

Hint: You'll find him in the mirror.

That empirical evidence really sucks, don't it? Get used to it...


----------



## MacDoc

Poor deluded insurers....I guess they didn't get the message that there is no AGW.



> nsurers shelled out a record C$3.2 billion ($2.92 billion) to cover claims in Canada in 2013, thanks to the record-breaking extreme weather that slammed the country last year.
> The claims total is roughly twice the next highest year on record and a tenfold increase from the losses sustained a decade ago. It is also the fourth straight year of claims exceeding C$1 billion.
> 
> The news was announced on Monday by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), an industry group representing private home, car and business insurers, after i*ndustry warnings in November that insurance premiums will have to rise to cover the increased risk posed by catastrophic weather events.* Intact Financial Corp, the country’s largest property and casualty insurer, has said it may boost homeowners insurance premiums by between 15 and 20 percent.
> 
> By far, the costliest weather in Canada in 2013, were the June floods that engulfed the oil industry hub of Calgary, Alberta. These floods were not only the most expensive weather event in 2013, but also the most expensive natural disaster in Canadian history, costing over C$1.7 billion. The previous record holder was the massive ice storm that hit Quebec and ontario back in January 1998. Costs from that disaster were C$1.6 billion.
> 
> Alberta’s misery was quickly followed in July by wild storms in Toronto that caused flash floods, and knocked out power to thousands of homes and businesses. It was the most costly insured disaster in Ontario’s history at C$940 million.
> 2013 didn’t go out quietly either — an ice storm hit Toronto and other parts of Ontario and Eastern Canada over the holidays, racking up an additional C$200 million in damage to property.
> 
> Flooding and water damage are emerging as the biggest causes of insurance claims in Canada — replacing fire, which has historically been the biggest destroyer of property.
> “Canadian communities are seeing more severe weather, especially more intense rainfall. This overburdens our sewer and stormwater infrastructure, resulting in more sewer backups in homes and businesses,” Don Forgeron, Chief Executive of the IBC, said in the report.
> 
> *Earlier this month, Conservative MP Peter Braid surprised many in his party by publicly stating on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics that extreme weather and climate change are connected.*
> 
> “We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change,” Braid said. “With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto, with the extreme cold across the country.”


Extreme Weather In Canada Last Year Cost Insurers Billions | ThinkProgress

I guess Braid missed it as well....

Do keep the denial engine in gear ...it's amusing to watch going round and round..


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, this is such an embarrassing argument--and the second or third time you've repeated it.

That insurers paid out weather-related claims is not proof of AGW. It is proof that the value of property damaged by weather was up for 2013. 

And why suddenly credit Peter Braid as some sort of visionary? Do you agree with his stand on other issues? Thought not. Then why is his opinion on weather suddenly gold?


----------



## eMacMan

Another article on "The Ship of Fools"
Ship of Fools in the Antarctic | RealClearPolitics

Don't see a lot of fresh territory, but did discover this little bit. As we've said before: Follow the money trail.


> Antarctic sea ice has been growing for 35 years, but as he awaited rescue, Prof. Turney insisted it was melting. If what he saw contradicted his climate model, his eyes must be lying.
> 
> 
> Maybe he was just trying to protect his business interests. Prof. Turney is a founder of Carbonscape, a company whose profitability depends on the willingness of people to pay enormous sums to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Poor deluded insurers....I guess they didn't get the message that there is no AGW.


The only tail-chasing going on here is you grasping at anything from those most vile of creatures, conservative politicians to those poor, starving, non-conflict of interest insurance companies to help pick up your fallen house of cards.

First off, there is zero empirical evidence that the 2013 Calgary flood was caused by any kind of anthropogenic emissions. More likely to be unicorn farts. There are any number of peer-reviewed sources to consult regarding this issue. Nor was the 2013 flood the worst the area has ever experienced. Again, a quick search will confirm this. In addition, Calgary's planners have been warned for years now that they did not have sufficient safeguards in place. One of these warnings came from one of my mentors from university, in a presentation he delivered in the mid-90's.

Second, the town downstream of Calgary, is called High River. Helloooo! <knock, knock, knock> Anybody home? Ya s'pose they called it that because it never flooded? And where did the town fathers develop? I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for you, dear reader.

Third, anybody who develops or builds on a floodplain is going to get flooded. Remember that Alaskan village that you tired to pin this same BS on some time back? Do I need to draw pitchers here, too, or can you figger this out on your own? That's why, in the two Oldman River floods in southern Alberta during the 90's, there was comparatively little damage in Lethbridge & much more in Medicine Hat.

Fourth, at the bottom of this post there's a jpg showing that there was far more severe flooding in the 30's & prior than there has been afterwards. So much for the connection between severe flooding & increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

From your quote:



> after industry warnings in November that insurance premiums will have to rise to cover the increased risk posed by catastrophic weather events.


Funny, that. I've posted these before, but Roger Pielke, Jr has a couple of articles that completely & utterly destroy that line of bunk. I know you won't read them but I post them so that others may know how FOS you & your warmist cadre are.

Graph of the Day: Global Weather Disasters and GDP 

Global Insured Catastrophe Losses from Aon Benfield 

From the first link:



> They conclude: "*there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters.*"


M'bold. I even used your favorite colour.

This is using data from Munich Re (that small, little, tiny insurance company) & the UN. You luvs you the UN, doncha...

Again, empirical evidence trumps your hyperbole & BS. You know what that nets? Another great big, fat, "Screw you, MacDoc".

You keep bringing 'em, Davey boy. All freaking day...


----------



## eMacMan

A minor correction James: Calgary is only 10 feet higher than High River. However Calgary is in the Bow River Basin. High River is located on the Highwood River. It merges with the Sheep River east of Okotoks then flows into the Bow ~25 miles downstream of Calgary. 

So it is neither up nor down stream of Calgary.

That said at some point a decision needs to be made to properly dredge the Highwood River, both upstream and going through High River. This years flooding was greatly aggravated by the alluvial deposits laid down during the 1995 flooding and again during the 2005 flooding. 

Alternatively the town should be abandoned.


----------



## MacDoc

and Europe has your ilk completely on ignore 



> Europe will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest climate change target of any region in the world, *and will produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources by the same date*.


EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> and Europe has your ilk completely on ignore
> 
> EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 | Environment | theguardian.com


MacDoc, you fail completely at logic. If Europe had set targets of 100% of energy to be provided by renewables, how would that make the false hypothesis of AGW any truer?

In the meantime, Germany is investing heavily in coal and has your ilk on ignore:

Researchers Alarmed at Rise in German Brown Coal Power Output - SPIEGEL ONLINE

...while Great Britain heads into full-scale fracking to relieve its people form the tyranny of expensive wind and solar. I guess they've got your ilk on ignore as well.

Half of Britain to be offered for shale gas drilling as fracking areas face 50 trucks passing each day - Telegraph

It;'s good to have goals--even better to realize when they are unrealistic.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, you fail completely at logic. If Europe had set targets of 100% of energy to be provided by renewables, how would that make the false hypothesis of AGW any truer?


When your "science" has failed you, all your clutching hands have left to grab at are the straws of advocacy...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, and a _bit_ of clarity on those targets my esteemed warmist colleague linked to...

Newsbytes: EU Commission Abandons Binding Renewables Target



> The European Union set out new climate and energy goals for 2030 on Wednesday, proposing less stringent targets than in the past in a reflection of tougher economic circumstances and a desire to limit rising energy costs. –Charlie Dunmore, Reuters, 22 January 2014


That's one quote from nearly a dozen links to what really happened in Europe.

Spin, spin, spin, Davey boy...


----------



## FeXL

OK, this is either basic stupidity at it's finest or the poorest metaphor I've ever seen used in MSM. Either way, Massive Fail. Leave it to _The Grauniad..._

Climate Craziness of the week: Guardian’s Damian Carrington ‘glass half full’ moment



> This, is really quite something. We know the Guardian has lost just about all journalistic standards, but this one really takes the cake, especially from somebody who should know better. See the screen cap below.
> 
> _“The atmosphere right now is half-full of carbon dioxide”._​


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New study says ‘robust modeling’ predicted Antarctic sea ice to decrease, but the ice defies modeling



> For those of you that have been looking for that point of reference about Antarctica’s increasing sea ice in contrast to the shrinking ice in the Arctic, look no further.
> 
> A new study recently published in the _Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society_ says *robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt* (their words) predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease in response to increased greenhouse gases and the ozone hole. Only one problem in defiance of the “robust modeling”, the current Antarctic sea ice has been booming.


Bold from the link.

"Robust Modelling"? Well, in that case...saluuute!


----------



## FeXL

Further on MacDoc's BS about CAGW & flooding...

Study: Changing Land-use Not Global Warming to Blame for Increased Flood Risk



> The key message of this research is that:
> 
> *“The scientific community needs to emphasize that the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape and that will be the case for decades to come.”*


Bold from the link.

Huh. Who knew? Oh, I know: Sceptics did...

As a warmist kool-aid slurping acolyte, MacDoc will never actually click on a link, so let it be known that this conclusion draws in part from TIPCC's™ very own SREX (Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation) report.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> When your "science" has failed you, all your clutching hands have left to grab at are the straws of advocacy...


It must be tough to watch one's hippie dreams of a return to nature disintegrating.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale compiles his monthly global temperature update.

Also-Rans: NCDC and GISS Global Surface Temperatures Finish 4th and 7th for 2013



> Not a win, place or show between them. In other words, global surface temperatures are still stalled in the post-1997/98-El-Niño era. They are patiently waiting for another strong El Niño to release a batch of sunlight-created warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific before they resume their step-like climb in Trenberth-declared “big jumps”.


MacDoc: Scroll down to the penultimate graph at the link if you have difficulty visualizing "Da Paws"...

Oh, and regarding all the hoopla about "4th HIGHEST!" or "7th HIGHEST!" or whatever...

Ya gotta laugh: Those significant hundredths of one degree



> Do you see what they are doing? The differences in temperature that they rely on for a judgment that something was warmest are in hundredths of a degree! *They treat unbelievably tiny differences in temperature that exist only as a statistical artifact as if they told us something!* For instance they contrast the 2013 anomaly of .62C with 2010, which is .66C. *The difference is only 4 hundredths of one degree Celsius!*
> 
> Is there any point at which they would concede that a difference is too small to be taken seriously? Thousandths of one degree? Millionths of one degree?


M'bold.

Yup.

MacDoc farts once at Pearson while waiting for his next jet headed down under & the temp goes up by more than 0.04°...


----------



## FeXL

Unexpected? Yes. Surprising? Not...

The Copyright of the The Copenhagen Diagnosis



> Readers may recall The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a (so-to-speak) non-governmental international climate assessment published in November 2009 and targeted by activists at influencing deliberations at the Copenhagen conference. Because it coincided with Climategate, it received little-to-no critical attention at climate blogs. Thus, I suspect that few, if any readers, will (without peeking) be able to guess the answer to today’s trivia question about The Copenhagen Diagnosis: who holds the copyright to The Copenhagen Diagnosis itself?
> 
> The surprising answer is that the copyright to The Copenhagen Diagnosis is the sub-charterer of the Ship of Fools: the University of New South Wales


----------



## FeXL

XX) XX) XX)

So, three articles analyzing CHIMP5 models' ability to correctly simulate in three disparate areas. How effective are they? I'll summarize all three right now: They suck.

Simulating the Trigger of the Onset of the Indian Summer Monsoon

Modeling Southern Hemisphere Mid-latitude Precipitation Trends


http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N4/C3.php


----------



## FeXL

If you read nothing else I post here for the balance of the year, read this.

Of Interstadials, A Fondness of Beetles, And Warmer Than Now



> Interstadial is an interesting word. It means a somewhat surprising rapid warm up to a warm period during an Ice Age Glacial period.
> 
> *Now think about that for just a minute. During a cold glacial time, things rapidly warm up. A lot. And without any nasty old CO2 to blame. This happens so much, so regularly, and so strongly that there is a specific name for it. Interstadial.*


M'bold.

So, can we track these events? Using various proxies, yes. Beetles, as it turns out. Yes, beetles.

Further:



> So climate changes abruptly, rapidly, and all on its own. No CO2 needed. It can, does, and has, rapidly warmed. I’m not going to quote the whole paper at you. Just a couple of cherry picked points about the fact that some places, during some of this time, were warmer than today. At least, per the beetles. Now if it can warm up to warmer than now in some places, all on its own, and without any CO2 from humans, seems to me it could be doing that right now all on its own too.


More:



> But was it ever warmer after that last interglacial? Closer to modern times, but during the last glacial?
> 
> _The strongest indication of interstadial warming comes from the Titaluk River fauna dated 33.6 ka. This fauna yielded a Tmax estimate 0.5–2 C warmer than modern. The other faunas discussed previously yielded Tmax estimates that were 0.5–2 C cooler than modern. Interestingly, a fauna dated 31.5 ka from Mayo Village, Yukon (Figure 4, No. 18), indicates that regional Tmax had fallen to 5–6 C colder than modern levels. Likewise, a fauna dated 35.2 ka from Eva Creek, interior Alaska (Figure 4,No. 8), indicatedTmax levels 7–8 C colder than modern. Thus, within the space of 2,000 years, temperatures appear to have oscillated dramatically in eastern Beringia._​
> *So about 33.6 thousand years ago. Smack in the middle of the glaciation. It gets 1/2 C to 2 C warmer than now in Titaluk River basin. Then turns around and plunges up to 7-8 C. All in about 2000 years. * Kind of like the Roman Optimum to the Little Ice Age and back to the Modern Optimum. Only more so…


M'bold.

You've heard all the hyperbole about "unusual, unnatural, unprecedented"? Furnish your own denigrating language here...

Excellent read. Ask your favorite warmist how all this can occur in the absence of 400ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then ask him how to tell the difference between what caused all those interstadials & 20th century warming. Then stand back & avoid the froth spewing from his mouth.

MacDoc? What do your models tell you about this?

Link to the PDF of the paper inside, also a good read.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> MacDoc? What do your models tell you about this?


MacDoc's models have moved beyond testable and verifiable results and ignore observations of this ilk.

However, he will check DeSmogBlog for instructions and get back to you.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> MacDoc's models have moved beyond testable and verifiable results and ignore observations of this ilk.
> 
> However, he will check DeSmogBlog for instructions and get back to you.


Ah, understood. Thx.

I await with bated breath. 

He's probably awaiting advice from them for the challenge I issued in the Science thread, too...


----------



## FeXL

Goddard has another comparison of global temperatures, this time between NASA GISS & RSS satellite.

Shock News : NASA Surface Temperatures Don’t Match More Accurate Satellite Data

So, we have a satellite temperature record that stretches back to 1979. And, I understand that there may be small differences between the mediums (satellites vs thermometers). However, general trends should match, even if the scale is offset somewhat. Hot years should be hot years, cold years should be cold, either way.

Why, then, has the divergence between the two records increased by >0.10° (just eyeballing the trend line) in 34 years?


----------



## FeXL

Isn't that interesting... 

Take a look at the two maps inside.

Shocking Polar Vortex From 20,000 Years Ago



> 20,000 years ago, Kentucky had glaciers while much of Alaska was ice free.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

The "*first* polar vortex"--that alone is worth big laughs.


----------



## FeXL

Jeff Condon has a couple of posts regarding density of wood vs tree age in treemometers.

Briffa MXD 2013 #1

MXD Age Based Variance


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Claim: Analysis indicates that North and tropical Atlantic warming affects Antarctic climate

A few notes:



> The second used a global atmospheric model, which allowed the researchers to create a simulated warming of the North Atlantic. The model responded, as the researchers had suspected, by “changing” the climate in Antarctica.
> 
> “While our data analysis showed a correlation, it was the use of a state-of-the-art computer model that allowed us to see that North Atlantic warming was causing Antarctic climate change and not vice versa,” he said.


Of course it did. Program in the assumption, run the simulation & act surprised when the results match the programming.



> In contrast to the sea-ice decline in the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice has not diminished. Rather, it has redistributed itself in ways that have perplexed scientists, with declines in some areas and increases in others.


Is that how you spin a two sigma increase in Antarctic sea ice in 2-1/2 years?

And, from the comments:



> “This metric, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, had previously not been considered in seeking explanations for Antarctic climate change.”
> 
> I considered it:
> 
> Amazing Graph of AMO vs Arctic Sea Ice vs Antarctic Sea Ice | sunshine hours


A link I've posted on these threads at least three times now...

Finally, a rather prescient observation, also from the comments:



> Isn’t this curve-matching with a post-conclusion, technical explanation?
> 
> The underlying assumption is that globalism dominates, not that a global situation is the culmination of regional changes. Computational reality, i.e. add it all up, divide by three and you see what is affecting everything, vs Representational reality, i.e. look at Antarctic cooling and Atlantic warming as regional changes as a result of underlying (or overlying) processes.
> 
> The analysis starts with the assumption of a global dominance, something striking everywhere but having different local results. That is an assumption of CAGW. It is not a conclusion as the warmists would like it to be from such a study, but an assumption.
> 
> *Another case of circular reasoning.*


Ed Zachery...


----------



## FeXL

Again, I don't normally link to articles like this but, this one is so full of road apples, it simply needs as much exposure as it can get...

Side note: I've noted my displeasure before about the use of the non-scientific term "ocean acidification". The ocean is an alkaline solution. The movement of any solution from alkaline pH to neutral, pH7.0, is called neutralizing. Past that, it is acidifying. The opposite movement of a solution from acidic pH to neutral is also called neutralizing. Past that, it is called alkalizing. 

The ocean's pH is nowhere near acid. Therefore, the proper term is neutralizing.

In addition, a full number (say, from pH 7.0 to pH 6.0) is 10 times the difference. Rainwater, pH 5, is therefore 100 times more acidic than pure water. The ocean's pH is ~8.1. As such, rainwater is greater than 1000 times more acidic than seawater.

Palau’s coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification



> Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals’ resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
> 
> ...
> 
> “When we first plotted those data, we were shocked,” said chemical oceanographer Kathryn Shamberger of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). “We had no idea the level of acidification we would find. We’re looking at reefs today that have levels that we expect for the open ocean in that region by the end of the century.”
> 
> ...
> 
> “This important study documents a coral reef system that’s apparently resistant to the effects of ocean acidification,” said David Garrison, program director in NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences. “Understanding what factors account for this will be critical follow-on research.”
> 
> ...*The paper also describes a surprising second finding–that the corals living in those more acidic waters were unexpectedly diverse and healthy.*


M'bold.

Probably the only coral community on the whole planet managing that. No, really...

From the comments:



> _“The ocean absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, which reacts with seawater, lowering the water’s overall pH and making it more acidic.”_
> 
> Oh good grief what a load of equine feces.
> 
> 1. The oceans are a BUFFERED solution.
> 
> 2. Warm water OUTGASSES CO2.
> 
> 3. It is COLD water that absorbs CO2.
> 
> 4. The oceans are alkaline because of the buffering.
> 
> 5. Rain water is naturally acidic that is why limestone caves form.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Well, there's a surprise...

Official UN website deletes comment stating fact of no statistically-significant global warming for 16+ years



> The _Responding to Climate Change_ website, which is "accredited as official observers to the UN Framework Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC), and run a TV studio for the UN at its climate, biodiversity and desertification talks," has deleted my comment below on the fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for the past 16+ years:


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another large erroneous assumption about the global carbon cycle 



> A new paper finds another large erroneous assumption about the global carbon cycle, demonstrating that Arctic inland waters naturally emit much more CO2 than previously believed. The paper adds to many other publications over the past 2 years demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle are highly erroneous.


Another factor that won't be programmed into yer local GCM...


----------



## FeXL

Further on those "ambitious" 40% targets by 2030, mentioned earlier by one of the usual suspects...

Don’t miss the EU transformation on renewable energy



> The talk is for an “ambitious” 40% target by 2030, but really this is about dropping the legally binding nature of the targets. So as usual in warmist politics, no one is up front and honest. *It’s a face-saving move as the green reality falls.*


M'bold.

Yup.


----------



## FeXL

I've past noted my admiration for how EJ Smith, aka "The Chiefio", compiles seemingly disparate bits of info & data into concepts that frequently push known boundaries. While not that most hallowed of things, "peer-reviewed papers", they will almost always compel the reader to sit back & reflect on what's been said. Brain food...

In this post he presents good info about the lunar effects on tides & subsequently, a primer on lunar effects on weather/climate.

The Moon’s Orbit is Wrong, It Can Change a Lot, And Tides Will Too



> The basic “issue” here is simple: We don’t really know what the moon has done in the past, because we don’t know what it is doing now; but we do know it could have made much stronger tides in the past, so could do that again. We also know that present tides are about 1/2 the total overturning force bringing cold deep water to the surface, so we also know that changes in tide forces could and would have major impacts on how cold it gets, and / or when ice sheets break up. So much for “settled science”…


He sums:



> To me, it is pretty clear that there are a lot of things we don’t know. Many things about CO2 that are flat out wrong. And a great deal of historical change being ignored by Grant Seekers with the CO2 boogyman. For my money, it’s the moon that matters most, not a few parts per million of CO2 in a water laden sky. Certainly the moon matters more on a water world with oceans and giant tides.


Longish, good read.


----------



## FeXL

I'm willing to bet that at least some of you know who Patrick Moore is & what organization he co-founded. You may also know that he has distanced himself from the organization, noting that is has since "lost its way". If so, congratulations, you know more than Michael Mann...

Friday Funny – Mann Overboard!



> Dr. Mann doesn’t seem to know who he’s labeling as a “garden variety troll”.
> 
> This is probably just a conditioned reflex on his part, since anyone who disagrees with the omniscient Mann is eventually labeled a troll, but in this case, Dr. Mann’s annoyance gives the extra distinction of “garden variety troll”.


This tweet sums it up:



> @wattsupwiththat Mann seems to split his time thusly...
> 
> 1) Complain about abuse, etc, in the media/journals.
> 2) Abuse, name call on twitter


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

So, apparently the _Weather Channel_ has started naming winter storms (WTF?). The most recent? Winter Storm "Anus"... 

Friday Funny, bonus Weather Channel edition


----------



## FeXL

The Met Office has now released their 2013 data. Seeing as there's been no fireworks & fanfare in the MSM, you can guess what didn't happen...

UK Met Office: Global Temperature Standstill Continues



> It will come as no surprise after the 2013 temperatures released by NASA and NOAA that it shows the global temperature standstill – now at 17 years – continues.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The temperature anomaly (above 14.0 deg C) for 2013 is 0.486 making 2013 the 8th warmest year.*


M'bold.

Yo, MacDoc! About that pause...


----------



## FeXL

Most interesting...

Some of you will recall a post I made last year about The 2013 Bloggies. It's an award program for blogs. Last year the Science & Technology category was...well, I'll let Jo finish:

Bloggies 2014 nominations — science category gone due to political correctness, pick a different category



> Last year the Best Science or Technology Weblog category was dominated entirely by climate science blogs, and 4 of the 5 were skeptics. Not surprisingly Watts Up won for the third time (congrats to Anthony). Tellingly, Skeptical Science withdrew even though the skeptics vote would have been split. (I guess they know their traffic stats.)
> 
> *This year, the bloggies has quietly announced “Best Science or Technology Weblog has been discontinued”.* Ho hum? Have the organizers succumbed to political correctness for fear of letting skeptics win the award again? Seems so.


M'Bold.

Things that make you go, hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Further on The Chiefio's post about the moon & tides. This one talks about our "binary planet" Luna & her effect on weather/climate.

A Remarkable Lunar Paper and Numbers on Major Standstill

He sums:



> So look to the Moon. Look at 9, 19, 56, and longer cycles. That is what will grant true insight, and true predictive ability. And at all times remember that the ‘highest and best use’ of computer models is to illustrate where our understanding is wrong. Real Data, even 1600 year old musty real data, is far more valuable than any number of “simulations”. It does not take magic “teleconnections” to explain things. All it takes is to recognize that things are a bit different in a Binary Planetary System and that our partners in space matter.


Another thought-provoking, excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Title sums it:

January 1896 was 21 Degrees Hotter In NSW Than This Year’s Record Heatwave



> BOM says that this summer is the hottest ever, because it was only 21 degrees cooler than 1896. From January 1-24 1896, maximum temperatures near Bourke averaged 120 degrees, compared to 99 degrees in 2014.


----------



## FeXL

So, MacDoc, reposting here just in case you missed it over on the Science Thread.



FeXL said:


> First off, Suzuki calling for an evacuation of the west coast wasn't based on anything scientific. It was head up his ass hyperbole, something you should be intimately familiar with. Period.
> 
> Second, do you really want to discuss this? Or are you merely getting your empty pot shots in from the side? If you are really interested in discussing this, then let's find some common ground, a good starting point, by defining a few terms.
> 
> 1. In a short paragraph, couple of sentences or so, give me a definition of the scientific method.
> 
> 2. Also in a short paragraph, list for me the hypothesis of Global Warming.
> 
> That's a starting point.
> 
> Finally, in a short paragraph (point form is fine), list for me all the empirical evidence that falls within the terms you laid out in 1) that defends the hypothesis you defined in 2).
> 
> If you are truly interested in debate, you'll engage me and answer these questions.
> 
> Otherwise, you're just being your normal asshat self & F off...


Still waiting...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, MacDoc, reposting here just in case you missed it over on the Science Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting...


He's looking over some insurance reports from 2010, so he can not reply to your _ilk._


----------



## kps

Best weather report ever:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

Hilariously, that two-year-old gag involves Arctic sea ice figures that are ancient news. I wish she had been allowed to deliver today's weather--January 2014.


----------



## FeXL

kps said:


> Best weather report ever:


Darn. And I was hoping for Naked News...


----------



## FeXL

Good question...

When Did Global Warming Begin?

The thrust of the article is, as anthropogenic CO2 emissions did not become a potential problem until 1950, whatever happened prior to that was natural cycles.

And, as there was no global warming from 1950 until 1975, AGW didn't occur then, either.

And, as Phil Jones has noted, there is no statistical difference in the rates of warming from 1860-1800, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998, then there was no AGW then. 

And, as we've flat-lined since 1998, well...


----------



## FeXL

While only tangentially related to global warming, it's a perfect example of bad statistical methodology resulting in a conclusion fraught with error.

Sunny Spots Along the Parana River

He sums:



> My second conclusion is, NEVER RUN STATISTICAL ANALYSES ON SMOOTHED DATA. I don’t care if you use gaussian smoothing or Fourier smoothing or boxcar smoothing or loess smoothing, if you want to do statistical analyses, you need to compare the datasets themselves, full stop. Statistically analyzing a smoothed dataset is a mug’s game. The problem is that as in this case, the smoothing can actually introduce totally false, spurious correlations.


----------



## FeXL

A good FYI post on the presentation of global temperatures. Why anomalies vs absolute temps?

Why Aren’t Global Surface Temperature Data Produced in Absolute Form?



> The title question often appears during discussions of global surface temperatures. That is, GISS, Hadley Centre and NCDC only present their global land+ocean surface temperatures products as anomalies. The questions is: why don’t they produce the global surface temperature products in absolute form?


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds Australia's decade-long 'Millennium drought' was mostly due to natural variability 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds "climate models generally suggest that Australia’s Millennium drought was mostly due to [natural] multi-decadal variability."
> 
> The authors suggest AGW may have played a minor role in the decade-long drought based on climate model simulations, while admitting that "[the models] severely underestimate the observed poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone and associated impacts," which would be essential in order to determine anthropogenic impacts.
> 
> Furthermore, the authors find the primary reason for the Millennium drought was an upward trend in the Southern Annular Mode [SAM], which prior papers have linked to solar activity.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Australian decade-long “Millennium drought” broke in the summer of 2010/11, and was considered the most severe drought in many measures since instrumental records began in the 1900s. A crucial question is whether climate change played a role in inducing the rainfall deficit. The climate modes in question include the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) affecting southern Australia in winter and spring; the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) with an opposing influence on southern Australia in winter to that in spring; and El Niño-Southern Oscillation affecting northern and eastern Australia in most seasons, and southeastern Australia in spring through its coherence with the IOD. Furthermore, the poleward edge of the Southern Hemisphere Hadley cell, which indicates the position of the subtropical dry-zone, has possible implications for recent rainfall changes in autumn. Using observations and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, it is shown that the drought over southwest Western Australia is partly attributable to a long-term upward SAM trend, which contributed to half of the winter rainfall reduction in this region. For southeast Australia, models simulate weak trends in the pertinent climate modes. In particular, they severely underestimate the observed poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone and associated impacts. Thus, although climate models generally suggest that Australia’s Millennium drought was mostly due to multi-decadal variability, some late-twentieth-century changes in climate modes that influence regional rainfall are partially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse warming.


----------



## FeXL

Settled Science: New paper finds effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain" 



> A new paper published in Science finds "the radiative forcing (that is, the perturbation to Earth's energy budget) caused by human activities is highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming."
> 
> One of several reasons for this high uncertainty is the complexity of determining the cooling effects of aerosols, which reflect sunlight back to space, and can also seed cloud formation. According to the authors, "Aerosols counteract part of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, mostly by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space. However, the ways in which aerosols affect climate through their interaction with clouds are complex and incompletely captured by climate models." "Recent advances have led to a more detailed understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions and their effects on climate, but further progress is hampered by limited observational capabilities and coarse-resolution climate models."


Abstract



> Aerosols counteract part of the warming effects of greenhouse gases, mostly by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space. However, the ways in which aerosols affect climate through their interaction with clouds are complex and incompletely captured by climate models. As a result, the radiative forcing (that is, the perturbation to Earth's energy budget) caused by human activities is highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the extent of global warming (1, 2). Recent advances have led to a more detailed understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions and their effects on climate, but further progress is hampered by limited observational capabilities and coarse-resolution climate models.


----------



## FeXL

Roy expands on Steven Goddard's observation of "just hit the NOAA motherlode", a post I linked to several days back.

U.S. temperatures, 1973-2013: A alternative view



> Steve’s post reminded me that it’s been over a year since I’ve updated the U.S.-average Integrated Surface Hourly (ISH) temperature data, using my Population Density Adjusted Temperature (PDAT) algorithm that corrects for changing urban heat island (UHI) effects. *This is still an unpublished method, and so should be considered more of a sanity check on the official NOAA USHCN product. But it does support Steve’s contention that there’s something funny going on in the USHCN data.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting. I'd love to read something peer-reviewed on this...

IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2″



> Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface.


Excellent, short read.


----------



## FeXL

Good essay on XX) and uncertainty.

Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties



> Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?


----------



## FeXL

_Science_ putting their foot down.

Science magazine: Demanding reproducibility up front



> Science magazine has instituted *a new policy requiring authors of preclinical studies to state their statistical plans* (sample size estimation, treatment of outliers, etc.). See editorial by the new Editor in chief, Marcia McNutt (p. 229, volume 343, 17 Jan 2014).


M'bold.

Unfortunately, at this point it seems to address only medical papers. Hopefully, this will generate favorable results & the policy will be required across the board.


----------



## FeXL

So, with all the screeching from both MSM & the usual suspects about "hottest summer evah", etc., you'd expect a rash of global temperature records broken in recent years. And, as global warming also creates cooling <snort>, you'd expect cold records broken, as well, no?


Extreme Climate Change From CO2? No New Continent 'Hottest' Temperature Records Since 1978



> It didn't happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.


Not. So. Much.


----------



## MacDoc

*for fossil fuel shills....chew on this*



> Global temperature 2013
> Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — stefan @ 27 January 2014
> The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).
> 
> The end of January, when the temperature measurements of the previous year are in, is always the time to take a look at the global temperature trend. (And, as the Guardian noted aptly, also the time where the “climate science denialists feverishly yell [...] that global warming stopped in 1998.”) Here is the ranking of the warmest years in the four available data sets of the global near-surface temperatures (1)
> 
> :


RealClimate: Global temperature 2013










but you could still beleive in the tooth fairy....akin to thinking it's not getting warmer or we're not responsible.

Both views would be factually incorrect.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes, that last bastion of climate truth, Real Climate. Seriously?

Asked & answered, previously, numerous times.

Your boys are comparing temperature records that have hundredths of a degree difference when the margin of error is an order of magnitude greater than that. Pure, unmitigated BS.

As far as Cowtan & Way are concerned, you would do well to read this little snippet from Cowtan himself:



> *No difficult scientific problem is ever solved in a single paper.* I don’t expect our paper to be the last word on this, but I hope we have advanced the discussion.


M'bold.

In addition, search this thread for posts by me containing "Cowtan". There's about 8. Read them & get back to me on their methodology. Different method of infilling, still infilling. Only a warmist or a computer salesman would figger that you could take two data points 1200km apart & predict what happened in between them. "Better way" my hairy, unwashed backside...

Flatline city, MacDoc. No statistically significant global warming for 17+ years. Antarctic sea ice 2 sigma above normal. Arctic ice 60% higher than last year. No linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration & global temps. Read the empirical evidence & weep.

As to your comment about fossil fuels, how much do you use in a year, hypocrite? When you've dropped off the grid, sold your vehicles & are pushing your scooter around, living off the land with hand made tools, shelter & clothing & start paddling back & forth to Australia, you come post here about all the schills. Short of that, all I hear is screeching...


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well. When you've lost TIPCC™...

Early 20th century Arctic warming



> _“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.”_ - IPCC AR5 Chapter 10


Judith comments on a graph at the link:



> The graph shows a gradually rising surface temperature trend over the 105 years of the temperature record but *the dominant feature is the nearly 2C (trough to ridge) warming from about 1920 to 1940, followed by a decline bottoming out in the mid-1960s.* At that stage the temperature trends upward to almost the same level as the previous peak.


Take a look at that graph, MacDoc. Just eyeball the two data peaks. Tell me again how, if there is, in fact, a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & global temperatures, we can have a rate of warming from 1920-1940 (when there is no discernable anthropogenic CO2 signal, ie., natural cycles) that is greater than that of 1965-2000 (when there is a detectable anthropogenic CO2 signal)?

And, again, assuming such a linear relationship exists, why did global temps drop from the 50's to the 70's, all the while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were rising?

Ya see, MacDoc, until you & your warmists answer a few of these tiny, niggly, annoying questions based on empirical data with responses rooted in empirical data, the whole hypothesis will continue to circle the toilet bowl.


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

BBC Meteorologist: Met Office Global Forecasts Too Warm In 13 Of Last 14 Years

There's one quote here that just slays me:



> The Met Office believe one of the reasons for this ‘warm bias’ in their annual global projections is the lack of observational data in the Arctic circle, which has been the fastest warming area on earth.


OK, I'll bite & ask the obvious question... If there is no observational data in the Arctic Circle, then HTF do they know it's the fastest warming area on earth?

From the comments (among many others):



> This is a true classic is it not? “We know the arctic is the fastest warming place on earth because we can’t measure it.”
> Even Monty Python would be proud of that one.


----------



## FeXL

So, lemmee get this straight... A billion dollars a day frittered away on a non-existant problem and nobody can find a few million bucks to fix the El Nino monitoring system?

El Niño sea monitoring system may fail – half dead already



> From the _“send money or the instrumentation gets it”_ department comes news that the TAO array may already be toast due to budget constraints. One wonders if money sucked into climate programs might be a factor.


The comments are splendid:



> It’s a win/win for NOAA. No more money wasted doing actual science and gathering data when the data itself undermines the message.





> Classic climate research.
> 
> Fund the trendy stuff, as wanted by the politicians and green activists.
> 
> Starve the essential research, as needed by our civilisation.
> 
> As the “science is settled”, there is no longer any need to do the important stuff on climate research. Such is ecoloon logic.





> How do you tell if a buoy is failing? When the output isn’t as high as the model predicts.





> So this is how they get around failing to measure the ocean heating that they are sure must be happening.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

So, I guess some politician did a SOTU last evening. As was predicted the watching-the-paint-dry experience was littered with hyperbole & BS, including the usual nod to global warming.

Excerpts on climate from the SOTU – comments welcome

He notes:



> ...But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”


From the comments:



> ” Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye…”
> 
> …they’ll wonder why a guy with a carbon footprint estimated at 41,000 tons, who sends his family and dogs off on separate flights for vacations in far off ritzy spots, who takes crosscountry flights to give 30 minute speeches, who keeps the White House at a toasty 77F, and who goes to the golf course every couple of weeks in a 17 vehicle motorcade has the cajones to lecture anyone.


Yup...

Yet another hypocrite on the long list of "Do as I say, not as I do..."

Over to you, MacDoc...


----------



## FeXL

Willis takes a look at UAH satellite data trends.

Should We Be Worried?



> I chanced to plot up the lower tropospheric temperatures by broad latitude zones today. This is based on the data from the satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU), as analyzed by the good folks at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Here are the results, divided into tropical, extratropical, and polar. I’ve divided them at the Arctic and Antarctic Circles at 67° North and South, and at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer at 23° N & S.


Good read, excellent visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm, information about temperature "adjustments" starting to become public?

Shock News : “U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming”



> Multiple U.S. government bureaucracies including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are again being accused of inappropriately manipulating temperature data — or “adjusting” it, as officials at the agencies implicated in the scandal put it — to show global warming. While the accusations are not new, the latest scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at Real Science, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.


Quote from the link inside.

Good read, especially the whitewashed responses from NOAA. Paraphrasing, "It doesn't matter if the data has been adjusted, the US is only 1.5% of the world's surface anyway."


----------



## FeXL

And, further on "adjustments".

Spectacular January Data Tampering By Our Friends At NCDC



> NCDC turns a strong January cooling trend (orange) into a strong January warming trend (blue) by simply altering the data.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The tampering trend since 1930 is an impressive 2.9 degrees per century.* Enron accountants would blush at such blatant fraud.


M'bold.

Interesting, as there has been only about .7° of global warming since the 19th century in the first place...


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting graph inside, covering the climate of the last 18,000 years.

Quote of the week – a preposterous POTUS pronouncement



> _But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.​_
> To that, I say this:
> 
> There’s never been any assertion that climate _didn’t_ change, the idea that somehow this is something new to the 21st century is absurd.


----------



## FeXL

So, some fruit loops & whackos showed up prior to the SOTU to protest Keystone XL. Note the irony of these parka clad idiots protesting global warming...

Picture of the week – great moments in climate protests



> From the Keystone XL protest yesterday ahead of the SOTU address. Note the snow and cold weather gear which is required for a global warming protest, but that’s not all…
> 
> ...
> 
> According to Matt Dempsey who took the photo, “about 50 activists showed up”, I’m not sure if their brains came with them to the protest though.


Fifty. What a show of strength. I guess everyone else was at home, huddled around their mugs of hot chocolate...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out, discussing the homogenization of surface temperature records & subsequent results.

Important study on temperature adjustments: ‘homogenization…can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.’



> From the _“we told you so”_ department comes this paper out of China that quantifies many of the very problems with the US and global surface temperature record we have been discussing for years: *the adjustments add more warming than the global warming signal itself*
> 
> A paper just published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.
> 
> The effect of homogenization is clear and quite pronounced. What they found in China is based on how NOAA treats homogenization of the surface temperature record.


All emphasis from the link.

Abstract (open source)



> Daily minimum temperature (Tmin) and maximum temperature (Tmax) data of Huairou station in Beijing from 1960 to 2008 are examined and adjusted for inhomogeneities by applying the data of two nearby reference stations. Urban effects on the linear trends of the original and adjusted temperature series are estimated and compared. Results show that relocations of station cause obvious discontinuities in the data series, and one of the discontinuities for Tmin are highly significant when the station was moved from downtown to suburb in 1996. The daily Tmin and Tmax data are adjusted for the inhomogeneities. The mean annual Tmin and Tmax at Huairou station drop by 1.377°C and 0.271°C respectively after homogenization. The adjustments for Tmin are larger than those for Tmax, especially in winter, and the seasonal differences of the adjustments are generally more obvious for Tmin than for Tmax. Urban effects on annual mean Tmin and Tmax trends are −0.004°C/10 year and −0.035°C/10 year respectively for the original data, but they increase to 0.388°C/10 year and 0.096°C/10 year respectively for the adjusted data. The increase is more significant for the annual mean Tmin series. Urban contributions to the overall trends of annual mean Tmin and Tmax reach 100% and 28.8% respectively for the adjusted data. Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out: No evidence of AGW effect in the global water cycle.

New paper finds no evidence of a change in the water cycle from AGW



> A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds that there is no evidence of a strengthening of the water cycle [increased evaporation] as predicted by climate models of anthropogenic global warming, instead finding "recent multi-year declines in global average continental evaporation" are related to transitions of the natural El Niño–La Niña cycle [ENSO].


Abstact (paper paywalled)



> The hydrological cycle is expected to intensify in response to global warming1, 2, 3. Yet, little unequivocal evidence of such an acceleration has been found on a global scale4, 5, 6. This holds in particular for terrestrial evaporation, the crucial return flow of water from land to atmosphere7. Here we use satellite observations to reveal that continental evaporation has increased in northern latitudes, at rates consistent with expectations derived from temperature trends. However, at the global scale, the dynamics of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) have dominated the multi-decadal variability. During El Niño, limitations in terrestrial moisture supply result in vegetation water stress and reduced evaporation in eastern and central Australia, southern Africa and eastern South America. The opposite situation occurs during La Niña. Our results suggest that recent multi-year declines in global average continental evaporation8, 9 reflect transitions to El Niño conditions, and are not the consequence of a persistent reorganization of the terrestrial water cycle. Future changes in continental evaporation will be determined by the response of ENSO to changes in global radiative forcing, which still remains highly uncertain10, 11.


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper out. Finally! Truth in the unprecedented department.

New paper finds Australian tropical cyclones are currently at 'unprecedented' lowest levels in 550-1,500 years



> A paper published today in Nature finds "Australian tropical cyclone activity [is currently] lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years" and "we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The assessment of changes in tropical cyclone activity within the context of anthropogenically influenced climate change has been limited by the short temporal resolution of the instrumental tropical cyclone record (less than 50 years). Furthermore, controversy exists regarding the robustness of the observational record, especially before 1990. Here we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that *the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years*. The CAI allows for a direct comparison between the modern instrumental record and long-term palaeotempest (prehistoric tropical cyclone) records derived from the 18O/16O ratio of seasonally accreting carbonate layers of actively growing stalagmites. Our results reveal a repeated multicentennial cycle of tropical cyclone activity, the most recent of which commenced around ad 1700. The present cycle includes a sharp decrease in activity after 1960 in Western Australia. This is in contrast to the increasing frequency and destructiveness of Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones since 1970 in the Atlantic Ocean and the western North Pacific Ocean. *Other studies project a decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones towards the end of the twenty-first century in the southwest Pacific, southern Indian and Australian regions. Our results, although based on a limited record, suggest that this may be occurring much earlier than expected.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL, didn't you know that the insurance companies are raising their rates? This proves catastrophic global warming is real.

Honestly, people of your ilk...


----------



## FeXL

On one of the usual suspect's tactics to use localized weather as examples of global climate change...

Icy times

Interestingly, this _Nature_ article takes some people to task for using examples like Turney's frozen Antarctic junket as proof of the cessation of global warming. While I agree with this assessment, on the other hand, absolutely no mention is made of the almost daily exploitation of localized weather events, both by MSM & by many warmists, as proof of the existence of AGW.

Just a _bit_ one-sided &, unfortunately, no big surprise coming from _Nature_...

Oh, BTW, they do talk about global ice extent peaking...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> FeXL, didn't you know that the insurance companies are raising their rates? This proves catastrophic global warming is real.
> 
> Honestly, people of your ilk...


I know. Sad, isn't it...

BAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

So, Tisdale has penned an invitation to Trenberth.


Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR

He closes:



> Thank you for considering the possibility of preparing a blog post or series of them for us here at WattsUpWithThat. Many of us applaud you in your efforts to explain the slowdown and cessation of surface warming, but there are many points that need clarification.
> 
> Additionally, we really appreciate it when authors of blog posts answer questions posed to them on the thread, so you should expect further exchanges.
> 
> Last, if this invitation interests you, please feel free to leave a comment at WattsUpWithThat. If you’d like the initial discussions to be off the record, please leave a comment at my blog Climate Observations where I still moderate comments. We can then discuss the matter further via email.


We'll see what response, if any, is received.


----------



## FeXL

XX) XX) XX)

Three short, sweet & to the point, NIPCC articles.

Modeling Volcanic Aeorsol Impacts on Atmospheric Water Vapor

Two Decades of Overestimated Global Warming

Modeling Southern Hemisphere Mid-latitude Precipitation Trends

Nope, nope and, ahhh, nope.


----------



## FeXL

Clarity from paleoclimate...

California Drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say



> Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. *The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another solar amplification mechanism that controls climate 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds a "robust response" of the East Asian monsoon to short-term changes in solar activity over 11-year solar cycles. Using observations from the last 5 solar cycles, the authors find tiny 0.1% changes in solar irradiance are amplified to induce a shift in location and increased variability of the East Asian monsoon rain band. The East Asian monsoon in turn has profound effects on Asian climate and interacts with other global atmospheric oscillations.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *This study provides evidence of robust response of the East Asian monsoon rainband to 11-year solar cycle* and first identify the exact time period within the summer half-year (1958–2012) with the strongest correlation between the mean latitude of the rainband (MLRB) over China and the sunspot number (SSN). This period just corresponds to the climatological mean East Asian Meiyu season, characterized by a large-scale quasi-zonal monsoon rainband (i.e., 22 May to 13 July). *Both the statistically significant correlation and the temporal coincidence indicate a robust response of the Meiyu rainband to solar variability during the last five solar cycles. During the high-SSN years, the Meiyu MLRB lies 1.2° farther north and the amplitude of its interannual variations increases when compared with low-SSN years. The robust response of monsoon rainband to solar forcing is related to an anomalous general atmospheric pattern with an up-down seesaw and a north-south seesaw over East Asia.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Really good read. Technical but understandable. Good visual aids.

Also clarifies the difference between the Polar Vortex & the Jet Stream.

A Displaced Polar Vortex and Its Causes


----------



## FeXL

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey...

Michael Mann the ‘reluctant public figure’ and ‘typewriter expert’



> After Mann’s libel case against the National Review Online and Mark Steyn was filed, he’s recently been whining that he’s a “reluctant public figure“, perhaps to somehow shift the lawsuit in his favor.
> 
> Now, thanks to an opinion piece by Mann in the Guardian, he’s pretty much blown his own argument out of the water while managing to make a ridiculous and easily falsifiable claim about typewriter technology in an analogy on “path dependency”.


----------



## FeXL

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 26% above normal



> Antarctic Sea Ice Extent as of Jan 30 2014 was 950,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean and 220,000 sq km above 2008.
> 
> 950,000 sq km above normal is 26% above normal. Day 30 was the 13th daily record of the year.


----------



## FeXL

Further on a habitable California.

Shock News : Scientists Say California Was Not Habitable Prior To The Hockey Stick



> _BEGINNING_ *about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years.* Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively *wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

In 1907 they knew meteorological data tampering was immoral...

1907 Monthly Weather Review Said That Bloggers Need To Call Out NOAA/NASA Data Tampering


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Great Lakes Ice Coverage At All Time Record High For The Date



> Current coverage is more than 2X normal.


I know, I know... Global Weirding caused the Polar Vortex to lock in it's current position & now the Lakes have abnormally high areal ice coverage.


----------



## MacDoc

*hehe I wonder why Exxon would be touting reduced emissions*

If AGW was not real......they must be in on the plot eh 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGfyB94VY8


----------



## Macfury

For the last time you dupe, they're only in on your wallet. You want to pay more for reduced emissions--you got it! If you want to pay more for purple gas, they will dye it purple.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> If AGW was not real......they must be in on the plot eh


I see an ad paid for by a business with the intent to sell a particular product. Much the same as I see you still flogging your 4 month old Halloween special.

WTF do you see?

BTW, if AGW was real, you could furnish empirical evidence of its existence. As you have failed to do so...well, QED.


----------



## FeXL

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Good read, especially _State of the Union_ and _Not All Watts Are Created Equal_ and the first link under News You Can Use, _Cherry picking and the tale of the Siberian larch trees._


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I see an ad paid for by a business with the intent to sell a particular product. Much the same as I see you still flogging your 4 month old Halloween special.
> 
> WTF do you see?
> 
> BTW, if AGW was real, you could furnish empirical evidence of its existence. As you have failed to do so...well, QED.


_Proof of anthropogenic global warming via Internet advertising proxies_, by MacDoc, 2014. Peer-reviewed and published in DeSmogBlog.


----------



## FeXL

Claim: Zero global warming is causing pre-traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse, suicide, violence, undoing evolution... 



> Among the list of horrors cited are "post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, relationship issues, *academic issues among kids*, substance abuse, suicide, widespread outbreaks of violence, "undoing millions of years of evolution" [devolution?], a collective sense of sadness-anger-defeat, harm to interpersonal relationships, people less able to work constructively or do well in school, and ultimately injure the day-to-day functioning of our society and our economy."
> 
> ...
> 
> Perhaps the biggest victims of the global warming scam are the children: "*Some children are already anxious about global warming and begin to obsess,* understandably, about the future, unmoved by the small reassurances adults may attempt to put forth,"


M'bold.

Well, I guess that's what explains my children having marks in the mid to high 90's and sleeping like they were in momma's arms...

From the comments:



> So they found psychological problems caused by climate alarmism and blamed them on climate change. Of course.


Ed Zachery...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> _Proof of anthropogenic global warming via Internet advertising proxies_, by MacDoc, 2014. Peer-reviewed and published in DeSmogBlog.


Kewl!

Open source or paywalled?


----------



## Macfury

Paywalled, but there's a Halloween special on now!


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2



> The paper itself says, "In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future sea surface temperatures are of *similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2*, ozone, and methane," which would indicate that this negative-feedback cooling effect is almost equivalent to the warming effect of man-made CO2, ozone, and methane and could almost fully offset global warming.


Bold from the link.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Satellite observations and chemistry-climate model experiments are used to understand the zonal structure of tropical lower stratospheric temperature, water vapor, and ozone trends. The warming in the tropical upper troposphere over the past 30 years is strongest near the Indo-Pacific warm pool, while the warming trend in the western and central Pacific is much weaker. In the lower stratosphere, these trends are reversed: the historical cooling trend is strongest over the Indo-Pacific warm pool and is weakest in the western and central Pacific. These zonal variations are stronger than the zonal-mean response in boreal winter. Targeted experiments with a chemistry-climate model are used to demonstrate that sea surface temperature (hereafter SST) trends are driving the zonal asymmetry in upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric tropical temperature trends. Warming SSTs in the Indian Ocean and in the warm pool region have led to enhanced moist heating in the upper troposphere, and in turn to a Gill-like response that extends into the lower stratosphere. The anomalous circulation has led to zonal structure in the ozone and water vapor trends near the tropopause, and *subsequently to less water vapor entering the stratosphere.* The radiative impact of these changes in trace gases is smaller than the direct impact of the moist heating. Projected future SSTs appear to drive a temperature and water vapor response whose zonal structure is similar to the historical response. *In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future SSTs are of similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2, ozone, and methane.*


Bold from the first link. 

Summary of the paper inside & at _Science Daily_.


----------



## FeXL

macfury said:


> paywalled, but there's a halloween special on now!


rotflmao...


----------



## FeXL

More on temperature data "adjustments".

NASA Has Erased Almost The Entire Global Cooling Scare


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, you got any of these in stock? Is that Halloween special still on?

Monday Mirthiness – Mann’s keyboard?



> There was a lot of interest in my post Michael Mann the ‘reluctant public figure’ and ‘typewriter expert’ where he made the easily debunked claim about the QWERTY keyboard being the very first. Since then, spies, lubricated by “big oil” have managed to get a photo purported to be of Dr. Mann’s keyboard, and one look will explain much. Apparently, this keyboard is standard issue to any alarmist.


I'd like to custom order mine with the addition of the following keys (from the comments): "Hockey Stick", "Shred Email", "We Must Act Now!", No "Down" key, ctrl/alt/delete=“hide the decline” plus two of my own, "97%" and "Consensus".

Can you PM me a price? Thx!


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

U.S. Dec/Jan Temperatures 3rd Coldest in 30 Years



> The winter months of December 2013 and January 2014 averaged over the contiguous 48 United States were the 3rd coldest Dec/Jan in the last 30 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> *An interesting feature is that 5 of the last 7 years have been below the 41-year average, which has happened only one other time in the 41-year period.*


M'bold.

Further:



> It will be interesting to see what NOAA/NCDC comes up with for the December-January ranking in their “state of the climate” report due in a few days. My guess is that it won’t be anywhere close, probably something like 9th coolest.
> 
> Place your bets.


Yup.


----------



## FeXL

Further on post #4493, above, from yesterday.

Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say Israeli, US scientists

More for the comments than anything else. One here, from Dr. Brown at Duke:



> Actually, I’m curious as to whether they think this is the mechanism responsible for the approximately 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapor observed over the last decade. I’m also curious as to whether they have cause, effect and so on mixed up a bit — it could easily be that both increased surface water vapor and decreased stratospheric water vapor arise from a THIRD (common) cause, and hence are correlated but not correlated as cause and effect. I don’t find the result implausible, but there is a lot going on at the top of the troposphere and as far as I recall the reduction of stratospheric water vapor is general and global, not localized, where of course they are talking about a highly localized increase in low level water vapor if they confine it to specific oceanic regions. It also leaves open why stratospheric water vapor has only varied significantly recently, when IIRC in the past there have been many times when oceanic surface waters in some part of the world spike hot. These things make me doubt the result, or at least consider it largely speculative at this point.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper: Arctic amplification of temperature not primarily due to albedo changes, climate models need to be reworked



> In a new study in Nature Geoscience the scientists Felix Pithan and Dr. Thorsten Mauritsen from the department “The Atmosphere in the Earth System” at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show that this effect is only secondary. Instead, the main cause of the high Arctic climate sensitivity is a weaker temperature feedback, due to 1) the low temperatures that prevail and 2) the increasing temperatures with height trapping warming to remain near the surface. For these reasons, the Arctic warms more in a global warming due to a forcing from e.g. CO2 than other regions.


There's a quote from an article I linked to some time back:



> NoTricksZone points out that the German Newspaper, Spiegel, writes:
> 
> _To balance out the radiation budget at an ambient temperature of 30°C, an increase of 0.16° is enough. However at minus 30°C, an increase of 0.31 °C would be needed, i.e. almost double, which gives Pithan und Mauritsen cause for thought. According to their calculations the lower start temperature in the Arctic is an important reason for the more rapid temperature increase in the Arctic compared to the tropics.”
> 
> They found that the surface albedo feedback is only the second main contributor to Arctic amplification, and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even oppose Arctic amplification.
> 
> This casts many of the assumptions made in earlier climate models deep into doubt. It’s back to the drawing board (again) for the modelers.​_


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm1 and glacial2 periods, as well as in historical observations3, 4 and climate model experiments5, 6. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor7, 8, 9, 10. However, Arctic amplification is also found in models without changes in snow and ice cover11, 12. Here we analyse climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive to quantify the contributions of the various feedbacks. We find that in the simulations, the largest contribution to Arctic amplification comes from a temperature feedbacks: as the surface warms, more energy is radiated back to space in low latitudes, compared with the Arctic. This effect can be attributed to both the different vertical structure of the warming in high and low latitudes, and a smaller increase in emitted blackbody radiation per unit warming at colder temperatures. We find that the surface albedo feedback is the second main contributor to Arctic amplification and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even opposeArctic amplification.


----------



## FeXL

XX) 

Yup. Another peer-reviewed paper, results based on modelled output, refuted with empirical evidence from CERES data.

Arctic Layer Cake



> There’s a recent paper paywalled here, called Arctic winter warming amplified by the thermal inversion and consequent low infrared cooling to space. Fortunately, the Supplementary Online Information is available here, and it contains much valuable information. The paper claims that during the arctic winter, the atmospheric radiation doesn’t go out to space … instead it is directed downwards, increasing the surface warming.


Willis sums:



> So … as usual, rather than mess with ugly observational data, it’s models all the way down. Actually it’s worse, it’s the output of one single solitary model all the way down. Or as a typical adulatory media report of the story says:
> 
> _Pithan and co-author Thorsten Mauritsen tested air layering and many other Arctic climate feedback effects using sophisticated climate computer models._​
> Hey, as long they used a sophisticated climate model, and it is reportedly “based on true physics” in the best Hollywood tradition, what’s not to like?


Good, non-technical read.


----------



## FeXL

A post from one of those nastiest of things, a <spit> weatherman.

The last refuge of anthropogenic global warming theory fails to stand up to scrutiny 



> AMS is meeting in Atlanta this week as the north gets buried in snow and cold continues. The academics though still are pushing their agenda making the meeting uncomfortable for those who don’t buy into the scam. Many skeptics have left the society. Many like me remain because we have earned a CCM, a Broadcast Seal or CBM, designation as a Fellow. We will prevail.
> 
> *For 19 going on 20 years, global warming has stopped. Cooling has replaced warming in winters during that same period for the CONUS*
> 
> ..
> 
> *This has been true even as CO2 has risen 9.7%.* In Europe and in places elsewhere including the US, the green agenda has led to harmful increases in the cost of energy or energy shortages, as winters have trended colder and snowier. *This has falsified the climate models and assessments which had accelerated warming and snowless winters.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Snow was supposed to become increasingly rare. Instead as this week will reinforce, it is increasing. *4 of the top 5 snowiest years for the northern hemisphere have been in the last 6 years. In just 4 years, we have had more east coast snowstorms this decade than any in history.*


Further:



> This weekend, I enjoyed meeting with a friend (PhD climatologist) from the Weather Company (TWC etal). Some outspoken TWC mets have convinced themselves that AGW is real because of the extremes (which in reality have not increased as discussed above) and the negative North Atlantic Oscillation in recent years they relate to the arctic warming and melting of arctic ice which has resulted in inconvenient colder winters in varying parts of the northern hemisphere.
> 
> My friend told them they need to look further back in time. He is absolutely right. *The arctic ice and warming relates to the AMO, and warming and melting happened before when the AMO was last in its warm mode from the 40s to 60s when winter turned colder and blockiness increased.*


Excellent, non-technical read, great visual aids.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes, good ol' SS...

Skeptical Science thinks 0.09°C ocean warming since 1957 can't fit on a graph 



> The Skeptical Science kidz are up to their usual paid-propaganda tactics with a new post claiming that a much bigger graph is needed to show the 0.09°C global ocean warming over the past 55 years [Levitus et al 2012]. Apparently, they think making a graph larger will create a bigger impact from the tiny hundredths-of-a-degree world ocean warming since 1957, rather than adjusting the axis scale.
> 
> *As usual, their post carefully avoids mentioning that the temperature change of the surface to 2000 meters depth of the global oceans was only 0.09°C over 55 years*, as was clearly stated in the Levitus et al 2012 paper from which their post and graph was derived, instead only displaying the data in scary and 'sciencey' sounding Joules and Hiroshima bombs [and previously, as kitten sneezes].
> 
> Furthermore, they claim ocean warming has not 'paused' and continues to accelerate, however, ocean heat content observations since the deployment of the ARGO float system in 2004, which provide much higher quality data show a slowing of ocean heat content change, even after the ARGO data was up-justed by Josh Willis from a cooling trend to a warming trend.


M'bold.

From the comments:



> SkS is an internet echo chamber in which the sound of Cook, NooseyTelly and Painting patting each other on the back is often mistaken for clapping.


----------



## FeXL

Before Little Mikey Corrupted The Science

Quote inside from the first TIPCC™ report.


----------



## FeXL

Kook and Nuttercelli Forgot To Read This Paper



> In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists said that CO2 effects are diminishing, and predicted an ice age.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Claim: Dramatic thinning of Arctic lake ice cuts winter ice season by 24 days



> Arctic lakes have been freezing up later in the year and thawing earlier, creating a winter ice season about 24 days shorter than it was in 1950, a University of Waterloo study has found. But, I don’t think they are paying attention to cycles like the PDO. And, in 1992, Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption had global effects on lowering temperature, making their start point a cherry pick.


So, a few things here. First, as noted, the cherry picked start date. Second, the location: Barrow, Alaska. On a spit of land jutting into the confluence of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. A global warmist's wet dream. The trend for Barrow is warming. However, it's one of the few areas in Alaska that shows a warming trend (PDO, anyone?. Another cherry pick. Three: no data prior to 1991. So, what do they use? Yep...



> The model simulations show that lakes in the region froze almost six days later and broke up about 18 days earlier in the winter of 2011 compared to the winter of 1950.


----------



## FeXL

An interview with Don Easterbrook on climate predictions.

Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling



> Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.


Further:



> “When we check [IPCC] projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. *They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century.* So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close.


M'bold.

More:



> Easterbrook said he made his earlier prediction by tracing back “a consistently recurring pattern” of alternating warm and cool ocean cycles called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that occurs naturally every 25 to 30 years.


Huh. Natcheral cycles. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Two from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Michigan And Wisconsin Having Their Coldest Winters On Record

And

Great Lakes Ice Cover At Record High, More Than 2X Normal



> Great Lakes ice coverage is a record high for the date at 75%, and is more than 2X normal.


----------



## FeXL

I hope this isn't what passes for dissertation material these days...

Climate craziness of the week: climate change> bigger waves> fish have to swim harder



> From the department of obvious science and anything to do with climate change must be bad comes this study from Australian National University


He sums:



> This is what passes for science now; it looks like a high school science fair project. Note the propeller. What I see is the velocity of water changing due to the propeller, an enclosed box, and no waves, i.e. an unnatural environment. As Willis is often fond of pointing out, an aquarium tank is not the ocean, and behavior of an animal in an artificially controlled setting is no guarantee it models reality, even in the slightest. This doesn’t even look like a good model, because the fish is movement constricted, and can’t change its depth.


I wasn't sure how deep the effect of a wave can be felt (termed wave base), so I dialed up wiki (yeah, I know...). Roughly:



> The wave base, which is the depth of influence of a water wave, is about half the wavelength.


Ton of inconsistencies here...


----------



## FeXL

Anthony highlites Easterbrook's interview above, posted yesterday.

Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’

Not much new in the body, lots more in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

So, Prince Chuckles was in the news a few days back, making disparaging comments about sceptics. It didn't amount to much (consider the source) & I never linked to any of it. However, Christopher Monckton has loaded his gauntlet with a rock & slapped back.

Monckton: Challenge to Prince Charles



> Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.


The respectful tone gets lost somewhere in the challenge:



> You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate.


Hilarious...


----------



## FeXL

Following on the heels of yesterday's post about the claim of thinning Arctic ice. Willis has a look.


Lakes For Sale, Partially Thawed, N=20



> It’s an interesting study. They noted that partially thawed lakes look very different on radar than when the same lakes are frozen solid. As a result, they’ve collected solid data that is not affected by urban warming. So … what’s not to like in the study? Let me start with what is to like in the study.
> 
> I do like the accuracy of the measurements. It’s an interesting metric, with very objective criteria. I like that they listed the data in their paper, and showed photos for each of the years. I like that they didn’t try to project the results out to 2080.
> 
> What I didn’t like is where their study went from there. After collecting all that great data, they immediately sent out for that perennial favorite, a global climate model … not my style at all.


He notes five conclusions. I think #3 is the most important and deals with the number of years they had hard data: 20



> The third conclusion is that I wouldn’t trust my emulation of lake thawing all that far … the problem is that with N=20, we have so little data that any conclusions and any emulations will be fraught with uncertainty. Heck, look at Figure 1 … up until a few years before the end of the data there was not even much trend. It’s just too short to conclude much of anything.


Good, non-technical read.


----------



## FeXL

So, University of East Anglia Climate Research Unti (CRU) have posted their global temperature data on <spit> Google Earth.

CRU produces something useful for a change



> Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia have made the world’s temperature records available via Google Earth.
> 
> The Climatic Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (CRUTEM4) land-surface air temperature dataset is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.
> 
> The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before.
> 
> Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.


Yeah, it's a good thing. However, I can't stand Google & avoid them like the plague. YMMV.

Lots of good discussion in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

As you may recall, Tisdale was at loggerheads with Easterbrook a couple weeks back about the data in one of his graphs. Further...

On Don Easterbrook’s Updated Projection



> Don Easterbrook has updated his projection graph. Unfortunately, he did not update the graph that I complained about a few weeks ago, shown on the left in Figure 1. In that graph his projections started around 2010. He appears to have updated the Easterbrook projections graph on the right, where the projections started in 2000.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

New paper explains how lunar tides can control climate 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds that the natural atmospheric oscillation the Southern Annual Mode [SAM] is forced by the 18.6 year lunar tidal cycle. The SAM in turn has profound effects on climate of the Southern Hemisphere, on Antarctic sea ice, precipitation in Africa, etc. and interacts with other global atmospheric and ocean oscillations.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Synoptic weather data and rainfall records are used to support previous suggestions that the decadal-scale cycle in certain climate records may be attributed to the modulation in tidal forcing related to the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle. The Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is shown to be sensitive to tidal forcing on a daily time scale.* It is subsequently shown that the late-summer SAM can be predicted by consideration of tidal potential. The seasonal response in the SAM is *also reflected in sea surface temperatures.* Observed behavior of the atmosphere suggests that changing tidal potential over the lower versus higher latitudinal regions plays a role. *The atmospheric response as reflected in the changing SAM affects the daily rainfall variation in certain subtropical parts of southern Africa where rainfall correlates positively with the SAM.* The daily rainfall response subsequently accumulates in a bi-decadal rainfall cycle, known over southern Africa as the Dyer-Tyson cycle.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Record snowfall (almost 7 ft) in northern Iran



> Heavy snowfall has reportedly paralyzed the northern Iranian provinces of Gilan and Mazandaran, knocking out gas, power and water supplies. The Chaloos representative in Parliament reported on February 3 that 145 townships in western Mazandaran are without water and power, and access to 10 cities has been cut off by snowfall in the region.


Huh. So it's not just the CONUS...


----------



## FeXL

Height of folly, down under...

$7b paid in carbon tax to reduce CO2 by 0.3% and cool us by zero degrees



> This news was so boringly predictable I almost didn’t post it, but numbers like this of actual outcomes of visionary Big-Government Experiments are hard to come by.
> 
> Seven billion dollars works out to $350 per person, and $1,350 per household of four, for one year. If Bill Shorten (leader of the opposition) had to knock on doors to collect this tax, there would be a riot in the street tomorrow.
> 
> *The Australian reports that the $1,350 from your house for the year to Sept 2013, produced an emissions fall from 543.9 million tons all the way down to 542.1 .*


M'bold.

There's the kind of results that make ya wanna reach even deeper into your wallet...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments". Goddard strikes gold again.

Hit The Motherlode – Part II



> In 1981, James Hansen of NASA published these graphs of surface temperatures. Note that northern latitudes and global both showed 1940 as warmest, with a sharp global cooling to the early 1970′s.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the current NASA graphs don’t look anything like that. Global surface temperatures no longer show any cooling from 1940 to 1970.
> 
> ...
> 
> Everyone agreed about the post-1940′s global cooling at the time, including Hansen. But Hansen and now Gavin have deleted it from the temperature record.


----------



## FeXL

1976 : Climatologists Predicted Global Cooling – Skeptics Said It Was Nonsense

In '76 I was far more interested in alcohol & members of the opposite sex than I was in climatology. However, after reading the linked article, I expect I would have been sceptical then, too.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Global Temperature Report: January 2014 Upper Michigan was ‘coldest’ spot on the globe in January



> *Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place on Earth in January was the upper peninsula of Michigan near Iron River, where temperatures were as much as 3.86 C (about 6.95 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than seasonal norms,* according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another newspaper goes wholesale stupid.

Newspaper closes mind: will no longer print skeptical AGW opinions



> The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago.


I do not think this means what they think it means... 



> Theories are debated. Facts are facts.


Fine. So, if the science is settled, what have they to fear from the fringe? 

Watch newspaper sales drop like a stone...


----------



## FeXL

Friday Funny – two guys with a ruler blow up the White House global warming video claims



> The funny part? Watch these two guys blow the glossy WH take on this visual out of the water with just a ruler and some common sense.


Grab a cold one, take 4 minutes out from your Fri evening & watch the vid inside. Well worth the time.


----------



## FeXL

Short interview with John Christy of UAH fame who, along with Roy Spencer, developed the first satellite temperature record of the earth.

Talking about Climate with John Christy

First question:



> TATW: What would be the single piece of information that you would convey to people who have strong opinions about climate and little knowledge?
> 
> CHRISTY: *A fundamental aspect of science is that when we scientifically understand a system, we are able to predict how the system evolves in time. The comparison of model output with observations indicates we have much less understanding than what is needed to predict it with any confidence.* I certainly don’t see the predictive skill necessary for policy determination.


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

The Law of Unintended Consequences?

Thanks to Green schemes Queensland dumps gas for coal



> Another unintended consequence of policies to control the climate. Who would have guessed? Laws aimed to disrupt the energy market, disrupted the energy market. Just like Germany, parts of Australia are now dumping expensive gas, resurrecting old coal burners, and voila: The Fairy Gods of Economics tinker — and get the opposite of what they intended.


----------



## FeXL

On those adjustments, again.

Three Generations Of Cooling The Past

All legitimate. No, really...


----------



## FeXL

Title pretty much speaks for itself. Pielke Sr:

The Overselling of Climate Modeling Predictability on Multi-Decadal time Scales in the 2013 IPCC WG1 Report – Annex 1 Is Not Scientifically Robust



> I have posted in the past how the development of multi-decadal regional climate projections (predictions) to give to policymakers and the impact communities is a huge waste of time and resources
> 
> ...
> 
> Today, I want to discuss this issue in relation to the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis


----------



## FeXL

Ya don't say...

Report from the Office of the Inspector General: Global Climate Change Program Data May Be Unreliable



> Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data *“cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”*


I know, I know... The same fruit loops & whackos who are denying the CBO's report on Obie Care will be crying foul here...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Over two-thirds of the contiguous USA covered with snow

The Great Lakes may hit record ice cover this year


Professor Trapped In Ice – Says Deniers Are Blocking Desperately Needed Climate Action

New York Times Says Snow Is A Thing Of The Past


----------



## FeXL

Steyn on the ‘anti-science’ labeling of Dr. Judith Curry by Dr. Michael Mann



> Which brings us to Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate currently suing NATIONAL REVIEW for mocking his global-warming “hockey stick.” Of the recent congressional hearings, Dr. Mann tweeted that it was “#Science” — i.e., the guy who agrees with him — vs. “#AntiScience” — i.e., Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. That’s to say, she is by profession a scientist, but because she has the impertinence to dissent from Dr. Mann’s view she is “#AntiScience.” *Mann is the climatological equivalent of those bozo imams on al-Arabiya raging about infidel whores: He can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.*


M'bold.

Let me see if I can get this correct...harumph, cough, gag, spit..."'Bout right..."

Bold sound like anyone you'd find in the mirror, MacDoc?


----------



## FeXL

Love to have this see the light of day...

GOP bill would force EPA to reveal science behind regulations



> A new bill introduced by Republican lawmakers would put an end to the Environmental Protection Agency issuing regulations without revealing all the scientific research used to justify the new rules.


Stunned silence... The EPA actually uses science in it's decisions?


----------



## eMacMan

With the winter in TO so harsh that even the true believers are beginning to realize that we are indeed into a Global cooling cycle, I see the kool aid drinker is off to Australia in a giant cloud of CO2, trying to maintain his Goreified wet dream.


----------



## FeXL

Good post on statistics, namely P values.

Statistical flaws in science: p-values and false positives



> As Winston Churchill once said about democracy, it’s the worst form of government, except for all the others. Science is like that. As commonly practiced today, science is a terrible way for gathering knowledge about nature, especially in messy realms like medicine. But it would be very unwise to vote science out of office, because all the other methods are so much worse.


----------



## FeXL

Get Headlines! How to find a heatwave in five easy steps



> Just how hard is it to get a record heatwave? It’s so easy that if it’s summer in Australia, it’s hard not to set a record. That’s because heatwaves come in so many flavors – there are seven capital cities which can all have 3 day, 4 day, 5 day or 6 day heatwaves. Then there are the heatwaves over 40C, or over 38 C, or over 35C… already that makes 84 flavours of wave. If a hot spell doesn’t break one type of wave, it could easily break another. Then there is the pre-heatwave, and there would be another 84 types of heatwaves that we haven’t had, but might get, you never know. You might think I’m kidding, but pre-heatwaves get headlines already


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Further on model predictions.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong



> I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.
> 
> These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: _the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably._
> 
> I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard still striking gold.

Motherlode Part III



> The latter part of Briffa’s trees was deleted, because it didn’t match GISS temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> As ugly as this was, it is worse than it seems. Briffa’s trees did match Hansen, 1981. The next graph overlays Briffa on Hansen, 1981 northern latitude temperatures. The match was almost perfect.
> 
> ...
> 
> In order to create the hockey stick cheat, they had to do the GISS data tampering cheat first. The entire basis of the hockey stick is junk science.
> 
> The destruction of this data was done in a calculated fashion, by the world’s top climate scientists.
> 
> ...
> 
> They did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940′s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible.


Good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

West Antarctica Lost 1,000 Feet Of Ice Before 1949



> Current climate experts simply forgot to mention that WAIS thinning has been going on for centuries, and has nothing to do with CO2.


----------



## FeXL

Those inconvenient 1930's temperatures...

Jordan, Montana Had A 170 Degree Spread In 1936



> Nine US HCN stations set both their all-time record minimums in February 1936, and their all-time record maximums in July, 1936. Two of those stations had a spread of 170 degrees that year.


----------



## FeXL

On the accuracy of weather forecasts employing the same models climate modellers use...

Another Failed Outlook: NOAA/NCEP Totally Botch 2013-2014 Winter Outlooks For USA and Europe – Exact Opposite Occurs!



> If you think it just couldn’t be possible for any weather outfit to perform as poorly as the UK’s Met Office in long-term outlooks (13 out of 14 wrong), think again. It appears the US national weather services are right on their heels when it comes to who can make the all-time least accurate outlooks.
> 
> And we’re supposed to believe these people when it comes to their climate forecasting?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Polar Vortex.

When Does A Displaced Polar Vortex Becomes A Split Vortex?



> As discussed last week, the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex appears to have been displaced in January and now it appears to be splitting into two discrete lobes, i.e. see the image above with two areas of blue / cold air descending within the funnels/lobes of the Polar Vortex at 10 hPa/mb – 31 km – 102K feet. What follows is succinct summary of Polar Vorticity, followed by various current observations.


Good FYI.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Detroit not only buried under debt, but record snow too!



> Paging David Viner: NWS reports snow so far in 2014 has far exceeded the worst winter in 1978. In Detroit, 6 of the last 14 years are in the top 20 snowiest winters on record.


----------



## FeXL

Little Monday morning snark for ya.

Obie's science advisor, John Holdren, has a new type of refrigerator out.

The John Holdren Climate Refrigerator



> John Holdren has patented a new refrigerator design, which works by pumping hot air into the fridge. This heat pushes the cold into the food, cooling it extremely rapidly.
> 
> Caution is needed, because too much heat will freeze your beer bottles and turn the contents into choom.


That's it, save the hilarious comments...


----------



## FeXL

More on "Hiding the Decline".

Different Ways Of Viewing How They Hide The Decline



> NASA has wiped out the inconvenient global cooling scare, since Hansen’s 1981 graph – which showed it.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting email from Climategate.

Phil Jones Fishing For Excuses To Kill Off Global Cooling

Much of the story in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Yep. Another gold plated example of climate science. The next excuse for "The Pause"? Trade Winds...

The reason for ‘the pause’ in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: ‘trade winds’

Here's a partial list todate:



> Too much aerosols from volcanoes, ENSO patterns, missing heat that went to the deep ocean, ocean cooling, low solar activity, inappropriately dealt with weather stations in the Arctic, and stadium waves, to name a few. *So much for consensus.*


M'bold.

Yep.

This was covered in a "surprisingly balanced article" on NBC.  I know, I know.

NBC News: Problems with climate models are 'bad news for the climate research community' 'could erode trust in climate science' 'downplay natural variability'

Jo Nova has a guest post by past Chief of Australia's National Climate Centre.

Do winds control the climate or does the ocean control the wind? Kininmonth on England 2014.

He points out:



> * “Natural variability” is hardly a credible, useful scientific explanation.
> * The IPCC said natural variability was small, so if it is larger now, then it was also larger during the rest of the 20th Century? This reduces the effect CO2 had earlier (and the effect it will have in future).


I like the third link the best.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. Questions, questions...

Global warming causes lessmore precipitation 



> A paper published today in Nature Geoscience claims global warming caused a decrease in mountain rain & snow in the Northwest US that was somehow missed by satellite observations.
> 
> *This seems odd given given that the winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent has increased since 1967, as well as the global warming meme that warming causes increased water vapor and extreme precipitation.*


M'bold.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Despite reports of no trends in snow- and rainfall, rivers in the northwest USA have run lower and lower in recent decades. A closer look at high- and low-altitude precipitation suggests that observational networks have missed a decline in mountain rain and snow that can explain the discrepancy.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "global warming creates more extreme weather" BS...

Storminess Of The Little Ice Age



> With the recent run of stormy weather in the UK, it is worth reflecting on just how stormy it was during the Little Ice Age, and even before.
> 
> Brian Fagan, in his book “The Little Ice Age”, states that,_”throughout Europe, the years 1560-1600 were cooler and stormier, with late wine harvests and considerably stronger winds than those of the 20th Century. Storm activity increased by 85% in the second half of the 16th Century and the incidence of severe storms rose by 400%.”._
> 
> HH Lamb comes to similar conclusions, _“there was a greater intensity, and a greater frequency, of intense storm development during the Little Ice Age”_, in his book “Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe”.


More:



> Lamb believes that _“it is likely that the increased intensity of storms in the Little Ice Age had to do with the source of potential energy in the, at that time, enhanced thermal gradient between the colder ocean surface in the seas about Iceland and the ocean south of 50-55N and the Bay of Biscay.”_
> 
> A paper in 2011, by Trouet, Scourse & Raible, comes to the same conclusion. They have evaluated a number of proxies, which provide evidence for enhanced storminess in NW Europe, during the LIA.


All italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the new "Trade Winds" paper author, Matthew England.

A review of Professor Matthew England’s ‘say anything’ past failed claims



> Readers of course recall the latest claim in a series of excuses about “the pause” in global warming with the new paper from Professor Mathew England of the University of New South Wales (home of the award winning Chris Turney “ship of fools”) that is getting media attention, where he concedes there has indeed been a pause, and offers “trade winds” as the explanation. But if there was a pause in “climate change” , why then back in 2011 did he blame it for flooding?


An 8 year old paper says exactly the opposite to what England claims.

Seven years ago, we were told the opposite of what the new Matthew England paper says: slower (not faster) trade winds caused ‘the pause’



> _*The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100,* according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature._​


Bold from the link.

So, which is it? Now, in fairness, this is how science works. Different hypotheses are supported or rejected according to empirical data.

Which hypothesis is correct? The 2006 version? The 2014 version? Or do both of them have holes in the argument you could drive a freight train through?

Does this remind you of prior warmist positions that argue for hot/cold & wet/dry, among others?

One more:

Global Wind excuse — monkey-modeling shows global warming theory is Still Not Wrong.



> The backdown continues. Faced with the ongoing failure of their models, the search rolls on for any factor that helps “explain” why the official climate scientists are still right even though they got it so wrong. The new England et al paper endorses skeptics in so many ways.
> 
> 1. The world might warm by only 2.1 degrees this century, not 4c. (Skeptics were right — the models exaggerate).
> 2. There _has been and is_ a pause in warming which the 95%-certain-models didn’t predict. (The science wasn’t settled.)
> 3. What the trade-winds giveth, they can also taketh away. If they “cause cooling” after 2000, then they probably “caused warming” before that. How much less important is CO2?
> 4. Ultimately, newer models are less wrong if they include changes in wind speed, but they don’t know what drives the wind. It’s curve fitting with one more variable.
> 
> *As usual, the models still can’t predict the climate, but they can be adjusted post hoc with new factors to trim their overestimates back to within the errors bars of some observations.*


M'bold.

Nova's is an excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Uh, oh. MacDoc's not gonna like this. Sceptics getting a seat at the debate table. 

Surprise! Prestigious Helmholtz Association Reopens Climate Science Debate: “Why Is Dispute Among Scientists So Fierce?”



> So even some prestigious German science research institutes are starting to second guess claims that climate science is settled and the debate is over. *Moreover, skeptic views (the very backbone of scientific progress) are being given a serious platform for open discussion once again.*


M'bold.

<sniff> The Germans get it...


----------



## FeXL

Comparing an earlier & later period of warming. What do we learn?

Climate Science Consensus: Last 60 Years of Global Warming Below Earlier Periods, Experts Say



> Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.


In a nutshell? First 60 yr warming period, 1894-1953. During that time, *18ppm* increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, along with a *0.48°C* increase in global surface temps. Second 60 yr period, 1954-2013. *82ppm* atmospheric CO2 concentration increase, global temps increased *0.29°C*.

Once again, the total disconnect between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temps is illustrated...


----------



## FeXL

Another "change the data" email from Climategate.

If The Data Doesn’t Match Their Theory, They Simply Change The Data

I know. It's all out of context...


----------



## FeXL

Anthony has reposted Roy Spencer's post from last week for greater circulation. I linked to it yesterday (#4533). Nothing new in the body, much in the comments.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

An excellent comment:



> The Scientific Method
> 
> 1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
> 
> 2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.
> 
> 3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.
> 
> 4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.
> 
> The Scientific Computer Modeling Method
> 
> 1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.
> 
> 2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.
> 
> 3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.
> 
> 4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.
> 
> 5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.
> 
> 6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.
> 
> 7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.
> 
> Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. Questions, questions...

Climate Craziness of the Week: Fish living near the equator will not thrive in the warmer oceans of the future



> Basic premise of this paper: 1. let’s take fish out of their natural ocean environment, 2. put ‘em in a tank where they are stressed, 3. crank up the temperature, 4. see if any fish die, 5. count dead fish, 6. assume natural adaptation is impossible 7. report news of future doom to the world via press release.


Pretty much sums it.

But, wait! Weasel words in the Abstract:



> Even relatively small temperature increases (2–3 °C) *could* result in population declines and potentially redistribution of equatorial species to higher latitudes *if* adaptation cannot keep pace.


M'bold.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Add 'em all up & what do you have? Yep. SFA...

Better yet, a comment elevated to finish the article provides a link to a study wherein damselfish adapted & thrived in water temps 3° above the norm. Say it ain't so...

And, to top it off, again from the comments:


> Hm, the thermal capacity of oceans is about 1118-times greater than that of the atmosphere. So if “oceans are projected to warm by two to three degrees Celsius by the end of this century”, what quantity of thermal energy is “projected” to be generated by global warming? Let’s try a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation: *about 1789-2683-times the thermal energy that increased atmospheric temperatures by 0.8 C during the 20th century.*
> That can’t be right, can it?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, so much for that whole "global warming causes more extreme weather" thing...

New paper finds North American droughts were far more severe & persistent during the Little Ice Age 

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> An analysis of North American drought variability over the past millennium shows that it is not unusual for widespread drought to persist for years, prompting fresh thinking about our ability to deal with such climate conditions.


Excerpt:



> "Cook et al. tap a continental array of 1,000-year drought records based on tree rings to show how the 2012 pan-continental drought pattern has occurred in 12% of years since the tenth century. More importantly, the authors’ study highlights how no major US region is immune to such drought, and that we understand quite a lot about how sea surface temperatures drive the differing patterns of drought. *Cook and colleagues’ most relevant lesson for the future, however, may be that the one- year pan-continental drought of 2012 was but a glimpse of drought compared with the multi-decadal pan-continental megadroughts that were most common during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on England & Trade Winds...

AGW believers refuse to admit the 'missing' heat was lost to space, claim it sank to bottom of ocean 



> You have to pinch yourself to see if you are awake when you read the lengths believers in man made global warming (AGW) go to avoid accepting evidence against their belief.
> 
> Matthew England is an academic and fervent believer in AGW. He has written a new paper which supposedly shows that increasing trade winds are responsible for the hiatus in temperature increase.
> 
> According to England increased Trade wind speeds are causing the “missing heat” to be carried down to the ocean bottom. Apparently when the Trade winds resume their normal speed the heat will spring out of the ocean and AGW will continue with a vengeance.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Further on England & Trade Winds...
> 
> AGW believers refuse to admit the 'missing' heat was lost to space, claim it sank to bottom of ocean


Hmmm suppose it did all go into the oceans. We are talking about raising the average ocean temp by less than a thousandth of a degree over period of 30-50 years. Hardly sufficient to cause catastrophic climate failure.


----------



## MacDoc

*Pay me now I guess....extreme weather comes home in a big way*

Yikes - now we have categories for ice storms....and this one is really bad...



> *Today’s the Day Atlanta Could Lose a Quarter of Its Trees*
> 
> By Eric Holthaus


Winter storm Pax: Deep South facing â€œcripplingâ€� Category 5 ice storm.

and Britain is just getting hammered...



> *Wind over 100mph in UK storm 'crisis'*
> 
> Winds gusting over 100mph are lashing parts of the UK in what the assistant chief of the defence staff describes an "almost unparalleled natural crisis"


BBC News - UK storms: 100mph winds hit in 'almost unparalleled natural crisis'



> *El Nino threat turns up heat on Australia's suffering farmers*
> Date
> February 12, 2014
> 
> Farmers and firefighters, already dogged by a hot, dry summer for much of Australia, may face worsening conditions later in the year as prospects grow for an El Nino weather pattern in the Pacific.
> 
> A series of heatwaves and a spreading drought is expected to cut the output of summer crops by 25 per cent for 2013-14 to the lowest level since 2009-10, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) said on Tuesday.
> 
> Victorian fire authorities, meanwhile, continued to battle at least two dozen uncontained fires on Tuesday, with 21 homes destroyed and some 330,000 hectares burnt out. The Rural Fire Service in NSW, which has sent 240 firefighters to Victoria for the rest of the month, is also working to suppress 37 fires across the state, four of them uncontained, a spokesman said.
> 
> Read more: El Nino threat turns up heat on Australia's suffering farmers


I guess when they said "more extreme weather" as a result of AGW....they meant it.

But of course there are still a few hold outs in denial.


----------



## MacDoc

> Further on England & Trade Winds...
> 
> AGW believers refuse to admit the 'missing' heat was lost to space, claim it sank to bottom of ocean
> 
> Quote:
> You have to pinch yourself to see if you are awake when you read the lengths believers in man made global warming (AGW) go to avoid accepting evidence against their belief.
> 
> Matthew England is an academic and fervent believer in AGW. He has written a new paper which supposedly shows that increasing trade winds are responsible for the hiatus in temperature increase.
> 
> According to England increased Trade wind speeds are causing the “missing heat” to be carried down to the ocean bottom. Apparently when the Trade winds resume their normal speed the heat will spring out of the ocean and AGW will continue with a vengeance.
> FeXL is offline Report Post


you are sooo out to lunch....it's the lengths you try and go to deny the obvious which is hilarious.

The ocean has picked up 97% of the warming...the atmosphere is transient in comparison....learn some bloody physics why don't you instead of parroting ignorance as you do.










There is no "pause" in the ocean heat ...in fact it accelerated as would be expected.










PDO and ENSO are "inside the box" local climate phenomena ...they are not drivers like AGW, S02, volcanoes and orbital/tilt positioning. When El Nino winds up again we'll see a atmosphere spike ala 1998 - your favourite cherry pick year. 

Your ignorance of atmospheric physics in this campaign of disinformation is appalling. 

Why don't you answer a simply question for your readers. 

*Does C02 trap IR?*

****ing disgusting your pretence of any science regarding this...striaght out of the denier campaign and Faux News.
You have NO credible position and haven't for a decade in denying AGW...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Why don't you answer a simply question for your readers.
> 
> *Does C02 trap IR?*
> 
> ****ing disgusting your pretence of any science regarding this...striaght out of the denier campaign and Faux News.


No CO2 does not trap IR--not to any degree required to create the science-fiction you preach.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> I guess when they said "more extreme weather" as a result of AGW....they meant it.


<snort> Yeah, you run with that, Davey boy.

While you're out there doing your rounds, you bring me the tiniest speck of empirical evidence that supports your contention of a connection between AGW & extreme weather.

Don't forget your other outstanding homework assignment, either...



> 1. In a short paragraph, couple of sentences or so, give me a definition of the scientific method.
> 
> 2. Also in a short paragraph, list for me the hypothesis of Global Warming.
> 
> That's a starting point.
> 
> Finally, in a short paragraph (point form is fine), list for me all the empirical evidence that falls within the terms you laid out in 1) that defends the hypothesis you defined in 2).


----------



## zen.state

The truth is that only god (whatever one you believe in) knows the true state of the world, and how long it has left. Anything we feable humans speculate on is mostly ignorance, no matter how "informed".


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Yikes - now we have categories for ice storms....


Don't be a fool. The Sperry-Piltz Ice Accumulation Index has been in use for almost a decade.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> <snort> Yeah, you run with that, Davey boy.


I love that chart that just puts a number on "missing heat" (all that the models cannot account for) and then simply says it's in the ocean. What more proof do you need than the change in labels?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> you are sooo out to lunch....it's the lengths you try and go to deny the obvious which is hilarious.


Whoa! There's a credible rebuttal...



MacDoc said:


> The ocean has picked up 97% of the warming...


I know. Serious! And, by some unknown sleight of hand, some miracle of Nature, has managed to plunk it down at the bottom of a couple of ocean basins (but not all) with nary a wiggle in a thermometer anywhere in the water column to detect said passage.

No, really...



MacDoc said:


> the atmosphere is transient in comparison....learn some bloody physics why don't you instead of parroting ignorance as you do.


Why don't you dig deep into that massive physics repository you own and answer the questions above? Smart guy like you, mere nanoseconds should be all that's required to shut up even the most vociferous of sceptics...



MacDoc said:


> There is no "pause" in the ocean heat ...in fact it accelerated as would be expected.


First off, are you actually tacitly acknowledging that there is a pause in global surface temperatures? Yea gods!!! How far little MacDoc has come...

Second, some ares of some oceans are showing warming. Others areas of some oceans are showing cooling. The ones that should be warming (at least, according to AGW), aren't. Please, feel free to access that massive personal physics repository and explain the connection between that data & AGW. In case your regularly accessed warmist camps don't have those incriminating figures available, it's all been covered on this thread.



MacDoc said:


> PDO and ENSO are "inside the box" local climate phenomena ...they are not drivers like AGW, S02, volcanoes and orbital/tilt positioning.


This is deep into your massive personal physics repository? Stunning… While we're on the subject of drivers, perhaps you would care to estimate the sensitivity of a doubling of CO2. Just looking to see what numbers you stand by there. Plus, volcanoes? You're admitting that volcanoes actually contribute to atmospheric CO2 concentrations? In addition, was that slip intentional? "Orbital/tilt positioning"? As in, natural cycles? Just like the PDO & ENSO? Holy hell!! That's three stunning admissions in the same post! How does it feel to be on the confessional? Liberating, no?



MacDoc said:


> When El Nino winds up again we'll see a atmosphere spike ala 1998 - your favourite cherry pick year.


*Ah, yes, the old "Wait 'til El Nino strikes, we'll get you then" meme… See, MacDoc, that's the difference between warmest & sceptics. You need El Nino, ironically, a natural phenomenon, to prove anthropogenic global warming. Without it, it's flatline or decline city.*

As to your observation about 1998 being a cherry pick, again, you're absolutely correct. However, it's the screeching warmists that used it to shore their argument. Sceptics use the same date so we won't be accused of cherry picking. And still the warmists screech...



MacDoc said:


> Your ignorance of atmospheric physics in this campaign of disinformation is appalling.


This, from the guy who can't answer a basic question. And, I agree. It is exactly a campaign of disinformation the warmists have put forth.



MacDoc said:


> Why don't you answer a simply question for your readers.


Why don't you answer my questions, MacDoc? You're s'pose ta be a bright boy, you've got all the answers. Yet, when queried on the simplest of issues, all I get is crickets. 

I'll tell you why. Warmists are not interested in debate. They are interested in unquestionable devotion to the religion.

However, I'll bite.



MacDoc said:


> *Does C02 trap IR?*


The simple answer is no. If you want more detail, you're gonna hafta answer mine first. Quid pro quo…



MacDoc said:


> ****ing disgusting your pretence of any science regarding this...striaght out of the denier campaign and Faux News.
> You have NO credible position and haven't for a decade in denying AGW...


Screw you, the hat your wearing & the horse you rode in on. If you think your screeching, hyperbole, logical fallacies, ad homs, rollin' eyes, red faces and general avoidance of the issues makes you any kind of authority, you are even more the bitter, hypocritical, doddering old fool I know you already are.

Have a great day, MacDoc. I am...


----------



## MacDoc

some bloody pause 



> The cryosphere – the Earth's icey areas – obviously don't think much of the notion that global warming might have stopped.
> 
> A study last year in the journal Science looked at glaciers in all regions of the world. The study found that the world's glaciers were melting at a rate of 259 billion tonnes a year between 2003 and 2009.
> 
> What about the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, which together hold about 99 per cent of the world's fresh water?
> 
> Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 billion tonnes a year, according to the latest IPCC assessment of the science.
> 
> *From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 billion tonnes a year – an almost six-fold increase. What was that about a pause in global warming?*


Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | Environment | The Guardian ... MP=soc_567

what fairy tales will you develop to explain it.....pixies with hash pipes...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> some bloody pause
> 
> Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | Environment | The Guardian ... MP=soc_567
> 
> what fairy tales will you develop to explain it.....pixies with hash pipes...


Pixies with has pipes must have worked on that article. It's all based on that complete about face on whether Trade Winds cause warming/mask warming/cause cooling. Educate yourself by reading the thread for a change. This has all been discussed days ago.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> some bloody pause


First off, the "Pause", the "Hiatus", the "Flatline", whatever you wish to call it, refers to global surface temperatures. Feel free to access any of the temperature records you like, they'll all show the lack of warming over the course of the last decade or more. Some show it going out to more than two decades. Again, if you clicked a link & read an article every so often, there would be no need for this remedial study. 

Second, it's a bloody comment piece from _The Grunion_, of all things. Some scientific source. They've been grinding the warmist axe for years & I don't even need to read the article to find what spin they put on the topic.

Third, as MF noted, England's Trade Winds paper, conclusions model based? Asked & answered. Multiple times. There will be another one today, below this post.

Fourth, you wanna talk ice melting? Let's get an answer from you on a question I first posed to you years ago about a certain Alaskan glacier. Remember that? The famous Glacier Bay ice retreat? I've re-asked the question any number of times & todate, you have not responded. According to those of "your ilk", Alaska is the canary in the coal mine, the sure sign that AGW is alive & well. Yet, the ice in Glacier Bay receded 50 miles between 1780 & 1892, long, long before any distinguishable anthropogenic signal was detected in the atmosphere. All this with atmospheric CO2 concentrations well below 300ppm. As a matter of fact, there is even that most holy of warmist things, a peer-reviewed paper (which has been linked to before on this thread), describing in some detail the massive slowdown of melt in the Glacier Bay area in recent decades.

New paper finds a large deceleration of glacier melt in Glacier Bay over past 63+ years



> A new paper published in the Journal of Glaciology finds there has been a large [78%] deceleration of glacier melt in the Glacier Bay area of Alaska and British Columbia over the past 63+ years. According to the authors, "For the full period (1995–2011) the average mass loss was 3.93 ± 0.89 Gigatons per year, compared with 17.8 Gigatons per year for the post-Little Ice Age (1770–1948) rate," a deceleration of 78%.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Glacier Bay region of southeast Alaska, USA, and British Columbia, Canada, has undergone major glacier retreat since the Little Ice Age (LIA). We used airborne laser altimetry elevation data acquired between 1995 and 2011 to estimate the mass loss of the Glacier Bay region over four time periods (1995–2000, 2000–05, 2005–09, 2009–11). For each glacier, we extrapolated from center-line profiles to the entire glacier to estimate glacier-wide mass balance, and then averaged these results over the entire region using three difference methods (normalized elevation, area-weighted method and simple average). We found that there was large interannual variability of the mass loss since 1995 compared with the long-term (post-LIA) average. For the full period *(1995–2011) the average mass loss was 3.93 ± 0.89 Gt a–1* (0.6 ± 0.1 m w.e. a–1), compared with *17.8 Gt a–1 for the post-LIA (1770–1948)* rate. Our mass loss rate is consistent with GRACE gravity signal changes for the 2003–10 period. Our results also show that there is a lower bias due to center-line profiling than was previously found by a digital elevation model difference method.


That sound like global warming to you?

Fifth, tell ya what, how about we talk ice accumulation? A good, reasonable measure would be total global ice, seeing as the polar accumulations run opposite each other, ie. when one peaks, the other troughs. Your massive bag of physics did know that, didn't you?

Again, I've posted this before but, in case you missed or ignored it, here it is again:

Sea Ice Page

There's a ton of information on the page but we really only need to look at the first category, Global Sea Ice. Take a look at the chart there from the U of Illinois Polar Research Group.

Do you see any "massive" changes in trend over the course of the past 35 years? Me neither. Please note that the data starts in 1979, a cherry pick year for warmists, as 1979 was actually a peak ice year. Even with that advantage, the trend shows nothing "massive". I see a slight downward trend with a recent uptick. Hey, a hockeystick!

Penultimately, damn those tiny, niggling, empirical details that make you and _The Grunion_ look like the south end of a north bound horse, no?

Finally, I answered the question you posed in your prior post. Now what? How about you answer a few small, tiny, niggling questions yourself, Mr. Bag of Physics Knowledge?

<crickets>

I guess when ya got nuttin', you snipe from the sidelines & avoid debate at all costs...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Trade Winds garbage...

The Problem with Ocean Heat Uptake



> Of course the media ate up the work as though it were a perfect explanation for the utter failure of climate models and inaccurately assume that it means business as usual for them.


He notes:



> The Guardian [Grunion] and many other unbiased sources of knowledge for the thinking public, reported the paper as though it was certain knowledge. *It even contained the typical refrain of all signs pointing to accelerating warming which is a flatly fraudulent statement considering that they are simultaneously composing an article explaining why warming isn’t happening.* No questioning of logic, no notice of the inconsistency with their own or other articles they are publishing about the amazing quality of government science. *And it is all placed right next to the articles bashing “skeptics” like me and you who just happen to be able to read a graph.*
> 
> Eventually the data will decide the argument but it is very very strange that the data is so heavily on our side and we’re the ones who are marginalized by those who hold themselves out as the intellectuals of our time.


M'bold.

MacDoc: Can _you_ read a graph? Jes' askin'...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, new paper out! XX)

New hockey team paper: models tuned to tree rings and other palaeo-climate reconstructions



> Gosh, who woulda thought that model output in tune with palaeoclimate data would be different than output from others? Last I heard, tree rings, corals, and cave limestone deposits aren’t climate forcings, so from my perspective, the claim is meaningless. And of course, the word “robust” is used in the abstract, which I think is Gavin’s favorite word. On the plus side, the paper is open access, so we can examine why they claim that.


More:



> From what I can make of the paper, it seems they are providing a road map to help modelers tune their model output to things like Mann’s hockey stick palaeo reconstructions, which they apparently still believe in even though the palaeo tree ring data showed a dive after 1960, which is why the whole “hide the decline” issue came about.
> 
> _Not only was the deletion of post-1960 values not reported by IPCC, as Gavin Schmidt implies, it is not all that easy to notice that the Briffa reconstruction ends around 1960. As the figure is drawn, the 1960 endpoint of the Briffa reconstruction is located underneath other series; even an attentive reader easily missed the fact that no values are shown after 1960. The decline is not “hidden in plain view”; it is “hidden” plain and simple._​


----------



## FeXL

A guest essay presents an interesting idea but commenters point to a few possible issues.

A relationship between Sea Ice Anomalies, SSTs, and the ENSO?

Abstract



> The change in the relationship between the hemispheric sea ice anomalies appears to have a sinusoidal nature with a wavelength that is a function of North Atlantic and North Pacific sea surface temperature oscillations. There is also a repeating signal observed in both oceans going back at least 100 years. The pattern of this signal appears to be correlated with the sea ice area in both hemispheres and the ENSO.


Good read, nonetheless.


----------



## FeXL

So, you notice anything missing in the list of climate drivers MacDoc posted yesterday? The biggest & most important driver of all? The shrewd among you will have noted the absence of "water vapour". Yeah, warmists choose to ignore the 900 lb gorilla in the room...

New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate, via water vapor



> The authors find precipitable water vapor shows cyclic variations of 10-11 years which are inversely correlated with the ~11 year solar cycles. Although the authors say the mechanism is unknown, perhaps there is some tie to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, which posits increased clouds [water vapor] result during periods of low solar activity, a similar inverse correlation.


Yes, there is a "perhaps" in there & again, correlation does not equal causation. That said, there are an interesting number of "coincidences" that are all operating on a similar timeline...

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It plays a major role in the dynamics of atmospheric circulation, radiation exchange within the atmosphere, and climate variability. Knowledge of the distribution of water vapor is important for understanding climate change and global warming.*
> In this study, radiosonde data from 1985 to 2012 were used to examine the monthly, interannual, and annual variations and trends of precipitable water vapor (PWV) in central Saudi Arabia in the city of Riyadh (24° 43′ N; 46° 40′E, 764 m a.s.l.). The results revealed a clear seasonal cycle of PWV with a maximum during the summer months (June to August) and a minimum during the winter (December to February). This variation follows the mean monthly variation of air temperature.
> The PWV displays considerable variability at the interannual scale. We could not attribute the variations to the air temperature because no relationship was found between the two variables when the interannual variations were examined. *Study of the annual variations of the PWV [precipitable water vapor] showed cyclic variations with a period of approximately 10 to 11 years. The two maximums and minimums were in 1996 and 2007 and 1989 and 2000, respectively. The results showed that the annual PWV [precipitable water vapor] values are anticorrelated with solar activity, represented by sunspot number, during solar cycles 22 and 23.* The physical mechanism underlying this relationship remains unclear. This finding is preliminary, and future investigations are recommended.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

A Climate Model that Apparently Produces No Realistic Predictions

We'll cut right to the chase...



> As a result of these *facts*, Frankignoul et al. state, in the concluding sentence of their paper's abstract, that "although there is some *potential* climate predictability in CCSM3, *it is not realistic.*" And as they say in the second to the last sentence in the body of their paper, "although the AMOC influence on the atmosphere that we have documented for CCSM3 raises the *hope* that some low-frequency NAO variations *might* be predictable, in particular in the red noise regime, *the signal will not be realistic.*"


Emphasis from the link.

There's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature data "adjustments".

Why Is The Post 1940 Data Tampering So Important?



> NOAA/CRU/NASA/Muller have wiped out the 1940-1970 cooling, but the historical record shows that their hockey sticks are complete crap.
> 
> In 1940, the Arctic was rapidly melting. Greenland glaciers were _“nearing a catastrophe“_


----------



## FeXL

New TIPCC™ report upcoming. The head of Working Group 2, Christopher Field, is giving a talk in advance it its release.

The IPCC Official and the Loaded Gun



> In a little more than six weeks, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release the second part of its massive new climate assessment. Produced by Working Group 2, this section contains 30 chapters and has been in progress for six years. It represents a lot of time and labour.


The Topic?



> WHAT: *The world is staring down the barrel of climate change* that is faster than at any time in the last 65 million years, says climate expert Chris Field. He will speak on the topic.


Bold from the link.

Couple of things, in addition to Donna's observations.

1) I wasn't aware that we had solid enough evidence to have anywhere near an accurate summary of the last 65 million years of climate. If we did, then the hypothesis of AGW would never have even been considered as anything more than the dreck it is.

2) However, we don't even need to go back 65 million years to find evidence refuting Field's observations. Recall my recent post about using beetles as proxies for warming during interstadials? From the link therein:



> So about 33.6 thousand years ago. Smack in the middle of the glaciation. It gets 1/2 C to 2 C warmer than now in Titaluk River basin. Then turns around and plunges up to 7-8 C. All in about 2000 years.


Anybody recall any temperature changes anywhere near that order of magnitude in recent memory? Me neither...

3) If the temperature can change in the middle of an interstadial 33,000 years ago like that, in the presence of <280ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration, what evidence is there that the ~0.85°C rise over the course of the last 165 years or so has any connection to anthropogenic emissions?


----------



## FeXL

Hey, global warming in 49 of Obie's 57 states!

Snow in 49 of 50 states, meanwhile, cartoon pokes fun at Dr. David Viner while media is doing spin cycle


----------



## FeXL

So, there's flooding in the UK and the MET Office (via Julia Slingo) is attempting to link it to, of course, "Global Warming".

However, there is a map that hails from 878AD, one of those small, niggling, annoying pieces of empirical evidence that regularly screw up warmist hyperbole, which shows Somerset as being a swamp at the time.

UK flooding, Met Office, and all that – a map from 878AD tells us more than Slingo



> People have been draining the area known as the Somerset Levels since before the Domesday Book in 1086AD. The Levels were frequently flooded by the sea during high tides, a problem that was not resolved until the sea defences were enhanced in the early 20th century.
> 
> So, is it any surprise that the water wants to follow the path of least resistance with gravity rather than it being a new feature of “climate change”?


Yep...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hey, global warming in 49 of Obie's 57 states!
> 
> Snow in 49 of 50 states, meanwhile, cartoon pokes fun at Dr. David Viner while media is doing spin cycle


I can explain Britain's warm winter as easily as those ninnies try to explain an ice storm in Atlanta by AGW--as the globe begins to cool, the southward-moving band of cold is displacing some warm air that is temporarily moving upward. However, this effect will not be permanent as global cooling takes full hold.


----------



## FeXL

I haven't commented on this, the torch-bearing, masked protesters from Weepy Bill's 350.org who showed up at the house of Enbridge's CEO in Texas. Looking all the world like a meeting of the KKK, they should probably consider themselves fortunate not to have been shot. Weepy Bill endorsed the event on Twitter. A photo was even posted on their website. However, in the face of all the bad press, it has suddenly been "disappeared".

Wackadoodle 350.org protesters disappear their KKK moment



> No apology, just down the memory hole. What a bunch of cowardly and pathetic people they are. That goes for Bill McKibben too who thought this was a good enough idea to promote with a tweet rather than condemn it.


Just another bunch of Fruit Lops & Whackos, like the ones who created the "1010" video with exploding kids...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out, examining Holocene Climate Optimum temperatures (6000 years ago) with pollen analysis and a new statistical technique.

New paper finds more non-hockey-sticks in Europe 



> A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs European temperatures using a new technique combining fossil pollen and "boosted regression trees", and finds more non-hockey-sticks with temperatures during the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 years ago were 0.7C higher during June-August in comparison to 500 years ago.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> We test and analyse a new calibration method, boosted regression trees (BRTs) in palaeoclimatic reconstructions based on fossil pollen assemblages. We apply BRTs to multiple Holocene and Lateglacial pollen sequences from northern Europe, and compare their performance with two commonly-used calibration methods: weighted averaging regression (WA) and the modern-analogue technique (MAT). Using these calibration methods and fossil pollen data, we present synthetic reconstructions of Holocene summer temperature, winter temperature, and water balance changes in northern Europe. *Highly consistent trends are found for summer temperature, with a distinct Holocene thermal maximum at ca 8000–4000 cal. a BP, with a mean Tjja anomaly of ca +0.7 °C at 6 ka compared to 0.5 ka.* We were unable to reconstruct reliably winter temperature or water balance, due to the confounding effects of summer temperature and the great between-reconstruction variability. We find BRTs to be a promising tool for quantitative reconstructions from palaeoenvironmental proxy data. BRTs show good performance in cross-validations compared with WA and MAT, can model a variety of taxon response types, find relevant predictors and incorporate interactions between predictors, and show some robustness with non-analogue fossil assemblages.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, in addition to your other outstanding & long overdue homework assignments, got this little quiz for ya. You claim to have a handle on atmospheric physics, let me know how ya did.

Basic physics quiz for climate alarmists 

If you have trouble with some of the questions, go back & click a few of my links. The answers are all on this thread...


----------



## FeXL

A 1000-Year SST History of the NE Atlantic and Nordic Seas



> Using ten proxy sea surface temperature (SST) records - six from the Norwegian Margin, three from the North Icelandic Shelf and one from the Scottish Margin - Cunningham et al. prepared a 1,000-year SST record spanning the period from AD 1000 to 2000, which revealed, in their words, "the 'Medieval Climate Anomaly' warming was most pronounced before AD 1200, with a long-term cooling trend apparent after AD 1250." And what did the new record reveal about the uniqueness - or not! - of the region's late-20th-century Current Warm Period? The twenty researchers report "in recent decades temperatures have been similar to those inferred for the 'Medieval Climate Anomaly'." However, their graphical representations (three versions of them) of the one-thousand-year period clearly indicate the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has actually been a couple tenths of a degree C less than the earlier Medieval Warm Period.


Further:



> As has been found to be the case in so many land-based assessments of the relative warmth of the Medieval and Current Warm Periods, there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about Earth's current level of warmth ... although *it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that, even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.*


M'bold.

Illustrating, again, the complete disconnect between global temps & any linear effect of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


----------



## FeXL

Further on England & Trade Winds.

England, oh England



> Following a Guardian [Grunion] article hyping the story, Nic Lewis wrote to explain what was wrong. His contribution never appeared, so I'm reproducing it here.
> 
> _Sir
> 
> May I point out an units error in your article "Global warming 'pause' caused by spike in speed of trade winds" (Guardian 10 February 2014) and a fundamental flaw in the research by Matthew England et al. that it highlights? A cooling effect of between 0.1C and 0.2C equates to 0.2F to 0.4F, not 32.2F and 32.4F – it is temperature changes that are referred to, not actual temperatures. [BH note: the article has now been corrected]
> 
> Matthew England's paper claims to show that the hiatus in global surface temperature since around 2001 is due to strengthening Pacific trade winds causing increased heat uptake by the global ocean, concentrated in the top 300 m and occurring mainly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But his study uses model-based ocean temperature "reanalyses", not measurements. *A recent study by Lyman and Johnson of the US Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory shows, using actual measurements of sub-surface ocean temperatures (infilling data gaps using a representative mean), that ocean heat uptake has actually fallen heavily from around 2002, whether measured down to 100 m, 300 m, 700 m or 1800 m.* Indeed, they show an exceptionally large 90% fall in the heat content trend for the top 300 m between the decades 1993–2002 and 2002–2011. Several other observational datasets for the more often cited top 700 m ocean heat content also show a substantial reduction in heat uptake between those periods. *So, unfortunately, ocean temperature measurements completely contradict Matthew England's neat explanation for the warming hiatus.*_​


Bold & color mine.

Huh. Who knew empirical measurements would trump computer models?

Yo, MacDoc...


----------



## FeXL

Have a few more on on temperature "adjustments".

A Closer Look At USHCN TOBS Adjustments

NOAA Falls Into Their Trap

NCDC Wiping Out America’s Hot Past

NOAA Has Entered A Data-Free Cheating Phase


----------



## FeXL

Record Flooding Caused By Climate Scam Of The Week



> Experts blame flooding on global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1974, experts blamed flooding on global cooling.


I know, I know. They're so much smarter now...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting resource.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm 

A list of peer-reviewed papers, regularly updated, sorted as to topic.


----------



## FeXL

Oooooo...

Friday Funny: Science by the kilogram

Read all the weasel words.

From Don Easterbrook in the comments:



> Amazing! 674 peer-reviewed pages and they didn’t bother to check real data from the Arctic. If they had, they would have found that recorded temperatures from multiple stations in Greenland were warmer in the 1930s than the recent warming (after 1978) and that 8,500 of the past 10,000 years were 3.5 to 5 degrees F warmer than present in the GISP2 ice core.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, great news!

1 billon dollars to push their climate agenda



> President Barack Obama will ask Congress to set up a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund in his proposed budget next month.


The only thing that could make this better is if it was $100 billion...

Related:

Quote of the Week



> In discussing President Obama’s latest boondoggle, the one billion (with a “b) dollar _Climate Resilience Plan_, The US Under-Assistant Minister of Scientific Silly Walks, John Holdren, wandered way off of the party line.


More:



> But despite Holdren going way off piste in his comment, it wasn’t truly of the quality needed for a quote of the week. It wasn’t concise enough for an epigram … or for an epitaph, for that matter.
> 
> However, just when it all looked hopeless, Holdren rallied, came back and captured the gold by uttering the deathless words that will ring forever in the halls of climate academe:
> 
> *Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.*
> 
> There you have it, folks, Holdren’s Law of Climate Causation, all you need to know about droughts and such … weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.


Emphasis from the link.

This, from Obie's _science_ advisor.

Brilliant...

More:

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000.



> Our best estimate of how much the climate system has been perturbed from energy balance comes from the slow warming of the oceans, which since the 1950s equates to a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance (say, if 240 W m-2 of solar energy has been absorbed on average, 239.75 W m-2 has been lost to space…the slight ~0.25 W m-2 imbalance leads to slow warming).
> 
> Now, how exactly can a *1 part in 1,000* energy imbalance lead Holdren to state, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change”? Well, all I can think of is that his statement is not based in science.


M'bold.

No argument.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

El Niño or La Nada for the 2014/15 ENSO Season



> El Niño and La Niña events are the dominant modes of natural climate variability on Earth, which is why the state of the tropical Pacific is continuously monitored. El Niños and La Niñas impact weather patterns globally. As a number of recent papers have argued, the dominance of La Niña events in recent years is responsible for part of the cessation in global surface warming outside of the Arctic, so by inference, those papers are also stating that a string of strong El Niño events were responsible for part of the long-term warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century. There’s nothing new about that; for years we’ve been discussing the naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled processes that drive El Niño events and cause long-term warming of global surface temperatures.


Sadly, no predictions from that master of inability to predict ENSO, Jimmy Hansen...


----------



## FeXL

A comment elevated to a post from the England Trade Wind link at Bishop Hill yesterday. 

Mini paradox, major paradox



> So it seems that England has probably confirmed that the multidecadal oscillations are driven by atmospheric tides which are driven by a non-radiative orbital forcing. *He just hasn’t realised yet that what he has done is to demonstrate that the GCMs are all missing a massively important piece of physics which was considered small enough to be neglected on energetic grounds.*


M'bold.

Perhaps there is something useful in the paper after all... 

Excellent read.


----------



## MacDoc

*There goes another bit of denier nonsense....*

So much for Arctic Sea Ice recovery....it's melting in Feb!!!!!



> SUN FEB 16, 2014 AT 12:48 PM PST
> *Extraordinary N Atlantic Storms Driving Gulf Stream Water into Arctic, Sea Ice Melting in February*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extraordinarily warm water, as much as 10°F above normal, has entered the Barents sea on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. Sea ice is melting in February in response to the incursion of warm water that originated in the Gulf Stream.
> 
> 
> 
> Storm after storm has pounded England and western Europe, smashing the coastline with massive waves and flooding, making this the stormiest winter in the long English weather records which go back to 1766. But there's something happening in the ocean that's even more disturbing than the destruction to Europe. The extreme wind field across the Atlantic this winter is literally driving water that originated in the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean causing sea ice extent on the Atlantic side of the Arctic ocean to decline in the middle of February. Water temperatures reported by NOAA are far above normal from the coast of north America, to the Labrador and Greenland seas, extending all the way into the Arctic ocean. The sea surface temperature anomaly maps are shocking. Water temperatures are more than 10°F above normal near Svalbard in the Arctic ocean. Likewise, Gulf Stream temperatures off of the east coast of North America are stunningly hot.
> 
> <snip lots of charts and stuff>
> 
> Last summer's sea ice recovery appears to have been short lived. Japan's accurate JAXA IJIS measurement shows* the sea ice extent at an all time low for mid-February*.
Click to expand...

Extraordinary N Atlantic Storms Driving Gulf Stream Water into Arctic, Sea Ice Melting in February


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> So much for Arctic Sea Ice recovery....it's melting in Feb!!!!!


Yeah, so? Please explain just WTF this weather event has to do with increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Empirical evidence only, please. 

While you're researching that, don't forget your other long overdue homework assignments.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Finally, a good example of my tax dollars at work. From the National Research Council of Canada.

Crises In Climatology

ABSTRACT



> The Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September 2013 continues the pattern of previous ones raising alarm about a warming earth due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. This paper identifies six problems with this conclusion – the mismatch of the model predictions with the temperature observations, the assumption of positive feedback, possible solar effects, the use of a global temperature, chaos in climate, and the rejection of any skepticism.


----------



## FeXL

Climate shock? Is that the words you use after all the previous terms (Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption, Global Weirding) have outlived their usefulness? Or is that what warmists experience when they pull back the office blinds & their models don't agree with empirical evidence?

Climate shock or schlock?


----------



## FeXL

New PNAS paper claims Arctic planetary albedo dropped significantly, yet recent CERES data shows no significant change



> From PNAS:
> 
> _Direct satellite observation reveals that the Arctic planetary albedo, a measure of reflectiveness, decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, a change in albedo that corresponds to a climate forcing 25% as large as that due to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the same time period, according to this study.​_
> *But looking at more recent CERES measured data showing what is light is reflected into space by the posited changing albedo, neither Arctic nor Antarctic seem to have changed much at all; less than a watt per decade everywhere. For recent CERES data the trend lines look dead flat at any reasonable scale.*


M'bold.

From the comments:



> This is quite simple. They are calculating the reflected in solar radiation using reduced albedo in a mathematical model with the change in observed ice extent. CERES is taking a direct reading of reflected solar radiation. The difference between the two is like finding out what your image in a mirror should look like based on calculations from the amount of reflecting material on the back instead of simply looking in the mirror.


Willis clarifies, using his CERES data.

How Much Sunlight Actually Enters The System?



> Let me start by saying that looking at albedo as they are doing is a very roundabout and inaccurate way of handling the data. The CERES dataset doesn’t have an “albedo” dataset. Instead, they have a dataset for downwelling solar, and another dataset for upwelling solar. The problem is that when the numbers get very small, the values of the calculated albedos get more and more inaccurate. Albedo is reflected solar divided by downwelling solar. So when you get down to where there’s almost no sunshine, you can get things like a gridcell that averages 0.2 W/m2 of incoming sunlight over some month, and reflects 0.4 W/m2 … giving us an impossible albedo of 2.0 …


----------



## FeXL

Good question.

Anthropogenic Influences On Lake Ice Coverage; Ice Breakers, Waste Heat, Dams, etc.?



> *Conclusion:*
> While there is no definitive evidence, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that there may be anthropogenic influences on Great Lakes Ice Coverage. What do you think, are there anthropogenic influences impacting Lake Ice Coverage? If so, which anthropogenic influences do you think have a significant impact?


----------



## FeXL

New website.

The Stadium Wave gets a website



> Readers surely recall the Stadium Wave hypothesis for ‘the pause’. Marcia Wyatt (co-author with Judith Curry) writes:
> 
> _I have built a web site. It started out as just a site with the stadium-wave publications posted. But within the last month, after realizing that many could not access the papers, or were not inclined to tackle the reading, I decided I would try to make the hypothesis more accessible. Much of this revised web-site content focuses on the ‘wave’, explaining it in layperson-friendly terms, giving in-depth discussion in supplementary sections, and describing how the ‘wave’ idea came about and subsequently evolved. In addition, I have posted all related publications on a separate page. And finally, on yet another page of the site, I will post some of my work. This will include: past research related to the development of the stadium-wave concept; a variety of topics in climate and geology; and reviews of current articles. I will try to keep this page new and alive by adding to it regularly.​_


Not crazy about the light text on the dark grey BG, but it's better than white on black.


----------



## FeXL

At length, McIntyre examines Mann & the Oxburgh "investigation".

Mann and the Oxburgh Panel



> In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds Greenland melted much more during the prior interglacial than present-day 



> A paper under open review for The Cryosphere finds that during the last interglacial [Eemian], melting of the Greenland ice sheet produced 1.4 meters more sea level rise than during the current interglacial. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that the last interglacial was much warmer than the present, Greenland 8C warmer, sea levels up to 31 feet higher, and there is no evidence that the current interglacial is any different.


Abstract (open access)



> In this paper, we propose a new sub-grid scale parameterization for the ice discharge into the ocean through outlet glaciers and inspect the role of different observational and palaeo constraints for the choice of an optimal set of model parameters. This parameterization was introduced into the polythermal ice-sheet model SICOPOLIS, which is coupled to the regional climate model of intermediate complexity REMBO. Using the coupled model, we performed large ensemble simulations over the last two glacial cycles. We exploit two major parameters: a melt parameter in the surface melt scheme of REMBO and an ice discharge parameter in our parameterization of ice discharge. Our constraints are the present-day Greenland ice sheet surface elevation, surface mass balance partition (ratio between ice discharge and total precipitation) and the Eemian interglacial elevation drop relative to present-day in the vicinity of the NEEM ice core. We show that the ice discharge parameterization enables us to simulate both the correct ice-sheet shape and mass balance partition at the same time without explicitly resolving the Greenland outlet glaciers. For model verification, we compare simulated total and sectoral ice discharge with those from other findings, including observations. For the model versions, which are inside the range of observational and palaeo constraints, *our simulated Greenland ice sheet contribution to Eemian sea level rise relative to present-day amounts to 1.4 m on average (in the range of 0.6 and 2.5 m)*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

One from The Chiefio on the quality of sea level data.

Gee, siting problems and intrument error in sea level gauges



> This is a familiar story. Gauge history, calibration, and movement / change are all contributory to unusable sea level data records. Averaging it all together doesn’t fix it, either. Sounds rather like the temperature data…


He sums:



> It looks to me like any statements about “Sea Level Rise” based on the instrumental record are pretty darned dodgy. Personally, I think we have more useful information from things like the ancient ports all around the world that are now a ways inland.
> 
> ...
> 
> By that measure, any “rise” now is really just a recovery from a drop during the Little Ice Age.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

Third Coldest Winter On Record So Far In The US



> If February ended today, this would be the third coldest winter on record in the US, after 1979 and 1899.


----------



## FeXL

Frequency Of US 90 Degree Temperatures Has Dropped Sharply Over The Last 80 Years

Yep. All those weather extremes global warming is s'pose ta be causin'...


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature record "adjustments".

In 1997, NASA Showed That Two Thirds Of Global Warming Occurred Before 1940


----------



## FeXL

So, John Kerry was in Indonesia last week, spreading FUD about climate change.

John Kerry’s remarks on climate change

From the comments:



> John Kerry – isn’t he the guy who married all the Heinz money? The guy who couldn’t win a presidential election against the most unpopular president since Harry Truman? The guy who lied about his military service in Vietnam and like a little bitch threw his medals away afterward? The guy who got the job of secretary of state as a second choice to a cuckold housewife who let our embassy get attacked and ambassador get killed like a dog and dragged through the streets on film?
> 
> Do I have the right scumbag in mind?


That'd be the one.

Why anybody even gives him the time of day, let alone a stump to preachify from, is beyond me...


----------



## MacDoc

*Consequences.....*



> *How the Spreading Symptoms of Climate Change Can be Deadly*
> 
> The hallmarks of a warming climate, heavier rains, more severe droughts, rising sea levels and longer growing seasons, are spreading a variety of pathogens throughout the world
> 
> Feb 18, 2014 |By Daniel Lippman and ClimateWire
> 
> The hallmarks of a warming climate, heavier rains, more severe droughts, rising sea levels and longer growing seasons, are spreading a variety of pathogens throughout the world. Malaria is moving to the highlands. Lyme disease is spreading across the U.S. Northeast and eastern Canada. Outbreaks of cholera will increase with more unsafe water.
> 
> Those are three of the diseases that are becoming part of a growth field in medical research amid concerns that tropical diseases are moving north and south and that progress made to improve health conditions in previous decades might be undone.


more

How the Spreading Symptoms of Climate Change Can be Deadly - Scientific American

West Nile in Toronto??....nah all a conspiracy....according to the nutcase deniers. 

oh wait ....Northern Alberta too.....fancy that....


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> more
> 
> How the Spreading Symptoms of Climate Change Can be Deadly - Scientific American
> 
> West Nile in Toronto??....nah all a conspiracy....according to the nutcase deniers.
> 
> oh wait ....Northern Alberta too.....fancy that....


My God, this sort of incredible stretch indicates that the AGW crowd is not only suffering from SHSS (Shattered Hockey Stick Syndrome) but is completely devoid of ammo on all other fronts.

Guess what, mosquitos are every where. Yep, especially in Northern Alberta. If more people are getting bit and up there it has more to do with an expanding population than climate change.

BTW if local gardens over the past 5 years are any indicator our growing seasons are getting shorter not longer.


----------



## Macfury

West Nile Virus isn't restricted to the West Nile climate. That's just the name of it, MacDoc. It hit our household seven years ago. Is it news to you that it has affected Toronto? Strike one.

Relatives of mine have suffered from malaria before--during the middle of the last century when they were draining land in Holland. Strike two.

Lyme disease is spread by ticks entwined in the feathers of migrating birds. Anyone can get it, anywhere birds fly. Three strikes, you're out.






eMacMan said:


> Guess what, mosquitos are every where. Yep, especially in Northern Alberta. If more people are getting bit and up there it has more to do with an expanding population than climate change.
> 
> BTW if local gardens over the past 5 years are any indicator our growing seasons are getting shorter not longer.


----------



## FeXL

There is so much FUD, lies, hyperbole & plain, old-fashioned bull**** in that article, I don't even know where to begin.

1) Your article notes that West Nile was discovered in New York in 1999. How much of a stretch is it to find it in Tranna in a few years later?

West Nile has been in southern Alberta for at least 12 years now. Local raptor rehab center found dead crows with the disease. No surprise it's moved to northern Alberta.

2) There has been no global warming for the past 17+ years.

3) There is no empirical evidence of recent increases in extreme weather. There is, however, empirical evidence showing no heavier rains nor increase in storm frequency, no increase in strength or duration of droughts, no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

4) The reliable measurable increase in ocean temperatures has been 0.09 degrees. That ciguatera must be some finicky disease if 9/100ths of a degree kept it from spreading the world over.

5) The BS about malaria & dengue fever is nothing more than unmitigated fear mongering. Could they move from their current locations? Sure. And _if_ my aunt grew testicles she could become my uncle.

6) I loves me the theory that droughts can make West Nile worse due to all the water puddles lying around. The droughts I've experienced have all eliminated the puddles pretty damn quick...

7) They admit that the spread of Lyme disease in the NE is due to reforestation, then try to link that to global warming! Jeezuz... Then, they blame it on less snow, despite the fact that US snow levels have actually been increasing. Wonder what they're going to blame it on this winter...

The above is only the tip of the iceberg.

What an utter joke of an article.

MacDoc, in your post title you note "Consequences". What's the consequences for being so stupid it burns?


----------



## FeXL

Hey, new paper out! XX)

Another dubious linkage to ‘climate change’: Modeled increase in Arctic Cyclones



> I don’t put much merit in this study especially when we see statements like _“statistically significant, though minor, increase in extreme Arctic cyclone frequency”_ because we really haven’t had good observational capability until the satellite era to check their model output against back to 1850. Recent improved observation would have more effect than anything, but that isn’t even a factor in this case, it’s a _model simulation._ I wonder if they factored in this paper, which said that Arctic Cyclones are more common than previously thought, even in the satellite era? *I reckon if we don’t even have a good handle on Arctic Cyclones in our current satellite observations, what possible hope could anyone have of determining an accurate historical trend back to 1850? Guesswork GIGO IMHO.*


Yep...

M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

For those of you who followed James Delingpole at the _Telegraph_, the bad hews is, he's left them. The good news is he is now the Executive Editor at _Breitbart London_.

Delingpole’s new landing pad, the inside scoop

Reasons for leaving & link to first BL article inside.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds significant increase in mid-latitude clouds, corroborates Svensmark theory of climate 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds a significant increase in mid-latitude clouds over the past 10 years. According to the authors, " Increases in cloud frequency appear to be driven by corresponding temperature decreases over the same time period. During this time, solar activity decreased from an active to a quiet period, which might have been partially responsible for the temperature decrease over this time period."
> 
> The paper appears to corroborate the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate, which predicts increased cloud formation associated with decreased solar activity.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Motivated by numerous ground-based Noctilucent Cloud (NLC) sightings at latitudes as low as ~ 40oN in recent years, we have conducted a study to determine if there have been any systematic NLC increases in the mid-northern latitudes. This question is addressed through investigating both measured and modeled Polar Mesospheric Cloud (PMC) occurrence frequencies. Temperature measured by the Soundings of the Atmosphere using Broadband Radiometer (SABER) instrument on the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite over the 2002-2011 time period and a 7-year water vapor climatology developed from data measured by the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on the Aura satellite for the 2005-2011 period, are used to simulate mid-latitude PMCs. PMCs measured by the Odin Optical Spectrograph and InfraRed Imager System (OSIRIS) and the Space Test Program Satellite-1 (STPSat-1) Spatial Heterodyne Imager for Mesospheric Radicals (SHIMMER) instruments are used to extensively validate the model generated PMC results. After validating the model against PMC data, the model results were used to examine changes in PMCs at mid-latitudes between 2002 and 2011. *Results show a statistically significant increase in the number of PMCs each season in the latitude range 40o-55oN for the past ten-year period examined. Increases in cloud frequency appear to be driven by corresponding temperature decreases over the same time period. During this time, solar activity decreased from an active to a quiet period, which might have been partially responsible for the temperature decrease over this time period.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper showing recent increases in global cloudiness.

New paper finds global cloudiness has increased over past 5 years, corroborates Svensmark theory of climate



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds that upper and lower tropospheric clouds have increased globally over the past 5 years.
> 
> The paper would appear to corroborate the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate, which predicts increased cloud formation associated with decreased solar activity.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The instantaneous linkages between cloud vertical structure and various large-scale meteorological parameters are investigated using five years of data from the CloudSat/CALIPSO instrument and ECMWF analyses products. The linkages are systemically explored and quantified at all vertical levels and throughout the global ocean in both the long-term mean and on month-to-month timescales. A number of novel large-scale meteorological parameters are used in the analysis, including tropopause temperatures, uppertropospheric stability and storm track activity. The results provide a baseline for evaluating physical parameterizations of clouds in GCMs, and a reference for interpreting the signature of large-scale atmospheric phenomena in cloud vertical structure. In general, the linkages observed in the long-term mean are similar to those found on month-to-month timescales. *In the long-term mean, upper tropospheric cloud incidence throughout the globe increases* with: 1) decreasing tropopause temperature (at a rateof ~2–4% K− 1); 2) decreasing upper tropospheric stability (~5–10% per K km − 1); and 3) increasing large-scale vertical motion (~1–4% per 10 hPa day − 1). In contrast, *lower tropospheric cloud incidence increases* with: 1) increasing lower tropospheric stability (10% per K km − 1) and descending motion (1% per 10 hPa day − 1) in regions of subtropical regime; but 2) decreasing lower tropospheric stability (4% per K km − 1) and ascending motion (2% per 10 hPa day − 1) over the Arctic region. Variations in static stability and vertical motion account for ~20–35% of the month-to-month variance in upper tropospheric cloudiness but less than 10% of the variance in lower tropospheric clouds. Upper tropospheric cloud incidence in the storm track regions is strongly linked to the variance of large-scale vertical motion and thus the amplitude of baroclinic waves.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

On warmists' need to eliminate the MWP.

Unprecedented?



> As explained in the article “The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick” a central and critical plank of the alarmist global warming case is that the current phase of warming is unprecedented. The current phase of warming actually started around the beginning of the 20th century when the earth started to finally come out of the the Little Ice Age which had lasted from1600 to 1850 when the temperature had fallen to the lowest point since the last ice age.


Good, non-technical read.


----------



## FeXL

Evidence from an older paper (2007) supporting old Sol's role in the hydrological cycle and no evidence of an anthropological link.

Proof that the Sun controls the hydrological cycle 



> While climate alarmists falsely claim "all the evidence" points to a man-made cause of the UK Somerset floods, they refuse to look at the many peer-reviewed publications demonstrating solar control of the hydrological cycle. For example, a paper published in 2007 finds "an *unequivocal* synchronous linkage between [hydrological] processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and *solar activity.* It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year [2 solar cycle] periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, *no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.*"
> 
> Graphs from the paper show remarkable correlation between between solar activity and precipitation over the past 125 years. And show inverse correlation to CO2 levels before 1950.


Abstract (link to open access pdf)



> This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years in length. *The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years. It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year [2 solar cycle] periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.*
> 
> It is essential that this information be accommodated in water resource development and operation procedures in the years ahead.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Further fallout from Kerry's talk...

Gingrich calls for Sec. Kerry to resign over global warming remarks



> Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took to Twitter to call for Secretary of State John Kerry to resign for calling global warming the “world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”


More:

McNider and Christy: Why John Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change 



> In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts."
> 
> But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?


----------



## FeXL

Further on UK flooding.

The sceptics are right. Don't scapegoat them.



> In the old days we would have drowned a witch to stop the floods. These days the Green Party, Greenpeace and Ed Miliband demand we purge the climate sceptics. No insult is too strong for sceptics these days: they are “wilfully ignorant” (Ed Davey), “headless chickens” (the Prince of Wales) or “flat-earthers” (Lord Krebs), with “diplomas in idiocy” (one of my fellow Times columnists).
> 
> What can these sceptics have been doing that so annoys the great and the good? They sound worse than terrorists. Actually, sceptics have pretty well all been purged already: look what happened to Johnny Ball and David Bellamy at the BBC. Spot the sceptic on the Climate Change Committee. Find me a sceptic within the Department of (energy and) Climate Change. Frankly, the sceptics are a ragtag bunch of mostly self-funded guerrillas, who have made little difference to policy — let alone caused the floods.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on global warming causing extreme weather.

Violent Tornadoes Down 30% Since Global Cooling Ended

More:

New paper: Global warming doesn't cause extreme cold or "global weirding" of weather 



> The silly notion that AGW is the cause of the extreme cold US winter, or that global warming is producing "global weirding" of weather is debunked by warmist climate scientists including Kevin Trenberth writing in the latest issue of Science. According to the authors, this hypothesis is not supported by either observations or climate models, and AGW would instead cause a tendency for warmer winters and less extreme cold. The authors also dismiss the claim that AGW causes "global weirding" of the weather or a more wavy jetstream.


When you've lost Trenberth...

Further:



> IN MID-JANUARY, A LOBE OF THE POLAR VORTEX SAGGED SOUTHWARD OVER THE CENTRAL and eastern United States. All-time low temperature records for the calendar date were set at O’Hare Airport in Chicago [–16°F (–8°C), 6 January], at Central Park in New York [4°F (–15.6°C), 7 January], and at many other stations (1). Since that event, several substantial snow storms have blanketed the East Coast. *Some have been touting such stretches of extreme cold as evidence that global warming is a hoax, while others have been citing them as evidence that global warming is causing a “global weirding” of the weather. In our view, it is neither.*
> 
> ...we consider it *unlikely that those consequences [of AGW] will include more frigid winters.*
> ...
> In contrast to the above examples, *the notion that the demise of Arctic sea ice during summer should lead to colder winter weather over the United States seems counterintuitive.* But that is exactly what an influential study has suggested (2). The authors *hypothesize that global warming could perturb the polar vortex in a manner that renders the flow around it more wavy,* leading to an increased incidence of both extreme warmth and extreme cold in temperate latitudes. *It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling* [see (3–6)].


Bold from the link.

Eh, not so much...


----------



## FeXL

Even NOAA admits its winter forecast sucked...

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming



> *“Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director.* The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October’s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. The main cause in both cases was the same: Underestimating the mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.


M'bold.

So, just slightly better than a monkey throwing darts. And, how many millions of dollars did this forecast cost?

How'd they stack up against the Farmer's Almanac?

Farmer’s Almanac vs. The Feds: Feds failed with Winter forecast But ‘Farmers’ Almanac’ accurately predicted a ‘bitterly cold’ winter

From August 25, 2013:



> The 197-year-old publication that hits newsstands Monday predicts a winter storm will hit the Northeast around the time the Super Bowl is played at MetLife Stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. It also predicts a colder-than-normal winter for two-thirds of the country and heavy snowfall in the Midwest, Great Lakes and New England.
> 
> “We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold,” said Sandi Duncan, managing editor.


Can anyone sum this up? How about this tweet?



> NOAA totally blew winter forecast... But it will be 4 degrees warmer in 100 yrs.


Luvs me them computer modellers...


----------



## FeXL

Finally, someone accurately describes the mechanism that allows global warming to create -50° weather in Minnesota.

Plant your tongue firmly in your cheek & click the link:

Exactly how DOES global warming cause -50 deg F in Minnesota?



> You see, right now there is a little bit of open water in the Arctic Ocean that isn’t frozen over. This is a bad thing, because Beluga whales are known to surface in these waters where they produce emissions of a potent greenhouse gas, methane.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL

Further on melting Arctic Ice.

The Darkening Of Alarmist’ Minds Continues



> NSIDC just reported a significant increase in Arctic sea ice thickness and volume over the past four years.


----------



## FeXL

Why warmist's use 1979 as the cherry-picked data start date for their melting Arctic Ice argument.

Alarmists : Busted Again



> Arctic ice increased 12% in 1972, and did not drop back down to its normal size by late 1974.


Have a gander at the first graph. If we used 1974 data instead of 1979 data, there wouldn't even be a cause for alarm.

Much of the story in the comments, especially those from Gail Combs.


----------



## FeXL

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement



> The American Physical Society (APS) is in the process of reviewing its 2007 Climate Change Statement. The process itself is remarkable, and I’ve been privileged to participate in the process.


If will be most interesting to see what, if any, of the changes get implemented.


----------



## FeXL

Steyn on Mann.

The Mann I Love

Awww. Mikey needs a hug... MacDoc?


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on sea ice anomalies.

Inside the Sea ice Anomaly Oscillation (SAO) – Part 1



> The SAO appears to have a 32 year period that is almost exactly half that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”) and also that of a similar index calculated for the North Pacific I call the PMO (the detrended mean 20N-65N, 100W-100E SST anomaly). Minimums, maximums, and zero crossings of the SAO all appear to coincide with certain related aspects of the relationship between the AMO and PMO as detailed in my previous post.


Good, non-technical read.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out!

XX)

Claim: Extreme weather decides distribution of insects



> Another modeled result, extrapolated all the way from 10 common fruit fly species to everything else in the insect world.


From the comments:



> After surviving hundreds of millions of years, Environmental disasters of epoch dimensions, insects are going to be threatened by a little change in climate conditions?!? More BS. The level that passes as scientific research is disappointing.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another cause for the 'pause': natural AMOC ocean oscillation 



> A paper published today in _Earth System Dynamics_ finds that the natural ocean oscillation the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) can explain the 'pause' in global mean temperatures over the past decade.


Further:



> Of course, if natural multidecadal ocean oscillations can explain the 'pause,' why can't they also explain much of the cause of global warming during the 80's-90's?


Abstract (open access)



> Earth's climate exhibits internal modes of variability on various timescales. Here we investigate multi-decadal variability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent and global mean temperature (GMT) in an ensemble of CMIP5 models under control conditions. We report an inter-annual GMT variability of about ±0.1° C originating solely from natural variability in the model ensemble. By decomposing the GMT variance into contributions of the AMOC and Northern Hemisphere sea-ice extent using a graph-theoretical statistical approach, we find the AMOC to contribute 8% to GMT variability in the ensemble mean. Our results highlight the importance of AMOC sea-ice feedbacks that explain 5% of the GMT variance, while the contribution solely related to the AMOC is found to be about 3%. *As a consequence of multi-decadal AMOC variability, we report substantial variations in North Atlantic deep-ocean heat content with trends of up to 0.7 × 1022 J decade−1 that are of the order of observed changes over the last decade and consistent with the reduced GMT [Global Mean Temperature] warming trend over this period.* Although these temperature anomalies are largely density-compensated by salinity changes, we find a *robust negative correlation between the AMOC and North Atlantic deep-ocean density with density lagging the AMOC by 5 to 11 yr in most models. While this would in principle allow for a self-sustained oscillatory behavior of the coupled AMOC–deep-ocean system,* our results are inconclusive about the role of this feedback in the model ensemble.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

What? What's this?!

New paper finds extreme weather & global climate variability is decreasing, not increasing



> A paper published in Nature finds global climate variability and extreme weather has been "decreasing in the most recent years," the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that global warming increases extreme weather and "global weirding."


Wait! In _Nature_? That most hallowed of warmist journals?

More:



> According to the authors, "our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation," and which led them to state in the title of their paper that there will be "no increase in global temperature variability despite changing regional patterns." and "evidence from Greenland ice cores shows that year-to-year temperature variability was probably higher in some past cold periods,"


Further:



> And on top of all of this evidence, they report that when the absolute global standard deviation for the ERA-Interim (Dee et al., 2011) period (1984-2006) is plotted, it is clearly evident that "rather than increasing, [it] is actually found to be decreasing in the most recent years." And so it appears there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedentedabout the variability of Earth's temperature over the past three decades.


Yo! MacDoc. You read this craziness? Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "Settled Science" thing.

It's A Myth That Climate Science Is Settled



> If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today's climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?


I'll cut right to the conclusion:



> But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in a carbon-belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a "climate resilience fund."
> 
> Ah, settled science in action.


Sums it for me...


----------



## FeXL

Well, isn't this interesting?


Steyn's counterblast



> Well it has all kicked off overnight, hasn't it? Mark Steyn has decided that attack is the best form of defence and has decided to countersue Michael Mann for $10 million.


----------



## FeXL

Wonder what changed Jimmy's mind over the years...

Hansen’s 1981 Remarkable Conclusion



> Hansen wrote this in 1981
> 
> _A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940.​_


Further:



> Now, NASA shows 1980 temperatures about 0.2C warmer than 1940. They made a relative shift of 0.35C, far exceeding Wigley’s hoped for 0.15C


Why these guys haven't been sent to prison is beyond me...


----------



## FeXL

So, NASA's temperature tampering isn't just limited to the US.

Cheating Down Under



> Some of NASA’s more impressive data tampering is in Alice Springs, where they have knocked a full 2C off of older temperatures


And...

More Cheating Down Under

And...

Gavin Wins The 2014 World Cup Of Data Tampering In Brazil


----------



## FeXL

A comment on Goddard's blog nails it...

Comment Of The Day



> But you have to admit, these Manmade CO2 emissions are clever stuff: they can make the future warmer, the past colder, whilst having absolutely no effect on the present.
> 
> Now that’s magic.


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Hey, a consensus!

Finally A Real Scientific Consensus – Everyone Agrees That The Recent Displaced Polar Vortex Wasn’t Caused By Global Warming



> For anyone who was witness to the absurdity of the recent warming makes it cold meme, it should come as no surprise that even ardent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming believers are trying to distance themselves from the meme before it causes more damage. After the White House took a run at it, and the willfully gullible media, e.g. Bloomberg Businessweek, BBC and NPR lapped it up, *now everyone, including the scientist credited with starting it, are walking away.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Recall Cowtan & Way, who attempted a data reanalysis to infill missing temperature data due to absence of thermometers, especially in Africa & the poles.

Further:


Cowtan and Way (2013) Adjustments Exaggerate Climate Model Failings at the Poles and Do Little to Explain the Hiatus

Tisdale sums:



> The Cowtan and Way (2013) revisions to the HADCRUT4 data do nothing to explain the absence of warming that is occurring in the non-polar regions during the hiatus period. Those non-polar regions cover about 90% of the planet and it’s there that climate models cannot explain the slowdown and absence of warming. The Cowtan and Way revisions also exaggerate the warming at the poles which further undermines the current generation of climate models, because the models are unable to explain the observed warming at the poles. That is, the models are still not capable of properly simulating polar amplification.
> 
> Those who promote the Cowtan and Way (2013) revisions to the HADCRUT4 data don’t understand where the hiatus is taking place and they don’t understand the model failings at simulating polar amplification—or—they are intentionally being misleading.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre recently posted about Mann's "exoneration" by the Oxburgh inquiry. This post examines the same BS claimed of the Russell inquiry.


Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1



> In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
> 
> In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
> 
> In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.


One wonders how much a judge would appreciate an altered quotation, however subtle...


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm. Never heard of this theory before and, another factor erred upon by models. Interesting read.

Observations confirm the Miskolczi theory of a saturated greenhouse effect 



> Data from the UK Met Office for the period 1973-2012 show a significant global decrease in relative humidity and a corresponding significant global increase of specific humidity. Climate models predict positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases, repeatedly disproven by observations.
> 
> The Miskolczi theory of a 'saturated greenhouse effect' instead predicts relative humidity will decrease to offset an increase in specific humidity, just as this Met Office data and other publications have demonstrated. The consequence of the Miskolczi theory is that additions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere will not lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect nor increase in global temperature.


----------



## FeXL

The Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica has been thinning in recent years. Of course, without seeking the cause or the likelihood that this has happened in the past, the usual suspects have latched onto this event as some sort of evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Unfortunately for them, it happened 8000 years ago when CO2 levels were much lower than today...

Previous rapid thinning of Pine Island Glacier sheds light on future Antarctic ice loss



> Their findings reveal that *8000 years ago the glacier thinned as fast as it has in recent decades*, providing an important model for its future behaviour. The glacier is currently experiencing significant acceleration, thinning and retreat that is thought to be caused by ‘ocean-driven’ melting; an increase in warm ocean water finding its way under the ice shelf.


M'bold.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, has been undergoing rapid thinning and retreat for the past two decades. Here we demonstrate, using glacial-geological and geochronological data, that Pine Island Glacier also experienced rapid thinning during the early Holocene, around 8,000 years ago. Cosmogenic 10Be concentrations in glacially-transported rocks show that this thinning was sustained for decades to centuries at an average rate of more than 100 cm yr−1, comparable to contemporary thinning rates. The most likely mechanism was a reduction in ice shelf buttressing. Our findings reveal that Pine Island Glacier has experienced rapid thinning at least once in the past, and that, once set in motion, rapid ice sheet changes in this region can persist for centuries.


----------



## eMacMan

My my my. Caught a story on the lame waves today. Did you all know that the reason the computer models failed to predict the cooling is due to unusually high volcanic activity?

Now I know that volcanos are a major natural source of CO2. And according to the hockey stick crowd that very small .040% of the atmosphere which is CO2 is the only climate driver worthy of mention.

Now clearly all that extra CO2 means two things. Things should be warming faster than predicted, not cooling. Also it means that man is not as responsible for recent increases in CO2 as claimed. It was only mother nature letting loose a few farts.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. They claim to have a very high resolution examination of an ice core from Greenland that can show wind direction & individual storms from 12,000 years ago. Impressive, if so. Using this info, the researchers have evidence that the cold period of the Younger Dryas (15,000 ybp - 11,000 ybp) ended in a single year. All naturally...

Greenland ice cores show natural swings are large and warming means less storms



> The message here is that the cold younger dryas period ended abruptly (within one year) and so did the storms. Naturally, they warn that the abrupt changes mean the climate is unstable, “be afraid” type stuff. My take on this is that if natural factors cause abrupt climate change, we need to know what those natural factors are. The obsession with CO2 is hindering that. Also if warming brings less storms, that’s probably not such a bad thing. The caveats being that this is only one site, and less storms over the GISP site doesn’t tell us if less storms occurred elsewhere. It could be that jet streams shifted and moved the storms to another spot. But still, I like the level of detail. I wish we could get more cores from other places…


Abstract (open access)



> The abrupt climate shifts identified in Greenland ice cores transformed understanding of the climate system. Although primarily studied in the paleoclimate record, abrupt climate change induced by greenhouse gas rise poses a serious threat to modern humans and ecosystems. We present the first ultra-high-resolution view (hundreds of samples per year) of the abrupt onset (within 1 year) of the current interglacial (warm) climate retrieved from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) ice core archive. This abrupt onset is manifested by a marked reduction in storm event frequency and increase in the length of the summer season around Greenland. We apply this metric to the current rapid climatic amelioration in the Arctic as a precursor for future abrupt climate change events.


The summary (first link) is an interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard still striking gold.

Motherlode Part IV



> Closer analysis reveals that it is a hockey stick of exponential data tampering since 1940. Remember that they shifted the baseline temperatures downwards, so the absolute anomaly numbers don’t mean anything. What is important is the magnitude and shape of the curve.


And


Motherlode Part V



> In 1978, NOAA showed about 0.6C global cooling from the mid-1950′s to 1970
> 
> ...
> 
> GISS has since deleted almost all of that cooling.


----------



## FeXL

Donna gets behind Judith.

Judith Curry, Free Speech Champion



> The problem with the Michael Mann sort of scientist is that, rather than practicing science quietly behind the scenes, they want to participate in the public debate. They’re perfectly entitled to do so, on an equal footing with everyone else. Yet the minute anyone disagrees with them, they play the “I’m a famous scientist and should not be gainsayed” card.
> 
> In other words, they aren’t interested in actual debate. They want to be authority figures who school the rest of us. Anyone who challenges them is reflexively pigeon-holed, labeled, and dismissed as
> 
> * rejecting all scientific progress
> * attacking all scientists


Further:



> So three cheers for Judith Curry, who writes today:
> 
> For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. *Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior* as revealed in the climategate emails. *All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.*


Bold from the link.

Judith's post:

Steyn et al. versus Mann

She sums:



> The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.


Nailed it...


----------



## FeXL

Willis on Revkin's math skills.

Andrew Revkin Loses The Plot, Episode XXXVIII



> I went over to Andy Revkin’s site to be entertained by his latest fulminations against “denialists”. Revkin, as you may remember from the Climategate emails, was the main go-to media lapdog for the various unindicted Climategate co-conspirators. His latest post is a bizarre mishmash of allegations, bogus claims, and name-calling.


The punch line:



> So Revkin is only in error by *one billion people* … but heck, given his historic defense of scientific malfeasance, and his ludicrous claims about “denialists” and “denialism”, that bit of innumeracy pales by comparison.


Bold from the link.

Close enough for a warmist...


----------



## FeXL

Yesterday I posted a link to a blog post by McIntyre, who is researching Mann's claims of being exonerated by any number of inquiries. He noted that a quote had been tampered with.

So, being the objective, informed kind of readers most of you are, any guesses where this doctored quote sourced from?

Yep. SS...

Michael Mann’s legal case caught in a quote fabrication fib



> *UPDATE:* it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.


Further:

SKS and Mann’s Doctored Quote



> Shub Niggurath has spotted the probable source of the doctored quotation in the Mann pleadings (h/t Mosher). Shub located the doctored phrase at Skeptical Science here. Check out Shub’s post.


And, more:

More SKS in the Mann Pleadings



> As noted above, the phrase “criticisms of CRU were misplaced” does not occur in the Committee Report. The first few Google entries for the phrase point to SKS, with the first entry pointing to the same SKS post providing the doctored quotation in the Mann pleadings about the Muir Russell report. Here is the phrase as occurring at SKS: indeed not only the phrase, but the entire sentence is pretty much lifted from SKS.


Curiouser & curiouser...


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale has an informative article on the Pacific Trade Winds.

El Niño and La Niña Basics: Introduction to the Pacific Trade Winds

Longish, excellent read, good visual aids.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the cherry pick of 1979 for Arctic data.

Arctic Ice Measurements Began In Coldest Year



> Whenever we hear about “Arctic ice melting”, it is always from a start point of 1979. Why should this be so, when we know there were satellite measurements being made at least as early as 1972?
> 
> Whatever the reason, it is a fact that 1979 was a particularly cold one, for instance in Iceland, as their Met Office point out.


It's exactly the same reason warmists used to use 1998 as the warmest. It supported their argument better. Now that sceptics use 1998 as the start date for the pause, we're accused of cherry picking when it was "their" number to begin with.


----------



## FeXL

More tampering.

Another Piece Of The Global Cooling History Destruction Puzzle



> In 1978, NOAA published this graph showing nearly a full degree cooling in the southern latitudes between 1955 and 1970.
> 
> ...
> 
> GISS has erased 90% of this cooling.


----------



## FeXL

Donna speaks about the value of skepticism.

Skepticism Used to be a Scientific Virtue



> Amazing, isn’t it? Democrat John Kerry, UK green leader Natalie Bennett, Labour PM Kevin Rudd, Labour PM Gro Harlem Bruntland – they’re all leftists. What in Hades happened to the left in recent years? The same political parties that used to talk about the importance of questioning authority now demand that we bow down to these authorities. Those who resist are _immoral_.
> 
> I’ll remain true to my old values, thank you. Just because left-leaning political parties have abandoned those values doesn’t mean we all have to.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The Merchants of Smear



> The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels


When all the bastards have left is a smear campaign, you know you're winning...


----------



## FeXL

Willis has a very interesting article on Volcanoes.

Volcanoes Erupt Again



> I see that Susan Solomon and her climate police have rounded up the usual suspects, which in this case are volcanic eruptions, in their desperation to explain the so-called “pause” in global warming that’s stretching towards two decades now. Their problem is that for a long while the climate alarmists have been shouting about about TWO DEGREES! PREPARE FOR TWO DEGREES OF DOOM BY 2100!! But to warm two degrees by 2100, you have to warm at 0.2°C per decade, or around 0.4°C during “the pause” … so they are now left trying to explain a missing warming that’s two-thirds of the 20th century warming of 0.6°C. *One hates to confess to schadenfreude*, but I’m sworn to honesty in these pages …


Bold mine.

I don't. Especially when it comes to warmists...


----------



## FeXL

How's that medicine taste, Mikey?

Mann apologizes for defamation (sort of) after lawsuit threat



> It’s a “jump the shark” moment for Mann.
> 
> As if taking a cue from yesterday’s essay The Merchants of Smear in deciding “enough is enough”, Herald Sun Journalist Andrew Bolt has decided to stand up to him for defamation. He did so in a most professional but firm way.


----------



## FeXL

On forecasts, weather & climate.

Government Weather and Climate Forecasts Are Failures



> Many medium and long-term weather and climate forecasts are wrong and below any level of usability. (for example, the Met office forecast for a dry 2013-2014 winter that ended up with major flooding – Anthony) Most forecasting agencies swing between determining their own accuracy level or openly detailing the inadequacy of their work. No production of society is as wrong as government weather forecasts and yet continues to operate. Apparently people just lump it in with all government waste and failure. Their real view is reflected in the fact that few activities receive more ridicule and disdain than weather forecasts.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre has info about two more of Mikey's "exonerations".

Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee



> Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize.


Mann Misrepresents the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change



> Next in the list of misrepresentations by Mann and his lawyers is their inclusion of the Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as an investigation that “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally. This takes the total of such misrepresented investigations to four (out of the four that I’ve thus far examined). In Mann’s pleadings, Mann additionally attributed findings of the Muir Russell Review to a separate investigation by the “government of the United Kingdom”, in turn, wildly inflating the supposed findings. As a secondary issue, Mann’s claim that this “investigation” was widely covered (or covered at all) in international media is also untrue, a point that Joe Romm complained about at the time.


----------



## FeXL

Almost everything the media tells you about skeptics is wrong: they’re engineers and hard scientists. They like physics too.



> In the mainstream media, skeptics are called Flat-Earthers, Deniers, and ideologues who deny basic physics. So it’s no surprise that they are exactly the opposite. A recent survey of 5,286 readers of leading skeptical blogs (eg here, WattsUp) shows that the people driving the skeptical debate are predominantly engineers and hard scientists with backgrounds like maths, physics and chemistry. Which group in the population are least likely to deny basic physics? Skeptics.


----------



## FeXL

New satellite getting ready to launch.

3 Days till Launch of the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) Core Observatory



> The Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) core observatory is scheduled to be launched from Japan at about noon (CST) on Thursday, Feb. 27. It will be in a 65 deg. inclination orbit, providing the first mid- and high-latitude coverage of precipitation systems with a precipitation radar.


----------



## FeXL

More on "adjustments".

Preparing For The Hockey Stick



> As of 1999, GISS showed that US temperatures (red) closely tracked 1975 National Academy of Sciences Northern Hemisphere temperatures (blue.) They both peaked around 1940 and declined rapidly thereafter.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, not so much...

A follow up on ‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’



> People send me stuff. Readers will surely recall ‘I’m Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, Ask Me Almost Anything!’. A reader who does not wish to be named writes about the questions he posed. Readers probably won’t be surprised at the outcome. – Anthony


Reddit? Hey, maybe MacDoc or groovetube can get a question answered there!

Further:



> So when the moderator specified that “hard questions are allowed” for Dr. Mann, I guess what he really meant was that “hard questions are definitely not allowed”. And as to “inappropriate”, I can hardly imagine more appropriate questions!
> 
> What Michael Mann took part in was more along the lines of a puff piece or a public relations show than anything like an “Ask Me Anything.” I’m disappointed, but not surprised. And if Dr. Mann ever reads this, I imagine there are a lot of us who would love the answers to those 3 questions. And about a hundred others after that.


----------



## FeXL

An Open Letter to CNN’s Carol Costello on ‘Why are we still debating climate change?’



> Carol Costello is stupid. There is no debate.
> 
> Now what would you think if you saw this in print, followed by a long explanation as to what is wrong with people who don’t agree, and a refusal to examine any facts related to the accusation? I imagine you’d be miffed. I imagine also that any examination of the facts would prove me wrong, I seriously doubt that such a statement would stand up to any fair debate of the matter. Which brings me to a question Carol:
> 
> *If the facts supporting Climate Change are so obvious, should not debating the facts of the matter strengthen those facts? Just as you would be eager to prove that you are not, in fact, stupid, should you not be equally as eager to prove your opinion by engaging in factual debate?*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the usual suspects here harps on occasion, "Don't you know anything about atmospheric physics?"

Long ago, when I first started being sceptical about CAGW, I knew very little about atmospheric physics. Grade school stuff, mostly. As an earth sciences kind of guy, however, I did know something about global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the course of a few hundred million years. I knew that global temps had been much higher in the past & there was no "runaway" feedback effect 'cause here we were, talking about it. I also knew that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had been much higher in the past and, again, here we were, talking about it. I knew then that the hypothesis of CAGW was crap.

In that same vein:

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears



> ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming...When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.'


While I'm moderately more informed about atmospheric physics today than I was back then, all I need to know about Global Warming I learned in university Geology class...


----------



## FeXL

On ice in the Northwest Passage.


Party’s Over In The NWP



> Five meter thick ice is being pushed into the Canadian Archipelago. The NWP may be blocked for years.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. Plant emitted aerosols can create enough haze to significantly reflect sunlight. Another naturally occurring event models handle poorly.

A case of the vapours: source of ‘climate-active’ organic aerosol particles pinned down



> According to their results, these extremely low-volatile organic compounds consist of relatively large molecules which contain an almost equal number of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms. The scientists present a plausible explanation supported by numerous experimental findings of how these vapours are formed almost immediately when plant emissions (e.g. monoterpenes) are released into the air. The vapours can then condense on small aerosol particles (starting from clusters of only a few nanometres in diameter) suspended in the air, causing them to grow to around 100 nanometres – at which size they can reflect incoming sunlight and act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation in the atmosphere.


An interesting comment has been given Update status at the end of the article. Excerpt:



> The authors do not mention Kirby or Svensmark, but I wonder if this is the missing mechanism from Svensmark’s 2013 study allowing cosmic-ray-initiated particle growth to proceed to CCN size.


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Yesterday (post #4655) I linked to a statement by Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, given to the US Senate.

The following link covers the same material but much of the story is in the comments.

Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change



> Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre's fifth foray into Mann's exoneration claims.

Mann Misrepresents NOAA OIG



> In today’s post, I’ll consider a fifth investigation – by the NOAA Office of the Inspector General OIG here- and show that, like the other four considered so far, Mann’s claims that it either “investigated” or “exonerated” Mann himself were untrue. In addition, I’ll show that Mann’s pleadings misrepresented the findings of this investigation both through grossly selective quotation and mis-statement.


----------



## FeXL

More "adjustments".

Rewriting Their Own Past At The National Academy Of Sciences



> The National Academy of Sciences just released a new temperature graph (black and brown) which has been massively altered since their 1975 report (red.) Note that they have eliminated most of the 1940-1970 cooling.


----------



## FeXL

Willis is still milking the CERES data.

The Power Stroke



> I got to thinking about the well-known correlation of El Ninos and global temperature. I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific, but I’d never looked at the actual physical distribution of the correlation. So I went to the CERES dataset, and Figure 1 shows the result.


More:



> The joy of science to me is wondering what the final map will look like. This map made me laugh when it came up on the silver screen. I laughed because it’s a very good map of the path of the warm water pumped from the equator to the poles by the magnificent El Nino pump. I didn’t expect that at all.


----------



## FeXL

Friday smiles.

Josh on “Mann of Rigor”



> Many thanks, Steve, for a great set of posts – the cartoons are queuing up.


Friday Funny – Mann’s Hot Seat



> _ DISCLAIMER: The following editorial cartoon contains satire, parody, exaggeration and uncensored imagery of balding public figures projected to be completely hairless about the north polar region by the year 2020.
> 
> It is not peer reviewed. It makes no claims to absolute undeniable, settled truth, while it does depict a very plausible scenario wherein catastrophic warming might cause pants to combust and hockey sticks to break spontaneously.
> 
> No actual polar bears were harmed in the production of this cartoon.
> 
> Free speech is the issue. The answer to discomforting free speech is even more free speech._


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Hey, with the additions of Gavin's new paper, we now have your Top 10 List of reasons for The Pause.

The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years



> There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:


----------



## FeXL

XX)XX)

So, with this latest gem, we gotcher models feeding data into yer models. How d'ya 'spect that's gonna end up?

Study projects big thaw for Antarctic sea ice



> From the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the department of unverifiable forecasts in our lifetime comes this model based projection.


From the comments:



> are these the same models that cannot recreate historical climate? So lets take junk models and see what predictions we can come up with so that the co2 Munch Scream can be kept going? sept 2013 was supposed to be the last month of sea ice in the arctic?


Yep. Dems the ones...


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale posts at length about the England _et al_ paper.


An Odd Mix of Reality and Misinformation from the Climate Science Community on England et al. (2014)



> I find it surprising that England et al. is getting so much attention. It’s simply another paper that shows quite plainly that the past and current generations of climate models are fatally flawed…because they cannot simulate coupled ocean atmosphere processes that cause global surface temperatures to warm and that stop that warming. Maybe the attention results from their use of “wind” as a metric. Everyone understands the word wind.


----------



## FeXL

Further on volcanoes & "The Pause".

Volcanoes And The ‘Pause’



> Another week and another explanation for the ‘pause’ in global surface/lower atmosphere temperatures. This time it’s the return of the ‘small volcanoes add up to big effect’ explanation in the form of a paper by Santer et al 2014 in Nature Geoscience. Could the cumulative effect from small volcanoes be causing a reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and hence a reduction in the rate of global surface warming?


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Further on volcanoes & "The Pause".
> 
> 
> 
> Another week and another explanation for the ‘pause’ in global surface/lower atmosphere temperatures. This time it’s the return of the ‘small volcanoes add up to big effect’ explanation in the form of a paper by Santer et al 2014 in Nature Geoscience. Could the cumulative effect from small volcanoes be causing a reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and hence a reduction in the rate of global surface warming?
> 
> 
> 
> Volcanoes And The ‘Pause’
Click to expand...

Glad to see you were able to catch the electrons and quote them.



eMacMan said:


> My my my. Caught a story on the lame waves today. Did you all know that the reason the computer models failed to predict the cooling is due to unusually high volcanic activity?
> 
> Now I know that volcanos are a major natural source of CO2. And according to the hockey stick crowd that very small .040% of the atmosphere which is CO2 is the only climate driver worthy of mention.
> 
> Now clearly all that extra CO2 means two things. Things should be warming faster than predicted, not cooling. Also it means that man is not as responsible for recent increases in CO2 as claimed. It was only mother nature letting loose a few farts.


----------



## FeXL

Moving the target, again...

UNSW climate scientists shift goal posts, publish irrelevant “extreme hot days” trend



> *The pause in global warming is so crippling, so crucial, that scientists will go to extremes to find any excuse to issue something that combines the magic terms “no pause” and “extreme temperatures”.* This is the winning combination in climate bingo. But marvel how far these researchers have to stretch to get there.
> 
> Gaze upon Seneviratne et al (UNSW) declaring that there is no pause in the trend of “extreme hot temperature days”. Watch the pea (or rather peas).


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Jeff Id works some treemometer data.

Confirmation of Phi’s Reconstruction



> While Phi made the claim that the trees bear out UAH lower troposphere data over ground temps, I don’t see a single instance of a better fit of tree data to one temp series over another as particularly solid. This is particularly true considering that there are known divergent datasets. Still, it seemed reasonable that Phi had picked out an excellent dataset from the literature to look at.


----------



## FeXL

Further on adjustments.

Hansen : Many Decades of Cooling The Past



> Between 1981 and 1987, Hansen was already quite busy cooling his own past.


And:

Temperature Record Corrections Always Go In The Same Direction



> For almost 35 years, NASA has been altering the temperature record to make the slope of warming appear steeper. The large change below was made just over a year ago. These changes have occurred repeatedly and consistently – and almost invariably in the same direction.


----------



## MacDoc

*Time to move on from the denier nonsense*

Digging in...to move the conversation to what to do about it.....



> Climate science
> *Inescapable truths*
> Feb 27th 2014, 15:12 by O.M.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE National Academies of Science (NAS) and the Royal Society—the elite scientific fellowships of America and Britain, respectively, respectively—released today a rather handy “Frequently Asked Questions” resource on climate change. It seems designed to act as a sort of counterbalance to op-ed pieces like this one by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, which take aim at “those scientists who pretend to know exactly what [carbon-dioxide emissions] will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years.”
> 
> The scientists of Mr Krauthammer’s scorn don’t actually exist: No one pretends to such precision. But no matter, Mr Krauthammer’s real complaint is more general. His target is anyone who believes that “science is settled”—a belief he tries to ascribe to Barack Obama. “There is nothing more anti-scientific,” he says, “than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.”
> 
> This sounds good in a Popperian way; but it is not really true. While science is more unsettled than some feel comfortable admitting,* it nevertheless depends on some things being settled irrevocably. The earth has a crust, a mantle and a core. Plants photosynthesise. Air is made of molecules. All these things were once not known and are now accepted as fundamental
> And it was in among such fundamentals that the president put climate change when he said during his state-of-the-union speech that“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”*


more
Climate science: Inescapable truths | The Economist


----------



## eMacMan

Of course climate change is a fact. As we have been pointing out from day one, the climate has been continually changing, as long as the earth has existed. Not only that but current and projected conditions are well within established boundaries.

What is not by any means settled is whether taking $Trillion$ of dollars from those who can least afford it and handing it over to Al Gore or the Banksters will change the rate of climate change in the least. 

What is very apparent is that Mann's mythical hockey stick has been shattered beyond all repair. The oceans are not gonna swallow LA, the sky is not gonna fall. Matter of fact anyone who is in Canada and looks out the window should probably be more concerned about the return of the ice age. Guess that's why the AGW crowd heads for warmer climes this time of the year. It's the only way they can continue to deny the cooling that is very obvious to the rest of us.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Digging in...to move the conversation to what to do about it.....


Hey, MacDoc, whassup?

I'm going to address one statement, and one statement only, from that article. Part of the one you bolded & reddened to look like your bloodshot eyes. The rest is just horse****.



> “Climate change is a fact.”


Give me the name of a single person on this planet who doesn't think there hasn't been climate change since day first. Either from a religious or an evolutionary point of view (relates to time frame) and from either end of the argument. Just one, single, solitary name. Then I'll show you someone with an even feebler grasp on reality than you and "your ilk".

Add that to your ever lengthening list of outstanding homework assignments. Waiting with bated breath. Not...


----------



## FeXL

So, Goddard had a conversation recently with Bill Gray.

The Price For Heresy



> Bill taught me more about weather and “climate change” in an hour today, than I had learned in my previous nearly 60 years. I will be talking more about this in the near future.


This, I anticipate...


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate sensitivity.

More Evidence for a Low Climate Sensitivity



> We have two new entries to the long (and growing) list of papers appearing the in recent scientific literature that argue that the earth’s climate sensitivity—the ultimate rise in the earth’s average surface temperature from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content—is close to 2°C, or near the low end of the range of possible values presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With a low-end warming comes low-end impacts and an overall lack of urgency for federal rules and regulations (such as those outlined in the President’s Climate Action Plan) to limit carbon dioxide emissions and limit our energy choices.


It's well know that one paper does not science make. However, 18? Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Further on increased damage costs from weather.

Study on weather disasters shows claims of increased damage costs aren’t rooted in climate, but rather, society



> Of course, any time an insurance company dabbles in science related to losses, you can be sure there’s a motivation other than pure science behind it. Shalini Mohleji and Roger Pielke Jr. thought this was worth examining to see if it such claims held up, and it turns out, they don’t.


----------



## FeXL

Lies built upon lies.

One Fraud Leads To Another



> The IPCC’s justification for tossing Briffa’s trees after 1960 was that they were made defective by too much CO2, and didn’t match the surface record – i.e. were too producing readings too low.
> 
> This is utter nonsense on all counts. More CO2 would cause more growth, and thus produce wider tree rings and produce false readings which were too high, not too low.
> 
> But the biggest BS is the claim that Briffa’s trees didn’t match thermometer readings. The graph below shows untampered US data on top of Jones, Briffa, et. al 1998.


----------



## FeXL

My, my, how things change.

1978 NOAA Paper Showed Temperatures Falling While CO2 Was Rising



> Hansen says that CO2 warming overwhelms natural variability. He might have been holding the paper upside down.


----------



## FeXL

Further temperature record "adjustments".

Spectacular Data Tampering From GISS In Iceland



> Enron accountants would blush at NOAA/NASA data tampering.


And,

Spectacular Data Tampering From GISS In Australia


----------



## eMacMan

Good video on the climate change deniers.

Global Cooling Deniers: Is an Ice Age Coming?


----------



## SINC

One day the warmest idiots will be forced to admit the error of their ways and that day is coming sooner than believers think.  -44° here tonight is our forecast.


----------



## Macfury

We were lucky to kiss the freezing point today. Then down to -14 tonight.

MacDoc wants us to decide what to do about climate change--I say wear a warmer coat.


----------



## FeXL

Blurb on current global sea ice.

Southern Sea Ice Area Minimum 2nd Highest on Record



> Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area reached a minimum of 2.447 Million Sq km on February 23th, 2014, which exceeded the prior 2nd highest minimum of 2.423 Million Sq km that occurred on February 22nd, 2013. The highest recorded Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area minimum remains 2.473 Million Sq km, which occurred on March 1st, 2003. The data from Cryosphere Today can be found here. *Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area has now been above average for over 2 years*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

This, from the White House (oooo, ahhhh) science advisor.


White House science adviser attacks Roger Pielke Jr. for his Senate testimony, Pielke responds with a skillfull counterstrike

Pielke, Jr., sums:



> The bottom line here is that this is an extremely poor showing by the president’s science advisor. It is fine for experts to openly disagree. But when a political appointee uses his position not just to disagree on science or policy but to seek to delegitimize a colleague, he has gone too far.


----------



## FeXL

Willis on Argo data. Great visual aids in this one, esp. Fig 1.

Argo, Temperature, and OHC



> I’ve been thinking about the Argo floats and the data they’ve collected. There are about 4,000 Argo floats in the ocean. Most of the time they are asleep, a thousand metres below the surface. Every 10 days they wake up and slowly rise to the surface, taking temperature measurements as they go. When they reach the surface, they radio their data back to headquarters, slip beneath the waves, sink down to a thousand metres and go back to sleep


Much of the story in the comments, like this one from RG Brown at Duke.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anyone who has been following the story.

New paper finds lows of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and 2012 were due to storms 



> A new paper published in The Cryosphere finds that the 2 recent lows in Arctic sea ice over the past decade during 2007 and 2012 were strongly related to storm activity, rather than a long-term effect of climate change.


Abstract (open access)



> This study investigates the impact of cyclones on the Arctic Ocean sea ice for the first time in a statistical manner. We apply the coupled ice–ocean model NAOSIM which is forced by the ECMWF analyses for the period 2006–2008. Cyclone position and radius detected in the ECMWF data are used to extract fields of wind, ice drift, and concentration from the ice–ocean model. Composite fields around the cyclone centre are calculated for different cyclone intensities, the four seasons, and different sub-regions of the Arctic Ocean. In total about 3500 cyclone events are analyzed. In general, cyclones reduce the ice concentration in the order of a few percent increasing towards the cyclone centre. This is confirmed by independent AMSR-E satellite data. The reduction increases with cyclone intensity and is most pronounced in summer and on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean. For the Arctic ice cover the cumulative impact of cyclones has climatologic consequences. In winter, the cyclone-induced openings refreeze so that the ice mass is increased. In summer, the openings remain open and the ice melt is accelerated via the positive albedo feedback. *Strong summer storms on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean may have been important contributions to the recent ice extent minima in 2007 and 2012.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Well, I guess this is probably a surprise to some...

New paper falsifies climate model predictions at 95% confidence level, "very low" chance they could have predicted the "pause" 



> A new paper published in Nature Climate Change deals a near-fatal blow to climate models, finding the chances were "very low" that the models could have predicted the 'pause' in global warming over the past 20 years. The paper is lead authored by John Fyfe, a co-chair of the IPCC, who also published a recent paper in Nature finding that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for the past 20 years.
> 
> The paper falsifies climate model simulations at a 95% confidence level, stating, "the observed trends over this period lie outside the 5–95% range of simulated trends, or in other words, they are inconsistent with the simulated combination of internal variability and response to natural and anthropogenic forcings."


To the editor: (paper paywalled)



> Fyfe _et al._1 showed that *global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate* by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and simulated internal variability1. Meanwhile, Kosaka and Xie2 used an earlier-generation climate model to show that such a difference is substantially reduced if eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures are prescribed to follow the observed rather than the simulated evolution. Kosaka and Xie2 concluded, therefore, that “accounting for recent cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations”. It is in this light that we revisit the findings of Fyfe and colleagues1.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, the GCM's can't even decide on the sign (whether +/-) of longwave cloud feedback.

Longwave Feedbacks in Climate Models



> Such sad state of affairs -- that of _no consensus_, not even in terms of the _sign_ of the longwave cloud feedback -- will likely persist for some time to come...


Italics from the original.


----------



## FeXL

Jeff Id on the RC boys.

If the Square Peg Doesn’t Fit – Get a Hammer!



> It seems like I just got done writing a post which incorporated the point that Real Climate leaves much to be mocked, and low-and-behold Gavin Schmidt deals us a whopper. A fantastic new paper was written as a comment for Nature called “Reconciling Warming Trends”, which proports to explain the lack of observed warming which directly contradicts the bulk of the climate models. *The first thing the media should take note of is that these scientists have finally noticed what us evil skeptics have been telling you for several years –the predicted level of warming didn’t happen!* It is warming, but not enough to be a problem, and that IS a big problem for the multi-billion dollar climate industry.


M'bold.

Hey, MacDoc! You following this?

He sums:



> As is often the case the Real Climate train-wreck provided us some solid entertainment. I wonder how many more decades will pass before they will figure out that the modeled climate feedback sensitivity looks a little high?


----------



## FeXL

OK, a few on warmist "predictions".

The Beck Is Back



> Last year, Sierra Club and University of Ottawa genius Paul Beckwith promised us an ice-free Arctic.


Record Snow – 14 Years After CRU Announced The End Of Snow In Britain



> Britain’s top climate experts announced the end of snow in Britain 14 years ago in March. And now they have record snow in the Lake District.


Five Years Since John Holdren Predicted Ice Free Winters



> In 2009, White House science adviser John Holdren forecast ice-free Arctic winters...


Ten Years Since The Guardian Announced The End Of Skiing In Scotland

So, if they can't get last years predictions correct, let alone those of a decade or more back, why the hell should we trust anything they have to say about a hunnert years hence?


----------



## FeXL

And, one from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

Coldest Springtime Weather In North Dakota History



> Meteorological spring starts March 1. Yesterday afternoon was the coldest spring day in North Dakota history.


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> And, one from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.
> 
> Coldest Springtime Weather In North Dakota History


We are being forecast to be in for the coldest early to mid-March temps in the recorded history of temps in St.John's, which date back to 1880. XX)


----------



## FeXL

January here can be anything from frosty to chinook, with the average being cold. We always bred our first time calfers to deliver in January. Easier on the calves when the temps stay below freezing. This January had very cold temps for stretches longer than usual.

February is typically chinook month, somewhat warmer on average. This is when we'd breed the older cows to calf, they were better mothers, more experienced. This Feb was way colder than usual, with temps rarely getting above freezing.

March can be a crapshoot, with either very cold or reasonably warm temps and all points in between, along with varying degrees of snow. It's pretty cold now (mid -20's) but the forecast for next weekend indicates highs of 10. Typical March weather here.


----------



## FeXL

Claim: large Antarctic polynyas to disappear, yet some are still found in satellite imagery



> This PR from McGill University claims that the “deep ocean heat has been unable to get out and melt back the wintertime Antarctic ice”. That might be true, but still, there are polynyas present in the location of interest (Weddell Sea) that they don’t mention. In fact, there’s even a large offshore polynya in progress in the Weddell Sea right now according to NSIDC imagery, and the Weddell sea has a lot more ice where it is not supposed to be according to “normals”.


Good NSF pictorial at the link.


----------



## FeXL

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

"Headed for the Exits?" is a good read.


----------



## FeXL

Recall Rosenthal _et al.,_ 2013 here, here & here.

Further:

Data and Corrections for Rosenthal et al 2013



> Last year, I wrote a blog post covering Rosenthal et al 2013 – see here. It reported on interesting Mg-Ca ocean cores in the western Pacific from the foraminfera H. Balthica, which is believed to be a proxy for “intermediate water temperatures”.
> 
> ...
> 
> However, the situation was much less dramatic if one parsed the actual data, as shown in the graphic below (taken from my earlier post) redrawn from Rosenthal’s information. *Rather than the modern period being “unprecedented”, on this scale, it looks well within historical ranges.*


M'bold.

Oops...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

New paper in Nature points out warming from 1970's ice age scare to 1990's could be due to natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation 



> A new paper published in Nature Climate Change points out that while one of the popular excuses for the "pause" in global warming over the past 17+ years is the negative phase of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation,
> 
> _"*Interestingly, no one really talks about the other side of this situation:* global warming acceleration. The mid-1970s through to the mid-1990s was a period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and saw an acceleration in warming. *If you consider the arguments about the effect of the negative phase on warming, then a positive PDO should result in the opposite.* That is, reduce the relative rate of deeper ocean heat increases and instead increase the rate at which surface warming is observed."​_
> It is indeed very "Interesting, no one [other than climate skeptics] really talks about the other side of this situation" that could naturally account for all observed global warming since the ice age scare of the 1970's.


Bold from the link.

Heat hide and seek (free registration required)

Full paper at the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Tuesday smile.

Behold, a Gordian - Josh 261



> If you read the comment threads at Climate Audit then you will be familiar with a character called Nick Stokes who argues the impossible and indefensible with great tenacity. Steve's patience with him is exemplary and this thread, in particular, prompted the cartoon.


----------



## FeXL

This is what happens when you put all your climate eggs in the "atmospheric CO2 has a linear response" basket. 

Spiegel On 15-Year Pause: “Biggest Mystery In Climate Science” … Scientists Caught With Their Pants Down



> At the online Spiegel here, science journalist Axel Bojanowski writes about the 15-year pause in global warming, which Nature here calls _“the biggest mystery in climate science.”_
> 
> Bojanowski describes a situation where scientists have been taken aback by the unexpected pause, and are now scrambling for a way to explain it, or to deny that it even exists. Some _“sense a campaign”_ behind the claims of a warming pause and say the media is overhyping it. The warming continues, some scientists insist. There’s been _“a breakdown in the communication”_ of the science, Spiegel quotes other warmist scientists.
> 
> *The problem that Spiegel describes seems to be one where the observed data was allowed to speak for itself to the public before the scientists ever got the chance to repackage it to their liking.*


Italics from the link, bold mine.

Hate when that unmassaged data goes public...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting...

Buffett: Climate Change Not Causing More Disasters



> Warren Buffett says the rate of disasters that Berkshire Hathaway's insurance companies see hasn't changed because of extreme weather.
> 
> Buffett said on CNBC Monday that he hasn't made any change in the way he calculates the likelihood of a catastrophe because of climate change.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Buffett says insuring against hurricanes in the United States has been extremely profitable in the past five years because few storms have made landfall.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

OK, this "denier" term used to do nothing but offend me. I didn't like the not so subtle Holocaust implication and, as such, the extremely poor taste and lack of respect the term carries. Later, it still offended me but I carried it somewhat like a badge of honour, a big, personal "screw you" to the whole "consensus" BS. I still find the term pejorative as do many to whom it's been applied.

One guy, Roy Spencer, has decided he's had enough and now terms any who use the word as "Climate Nazis". As expected, this has brought a hue & cry from many of the usual suspects. However, criticism came from one person at the Anti-Defamation League. Interestingly enough, they didn't seem to mind when the term "denier" was used.

Below are links retelling the story.

Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?



> I am calling out the ADL for not denouncing the widespread use of Nazi Holocaust imagery in public statements made by journalists, politicians, and even some scientists over the last 7+ years towards us global warming skeptics.


Climate Change Denial and the Holocaust allusion



> Readers here will know that my problem with the term “denial” is with its misuse in English*. But the term “denier” is also used as a character slur to mark those who disagree in a science debate as being as odious as Holocaust deniers. The hope, apparently, is that dissenting views should be shunned and their arguments and evidence ignored. It’s a cheap debating tactic to shut down debate for those without evidence and reason, but it’s incredibly effective if you have the media on your side. What’s amazing is how many otherwise smart people don’t see through this babyish rhetorical stunt.


The silence of the Anti Defamation League suggests they endorse defamation of climate skeptics



> I’ve waited several days for a response since I sent a letter last Thursday, I’ve checked the ADL website, my Inbox, fax machine, and asked in the climate skeptic community if anyone has seen any response of any kind from ADL. None has been received. It seems that ADL chooses silence after making a hypocritical error that puts their organization in a very bad light.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

So, what does increased atmospheric CO2 concentration get you? Global warming? Nope...

2nd Coldest U.S. Winter in 35 Years



> The primary winter months of December, January, and February averaged over the contiguous 48 United States were the 2rd coldest winter in the last 35 years. The average temperature of 32.2 deg. F was barely edged out by the slightly colder winter (32.0 deg. F) of 2009-2010


Hmmm... Wonder what temperature record they used?



> The analysis is based upon ~350 NOAA/NWS stations that measure temperatures every 6 hours...


Which, in view of various heretofore illustrated temperature data "adjustments", immediately makes the whole record suspect.

What else?



> *Note also that 6 of the last 8 winters have been below the 41-year average.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

What other data do we have that contradicts the AGW meme?

The 15 Hottest US Summers All Occurred With CO2 Below 350 PPM



> US summer maximum temperatures have been declining since the 19th century. The 15 hottest summers all occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM.


More:

1934 : US Weather Bureau Said The Country Had Warmed Seven Degrees



> In this 1934 article, the US Weather Bureau said that the US had warmed seven degrees in the past 25 years, and accurately predicted the post 1940 cooling


Well, obviously those crazy early 20th century meteorologists were naught but a bunch of rank amateur fruit loops & whackos whose thermometers were out of calibration in the first place anyway...


----------



## FeXL

Further on data "adjustments".

An Entire Science Wrecked By Data Tampering



> The “divergence” is due to data tampering by the hockey team, not some inexplicable change in tree behavior which magically occurred in 1960. This tampering led to the hockey stick and 15 years of wildly corrupt, irrational science.
> 
> In a rational field of science, people would suspect the half dozen data tamperers, rather than the 50 trillion trees.


----------



## FeXL

Another from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

BWI breaks 141-year-old record low temperature



> Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport *broke a 141-year-old record low temperature,* reaching 4 degrees.


M'bold.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Another from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.
> 
> BWI breaks 141-year-old record low temperature
> 
> M'bold.


Surely they are deserving of that record. I mean all that hot air and they still managed to set a record low. :clap:


----------



## FeXL

Questions about the veracity of the author and the contents of a new paper.

NSIDC’s Greenpeace connected researcher claims fewer days of Arctic sea ice being seen



> No mention though of the possibility that this is all part of a natural pattern, and of course no mention of Ms. Stroeve’s Greenpeace connections to her research, which brings her scientific objectivity into question. UPDATE: A graph submitted by a commenter suggests otherwise as does recently published paper. See below. UPDATE2: data source has been added.


Abstract (open access)



> The Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days decade−1 from 1979 to 2013, dominated by later autumn freezeup within the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas between 6 and 11 days decade−1. While melt onset trends are generally smaller, the timing of melt onset has a large influence on the total amount of solar energy absorbed during summer. The additional heat stored in the upper ocean of approximately 752 MJ m−2 during the last decade increases sea surface temperatures by 0.5 to 1.5 °C and largely explains the observed delays in autumn freezeup within the Arctic Ocean's adjacent seas. Cumulative anomalies in total absorbed solar radiation from May through September for the most recent pentad locally exceed 300–400 MJ m−2 in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas. This extra solar energy is equivalent to melting 0.97 to 1.3 m of ice during the summer.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Empirical evidence trumps models. Again. Who knew?

URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream



> Several recent studies have generated a great deal of publicity for their claims that the warming climate is slowing the pace of the Gulf Stream. They say that the Gulf Stream is decreasing in strength as a result of rising sea levels along the East Coast.
> 
> *However, none of the studies include any direct measurements of the current over an extended period to prove their point.*


M'bold.

From the comments:



> What? Use observations instead of modeling to figure something out? UNPRECEDENTED.


----------



## FeXL

2014 Bloggies. Vote!

Get out the vote! Climate makes another strong showing in The 2014 Bloggies

FWIW, I agree with the enclosed suggestions.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Great Lakes reaches second highest ice cover on record



> The latest data just in from the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor Michigan indicates that as of today, total ice cover reached the second highest value on record 91%, beating the previous 2nd highest value set in 1994 of 90.7%.


----------



## FeXL

Yo, MacDoc: You have all those overdue homework assignments completed yet? No? Unfortunately for you, then, you get a great, big fat "F" in your Global Warmist assignment. Nothing to substantiate your argument=no pass.

That said, any number of times over the course of the GHG threads you've screeched about glaciers melting, and cetera, due to global warming. Not once have you ever addressed any of the counterpoints (quell surprise) I've made about some glaciers growing. Here's another one to add to the list:

New paper finds "remarkable" growth of glaciers on Tibet plateau over past decade "challenging to explain"



> A paper published today in the _Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth_ finds the high Asian mountain inner Tibet Plateau glaciers are gaining remarkable quantities of ice mass. According to the authors, there is a "remarkable positive signal (+30 Gigatons/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain" and almost completely offsets loss of 35Gt/yr elsewhere in the region.
> 
> The authors explain a 5-year cycle found in other Asian high mountain glacier mass as due to the natural "influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> In this paper, 10 years of time-variable gravity data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Release 05 have been used to evaluate the glacier melting rate in High Mountain Asia (HMA) using a new computing scheme, i.e., the Space Domain Inverse (SADI) method. We find that in HMA area there are three different kinds of signal sources that should be treated together. The two generally accepted sources, glacier melting and India underground water depletion, are estimated to change at the rate of -35.0 ± 5.8 Gt/yr (0.09 mm/yr sea level rising) and -30.6 ± 5.0 Gt/yr, respectively. The third source is the remarkable positive signal (+30 Gt/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain. Further, we have found that there is a five-year undulation in Pamir and Karakoram, which can explain the controversies of the previous studies on the glacier melting rate here. This five-year signal can be explained by the influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Warren Buffet's observations about climate change & insurance.

Warren Buffett says climate change made no difference to insurance on catastrophes



> A CNBC show interviewed Warren Buffett — and in the context of talking about insurance shares — the billionaire (and Bershire Hathaway shareholders) are smiling all the way to the bank. Climate scientists may be predicting disasters, but as far as insurance goes, nothing much had changed.


----------



## FeXL

Tom Karl, NOAA's director of the National Climatic Data Center, had this to say about CO2 to Congress in 1986.

It Is Not The CO2 : “That is all I have to say”



> _So I think we have to realize that what is ongoing right now is part of what climatologists may call a climate fluctuation. That is, if we look at the past climate record, we find periods, 10-, 20-, 30- year long periods where the climate seems to shift to a different regime. We are not exactly sure why these shifts occur.​_


Wait. Wha...?



> _Finally, there is no evidence to indicate that the 1986 drought is a result of increasing carbon dioxide or other trace gases. Rather, it appears the most recent drought is part of one of a series of climate fluctuations that are typical of the climate record not only in this area, but throughout much of the United States and the globe.
> That is all I have to say.​_


Huh...


----------



## MacDoc

*Yes Virginia - it's getting warmer and wilder and we're responsible*

The Australian BOM site weighs in nicely with easy to understand chart of changes for those not immersed in denier woo...



> *State of the Climate report*
> Weather and climate touch all aspects of Australian life. What we experience here at home is part of the global climate system. The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO contribute significantly to the international effort of weather and climate monitoring, forecasting and research. In State of the Climate, we discuss the long-term trends in Australia’s climate.
> 
> This is our third biennial State of the Climate report. As with our earlier reports, we focus primarily on climate observations and monitoring carried out by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO in the Australian region, as well as on future climate scenarios.
> 
> State of the Climate 2014 draws on an extensive record of observations and analysis from CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, and other sources.
> 
> *Report at a glance*
> Data and analysis from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO show further warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the Australian region, as is happening globally. This change is occurring against the background of high climate variability, but the signal is clear.
> 
> Air and ocean temperatures across Australia are now, on average, almost a degree Celsius warmer than they were in 1910, with most of the warming occurring since 1950. This warming has seen Australia experiencing more warm weather and extreme heat, and fewer cool extremes. There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia.
> 
> Rainfall averaged across all of Australia has slightly increased since 1900. Since 1970, there have been large increases in annual rainfall in the northwest and decreases in the southwest. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.
> 
> Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise and continued emissions will cause further warming over this century. Limiting the magnitude of future climate change requires large and sustained net global reductions in greenhouse gases.
> 
> *KEY POINTS*
> 
> Australia’s climate has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, and the frequency of extreme weather has changed, with more extreme heat and fewer cool extremes.
> 
> Rainfall averaged across Australia has slightly increased since 1900, with the largest increases in the northwest since 1970.
> Rainfall has declined since 1970 in the southwest, dominated by reduced winter rainfall. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.
> 
> Extreme fire weather has increased, and the fire season has lengthened, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.
> 
> Global mean temperature has risen by 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012.
> 
> The amount of heat stored in the global oceans has increased, and global mean sea level has risen by 225 mm from 1880 to 2012.
> 
> Annual average global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached 395 parts per million (ppm) in 2013 and concentrations of the other major greenhouse gases are at their highest levels for at least 800 000 years.
> 
> Australian temperatures are projected to continue to increase, with more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cool days.
> 
> Average rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decrease, and heavy rainfall is projected to increase over most parts of Australia.
> 
> Sea-level rise and ocean acidification are projected to continue.
> 
> *Since 2001, the number of extreme heat records in Australia has outnumbered extreme cool records by almost  3 to 1 for daytime maximum temperatures, and almost 5 to 1 for night-time minimum temperatures.
> *
> Very warm months that occurred just over 2 per cent of the time during the period 1951 to 1980 occurred nearly 7 per cent of the time during 1981 to 2010, and around 10 per cent of the time over the past 15 years. At the same time the frequency of very cool months has declined by around a third since the earlier period.


more

State of the Climate 2014: Bureau of Meteorology


----------



## FeXL

Judith gave a talk to the American Physical Society Meeting in Denver.

Causes and implications of the pause

Abstract: *Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations*



> For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Potential causes for the model-observation discrepancies are discussed. A particular focus of the talk is the role of multi-decadal natural internal variability on the climate variability of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The “stadium wave” climate signal is described, which propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo. The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Implications of the hiatus are discussed in context of climate model sensitivity to CO2 forcing and attribution of the warming that was observed in the last quarter of the 20th century.


PPT slides & text available at the link.


----------



## MacDoc

Pretty pathetic campaign there FX - descending into bathos. Dredging up 1986 commentary
Drought is exacerbated by AGW - the link directly is not clear and is more to do with NAO, ENSO , PDO - since a warming world impacts all of the those then the connection is there.
Overlaid over natural cycles.

Denying climate change and it's causes these days is just a pathetic exercise in futility....move on to dealing with and best approaches as the rest of the planet is outside your head in sand right wingdings.....the cracks are showing even in that bastion of sheer ignorance.

Judith starts with a flat out lie and builds from there.

You think the ocean is not part of AGW - just what don't you understand about GLOBAL...

it's not just atmosphere...no slow down here....in fact it accelerated which simply means more heat was taken up by the ocean










wait around for the next El Nino....you'll be out of denier options.


----------



## MacDoc

once you finish telling the Australians they are wrong then you can tackle the Royal Society and the National Academies of Science....

do you have even the remotest idea how ridiculous your denier position is....



> *Climate Change: Evidence & Causes*
> The Royal Society & National Academies of Science
> Have produced a new report entitled: Climate Change: Evidence & Causes.
> (there is an accompanying webcast as well).
> 
> Q & A addressed:
> Is the climate warming?
> How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
> CO2 is already in the atmosphere naturally, so why are emissions from human activity significant?
> What role has the Sun played in climate change in recent decades?
> What do changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature — from the surface up to the stratosphere — tell us about the causes of recent climate change?
> Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
> Is the current level of atmospheric CO2 concentration unprecedented in Earth’s history?
> Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
> Does the rate of warming vary from one decade to another?
> Does the recent slowdown of warming mean that climate change is no longer happening?
> If the world is warming, why are some winters and summers still very cold?
> Why is Arctic sea ice decreasing while Antarctic sea ice is not?
> How does climate change affect the strength and frequency of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes?
> How fast is sea level rising?
> What is ocean acidification and why does it matter?
> How confident are scientists that Earth will warm further over the coming century?
> Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?
> What are scientists doing to address key uncertainties in our understanding of the climate system?
> Are disaster scenarios about tipping points like ‘turning off the Gulf Stream’ and release of methane from the Arctic a cause for concern?
> If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
> DELS Microsite Network â€º Log In
> 
> A well put together information brochure designed to help address a lot of common questions and explain the basics of the scientific understandings about climate change while laying our the more compelling evidences supporting these understandings. It uses common language and is designed to help feed into public policy debate and discussions.
> 
> Additionally, the following NAS site links to a variety of other National Academies of Science pages dealing with a large variety of climate science studies and findings.
> Climate Change at the National Academies


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> The Australian BOM site weighs in nicely with easy to understand chart of changes for those not immersed in denier woo...


I'm sure there's a point to all this somewhere, you f'ing Climate Nazi, but what is it? 

Where is the connection to anything on that page with atmospheric CO2 concentrations? C'mon MacDoc, one, just one, little, tiny piece of empirical evidence that links the two.

You don't have squat, do you, Precious...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Pretty pathetic campaign there FX - descending into bathos. Dredging up 1986 commentary


Ha! In '86 they knew the truth! How quickly those lessons have been forgotten...



MacDoc said:


> Drought is exacerbated by AGW


Where's the empirical evidence?



MacDoc said:


> - the link directly is not clear and is more to do with NAO, ENSO , PDO - since a warming world impacts all of the those then the connection is there.
> Overlaid over natural cycles.


It's all natural cycles...



MacDoc said:


> Denying climate change and it's causes these days is just a pathetic exercise in futility....move on to dealing with and best approaches as the rest of the planet is outside your head in sand right wingdings.....the cracks are showing even in that bastion of sheer ignorance.


I asked you last week to give me the name of a single individual who denies there has been climate change. You came up with nothing. Another idiotic observation with, big surprise, no evidence to back it up. Screw you, your rhetoric & the horse you rode in on...



MacDoc said:


> Judith starts with a flat out lie and builds from there.


Well then, I'm sure I'll see your name in the comments section to point out the error of her ways, including empirical evidence, any time now...



MacDoc said:


> You think the ocean is not part of AGW - just what don't you understand about GLOBAL...


Quote exactly the passage where I've said that. I understand everything about GLOBAL. Including GLOBAL stupidity...



MacDoc said:


> it's not just atmosphere...no slow down here....in fact it accelerated which simply means more heat was taken up by the ocean


Heat is not temperature. Is there any other terminology you're having issues with? Please, feel free to ask. You've no issues highlighting your ignorance on other global warming topics...



MacDoc said:


> wait around for the next El Nino....you'll be out of denier options.


Again, the irony! You need El Nino, a natural process, to provide evidence of "global warming". Ask yourself this, bright boy: If an El Nino never arrives, does that mean global warming will have stopped?


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> once you finish telling the Australians they are wrong then you can tackle the Royal Society and the National Academies of Science....
> 
> do you have even the remotest idea how ridiculous your denier position is....


Answer the questions MacDoc. You have all these resources at your keyboard, yet you fail to respond to the simplest of requests.

Every time you give a non-response or don't answer my questions, you show me exactly what you have: Sweet FA...

Is debate merely beneath you or do you and your cadre, your "ilk", simply not have the answers? Are you frightened of giving credence to sceptics by engaging them? You talk the talk yet, when pressed for the simplest of answers, you slink off like the skunk you are. When next you reappear, you leave these great, steaming loads in the middle of the thread that say nothing, acknowledge less & prove nothing more than your ignorance of the topic.

This isn't debate, it's massacre & your head's long in the basket.

C'mon, Davey boy. Show me you aren't as wilfully ignorant of the issues as you come across as. Answer the questions...


----------



## FeXL

Further on this bull$hit...



MacDoc said:


> Drought is exacerbated by AGW - *the link directly is not clear* and is more to do with NAO, ENSO , PDO - since a warming world impacts all of the those then the connection is there.


M/bold.

Wait just a stinking minute, here...

I thought "The Science Is Settled"?

"Not clear" sounds an awful lot like, "We don't have a clue". So, which TF is it, MacDoc?

You go on and on about cracking edifices. Have you checked your own foundation, lately?


----------



## FeXL

Warm Welcome



> The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
> 
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
> 
> Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Punch line inside...


----------



## FeXL

Donna on the 2014 Bloggies.

Blog of the Year Nomination



> I awoke this morning to the pleasant news that this blog has been nominated for a ‘Weblog of the Year’ award...


----------



## FeXL

Donna on rat snakes, aka Bob Ward.

Rat Snake Bob



> A UK parliamentary committee. A Canadian journalist. A rat snake.


You go, girl...

Further:

Bob Ward’s “rat-snake” ploy



> It seems the irascible Bob Ward from the Grantham Institute just couldn’t handle having climate skeptics allowed to give an opinion before the UK Parliament, so he filed rebuttals to every witness. I’ve been sitting on this over a week, and Donna Laframboise reports that the cat is out of the bag now, along with the skeptic response to Bob Ward, who she labels a “rat-snake” for his intolerance.


----------



## FeXL

Lady Liberty toast? Again?

The Statute of Liberty is threatened by ‘global warming’…again




> It seems this claim comes up about once a year, now we have yet another one making the rounds in the media. Of course when you look at the data, it doesn’t look quite so terrible and or plausible.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out on climate sensistivity, Lewis & Crok 2014.

The Lewis and Crok exposition – Climate less sensitive to Carbon Dioxide than most models suggest



> Full papers plus additional comments from co-author Nic Lewis follow. I have added some relevant diagrams and tables from the report, plus reproduced the foreword by Dr. Judith Curry as well as updated the summary Equilibrium Climate Response Graph originally by Dr. Patrick Michaels to include this new ECS value and range.


Judith talks about her foreword compiled for the paper.

Lewis and Crok: Climate less sensitive to CO2 than models suggest



> I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication. I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming. That said, GWPF has done some commendable things, notably pushing for inquiries into the Climategate affair. And there really are very few options for publishing a report like this.
> 
> I think it is important to put forward alternative assessments of the key elements of the climate change debate — alternative to reports issued by the IPCC, the UK MetOffice, and the RS/NAS.


Further:


Sherwood's fabrication



> This demonstrates conclusively that Sherwood hasn't read the Lewis/Crok report, the whole point of which is that, once you have discarded all the lines of evidence that AR5 itself says are unreliable you are left with only the GCMs and the energy budget studies.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Far from relying heavily on it, as Sherwood falsely states, Lewis and Crok explicitly agree with the IPCC that it should not be relied upon.*


Italics from the link, m'bold.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

North American snow cover at 3rd-highest level on record



> As of Tuesday, North America is covered by the third-highest amount of snow this late in the season since records began in 1966, according to NOAA's U.S. National Ice Center.
> 
> Only 1969 and 1978 had more snow cover at this point in the year, according to Sean Helfrich of NOAA's National Ice Center.


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for offering MacDoc his head in a basket, FeXL. Saves me a lot of aggravation. Seems half these AGW backers predict drought, while the other half threaten clouds and heavy rains.

At least MacDoc is consistent. He's still looking for the "missing heat" that can't be retained by a few molecules of carbon dioxide. (Hint: look for it dispersed into outer space, MaccyD. The Earth is not a greenhouse.)


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Thanks for offering MacDoc his head in a basket, FeXL. Saves me a lot of aggravation. Seems half these AGW backers predict drought, while the other half threaten clouds and heavy rains.


It reminds me of some twisted GHG version of a Monty Python sketch where, no matter what damage is incurred via empirical evidence, the groundless hypothesis never dies...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> It reminds me of some twisted GHG version of a Monty Python sketch where, no matter what damage is incurred via empirical evidence, the groundless hypothesis never dies...



AGW nut: I'm a little peckish for some CO2 forcing...
Scientist: Yessir. It's ah... it's a bit runny.


----------



## MacDoc

*Yes models make predictions that come true....despite denidiot claims*

To counter those that claim no predictive power.....
This nine year old analysis is spooky....look at the model and the reality



> *Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be ‘Even More Dire’*
> BY JOE ROMM	ON MARCH 7, 2014 AT 12:26 PM


Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be 'Even More Dire' | ThinkProgress

and she says it's gonna get worse. 

snip



> First, though, as I’ve reported,* scientists a decade ago not only predicted the loss of Arctic ice would dry out California, they also precisely predicted the specific, unprecedented change in the jet stream that has in fact caused the unprecedented nature of the California drought.* Study co-author, Prof. Lisa Sloan, told me last week that, “I think the actual situation in the next few decades could be even more dire that our study suggested.”
> Back in 2004, Sloan, professor of Earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, and her graduate student Jacob Sewall published, “Disappearing Arctic sea ice reduces available water in the American west” (subs. req’d). They used powerful computers “to simulate the effects of reduced Arctic sea ice,” and “their most striking finding was a significant reduction in rain and snowfall in the American West.”
> “Where the sea ice is reduced, heat transfer from the ocean warms the atmosphere, resulting in a rising column of relatively warm air,” Sewall said. “The shift in storm tracks over North America was linked to the formation of these columns of warmer air over areas of reduced sea ice.” In January, Sewall wrote me that “both the pattern and even the magnitude of the anomaly looks very similar to what the models predicted in the 2005 study (see Fig. 3a [below]).”
> Here is what Sewall’s model predicted in his 2005 paper:














> Figure 3a: Differences in DJF [winter] averaged atmospheric quantities due to an imposed reduction in Arctic sea ice cover. The 500-millibar geopotential height (meters) increases by up to 70 m off the west coast of North America. Increased geopotential height deflects storms away from the dry locus and north into the wet locus


and what actually is occurring ....the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge










Wow .....good science.....nasty outcome...interesting times.


----------



## eMacMan

Given that California is given to cyclical droughts, some lasting upwards of 200 years, I would be very surprised if CA gets off with just a few years on this one. 

As part of a very well established historical cycle you can hardly blame this on CO2. Drop by the various Anasazi ruins next time you are trying to escape that cooling deniers nightmare of a Polar Vortex. You will discover that a much more severe drought led to their abandonment. 

FWIW Nice to see the Great Lakes almost completely frozen over.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc's wide-eyed surprise reminds me of the people who used to praise one astrologer over another. They would sift through 8,000 outlandish predictions and settle on one that proved to be correct. In this case, MaccyD has nosed through the manure of a thousand failed models and found ONE that makes a prediction about a tiny area of the globe that has a likelihood to be correct about 50 per cent of the time. I can do the same thing regarding California drought for any year in the future as well.

What the model also fails to do is to make any case for AGW. It just expects you to accept its tortured reasoning on the basis of a 50 per cent bet.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> To counter those that claim no predictive power.....
> This nine year old analysis is spooky....look at the model and the reality


MF nailed it. Take 10's of thousands of model runs, find one that finally comes close & cry "Eureka!". That's some measure of accuracy, MacDoc.

What a crock.

Then, THEN, they get such outstanding people as Mikey "Hockey Stick" Mann & the noted liar & thief, Peter Gleick for their ringing endorsement.

The icing on the cake is Trenberth claiming an increase in wild fires which is blatant BS. And, the sprinkles are Holdren who couldn't pour pee out of a boot if the instructions where written on the heel.

You keep posting this stuff, MacDoc. I luvs tearing your crap apart on a public board & showing your little fan club just how little you've actually got...


----------



## eMacMan

So what happens when you let CO2 trump real pollution? 

No one can argue France has been suckered more than most when it comes to Carbon Credits/taxes. And their reward is?

Free rides to combat pollution in France, Belgium



> PARIS (AP) — Air pollution that has turned the skies over Paris a murky yellow and shrouded much of Belgium for days forced drivers to slow down Friday and gave millions a free ride on public transportation.
> 
> 
> The belt of smog stretched for hundreds of miles, from France's Atlantic coast to Belgium and well into Germany. It was the worst air pollution France has seen since 2007, the European Environment Agency said.
> 
> 
> Nearly all of France was under some sort of pollution alert Friday, with levels in the Parisian region surpassing some of those in the world's most notoriously polluted cities, including Beijing and Delhi.
> 
> 
> To combat the smog, public transit around Paris and in two other cities was free Friday through Sunday. Elsewhere in France and in Belgium's southern Wallonia area, the free ride was only for Friday.
> 
> 
> *The smog is particularly severe here because France has an unusually high number of diesel vehicles, whose nitrogen oxide fumes* mix with ammonia from springtime fertilizers and form particulate ammonium nitrate. Pollutants from the burning of dead leaves and wood contribute as well.


Trading lower CO2 for higher NOx, is just plain stupid.


----------



## MacDoc

*Keep your denier heads buried*

won't change a thing.....



> *Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy*
> 
> Leaked draft report from UN panel seen by The Independent is most comprehensive investigation into impact of climate change ever undertaken - and it's not good news
> TOM BAWDEN Author Biography Tuesday 18 March 2014
> 
> Climate change will displace hundreds of millions of people by the end of this century, increasing the risk of violent conflict and wiping trillions of dollars off the global economy, a forthcoming UN report will warn.
> 
> The second of three publications by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be made public at the end of this month, is the most comprehensive investigation into the impact of climate change ever undertaken. A draft of the final version seen by The Independent says the warming climate will place the world under enormous strain, forcing mass migration, especially in Asia, and increasing the risk of violent conflict.
> 
> Based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and put together by hundreds of respected scientists, the report predicts that climate change will reduce median crop yields by 2 per cent per decade for the rest of the century – at a time of rapidly growing demand for food. This will in turn push up malnutrition in children by about a fifth, it predicts.
> 
> *Climate change*
> 
> Coastal systems and low-lying areasFood securityThe global economyHuman healthHuman securityFreshwater resourcesUnique landscapes
> Next
> Coastal systems and low-lying areasFood securityThe global economyHuman healthHuman securityFreshwater resourcesUnique landscapes
> 
> The report also forecasts that the warming climate will take its toll on human health, pushing up the number of intense heatwaves and fires and increasing the risk from food and water-borne diseases.
> 
> While the impact on the UK will be relatively small, global issues such as rising food prices will pose serious problems. Britain’s health and environmental “cultural heritage” is also likely to be hurt, the report warns.
> 
> According to the draft report, a rare grassy coastal habitat unique to Scotland and Ireland is set to suffer, as are grouse moors in the UK and peatlands in Ireland. The UK’s already elevated air pollution is likely to worsen as burning fossil fuels increase ozone levels, while warmer weather will increase the incidence of asthma and hay fever.
> 
> *Coastal systems and low-lying areas*
> 
> The report predicts that by the end of the century “hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss”. The majority affected will be in East Asia, South-east Asia and South Asia. Rising sea levels mean coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly experience submergence, coastal flooding and coastal erosion.
> 
> *Food security*
> 
> Relatively low local temperature increases of 1C or more above pre-industralised levels are projected to “negatively impact” yields of major crops such as wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions. The report forecasts that climate change will reduce median yields by up to 2 per cent per decade for the rest of the century – against a backdrop of rising demand that is set to increase by 14 per cent per decade until 2050.
> 
> *The global economy*
> 
> A global mean temperature increase of 2.5C above pre-industrial levels may lead to global aggregate economic losses of between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent, the report warns. Global GDP was $71.8trn (£43.1trn) in 2012, meaning a 2 per cent reduction would wipe $1.4trn off the world’s economic output that year.
> 
> *Human health*
> 
> Until mid-century, climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating problems that already exist, the report says. Climate change will lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, with examples including a greater likelihood of injury, disease and death due to more intense heatwaves and fires; increased likelihood of under-nutrition; and increased risks from food and water-borne diseases. Without accelerated investment in planned adaptations, climate change by 2050 would increase the number of undernourished children under the age of five by 20-25 million globally, or by 17-22 per cent, it says.
> 
> *Human security*
> 
> Climate change over the 21st century will have a significant impact on forms of migration that compromise human security, the report states. For example, it indirectly increases the risks from violent conflict in the form of civil war, inter-group violence and violent protests by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.
> 
> Small-island states and other places highly vulnerable to sea-level rise face major challenges to their territorial integrity. Some “transboundary” impacts of climate change, such as changes in sea ice, shared water resources and migration of fish stocks have the potential to increase rivalry among states.
> 
> *Freshwater resources*
> 
> The draft of the report says “freshwater-related risks of climate change increase significantly with increasing greenhouse gas emissions”. It finds that climate change will “reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources significantly in most dry subtropical regions”, exacerbating the competition for water. Terrestrial and freshwater species will also face an increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century.
> 
> *Unique landscapes*
> 
> Machair, a grassy coastal habitat found only in north-west Scotland and the west coast of Ireland, is one of the several elements of the UK’s “cultural heritage” that is at risk from climate change, the report says. Machair is found only on west-facing shores and is rich in calcium carbonate derived from crushed seashells. It is so rare and special, that a recent assessment by the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism described it as an “unknown jewel”.
> 
> The IPCC also warns of climate threats to Irish peatlands and UK grousemoors and notes an increasing risk to health across Europe from rising air pollution – in which the polluted UK is already in serial breach of EU regulations.


Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

sow the wind??.....whirl wind right on schedule


----------



## Macfury

I don't know where to begin. The IPCC has made no good case for AGW yet with a great track record of zero hits. Let's take a quick look anyway.

*Coastal systems and low-lying areas*
Real life sea levels? Normal.

*Food security*
Crop yields under warmer temperatures and more CO2? Up!

*Human health*
Health under warmer temperatures? Improved! (More people die of cold.)

*The global economy*
Slightly improved!

*Human security*
Putin or global warming? Enough said.

*Freshwater resources*
Increased rainfall--more fresh water!

*Unique landscapes*
Unique because they are rare and ephemeral. Some will go, new ones will emerge.


We're all shaking in our boots Maccy D. If I could arrange for the globe to warm, I'd pull the switch today.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> We're all shaking in our boots Maccy D. If I could arrange for the globe to warm, I'd pull the switch today.


Yep I'd head out for a nice long CO2 belching drive, say all the way to Arizona, were it not for that foot or so of snow blocking my exit.

Come to think of it I am issuing a challenge for any of Al Gore's true believers to come shovel my drive way and alley. What he's Down Under where he can safely deny the impact of Global Cooling? Come back to Canada and shovel like a man!


----------



## MacGuiver

MacDoc said:


> won't change a thing.....
> 
> 
> Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent
> 
> sow the wind??.....whirl wind right on schedule


This crisis the UN is describing can only be addressed with a powerful one world government body calling the shots... like maybe the United Nations? beejacon


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> This crisis the UN is describing can only be addressed with a powerful one world government body calling the shots... like maybe the United Nations? beejacon


With special privileges for India, of course:

The Hindu News Update Service



> *India will continue to use coal to meet its energy demands, says Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change *(IPCC).
> 
> "Can you imagine 400 million people who do not have a light bulb in their homes," Dr. Pachauri told reporters here Monday.
> 
> "You cannot, in a democracy, ignore some of these realities and as it happens with the resources of coal that India has* we really don't have any choice but to use coal *in the immediate short term," he said.


----------



## MacDoc

*Deniers rejoice*

Well... a small negative feedback...



> *Less gloopy oceans will slow climate change*
> 
> 16:27 21 March 2014 by Fred Pearce
> 
> Our changing climate will have an unexpected effect: it will make the oceans less thick and viscous. That is good news, as it should make the seas much better at burying atmospheric carbon out of harm's way on the seabed.
> 
> The effect is big enough to reduce the temperature rise by 8 per cent, says Jan Taucher of the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research at Kiel, Germany, who claims to be the first to model the change in stickiness.
> 
> Much of the carbon dioxide we pour into the atmosphere dissolves into the ocean, where it is taken up by growing organisms. When these organisms die, some of the carbon forms particles that sink to the ocean floor. To replace this buried carbon, the oceans absorb more from the air, which in turn curbs climate change.
> 
> Global warming may give this process a boost, says Taucher. Warmer water is less viscous, and a previous study suggested the particles will sink 5 per cent faster for every degree of warming, so more carbon will end up on the seabed.
> 
> Taucher added the viscosity effect to a model of ocean physics and chemistry and ran it until the year 4000, with emissions falling to zero after 2100. *The world ended up 6 °C warmer, but the oceans absorbed 17 per cent more carbon dioxide than previously thought. That reduced overall warming by 8 per cent*.


Less gloopy oceans will slow climate change - environment - 21 March 2014 - New Scientist

gee wow....


----------



## Macfury

Published paper? No.
Peer reviewed? No.

So Taucher, a student, built a model that modifies another model? Guess that's news in AGW nutter land. 

Meanwhile, back on Earth, 17 years straight of no statistical warming as CO2 climbs.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Well... a small negative feedback...


Well, hello, dickhead!

Few things to address here...

1) When are you going to get it through your thick skull that models are worthless unless you can account for every possible factor relating to the problem? As in, you can model the flipping of a coin because, realistically, there are only two outcomes: heads or tails. Simple subroutine accessing a random number generator, couple lines of code, poof! An accurate coin tossing model. However, you cannot accurately model complex chaotic systems like climate. There are simply too many factors & too many unknowns. Hell, two weeks ago the local weatherman twice missed the daily high by 16°C, using the selfsame models that climate modellers use. This morning it's -23° yet he called for -8°! And, you expect anybody to believe that models are to be trusted not only a hunnert years out, but 1900?

1a) The "results" in this article are based on faulty modelled output, predicated upon missing and inaccurate modeler input, not empirical evidence and, as such, aren't worth the zeroes & ones used to describe them. Same as your GCM's. Period.

2) Let's assume that the models are correct. Six degrees of warming over 1900 years. That's 0.32 degrees per century, which is less than half the warming the planet has experienced over the course of the last hunnert years.

2a) WTF? If this negative feedback actually exists, it would have been working just as well for the past century as it will for the next two millennia. Do you actually critically read this stuff or are you just headline seeking?

3) I thought the science was settled? All neatly packaged up in a box with shiny wrapping, a ribbon & a pink bow. Yet, in your feeble attempts to explain "The Hiatus", you are grasping at every transparent, two bit solution you can dredge up on the intertoobs in the hope that you can convince your followers that the religion isn't as full of holes as your head. Good luck with that...

3a) So, which the hell is it? Is the science settled or do we (you!) still have something to learn? Make up your blooming mind, 'cause you look like the south end of a northbound horse every time you promote another "solution".

I don't have a problem with you posting an alternative viewpoint. Mostly I find it entertaining as hell. Just don't post bull$hit that even my grade school age children can debunk. Unlike your last three posts, how about something that we can really sink our teeth into? I know! How about presenting your long overdue homework assignments? If you find them too difficult, perhaps you could get your son or daughter to complete them for you. She's got a university eddication...


----------



## MacDoc

*consequences - whether you like it or not*

denial of agw climate change is a failed meme....assigned to the cranks and loonies file












> _Fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas._
> 
> *Australia's multibillion-dollar mining, farming and tourism industries face significant threats as worsening global warming causes more dangerous and extreme weather, the world's leading climate science body will warn.*
> 
> A final draft of a five-year assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - seen by Fairfax Media - details a litany of global impacts from intensifying climate change including the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, reduced crop yields and the loss of trillions of dollars from the global economy.
> The report is the second part of the IPCC's fifth major assessment and focuses on climate change's impacts and how the world might adapt. It will be finalised at a meeting in Japan next weekend before its release on March 31.
> The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse, in particular high confidence that fire seasons, particularly in southern Australia, will extend in high-risk areas.
> 
> There is also significant risk of increased damage and death from heatwaves resulting from more frequent extreme high temperatures. Flood risk too would be worse.
> The draft says these new extremes imply Australia's mammoth mining industry is increasingly vulnerable without adaptation measures. The report points to significant loss of coal exports revenue of $5 billion to $9 billion when mines were flooded in 2011.
> Tourism also faces some significant threats, the draft says. The Great Barrier Reef is expected to degrade under all climate change scenarios, reducing its attractiveness to visitors.
> Australia's $1.8 billion ski industry is identified as most negatively affected, with little option for it to counteract threats.
> For Australian farming a 4 per cent reduction in the gross value of beef, sheep and wool is expected with 3 degrees of warming above a 1980-99 baseline.
> Dairy output is projected to decline in all regions, except in Tasmania.
> Out of the major risks identified for Australia in the draft, the loss of montane ecosystems and changes in coral reefs, appear to be very difficult to avoid. The draft also finds modelling consistently indicated the range of many wildlife species will contract.
> And there is high confidence climate change is already affecting Australia's oceans, with climate zones and species shifting hundreds of kilometres southwards.
> Professor Jean Palutikof - a review editor of the assessment and director of Australia's National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility - said while adaptation measures were important, there were limits to what the world could do and it was important to cut global emissions to ensure these thresholds are not reached.
> ''I think it is quite black and white, there is a risk we will go beyond the limits of the natural environment and human society to adapt to the climate'' she said.
> A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government recognised the importance of adapting to the impacts of climate change, pointing to the refunding of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, which it has asked to ''focus on putting practical adaptation information in the hands of decision-makers so we can build a stronger, more resilient Australia''.
> 
> *FOOD*
> The world is hungry and increasingly so. Demand for the three staple food crops - rice, wheat and maize - is expected to grow 14 per cent a decade to 2050.
> Meeting that demand will be hard at the best of times. CSIRO's Dr Mark Howden says the food produced (yields) by most primary crops is presently growing by only about 1 per cent a decade.
> Then there is climate change. The draft IPCC assessment finds with global warming average global crop yield will decline by up to 2 per cent a decade .
> Dr Howden is a lead author of the food security chapter in the report. He says food crops will remain relatively stable with less than 1 degree of warming. But as temperatures rise above that they will feel the heat. And the more heat, the less crops will produce.
> ''Confidence that things will get more and more negative is stronger and stronger as we go out to higher temperatures,'' he says.
> More extreme weather will also mean the amount of food produced will vary wildly year-on-year.
> The draft findings of the fifth assessment differ from the IPCC's last report, which found crop losses in some areas would be offset by gains elsewhere. Five years on and more negative impacts are now being observed than positive.
> Dr Howden says adaptation can improve yields by about 10 to 15 per cent above what they would otherwise have been - enough to feed a billion people. The draft says adaptation can be effective at about two degrees of warming, but at four degrees the gap between production and demand will become increasingly large in many regions, even with adaptation.
> The work to be able to adapt food production to a hotter and more variable world must begin now, Dr Howden says. One example is the need to breed varieties that can handle the new climate, while to date we breed for historic conditions.
> 
> *NATURAL HABITAT*
> At the top of Australia's mountains the world is closing in. As the planet warms, snow is disappearing and the montane environment is receding. The animal and plant species that call it home, such as the mountain pygmy-possum, have a significant problem - their chance of extinction is growing.
> Macquarie University biologist, Professor Lesley Hughes, says habitat contraction is one of the key challenges emerging as a result of climate change.
> Professor Hughes is a lead author of the Australasian chapter. She says if warming intensifies over the coming decades the overall global picture for ecosystems, plants and animals is bleak. A leaked draft of the report concludes many species are already shifting their range, seasonal activities, migration patterns, and interactions.
> ''There are lots of species that have proved to be very sensitive to warming of even less than 1 degree,'' Professor Hughes says.
> ''In some cases species have moved several hundred kilometres to cooler areas towards the poles, particularly in the marine world, where there are less barriers to movement than on land.''
> She says that at up to 2 degrees of warming, the main driver of extinction, will continue to be land-use change, but at any higher rate of warming, climate change will become the predominant factor.
> Professor Hughes says most species cannot evolve at the same speed as the planet is changing, and there is little humans can do to help out.
> 
> *SECURITY*
> Wars between great nations and millions of refugees driven from home by rising seas. These are the nightmare security scenarios envisaged under climate change.
> In a sign of concern about global warming's security impact the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has for the first time assessed what problems may emerge. Professor Jon Barnett, a political geographer at Melbourne University, is a lead author of the security chapter. He says published evidence is clear that extreme weather will displace large numbers of people. But it also shows people tend to return once a threat subsides, meaning displacement is often temporary.
> What about long-term deterioration, such as sea level rise? The draft report says by 2100, without help, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by coastal flooding and land loss.
> Will that mean great numbers of refugees fleeing to other countries? Professor Barnett says there is no clear evidence for that. And the real concern will be the poor and vulnerable who will have no escape means.
> ''Only some groups have the wherewithal to move as conditions deteriorate. Typically, it is the most vulnerable who are left behind and that is where the greatest social and humanitarian problem is,'' Professor Barnett says.
> The IPCC assessment also looks at whether climate change will cause more armed conflicts, an area which he says is deeply contested. The draft assessment concludes climate change will indirectly increase the risk of conflict by exacerbating factors that cause violence, such as poverty and economic shocks.
> While the link between climate change and war is not clear, it may shape security policy and heighten tensions between nations over factors such as shared water resources and fish stocks. But Professor Barnett says these can be managed peacefully with strong international institutions.
> 
> Read more: New IPCC climate report projects significant threats to Australia


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> denial of agw climate change is a failed meme....assigned to the cranks and loonies file


Well, hello again, dickhead.

For anyone who doesn't know that The International Pack of Climate Crooks (TIPCC™) is nothing more than a political advocacy group intent on the redistribution of wealth, please see here.

That is all...

PS I note that you haven't addressed the fallibilities in your argument from your previous post. Must suck when ya ain't got nuttin' to defend yourself with...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> denial of agw climate change is a failed meme....assigned to the cranks and loonies file


Yeah, we get it. By leaving out Australia's warmest periods a century ago, then making up scary things for the next century, some pixelated newspaper graphic has you pissing your pants again. 



> The final draft Australasia chapter also outlines significant local threats if human-caused climate change gets worse...


This slice of nonsense you've posted is like someone saying that if people stop buying Apple computers, it will affect you business prospects. It proves nothing about the future of Apple or your store.



> ''There are lots of species that have proved to be very sensitive to warming of even less than 1 degree,'' Professor Hughes says.


Seriously, how could such a species survive 500 years under normal climate variability?

The final irony? That we are expected take seriously any "data" posted by the guy who is still promoting his 2013 Hallowe'en sale in his sig.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Seriously, how could such a species survive 500 years under normal climate variability?


Further, how about surviving things like diurnal & seasonal temperature ranges?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Further, how about surviving things like diurnal & seasonal temperature ranges?


They're made of gossamer, I tells ya....


----------



## FeXL

A few have asked why the paucity in posts recently. Apologies, very busy time of year just now, between children's assorted tournaments, shooting various zones & provincials, families & grads, spare time to spread the truth has simply not been available.

I've bookmarked a number of posts, will get to them over the next couple of weeks.

Donna talks about her guide to the AR5 report.

Your Guide to the New IPCC Report


----------



## eMacMan

Can anyone confirm this? I was reading that the 93% of scientists who are true believers, was 93% of a total of 75 attending a conference. That would be 70 of 75 signing on in a pressured environment without having the chance to properly review the science.

If so that rather pales in comparison to the 13,000+ scientists who have signed a petition claiming AGW is pure bunk.

And what the #311 kind of a scientific term is "gloopy"


----------



## FeXL

Monckton on Mann. Long, but easy reading.

Hide the decline deja vu? Mann’s ‘little white line’ as ‘False Hope’ may actually be false hype



> An essay by Monckton of Brenchley follows, but I wanted to bring this graphic from Dr. Mann’s recent Scientific American article to attention first. In the infamous “hide the decline” episode revealed by Climategate surrounding the modern day ending portion of the “hockey stick”, Mann has been accused of using “Mike’s Nature Trick” to hide the decline in modern (proxy) temperatures by adding on the surface record. In this case, the little white line from his SciAm graphic shows how “the pause” is labeled a “faux pause”, (a little play on words) and how the pause is elevated above past surface temperatures.


Much in the (lengthy) comments.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Can anyone confirm this? I was reading that the 93% of scientists who are true believers, was 93% of a total of 75 attending a conference. That would be 70 of 75 signing on in a pressured environment without having the chance to properly review the science.
> 
> If so that rather pales in comparison to the 13,000+ scientists who have signed a petition claiming AGW is pure bunk.
> 
> And what the #311 kind of a scientific term is "gloopy"


There have been any number of sources for the whole 97% "consensus" BS. This article by Andrew Montford (of Bishop Hill fame) talks about several.

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming 

The long & the short of it is that science is not decided by a show of hands. It matters not that there is a "consensus" of any amount. If a theory or hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidence, all the hand waving in the world is not going to change that fact. I've noted many times in the past: 500 years ago, 100% of the "consensus" who believed in a geocentric orbit were wrong. Anyone who uses the word "consensus" to shore their argument knows nothing about science.

As to the suitability of "gloopy"? I think it's a perfect word for a methodology long on speculation & short on actual science...


----------



## eMacMan

So in reality their 97% was 75 out of 10,000 surveyed, or 0.75%. Talk about skewed stats.

And from our frozen friends at M4GW:


----------



## FeXL

OK, we all recall the wonderfully entertaining Lewandowsky and his papers on sceptics. Well, it seems like the second product between him & Cook, _Recursive Fury_ has been formally retracted.

Lewandowsky paper flushed, then floated again



> Today has been entertaining to say the least. On Twitter, Ben Pile of Climate Resistance has been telling us all about how he learned that the Lewandowsky-Cook Paper#2 – titled _‘Recursive Fury’_, which detailed all manners of conspiratorial ideation theory, was retracted, or was retracted and put back up, or is about to be, or something. Nobody seems quite sure of the behind the scenes machinations going on at “Skeptical Science” and Lew-world.


Second, we have Steve McIntyre investigating the alleged investigation of their prior "moon Landing Hoax" paper. Stand back, this is gonna get ugly...

Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”



> Following the retraction of Lewandowsky’s _Fury_, the validity of University of Western Australia ethics “investigations” is again in the news. At present, we have negligible information on the University’s investigation into Fury, but we do have considerable (previously unanalysed) information on their earlier and illusory “investigation” into prior complaints about the ethics application for Moon Landing Hoax (“Hoax”).
> 
> This earlier “investigation” (recently cited at desmog here and Hot Whopper here) supposedly found that the issues that I had raised in October 2012 were “baseless” and that the research in Hoax was “conducted in compliance with all applicable ethical guidelines”.
> 
> However, these conclusions were not written by a university investigation or university official but *by Lewandowsky himself* and simply transferred to university letterhead by UWA Deputy Vice Chancellor Robyn Owens within minutes after Lewandowsky had sent her language that was acceptable to him.
> 
> In today’s post, I’ll set out a detailed chronology of these remarkable events.


Bold from the link. Next link from Anthony on the same topic provided simply for the comments.

Lewandowsky’s big ‘conspiracy theory’ seems to be more about his own actions

Further, on Bishop Hill:


University ethics



> In yet another astonishing post at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre reveals that the conclusions of the University of Western Australia's ethics inquiry into Stephan Lewandowsky were written by Lewandowsky himself
> 
> ...
> 
> Moreover, as Lucia Liljegren notes on Twitter, *the university announced that they had held an inquiry that exonerated Lewandowsky, when in fact they had done nothing of the sort.*
> 
> And apparently there is worse to come.


M'bold.

Mmmm, I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, break out the champagne! Your wish might be coming true! A naturally occurring event, the El Nino, may soon be arriving to raise global temps, the only way you can claim success in your CAGW CO2 argument. Of course, it still does not explain the most recent hiatus, or the one in the 70's, nor the one in the 40's, but, that doesn't matter to you does it?

As long as those old global temps are rising, that's proof enough for you, right? Linear connections not required.

March ENSO Update – outlook suggests a moderately strong El Niño for the 2014/15 ENSO season



> Just about all indicators are pointing to a moderately strong El Niño for the 2014/15 ENSO season. See the NOAA weekly ENSO update dated March 24, 2014. The subsurface temperature anomalies along the equatorial Pacific associated with the downwelling (warm) Kelvin wave are quite warm.


Woohoo!


----------



## FeXL

Nominations are open for the first annual ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award

I'd nominate MacDoc, but he's just a peon. We need to go higher...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Hey, MacDoc, break out the champagne! Your wish might be coming true! A naturally occurring event, the El Nino, may soon be arriving to raise global temps, the only way you can claim success in your CAGW CO2 argument. Of course, it still does not explain the most recent hiatus, or the one in the 70's, nor the one in the 40's, but, that doesn't matter to you does it?
> 
> As long as those old global temps are rising, that's proof enough for you, right? Linear connections not required.
> 
> March ENSO Update – outlook suggests a moderately strong El Niño for the 2014/15 ENSO season
> 
> 
> 
> Woohoo!



Don't know about MacDoc, but around here it is several years past due. :clap:

OTOH it probably won't melt any of these snow banks in time to save those buried flamingos.


----------



## FeXL

Recall the panic about polar bears? Not. So. Much...

Ooops! Much-touted 2006 Polar Bear survey used by ESA to list them as ‘threatened’ …now invalidated



> But now, in an astonishing admission, the PBSG have acknowledged that the last population survey for the SB (Regehr, Amstrup and Stirling, 2006), which appeared to register a decline in population size and reduced cub survival over time, did not take known movements of bears into account as it should have done.


Whoa! There's a surprise. No, really... 



> *What’s shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the ‘movement of bears’ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted ‘reduced survival of cubs.’* The reduced survival of cubs data from that SB study was a critical component of the argument that US bears were already being negatively impacted by global warming and thus, should be listed as ‘threatened’ under the ESA (US Fish & Wildlife Service 2008).


Bold from the link.

Love the photo of the polar bear face-palm...


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> So in reality their 97% was 75 out of 10,000 surveyed, or 0.75%. Talk about skewed stats.


It's just a little cherry pick. Kinda like the Hockey Stick & much more of their case...


----------



## FeXL

IPCC Working Group II unleashed while documents leaked



> Leaked document links follow. Hilary Ostrov writes:
> 
> _Another no comments allowed IPCC video: UNFCCC’s Figueres delivers scripted “must act now” word salad to IPCC WGII opening.​_


Working Group II documents always come out later than the first group.


----------



## FeXL

The Cryo state of the planet.

Arctic Sea Ice Appears to Have Reached Maximum And Other Ice Observations


----------



## FeXL

Tuesday smiles.

Canadians dreaming of “plus 1″

Mercer can be hilarious.


----------



## FeXL

Some of you have probably heard about the mudslide NE of Seattle, killing at least 14 people. How long would you say it would take before Global Warming would be attached to this event by the Fruit Loops & Whackos? If you responded, "Not long", congratulations, you get an attaboy...

Fourteen Dead, Possibly 200 Missing in Washington Mudslide; Lefty Ghouls Blame So-Called Climate Change


----------



## FeXL

Donna on WG2 summary.

A Mother, a Daughter & a New IPCC Leak



> A week ago, I reiterated that the draft of the all-important Summary for Policymakers finalized last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was far from official. That’s because the IPCC isn’t a place in which scientists have the last word.
> 
> Everyone involved understands that the summary of the Working Group 2 section of its new report is going to be re-written. This will happen during four days of a meeting now getting underway in Yokohama, Japan (more info on that strange, nakedly political process here).


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department.

Massive Nor’easter bigger than Hurricane Sandy expected to bring winds, snow, cold blast to Northeast for late March



> The biggest difference here is the track, Sandy made landfall in NYC, this nor’easter is not expected to there, but will skirt the coast and will make landfall later in Newfoundland, But, it will have a significant effect on the northeast USA due to its ability to transport air mass.
> 
> He adds:
> 
> _Not the #polarvortex this time. Textbook tropopause fold & baroclinic wrapup​_


Don't put that snow shovel away, Dr.G.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: (statistical) models used.

Yo, MacDoc...

Study: Many US weather stations show cooling, maximum temperatures flat



> From the we told you so department and The Hockey Schtick: It is all about nighttime influence on minimum temperatures, mostly due to the heat sink effect of urbanization and nearby structures and paving.
> 
> ...
> 
> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US *“monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling* [over the past century]."
> 
> ...
> 
> *In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming.*


M'bold.

Ya know what that is, MacDoc? It ain't CAGW due to CO2 emissions. It's UHI. Unless you can come with some hare-brained explanation as to why day time temps are not changing, yet night time temps are rising. I wait with bated breath...

Abstract



> This paper develops trend estimation techniques for monthly maximum and minimum temperature time series observed in the conterminous 48 United States over the last century. While most scientists concur that this region has warmed on aggregate, there is no a priori reason to believe that temporal trends in extremes and averages will exhibit the same patterns. Indeed, under minor regularity conditions, the sample partial sum and maximum of stationary time series are asymptotically independent (statistically). Previous authors have suggested that minimum temperatures are warming faster than maximum temperatures in the United States; such an aspect can be investigated via our methods. Here, statistical models with extreme value and changepoint features are used to estimate trends and their standard errors. A spatial smoothing is then done to extract general structure. *The results show that monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling. In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Oh Noes! Salamanders shrinking due to climate change



> Wild salamanders living in some of North America’s best salamander habitat are getting smaller as their surroundings get warmer and drier, forcing them to burn more energy in a changing climate.


How'd they do that?



> To find out how climate change affected the animals, Sears used a computer program to create an artificial salamander, which allowed him to estimate a typical salamander’s daily activity and the number of calories it burned.


Yep. You heard it here, folks. Computer simulated salamanders.

But, wait! There's a 2005 study that claims the opposite!



> _Fossil hunters in Yellowstone National Park have discovered an unusual way to record the effects of climate change. *Specimens from the past 3,000 years suggest that salamanders have grown bigger as the climate has warmed, and may continue to change as temperatures rise and lakes dry up.*
> 
> During development, tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) can metamorphose and head for land rather than staying in the water. And warmer climes have made salamanders on land outgrow their water-based relatives, says Elizabeth Hadly of Stanford University in California. Hadley and her colleagues examined almost 3,000 salamander vertebrae from the park’s Lamar Cave in Wyoming._


Bold from the link.

So, ya gotcher simulated salamanders shrinking and ya gotcher empirical evidence supporting expanding, who ya gonna believe?

I'm kinda with this guy, from the comments:



> So, they’re saying that cold-blooded salamander is doing worse in a warming environment. Now I’m not a biology major nor do I play one on TV, but I was taught in HS biology that cold-blooded creatures thrive in warmer environments not colder ones.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, you believe this craziness? Some guy claims that CO2 acts like a negative feedback, cooling the thermosphere.

New paper finds CO2 acts as a huge cooling mechanism for Earth's thermosphere 



> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds "dramatic variability" of the infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere by carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, "the two most important thermospheric infrared cooling agents."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere by carbon dioxide (CO2, 15 µm) and by nitric oxide (NO, 5.3 µm) has been observed for 12 years by the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite. For the first time we present a record of the two most important thermospheric infrared cooling agents over a complete solar cycle. SABER has documented dramatic variability in the radiative cooling on timescales ranging from days to the 11-year solar cycle. Deep minima in global mean vertical profiles of radiative cooling are observed in 2008–2009. Current solar maximum conditions, evidenced in the rates of radiative cooling, are substantially weaker than prior maximum conditions in 2002–2003. The observed changes in thermospheric cooling correlate well with changes in solar ultraviolet irradiance and geomagnetic activity during the prior maximum conditions. NO and CO2 combine to emit 7 x 1018 more Joules annually at solar maximum than at solar minimum.


Four interesting points on surface & troposphere inside.


----------



## FeXL

Again, I note that I don't usually link to these kind of "what if" studies. Far too often the simulations are no where near natural environments. 


New paper finds no effect of "acidification" on plankton from CO2 levels 8 times higher than today 



> A paper published today in Biogeosciences finds that prior claims about the effects of ocean "acidification" on calcifying plankton are highly exaggerated because the artificial laboratory conditions utilized do not correctly simulate the effects in natural seawater. The authors find exposure of the plankton to "acidification" from elevated CO2 concentrations of up to 3247 ppm [over 8 times higher than the present] had *no effect* on the life cycle (population density, growth and reproduction) of calcifying plankton _*when natural buffering sediment was present in the experiment.*_
> 
> The paper adds to several others invalidating the vast prior literature on the effects of "acidification" as overblown due to biased, artificial laboratory conditions [often just putting sulfuric acid in an aquarium] that don't correctly simulate the buffering effects of a natural environment.


Bold italics mine.

Abstract (open access)



> Calcifying foraminifera are expected to be endangered by ocean acidification; however, the response of a complete community kept in natural sediment and over multiple generations under controlled laboratory conditions *has not been constrained to date.* During 6 months of incubation, foraminiferal assemblages were kept and treated in natural sediment with *pCO2-enriched seawater of 430, 907, 1865 and 3247 μatm pCO2.* The fauna was dominated by Ammonia aomoriensis and Elphidium species, whereas agglutinated species were rare. After 6 months of incubation, pore water alkalinity was much higher in comparison to the overlying seawater. Consequently, the saturation state of Ωcalc was much higher in the sediment than in the water column in nearly all pCO2 treatments and remained close to saturation. As a result, *the life cycle (population density, growth and reproduction)* of living assemblages varied markedly during the experimental period, but *was largely unaffected by the pCO2 treatments applied.* According to the size–frequency distribution, we conclude that foraminifera start reproduction at a diameter of 250 μm. Mortality of living Ammonia aomoriensis was unaffected, whereas size of large and dead tests decreased with elevated pCO2 from 285 μm (pCO2 from 430 to 1865 μatm) to 258 μm (pCO2 3247 μatm). The total organic content of living Ammonia aomoriensis has been determined to be 4.3% of CaCO3 weight. Living individuals had a calcium carbonate production rate of 0.47 g m−2 a−1, whereas dead empty tests accumulated a rate of 0.27 g m−2 a−1. Although Ωcalc was close to 1, approximately 30% of the empty tests of Ammonia aomoriensis showed dissolution features at high pCO2 of 3247 μatm during the last 2 months of incubation. In contrast, tests of the subdominant species,Elphidium incertum, stayed intact. *Our results emphasize that the sensitivity to ocean acidification* of the endobenthic foraminifera Ammonia aomoriensis *in their natural sediment habitat is much lower compared to the experimental response of specimens isolated from the sediment.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Couple from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years

Great Lakes Ice Obliterates All Records



> Great Lakes ice cover is almost 400% of normal, and will serve as an excellent proxy to highlight the magnitude of NOAA data tampering this month.


----------



## FeXL

Again, anyone who has taken a Quaternary Geology course already knows this.

Much Of Alaska Was Ice Free During The Last Ice Age



> As we saw this winter, the same weather patterns which bring cold to the central and eastern US, also bring warmth to Alaska. That is what happened during the last ice age.


Much in the comments.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Couple from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.
> 
> Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years
> 
> Great Lakes Ice Obliterates All Records


Just wait the NOAA figures will show this as being a slightly warmer than normal winter.

A quote from one of your earlier posts.

Geology is a relatively mature science, whereas Climatology is really in its infancy. Still we have this in relation to the confirmation of the existence of very deep water reservoirs:



> Professor Pearson told Sci-News, “Water changes everything about the way a planet works.” Or, more accurately, water changes the way scientists previously thought the planet worked. They must now go back to their drawing boards and reassess everything they were taught and everything they believed to be true Earth science.


And yet the phrase; "settled science" keeps popping up like a bad rivet.


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's a surprise...

UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?



> In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.


We'll see if the same point is extant after the official "polishing"...


----------



## FeXL

Donna on TIPCC™ AR5 WGII paper cutoff dates.

Bleeding Edge Research in the New IPCC Report



> The two-stage review process is intended to catch errors. It’s supposed to help make the IPCC’s final text bulletproof. But as I’ve discussed elsewhere, the IPCC short-circuits its own safeguards. Even though the second draft was finalized in *March 2013*, the IPCC’s conclusions rely on research that appeared in print after that.


Her bold.


----------



## FeXL

This is what happens when you aren't allowed a colouring book as a child...

More fun with ‘Coloring Reality’ and University of Maine’s CLIMATE REANALYZER™



> Earlier, we talked about how NOAA NCDC made February look warmer by choosing some nice pastel colors for “below normal” temperature in the USA.
> 
> Now, WUWT regular Chris Beal points me to the Arctic to look at sea surface temperatures, claiming they are running red hot.


----------



## FeXL

So, Matt Ridley has a decent article up.

Matt Ridley’s new article in the WSJ – a dose of pragmatism about revelations from the new IPCC report

Coupla quotes:



> Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.





> *t appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold*


_

M'bold.

Ya think?_


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, when you've lost the ABC...

Now even Australia’s ABC is asking questions about the new IPCC report and why Dr. Richard Tol asked his name to be removed from it



> We are witnessing the crumbling of the consensus mindset. Stern looked like a deer in headlights.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds natural variability accounts for > 50% of long-term temperature change in many regions over past century



> A paper published today in Climate Dynamics finds natural multidecadal variability accounts for "more than 30% of long-term temperature variation" in "most regions" and "more than 50% in parts of North America, East Asia, Northern Eurasia, Northern Africa and Greenland" over the past century. The authors find natural ocean oscillations the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] and Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] account for "more than 40% of the amplitude" of the natural multidecadal variability.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The characteristics of multidecadal variability (MDV) in global land surface air temperature (SAT) are analyzed based on observations. The role of sea surface temperature (SST) variations in generating MDV in land SAT is assessed using atmospheric general circulation model simulations forced by observed SST. MDV in land SAT exhibits regional differences, with amplitude larger than 0.3 °C mainly over North America, East Asia, Northern Eurasia, Northern Africa and Greenland for the study period of 1902–2004. *MDV can account for more than 30 % of long-term temperature variation during the last century in most regions, especially more than 50 % in parts of the above-mentioned regions.* The SST-forced simulations reproduce the observed feature of zonal mean MDV in land SAT, though with weaker amplitude especially at the northern high-latitudes. Two types of MDV in land SAT, one of *60-year-timescale, mainly observed in the northern mid-high-latitude lands,* and another of *20–30-year-timescale, mainly observed in the low-latitude lands, are also well reproduced.* The *SST-forced MDV accounts for more than 40 % amplitude of observed MDV in most regions.* Except for some sporadically distributed regions in central Eurasia, South America and Western Australia, *the SST-forced multidecadal variations are well in-phase with observations. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation signals are found dominant in MDV of both the observed and SST-forced land SAT, suggesting important roles of these oceanic oscillations in generating MDV in global land SAT.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting theory, raised from a comment in the prior post.

What causes the natural 60-year climate cycle? A new theory


----------



## FeXL

Latest admission from NSIDC on forecasting sea ice extent is a far cry from ‘Arctic death spriral’



> Remember the famous claims about the ‘Arctic death spiral‘? It seems their language is a bit more realistically moderated now that they’ve blown a couple of forecasts.


Eating all that frozen (hah!) crow must be finally getting to them...


----------



## FeXL

Remember all those extinction predictions from AR4 in2007?

Yeah, well, not so much.


IPCC admission from new report: ‘no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct’



> _In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.​_


----------



## FeXL

Something about the results in this new paper just don't smell right. Willis sniffs out the stink...

Sea Water Level, Fresh Water Tilted



> Among the recent efforts to explain away the effects of the ongoing “pause” in temperature rise, there’s an interesting paper by Dr. Anny Cazenave et al entitled “The Rate of Sea Level Rise”, hereinafter Cazenave14. *Unfortunately it is paywalled*, but the Supplementary Information is quite complete and is available here. I will reproduce the parts of interest.
> 
> In Cazenave2014, they note that in parallel with the pause in global warming, the rate of global mean sea level (GMSL) rise has also been slowing. Although they get somewhat different numbers, this is apparent in the results of all five of the groups processing the satellite sea level data, as shown in the upper panel “a” of Figure 1 below


M'bold.

Nick Stokes provides a link to the paper in pdf form in a comment here.

Willis sums:



> At the end of the day, what have they done? Well, they’ve measured the difference between the models and the average of the observations from the five processing groups.
> 
> Then they have applied that difference between the two to the individual results from the five processing groups.
> 
> In other words, they subtracted the data from the models … and then they added that amount to the data. Lets do the math …
> 
> Data + “Correction” = Data + (Models – Data) = Models
> 
> How is that different from simply declaring that the models are correct, the data is wrong, and moving on?


----------



## FeXL

So, Steve McIntyre has been on the hunt for the data from our old friend Lewandowsky for his_ Hoax_ paper.

UWA Vice-Chancellor Refuses Lewandowsky Data

He notes:



> Over the past 15 months, I’ve made repeated requests to the University of Western Australia for a complete copy of Lewandowsky’s Hoax data in order to analyse it for fraudulent and/or scammed responses. Up to now, none of my previous requests were even acknowledged.


The VC replies:



> _Dear Mr McIntyre,
> 
> I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data.
> 
> I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog “Climate Audit” under the heading “Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”” including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowsky’s research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.
> 
> Yours faithfully,
> Professor Paul Johnson,
> Vice-Chancellor​_


Yet, this from UWA's own data policy:



> *3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.*


Bold from the link.

So much for clear, transparent, reproducible, science...

Weasels, the lot of 'em...


----------



## eMacMan

Just reviewing where we are to date:

75 out of 10,000 scientists surveyed, which using Michael Mann Math is 97% of all scientists, believe man is causing global warming.

This is via increased CO2 levels which reflect energy back to earth but not into space. There is a 3:1 positive feedback loop with the possibility of negative feedback loops positively denied.

Further this effect has runaway with Michael Mann's hockey stick leaving Global Warming in a 17 year lurch, which the anti-denialists continue to deny despite being up to their arses in snow and ice.

The only possible cure for this evil is to steal, from those least able to afford it, over $7-Trillion$. Stacked in Al Gore's and the Rothchild vaults this cash will absorb all of the excess CO2, thereby plunging us all into a mini ice age, and leaving us with no way to heat our homes.


----------



## FeXL

Despite IPCC doom report, this dataset of datasets shows no warming this millennium



> HadCRUT4, the last of the five monthly global datasets to report its February value, shows the same sharp drop in global temperature over the month as the other datasets.
> 
> Our dataset-of-datasets graph averages the monthly anomalies for the three terrestrial and two satellite temperature records. It shows there has still been no global warming this millennium. Over 13 years 2 months, the trend is zero.


And this conclusion even after all the data "upjustments"...


----------



## FeXL

A little piece on where the MET selectively chooses (cherry picks) their start of the Central English Temperature (CET) record.

CET & And The Bit The Met Office Don’t Want You To See!



> The Met Office show the above graph in a prominent position on their website, showing how Central England Temperatures have changed since 1772. The climb in temperatures in the last couple of decades of the 20thC stands out, albeit with a decline since.
> 
> Yet the CET dataset actually starts in 1659, so why don’t the Met Office show the whole series?


Why, why? 



> Could it be they don’t want you to see that there was a much bigger and steeper climb in temperatures in the early 18thC?
> 
> Could it be they don’t want you to know that the temperature in 1733 was within a whisker of the record set in 2006?
> 
> Could it be they don’t want you to realise that the average over the last 5 years is actually less than it was in the 5 years leading up to 1730?


Nah. Couldn't be...


----------



## FeXL

Lookit the Sheeple...

Josh on the cloud of uncertainty, er, certainty over the IPCC WG II report



> Now that the IPCC WG II report has been released, you can expect a full round of wailing and gnashing of teeth, because they are quite certain the world is going to thermageddon in a handbasket.
> 
> Josh stopped along the journey to sketch the trek of the faithful.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre on a new paper by Neukom, Gergis and Karoly and data torture.

Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti



> Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, accompanied by a phalanx of protective specialists, have served up a plate of cold screened spaghetti in today’s Nature (announced by Gergis here).
> 
> Gergis et al 2012 (presently in a sort of zombie withdrawal) had foundered on ex post screening. Neukom, Gergis and Karoly + 2014 take ex post screening to a new and shall-we-say unprecedented level. This will be the topic of today’s post.


Further:

New paper that selects hockey-stick data finds only 0.25C global warming over past 1000 years



> Even if one believes this highly-flawed paper that selects only hockey-stick proxies, the proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures shown in Fig 2a below indicate only a small ~0.25C difference between the Medieval Warm Period temperatures ~1000 years ago and temperatures at the end of the record in 2000. The Southern Hemisphere reconstruction shows almost no difference in temperature between the MWP peak and the year 2000. In addition, Figure 2a shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures not statistically-significantly different between the early 1300's [at the beginning of the Little Ice Age] and the year 2000.


Full paper at second link.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Important new paper finds solar amplification mechanism by which the Sun controlled climate over past 250 years 



> A new paper published in Nature Communications finds a "clear correlation" between solar and volcanic activity and a 5-year lagged response of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] over the past 250 years, which in turn drives the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. This may represent yet another solar amplification mechanism by which tiny variations in solar activity have large-scale effects on climate.


Summary:

Temperature fluctuations: Atlantic Ocean dances with the sun and volcanoes

Abstract (open access)



> The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) represents a significant driver of Northern Hemisphere climate, but the forcing mechanisms pacing the AMO remain poorly understood. Here we use the available proxy records to investigate the influence of solar and volcanic forcing on the AMO over the last ~450 years. The evidence suggests that external forcing played a dominant role in pacing the AMO after termination of the Little Ice Age (LIA; ca. 1400–1800), with an instantaneous impact on mid-latitude sea-surface temperatures that spread across the North Atlantic over the ensuing ~5 years. In contrast, the role of external forcing was more ambiguous during the LIA. Our study further suggests that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is important for linking external forcing with North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures, a conjecture that reconciles two opposing theories concerning the origin of the AMO.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost _The Grunion_...

The warmist Guardian on the new IPCC report: "The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings"



> Today the IPCC's latest scare report gets its usual share of publicity in the mainstream media. But even The Guardian, one of the main bastions of the global warming religion, admits that we have heard it before


----------



## FeXL

Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”



> *And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy.*


M'bold.

Magical compound, that CO2...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Magical compound, that CO2...


I believe the real increase has been from about 37 per 100,000 to around 40 per 100,000. Since nature accounts for ~ 90% of the total atmospheric CO2, it is very difficult to say how much of that increase is natural. 

I still am having trouble seeing how handing $7 Trillion$ over to the banksters and the Great Goreacle is going to reduce man's CO2 output, unless it causes the starvation or hypothermic death of a sizable portion of the population.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> I believe the real increase has been from about 37 per 100,000 to around 40 per 100,000. Since nature accounts for ~ 90% of the total atmospheric CO2, it is very difficult to say how much of that increase is natural.


Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ~280 ppm.


----------



## FeXL

More omissions from TIPCC™.

What the IPCC left out: the benefits of global warming



> More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as *the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices*, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. *It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports.*


M'bold.

Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Willis takes a look at the methodology in a new paper.

AMO, NAO, and Correlation



> There’s a new paper over at IOP called _“Forcing of the wintertime atmospheric circulation by the multidecadal fluctuations of the North Atlantic ocean”_, by Y Peings and G Magnusdottir, hereinafter Peings2014. I was particularly interested in a couple of things they discuss in their abstract, which says (emphasis mine):


He sums:



> A couple of things in closing. *First, Science magazine recently decided to add a statistician to the peer-review panel for all studies* … and as this paper clearly demonstrates, all journals might profitably do the same.
> 
> And second, the AMO and the PDO and the NAO are all parts of the global temperature record. As a result, using them to emulate the global temperature record as the authors have done can best be described as cheating. When someone does that, they are using part of what they are trying to predict as an explanatory variable …
> 
> And while (as the authors show) that is often a way to get impressive results, it’s like saying that you can predict the average temperature for tomorrow, as long as you already know tomorrow’s temperature from noon to 2pm. Which is not all that impressive, is it?


M'bold.

Great news on the peer review statistician.


----------



## FeXL

Why models can’t predict climate accurately

Have a look at the four graphs in his Figure 1, especially the bottom left. They enlarge when clicked upon.



> The simplest way to determine climate sensitivity is to run the experiment. We have been doing that since 1950. The answer, so far, is a warming trend so far below what the models have predicted that the probability of major warming diminishes by the month. The real world exists, and we who live in it will not indefinitely throw money at modelers to model what the models have failed to model: for models cannot predict future warming trends to anything like a sufficient resolution or accuracy to justify shutting down the West.


Some salient observations from the comments:



> 9) The CO2 output of humans has really only been significant since 1945. *They must admit that any temperature increases from 1880-1945 are natural variability and actually weaken the argument for CO2. If temperatures between 1880-1945 went up as much as between 1945-2013 then since the changes before 1945 were not from co2 then it is possible that the changes or most of the changes after 1945 could be from things other than co2 as well.*
> 
> Since 1945 the record is confusing because *from 1945-1975 temperatures DECLINED during major CO2 production. Also now between 1996-2013 temperatures are zero trend even with massive CO increase. Therefore during the period 1945-2013 while CO2 production has been consistent and rising there have been 47 of the 68 years showed no increase or even decrease in temperatures *yet we are to believe that temperatures will now suddenly spike at a rate 2x or more the period 1979-1998 for 80 years continuously without pause when the evidence seems to point that CO2 actually is a minor effect on temperature as it was increasing massively during this entire period and for the vast majority of this time there was no increase in temperature. *Something else is clearly at work. Why can they not admit this.* It’s obvious to all but the stupidest person. It is certainly possible that co2 has some effect but clearly there are other things that have a huge impact and until those are accounted for it is impossible to make predictions they claim. *Why is this not obvious to everyone?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, good news! Sequel to the Goracle's _Inconvenient Truth_ planned.

An Inconvenient Sequel- more climate Gore from Hollywood ?



> Movie sequels almost never do as well as the original, and given the sort of public opinion we are seeing about global warming/climate change/climate disruption, this idea for a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth will likely go over like a lead balloon.


While that fool is talking, I see no reason to interrupt him...


----------



## FeXL

Those SS kidz...

Low brow PR antics from ‘Skeptical Science’ disguised as an April Fools joke



> We mentioned before how we thought John Cook’s Hiroshima bomb global warming comparator sidebar widget for websites was ridiculous propaganda. True to form, yesterday the SkS Kidz tried to elevate the application status by creating what appears to be a fake “hack”, complete with a gussied up timeline of them supposedly solving the issue.


Desperately seeking clicks...


----------



## FeXL

Sea Ice News – Volume 5 Number 1 – multiyear ice on the rise



> Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 21, after a brief surge in extent mid-month. Overall the 2014 Arctic maximum was the fifth lowest in the 1978 to 2014 record. Antarctic sea ice reached its annual minimum on February 23, and was the fourth highest Antarctic minimum in the satellite record.


Further:

Sea Ice Update April 2 2014 – Antarctica Sets Another Record and Global Sea Ice Is 616,000 sq km Above Normal


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the common noises we hear is warmists screeching that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations will lead to a >2° global temperature increase which will then lend itself to a spiralling positive feedback loop with hellfire & brimstone waiting for all.

Once again, everything I needed to know about atmospheric physics I learned in geology class. Have a look at the chart at the link.

There was an ice age which occurred during the late Ordovician Period, about 440 million years ago. Anyone care to guess what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at the onset? ~4500ppm, a full 11 times more than todays. Does this mean that if current CO2 concentrations ramp up, we can expect another ice age? Not necessarily. It just goes to emphasize the complete linear disconnect between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.

There are clearly other things going on & apparently the science isn't nearly as settled as some would have you think...

New paper studies Ordovician Ice Age, which occurred when CO2 was 11 times higher than the present



> A paper published today in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology studies the timing of the onset of the late Ordovician ice age, which occurred when CO2 levels were more than 11 times higher than the present. The late Ordovician ice age occurred around 450 million years ago, when temperatures plunged 10C from "greenhouse conditions" despite CO2 levels of around 4500 ppm in comparison to today's level of 400 ppm, demonstrating that CO2 is not the "control knob" of climate.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *The major glaciation at the end of the Ordovician is associated with the 2nd largest mass extinction event of the Phanerozoic. Growth of Late Ordovician ice sheets requires a dramatic cooling from the ‘greenhouse’ conditions that prevailed for most of the Ordovician, but when and how fast this cooling occurred is controversial.* The controversy is due in large part to a lack of good geochemical constraints on the temperature history of the Katian (453–445.2 Ma). To address this uncertainty, we measured phosphate δ18O values from 3 conodont species collected from sections in the midcontinent region of the United States that span an ~ 5.7 m.y. long interval covering most of the Katian. Results reveal a statistically significant offset in δ18O values between some taxa and show up to 2‰ differences among samples. However, there are no apparent long-term trends within or between sections; rather, values fluctuate around a δ 18O mean of ~ 19‰ VSMOW. Our study provides the longest, relatively high resolution, species specific conodont record generated for this interval, and we found no evidence supporting progressive cooling during the Katian.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controlled Arctic climate 



> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds evidence of a response of the Bering Sea to 11-year solar cycles during the Bølling-Allerød period [14,700 to 12,700 years ago]. The authors find an 11-year cycle of fresh meltwater input and early sea-ice retreat in spring under the solar irradiance maximum which follows the positive phase of Arctic Oscillation [AO]. They also find the strength of this 11-year solar irradiance effect might be further regulated by the pressure patterns of PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] and/or ENSO [El Nino Southern Oscillation] variability [both of which have also been linked to solar activity].


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Previous studies find decadal climate variability possibly related to solar activity, although the details regarding the feedback with the ocean environment and ecosystem remain unknown.* Here, we explore the feedback system of solar irradiance change during the Bølling-Allerød period [14,700 to 12,700 years ago], based on laminated sediments in the northern Bering Sea. During this period, well-ventilated water was restricted to the upper intermediate layer, and oxygen-poor lower intermediate water preserved the laminated sediment. An *11-year cycle* of diatom and radiolarian flux peaks was identified from the laminated interval. Increased fresh meltwater input and early sea-ice retreat in spring under the *solar irradiance maximum follow the positive phase of Arctic Oscillation* which impacted the primary production and volume of upper intermediate water production in the following winter. *Strength of this 11-year solar irradiance effect might be further regulated by the pressure patterns of PDO and/or ENSO variability.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone



> In short, there is a great deal in this report to like. It has, moreover, toned down the alarm considerably. Even the _New Scientist_ magazine has noticed that the report ‘backs off from some of the predictions made in the previous report’ and despite the urgings of Ed Davey to sex up the summary during last week’s meeting in Yokohama, _New Scientist_ noticed that ‘the report has even watered down many of the more confident predictions that appeared in the leaked drafts’.


The worm has turned...


----------



## FeXL

Further on data manipulation.

Your Tax Dollars At Work Generating Fraudulent Data



> Anthony Watts reports that the National Weather Service in Chicago says it is the coldest four months on record. This matches my calculations from HCN data.
> It’s official – Chicago experienced the coldest four months ever on record
> 
> But NCDC data doesn’t show Illinois anywhere near record cold. Here is why. USHCN is doing a world’s record upwards adjustment in 2014, of nearly two degrees.


“It Would Be Nice To Reduce That 1940′s Spike”



> That nasty 1940′s temperature spike was messing up their theory needed to obtain funding, so the Climategate team simply got rid of it.


----------



## eMacMan

Cleaning up the desktop


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale on Pacific warming.

El Niño Residuals Cause the C-Shaped Warming Pattern in the Pacific



> In the recent model-data comparison of satellite-era sea surface temperature anomalies—appropriately titled Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans—we compared trend maps of modeled and observed sea surface temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2013. See Figure 1. *The models showed a general warming of the Pacific with the highest warming rates in the tropics and in the northwest North Pacific. In the real world, the data showed a C-shaped warming pattern, with extensive warming along the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension east of Japan and along the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) east of Australia and New Zealand, and with little to no warming in the tropics or the Eastern Pacific.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, Richard Tol, one of the lead authors of AR5 WG2 has protested against the blatant hype politicians have included in the Summary for Policymakers.. As such, he wants his name deleted & no longer associated with the report. The usual suspects have come out in force...

The climate mob targets Tol



> David Rose has another stunning piece in the Mail on Sunday, this time describing the smear campaign against Richard Tol, whose temerity in trying to distance himself from the sexing up of the WGII Summary for Policymakers has incurred the wrath of the climate mob.
> 
> The spread also features a useful analysis of the changes wrought by the political intervention into the SPM drafting process and documents some cynical and entirely predictable dishonesty from Bob Ward.


Anthony has a link to the same _Mail_ article, but the comments are pertinent:

Going totalitarian on Tol

TIPCC™ denies any wrongdoing:

"No sexing up here" says IPCC

Couple of comments are prescient:



> If the SPM was really meant to be an honest, scientific summary they wouldn't let politicians within a mile of it.
> 
> Even then, the science would still by biased because of the control of scientific funding by the same politicians.


And:



> So when the BBC published a story whose graphics say temperature will rise 3C by 2050 that's in 36 years time, how quickly did the IPCC jump in to say 'that is not what our evidence says' ?
> ..we are still waiting
> - So Which side in the climate debate has the integrity ?
> 
> IPCC, BBC eco-warriors damn you ! You've let the public down.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, you sent your letter into Abbot yet?

Abbott tells G20 that climate is off the agenda (and the EU are not happy)



> Australia is holding the G20 later this year. P.M. Tony Abbott has said climate will not even be on the agenda. The EU and the UN are not happy about that, so we know this is an excellent move. Bravo Abbott.


Ya know, Australia used to be such a nice place to vist...


----------



## FeXL

Judith presents her week in review.

Week in review



> A few things that caught my eye this last week.
> 
> Actually this past week was a virtual firehouse of interesting analyses and material, unfortunately I am short on time and can’t do much in the way of analysis. I’ve pulled a number of articles to include in future main posts. I hope you will find these articles interesting.


----------



## FeXL

My tax dollars at work.

Canada Suffering from Climate Model-Based Energy Regulations



> If your forecasts are wrong, then the science upon which you based your forecasts is wrong. End of story.
> 
> ...
> 
> No climate forecast, whether short-, medium-, or long-term, produced by government weather agencies has been correct. *Environment Canada’s (EC) are the worst: less accurate, they admit, than flipping a coin.* Nevertheless, government climate forecasts are the basis of all of Canada’s national energy and environment policies.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Willis on volcanic effects in climate.

Eruptions and Ocean Heat Content



> I was out trolling for science the other day at the AGW Observer site. It’s a great place, they list lots and lots of science including the good, the bad, and the ugly, like for example all the references from the UN IPCC AR5. The beauty part is that the ones which are publicly available are marked “FULL TEXT”, so you can just search for that and step from study to study knowing that they’re not paywalled. So as I said, I was trolling through the full text links and I ran across an interesting study entitled _Global Decadal Upper-Ocean Heat Content as Viewed in Nine Analyses_ by Carton and Santorelli, hereinafter C&S2008.


He sums:



> The volcanoes pose a huge problem for the commonly held view that the changes in global average temperature are a linear function of the changes in forcing. The climate models are nothing but a mechanistic implementation of that circumscribed and simplistic hypothesis.
> 
> Now, we know for a fact that the solar forcing after Pinatubo underwent a large and fairly lengthy drop … but we don’t find either the amount or the pattern of cooling predicted by the models. _Heck, not only that, but the predominate pattern after Pinatubo was warming, not cooling_ … once again, the only tenable conclusions are:
> 
> 1) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, *they’re not doing what the model says or what convention climate theory predicts*, and
> 
> 2) Whatever the volcanoes might be doing, *they are not doing enough of it to even rise above the noise*.
> 
> To me, this is simply more evidence that the underlying climate paradigm, the idea that changes in temperatures are a linear function of changes in forcing, is simply not correct. If it were correct, the eruptions would show it … but they simply don’t.


Bold from the link, italics mine.

Interesting read.


----------



## Macfury

Recent IPCC statement regarding erroneous material supplied by Professor Richard Tol, one of the coordinating lead authors of the Working Group II report: 




> The IPCC understands that Professor Tol is planning to issue errata on some of his papers referenced in the Working Group II report, but has not yet done so. The IPCC can only initiate its erratum policy in this case once the journals in which Professor Tol published his papers have issued their own corrections.


Unbelievable. They're OK with known errors, until the journals clean them up.


----------



## FeXL

I agree with the comments about the cluttered graph, but interesting visual aid, nonetheless.

Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective

The accompanying email correspondence to James Hansen about seven (7!) adjustments to the GISS temperature record from 1999-2007 is stunning.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Lewandowsky debacle.

First off, _Frontiers in Psychology_ has issued a statement:

Frontiers Issues Statement on Lewandowsky



> *Following a variety of untrue allegations by Lewandowsky and his supporters, Frontiers have issued a new statement stating that they received “no threats” and that they had received “well argued and cogent” complaints*, including mine here and here. (I did not report or publicize this complaint at Climate Audit or invite any public pressure on the journal.)
> 
> According to my understanding, the issues identified by the journal are issues that constitute of violations of most codes of conduct within academic psychology, including Australian codes.


M'bold.

Jeff Condon also covers the statement:

Adults in the room?



> This statement is in stark contrast to some other Lewandowsky’s claims (rants) which are now known to be complete fabrications


Anthony notes his letter of complaint:

My complaint letter regarding the Lewandowsky affair



> Given the recent retraction of Lewandowsky’s #2 paper “Recursive Fury” and the clear line in the sand drawn by the Journal to Lewandowsky and his supporters over their false claims of “legal threats”, I thought it would be a good time to share the letter I wrote covering both of Lewandowsky’s papers that attempt to frame climate skeptics as “crazy people” by using the Journals Psychological Science and Frontiers in Psychology as bully pulpits.
> 
> Clearly, the Lewandowsky “Recursive Fury” paper was really little more than an exposition for the purpose of sliming people who disagreed with their premise about climate science.


Andrew Montford joins the fray:

The Lew letters



> This correspondence and the failure of the university to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA is not restricted to one rogue researcher. *The ethical failures seem to go right to the top.*


M'bold.

Another from Jo Nova:

Journal admits Lewandowsky paper retracted because it failed. Twice!



> *Relish this win.
> 
> Recursive Fury, the ideated paper that Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and Michael Hubble-Marriott tried to publish early last year, was of such poor quality that it was placed in the scientific limbo-land of being not withdrawn, not retracted, and not published for almost 12 months. Lewandowsky previously published an article claiming skeptics believed the Moon Landing was faked, based on only 10 anonymous internet responses gleaned from sites that hate skeptics. Recursive Fury made out that skeptics who objected this previous paper were barking-mad conspiracy theorists with nefarious intent.*
> 
> Finally, a week ago, the journal issued a strange but brief official retraction notice. Bizarrely, despite the ignominious failure, Lewandowsky and many others played the victim card, fanning the idea that legal threats had stopped them from publishing a paper that was otherwise academically and ethically fine. The howls of faux-outrage grew, as usual, over-played to the point where they became self-defeating.


Bold from the link.

And, one more gem from the Master:

New Lewandowsky study finds Uncertainty Monster under his bed, will cost billions

From the comments:



> I am a bit uncertain of how much psychobabble crap these leeches can come up with, seriously anyone in an official position either politically or academically that accepts this insanity at this stage should be struck off to never be employed in their field again.


Yup...


----------



## FeXL

WSJ opinion piece on AR5.

Second Climate Thoughts



> The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest mammoth report last week, and the effort marks an improvement over the IPCC's last such effort in 2007. That may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending.
> 
> The IPCC's "Fifth Assessment Report," or AR5, is generating the usual alarmist headlines: "Impacts on All Continents, Worse to Come" was typical. That's partly a function of what the IPCC frontloads into the 28-page "summary for policymakers," the only portion of the report that most politicians or journalists ever bother reading, and that is sexed up for mass media consumption.


Nice to see some MSM finally getting a clew...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds natural ocean oscillations responsible for record cold US winter, not CO2 



> A new paper published in _Environmental Research Letters_ finds the natural ocean oscillations the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] and the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] may be responsible for the recent resurgence of record cold extreme temperatures in the Eastern US and Europe, and that extreme cold winters in these regions will persist as long as the AMO remains positive. The AMO shifted from negative to positive around the year 2000, along with the "pause" in global warming. A typical AMO cycle lasts ~60-70 years, and thus the current positive phase of the AMO and extreme cold US winters could occur for another ~18 or so years.


----------



## FeXL

Donna to be busy in Europe.

Europe Bound (Speaking Dates)



> This Thursday, I’ll be addressing the International Conference on Climate and Energy, which is being held in Mannheim, Germany (info here).
> 
> Also on the program: meteorologist Richard Lindzen, geologist Sebastian Lüning, astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, and solar physicist Henrik Svensmark.


Prestigious company...


----------



## FeXL

UAH satellite temperature update, as well as the possibility of an El Nino this year. 

Hey, MacDoc: You following this with your fingers crossed?

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2014 – status quo



> Of course, an El Nino at the end of the record will increase the global temperature trend…at least temporarily…*but El Nino is often followed by a cool La Nina, which would basically cancel out that effect.*


M'bold.

Oh, damn...


----------



## FeXL

In a nutshell, AR5 WGII sucks because it's based on the erroneous output of models in AR5 WGI.

IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results



> In the UN WGI AR5 report the climate models were shown to exaggerate and overstate projected increases in global temperatures based on CO2 levels assumed present in the atmosphere compared to actual observed global temperatures. *This is extremely important given that the WGII report uses these exaggerated climate model higher global temperature projection scenarios to assess climate risks associated with increasing global CO2 levels.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

For those of you who remember Kilimanjaro's glaciers & Lonnie Thompson.

Kilimanjaro glaciers just won’t die – ‘nowhere near extinction’



> From the we told you so, time and time again department comes this story about Gore’s buddy, Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his Kilimanjaro glacier that just won’t die like they want it to, even though they don’t believe their own hype.


Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.


NASA on ‘the big chill’ this winter: ‘In some places temperatures were 40°F colder than average’



> *On Jan. 6, 2014, alone, approximately 50 daily record low temperatures were set, from Colorado to Alabama to New York*, according to the National Weather Service. In some places temperatures were 40 degrees Fahrenheit colder than average. Now, an animation created from NASA satellite data shows just how the Arctic air brought a deep chill to the U.S this winter.


M'bold.

Michigan Obliterated All Cold Records This Winter



> Look for NCDC to attempt to adjust away the record ice on the Great Lakes.


----------



## FeXL

Tuesday smiles.

Climate Change as an omnipotent political force

Pretty handy...


----------



## FeXL

On TIPCC™ modelled forecasts.

Climate Forecasting for the 21st Century



> In plain English this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports and that the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the UNFCCC process and their economically destructive climate and energy policies.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

On melting permafrost & methane emissions.

Permafrost fear

This comment nails it:



> ummm.?. how did the peat get there in the first place if the area has always been frozen?


Ding, Ding, Ding! And we have a winnah!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale gives a thorough explanation of how an El Nino begins.

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 1 – The Initial Processes of the El Niño



> This post is intended for persons new to the topic of El Niño events—and for those who are familiar with them. It should help provide a number of different perspectives on the evolution of an El Niño and supplement our earlier post An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events.
> 
> For this post, we’ll primarily be discussing animations of data maps and subsurface cross sections from the NOAA Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) website. We’ll also be looking at subsurface temperatures and anomalies from a couple of ECMWF reanalyses.


Longish, but good read.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre further on Lewandowsky’s Fury

The “Ethics Application” for Lewandowsky’s Fury



> According to Fury, on August 28, 2012, Michael Marriott (of Watching the Deniers) and John Cook (of SKS) began a program of monitoring and “real time” categorization of “conspiracist ideation” within blog articles and comments. The monitoring program continued until October 18, 2012.
> 
> The program was carried out under UWA ethics approval RA/4/1/4007 “Understanding Statistical Trends”, an approval originally issued for a protocol for questioning pedestrians on their understanding of statistical trends. In August 2010, Lewandowsky had applied for an amendment under which he almost completely changed the scope of the project, which now consisted of an online questionnaire on conspiracy theory, attitudes towards free markets etc. Attached to the amendment application were the new protocols. *Lewandowsky advised the ethics officer that he wanted to obtain responses from skeptic blogs, but the survey was actually distributed through stridently anti-skeptic blogs. In the course of this amendment, Lewandowsky applied for permission to deceive bloggers about his association with the survey. *As a result, survey invitations to skeptic blogs were distributed by a Charles Hanich without mentioning the names of Lewandowsky or any of the actual coauthors.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, MacDoc, you question Roy Spencer's science because he's religious. Any opinions on Katherine Hayhoe?

New Climate Alarmist Tack: Go Green for God



> The Huffington Post on April 5 published “Climate Change Threats To ‘The Least of These’ Compel Evangelical Christians to Act,” in which writer Lynne Peeples interviewed Katharine Hayhoe, a “leading climate scientist,.” *Hayhoe will be featured in the first episode of a new Showtime series directed by James Cameron called “Years of Living Dangerously.” The celebrity-studded documentary series will address “the entanglement of politics, faith and science that impedes acceptance and action on climate change.”* Basically, it’s a bunch of left-wing secularists blaming religion for mucking up the climate change movement.


M'bold.



> Hayhoe claims that climate change is obvious. *“When I look at the information we get from the planet, I look at it as God's creation speaking to us," Hayhoe said in the documentary. "And in this case, there's no question that God's creation is telling us that it's running a fever."*


M'bold.

Yeah...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the religion of Global Warming.

How to convert me to your new religion of Global Warming in 14 easy steps



> * Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
> * Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
> * Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
> * Step 4 – Stop the hate.
> * Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
> * Step 6 – Answer questions.
> * Step 7 - Stop enjoying catastrophes.
> * Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
> * Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
> * Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
> * Step 11 – Stop lying. If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
> * Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
> * Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
> * Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?


----------



## FeXL

Same Climate Story, Different Century



> Three consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a *plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists*, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities. We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, *every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it.*


Emphasis from the link.

Clipping from...1871.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, now I get it...

Learning To Identify Global Warming



> During March, 2012 the Eastern US was warm and Alaska was cold. Experts told us that was _just what they expected from global warming._
> 
> This March, the Eastern US was cold and Alaska was less cold than usual, and experts tell us that is _just what they expected from global warming._


Italics from the link.

Of course...


----------



## FeXL

Ya know, MacDoc, I read stuff like this & I think of you & your ilk and it makes me want to puke in voluminous technicolour, all over each & every one of you...

Terrified By CO2



> *This couple murdered their own children to protect them from a harmless trace gas.*
> 
> _BUENOS AIRES – A 7-month-old baby survived alone for three days with a bullet wound in its chest beside the bodies of its parents and brother, who died in an apparent suicide pact brought on by the couple’s terror of global warming, the Argentine press said Saturday.
> 
> ...
> 
> Police entered the home and found a Dantesque scene: the lifeless bodies of the couple, each shot in the chest, and their 2-year-old son, who had been shot in the back.
> 
> In another room, police found a 7-month-old baby still alive but covered in blood from a bullet wound in the chest. It was taken to hospital immediately and its condition is improving hourly, according to doctors’ reports.
> 
> The cops found a letter on the table alluding to the couple’s worry about global warming and their anger at the government’s lack of interest in the matter. _


M'bold.

Screw you, the hat your wearing & the horse you rode in on.

I'm going to leave this at the top of the page for a couple days. Mebbe it'll sink into your thick skull...


----------



## MacDoc

Hehe - pathological condition




> *Abstract*
> Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.
> 
> Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation
> 
> Conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Goertzel, 2010; Kalichman, 2009; McKee & Diethelm, 2010). Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). When conspiracist ideation is involved in the rejection of science, ideations tend to invoke alternative explanations for the nature or source of the scientific evidence. For example, among people who reject the link between HIV and AIDS, common ideations involve the beliefs that AIDS was created by the U.S. Government to control the African American population or that people who take medicines for HIV are guinea pigs for the government (Bogart & Thorburn, 2005; Kalichman, 2009). Among African Americans, 16% and 44% of respondents, respectively, have been found to endorse those two beliefs (Bogart & Thorburn, 2005). Given that such conspiracist ideation has been associated with sexual risk-taking behaviors (Bogart, Galvan, Wagner, & Klein, 2011), the prominence of conspiracist ideation among people living with HIV should give rise to concern. AIDS denial also invokes ideations of censorship to explain why dissenting scientists who question the link between HIV and AIDS fail to insert their ideas into the peer-reviewed literature (Kalichman, 2009).1
> The belief that censorship, rather than evidence-based peer-review, underlies a consensus in the scientific literature also suffuses other arenas of science denial, such as in climate science (e.g., McKewon, 2012a; Solomon, 2008) and medical research other than HIV/AIDS. For example, the tobacco industry referred to research on the health effects of smoking in internal documents as “a vertically integrated, highly concentrated,
> Recursive fury 4
> oligopolistic cartel” (Abt, 1983, p. 127), which in combination with “public monopolies”
> . . . “manufactures alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases, and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings” (Abt, 1983, p. 126).
> 
> Because *peer review tends to eliminate ideas that are not supported by evidence *(e.g., questioning the link between HIV and AIDS lost intellectual respectability decades ago; Nattrass, 2010, 2011), much of science denial involves the internet.
> 
> * The internet provides a platform for individuals who reject a scientific consensus to affirm “each other’s feelings of persecution by a corrupt elite*” (McKee & Diethelm, 2010, pp. 1310–1311). Internet sites such as blogs dedicated to a specific issue have therefore become hubs for science denial and they arguably play a major role in the creation and dissemination of conspiracist ideation.
> 
> .......
> Recursive fury 36
> The ideation of a secretive conspiracy among researchers can serve as such an explanation (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; McKee & Diethelm, 2010; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2012).
> 
> *Moreover, the ideation of a conspiracy may also serve as a “fantasy theme” that permits groups to develop and share a symbolic reality. Such fantasy themes (e.g., the denier as “Galileo” who opposes a corrupt iron-fisted establishment) operate as bonding agents that build group cohesion by creating a shared social reality. Fantasy themes are known to play a major role in climate denial (McKewon, 2012b, 2012a).
> *
> Accordingly, there is growing evidence of the involvement of conspiracist ideation in climate science denial (Lewandowsky et al., in press; McKewon, 2012a; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2012) as well as the denial of other scientific propositions (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Goertzel, 2010; McKee & Diethelm, 2010). The prevalence of conspiracist ideation has notable implications for science communicators.
> Implications for science communication. A defining attribute of conspiracist ideation is its resistance to contrary evidence (e.g., Bale, 2007; Keeley, 1999; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). This attribute is particularly troubling for science communicators, because providing additional scientific information may only serve to reinforce the rejection of the evidence, rather than foster its acceptance. A number of such “backfire” effects have been identified, and they are beginning to be reasonably well understood (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Although suggestions exist about how to rebut conspiracist ideations—e.g., by indirect means, such as affirmation of the competence and character of proponents of conspiracy theories, or affirmation of their other beliefs (e.g., Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009)—we argue against direct engagement for two principal reasons.
> First, much of science denial takes place in an epistemically closed system that is immune to falsifying evidence and counterarguments (Boudry & Braeckman, 2012; Kalichman, 2009). We therefore consider it highly unlikely that outreach efforts to those groups could be met with success. Second, and more important, despite the amount of
> Recursive fury 37
> attention and scrutiny directed towards LOG12 over several months, the publication of recursive hypotheses was limited to posts on only 24 websites, with only 13 blogs featuring more than one post (see Table 1). This indicates that the recursive theories, while intensely promoted by certain bloggers and commenters, were largely contained to the “echo chamber” of climate denial. Although LOG12 received considerable media coverage when it first appeared, the response by the blogosphere was ignored by the mainstream media.
> 
> *This confinement of recursive hypotheses to a small “echo chamber” reflects the wider phenomenon of radical climate denial, whose ability to generate the appearance of a widely held opinion on the internet is disproportionate to the smaller number of people who actually hold those views *(e.g., Leviston, Walker, & Morwinski, 2013).
> 
> 
> This discrepancy is greatest for the small group of people who deny that the climate is changing (around 6% of respondents; Leviston et al., 2013). Members of this small group believe that their denial is shared by roughly half the population. Thus, although an understanding of science denial is essential given the importance of climate change and the demonstrable role of the blogosphere in delaying mitigative action, it is arguably best met by underscoring the breadth of consensus among scientists (Ding, Maibach, Zhao, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2011; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan, 2013) rather than by direct engagement.


http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2523540/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf

I'm quite sure the fantasy theme re AGW will gallop along here....no evidence to the contrary....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you poor delusional fool--nobody is blaming conspiracists. A conspiracy requires some sort of broad network of co-operation and, quite frankly, the AGW crowd isn't either bright or organized enough to manage that. Opportunists--check! Self-serving, dishonest researchers--check! Government trough pigs--check! Wingnut Gaia worshipers--check!

On the other hand, mention the Koch brothers and the AGW conspiracy loons are all over it:


The Koch Brothers; Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy | Mother Jones
The Koch Brothers Seditious Shutdown Conspiracy Should Get Them 20 Years in Prison
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace

What were you saying again, MaccyD?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, you poor delusional fool--nobody is blaming conspiracists. A conspiracy requires some sort of broad network of co-operation and, quite frankly, the AGW crowd isn't either bright or organized enough to manage that. Opportunists--check! Self-serving, dishonest researchers--check! Government trough pigs--check! Wingnut Gaia worshipers--check!
> 
> On the other hand, mention the Koch brothers and the AGW conspiracy loons are all over it:
> 
> 
> The Koch Brothers; Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy | Mother Jones
> The Koch Brothers Seditious Shutdown Conspiracy Should Get Them 20 Years in Prison
> Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace
> 
> What were you saying again, MaccyD?


Well there is the rather large matter of the $7 Trillion dollar cure that the AGW crowd is so anxious to implement. Pretty good motivation for a good conspiracy, especially with the likes of the Great Goreacle heading the charge. 

OTOH no real profits being made by those researchers expressing skepticism.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Hehe - pathological condition


First off, glad you found the correct thread this time. Took your meds yesterday or just blind, $hithouse luck?

Second, speaking of pathological, you're quoting Lewandowsky? Head on over to McIntyre's website, he'll allay any fears you have of Lewandowsky's credibility...


----------



## FeXL

And, while we're on the topic of Fruit Loops & Whackos...

Global warming now literally part of religion



> Global warming “skeptics” have long joked that belief in man-made global warming is a “religion.” Ironically, it has been part of some people’s religious practices for the past few years.






> For years, some U.S. Christians have been doing what they call a “carbon fast” for Lent — the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. During this time, thousands of people make an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, whether it’s driving less or not investing in hydrocarbon fuels.


So, MacDoc, you're an ardent believer, an acolyte.

Did you give up carbon for Lent? Or are you (as I suspect) a more "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy?

Jes' askin'...

And, now you have to make up your mind... Do you accept the support from these devout folk as legitimate backing? Do you write them off as too extreme even for your finely honed (snort) tastes? Are all religious people Fruit Loops & Whackos or just the ones who are on the other side of the argument? Is is OK to denigrate Roy Spencer but to accept Katherine Hayhoe? 

I know! Why don't you getcher ol' pal, Lewandowsky, to fabricate another psycho-sociological "study" that accepts the support of these sectarians. Of course, you'll have to convince them that their one and true God is no longer Yahweh, but CO2, no mean feat in a mono-theistic culture thousands of years old.

Questions, questions...

OH, BTW, what do you think of Abbot not allowing "Global Warming" on the G20 topics list? Bet ya got a hate on for that, huh?


----------



## FeXL

So, got a couple of takes on a fish story for ya today...

Look out! Climate change makes fish reckless



> AIMS researchers found that fish near a natural CO2 vent were not as scared of predators as their colleagues from more alkaline water: “Ocean Acidification robs reef fish of their fear of predators”.
> 
> They compared populations in reefs with normal pH levels with those near the vent. I note this line in the abstract didn’t make it to the press release:
> 
> _“Contrary to expectations, fish diversity and community structure differed little between CO2 seeps and nearby control reefs.”​_
> So the natural laboratory of the vent has biodiversity and a community, despite the “acid” (which is not acidic of course). Milne Bay, I gather, has pH of 7.7.
> 
> The abstract points out that there might be a reason why fish are bolder:
> 
> _“Our results suggest that recruitment of juvenile fish from outside the seeps, along with fewer predators within the seeps, is currently sufficient to offset any negative effects of high CO2 within the seeps.”​_
> Less predators, anyone?
> 
> So these might be well adapted little fish that suit the natural environment around them? Call the press…


More:

Another ‘fish story’ about ocean acidification where researchers fool themselves into thinking they are actually doing science



> The failure of this claim is clear when you watch the video below, showing natural CO2 bubbles coming off the sea floor in Milne Bay, in Papua New Guinea. They use this as the “control” for the experiment, according to the caption, when they should be using a normal reef and doing the experiments _in situ_. Instead, they transport these fish back to the the mobile lab (on a boat), perform experiments, and assume there is no difference in the environment that may contribute to behavioral differences. They apparently don’t stop to consider that BOTH groups of fish in the mobile lab might be stressed the same way. Worse, there’s no mention of transporting fish caught at a non-bubbling reef back to the mobile lab so that they can perform the same test on them and compare differences if any. Instead they say: “The results do show that what Dixson and colleagues found in the lab matches with what is seen in the field.”
> 
> *They simply ignored the most obvious control group test and did no actual in situ experiment.*


M'bold.

Further:



> Then there’s the most obvious question they didn’t ask: if CO2 affects the fish behavior so poorly, making them more susceptible to predators how is it that they observe “Contrary to expectations, fish diversity and community structure differed little between CO2 seeps and nearby control reefs.”. How would the fishes near CO2 bubbling reefs survive if their predator response was adversely affected. They claim there’s less predators near the CO2 bubbling reefs. Well hello! Wouldn’t that mean the fish were _conditioned by their lower predator environment_ to be less afraid of predators to start with and CO2 may not play a role at all?
> 
> *It is such a spectacular failure of the scientific method I don’t know how this got past peer review.*


M'bold.

Sums it for me.


----------



## FeXL

Seattle’s climate instantly cools 1.5 degrees



> _For several years the thermometer at SeaTac airport has been reporting temperatures 1-3 degrees above surrounding areas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Here is just one example from July 16 last year when Sea-Tac reported a high of 88 degrees but everyone else around the Sound was closer to 83-86._
> 
> *Apparently, they fixed the ASOS thermometer, and the problem went away.*


M'bold.

Much in the comments.

The thing is (as noted in the comments), thermometers need to be placed at airports in order to calculate minimum airspeed. However, as the placement of many airport thermometers is far less than optimum, they should not be used for local weather.


----------



## FeXL

IPCC WGIII: throwing the greens under the bus



> While the latest IPCC working group III summary report has its share of gloom and doom and ridiculous edicts, it does have one redeeming quality as Josh points out.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Models, all the way down...

JPL Claim: Asian Pollution makes US Storms Worse



> According to abstract, *the study used a global climate-aerosol model to compare current conditions with modelled pre-industrial conditions.*


M'bold.

Do any of these guys ever leave the safety of their labs any more?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates



> The physics of evaporation has complications related to what happens at the water / air interface such as wind speed and wave action. However if these factors remain constant, how evaporation changes with temperature and humidity can be estimated with well-known equations based on how water vapor pressure varies with temperature. For example, at a typical ocean temperature of 17 C, it should increase about 6.5% / C if the water vapor increases to maintain relative humidity, that the climate models indicate. If the surface air tracks the water within ± 2 C, the rate varies from 6.2% to 6.9% / C. Data over oceans by Wentz et, al (2007) report values of about 6% / C.
> 
> *But the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C.*


M'bold.

Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

A quorum of drama queens at Polar Bears International?

This comment sums it up for me:



> By some estimates, the polar bear has been around for 600,000 years. In addition to the current interglacial period, there were preceding interglacials at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now.
> 
> So… how did the poor, little polar bears survive those???
> 
> Why are we being lied to?


Much of the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) was also significantly warmer than today (despite no Anthropogenic influence, BTW). How did they manage to eke out a living then?


----------



## FeXL

Why does it not surprise me that Lewandowsky is on Reddit?

Reddit, dislikedit, deletedit



> Stephan Lewandowsky is doing a two-day question and answer session at Reddit. The first day's questions were fired off in the great man's direction today with some eye-opening results.
> 
> As Jo Nova reports, Lew having responded to a Richard Tol question about data availability by saying that he was all in favour of it, Barry Woods decided to ask about Lew's own data, quoting the University of Western Australia's response stonewalling of an earlier request.
> 
> At which point Reddit decided to delete the comment.
> 
> Reddit, dislikedit, deletedit.


Hey, there's a surprise...

Further:

Ask Stephan Lewandowsky anything, except “please can I have that data”.



> Richard Tol asked Stephan Lewandowsky how he felt about data. Stephan Lewandowsky replied with exactly the right answer, saying it’s crucial, and “I release all relevant data immediately”. Then Barry Woods quoted the Vice Chancellor of UWA refusing to provide Lewandowsky’s data (after many requests). Apparently it is UWA practice not to release data, no matter how many times researchers politely enquire. How unfortunate for Stephan to have worked at such a backward institution?
> 
> Strangely, Barry Woods comment disappeared completely. (Lucky there’s a screen-shot.)
> 
> *There must be something wrong with the server at Reddit, surely? Nonetheless Stephan Lewandowsky is passionate about data, I’m sure he will fix this as soon as possible in the morning. (Actually he is probably emailing Stephen McIntyre this minute). It could all be solved so quickly.*
> 
> Of course, it is too late for him to call the Vice Chancellor, so it may take til lunch time tomorrow to change UWA’s data hiding practice.
> 
> We look forward to advancing cognitive science with open data too Professor Lewandowsky.


M'bold

<snort> Don't think so, Jo...

So, I guess that whole mutual masturbation thing is actually pretty one-sided, no?


----------



## FeXL

The science isn’t settled and we still don’t know how best to solve the energy problems of our planet.



> The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. The IPCC assumes that the earth will warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celcius in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration. These high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations. In other words: *global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.*


M'bold.

More:



> A moderate climate sensitivity, as suggested by recent observations, could provide the world a breathing space of about half a century (but not much longer) if at the same a switch from coal to natural gas occurs. *This gives us the opportunity to avoid unnecessary and panicked investment, and to invest the available resources in well thought-out and long-term oriented research programs instead.*


M'bold.

Exactly. Now, can we have our trillions of dollars of panic money back, please?


----------



## FeXL

EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules



> Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, *Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have - and cannot produce - all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.*


M'bold.

Fire. Them. All...


----------



## FeXL

Why not?

Do aliens cause global warming? The data say ‘yes!’



> It’s been over 11 years since the late novelist Michael Crichton advanced the hypothesis that aliens cause global warming.
> 
> I decided it was time to test his claim with real data.
> 
> Well, sure enough, the monthly UFO reports in recent decades are highly correlated with the increase in global ocean heat content. In fact, the relationship is so strong, if this was an epidemiological study it would be time to regulate UFOs.
> 
> Between 1979 and 2011 the number of UFO reports has been increasing right along with the average temperature of the upper 700 meters of ocean


----------



## FeXL

Why would the GISS temperature record be diverging from the satellite RSS temperature record faster than the claimed warming trend?

Gavin Goes For The Gold



> GISS is diverging from RSS at 1.1C/century – which is faster than their claimed warming trend.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

US Having Its Third Consecutive Record Slow Tornado Year



> 2013 and 2012 had the fewest US tornadoes on record, and 2014 has had less than one-third the normal amount for the date.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, here's an update on your prospective anthropogenic global warming proof, the naturally occurring El Nino.

El Nino watch



> All eyes are on the tropical Pacific Ocean
> 
> El Nino events have major impacts on weather in many regions across the globe. Californians are hoping for an El Nino to end their drought. Many climate scientists are also hoping for an El Nino to put an end to that pesky ‘pause’. So what are the prospects for an El Nino in the coming year?


----------



## FeXL

3 reasons not to trust the new climate report



> This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the third and final section of its massive new climate report. It contains 60 chapters and, by the time the dust settles and the concluding summary is made public in October, will total nearly 7,000 pages.
> 
> A great deal of time and effort went into the preparation of this report. Years of intellectual and financial resources were consumed by it. So what has the world gained?
> 
> Is this a credible scientific document? Are its findings trustworthy? Below are three reasons the new IPCC report deserves to be taken with a grain of salt:


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lew & Crew...

Quote of the week – beyond ‘noble cause corruption’



> A lot of popcorn is being consumed these days watching the wailing of the Lewandowsky lemming team as they furiously throw themselves over cyber-cliffs in support of a retracted paper that was doomed from the start by it’s own ethics violations: diagnosing people in absentia as having mental disorders, then using a science journal as a bully pulpit to name and shame those people.
> 
> ...
> 
> The journal Frontiers in Psyschology obviously thought Lewandowsky et al had gotten consent, otherwise they would not have published it in the first place. Once alerted to that fact, by Steve, myself, and others, they had no choice but to do the right thing: let ethics rules guide the decision to either repair or retract. Obviously, they couldn’t repair the damage, so retraction was the only viable option.
> 
> *Now, there’s a great disturbance in the farce, as Lewandowsky’s slimetroopers deploy their ultimate weapon, hate, against the editor of the editor of the Frontiers in Psyschology journal who dared to fire back about the hype being generated over the retraction.*


M'bold.

More:

The opinions of experts



> But I'm not sure that this doesn't miss the key objection to the Fury paper, namely that the authors published what amounted to diagnoses of the (alleged) psychological pathologies of identifiable individuals without their consent. I can see no way in which this could ever be acceptable practice for a reputable journal.


----------



## FeXL

"We can't find them, so we know they're there..."

Climate Craziness of the Week: Oh noes! Moths affected by ‘hidden’ factors of climate change



> From the University of Michigan and the department of Mothra studies, comes this big let down. Even though moths are supposedly affected by climate change, “90 percent of them were either stable or increasing” while the climate where they lived warmed. But wait! Moth scientists know there MUST be an effect, so in contradiction to their observations, the moth scientists claim the climate change effects are now apparently “hidden”. Hopefully, those moths thriving under global warming doesn’t lead to giant moths.


This...THIS, is what passes for science these days. Decades ago, in the innocence of grade school, my ambition was to be a "scientist" when I grew up.

What a sad joke...


----------



## FeXL

Further on AR5.

UN IPCC AR5 climate reports: Conjecture disguised as certainty



> The world has experienced over the last 15+ years a remarkable absence of increasing global temperatures despite huge and growing increases in global CO2 emissions by the globes developing nations and despite claims by the UN IPCC that global temperature increases are dangerously out of control because of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. *This embarrassing dichotomy is demonstrated in the diagram below.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds solar activity may influence Arctic sea ice, less ice during Medieval & Roman Warm Periods



> Data from the paper shows Arctic sea ice concentrations were similar [or less than] the present during the Medieval & Roman Warm Periods & the late Holocene Climate Optimum, when solar activity was relatively high. The authors find Arctic sea ice was at the highest concentrations during the Little Ice Age [LIA], corresponding to a period of very low solar activity [the LIA is coincidentally when instrumental observations of global temperatures began].


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> A diatom-based sea-ice concentration (SIC) transfer function was developed by using 72 surface samples from west of Greenland and around Iceland, and validated against associated modern SIC. Canonical correspondence analysis on surface sediment diatoms and monthly average of SIC indicated that April SIC is the most important environmental factor controlling the distribution of diatoms in the area, justifying the development of a diatom-based SIC transfer function. The agreement between reconstructed SIC based on diatoms from West Greenland and the satellite and modelled sea-ice data during the last ~ 75 yr suggests that the diatom-based SIC reconstruction is reliable for studying the palaeoceanography off West Greenland.
> 
> *Relatively warm conditions with a strong influence of the Irminger Current (IC) were indicated for the early part of the record (~ 5000–3860 cal. yr BP), corresponding in time to the latest part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Between 3860 and 1510 cal. yr BP, April SIC oscillated around the mean value (55%) and during the time interval 1510–1120 cal. yr BP and after 650 cal. yr BP was above the mean, indicating more extensive sea-ice cover in Disko Bugt.*
> 
> Agreement between reconstructed April SIC and changes in the diatom species suggests that the sea-ice condition in Disko Bugt was strongly influenced by variations in the relative strength of two components of the West Greenland Current, i.e. the cold East Greenland Current and the relatively warm IC. *Further analysis of the reconstructed SIC record suggests that solar radiation may be an important forcing mechanism behind the historic sea-ice changes.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds storm activity in Alaska is at relatively low levels compared to the past 9,600 years



> A paper published today in Quaternary Research reconstructs storm activity in Alaska over the past 9,600 years and finds storm activity at the end of the record [2000 AD] was at relatively low levels in comparison to the rest of the Holocene [past ~10,000 years]. *The authors also find storm activity was more variable from 1500 AD - 1850 AD during the Little Ice Age, which contradicts alarmist claims that warming causes increased extreme weather.*


M'bold.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The abundance of sedimentary organic material from two lakes was used to infer past Holocene storminess on Adak Island where frequent storms generate abundant rainfall and extensive cloud cover. Andrew and Heart Lakes are located 10 km apart; their contrasting physical characteristics cause the sedimentary organic matter to respond differently to storms. Their records were synchronized using correlated tephra beds. Sedimentation rates increased between 4.0 and 3.5 ka in both lakes. Over the instrumental period, Andrew Lake biogenic-silica content (BSi) is most strongly correlated with winter sunlight availability, which influences photosynthetic production, and river input, which influences the dilution of BSi by mineral matter. Heart Lake BSi is likely affected by wind-driven remobilization of sediment, as suggested by correlations among BSi, the North Pacific Index, and winter storminess. The results indicate *relatively stormy conditions from 9.6 to 4.0 ka [thousands of years ago], followed by drying between 4.0 and 2.7 ka, with the driest conditions from 2.7 to 1.5 ka. The stormiest period was between AD 500 and 1200, then drying from 1150 to 1500 and more variable until 1850.* This record of Holocene storminess fills a major gap at the center of action for North Pacific wintertime climate.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

This could be interesting.

Virginian decision



> _It is cause for raised eyebrows therefore that the Court missed its usual timeframe on one case (record no. 130934) argued in January: the entity formerly known as the American Tradition Institute (ATI) and Virginia Delegate (and Congressional candidate) Bob Marshall v. the University of Virginia and former UVA professor Michael Mann. This is pure speculation, but there may be multiple opinions or close questions where the Court wanted to write carefully. *For our purposes, the key points are that a FOIA case has reached Virginia’s top court, with significant implications for all Virginia citizens.*​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

This is something I should have linked to recently but didn't. Mea culpa.

The Other Climate Report



> On March 31, 2014 the fifth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), _Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts_, was released to the public. While little reported in the main stream media, this new publication represents an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is an answer to the propaganda put out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its lackeys and a direct refutation that no real climate scientists dispute the conclusions of the climate change alarmists. For those who do not accept the claims of consensus science or the fatuous assurances that global warming is an imminent threat by vacuous politicians, this report sheds light on the real science behind global warming and its possible effects.


Good summary inside with a link to the whole report.


----------



## FeXL

US greenhouse gas emissions down



> US GHG emissions are down almost 10% during the period 2005 through 2012, putting the US more than halfway toward the 2020 goal. Would you know that by listening to our leaders?
> 
> ...
> 
> GHG emissions reductions are thought to be the increased use of natural gas versus coal.


So let's all burn more natural gas instead of coal.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Remember this name: Shaun Lovejoy.

He's the author of the latest warmist scramble to pin global temps on anything but natural variability. Perhaps unicorn farts. Or something...

Abusing statistics in the name of global warming



> I could tell from the headline below this was going to be a candidate for the Top-Ten most vacuous papers. It lived up to expectations, and then some.


More:



> Is there anyone with the lights on at McGill University or “Climate Dynamics“? Surely ScienceDaily ought to have laughed at the press release and sent it back?
> 
> Seriously, people wield the magic wand of “statistical significance” without realizing that a/it isn’t magic, and b/ tiny p values can still mean nothing. (Depends on the hypothesis and assumptions underneath, hmm?). LoveJoy looked at 400 years of a very squiggly line (the last 5% of this graph) and pronounced his magic tool could tell whether the last wiggle was …. ahem, unnatural. *If that looks like tea-leaf reading to you, join the club.*


But wait. Lovejoy used a, you guessed it, MODEL. Oooooooo, ahhhhhhhh.

So, what does statistician William Briggs have to say about the methodology?



> _*His model, which is frankly absurd,* is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)​_


M'bold.

Tells me everything I need to know about Lovejoy's conclusion...


----------



## FeXL

Hopefully, none of you tuned into James Cameron's latest political advocacy hogwash the other night, _Years of Living Dangerously._ I didn't.

Fortunately, hardly anybody else did, either.

Years of Living Dangerously



> Nielsen ratings concluded that the premiere of "Years of Living Dangerously" was only watched by 294,000 people (compare with 16+ million for The Big Bang Theory), confirming my 04/12 predictions below that the ratings would be poor. If you divide, you see that an average TV viewer (or those paying for the commercials) would have to pay over $68 for the TV series to become profitable.


James, James, James... Guess you're just going to have to hide your progressive agenda in further garbage like _Avatar_...

BTW, I'll never watch another of your creations again.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the usual suspects is here frequently quoting falling Arctic ice extents as some sort of proof of anthropogenic global warming. Well, if that's truly the case, what do rising Antarctic ice extents substantiate? And, as I've noted every time he brings up this particular claptrap, isn't the complete cryosphere, the planetary ice report, a much more accurate measure of weather we are all going to hell in a handbasket?

Another Global Warming Theory Bites The Dust



> One of the standard excuses for the team to ignore Antarctic sea ice has been “the Arctic is losing sea ice much faster than the Antarctic has been gaining it.” As is normally the case with climate experts, they have no clue what they are talking about. The graph below shows Antarctic sea ice in red, and Arctic sea ice in green.


Have a look at the graph. Is, or is not, the -0.668 million km^2 Arctic ice anomaly more than offset by the by the +1.562 million km^2 Antarctic ice anomaly?


----------



## FeXL

Found it!

Climate Experts Locate The Root Of All Evil



> Joe Romm reported today that missing Arctic sea ice caused the cold winter in the East, and the California drought. This stunning new research is worth a closer look. In fact you may need a magnifying glass to find the missing ice, which controls all evil things on the planet.


----------



## FeXL

That pesky empirical thermometer data...

So, looking at the Great Lakes ice thickness & coverage this winter is a pretty clear indicator that it's been damn cold in Michigan, among other places Midwest. Not according to NCDC...

NCDC Blows Away All Records For Data Tampering In Michigan



> NCDC has adjusted Michigan March temperatures by a mind-blowing six degrees since 1895, and managed to make March only fifth coldest – ignoring record Great Lakes ice, common sense, and any concept of integrity.


More:

NCDC US March Temperature Data Tampering



> For the second year in a row, NCDC adjusted US March temperatures upwards by 1.5 degrees, making for a total adjustment since the 1920s of about 3 degrees.


Further:

Great Lakes Obliterates All Records For Mid-April Ice



> This graph gives a good feel for how uniquely cold the weather has been in the midwest this year. Great Lakes ice cover is more than double the previous record.


----------



## FeXL

Just one this evening, from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

Tornado season so far may be the slowest in a century



> While there continues to be wailing about how climate change is supposedly making the weather more extreme, Greg Carbin, the man in charge at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) sends along this graph and says:
> 
> _*Likely the slowest start to tornado activity in any year in modern record, and possibly nearly a century!*​_


M'bold.

What? Hate when that happens...

More:



> Also of interest, we seem to be in a strong tornado drought. At 152 days on April 18, 2014, the span between EF-3 or stronger tornadoes is the 4th longest span between in the last 60 years.


Yo, MacDoc! Where's all that high atmospheric CO2 induced, extreme weather increase you & "your ilk" have been crowing about? Shouldn't Tornado Alley have been flattened by now? Several times? Or are all warmist bets now on the naturally occurring El Nino to prove AGW? Betcher holdin' yer breath an' crossin' all yer fingers an' toes for that one, ain't ya...

BTW, how are your long overdue homework assignments coming along? You've already failed the course, the only reason I ask is it's the only chance you have to save public face...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> BTW, how are your long overdue homework assignments coming along? You've already failed the course, the only reason I ask is it's the only chance you have to save public face...


Old Maccy D is chortling over something he found on DeSmogBlog. He'll be back with a new term his buddies have invented for those who pursue science in unbiased fashion.


----------



## FeXL

Brain food. While the hypothesis isn't without its issues, it has generated a tremendous amount of excellent discussion in the comments.

An alternate theory for the terrestrial ice-age trigger



> The AGW theory supposes a powerful, pivotal, positive-feedback role for CO2. This is certainly not so. See my previous WUWT postings. Something else drives climate change, and we do not as yet know what that is. It has always been difficult for humanity to throw away one theory before another, more promising one, can take its place. Unpleasant as it is, we are often reduced to the conundrum “How else do you explain it?” And that is the situation just now. However, the case in evidence for pivotal, positive-feedback CO2 is not just terribly weak, but rather non-existent and essentially upside-down. It behooves us to look diligently for the true driver(s) of climate change; and especially major events.


----------



## FeXL

Some corals decide they can deal with warming

From the comments:



> “As climate change heats up ocean temperatures”… Really? By how much? It’s a big ocean. Do the math on heating billions of cubic metres of water say one degree Celsius. More than a few Hiroshimas of energy would be required…and apparently that would still not kill the coral.


Yep...

Corals evolved in ocean temperatures much warmer than today & in much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting statistical artifact.

Extreme Times



> I read a curious statement on the web yesterday, and I don’t remember where. If the author wishes to claim priority, here’s your chance. The author said (paraphrasing):
> 
> _If you’re looking at any given time window on an autocorrelated time series, the extreme values are more likely to be at the beginning and the end of the time window.​_
> “Autocorrelation” is a way of measuring how likely it is that tomorrow will be like today. For example, daily mean temperatures are highly auto-correlated. If it’s below freezing today, it’s much more likely to be below freezing tomorrow than it is to be sweltering hot tomorrow, and vice-versa.


----------



## FeXL

Further on all that extreme weather caused by increasing temperatures...

Not only do we have the slowest start to tornado season in a century, but tornado damage losses are in decline



> So far in 2014, the United States has experienced fewer tornadoes than in any year since record-keeping began in 1953, or even before. Greg Carbin, a meteorologist with the Storm Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has called this “likely the slowest start to tornado activity in any year in modern record, and possibly nearly a century.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Overall, however, *the good news for residents of the Midwest’s “Tornado Alley” and elsewhere is that over the past six decades America has witnessed a long-term decrease in both property damage and loss of life.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Sunday smiles.

Lewandowsky’s ‘downfall’

Brilliant. Love the last line...


----------



## FeXL

Willis goes looking for the existence of the "confirmed" 60 year climate cycle & can't find the evidence.

The Elusive ~ 60-year Sea Level Cycle



> So I’m saying I can’t find any sign in those twenty-two long tidal datasets of any such sixty-year cycle. *Note that this is different from saying that no such cycle exists in the datasets. *I’m saying that I’ve pulled each one of them apart and examined them individually as best I know how, and I’m unable to find the claimed _“significant oscillation with a period around 60-years”_ in any of them.


Emphasis from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the warmist flop, "Years of Living Dangerously".

‘Years of Living Dangerously’ shouts climate fire! But, data says their shouting is simply noise



> Yelling “fire” in a crowded room is the iconic example used to distinguish free speech from license. Falsely claiming there was a fire in a crowded room would be punishable license because it could cause a panicked stampede resulting in injury. Episode 2 of Years of Living Dangerously treads dangerously close to license, as the producers present a completely one-sided biased view of forest fires purposely trying to incite climate panic. Those of us who have studied forest ecology for the past few decades have understood that bigger more destructive fires have been the result of fire suppression and a growing population. As the USA added 100 million people since 1970, more and more people moved into more forested areas and changes in fire frequency are skewed by the number of fires ignited by humans.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Craziness of the Week: don’t wait to ‘feel’ climate change, act now!



> From the Carnegie Institution and the department of feelings, *quite possibly the dumbest press release about climate I’ve ever seen*. basically what they are arguing for is “don’t look at current and past data go with what we tell you” aka trust us, we are paid climate scientists with a model.


M'bold.

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

On the timing of cherry blossoms in Washington.

Picking Cherry Blossoms



> For the second year in a row, we’ve had peak cherry blossoms later than the average date of March 31. In 2013, they were nine days late; this year they were 10 days late. That’s not a big surprise; after all, the usual peak date itself is just an average.
> 
> But what is curious is how The Post’s coverage of cherry blossoms veers into discussions of global warming in some years but not in others.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature data tampering.

Paper finds more smoking guns of temperature data tampering in Northern Australia 



> A recent paper published in _Theoretical and Applied Climatology_ finds evidence of incorrect temperature data homogenization over the 20th century in the Northern Territory of Australia, falsely creating a warming trend from the cooling trend present in the raw data. According to the author, "With the data available [in Northern Australia], *the only option to produce warming trends is to overweight the cold years in the middle of the 1970s and the subsequent return to warmer temperatures*," but that with proper data homogenization, there is no warming trend.


M'bold.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Northern Territory of Australia has a unique situation of an extension larger than France and a population of 200,000, with only three meteorology stations open for more than 40 years, Darwin (DW), Alice Springs (AS) and Tennant Creek, and only two of them, DW and AS, providing data over 100 years, and from 500 to more than 1,000 km separating these stations and the stations in the neighbouring states of Australia. Homogenizations of data in between different measuring sites for the same location as well as the way to derive the missed data to complete at least 100 years from the neighbouring locations are analysed in details and the effects on the temperature trends are straightforwardly investigated. Using properly homogenised data over 130 years and a linear fitting, the warming maximum and minimum temperatures are +0.009 and +0.057 °C/10 years for Alice Springs and −0.025 and 0.064 °C/10 years for Darwin. With the data available, the only option to produce warming trends is to overweight the cold years in the middle of the 1970s and the subsequent return to warmer temperatures. Starting from 1980, to compute trends, there is still a clear warming in Alice Springs, but also clear cooling in Tennant Creek, and a mixed behaviour with warming maximum temperatures and cooling minimum temperatures in Darwin.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Great Lakes Ice Cover 3000% Of Normal – More Than Double The Previous Record



> NOAA says many years have been colder, because they believe the freezing point of water has changed.


Yep. You can "adjust" the temperature record all you want. However, other empirical evidence is still visible...


----------



## FeXL

The Goreacle's group takes a shellacking...

DONATIONS to AL GORE's climate group DOWN 91% since 2008.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the iron...

Alaskan Polar Bears Threatened…By Too Much Spring Ice



> Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick - is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.
> 
> That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com.


----------



## FeXL

Stavins and Tol on IPCC WG3



> Apart from the obvious politics that polluted the SPM process, I am even more dismayed by public statements from the IPCC leadership that has spun the AR5 message into the usual alarmist meme.


Excellent read.

Further:

Shock News : Government Meddling With The IPCC Report – Document Is A Complete Fraud



> _Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
> 
> He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’
> 
> ...
> 
> Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.​_


----------



## FeXL

Refresh of an earlier piece.

Ocean Acidification Expansion



> Back in July I wrote a piece that was published at Wattsupwiththat.com regarding the ocean acidification hypothesis (OA) and some of the issues I had with it. After reading the comments and more importantly reading a rebuttal I went through my equations sheet and found a few errors.


----------



## FeXL

It's commonly known that some greenhouse operators will pump CO2 into them in order to spur plant growth. On the other end of that scale is CO2 starvation (levels of CO2 too low to permit photosynthesis) which, if memory serves, was addressed at least once relatively recently on this thread.

The link goes to a study about CO2 starvation during the last ice age.

Study finds Southern California trees were undergoing carbon starvation during last ice age 



> A paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds trees in Southern California were starved of CO2 during the last glacial period from 7,700 to 55,000 years ago, at near the lowest levels that can sustain photosynthesis.
> 
> According to the authors, CO2 level "ranged between 180 and 220 ppm during glacial periods, rose to ≈280 ppm before the industrial period, and is currently approaching 380 ppm [400 ppm currently] in the modern atmosphere," and "glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation."


Abstract (open access)



> The Rancho La Brea tar pit fossil collection includes _Juniperus_ (C3) wood specimens that 14C date between 7.7 and 55 thousand years (kyr) B.P., providing a constrained record of plant response for southern California during the last glacial period. *Atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) ranged between 180 and 220 ppm during glacial periods, rose to ≈280 ppm before the industrial period, and is currently approaching 380 ppm in the modern atmosphere.* Here we report on δ13C of _Juniperus_ wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](c i)/atmospheric [CO2](c a) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at c i values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that *glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation*. In addition, *we modeled relative humidity* by using δ18O of cellulose from the same _Juniperus_ specimens and found that *glacial humidity was ≈10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions* on c i/c a in the past. By scaling ancient c i values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary *productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.*


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

More from the "It's weather, not climate" file, sceptic style.

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History



> US temperatures through April 26 are third coldest on record, just barely behind 1899 and 1912. This week is forecast to be cold, and will likely push 2014 into the #1 spot.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's a new blog out, Climate Change National Forum.

Judith talks about it.

The Curry factor: 30 to 1



> I think what CCNF is trying to do is a good idea. I think the strategies and policies will evolve a bit over time, and I hope it succeeds. I think that Michael Quirke, who is organizing the CCNF, has good instincts. *But the absolute intolerance of some academic scientists for anyone that disagrees with them is very disturbing.*
> 
> When I joined CCNF, I didn’t even look at the list of participating scientists – I mainly joined up because Nielsen-Gammon and Emanuel. Upon looking at the list of contributing scientists, I am familiar with 9 of them. Apparently Quirke (as per his tweet) classifies the group as 14 ‘mainstream’ and 1 ‘outlier’ (the outlier is of course moi).


M'bold.

Agreed.


----------



## MacDoc

Preaching to an empty hall there deniers....

The last bastions are crumbling....denial is so yesterday.



> *Rep. Grimm (R-NY) Abandons Skepticism, Embraces Science On Showtime Climate Series*
> BY JOE ROMM ON APRIL 25, 2014 AT 12:45 PM
> 
> CHRIS HAYES: Last time you and I spoke, you said the jury was still out on climate science. Do you still feel that way?
> 
> 
> 
> MICHAEL GRIMM: After speaking with Bob Inglis, it made me do some of my own research, you know, I looked at some of the stuff that he sent over, my staff looked at. But the mass majority of respected scientists say that it’s conclusive,* the evidence is clear. So I don’t think the jury is out*.
> 
> 
> 
> CHRIS HAYES: The basic story of – we’re putting carbon in the atmosphere, the planet’s getting warmer, that’s gonna make the sea levels rise -like, the basic story of that you pretty much agree with, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MICHAEL GRIMM: Sure, I mean there’s no question that, um, you know, the oceans have risen, right? And the climate change part is, is a real part of it.* The problem that we’re gonna have right now- there’s no oxygen left in the room in Washington for another big debate, that’s the reality…*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a remarkable on-air conversion, though Grimm still believes this country will not act because* “I don’t think that humans in America, Americans, have the will to do it.*” Hayes calls that “a terribly depressing statement.”
Click to expand...

Rep. Grimm (R-NY) Abandons Skepticism, Embraces Science On Showtime Climate Series | ThinkProgress

Time to move on....


----------



## heavyall

As usual, MacDoc posts politics in a science thread.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Preaching to an empty hall there deniers....
> 
> The last bastions are crumbling....denial is so yesterday.
> 
> Time to move on....


Three things.

First, I do not think that means what you think it means.

Second, suddenly what a politician thinks carries weight, any kind of weight, at all? Warmists are so desperate for support that you'll glom onto a Republican changing his mind? Tell ya what, you can have them all. Dems, Repubs, Independants, Cons, Libs, NDP, BQ, whatever stripe you got, they're yours. Good luck & good riddance.

Third, this show, this _“Years of Living Dangerously”_, the one that had fewer viewers than visited _Watts Up With That_ on the same day? The one that had fewer viewers than a rerun of the animated cartoon _Bob’s Burgers_? Is that the "science show" you're talking about? Is that the one that converted this politician? Tells me more about his intelligence than anything. Except maybe for your intelligence in picking this to shore your argument...

Multi-million dollar global warming disaster epic ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ beaten in TV ratings by ‘Bob’s Burgers’ reruns



> According to the producer, this docudrama got the “big budget” treatment to the tune of $20 million. Looks like nobody cares.


Twenty million bucks and it can't beat reruns of _Bob’s Burgers_?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You keep on posting claptrap like this MacDoc. All day, baby. One thing I learned very early on was to never interrupt someone making a fool of themselves.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Yo, MacDoc...

Got a little tidbit here regarding your Rep warmist hero, Michael Grimm. *He's about to be indicted for mail and wire fraud.*

Breaking News: Justice Department Expected To Indict Star of Sunday’s Years of Living Dangerously Episode 3



> What versatility! Denier, alarmist, mail fraudster, wire fraudster–what role _can’t_ he play?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You go, MacDoc...


----------



## MacGuiver

Geez they must have paid Dream Works a lot on that piece of warmest propaganda. I laughed my ass off on the Texas footage and the footage just about everywhere. They filtered out every speck of green with a nice brown filter. Even the people and sky are brown or beige. Sad thing is they'll flog this BS in the schools to kids lacking critical thinking skills with this fictitious nonsense. 
Oh and the celebs. Indiana Jones and the Terminator are on board so this must be legit


----------



## Macfury

I laughed when I realized that the stuttering support quoted was not posted as an indictment of warmist stupidity. I thought it was one of your posts, FeXL, until I saw MacDoc's name on it.



FeXL said:


> Yo, MacDoc...
> 
> Got a little tidbit here regarding your Rep warmist hero, Michael Grimm. *He's about to be indicted for mail and wire fraud.*


----------



## FeXL

MacGuiver said:


> Oh and the celebs. Indiana Jones and the Terminator are on board so this must be legit


Yeah, the low information voters will lap this right up...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Lovejoy, 2014.

A Geological Perspective on Lovejoy’s 99% Solution



> Lovejoy piles on with the sort of trash talk normally associated with activist bloggers, rather than professional scientific publications…
> 
> ...
> 
> Lovejoy’s “analysis” addresses neither the natural variability of the Late Holocene climate, nor the abject failure of the computer models.


----------



## FeXL

SEPP's (Science and Environmental Policy Project) week in review.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

This one in particular caught my eye:



> Number of the Week: 156,500 to 205,300. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics employment in the oil and gas extraction industry grew from a January recession low of 156,500 in January 2010 to 205,300 in January 2014. This growth of 31% in four years, 48,800 jobs, does not include the growth of tens of thousands of jobs that are occurring other industries that are benefiting from the expansion of oil and gas. This growth is occurring in areas not controlled by Washington. No wonder the environmental industry bitterly opposes modern techniques for extracting oil and gas.


Having recently travelled to Sidney in NE Montana, near the Bakken Formation, the boom is evident. Construction going on everywhere. Oilfield, commercial, residential: you name it. People smiling all over the place.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale adds lower troposphere data to his monthly reports.

On the Differences and Similarities between Global Surface Temperature and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Datasets



> I have been asked to include Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) anomaly datasets in my monthly global temperature updates…ever since I first started those updates a year ago. This post will serve as a reference for the new monthly updates, which will include TLT data.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, the _Grunnion_... Never letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

The Guardian tries to claim global warming sank the Titanic – research says the exact opposite



> Kate Ravilious makes this nutty claim at The Guardian:
> 
> _But in fact the catastrophe may have been set in motion by a warm, wet year over Greenland in 1908, resulting in greater snow accumulation. Writing in the journal Weather, Grant Bigg and David Wilton of Sheffield University explain how the snow soaked through cracks in the ice sheet, encouraging excess iceberg calving over the following few years.​_


----------



## FeXL

Milestone Reached : No Global Warming For More Than Half Of The Satellite Record



> There has been no global warming for 50.4% of the satellite temperature record.


----------



## FeXL

This has been covered here before, but further on slowing sea level rise rates.

Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record



> A paper titled “The rate of sea-level rise” published in Nature Climate Change on March 23 by Cazenave, et al. shows that during the last decade the rate of sea level rise has declined by about 30% during the period 2003 through 2011 to about 2.4 mm/year from the rate of 3.4 mm/year in the period 1992 through 2002.


Some excellent comments, especially from Dr. Robert Brown at Duke University. Search for "rgb" in your browser.

The author mentions Curry's post on the topic, presented below.

Slowing sea level rise



> It is clear that natural variability has dominated sea level rise during the 20th century, with changes in ocean heat content and changes in precipitation patterns.
> 
> Once again, the emerging best explanations for the ‘pause’ in global surface temperatures and the slow down in sea level rise bring into question the explanations for the rise in both in the last quarter of the 20th century. And makes the 21st century of sea level rise projections seem like unjustified arm waving.


Jo Nova's take:

Sea level rise has slowed. (It must be time to correct that data!)



> First, global surface temperatures stopped rising in the late 1990′s. Now, it’s become irrefutable that, for the last ten years, the rate of sea-level rise slowed by thirty percent. *Seas were rising at 3.5mm a year up til 2003, then the rate fell to 2.2mm per year for the next eight years. This is exactly what ninety-eight percent of expert Global Climate Models did not predict.* The slowing sea level rise is extra problematic because it forms the backbone of the excuse for the long pause in surface warming that wasn’t supposed to happen either. The fact that it coincided with the global pause in surface temperatures was no comfort at all. The missing heat, after all, _must_ be hidden in the oceans, and that must be causing the oceans to rise even faster than they were before (an obvious, inescapable fact of physics). So now climate modelers are forced to stack excuses — they need an excuse for the excuse. (It’s excuses-squared in the name of science.)


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, what's the thrust? Now we need to start draining wetlands?

The best argument yet for draining wetlands



> A surprising recent rise in atmospheric methane likely stems from wetland emissions, suggesting that much more of the potent greenhouse gas will be pumped into the atmosphere as northern wetlands continue to thaw and tropical ones to warm, according to a new international study led by a University of Guelph researcher.


<shaking my head>


----------



## FeXL

Good news! New way to report temperature record changes past even more...

One way adjustments: The Latest Alteration to the U.S. Climate Record



> On Thursday, March 13, 2014, the U.S. National Climactic Data Center switched to gridded GHCN-D data sets it uses to report long term temperature trends – *with a resulting dramatic change in the official U.S. climate record.* As seems to always happen when somebody modifies the temperature record, the new version of the record shows a significantly stronger warming trend than the unmodified or, in this case, discarded version.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Even the German left is getting it...

Hell Freezes Over! Germany’s Ultra-Green ‘Die Zeit’ Concedes Climate Movement Has Been Too Alarmist



> Germany’s eco-evangelical, leftie weekly Die Zeit has a surprisingly sober online piece that almost got by me.
> 
> It actually harshly criticizes global warming science – unusual for Die Zeit, which is an influential “intellectual” weekly that has been preaching the science is settled for years.


----------



## FeXL

The state of the cryosphere.

Sea Ice Update April 28 2014 – Antarctic Sea Ice 50% higher than 1980! – Global Sea Ice 1.02 million sq km Above Normal



> * *Global Sea Ice Extent is 1,027,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.*
> * Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,461,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. *That is the 50th daily record of 2014.* For day 117, 2014 Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is is 50% higher than 1980!
> * Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -434,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean.


M'bold.

Related:

Global Sea Ice Area Fourth Highest On Record For The Date



> Climate experts say that the poles are melting down, because they are incapable of telling the truth about anything.


----------



## FeXL

If The Science Is Settled, Why Do They Have To Come Up With New Theories Every Three Weeks?



> At least once every three weeks, the team comes up with a new theory to explain why their last _“settled science”_ theory failed.


That's pretty much the whole post.

Well, except for the snarky comments...


----------



## FeXL

Although no one has yet seen a single "climate refugee", even from the 200 million predicted back in 2009, now it's a billion.

Smithsonian Magazine Claim: ‘ up to 1 billion climate refugees by 2050′



> Now the claim is up to 5 times that by 2050 in the space of five years, at this rate of increase, the entire world population will be ‘climate refugees’ by 2050.


This comment sums it up (Yes, _that_ Richard Tol)



> I’m working with a PhD candidate on this topic so I decided to trace the claim.
> 
> Adler in the Smithsonian cites the International Organization for Migration (IOM), presumably their 2009 paper that indeed has the numbers given.
> 
> IOM (2009) cites four papers: Jacobson (1988), Myers (1997, 2002) and Stern (2006).
> 
> Stern cites a presentation by Myers around 2002. Myers (2002) cites Myers (1997).
> 
> Myers (1997) does not estimate the number of climate refugees. Instead, he estimates the number of people at risk from sea level rise, without additional coastal protection (~160 million in 2050), and the number of people at risk of drought, again without adaptation (~50 mln in 2050).
> 
> Jacobson (1998) also does not estimate the number of climate refugees. Instead, she estimate the number of people at risk from sea level rise, without additional coastal protection; she does not give a number for 2050; she does give a number for 1 metre sea level rise: 50 mln.
> 
> *In other words, IOM padded their reference list with duplicate estimates, reinterpreted the estimates, and multiplied the highest by five.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Humpday smiles...

Nobody Expects the Climate Inquisition

Lookit that poor hockey stick...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out...


New skeptic publication in Nature Climate Change rebuts Åström et al. claims of increased deaths due to heat waves



> Last fall, the press pounced on the results of a new study that found that global climate change was leading to an increasing frequency of heat waves and resulting in greater heat-related mortality. Finally a scientific study showing that global warming is killing us after all! See all you climate change optimists have been wrong all along, human-caused global warming is a threat to our health and welfare.
> 
> *Not so fast.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

How to lie with climate statistics & probability, version 10¹³ 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research claims that the probability of the streak of contiguous US average monthly temperatures from June 2011 - June 2012 "occurring randomly was quoted as (1/3)^13, or about one in 1.6 million."
> 
> This is odd, given that more than 1,200 peer-reviewed, published non-hockey-sticks demonstrate the Medieval Warm Period [worldwide including North America] was as warm or warmer than the present. There is also ice core data from the Arctic and Antarctic, and hundreds of other proxy studies indicating the Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, Holocene Climate Optimum, and many other unnamed warming periods were warmer than the present. The last interglacial was ~8C warmer than the present, as were almost all of the other interglacials over the past 5.2 million years.


Odd, indeed.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> A recent observation in NOAA's National Climatic Data Center's monthly assessment of the state of the climate was that *contiguous US average monthly temperatures were in the top third of monthly ranked historical temperatures for thirteen straight months from June 2011 — June 2012. The chance of such a streak occurring randomly was quoted as (1/3)13, or about one in 1.6 million.* The streak continued for three more months before the October 2012 value dropped below the upper tercile. The climate system displays a degree of persistence that increases this probability, relative to the assumption of independence. This paper puts forth different statistical techniques that more accurately quantify the probability of this and other such streaks. We consider how much more likely streaks are when an underlying warming trend is accounted for in the record, the chance of streaks occurring anywhere in the record, and the distribution of the record's longest streak.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Tornado Alley was hit with storms & tornadoes a couple days back. Anything unusual about that?

Arkansas Ravaged By Tornadoes



> Let me set the record straight: *Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.*


Bold from the link.

Nope.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Robert Stavins statement about the political (not scientific) process at work in the TIPCC™ AR5 SPM and the almost complete lack of MSM coverage of his concerns.

Press Ignores Harvard Prof Alleging 'Astonishing Interference' in Latest IPCC Global Warming Report



> So Stavins is no "denier," as enviros on the left are given to calling anyone who dares to question climate change dogma. *But he strongly objects to how his role in the latest IPCC report relating to how countries might co-operate to reduce carbon emissions — basically where the rubber meets the road in affecting everyday citizens' lives — was compromised by intense political interference. *


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, Mikey Mann wants to debate the Koch Bros but not Mark Steyn...

Michael Mann wants to debate Koch Bros w/Steyer.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Crack Government Climate Models Predicted That January-April Would Be Hot In The US



> As usual, their forecasts were inverted from reality.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Just an FYI, the Dalton Minimum ran from about 1790 to 1830.

2014 Colder in Philadelphia Than Any Year During The Dalton Minimum



> January-March temperatures in Philadelphia were colder this year (red bar in the chart below) than any year during the Dalton minimum.


----------



## FeXL

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick



> _Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.​_ – John Christy


Thoroughly examined. Judith asks a rather pointed question:



> How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?) Here is the only thing I can find on the U.S. nomination process [link]. Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR. The actual selection of Lead Authors by the IPCC Bureau is indeed a mysterious process.


But, hey, TIPCC™ don't hire none but the best, most knowledgable, experienced climate scientists in the world. Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk...


----------



## FeXL

This...this is why MacDoc & others of "his ilk" are out there stomping on the ground, shaking their rattles, pounding on their drums, doing their "El Nino" dance. Praying for a naturally occurring event to curry support for their BS AGW hypothesis...



> There is much more to El Niño event than a simple warming of the eastern tropical Pacific. They have strong impacts on weather around the globe. *A strong El Niño event can also cause an upward shift in the temperatures of two-thirds of the surface of the global oceans, while having no apparent long-term effect on the other one-third. Those upward shifts in surface temperatures give the appearance of a relatively steady rise in global surface temperatures when the data are looked at globally. As a result, the rise in global surface temperatures have been incorrectly attributed to human-induced global warming. That means the climate science community is no closer to finding evidence of the human fingerprint in global warming than they were in the early 1990s, the early years of the IPCC.* The IPCC has no one to blame for that than themselves, with their focus on carbon dioxide.


Emphasis mine.

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 6 – What’s All The Hubbub About?…


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

New paper shows prior interglacials over past 600,000 years similar to the present interglacial



> A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs temperatures and CO2 levels using a pollen proxy in Turkey over the past 600,000 years and shows remarkable agreement with the Arctic ice core data, with *prior interglacials as warm or warmer than the present interglacial, similar vegetation, and prior interglacials with CO2 levels at or above those of the pre-industrial period.*


M'bold.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Lake Van is the fourth largest terminal lake in the world (38.5°N, 43°E, volume 607 km3, area 3570 km2, maximum water depth 460 m), extending for 130 km WSW–ENE on the eastern Anatolian high plateau, Turkey. The sedimentary record of Lake Van, partly laminated, obtains a long and continuous continental sequence that covers multiple interglacial–glacial cycles. Promoted by the potential of the sedimentary sequence for reconstructing the paleoecological and paleoclimate development of the Near East, a deep drilling operation was carried out in 2010 supported by the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP). The 219 m long continental pollen record presented here is based on a well-dated composite profile drilled on the so-called Ahlat Ridge in water depth of 360 m encompassing the last 600,000 years. It is the longest continuous continental pollen record of the Quaternary in the entire Near East and central Asia obtained to date. The glacial–interglacial cycles and pronounced interstadials are clearly reflected in the vegetation development based on millennial-scale time resolution. In general, the glacial/stadial vegetation is characterized by dwarf-shrub steppe and desert steppe, whereas the climax vegetation of past interglacials can be described as oak steppe-forest similar to the present interglacial in this sensitive semi-arid region between the Black, Caspian, and Mediterranean Seas. By comparing the Lake Van pollen record with other western Asian and southern European long continental pollen sequences as well as marine and ice-core records, the regional variability of the climate signals is also discussed.


Nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all those dire predictions...

LA Times: The Arctic to become ice-free by the year 2000


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper out.

New paper finds solar activity related to the polar vortex & jet stream variability



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds a link between solar cycles, the natural quasi-biennial oscillation [QBO], and the late winter polar vortex.
> 
> ...
> 
> The QBO and Sudden Stratospheric Warmings have in turn been linked to solar activity, suggesting that the Sun could be the ultimate source of polar vortex/jet stream blocking variability.
> 
> Jet stream dips of the polar vortex were responsible for the record-breaking cold US winter this year, which warmist Jennifer Francis desperately tries to blame on man, but this paper and many others suggest the jet stream dips were instead related to natural & solar variability.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The total column ozone (TCO) observed from satellites and assimilated in the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) since 1979 is *used as an atmospheric tracer to study the modulations of the winter Arctic stratosphere by the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) and the solar cycle. It is found that both the QBO and solar forcing in low latitudes can perturb the late winter polar vortex, likely via planetary wave divergence, causing an early breakdown of the vortex in the form of Stratospheric Sudden Warming.* As a result, TCO within the vortex in late winter can increase by ~60 DU during either a solar maximum or an easterly phase of the QBO, or both, relative to the least perturbed state when the solar cycle is minimum and the QBO is in the westerly phase. In addition, from the solar maximum to solar minimum during the QBO easterly phase, the change in TCO is found to be statistically insignificant. Therefore, the ‘reversal’ of the Holton–Tan effect, reported in some previous studies using lower stratospheric temperature, is not evident in the TCO behavior of both observation and assimilation.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

The Sun can't possibly explain global warming 



> Warmists allege CO2 must be the cause of the 0.7C global warming recovery from the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, because they claim there isn't any other plausible explanation.
> 
> ...
> 
> The accumulated solar energy [sunspot time-integral] continued to increase until the end of the 20th century along with global temperature, and then both started to decline after peaking in ~2000.


----------



## FeXL

Further on increases in extreme weather.

North American droughts have not become more common in the past century or millennium



> Reposts from "The Cold Sun" website, google translation with light editing


----------



## FeXL

Longish article, excellent read.

Cool It



> That said, I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject — on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician, including Ed Milliband, Lord Deben and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!
> 
> But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it; for at bottom this is not a scientific issue. That is to say, the issue is not climate change but climate change alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies that are advocated, and in some cases put in place, in its name. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate scientists study, but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists, historians, sociologists, psychologists and — dare I say it — politicians.


The sum:



> Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.


----------



## FeXL

Ocean of climate money dries up. (But millions still paid to bored staff.)



> At its peak the UN CDM Fund employed 160 people to register and issue credits.
> 
> _The CDM raises funds by charging fees to developers for registering projects and issuing credits, a relatively unique mechanism that helped it grow from a handful of staff in 2003 to more than 160 in 2013 as the number of projects mounted.​_
> It’s all come undone so quickly.
> 
> *In true bureaucratic style now that projects have fallen by 90%, staff numbers have slipped from 160 to 150.*
> 
> _Its accounts show almost half of the current annual budget of $32.9-million is to pay staff, which still number around 150 despite a massive drop-off in new projects seeking registration.​_
> Previously it took 1.6 full time employees to approve and register one project per month. Now with productivity improvements each case only needs a full time staff of … 50.


M'bold.

Whatever will they do...


----------



## FeXL

It's all part of the new math.

Rain Used To Be Caused By Global Cooling, But Now Caused By Global Warming



> There is no indication that heavy rainfall events are increasing. Every global and US short term rainfall record was set below 350 PPM CO2.


----------



## FeXL

So, Willis is still attempting to suss that 60 year cycle from sea level datasets.

Attempt 2:

The Sea Level Cycles Get More Elusive



> In my last post on the purported existence of the elusive ~60-year cycle in sea levels as claimed in the recent paper “Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level?”, I used a tool called “periodicity analysis” (discussed here) to investigate cycles in the sea level. However, some people said I wasn’t using the right tool for the job. And since I didn’t find the elusive 60-year cycle, I figured they might be right about periodicity analysis. In the process, however I found a more sensitive tool, which is to just fit a sine wave to the tidal data at each cycle length and measure the peak-to-peak amplitude of the best-fit sine wave.


Attempt 3:

The Slow Fourier Transform (SFT)



> While investigating the question of cycles in climate datasets (Part 1, Part 2), I invented a method I called “sinusoidal periodicity”. What I did was to fit a sine wave of various periods to the data, and record the amplitude of the best fit. I figured it had been invented before, so I asked people what I was doing and what its name was. I also asked if there was a faster way to do it, as my method does a lot of optimization (fitting) and thus is slow. An alert reader, Michael Gordon, pointed out that I was doing a type Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) … and provided a link to Nick Stokes’ R code to verify that indeed, my results are identical to the periodogram of his Fast Fourier Transform. So, it turns out that what I’ve invented can be best described as the “Slow Fourier Transform”, since it does exactly what the FFT does, only much slower … which sounds like bad news.


Good reads, and, still no 60 year sea level cycle. Much in both sets of comments.


----------



## FeXL

Friday Funnies & Monday Smiles.

Friday Funny – ‘industrial strength skeptic in a can’

Love the "100% Natural Ingredients" tag at the bottom of the label...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out.

Study: ‘worst drought of this century barely makes the top 10 ‘



> If you think the 1930s drought that caused The Dust Bowl was rough, new research looking at tree rings in the Rocky Mountains has news for you: Things can get much worse in the West.
> 
> *In fact the worst drought of this century barely makes the top 10 of a study that extended Utah’s climate record back to the year 1429.*
> 
> With sandpaper and microscopes, Brigham Young University professor Matthew Bekker analyzed rings from drought-sensitive tree species.


M'bold.

Related:

Claim: U.S. corn yields are increasingly vulnerable to hot, dry weather – Data: corn yield trend positive



> While a recent report tells us current droughts in the western USA hardly make the top ten, we have this from Stanford University, a claim about drought related crop insurance claims that doesn’t seem to match data on national yields and trend. While the 2012 drought had an impact, 2013 saw the third highest corn yield on record.


----------



## FeXL

With all respect due to those who lost life & property in the recent tornadoes...

Climate change causes severe weather? 2014 tornado count about half of normal



> Despite claims of “severe weather is increasing”, and even after several days of tornado activity in the Midwest and the South, 2014 is still below normal compared to recent years according to data published by Greg Carbin of the NOAA Storm Prediction Center.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

NOAA Expert: Lake Superior may have ice in June



> He’s still running the numbers, but 2014 looks like “there’s going to be even more” lingering ice than in 1979. “This year is maybe a record-breaking year.”


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale offers an alternative look at global temperatures.

A Different Perspective of Global Warming



> In this post, we’re going to be looking at global temperature data and a reanalysis of global temperatures in absolute form, on a latitude-average (zonal-mean) basis, for two decade-long periods: 1979 to 1988 and 2003 to 2012. *The purpose of the little exercise is simply to show how minute the rise in global temperatures has been* when we compare the average temperatures for those two periods, while looking at the temperatures in 5-degree latitude bands from the South Pole to the North Pole.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting question:



> Do underwater volcanoes have an effect on ENSO?


Subaqueous volcanism: ocean vents and faulty climate models



> The ocean-atmosphere model is tuned to settle down, after “spin-up”, to a steady state where it remains until deliberately perturbed by some external factor such as changing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. According to these models the ocean in its natural state is a sort of machine, a conveyor belt steadily carrying heat, salt and dissolved gases around the planet’s oceans in the same unvarying manner until it is disturbed by humankind.
> 
> Volcanic activity does not fit this neat picture. Volcanic behaviour is random, i.e. it is “stochastic” meaning “governed by the laws of probability”. For fluid dynamic modellers stochastic behaviour is the spectre at the feast. They do not want to deal with it because their models cannot handle it. We cannot predict the future behaviour of subaqueous volcanoes so we cannot predict future behaviour of the ocean-atmosphere system when this extra random forcing is included.
> 
> To some extent, chaos theory is called in as a substitute, but modellers are very reticent about describing and locating (in phase space) the strange attractors of chaos theory which supposedly give their models a stochastic character. They prefer to avoid stochastic descriptions of the real world in favour of the more precise but unrealistic determinism of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics.
> 
> This explains the reluctance of oceanographers to acknowledge subaqueous volcanism as a forcing of ocean circulation. *Unlike tidal forcing, wind stress and thermohaline forcing, volcanism constitutes a major, external, random forcing which cannot be generated from within the model. It has therefore been ignored.*


M'bold.

Interesting animation at the link. Links to the originating article as well as an initial post on the subject inside. Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds large erroneous assumption about natural land sinks for CO2



> A new paper published in _Global Change Biology_ finds another large erroneous assumption of the carbon cycle, finding the natural land carbon sink in India is 42% less than previously believed. This implies that the net _natural_ contribution of CO2 and other "CO2 equivalents" such as methane to the atmosphere could be significantly larger than previously believed.
> 
> According to the authors, large amounts of carbon dioxide equivalents taken up by plants on land are returned to the atmosphere from aquatic environments, finding "average inland water greenhouse gas emissions, which were _not previously considered_, correspond to 42% of the estimated land carbon sink of India. Thereby this study illustrates the importance of considering inland water greenhouse gas exchange in large scale assessments."


Emphasis from the link.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Inland waters were recently recognized to be important sources of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, and including inland water emissions in large scale greenhouse gas (GHG) budgets may potentially offset the estimated carbon sink in many areas. However, the lack of GHG flux measurements and well-defined inland water areas for extrapolation, make the magnitude of the potential offset unclear. This study presents coordinated flux measurements of CH4and CO2 in multiple lakes, ponds, rivers, open wells, reservoirs, springs, and canals in India. All these inland water types, representative of common aquatic ecosystems in India, emitted substantial amounts of CH4 and a major fraction also emittedCO2. The total CH4 flux (including ebullition and diffusion) from all the 45 systems ranged from 0.01 to 52.1 mmol m−2 d−1, with a mean of 7.8 ± 12.7 (mean ± 1 SD) mmol m−2 d−1. The mean surface water CH4 concentration was 3.8 ± 14.5 μm (range 0.03–92.1 μm). The CO2 fluxes ranged from −28.2 to 262.4 mmol m−2 d−1 and the mean flux was 51.9 ± 71.1 mmol m−2 d−1. The mean partial pressure of CO2 was 2927 ± 3269 μatm (range: 400–11 467 μatm). Conservative extrapolation to whole India, considering the specific area of the different water types studied, yielded average emissions of 2.1 Tg CH4 yr−1 and 22.0 TgCO2 yr−1 from India's inland waters. When expressed as CO2 equivalents, this amounts to 75 Tg CO2 equivalents yr−1 (53–98 Tg CO2 equivalents yr−1; ± 1 SD), with CH4 contributing 71%. Hence, *average inland water GHG emissions, which were not previously considered, correspond to 42% (30–55%) of the estimated land carbon sink of India. Thereby this study illustrates the importance of considering inland water GHG exchange in large scale assessments.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

From the Grope & Flail (This is part of a series examining the health repercussions for Canadians of a changing climate)...

Youth anxiety on the rise amid changing climate 



> North Carolina-based psychotherapist Chris Saade, co-director of the Olive Branch Center, a grief/wellness counselling firm, says he’s seen a huge jump in the number of patients under 18 who come to him with concerns about the environmental crisis.


Ya know, with today's entitled youth being as fragile & thin-skinned as they are, this comes as no surprise.

It does disappoint the hell out of me, though...


----------



## FeXL

Major Arctic Sea Ice Story Lurking, but Is Anyone Watching?



> There is a huge event being forecasted this year by the CFSV2, and I don’t know if anyone else is mentioning this. *For the first time in over a decade, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in the summer is forecast to be near or above normal for a time!* While it has approached the normals at the end of the winter season a couple of times because of new ice growth, this signals something completely different – that multiyear growth means business – and *it shows the theory on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is likely to be on target. Once it flips, this red herring of climate panic will be gone. Global and Southern Hemisphere anomalies are already unmentionable since the former is well above normal and the latter is routinely busting daily records.*


M'bold.

Watch MSM for coverage of this event.

Yeah, right...


----------



## FeXL

Global warming saves lives in Stockholm — but bad assumptions feed scary headlines



> *Here’s a tale of how to generate headlines from circular reasoning built on brave assumptions. All it requires are some unskeptical science journal editors and gullible journalists. Et Voila!*


Bold from the link.

Further:



> In October 2013 Åström et al claimed that global warming had killed lots of people in Stockholm, hundreds. But the first thing you need to know is that *they don’t appear to start with actual mortality data in the early 1900′s.* Surprised? Me too. Anthony Watts found it hard to believe . The other thing worth knowing is that *extreme heat was defined as the top 2% of hot days, and in Stockholm that mean everything above a terrifying 2-day-moving-average mean temperature of 19.6°C (67 F).*


M'bold.

More:



> It appears the authors compared calculated death rates *(using a model)* from 1900-1929 with rates from 1980-2009 and concluded that mortality from heat was twice as high as it would have been which appears to be a product of their assumptions.


M'bold.

Un. Frigging. Believable.


----------



## FeXL

Lennart Bengtsson speaks out



> _The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that Professor Lennart Bengtsson, one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists, has joined the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.​_


Further:



> _I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.*​_


M'bold.

No argument here...


----------



## FeXL

Well, couple things here gonna surprise ol' MacDoc...

New warmist paper out.

Surprise! Global warming is ‘spatially and temporally non-uniform’



> The research indicates that the world is indeed getting warmer, but historical records show that it hasn’t happened everywhere at the same rate.
> 
> And that new information even took scientists by surprise.


Well, maybe it took the warmists by surprise. Yo, MacDoc, you know about this? In _Nature_, of all places? What about all that "settled" science?



> The research team found that noticeable warming first started around the regions circling the Arctic and subtropical regions in both hemispheres. But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes. They also found that in some areas of the world, cooling had actually occurred.


Huh. Northern midlatitudes. Ya don't say. Right about where all the cities have been built and expanded. UHI, much?

And this little gem:



> “The global warming is not uniform,” Chassignet said. “*You have areas that have cooled* and areas that have warmed.”


M'bold.



Say what???

This, from the comments, handles that observation 'bout right:



> THEN IT’S NOT GLOBAL, DIP****.


However, before all of the above is this little jewel from the first line of the Abstrct:



> The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century


Even this observation is incorrect. Makes you wonder what else got past Pal Review...


----------



## FeXL

‘Houston, we have a dumbass problem’



> I’m truly sorry about the title, but nothing else really describes the ridiculousness of the pronouncement by the White House aide John Podesta over these two satellite images in a maddeningly idiotic story from the Washington Post.


Funny, they didn't include comparison photos of the Great lakes ice coverage this spring. Wonder why...


----------



## FeXL

Lack Of Correlation Proves Global Warming, Yet Again



> CO2 has officially passed 400 PPM (for about the third time) and Phil Plait is hysterical.
> 
> ...
> 
> An actual scientist might conclude that the lack of warming over the last 18 years as CO2 has risen, condemns global warming theory to the dustbin of junk science history. But then again, *global warming has nothing to do with science.*


M'bold.

Yup...


----------



## MacDoc

meanwhile despite gnashing of teeth on the denier front.....the warming continues apace - numbers next year should be interesting....

Care to argue with reality??

Back to El Nino...



> *Are We Heading for a Worrying Super El Niño?*
> By Agus Santoso and Shayne McGregor | May 03, 2014 12:58am ET


Are We Heading for a Worrying Super El Niño? | LiveScience

snip



> *The winter blast*
> To trigger an El Niño requires significant warming of the ocean and a number of very strong wind blasts from west to east off the coast of Papua New Guinea. These blasts push the warm ocean waters to the eastern Pacific off South America and set up El Niño conditions.
> 
> This year has already seen three such powerful wind blasts. The most recent directly led to the tropical low that generated severe flooding in the Solomon Islands and later developed into Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Ita.
> 
> The winter blast
> To trigger an El Niño requires significant warming of the ocean and a number of very strong wind blasts from west to east off the coast of Papua New Guinea. These blasts push the warm ocean waters to the eastern Pacific off South America and set up El Niño conditions.
> 
> This year has already seen three such powerful wind blasts. The most recent directly led to the tropical low that generated severe flooding in the Solomon Islands and later developed into Category 5 Tropical Cyclone Ita
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I got side swiped by that as it landed 150 km up the coast. Got pretty wet.

snip



> Research published in Climate of the Past in October last year found that the El Niño Southern Oscillation has been more active between 1979-2009 than in any other period during the past 600 years.
> 
> Another study published in Nature Climate Change suggested that more frequent extreme El Niño events are to be expected under greenhouse warming.
> 
> And as we have already noted, those Super El Niño-like events are expected to double in number as the world warms.
> 
> It is fortunate that our ability to forecast these events is improving at the same time.


*six decades of warming.*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

A storm you says? A cyclone. Well, MacDoc, considering that storms of this nature are occurring at historically low rates....



> Research published in Climate of the Past in October last year found that the El Niño Southern Oscillation has been more active between 1979-2009 than in any other period during the past 600 years.


Um, hm--because we have exact data on El Niño Southern Oscillation going back 600 years.... Oh wait, we don't.


----------



## SINC

:yawn:

Don't Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent - Forbes


----------



## FeXL

Well, hello, dickhead.



MacDoc said:


> meanwhile despite gnashing of teeth on the denier front.....the warming continues apace - numbers next year should be interesting....


You mistake the sound of uproarious laughter with teeth gnashing. Time to get that hearing checked...

What warming? Even with massive positive adjustments to official temperature records, the best that they can muster is a 17 year, 9 month flatline. 

As far as "next year", I can only assume that you mean the possibility of an El Nino? That naturally occurring climate event that was the source of the last global temperature increase, in 1997/98? Coincidentally, 17 years ago? You still trying to tie that in with AGW?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!



MacDoc said:


> Care to argue with reality??


Buddy, I post reality here. You would do well to pay attention.



MacDoc said:


> Back to El Nino...


By all means. Let's discuss how a naturally occurring climatic event supports the hypothesis of AGW, shall we? Let's discuss the staircase shape of the temperature record for the last 150 years or so, whereby the only time the temperature rises is during an El Nino and the balance of the time the temperature is static or lowering. All this despite a near linear increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Tell me why, if you remove the warming effects of El Nino and the cooling effects of La Nina from the temperature record, you have very nearly a horizontal line? Tell me why, if El Nino has anything to do with AGW, do some areas of the planet warm & some cool?

Further on that topic, explain to me the linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & temperature. Explain to me how nearly identical rates of warming occurred during periods of both the early (before 1950 & any possible anthropogenic influence could be traced) & late 20th century. Tell me, using small words & colour pictures, why, if there is any linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & temperature, that recent warming rates are actually less than warming rates from 150 years ago? Higher concentrations of CO2 means higher rates of warming, not less, no? Tell me why scientists in the cooling 1970's thought there was going to be another ice age, all in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Tell me how the anthropogenic 3% of total earthly CO2 emissions can poison this planet when the 97% that Mother Nature emits doesn't already. Tell me how this planet managed to survive and thrive with atmospheric CO2 concentrations fully 15 times higher than todays? Tell me how, if high atmospheric CO2 concentrations "acidify" oceans & kill sea-going life, did corals & other calcareous lifeforms evolve during a time of the highest atmospheric CO2 concentrations this planet has seen (4000 ppm & higher)?

Tell me why, if the GCM's are so fine, not one of them predicted the flatline? Tell me why, if the science is sooooo settled, no warmist can explain the flatline? Tell me why the warmists are scrambling like cockroaches caught in the light to change their story in the face of the flatline, whereby sceptics are just standing back & watching a natural event unfold? Explain to me why Arctic ice is predicted to hit normal levels this year, global sea ice is above average & Antarctic ice is breaking records almost daily? All in the face of (the horror) 400ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration? Explain to me the connection there, MacDoc & how the hypothesis of AGW doesn't fall flat on it's face in light of all that empirical evidence.

Yes, MacDoc, let's talk El Nino. And a few other inconvenient facts, too.

<crickets>

Screw you, the hat you're wearing & the horse you rode in on. Come back when you have something salient to add the the conversation and you've answered a few questions with actual, gen-u-wyne, empirical evidence. Instead of just snarking from your hypocritical perch in the ivory tower...


----------



## eMacMan

Well great news for MacDoc and his fellow AGW worshippers. Yep the great Obuma hisself has declared AGW to be real. One leetle problem. We know that his lips were moving at the time and history teaches that when a politicians lips move, that is a very reliable indicator that he/she is lying. Can't think of any exceptions during BO's reign nor for that matter during the Bush regime.

So if Obuma declares AGW to be real we know beyond all shadow of a doubt that AGW is pure BS.

We also know that BO has a plan in the works (no doubt included in an omnibus bill) that will do nothing to solve the non-existent problem but will be extremely effective at draining the wallets and bank accounts of those who can least afford to fight a war on air.


----------



## MacDoc

hehe says it all.....
deny reality.....



> Alberta government bars environmentalists from oilsands hearings
> comments


meanwhile back in the real world...



> Warming 'increasingly disruptive' across US - report
> Matt McGrath
> By Matt McGrath
> Environment correspondent, BBC News



snip



> Climate change is having significant financial, ecological and human health impacts across the US, according to a new report.
> 
> The third National Climate Assessment, released by the White House, says the number and strength of extreme weather events have increased over the past 50 years.
> 
> Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, downpours and extreme heat.
> 
> The report says these impacts are likely to worsen in the coming decades.
> 
> Coming hot on the heels of the trio of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the assessment re-iterates the finding that climate change is real, and "driven primarily by human activity".
> more
> BBC News - Warming 'increasingly disruptive' across US - report


take your pick, fire or flood .....both are increasing in frequency as extreme weather becomes the norm.



> Here is a video of Arnold Swarzenegger showing that the world IS ON FIRE! He states in the video that there is no fire season and that the fires now burn year round. The head firefighter also acknowledges the changes he has seen.
> 
> Fire Line - Years Of Living Dangerously Watch the spotlight video
> 
> Here is more of Arnold Swartenegger on climate change. Click a few links to get to the video. Go to "Behind the Scenes" and click on the video on the left.
> 
> http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/...chwarzenegger/
> 
> A quote from the website
> 
> 
> 
> "During the time I was in office we have seen the beginning of the elimination of the fire season completely and are having fires all year round. I think we have seen the major problem of the destruction of land and property and lives that is a major problem because we don’t have the resources for that many fires and we don’t have the resources and the manpower to fight those fires throughout the year.
> 
> 
> 
> Arnold Schwarzenegger"
> 
> Here is a team of Hot Shots that were killed in a fire. It's not funny at all.
> Remembering the firefighters killed in the Arizona blaze
Click to expand...

and in Canada...



> Canadian Forest Service Publications
> 
> Risk assessment of the threat of mountain pine beetle to Canada's boreal and eastern pine forests. 2014. Nealis, V.G.; Cooke, B.J. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Ontario. 27 p.
> 
> *Plain Language Summary*
> Rapid changes in the distribution of the mountain pine beetle and the significant investments made by forest managers in response resulted in a request for a reassessment of the threat by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers via the National Forest Pest Strategy.
> 
> This report summarizes the findings of the reassessment in 2010. Many of the predictions made in an initial assessment in 2007 have come true. The beetle continues to expand both its geographic and host range. It is persisting in areas once thought to be climatically unsuitable and is finding and attacking even sparse clusters of trees. It is now confirmed to be successfully reproducing in jack pine, a transcontinental pine species of the boreal forest. In addition to the potential impacts to forestry, an increase in tree mortality could aggravate the already high fire risk characteristic of pine forest types.


Harpo hasn't muzzled that one yet.....

and despite cooler temps in North America



> Global Summary Information - March 2014
> *March 2014 global temperature fourth highest on record*
> 
> Year-to-date seventh warmest on record
> 
> Arctic sea ice fifth lowest maximum extent
> 
> Many areas of the world experienced much-warmer-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of Europe, much of Asia, northern South America, most of the Indian Ocean, part of the eastern North Atlantic, a large swath of the South Atlantic, and large sections of the western and northeastern Pacific Ocean.
> 
> Record warmth occurred in parts of eastern and northern Europe, sections of the eastern Atlantic Ocean, and parts of the equatorial and northeastern Pacific Ocean. Most of eastern Canada, the northeastern U.S., north central Argentina, part of the central North Atlantic Ocean, and the ocean waters off the southern tip of South America were notably cooler than average. Some areas around the Great Lakes and New England in North America were record cold for March.


recognise yourselves deniers??? Careful....those oil sands might be toxic


----------



## eMacMan

As I said earlier Obuma's lips were moving, so based on his history we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was lying. The myth of global warming can now be laid to rest, although I am sure the walletectomies are just beginning.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, at this point I have to ask if there is something you're not sharing with us that is leading you post these unrelated fragments, from bits of Alberta hearings to pine beetles. What you were asked to do is to actually answer some basic questions about the science and physics of climate. Instead, we get a grab bag of edits from outdated news reports.

So what have we got? 

* Two headlines from two unsourced new outlets... I guess. 

* Next, the National Climate Assessment (which is just the IPCC assessment) , which claims "the number and strength of extreme weather events have increased over the past 50 years." Really? The data consistently shows the reverse.

* Some blazes in the southwest that are resulting largely from enviro wackos refusing to allow dead brush to be cleared from the "natural" environment.

* Pine beetles can withstand even the coldest winters, so warming (if any) is not a factor in their survival.

* Arctic sea ice extent is on the rise, not waning, while Antarctic sea ice is posting records. You're apparently unaware of the oscillation between sea ice north and south.

* And finally, we still haven't determined what the average temperature of the world might be, or how it can be accurately calculated. Seventh warmest you say--by what standard?

Recognize yourself here, MacDoc?


----------



## FeXL

He's completely f'ing lost it.

Incoherent rants, disjointed posts, parroting political advocacy as proof, unable or unwilling to answer the simplest of queries, hypocritically galavanting all over the globe, all the while espousing the horrors of CO2, usurping weather as climate.

These are all hallmarks of a psychosis so deep, dark & maligned there is no hope for recovery. Even treatment requires the most tenuous grasp on reality, the chances of which are completely absent, at best. I'm just glad he's down under so my tax dollars don't have to pay for his padded, pink room.

At least he finally took down his Halloween Special promotion...

Yo, MacDoc: Let me explain in short words, something that may, though rather doubtfully, get through the haze. I am running roughshod all over your corpulent, unscientific, global warming ass. In the complete absence of any defence whatsoever of your position, you look even more train wreck that you are. 

Please, continue...

Verstehen?


----------



## FeXL

On the accuracy of local temperature readings.

How not to measure temperature part 95 – New temperature record of 102° in Wichita, but look where they measure it



> Over at Weather Underground, they are all excited about a new monthly high temperature record.
> 
> ...
> 
> But, as I’ve pointed out many times, airports are one of the absolute worst places to measure temperature for climatic records. Not just because the airports themselves are massive heat sinks of asphalt and concrete, but also because the ASOS weather station system is known to be highly unreliable and prone to giving false high temperature readings like in Honolulu, Tucson, and more recently in Tacoma, where after fixing the ASOS temperature sensor, temperatures dropped to normal levels.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper out. It's a gooder...

Claim: ‘Emitting greenhouse-gases could start uncontrollable ice-melt’



> The melting of a rather small ice volume on East Antarctica’s shore could trigger a persistent ice discharge into the ocean, resulting in unstoppable sea-level rise for thousands of years to come. This is shown in a study now published in _Nature Climate Change_ by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). *The findings are based on computer simulations of the Antarctic ice flow using improved data of the ground profile underneath the ice sheet.*


Bold from the link.

This comment, from geologist Don Easterbrook, sums it up for me:



> *Another fact-filled article from the Journal of Geofantasy!* The catastrophic demise of the East Antarctic ice sheet is not going to happen for a host of reasons, but two important ones should be enough.
> 1. The Antarctic ice sheet has not undergone this kind of demise since it first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. *Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm)*, so the miniscule rise of CO2 from ~300 to 400 ppm is an increase of only 0.010 % (peanuts compared to what it has been). *So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be below the levels of most of the ice sheets history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.*
> 2. An important reason why the Antarctic ice sheet isn’t melting (it’s actually growing!), is that Antarctica is encircled by clockwise atmospheric circulation around the entire continent that isolates it from the rest of the world. Take a look at earth :: an animated map of global wind and weather
> to see this circulation going on today.
> 
> So all the models in the world aren’t going to change the reality of the situation and are nothing but fantasy nonsense!


M'bold.

While his math is off, his point is well made.


----------



## FeXL

So, the latest truckload of buttwipe to be delivered from Washington, DC is now available. It's a piece of work, this one. The National Climate Assessment (NCA) has been the topic of rave reviews from warmists & other fruit loops & whackos everywhere.

A bit of perspective, however, is in order...

What the National Climate Assessment Doesn’t Tell You



> The idea that human-caused global warming is going to increase heat-related mortality is simply outdated and wrong. In fact, the opposite is more likely the case—that is, a warming climate will decrease the population’s sensitivity to heat events as it induces adaptation.
> 
> ...
> 
> But this information often falls on deaf ears—especially those ears responsible for developing the NCA.


More:



> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes the same outlook (of course since it is based heavily on the National Climate Assessment). The EPA leaned heavily on heat-related mortality as one the “threats” to public health and welfare in its justification for pursuing greenhouse gas emissions restrictions. From the EPA’s Technical Support Document for its greenhouse gas “Endangerment Finding”:
> 
> *Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the United States where these events already occur,* with potential increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young, and frail. [emphasis in original]


Further:



> Now compare the Administration’s take with the latest findings on the trend in heat-related mortality across the United States as published by a research team led by Harvard School of Public Health’s Jennifer Bobb. *Bobb and colleagues found that the risk of dying from excessive heat events was declining across the U.S. And further, that most of the overall decline was coming from declines in the sensitivity to extreme heat shown by the elderly population (75 and older). In fact, the Bobb team found that the risk in the older population has dropped so far that it is now indistinguishable from the risk to the younger populations.* Adaptation is a beautiful thing!
> 
> ...
> 
> In other words, all the EPA’s talk about an increasing threat from heat waves and a growing elderly population combining to negatively impact the public health and welfare has been wrong up to now and almost assuredly will be so into the future as we continually look for ways to avoid dying avoidable deaths (e.g., those from heat waves).


Yeah, thought so.

Some advance copy on the National Climate Assessment Report



> I’ve been able to obtain some highlights and findings in advance of release of the full report which is expected later today. It seems the only facet of severe weather they aren’t trying to link to climate change is tornadoes and lightning.
> 
> ...
> 
> So basically, they are trying to make people afraid of the more mundane weather, but stop short on tornadoes and thunderstorms, because they know they’ll be called out on it.


National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom

The link to the Fox news report from the above article:

National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom



> As with previous editions, the new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.
> 
> Also in keeping with past practice, the latest report confuses climate risk with climate change risk.


Quotes of the Week: Some early comments on the National Climate Assesment report

National Climate Assessment claims sea level rise up to 11X faster than past 2 centuries (which show no acceleration)



> The National Climate Assessment Report released by the White House today claims sea level rise "future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100," with 1-4 feet most likely by the year 2100. *This assumes sea level rise will accelerate up to 11 times faster than the current rate of only ~4-7 inches per century, even though observations have found no evidence of acceleration over the past 203 years, which means there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels. In addition, the most recent data shows that sea level rise has decelerated 31% since 2002* [Cazenave et al 2014].
> 
> The National Climate Assessment Report sea level scare is contrary to tide gauge and satellite observations, and based upon overheated climate model projections which have already been falsified at confidence levels of 95% and 98%. In addition, climate models falsely assume that longwave infrared radiation [LWIR] from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans, but LWIR cannot significantly heat the oceans to contribute to sea level rise.


M'bold.

John Coleman Global Warming Skeptic (cofounder of the Weather Channel)



> *I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.* The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President.


M'bold.

Climate Change Mass Hysteria Grips the U.S.



> Climate deniers, known to be the same paid shills who once worked for the tobacco industry, were quick to pounce on the report’s findings, claiming that there is no evidence supporting either the view that U.S. climate has gotten worse, or that Elvis Presley had finally returned to Earth with a great new diet plan.





U.S. National Climate Assessment Report



> While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW. Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration. *The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.*


M'bold.


More Obama Climate Lies 



> The continuing drama of a President willing to lie about the climate continues with the release of a report, the National Climate Assessment. It is a repeat of all the lies that have been generated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Will: Can we please stop pretending climate scientists are saints in lab coats?



> In his increasingly meek efforts to not look like a lame duck (as well as to take every available opportunity to portray Republicans as apathetic-yet-spiteful haters of any agenda item he could possibly produce), *President Obama is once again turning to that ever-reliable progressive tactic of climate-change alarm-mongering to gin up some noise.*


M'bold.

And from 1974, the same gloom & doom, only on behalf of Global Cooling:

1974 State Of The Climate Report – Global Cooling Will Kill Us All



> The White House released their state of the climate report today, saying that _global warming_ was going to cause floods, famines, extreme weather, and will kill us all.
> 
> This comes almost exactly 40 years after the government wrote a state of the climate report saying that _global cooling_ was going to cause floods, famines, extreme weather, and would kill us all.


<snort>

That about covers the NCA...


----------



## FeXL

And, what's global warming without a good laugh at the expense of our unscientific warmist buddies?

Monday Mirthiness – The Science News Cycle


----------



## FeXL

XX)XX)XX)

Hey, new paper out!

Claim: Climate change threatens to worsen U.S. ozone pollution



> Ozone pollution across the continental United States will become far more difficult to keep in check as temperatures rise, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The detailed study shows that Americans face the risk of a 70 percent increase in unhealthy summertime ozone levels by 2050.


Wait for it...



> The new study was among the first conducted on the new 1.5-petaflop Yellowstone supercomputer. The IBM system, operated by NCAR and supported by funding from the NSF and the University of Wyoming, is one of the world’s most powerful computers specifically dedicated to research in the atmospheric and related sciences.
> 
> Thanks to its computing power, the scientists were able to simulate pollution levels hour by hour for 39 hypothetical summers. This allowed the team to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological conditions, such as hot and dry vs. cool and wet, thereby getting a more detailed and statistically significant picture of future pollution levels.
> 
> To simulate the interplay of global climate with regional pollution conditions, the scientists turned to two of the world’s leading atmospheric models, both based at NCAR and developed through broad collaborations with the atmospheric science community. They used the Community Earth System Model, funded primarily by the Department of Energy and NSF, to simulate global climate as well as atmospheric chemistry conditions. They also used an air chemistry version of the multiagency Weather Research and Forecasting model to obtain a more detailed picture of regional ozone levels.


Bingo! Models, all the way down.

From the comments:



> *“Both scenarios assumed … significant warming….”* So start with the answer you want, and build a computer model that proves it. Nice work. Well worth the investment.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds warming decreases the frequency of typhoons



> A paper under review for Climate of the Past reconstructs Taiwan climate over the past 1900 years and finds typhoons were more common during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age and Dark Ages Cold Period. Climate alarmists have claimed that global warming increases typhoons such as Haiyan, but this paper and many others demonstrate extreme weather, typhoons, and cyclones are more common during cold periods. Cold periods are associated with larger temperature differentials between the equator and poles, and temperature differences drive extreme weather. _A warmer climate is a more benign climate._


Abstract (open access)



> In this study, we reconstructed the paleoenvironmental changes from a sediment archive of the floodplain lake in Ilan Plain of NE Taiwan on multi-decadal resolution for the last ca. 1900 years. On the basis of pollen and diatom records, we evaluated the record of past vegetation, floods, typhoons and agriculture activities of this area, which is sensitive to the hydrological conditions of the West Pacific. High sedimentation rates with low microfossil preservations reflected multiple flood events and humid climatic conditions during 100–1400 AD. A shortly interrupted dry phase can be found during 940–1010 AD. The driest phase corresponds to the Little Ice Age phase 1 (LIA1, 1400–1620 AD) with less disturbance by flood events, which enhanced the occurrence of wetlands (Cyperaceae) and diatom depositions. Humid phases with frequent typhoons are inferred by high percentages of Lagerstroemia and high ratios of planktonic/benthic diatoms, respectively, during 500–700 AD and Little Ice Age phase 2 (LIA2, 1630–1850 AD). The occurrences of cultivated Poaceae (Oryza) during 1250–1300 AD and the last ~400 years, reflect agriculture activities, which seems to implicate strongly with the environmental stability. Finally, we found flood events which dominated during the El Niño-like stage, but dry events as well as frequent typhoon events happened during the La Niña-like stage. After comparing our results with the reconstructed proxy for tropical hydrological conditions, we suggested that the local hydrology in coastal East Asia were strongly affected by the typhoon-triggered heavy rainfalls which were influenced by the variation of global temperature, expansion of the Pacific warm pool and intensification of ENSO events.


----------



## FeXL

It's the Sun wot dunnit...

New paper finds solar activity correlated to rainfall over past 6,000 years



> A paper published today in Quaternary Science Reviews finds precipitation in Australia was correlated to solar activity over the past 6,000 years.
> 
> According to the paper, an "abrupt increase in rainfall 2,800 years ago coincides with a grand solar minimum" and "Increased rainfall in response to a solar minimum is consistent with climate model simulations." The paper also shows also shows solar activity in the 20th century was at some of the highest levels of the past 6,000 years.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Australian–Indonesian monsoon has a governing influence on the agricultural practices and livelihood in the highly populated islands of Indonesia. However, little is known about the factors that have influenced past monsoon activity in southern Indonesia. Here, we present a ∼6000 years high-resolution record of Australian-Indonesian summer monsoon (AISM) rainfall variations based on bulk sediment element analysis in a sediment archive retrieved offshore northwest Sumba Island (Indonesia). The record suggests lower riverine detrital supply and hence weaker AISM rainfall between 6000 yr BP and ∼3000 yr BP compared to the Late Holocene. We find a distinct shift in terrigenous sediment supply at around 2800 yr BP indicating a reorganization of the AISM from a drier Mid Holocene to a wetter Late Holocene in southern Indonesia. *The abrupt increase in rainfall at around 2800 yr BP coincides with a grand solar minimum. An increase in southern Indonesian rainfall in response to a solar minimum is consistent with climate model simulations that provide a possible explanation of the underlying mechanism responsible for the monsoonal shift. We conclude that variations in solar activity play a significant role in monsoonal rainfall variability at multi-decadal and longer timescales.* The combined effect of orbital and solar forcing explains important details in the temporal evolution of AISM rainfall during the last 6000 years. By contrast, we find neither evidence for volcanic forcing of AISM variability nor for a control by long-term variations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

More from the empty set



> Readers may remember the fun we had with a couple of papers at the start of the year. Cai et al found that climate models that simulated extreme rainfall well predicted more frequent El Ninos. Meanwhile Sherwood et al found that climate models that simulated clouds well had high climate sensitivity, a position that I characterised as "the best cloud simulators are the worst temperature simulators". *Much amusement ensued when it emerged that the intersection of "best cloud simulators" with "best rainfall simulators" was in fact the empty set.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the accuracy of the carbon cycle...

Oops. Indian carbon accounting adds lakes, rivers, and changes tally by 42%. Who’s bet billions of dollars on fudgy numbers?



> Indian researchers have realized that the carbon modelers there had vastly underestimated the CO2 and CH4 given off by the parts of India covered in water, and when they put them in, they discovered they were churning out methane and carbon dioxide and the output was equal to 42% of what the Indian forests, farms and gardens were absorbing. (Lucky that only one sixth of humanity lives in India, eh?)
> 
> Humans are putting out less than 4% of total natural emissions of CO2 (as far as we can tell) – but obviously, we don’t even know what those natural emissions are — it’s like plus or minus forty percent. (Say hello to the Pacific Ocean and make that plus or minus 100%). Carbon accounting is a fog of best guesses.


----------



## FeXL

Obama Vs. NOAA



> President Obama claims that _“sea level rise doubled since 1992“_
> 
> This is complete nonsense. NOAA shows no change in sea level rise rates, and they are one half of what Obama claims.
> 
> *One thing Obama never worries about is facts. He didn’t get where he is by telling the truth.*


M'bold.

Nails it for me...

Further:

Don’t Buy From This Dishonest Data Butcher



> If you do an apples to apples comparison of tide gauges from before/after 1992, there is no acceleration. Obama’s claim of acceleration is based entirely on switching between two uncalibrated measurement systems, a mistake which would get him fired from any engineering job.


Which is why he entered politics...


----------



## FeXL

I don't know about his theory but that graph is damned impressive...

My Theory About USHCN Data Tampering



> Two things stand out about the current USHCN data tampering graph. The most obvious is the huge amount of tampering going on in 2014, but almost as bizarre is the exponential increase in tampering since about the year 1998.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, MacDoc, you like weather events, here's another from the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

Michigan Has Already Had The Second Largest Number Of Below 0F Readings In One Year



> With several cold months left to go in 2014, Michigan has already recorded the second largest number of below 0F readings in a single year. Only 1963 had more.


I know, I know. The US is only 2.5% of the planet & I'm racist...


----------



## FeXL

So, I guess I missed yet another edition of _Years of Living Dangerously._ I think it was when I was down in Montana, at the beer tasting event in Missoula. Poured a bunch of CO2 into the air to, from & while we were there. You don't wanna know much about the "while we were there" part. 

At any rate...

‘Years of Living Dangerously’: Pastor Rick Joyner Models Feynman’s Ideal Scientist!



> In Episode 4 of Years of Living Dangerously while attempting to depict his resistance to “their science”, the producers inadvertently revealed that it was only climate skeptic Pastor Rick Joyner who truly practiced Feynman’s ideal.
> 
> In contrast the documentary’s producers demonstrated how one-sided political consensus building is practiced to evoke climate alarm. While Pastor Joyner leaned over backwards to understand his daughter’s global warming concerns, the documentary failed to report the science that might make the CO2 connection invalid. While Joyner embodies Albert Einstein’s advice to “Never Stop Questioning,” the documentary tries to subtly denigrate his questioning as a stubborn refusal to believe what the alarmist were preaching. In gross contrast to America’s public schools where coordinated efforts teach students how to resist peer pressure and think for themselves, *the documentary offered no scientific discussion. They simply demonstrated that consensus is built via heavy peer pressure.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Ooops, one more about the NCA...

I’ve been waiting for this statement, and the National Climate Assessment has helpfully provided it



> The National Climate Assessment report denies that siting and adjustments to the national temperature record has anything to do with increasing temperature trends. Note the newest hockey stick below.


(He is referring to the same graph that I posted in the Steven Goddard post at #4955 above.)



> …adjustments to the temperature record are increasing – dramatically. The present is getting warmer, the past is getting cooler, and it has nothing to do with real temperature data – only adjustments to temperature data. The climate reality our government is living in is little more than a self-serving construct.


So, in the last hundred years there's been around 0.7 or 0.8°C of warming worldwide. I see nearly 3°F of adjustments on that graph, let's be generous & call it 2.75°F. That equates to ~1.5°C. 

*So, the adjustments to the global temperature record are more than the entire natural trend...*


----------



## FeXL

Hey, another new paper out. It analyzes a whole 9 (yes, nine) years of Arctic ice data. And, surprise, surprise, they've discovered not only _record minima_, but a _trend!_ Ooooo, ahhhhh. Of course, the data doesn't include 2013...

Arctic sea ice in the Beaufort Gyre

Interesting comment:



> Amazingly enough, the paper has an informative web page, for the “Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project” that spawned the paper, which has the links for the data and metadata, etc. Data was from September 2003 to August 2012.
> 
> It says four mooring locations were used, but as seen with the individual box plots at the bottom of the page, only location A had a continuous record for the period. For two significant chunks there was only two, A and one other. Pretty sparse data.


More from the same comment at the link.


----------



## FeXL

Just a really nice opinion piece that nails it.

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren’t.



> The Obama Administration released a new report on global cooling global warming climate change this week, and its findings and recommendations are about what you’d expect: conservatives are stupidheads who hate Science™, so give us eleventy trillion dollars.


----------



## FeXL

Every so often I run across an article, a post, a paper, that just screams, "Read Me".

This is one of those. Started as a comment by Robert Brown at Duke, now elevated to a post. He talks about climate models, modellers & their downfalls. Somewhat technical, & well worth the read, right through the comments.

The Global Climate Model clique feedback loop



> However, most of the GCMs and ECIMs are well, and reasonably publicly, documented. It’s just that unless you have a Ph.D. in (say) physics, a knowledge of general mathematics and statistics and computer science and numerical computing that would suffice to earn you at least masters degree in each of those subjects if acquired in the context of an academic program, plus substantial subspecialization knowledge in the general fields of computational fluid dynamics and climate science, _you don’t know enough to intelligently comment on the code itself._ You can only comment on it as a black box, or comment on one tiny fragment of the code, or physics, or initialization, or methods, or the ode solvers, or the dynamical engines, or the averaging, or the spatiotemporal resolution, or…


Italics from the link.

While it is enlightening to receive at least a very fundamental concept of how they operate, personally, all I need is the output. How does that compare with empirical data, with reality? The answer is, they don't.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the National Climate Assessment.

Commentary on the salesmanship of uncertain science in the National Climate Assessment report



> To me, this looks more like a glossy sales pitch from a company that is pushing a product they know people may not need, _but if marketed just right, it would be something they’d buy._ It reminds me of some insurance commercials I’ve seen in the past, where the commercial portrays all the bad things that could happen to you if you don’t get covered. Basically, they are trying to make people afraid of the weather, and then they pitch a solution to that fear in a way that’s right up there with the best traditions of salesmanship:
> 
> *Who wouldn’t want better weather? Just buy our product.*
> 
> The marketing and hype is right up there with the “Affordable Care Act”and makes me wonder how much they spent on this somewhat dysfunctional website Home | National Climate Assessment pushing the report, which crashes my browser due to all the flash video content they built into it. Swirling cloud backgrounds and multi-level forced web wading to get the basics don’t do anything for getting your information across.


Emphasis from the link.

More:

My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment



> There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Model Based Extreme Rainfall Claims Not Supported By Actual Data



> Conclusions
> 
> There is no evidence that “extreme rainfall” is becoming more common.
> 
> The study’s authors seem to have gone to a lot of bother, trying to establish a link to global warming. *They would have saved themselves a lot of work, if they had simply gone and analysed the data.*


Yep. Wouldn't even have needed to leave their comfy labs or get their hands dirty...


----------



## FeXL

The stupid, it burns...

Claim: As CO2 levels rise, some crop nutrients will fall

So, here's the thrust. On some (not all) cereal crops, an increase of atmospheric CO2 will drop the percentage of some micronutrients (zinc & iron).

OK, the questions that immediately spring to mind. How much Zn & Fe is there is these crops to begin with? How much does CO2 affect this amount? What is the increase in yield in these crops with the higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations? What about fertilizers?

Well, apparently I'm in good company 'cause a few other people have wondered about these same issues...

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition (From the Annuls of Hype)



> Before we hit the panic button, lets look the numbers. The new Myers et al study reports that *zinc and iron content of rice may fall by, wait for it, five percent.* In *wheat the iron content could fall by as much as 10%.* But no one who has a choice eats either rice or wheat for their iron and zinc content, since both these are dismal sources of both minerals.


M'bold.

More inside the second link.

Interestingly, the subject of increased yields never comes up. So, theoretically, you could be actually harvesting 10%, 20%, 50% more grain but, the thing to panic about is the 5% reduction in zinc & iron in rice. In 2050...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds substantial portion of Arctic warming is natural, not due to man-made CO2



> A paper published today in Nature finds NE Canada and Greenland warming since 1979 is largely due to natural variability of ocean oscillations rather than anthropogenic climate change.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Rapid Arctic warming and sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean are widely attributed to anthropogenic climate change1, 2, 3. The Arctic warming exceeds the global average warming because of feedbacks that include sea-ice reduction4, 5 and other dynamical and radiative feedbacks6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. We find that *the most prominent annual mean surface and tropospheric warming in the Arctic since 1979 has occurred in northeastern Canada and Greenland. In this region, much of the year-to-year temperature variability is associated with the leading mode of large-scale circulation variability in the North Atlantic, namely, the North Atlantic Oscillation14, 15. Here we show that the recent warming in this region is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity originating in the tropical Pacific.* Atmospheric model experiments forced by prescribed tropical sea surface temperatures simulate the observed circulation changes and associated tropospheric and surface warming over northeastern Canada and Greenland. Experiments from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (ref. 16) models with prescribed anthropogenic forcing show no similar circulation changes related to the North Atlantic Oscillation or associated tropospheric warming. *This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.*


From the first link:



> Climate alarmists claim Arctic warming is the canary in the mine where "evidence" of man-made climate change is most apparent, but this paper and many others demonstrate much of the "climate change" in the Arctic is simply due to natural variability, and not unusual in comparison to many rapid Arctic warming episodes in the past.


----------



## FeXL

Another very good read, this one on ENSO. Guest writer Donald Rapp at Judith Curry's.

El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming



> Why after 400 years of La Niña precedence, did periods of El Niños dominance start in the 20th century? And why did the two periods of strong El Niño dominance in the 20th century occur during a period when the CO2 concentration was rising? Is there a link between rising CO2 and the El Niño – La Niña balance? But if there is such a link, why did El Niños become less prevalent than La Niñas from 1941 to 1976 and be in balance after 1998?


Long but not technical. Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Movie Science: “We need to understand why in the last 30 years global warming is not uniform,”



> Note: part of the answer is in the photo they provide with the press release below, but they don't see it.


----------



## FeXL

El Niño Watch issued by NOAA



> Chance of El Niño increases during the remainder of the year, exceeding 65% during summer.


The screeching from the warmists is already reaching peak levels.

However, how the naturally occurring El Nino bolsters the argument of AGW is unclear to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the National Climate Assessment...

National Climate Assessment ‘frequently confuses climate with climate change’

Yeah, there's a surprise.

FT: ‘No one trusts Washington on climate change’



> The Financial Times, a major international business newspaper, the main competitor to the Wall Street Journal, has just published an article, highlighting the insignificance of the impact Obama’s National Climate Assessment has had, on American public opinion.



Tilting at Climate Windmills



> The sheer egotism in big government mouthpieces claiming that they can rescue mankind from all the natural threats which afflict us should be laughable. And make no mistake -- for many of us, it is.


And this little gem:

It’s the End of the World as We Prefer It, and I Feel … Stupid



> No matter that long and sad human experience teaches us where such absolute orthodoxies lead. Indeed, with climate change being blamed for almost everything these days, *the one phenomenon that seems to have escaped the notice of scientists, environmentalists and the media alike is that, perhaps above all, climate change is making us stupid.*


Well...97% of us, anyways.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~35% less than IPCC claims 



> A paper under discussion for Earth System Dynamics finds the transient climate response [TCR] to CO2 is 1.3°C per doubling of CO2 levels, about 35% less than claimed by the IPCC mean estimate and the same as determined by another recent paper by Otto et al finding a TCR of 1.3°C.


Abstract (open access)



> The instrumental surface air temperature record has been used in several statistical studies to assess the relative role of natural and anthropogenic drivers of climate change. The results of those studies varied considerably, with anthropogenic temperature trends over the past 25–30 years suggested to range from 0.07 to 0.20 °C decade−1. In this short communication we assess the origin of these differences and highlight* the inverse relation between the derived anthropogenic temperature trend of the past 30 years and the weight given to the [natural] Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)* as an explanatory factor in the multiple linear regression (MLR) tool that is usually employed. We highlight that robust MLR outcomes require a better understanding of the AMO in general and more specifically its characterization. *Our results indicate that both the high- and low end of the anthropogenic trend over the past 30 years found in previous studies are unlikely and that a transient climate response with best estimates centred around 1.3 °C per CO2 doubling best captures the historic instrumental temperature record.*


Bold from first link.

Link to same study, posted for comments only.


----------



## FeXL

I've heard about this research before but never took the time to source it. Ran across it the other day.

The author has an interesting perspective on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Real CO2


----------



## FeXL

Willis searches the Central England Temperature series for the elusive 24 year cycle.

Cycling in Central England



> Looking at a recent article over at Tallbloke’s Talkshop, I realized I’d never done a periodogram looking for possible cycles in the entire Central England Temperature (CET) series. I’d looked at part of it, but not all of it. The CET is one of the longest continuous temperature series, with monthly data starting in 1659.


----------



## FeXL

Couple more Tisdale posts on the possibly upcoming El Nino.

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 7 – May 2014 Update and What Should Happen Next

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 8 – The Southern Oscillation Indices


----------



## FeXL

Richard Tol, IPCC author, has initiated a Wiki on the IPCC AR5.

IPCC Wiki Launched – Volunteers Needed



> _As a first step, I hope to get the report-as-is on there. Then, we can look at the quality of the authors, the quality of the references, link up to the underlying papers to flag (dis)agreement between source and survey, add other papers, and so on.
> 
> This is too much for a single person, so could you be so kind as to alert people on your blog and call for volunteers?​_


More:

Tol creates new IPCC wiki – anyone can take part


----------



## FeXL

Couple more on the National Climate Assessment.

Manmade ‘climate disruption’ – the hype and reality



> It’s pretty scary sounding. It has to be. First, it is designed to *distract* us from topics that the President and Democrats do not want to talk about: ObamaCare, the IRS scandals, Benghazi, a host of foreign policy failures, still horrid jobless and workforce participation rates, and an abysmal 0.1% first quarter GDP growth rate that hearkens back to the Great Depression.


Bold from the link.

Further:

New Climate Change Report Is Filled With Falsehoods



> *The liberal hubris is that government can do anything to change the earth's climate or prevent the next big hurricane, earthquake or monsoon. These are the people in Washington who can't run a website, can't deliver the mail and can't balance a budget. But they are going to prevent droughts and forest fires.*


M'bold.

Yup. I feel safer already...


----------



## FeXL

New paper out!

More of that old "global warming causes both sides of the argument" thing...

Claim: ‘The Southern Ocean winds are now stronger than at any other time in the past 1,000 years,’ CO2 blamed



> From the Australian National University and the department of “claim anything” comes this reversal over what was said two years ago about Antarctica:
> 
> _“If this rapid warming that we are now seeing continues, we can expect that ice shelves further south along the peninsula that have been stable for thousands of years will also become vulnerable,” said Nerilie Abram, of the Australian National University.​_
> So which is it? Rapid warming, or not warming as much because the winds are “strengthened by carbon dioxide”? I’d love to see proof of that mechanism, and no, models aren’t proof.


OK, once they explain the obvious discrepancy there, we can move on to the conclusions in the new paper.

So, the assumption here is that you can use trees & ice cores to measure wind direction & speed. Now, I've seen sandstone that had visible banding in it and, if the sandstone was in it's original location and you had sample sizes covering enough area, I s'pose you could track what direction the wind was blowing when it deposited the sand. Possibly something similar for snow deposition although I don't know if there is enough of the texture of the snow crystals left after being compressed into ice... 

Second, if anyone has ever cut a tree down with a chainsaw they will notice that the growth bands, the rings, are not of even thickness around the perimeter of the tree, especially near the bottom of the trunk. The rings are wider on the windward side of the trunk base. So, I s'pose you could calculate a general wind direction from that observation. 

Third, however, I have huge issues with the claim that wind speed can be calculated from either proxy and modelled output ain't gonna cut it, either.

This comment sums it for me:



> So just who was measuring this, or is there a paleo-proxy for wind? So obviously “no” to both of those options, which just leaves a dodgy model, which nobody can prove right or wrong. I doubt even His Manniness would claim there was a proxy for the wind.
> 
> So in typical climate science fashion, even if a statement is obviously complete BS, but cannot be proven to be wrong, it therefore is right.
> 
> Sigh………………………….


----------



## FeXL

Further on the above, with just a _bit_ more snark...

Antarctica stealing Australian rain. (Prof Matthew England, ANU, UNSW, Nature, struggle to get “cause and effect”)



> A miracle has occurred, climate models which have been plagued with failure and have finally been gifted with The Scientific Truth. Apparently the God of Weather has visited upon Matthew England and others. (We wonder why God didn’t visit earlier, but are grateful for this insight.)


Further:



> This part is where God helped:
> 
> _“The strengthening of these winds has been particularly prominent over the past 70 years, and by combining our observations with climate models we can clearly link this to rising greenhouse gas levels.”​_


More:



> We know that natural factors could not have created the faster winds, because The God of Weather visited Prof Matthew England, Nerilie Abram, Robert Mulvaney and gifted them with the correct assumptions and estimates to finally create Climate Simulations which finally produce real empirical evidence instead of _just calculations._
> 
> While no computer simulation has worked before. We are blessed that finally they have got it Right™.
> 
> *Soon for the first time Climate Model predictions presumably will match our instruments. I can’t wait.*


M'bold.

Me, either.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mann splicing proxy & temperature data to create the Hockey Stick.

A baseless Mann UVa email – claims by Mann spliced and diced



> Mann’s claims about dataset splicing are laughable, as even the Muir Russell investigation labeled it as such, as McIntyre notes


----------



## FeXL

Mother's Day update to the state of the planet's ice.

Sea Ice Update May 11 2014



> * Global Sea Ice Extent is 785,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
> * Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,396,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. 63rd Daily Record.
> * Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -612,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean.


Further:


Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels



> Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.


Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost the NYT...

The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg jumps the shark again – gets called out by NYT



> It’s pretty bad when other environmental reporters start calling you out on it, such as NYT’s Andrew Revkin did today.


----------



## FeXL

We've found one!

The world’s only climate refugee is denied status



> While predictions of millions of climate refugees have been rather wide of the mark, like most climate model predictions, it is wrong to state there are no climate refugees.
> 
> *In fact, there has been one climate refugee. And, he just lost his appeal.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, lemme get this right... Your global circulation models suck, but now, you're going to use game theory models to get the point of global warming across?

Over two decades of failure in climate talks – maybe it is just time to give up instead of trying game theory?



> For more than two decades, members of the United Nations have sought to forge an agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. But so far, these international climate negotiations have had limited success.
> 
> What’s more, game theoretical modeling of the negotiations suggests that there are feasible solutions to the problem. That is, there are commitments that the countries participating in the negotiations could agree to that would accomplish the targeted global emissions reductions. *“So, if these solutions are there, the question is why negotiations have not yet reached them – why don’t we have an agreement,”* said Ron Sandler, a professor of philosophy at Northeastern University who focuses on environmental ethics.


M'bold.

Ummm, because neither the problem, not the solutions, are rooted in science?

Hellooooo?


----------



## FeXL

Couple on Bob Ward.

Bob Ward of the State of Confusion



> _Bob Ward’s tweets today have been a revelation – historic even – see the Bish’s post here. Happily they have coincided with a couple of Antarctic stories that deserve cartooning. Thanks, Bob!​_


Bob Ward, climate denier



> Bob Ward continues to dig himself into an ever deeper hole.


----------



## FeXL

Only tangentially related to GHG. However, posted to show the same BS alarmism used by warmists is also employed elsewhere.

I really dislike when they do this, too. From the comments:



> Referring to nitrogen compounds as “nitrogen” is akin to referring [to] CO2 as “carbon pollution”. It is incorrect & misleading, but it serves the alarmists well. This article is yet another example of the abuse of science by alarmists.


Also from the comments:



> They’re talking about Amine (NH3-) Nitrate (NO3-) salts, not Nitrogen gas (N2).


Yes.

OK, on to the article.

Claim: ‘Dangerous’ nitrogen pollution could be halved


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale responds to a question posted at Judith Curry's on a blog entry on ENSO & global warming.

Answer to the Question Posed at Climate Etc.: By What Mechanism Does an El Niño Contribute to Global Warming?



> Late last week, Judith Curry published a post written by Donald Rapp titled El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming. Donald referred to my work a number of times in that post. That, of course, created the expected responses from warmists who can’t grasp or refuse to understand the subtleties of ENSO. I made a quick appearance there and promised to answer a question by one of the bloggers. The following is that detailed answer. It appears on that Climate Etc. thread here.


----------



## FeXL

Perspective...

How The Earth’s Temperature Looks On An Alcohol Thermometer



> Imagine that each red line is a line from a[n] alcohol thermometer which goes from 0 to 120° F as many thermometers do, except they typically go lower, often at about -40°F.
> 
> So each red line on this graph represents an annual temp as a thermometer would display it. The source is the GISS data.


Can you spot all that yearly variability?

Brutal...


----------



## FeXL

All these idiots need to do is pull out a calculator before they open their traps...

Governor ‘Moonbeam’ beclowns himself over sea level rise at LAX airport



> Assuming nothing changes in the rate of sea level rise, and the airport would still exist there in the future, here is the math.
> 
> LAX airport elevation is 125 feet ( Source: AirNav: KLAX - Los Angeles International Airport )
> 
> *125 feet = 38100mm*
> 
> At the rate of 0.83mm/yr sea level rise seen at Los Angeles (from NOAA graph above) it would take *45903.6* years to reach 125 feet, we’d be in a new ice age by then and sea levels would be falling…never gonna happen.


Bold from the link.

Further foolishness at the link.


----------



## FeXL

I imagine warmists are cheering the planet over...

So, 3 weeks ago Lennart Bengtsson accepted a position at the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council. Yesterday he resigned that position, citing McCarthy-style pressure from colleagues & other bastards.

The community strikes back



> In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory hoard of GWPF. His letter reads :
> 
> _"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
> 
> Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time."​_


Links to a number of takes inside.

This...this is what climate science has come to. No longer are you allowed to speak out without censorship, to express dissent without suppression. Richard Feynman must be rolling in his grave...


----------



## FeXL

Dr. John Christy: Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous; use of climate models in policy decisions is not recommended



> The bottom line is that, while I have some ideas based on some evidence, I don’t know why models are so aggressive at warming the atmosphere over the last 34 years relative to the real world. The complete answer is probably different for each model. To answer that question would take a tremendous model evaluation program run by independent organizations that has yet to be formulated and funded.
> 
> What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - *the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds most of Antarctica cooled over the past 1,000 years



> A new paper published in Nature Climate Change reconstructs temperatures in Antarctica and South America over the past 1000 years and shows that most of Antarctica has cooled over the past 1000 years. The temperature reconstructions in figure 1a below show South America was about as warm during the Medieval Warm Period 800-1000 years ago, and shows that Antarctica as a whole has cooled ~0.4C over the past 1000 years.
> 
> The authors find only the relatively small Antarctic Peninsula and a small portion of the southern tip of South America warmed over the past 1000 years


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is the primary pattern of climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere1, 2, influencing latitudinal rainfall distribution and temperatures from the subtropics to Antarctica. The positive summer trend in the SAM over recent decades is widely attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion2; however, the brevity of observational records from Antarctica1—one of the core zones that defines SAM variability—limits our understanding of long-term SAM behaviour. Here we reconstruct annual mean changes in the SAM since AD 1000 using, for the first time, proxy records that encompass the full mid-latitude to polar domain across the Drake Passage sector. We find that the SAM has undergone a progressive shift towards its positive phase since the fifteenth century, causing cooling of the main Antarctic continent at the same time that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed. The positive trend in the SAM since ~AD 1940 is reproduced by multimodel climate simulations forced with rising greenhouse gas levels and later ozone depletion, and the long-term average SAM index is now at its highest level for at least the past 1,000 years. Reconstructed SAM trends before the twentieth century are more prominent than those in radiative-forcing climate experiments and may be associated with a teleconnected response to tropical Pacific climate. Our findings imply that predictions of further greenhouse-driven increases in the SAM over the coming century3 also need to account for the possibility of opposing effects from tropical Pacific climate changes.


----------



## FeXL

Most interesting...

New paper shows maximum daily temperatures were higher in the 1930's than in 2010 



> A paper under discussion for _Climate of the Past_ plots global warmest daily maximum temperatures from the HADCRU global temperature dataset and shows maximum daily temperatures were higher in the low-CO2 1930's than at the end of the record in 2010. This is contrary to AGW theory, which predicts more extreme daily maximum temperatures to occur after 1950.


Abstract (open access)



> We assess the effects of different methodological choices made during the construction of gridded datasets of climate extremes, focusing primarily on HadEX2. Using global timeseries of the indices and their coverage, as well as uncertainty maps, we show that the choices which have the greatest effect are those relating to the station network used or which drastically change the values for individual grid boxes. The latter are most affected by the number of stations required in or around a grid box and the gridding method used. Most parametric changes have a small impact, on global and on grid box scales, whereas structural changes to the methods or input station networks may have large effects. On grid box scales, trends in temperature indices are very robust to most choices, especially in areas which have high station density (e.g. North America, Europe and Asia). Precipitation trends, being less spatially coherent, can be more susceptible to methodological changes, but are still clear in regions of high station density. Regional trends from all indices derived from areas with few stations should be treated with care. On a global scale, the linear trends over 1951–2010 from almost all choices fall within the statistical range of trends from HadEX2. This demonstrates the robust nature of HadEX2 and related datasets to choices in the creation method.


Cool. Is that what an un-"adjusted" temperature record looks like. It's been so long...


----------



## FeXL

So, amidst all the screeching from the usual suspects about the imminent total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, we have this voice of sanity...

Studies indicate collapse of West Antarctic ice sheet is typical of interglacials 



> While the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg jumps the shark again, wailing that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet has already begun and implying it's due to mankind, prior research has demonstrated that collapse over centuries of the West Antarctic ice sheet is a natural phenomenon typical of the most recent interglacial periods.
> 
> According to glaciologists, "There is some evidence to suggest that, in previous interglacials, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet _completely disappeared,_ leading to sea levels about 5m higher than at present [1]. Evidence...indicates _open seaways across West Antarctica_ at various periods during the last few million years, and _even during the past one or more interglacials."_
> Thus, the complete collapse and disappearance of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet is typical of interglacials, there is no evidence that man has anything to do with the cause, nor that man can stop this phenomenon by forsaking use of fossil fuels.


Further:

The Media over-hyped the West Antarctica climate propaganda reporting



> As seems to always be the case the climate fear propaganda news media have completely mislead the public once again regarding climate related issues this time by alleging claims of 4 meter high future sea level rise increases supposedly addressed in two recent studies which performed analysis of glacier melt behavior of six large glaciers in West Antarctica.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amazingly enough and considering how the press manufactured headlines about sea level rise increases being determined from these studies *neither of the studies addresses or make any claims about the impact of their research results on specific future sea level rise projections.*
> 
> In fact GLC study mentions nothing specific about future sea level rise projections while *the Science study clearly notes that their research models “are not coupled to a global climate model to provide forcing nor do they include an ice-shelf cavity-circulation model to derive melt rates.* Few if any such fully coupled models presently exist (13). As such, our simulations do not constitute a projection of future sea level in response to projected climate forcing.”
> 
> *Also unreported by the same climate alarmist propaganda focused media were the significant qualifications, limitations and cautions noted in these studies concerning their glacier melt research findings.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well. In 1971 Hansen had a model that predicted another ice age in 50-60 years...

Flashback: Hansen's climate model says ice age to occur by 2021, 'no need to worry about CO2' 



> Flashback from the Washington Times, July 9, 1971, a NASA scientist using a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen" predicted an ice age would occur within 50-60 years. According to Hansen's computer model, "they found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere."


How times change.

I know, I know. Back in '71 they was all jes' ignerant. It just took him 16 years to figger what side of the bread the butter was on...


----------



## FeXL

So much for objective MSM...

Dueling press releases over tropical storm latitude shift – one hyped, one not



> A couple of days ago NYT’s Andrew Revkin took exception to the use of the word “collapse” in headlines surrounding the paper suggesting that Antarctic ice sheets were in “imminent unstoppable collapse” there’s lots of hype surrounding this, and even the governor of California fell victim to it with a ridiculous claim of needing to move LAX airport.
> 
> Today we have a paper from University of Wisconsin and NOAA that claims tropical storm intensity is shifting poleward by about 30-40 miles per decade. *What struck me was this juxtaposition of the two press releases in the Eurekalert feed. It is almost as if they aren’t talking about the same paper.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, over the years there have been any number of failed catastrophic climate predictions. France has just thrown their hat into the ring.

Climate Craziness of the Week – France surrenders to climate chaos threat



> [Secretary of State John] Kerry and [French foreign minister Laurent] Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos”


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The press on the upcoming _Godzilla_ hasn't exactly been lifting my kilt. Upon reading the following, however, I'm definitely *not* supporting it with my cash...

Off the rails – Godzilla and climate



> (Director Gareth Edwards): You have to ask yourself, “What does Godzilla represent?” The thing we kept coming up with is that he’s a force of nature, and if nature had a mascot, it would be Godzilla. So what do the other creatures represent? *They represent man’s abuse of nature, and the idea is that Godzilla is coming to restore balance to something mankind has disrupted.*


Bold from the link.

If I want to be preached at, I'll watch a Goreacle flick or a Bill Nye video. Otherwise, Gareth, you & James Cameron can kiss my hairy, unwashed, backside...


----------



## FeXL

April surface temperature update, including the lower troposphere temperature data.

April 2014 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Update



> To make this post as timely as possible, only GISS LOTI and the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are for the most current month. The NCDC and HADCRUT4 data lag one month.
> 
> This post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 13+ and 16+ years using GISS global (land+ocean) surface temperature data. *They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt (based on 13 years+ trends) this long since the early-1970s or a warming slowdown (based on 16-years+ trends) since about 1980.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further to yesterday's post about Governor Moonbeam's inability to operate a calculator, we have a backpedal. Curiously (not!), a mere aide announces the correction...

Finally, some backpedaling on crazy talk about Antarctica, Glacier Ice Sheet Melt, Sea Level Rise, and LAX

Anthony sent a letter to the editor early this morning, pointing out the egregious error.



> I didn’t get an acknowledgement from the editor, and given their “no denier” publication policy, I doubt my letter will run, even though it was entirely factual, because it made both the Governor and the LATimes look bad for not doing basic fact checking.
> 
> *However, mid-day I did get a nice email from somebody on the other side of the climate debate, editor Douglas Fischer of the Daily Climate, thanking me for the “good catch” and telling me that I had the LA Times newsroom “scrambling…trying to explain how they let this slip through unchallenged”.* He said they were going to put my story on the Daily Climate right next to the LATimes story, and they did (thanks Doug)


M'bold.

Ummm, would it be impertinent to suggest the cause was "basic stupidity"?


----------



## FeXL

Interesting.

New paper finds 'relatively high climate sensitivity' to tiny 0.1% changes in solar activity 



> A paper published in Climate Dynamics finds the climate may be highly sensitive to tiny 0.1% changes in solar activity over solar cycles, producing temperature variations of as much as 0.5 to 1.0°C at the Antarctic "Vostok" station nearest the South Pole. By way of comparison, the globe has warmed only 0.7C over the past 164 years.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Antarctic “Vostok” station works most closely to the center of the ice cap among permanent year-around stations. Climate conditions are exclusively stable: low precipitation level, cloudiness and wind velocity. *These conditions can be considered as an ideal model laboratory to study the surface temperature response on solar irradiance variability during 11-year cycle of solar activity.* Here we solve an inverse heat conductivity problem: calculate the boundary heat flux density (HFD) from known evolution of temperature. Using meteorological temperature record during (1958–2011) we calculated the HFD variation about 0.2–0.3 W/m2 in phase with solar activity cycle. This HFD variation is derived from *0.5 to 1 °C temperature variation and shows relatively high climate sensitivity per 0.1 % of solar radiation change. This effect can be due to the polar amplification phenomenon, which predicts a similar response 0.3–0.8 °C/0.1 %* (Gal-Chen and Schneider in Tellus 28:108–121, 1975). The solar forcing (TSI) is disturbed by volcanic forcing (VF), so that their linear combination TSI + 0.5VF empirically provides higher correlation with HFD (r = 0.63 ± 0.22) than TSI (r = 0.50 ± 0.24) and VF (r = 0.41 ± 0.25) separately. TSI shows higher wavelet coherence and phase agreement with HFD than VF.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds a large increase of solar irradiation in Hawaii over past 24 years 



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds a large decrease in cloud cover of 5-11% per decade has caused a large increase in solar irradiation of 3-6% per decade in Maui, Hawaii over the period from 1988-2012.
> 
> According to the authors, "For the dry season (May-October), [solar irradiation] statistically significant (p ≤0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m-2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high elevation stations tested." By way of comparison, the IPCC alleges a 3.7 W/m2 forcing from a doubling of CO2 levels, 3.6 times less than the mean change of 13.5 W/m2 found per decade in this paper. The 2.4 decade long study thus indicates a 13.5*2.4 = 54 W/m2 mean change in solar irradiation from 1988-2012. Per the IPCC formula for CO2 forcing, the change in CO2 levels from 1988-2012 allegedly produced 0.6 W/m2 forcing*, 90 times less than the change in dry season surface solar irradiation found by this study. The paper joins many other peer-reviewed publications describing global brightening in the latter 20th century.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Trends in downwelling global solar irradiance were evaluated at high elevation sites on the island of Maui, Hawai‘i. Departures from monthly means were assessed for the 6-month Hawaiian wet and dry seasons over the period 1988 to 2012. Linear regression analysis was used to characterize trends in each season. *For the dry season (May-October), statistically significant (p ≤0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m-2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high elevation stations tested. Wet season trends were not significant, except at the highest elevation station, which had a significant negative trend. No consistent trends in aerosol concentrations have been observed at high elevations in Hawai‘i, therefore, the observed dry-season brightening is most likely the result of decreasing cloud cover.* Supporting this hypothesis, analysis of 15 years (1997-2012) of high temporal resolution Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery over the Hawaiian Islands showed a *statistically significant decrease in leeward cloud cover amounting to 5–11% per decade over the stations.* In addition, analysis of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data were in general agreement with the GOES trends, although statistically significant dry-season trends were found at only one of the four stations.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Bengtsson's resignation.

The MSM covers Bengtsson



> The Times, meanwhile, notes that the main source of pressure on Bengtsson was from the USA:
> 
> _He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation.​_


A Letter In Support Of Professor Bengtsson



> That politicians take hypotheses and run with them at their own convenience, is universal. But when so-called scientists give priority to their political convictions, it verges on corruption and is devastating for the world of science, in general.
> 
> The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicized science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwaggon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions; it needs to be exposed, globally.
> 
> Thanks for showing so much courage. Let´s hope there are more honest brokers in the climate world than are apparent today.


Scientist intimidated and forced into resigning: Lennart Bengtsson leaves the GWPF



> Even those within the climate “community” must recognize that end days are near. What an over-reaction presumably driven by fear, and compromising long-standing professional relationships. (Bengtsson knows who his real friends are now.)
> 
> The tribal witch-hunt speaks volumes about the strength of their arguments. For Bengtsson –what a back-handed compliment. If he did not have a scientific reputation, the tribe would not have “cared”.


Lennart Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF



> I will have much more to write about this in a few days. For now, I will say that I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks. This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this. We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails. And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity


Yo, MacDoc: I hope that you & your ilk are proud of yourselves...


----------



## FeXL

Tracing The Antarctic Scam



> Ten years ago, Gavin said temperatures in Antarctica had “decreased significantly.”
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA published maps showing the strong cooling in Antarctica
> 
> ...
> 
> A couple of years later someone at NASA figured out that Antarctic cooling didn’t fit the agenda. so they simply changed it into warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now they have taken it a step further. NASA has completely ignored the record sea ice, and has fabricated a nonsensical story about deep ocean heat melting the ice from below.
> 
> Satellites show that Antarctica is cooling, just as Gavin said 10 years ago – before politics replaced science.


----------



## FeXL

Photos of the CHIMP5 modelling team.

Rare, Behind The Scenes Imagery Of A Leading Climate Modeling Team


----------



## FeXL

Further on that Antarctic ice shelf collapse...

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels … in about 1,000 years



> The cult of global warming, aka “alarmists”, have found a new drum on which to bang. Scientists recently announced that the western ice shelf in Antarctica is “collapsing”. Immediately the “Chicken Little” pronouncements of imminent doom were sounded by the usual suspects with all of it linked implicitly to AGW. The UK’s Guardian sounded the alarm in various headlines...


Ah, the Grunion...

What these geniuses don't seem to get is that the calving of glaciers is a perfectly normal occurrence in a balanced climate. Snow falls at the head, enough collects to form ice, the glacier begins to move, over the course of time the ice reaches the foot & it calves off. It's when the glaciers no longer calve that we need to worry. Idiots...


----------



## eMacMan

This news caught the good folks at The First Church of Climatology completely by surprise. Even as you read this, IPCC scientists are scrambling to fudge data and create models that will allow them to blame this on man made CO2 emissions. There is a 97% consensus amongst these scientists that such a huge aberration must be caused by man.



> The Hubble Space Telescope has recently confirmed that Jupiter’s “Great Red Spot,” a storm larger than the Earth itself, is quickly shrinking for unknown reasons.
> Amy Simon, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said the spot’s latest measurement, 10,250 miles wide, is the smallest it has ever been recorded at.
> “Recent Hubble Space Telescope observations confirm that the spot is now just under 16,500 kilometers across, the smallest diameter we’ve ever measured,” Simon said in a news release.
> Originally observed in the 1800s, the GRS was estimated to be about 25,000 miles across (three Earth’s could fit inside!). But since the 1930s, observers of the celestial giant have recorded its consistently shrinking storm.
> In 1995, the Hubble took a photo of the spot which was measured to be about 13,020 miles wide. In 2009, that number shrank to 11,130 miles.
> Observations starting around 2012 brought attention to an increase in the shrinkage rate of the spot. The spot is actually getting smaller by 580 miles a year.
> “In our new observations it is apparent that very small eddies are feeding into the storm,” Simon said in a news release. “We hypothesized that these may be responsible for the accelerated change by altering the internal dynamics of the Great Red Spot.”


----------



## FeXL

A bridge too far? Much more on the Bengtsson affair.

Whither Intellectual Freedom?



> But the noble, beating heart of science has apparently atrophied. Common curiosity – gone. Independent thought – don’t make me laugh.


Further:



> Science bodies stomping on skepticism. Individual scientists declining to work with colleagues who diverge from the straight-and-narrow.
> 
> Conformity. Dogma. Doctrine.
> 
> *For shame.*


M'bold.

Newsbytes – Climate Science McCarthyism

Among others:



> A German physicist compared Bengtsson’s move [to the GWPF] to joining the Ku Klux Klan. – Der Tagesanzeiger, 7 May 2014


The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse



> Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.


UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view – full article



> When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?
> 
> Lennart Bengtsson is about as distinguished as climate scientists get. His decision two weeks ago to join the academic advisory board (on which I also sit, unremunerated) of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation was greeted with fury by many fellow climate scientists. Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.


The bigotry of the consensus



> The Bengtsson affair continues to generate outrage from normal people and a curious mix of insanity and bigotry from upholders of the global warming consensus.


More:



> _A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.
> 
> The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”​_


Nice...

The ERL reviewer's report



> Environmental Research Letters has published a statement on the Bengtsson affair, protesting its innocence over the accusation that it rejected the paper on political grounds. At least it seems to be arguing that there were scientific, as well as non-scientific reasons for rejecting the paper; certainly the offending editor's quote is acknowledged


I think the bastards have overplayed their hand here. This is going to come back & bite them in the ass, big time...


----------



## FeXL

So, as AGW from CO2 is loosing traction, the move is on to demonize methane (CH4). Methane is currently at about 0.00018% (1800 parts per *billion*) of the atmosphere with a dwell time of around 12 years.

On one side of the discussion you have this:

Cornell hypes on methane as a ‘climate boogeyman’

The key quote is thus:



> *Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas.*


M'bold.

On the other side of the discussion, you have this from, of all places, the EPA:

Methane Leakage from Cows Higher than from Natural Gas Development



> Fugitive emissions of methane continued their decline last year, according to the latest draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory released annually by the EPA. *Methane leakage from the natural gas system in particular has plummeted, dropping 40.4 percent between 2006 and 2012. Thanks to this progress, natural gas systems are no longer the largest emitter of methane, a position now held by enteric fermentation (methane from cattle and other livestock).*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

The stupid, it burns...

University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal



> Wow, just wow. Not only have they just invoked the Streisand effect, they threw some gasoline on it to boot. It’s all part of the Climate McCarthyism on display this week


Guest post by Brandon Schollenberger:



> Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.
> 
> You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.


From the comments:



> *Somebody’s panties must be in an awful wad down in Queensland.*


M'bold.

I'd say. Half way to their kidneys, by the look of it.

More:

First Amendment versus the University of Queensland



> The University of Queensland has come over all litigious with Brandon Schollenberger, threatening him with a legal suit if he continues to examine John Cook's 97% consensus paper


Sounds just like a quote from Climate-gate, whereby one of the warmists (Phil Jones?) asked (paraphrasing), "Why should I give you the data? You're just going to use it to prove me wrong".

I predict that this, too, will end poorly for the bastards...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "collapsing" West Antarctic ice sheet.

'Collapse' of 'unstable' West Antarctic Ice Sheet not man-made & very old news



> The "collapse" of the "unstable" West Antarctic Ice Sheet in the headlines this week is actually very old news about a natural process that began at least 1-2 centuries ago, long before man could have had any possible contribution. Studies indicate collapse and complete disappearance of the West Antarctic ice sheet is typical of interglacials. Open seaways were present across West Antarctica at various periods even during the past one or more interglacials. There is, however, no evidence linking this phenomenon to man-made CO2, nor any evidence man can do anything to stop this natural process.


From NASA:

The "Unstable" West Antarctic Ice Sheet: A Primer 



> Antarctica is so harsh and remote that scientists only began true investigation of its ice sheet in the 1950s. It didn't take long for the verdict on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to come in. *"Unstable," wrote Ohio State University glaciologist John Mercer in 1968.* It was identified then and remains today the single largest threat of rapid sea level rise.


Bold from the first link.

More:

Irreversible Collapse Of Climate Alarmism



> *There is a whiff of desperation in the air, and the over-hyping of these latest papers signals not the imminent decline of Antarctica’s glaciers but the irreversible collapse of climate alarmism.* This latest climate change scare is a prime example of science speak sending the overly excitable media into an ignorance driven frenzy. It will pass. Another plane will disappear, another ferry capsize, more innocents will be abducted by cowardly terrorists somewhere, and the news ghouls will move on to the next disaster, real or imagined. Check on the Antarctic “collapse” ten years from now and you will find things much as they are today.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Understanding How To Make Up Fake Data For NASA



> Gavin made up a fake 4-8 degree April anomaly across a region of Siberia and the Arctic where he had no data. Note the green circle.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now compare vs. the green circle in satellite data, which was actually measured. Gavin missed by 4-8 degrees in that region, and thus was able to declare that April was 2nd hottest ever.


----------



## FeXL

More Arctic Sea Ice Than In 1922



> In 1922, the Arctic was rapidly melting down, and ice never formed on the north coast of Svalbard.
> 
> ...
> 
> This year there is lots of ice on the north coast of Svalbard.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Bengtsson.

First, it's somewhat remarkable that some of the review comments have been released. Unfortunately for _Environmental Research Letters,_ it is one of those released comments that is generating much of the interest in the issue.

Environmental Research Letters strikes back at: ‘Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view’



> Environmental Research Letters has published a statement on the growing Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal, now a front page issue in The Times, claiming their innocence over the accusation that it rejected Bengtsson’s paper because of his connection to climate scepticism. Here’s the part of the reviewers report that is at issue:
> 
> _Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.​_
> Now that Bengtsson has been put on “double-secret probabtion” in the peer review world, and the ERL peer review has become the center of the maelstrom, of course ERL would issue a statement essentially saying “nothing to see here, move along”.


The other part of the issue (the greater of the two, in my opinion) is the observation that anyone who thinks model output & observations should be consistent is in error.

McIntyre has a go at it:

IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”



> The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.


More on the same:

The Bengtsson paper rejection – It’s models, all the way down

Andrew Montford has found an error in the reviewer's report itself:

That error



> The Bengtsson paper would have to have been very bad to be worse than, say, Kummler and Dessler, but at the moment we just don't know because we haven't seen it. However, the ERL editor claims that Bengtsson's offering contained errors. Unfortunately she doesn't actually identify any; the only concern in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson's temerity in thinking that observations and models really ought to match up, and of course the concern that sceptics might be keen on the paper.
> 
> *But there are some errors floating around that are worth a look - as I mentioned earlier a cursory glance suggested to me that the reviewer's report itself included a bit of a boo-boo. I've now been away and done some fact checking and confirmed that I was right. Actually, I'm righter than I thought I was, as I shall now explain.*


M'bold.

Nice sentiments



> Simon Buckle of the Grantham Institute at Imperial has penned some nice thoughts about the Bengtsson affair


Jeff Condon addresses McIntyre's analysis:

Just in — Fletch outed as anonymous reviewer in Environmental Research Letters

And adds his own:



> So models and observations are not to be compared. Got that folks!! STOP EXPECTING CLIMATE MODELS TO MATCH ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS YOU IDIOTS! Clearly the gufuflesmirts, pdfs and johnson rods are not congruent with the michleson factor!!! Any MORON knows that!
> 
> What a riot.


Judith has further observations:


Reflections on Bengtsson and the GWPF



> So what is the impact on a scientist of the so-called climate McCarthyism? As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me, and anyone who wants to invite me to be a keynote speaker has to justify this in light of all the cr*p that shows up if you google ‘Judith Curry’. Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.
> 
> Joe Romm engaging in such practices is reprehensible, but it is an issue of much greater concern when other scientists do it (notably Michael Mann). Bengtsson’s concern was raised over his treatment and the reactions by his so-called ‘colleagues.’ Having dirt thrown at a scientist as part of the political process is one thing; when their own colleagues start throwing the dirt, then this becomes a frightening situation for science.


And, when the data & the model output aren't congruent, what do you do? Throw out the data...

Skeptic paper rejected because computer models trump the 'new technology' of satellite observations 



> Paraphrasing, satellite observations are newfangled [35 year old] technology that still can’t be trusted, but climate models are golden.


Funny, the satellite record corresponds nicely with radiosondes on weather balloons...


----------



## FeXL

So, the German Meteorological Society has leaked a memo with some concerns about further McCarthyism in their ranks.

Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unacceptable Unethical Developments”



> A reader/professor has sent me an internal memo he recently obtained from a meteorologist and member of the _Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft_ [German Meteorological Society], abbreviated as DMG. Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.


This next link is to a somewhat clearer translation in the comments section at a link covering the same story over at WUWT.


----------



## FeXL

Weekend smiles.

Friday Funny – 97% sticky science



> Josh writes:
> 
> There is so much to cartoon this week it is difficult to choose what to start with. I went for Brandon’s brilliant 97% data discovery. Apparently all you need to do if you want to be part of the 97% consensus that global warming is a real and present danger is just add ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’ somewhere near or in your paper. So let’s go the extra mile and help these guys get published – let’s give them a sticker!


----------



## FeXL

On all that Big Oil, I mean, Big Green money...

Mainstream media don't know Big Green has deeper pockets than Big Oil



> Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil in expendable revenue by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.
> 
> The mainstream media don't know how. Like most liberals, their staffs are afflicted with what 20th century futurist Herman Kahn called “Educated Incapacity” — the learned inability to understand or even perceive a problem, much less a solution.


JoNova comments:

Big-Green have more money than Big-Oil but the media are blind to it.


----------



## screature

First time I have waded into this swamp of a thread but I found this article to be very interesting:

Pause in global warming upsets religious believers



> Ross McKitrick is best known as the Canadian professor who took the so-called hockey stick graph — which is worshipped unquestioningly by anthropogenic global warming religionists — and snapped it over his scientific data like a piece of kindling.
> 
> Now the environmental economics professor at the University of Guelph is putting his data crunching prowess to work on global warming climate models and is similarly destroying the credibility of these forecasts — which are looking less reliable than tarot card reading.
> 
> Earlier this week, McKitrick ably showed a crowd of about 300 people at a joint Friends of Science/Frontier Centre for Public Policy luncheon in Calgary how the gap is growing wider and longer between what global warming models predicted and what has actually happened to the world’s climate.
> 
> In a discussion entitled “The ‘Pause’ in Global Warming: Climate Policy Implications,” McKitrick stated that “it’s not so much the pause but the flaws that matter” most with regard to general circulation models or global climate models (GCMs).
> 
> McKitrick showed a lot of graphs and mathematical equations that cannot be adequately reproduced in this space (but can be viewed on the Friends of Science website) which clearly show that since 1994, warming on Earth has levelled off and that the trend actually “goes negative in 2001” to the present day.
> 
> McKitrick’s data all comes from what is called HadCRUT — which is the data of monthly digital temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records collected by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. (This is the university that was engulfed in controversy in recent years after its CRU emails were hacked and it was shown that these climate scientists wanted to find ways “to hide the decline” in global temperatures. But I digress.)
> 
> To his credit, McKitrick pointed out to the crowd that on its own, the 20-year pause in warming “means nothing.”
> 
> But then he showed some graphs which show observed temperatures with climate models, and something strange happens. From 1890 to 1990, the maximum amount of time in which the two lines don’t cross was nine years, way back in the late 1800s. Currently, the two lines between climate models and real world temperatures haven’t crossed for 14 years and climbing.
> 
> “This is the real issue,” says McKitrick. “At the point when the modelers could no longer peek at the answer, they started getting it wrong. Significantly wrong.”
> 
> Between 1990 and 2014, CO2 levels increased by 13 per cent. The climate models all agree on what should have happened, which is why the climate religionists at the CRU wanted to cook the books to “hide the decline.”
> 
> Fully 111 out of 114 models touted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted too much warming.
> 
> The models predicted warming of 0.21 C per decade — which is more than four times the actual observed level.
> 
> As Hans von Storch of the Institute of Coastal Sciences in Germany stated recently: “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modelled scenario,” said von Storch, a renowned “consensus” climate scientist.
> 
> Indeed, last year, von Storch said: “We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius — a value very close to zero.”
> 
> Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech, says: “If the 20-year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large. Further, 20 years is approaching the length of the warming period from 1976-2000 that is the main smoking gun for AGW (man made global warming.)”
> 
> Right. Twenty years of warming caused these scientists to claim that a global crisis was imminent. Will 20 years of no warming or even cooling mean the crisis is averted? Don’t count on that.
> 
> McKitrick points out that some climate scientists are scrambling to explain the pause. They’re saying that the oceans are absorbing more heat than expected, or that there are changes in Pacific wind patterns, or that there is poor coverage of the Arctic surface or on declining stratospheric water vapour.
> 
> “These are all new hypotheses,” points out McKitrick, “yet the science was supposedly ‘settled’ over a decade ago.”
> 
> Touche!
> 
> Of course, there are social and policy implications if the climate models that have predicted catastrophe are proven wrong.
> 
> Apparently, “within standard uncertainties, Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) estimates of the social cost of carbon falls somewhere between $0 and $206 per tonne of CO2.” The crowd laughed at that slide.
> 
> Clearly, the “settled science” was predicting too much warming in response to CO2 emissions. McKitrick says within the next two to four years, this will be “decisively confirmed” unless it is “explained away.”
> 
> In other words, expect new theories. After all, there’s a reason AGW religionists all talk about climate change now instead of global warming: they have too much at stake to let their gravy train crash and burn like the credibility of their climate models.


----------



## FeXL

To anyone who frequents this thread, there is no news in the article itself. However, it is nice & very interesting to see MSM actually picking up on what many have been saying for some time.

Thx for the post.


----------



## FeXL

In climate science, the more things change, the more they stay the same



> In looking at the Bengtsson affair, I see the same M.O. we’ve seen before from people we are familiar with, and it is my opinion that we’ll eventually find that Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth along with some other familiar names were involved in that “pressure” that Bengtsson speaks of. I hope he’ll eventually publish those emails, but if not, they’ll eventually come out.


Interesting "threatening and blackballing of scientists, reporters and editors" list at the link.

More (for anyone who missed out on the details):

Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor who dared to question global warming



> Renowned Swedish scientist Professor Lennart Bengtsson of Reading University was at the centre of an international row last week when his study was rejected by a leading science journal after it was said to be ‘harmful’ and have a ‘negative impact’.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the WAIS collapse.

Flashback: “Irreversible Collapse” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet – from 1999



> The collapse (retreat of the grounding line) began about 20,000 years ago. It is irreversible because *“the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing” and there are no topographic obstacles to prevent it from flowing downhill into the ocean.*
> 
> One has to wonder why this paper didn’t merit panic-stricken headlines in 1999


----------



## FeXL

So, apparently there are some "Real Scientists"™ <snort> who don't like their butts handed to them in a debate on climate science...

Pseudoscientists’ eight climate claims debunked



> The intellectual dishonesty of the Thermageddonites is well demonstrated in a particularly fatuous piece entitled _Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists_ at the hand-wringing-and-hysteria website billmoyers.com.
> 
> The article is full of _ad-hom_ whining – the most childish form of that most infantile of all logical fallacies, the red-herring fallacy, the totalitarians’ customary substitute for serious scientific argument. We shall ignore it. Instead, let us scrutinize the “science” put forward by this self-appointed soviet of “Real Scientists”.


----------



## FeXL

Another one of those posts which is an excellent, must read.

Clear, non-technical summary on the state of the cryosphere and potential sea level rise due to melting glaciers.

Sea level rise tipping points



> Sea level tipping points are a popular CAGW/media theory, easily suggested by images of calving icebergs and summer meltwater rushing down Greenland moulins. But they are alarmist precautionary mitigation fantasies rather than remotely possible future scenarios on multi-centennial time scales.


----------



## FeXL

On sunspots & Maunder-style Minimum's.

Dial M for Maunder



> The Maunder Minimum was not completely devoid of sunspots, as shown by the following graphic using data from SIDC. Will global warming be attenuated due to our current low solar activity?


----------



## FeXL

New paper shows cloud radiative effects are negative, not positive as assumed by climate models 



> A paper published yesterday in Climate Dynamics illustrates just a few of the large unresolved problems in modeling clouds, the largest source of climate modelling uncertainty. The authors attempted but were unable to reconcile cloud radiative effects with global precipitation and the atmospheric energy budget due to doubled CO2 concentration, unless the sign of cloud radiative effects is changed from positive [as falsely assumed by all IPCC models] to strongly negative.


More:



> In other words, the net radiative effect of increased clouds from warming & increased evaporation of water vapor would be to decrease IR radiative absorption & increase IR radiative cooling of the atmosphere, an anti-greenhouse effect. Thus, IPCC climate models don't have either the magnitude or even the sign of radiative forcing from clouds correct, one of several reasons why the models greatly exaggerate warming and have been falsified at confidence levels of 95-98%+.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> This study seeks to explain the effects of cloud on changes in atmospheric radiative absorption that largely balance changes in global mean precipitation under climate change. The partial radiative perturbations (PRPs) due to changes in cloud and due to the effects of the pre-existing climatological cloud distribution on non-cloud changes, known as “cloud masking”, are calculated when atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled for the HadSM3 and MIROC models and for a large ensemble of parameter perturbed models based on HadSM3. Because the effect of cloud on changes in atmospheric shortwave absorption is almost negligible, longwave fluxes are analysed alone. We find that the net effects of cloud masking and cloud PRP on atmospheric absorption are both substantial. For the tropics, our results are reviewed in light of hypotheses put forward to explain cloud and radiative flux changes. We find that the major effects of clouds on radiation change are linked to known physical processes that are quite consistently simulated by models. Cloud top height changes are quite well described by the fixed anvil temperature hypothesis of Hartmann and Larson; cloud base heights change little, remaining near the same pressure. Changes in cloud geographical location and cloud amount are significant, but play a smaller role in driving radiative flux changes. Finally, because clouds are a large source of modelling uncertainty, we consider whether resolving errors in cloud simulation could reconcile modelled global mean precipitation trends of about 1–3 % K−1 with some estimates of observed trends of 7 % K−1 or more. This would require the radiative effect of clouds to change from one that increases atmospheric radiative absorption by about 0.5Wm−2K−1 to one that decreases it by −3.5Wm−2K−1 . Based on our results, this seems difficult to achieve within our current rationale for the tropics at least.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Shollenberger & the threat from U of Queensland.

John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it



> What bad news for The University of Queensland. Their entire legal staff were on holiday at the same time and this eminent university was protected only by a Law & Society 101 student who staffed the overnight service of FreeLegalAidOnline. A mockfest is ensuing across the Internet. It is so unfair.


Ha! 

Further:



> For UQ the only sensible action is to immediately release all the data on Monday morning (before Brandon does, and before any more blogs get in on the Mockfest). *UQ could tell everyone that the letter was a spoof…*


M'bold.

There's already a Hitler video out... 

Shollenberger has decided to publish the cease & desist letter. Link inside.

A Direct Challenge



> As most of you know, I recently received a threatening letter from the University of Queensland. This letter made a variety of threats and demands. The the strangest one was it suggested I’d be sued if I showed anyone the letter. Today, I intend to challenge that claim.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, loving this...

Hey, MacDoc! You call up Julyar & protest about this? Oh, wait... She got the shoe, didn't she?

Finally – real climate refugees? Funding axe may force climate scientists to ‘leave the country in order to find work elsewhere’



> The funding for all government programs related to climate change is set to shrink at an alarming rate, going from $5.75 billion this year to a scant $500 million in the next four years.


This comment is remarkably prescient:



> If the “science” is settled, there’s no need for funding …


Nailed it...


----------



## FeXL

Slim pickings if you're a sceptic...

A Queenslander’s Guide to Australian Universities



> My native Australia prides itself on the quality of its educational offerings. We have a range of fascinating options for students seeking a higher education.
> 
> If you like living and studying in the sunshine, the premier University in Queensland is The University of Queensland, which supports scientists like John Cook, who produced the infamous 97% climate consensus survey, which you aren’t allowed to examine in detail.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting exercise. Author compares surface temp record anomalies against satellite record anomalies. 

One thing that came up in comments is, what is the anomaly of each record based on? In an anomaly the readings are compared to a baseline period, say, 1979-1988. Each record has its own baseline so the comparison is probably off by some amount. What needed to be done is to have the baselines standardized, then have the records compared. That said, still an interesting read.

A comparison between global surface temperature and satellite anomaly datasets



> Comparing five monthly datasets since 1979. Three land-based data sets consistently report monthly higher values. The land-based data sets report in all most all cases monthly GSTA that are higher than the satellite based GSTAs.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the National Climate Assessment.

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment



> The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. *This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.*


Bold from the link.

In sum?



> *Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.*


Bold from the link.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Shollenberger. Basically a rehash of yesterday's post above, but added goodness (hilarity) in the comments... 

Shollenberger calls Cook’s and University of Queensland’s legal bluff!



> The 97% Thunderdome is revving up! Brandon Shollenberger has issued a direct challenge to Cook and UQ, and has published the threatening letter about that “secret” data for Cook’s “97% consensus” study that was published under an “open” Creative Commons License. From that “openness” Jo Nova made the hilarious graphic at left for her essay on the fiasco. Send her chocolate.


----------



## FeXL

Mikey's been working on a new paper, redefining the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Largely based on models (hey, what else?), Nic Lewis takes issue with his methodology & subsequently, his conclusion.

The first link takes you to a longer, technical dissemination (good read) of the issue. The second to more of a layman interpretation of the original.

Mann’s new paper recharacterizing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

To give due credit:



> Mann has made a preprint of the paper available, here . *More importantly, and very commendably, he has made full data and Matlab code available.*


M'bold.

Good on Mann for that, at least.

The alternative Mannian oscillation


----------



## FeXL

Couple weeks back Nic Lewis commented on the Kummler and Dessler paper at Bishop Hill.

There's been an update. Above I spoke of anomaly baselines. That was the issue with their paper. They've changed it, but not made it better.

Dessler's correction



> The point was also picked up in the current discussion of climate sensitivity at Climate Dialogue, where Dessler agreed that the baseline was incorrect, but noting rather astonishingly that the journal had agreed to let him change the proofs of the paper
> 
> ...
> 
> But the rest of the comments was even more surprising. As noted in the various discussions, the obvious way to make the baseline for temperature and forcing consistent is to use an 1880-1900 baseline for both. This would make the climate sensitivity lower. But Dessler had other ideas
> 
> ...
> 
> So in the new calculations, temperature and forcings are calculated against a consistent baseline of 1750, 100 years before the start of the instrumental records, presumably by means of using proxy reconstructions. And of course because of the decision to allow the changes to be made to the proofs, this choice is not subject to peer review.


More at the link.


----------



## FeXL

Same Nic Lewis criticism of Mann's paper as above. Posted to highlight one observation from Nic, plus the comments.

Mann’s new AMO paper: ‘Had I been a reviewer, I would have pointed this out and recommended rejection. ‘



> *I have shown that the evidence Mann claims disproves the detrended-AMO, and supports his differenced-AMO, is illusory. I have also shown that his code produces different results from those shown in his accepted paper. I have pointed out that graph lines produced by his code that would have made it much easier to spot the flaws in Mann’s evidence, although appearing in the figures in his Supplementary Information, were omitted from the figures in his main paper.*


M'bold.

Busted. Again...

Comments start here.



> “They compared observed temperature variation with a variety of historic model simulations to create a model for internal variability of the AMO”. Hey wait, they modelled models in a model? Move on reality, nothing to see here.


----------



## FeXL

Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo to receive an honorary doctoral degree.

Congratulations to Joe “Doc” D’Aleo



> _Former LSC meteorology faculty member Joseph D’Aleo will be awarded an honorary doctoral degree for his accomplishments as an educator and a pioneer in the field of broadcast meteorology.
> 
> While at LSC, D’Aleo helped establish an Air Force ROTC program, a campus weather service, a co-op internship program, and the Northeast Storm Conference. D’Aleo and John Coleman turned Coleman’s vision for a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week television station dedicated to forecasting the weather into The Weather Channel.​_


----------



## FeXL

Essay by Tim Ball, further on IPCC models.

Atmospheric Layers, The Biosphere, The Boundary Layer, Microclimate and Inadequate IPCC Models

He sums:



> The top two meters of the Earth’s surface and the bottom two meters of the atmosphere are the most critical layers. They are at an interface critical in understanding weather and climate. Aerosols, gas levels, energy exchanges, evaporation among other factors are far greater than for the rest of the atmosphere so the effect on insolation and long wave energy are significantly different. *Too bad they are the least measured or understood of all the layers and omitted from the IPCC models.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Bengtsson and others reaction to The Times piece on the ‘damaging climate view’



> There’s a lot of reaction to the front page story in The Times (UK) seen at left. Here is one from the Science Media Centre where they claim “science meets the headlines”. Indeed. But the reaction speaks more to tribalism than factual science, IMHO.


----------



## FeXL

Jeezuz...

New excuse for ‘the pause’ – the wrong type of El Niños



> The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is known to influence global surface temperatures, with El Niño conditions leading to warmer temperatures and La Niña conditions leading to colder temperatures. However, a new study in Geophysical Research Letters shows that some types of El Niño do not have this effect, a finding that could explain recent decade-scale slowdowns in global warming.


Well, if that's the only issue...

The first comment nails it:



> So, they are basically saying that “global warming” was caused by a sequence of the “right” type of El Ninõs, and not by CO2?
> 
> Good.


Hey, MacDoc! Sounds very similar to what you're saying: "Just wait 'til the next El Nino..."


----------



## FeXL

Further on differences in the temperature record.

How GISS Temperatures Are Diverging From RSS



> A guest post earlier today by David Dohbro, comparing satellite and surface temperature datasets, appears to have attracted a certain amount of criticism, not least because it has tried to compare anomalies based on different baselines. This is an update to that analysis.
> 
> To get around this issue, I am posting a comparison of GISS surface temperatures and RSS satellite numbers, both based on a baseline of 1979-98, which is the one used by RSS. (GISS still use 1951-80).
> 
> *This change of baseline means that all GISS temperatures anomalies are reduced by 0.28C.*


M'bold.

As I talked about yesterday re: common baselines.


----------



## FeXL

AP misleads the public, again, saying man made global warming worsens wildfires



> The climate fear media is at it again this time alleging claims that a new study shows that global warming is making wildfires in the western U.S. worse. A link to one of these misleading alarmist articles, written by AP’s Seth Borenstein, is here


Ah, Seth. Drama queen extraordinaire...

In sum:



> The climate fear propaganda media have again misled the public with unwarranted alarmist headlines alleging claims which do not reflect what this study of large western U.S. wildfires actually presented. The alarmist media twisted and misrepresented the studies information in an effort to try and frighten the public into supporting its scientifically unsupported climate fear political ideology.


Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Hey, new paper out!

New paper falsely claims 87% of thermosteric sea level rise since 1970 is anthropogenic 



> A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters uses climate models to claim most of the sea level rise due to thermal expansion since 1970 is of anthropogenic origin. However, the paper relies upon false premises that do not justify the conclusions. Climate models falsely assume infrared radiative forcing from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans, but IR cannot significantly heat the oceans due to a penetration depth of only a few microns, which causes evaporative skin surface cooling, not warming [in addition to other physical reasons].
> 
> Even RealClimate indirectly admits IR from greenhouse gases cannot significantly heat the oceans. This false premise of IR heating of the oceans in the climate models falsifies the conclusion of this paper that "87% of the observed trend in the upper 700 m since 1970 is induced by human activity."
> 
> In addition, the climate model forcing assumptions have been falsified at confidence levels of 95-98%+, thereby also falsifying the conclusions of this paper. Climate models are also unable to simulate natural ocean oscillations such as ENSO and the AMO, which have large effects on thermosteric sea level changes [from thermal expansion], thus the models cannot be used to separate natural variability from anthropogenic causes.


Sums it up for me. It's models, all the way down.

If you want, the link to the abstract & open access paper are inside.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds natural ocean oscillations significantly contributed to ocean warming since 1850



> A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds natural variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [AMOC] ocean oscillations has significantly contributed to North Atlantic sea surface temperature [SST] trends since 1850.


Abstract (open access)



> *The surface of the world’s oceans has been warming since the beginning of industrialisation. In addition to this, multidecadal sea surface temperature (SST) variations of internal [natural] origin exist. Evidence suggests that the North Atlantic Ocean exhibits the strongest multidecadal SST variations and that these variations are connected to the overturning circulation.*
> 
> In this work we investigate the extent to which these internal [natural] multidecadal variations have contributed to enhancing or diminishing the trend induced by the external radiative forcing, globally and in the North Atlantic. We do so in a model study where we combine the analysis of a long control simulation with constant radiative forcing at preindustrial level and an ensemble of simulations with historical forcing from 1850 until 2005. First we note that global SST trends calculated from the different historical simulations are similar, while there is a large disagreement between the North Atlantic SST trends. Then we analyse the control simulation, where we identify a relationship between SST anomalies and anomalies in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) for multidecadal and longer time scales. This relationship enables us to extract the AMOC-related SST variability from each individual member of the ensemble of historical simulations and then to calculate the SST trends with the AMOC-related variability excluded. For the global SST trends this causes only a little difference while SST trends with AMOC-related variability excluded for the North Atlantic show closer agreement than with the AMOC-related variability included. *From this we conclude that AMOC [natural] variability contributed significantly to North Atlantic SST [Sea Surface Temperature] trends since the mid-19th century.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Shollenberger & UQ.

UQ doubles rather than quitting



> When Brandon Shollenberger announced that the University of Queensland was threatening him with a libel suit, Anthony Watts noted that the university administrators were almost certainly releasing the unpredictable forces of the Streisand effect.
> 
> I guess they don't read Watts up With That in the admin block at the University of Queensland. Today, in their wisdom, they have decided to issue a press release in response


Further:



> Brandon has written a response here, which makes the statement, which appears under the name of Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) Professor Alastair McEwan, look monumentally retwardian. It might be interesting to see if it really was McEwan's idea or whether he has just been misled by John Cook (or perhaps a joint effort), but I don't suppose we will ever find out. Bitter experience suggests that there is no crime so heinous that a university administrator is not capable of covering it up.


Link to Shollenberger's response.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Jim Bouldin...

Quote of the day, Nature edition



> My default position toward Nature...at least for earth and environmental science papers, has shifted from innocent until proven guilty, to roughly the opposite. I just don’t believe what they claim until I’ve read the paper involved closely, and since I don’t have time to do that, that means I basically don’t accept what they claim. I’ve just seen too much bad science and I don’t trust them to be fully objective and place scientific veracity over hype and headline. Sorry.


----------



## FeXL

Judith has an article on Why is it OK for warmists to belong to advocacy groups & not sceptics?

Climate scientists joining advocacy groups

Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

OK, so which is it?

Climate Change to Crush Ohio – film at 11



> Scientists delivered a mostly negative forecast for how climate change will affect Ohioans during the next year or so, and well beyond.
> 
> Researchers report that the projected increase in precipitation and the associated runoff will likely lead to a larger-than-average bloom of harmful blue-green algae in Lake Erie this summer. In addition, the development of an El Niño over the Pacific later this year may result in a very dry 2015 in Ohio. But Ohio may fare better than its neighbors in one respect: While drought and high temperatures are expected to shrink crop yields in 2015, Ohio farmers will likely suffer less than those in the rest of the Corn Belt.


On the other hand...



> Meanwhile, from 2011, NASA says the main cause of algal blooms in Lake Erie is a heavy rainy season and *runoff containing phosphorus laden fertilizers*.
> 
> _“This is considered the worst bloom in decades, and may have been influenced by the wet spring,” says Stumpf. Heavy snow fell in the winter and spring, followed by record-setting rainfall in parts of the Lake Erie watershed in April. The rain and melting snow ran off fields, yards, and paved surfaces, carrying an array of pollutants into streams and rivers—including phosphorus from fertilizers. More rain and runoff resulted in more phosphorus, and as in earlier decades, that nutrient nourished the algae in the lake.​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, they decry global warming but every damn one of them wants a naturally occurring El Nino to bolster their argument for AGW... <shaking my head>

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”



> In a recent interview, Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, from NCAR said the upcoming 2014/15 El Niño might shift global surface temperatures upwards by 0.2 to 0.3 deg C to further the series of upward steps. Curiously, Trenberth is continuing to suggest that the warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s resulted from naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled El Niño events and that we might get to experience yet another of those El Niño-caused warming steps as a result of the 2014/15 El Niño.


Further:



> Kevin Trenberth appears to have conflicting causes for the global warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s. On one hand, for decades, Trenberth has been a true-blue proponent of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, with the warming caused by the emissions of manmade greenhouse gases. On the other, for about a year, he has been promoting the “big jumps” in global surface temperatures, with the steps in the staircase of global surface temperatures being caused by El Niño events.
> 
> *There would be no conflict if Trenberth was able to show that manmade greenhouse gases somehow contributed to the warm water that fuels El Niño events. But Trenberth has always noted that it is sunlight that provides the warm water for El Niños.* In a recent post (see here), we presented two examples of this from his peer-reviewed papers, and for those of you new to this discussion, they’re worth repeating.


Yo, MacDoc! Trenberth says it ain't AGW that causes El Nino's, it's sunlight. You read this craziness?


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea level rise rates.

New study finds sea levels rising only 7 in. per century – with no acceleration



> *What was done*
> In a study designed to answer this question, Jevrejeva et al. (2014) say they “renew the global sea level [GSL] reconstruction by Jevrejeva et al. (2006), using monthly mean sea level data collected by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) covering the observations from 1807 to 2010,” thereby improving the GSL reconstruction by increasing data coverage “by using many more stations, particularly in the polar regions, and recently processed historic data series from isolated island stations,” as well as by extending the end of the reconstruction from 2002 to 2009.


More:



> *What was learned*
> Quoting the five researchers, “the new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm/yr [7.5 inches per century] during the 20th century” and “1.8 ± 0.5 mm/yr [7 inches per century] for the period 1970-2008.”


----------



## FeXL

Heartland gets a spot on multi-millon dollar global warming disaster epic “Years of Living Dangerously



> We’ve reported on Years of Living Dangerously and how it has been tanking in the ratings, despite a big budget and big name participants. *Michael Mann tried to prop it up recently (more below), but as usual his effort was laughable.*


M'bold.

This comment nails it:



> Mann simply misunderstood. He was reviewing Tiljander data just prior to looking at the ratings…


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

Curry is interviewed by Quadrant.

Climategate as belief system tipping point



> When climatologist Judith Curry visited Melbourne last week she took the time to chat with Quadrant Online contributor Tony Thomas. The professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology is something of a stormy petrel in the climate-change community, as she has broken ranks with alarmist colleagues to question the articles and ethics of the warmist faith. This has made her less than popular in certain circles, even inspiring _Scientific American_, house journal of the catastropharians, to brand her “a heretic” who has “turned on her colleagues.”


The complete interview is a good read.


----------



## eMacMan

A worthy read for those attempting to lead us unbelievers to the Alter of the First Church of Climatology, and to worship the Great Goreacle.

How to convert me to your new religion of Global Warming in 14 easy steps Â« JoNova



> Hi, there. I’m a Global Warming sceptic. By that I mean that I am sceptical of all but the first of the Ten Tenets of the Church of Global Warming, which are;
> 
> 
> The globe warmed over the course of the 20th century.
> The globe is warming right now.
> The global warming is going to continue in the future.
> This warming is unusual, unnatural, and unprecedented.
> This warming is an overall bad thing.
> This warming is caused mainly by increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
> Human CO2 emissions are responsible for most of the warming.
> Humans are capable of reducing their global CO2 emissions.
> A significant amount of warming could be avoided if humans reduced their CO2 emissions.
> The amount of CO2 emissions reductions that would be achieved by bringing in a CO2 tax will reduce the amount of global warming by a large enough amount as to be worth the economic pain that would come with the application of a CO2 tax.
> Apparently, to be a true Warmist you must confirm your belief in every one of the Ten Tenets. Declare your scepticism in just one of these and you risk being banished from the Church as a heretic.
> I concede the globe warmed approximately 1 degree Celsius over the course of the 20th century, but I have my doubts about the other nine Tenets. But if you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and want to convert me to your religion then I’m going to tell you how you can do it.
> 
> 
> ..........


----------



## FeXL

I've posted about Glacier Bay on the GHG threads a number of times, years ago. Funny how the stupid keeps resurfacing...

The Big Stupid Accelerates At The New York Times



> That glacier retreated 50 miles between 1790 and 1892. Retreat has been much slower since the 1940′s. As usual, the New York Times is showing the intelligence of Monty Python witch burners.


Lying Accelerates At The NYT



> In an article that the BBC would be proud of, the New York Times claims that the melting of glaciers is accelerating. To emphasise the point, they headline with comparison photos of the Muir Glacier, Alaska.
> 
> These are often reproduced, to show the effects of “global warming”, and contrast images in 1941 and 2004. The message is clear, and we all know whose fault it is!
> 
> What the NYT, and all the other purveyors of doom never show you is the other picture in the series from 1950.


This peer-reviewed paper from last year:

New paper finds a large deceleration of glacier melt in Glacier Bay over past 63+ years 



> A new paper published in the Journal of Glaciology finds there has been a large [78%] deceleration of glacier melt in the Glacier Bay area of Alaska and British Columbia over the past 63+ years. *According to the authors, "For the full period (1995–2011) the average mass loss was 3.93 ± 0.89 Gigatons per year, compared with 17.8 Gigatons per year for the post-Little Ice Age (1770–1948) rate," a deceleration of 78%.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

T'would be sweet to see this pass...

Congressman offers amendment to end spending any money on U.N. climate programs



> Congressman David McKinley (R-W.Va.) is introducing an amendment to cut off funds for a whole bunch of climate programs. See the list and amendment below.


----------



## FeXL

Got some more of that settled science...

A climate benefit has been discovered in melting ice sheets



> A newly-discovered source of oceanic bioavailable iron could have a major impact our understanding of marine food chains and global warming. A UK team has discovered that summer meltwaters from ice sheets are rich in iron, which will have important implications on phytoplankton growth.


----------



## FeXL

So, Brandon Shollenberger ponders a public re-analysis of the data from Cook's 97% paper.

A do-over on the ’97% consensus’ claim – done right this time?



> A key criticism of the Cook et al paper is they didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. There’s a lot of confusion as to whether that “consensus” position is weak (e.g. the greenhouse effect is real) or strong (e.g. humans are the primary culprits). The reason for that is Cook et al tried to combine both definitions into one rating, meaning they had no real definition.


My view is that anybody who is thick enough to believe that there is such a thing as consensus (97% or otherwise) in science ain't gonna want to give any credence to a study conducted by sceptics whether it's based on empirical evidence or not.

Screw Cook. The public humiliation of his paper is all that is needed. When your opponent is busy shooting himself in his foot, don't stop him.

Much discussion in the comments, both pro & con.


----------



## FeXL

I've highlighted a number of comments from Dr. Robert Brown at Duke in the past. They are always insightful & educational. A number of them have been raised from comment status to posts. This is one of the latter, also a must read.

Is the climate computable?



> Our WUWT thread on Antarctic Sea Ice Losses has spurred quite an interesting discussion. Dr. Robert G. Brown of the Physics Department at Duke University responds to a comment on ice albedo with a summary of water vapor action, the greenhouse effect, and the chaotic nature of the atmosphere. He ends with his view of why he’s not a betting man.
> 
> Well worth a read.


Again, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the FOIA abuse at U Delaware.

Tough questions about FOIA abuse to the University of Delaware



> On May 9, 2014, I had sent to Mr White and to the Vice-Chancellor a list of questions (appended hereto), making it explicit in the covering note that this was a request under the Act for information relating to State funding of the University. The University, otherwise exempt, is required to provide such information under §10002 (j).
> 
> Mr White’s sole pretext for denying my request, that my facts were “incorrect and incomplete”, does not constitute a legitimate ground of refusal, for my request was designed to determine whether information that I had received about vindictive discrimination of a tenured employee by Mr White and others at the University over several years was correct. None of the exemptions listed in the Act applies.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Shollenberger, Cook's 97% buttwipe & U Queensland.

John Cook and University of Queensland experience at least 97% of the ‘Streisand effect’ in the Washington Post



> This just in from the _“I told you so”_ and _“what the hell were they thinking?”_ departments, Eugene Volokh writes in The Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post:


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

Interesting how their true colours are exposed.

Not ‘noble cause corruption’ – just corruption



> Too funny, too funny….. this is a serious matter, but funny when leading Greens and Hollywood types get caught on film in a genuine conspiracy to hide Middle Eastern “oil” funding to make an anti-Fracking film for the “movement” ….


Further:



> In the investigation, an undercover journalist from Project Veritas posed as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty and offered $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie.
> 
> *In video from a meeting with Ed Begley Jr., Mariel Hemingway and Josh Tickell, a Project Veritas investigator disguised as “Muhammed” offered $9 million for an anti-fracking film. “Muhammad” clearly states: “If Washington DC continues fracking, America will be energy efficient, and then they won’t need my oil anymore.”*
> 
> In the same conversation, Begley and Hemingway accept the funding and agree to hide the source of funds for the anti-fracking movie. Hemingway agreeing that those who will know the source of the funding are “only at this table.”


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Bengtsson clarifies his position on climate science.

Bengtsson speaks

Link to his interview:

My view on climate research


----------



## FeXL

More settled Science.

Australian deserts are controlling global CO2 levels?



> Does the world owe Australia bezillions of dollars in carbon credits? With years of La Nina rainfall on arid outback Australia, “we” (or rather the citizen plants of Australia) have apparently been sucking down the CO2 at a phenomenal rate: “almost 60 per cent of carbon uptake attributed to Australian ecosystems.” But, sigh, call me unconvinced. I think what this paper demonstrates is that consensus and simulations are not worth much, and that we don’t know where global CO2 is going.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds more intense El Ninos since 1970's due to natural variability 



> A paper published today in Climate Dynamics finds that the intensification of El Ninos after the 1970's cooling period may be of natural origin and not related to AGW.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *The most intense El Niño episodes in more than a century occurred after the 1970s climate shift. Previous studies show that the characteristics of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon changed synchronously with the shift, but the associated causes are not fully understood.* An analysis of the observed tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies shows that their increase in the eastern part of the basin after the 1970s is not related to the canonical ENSO pattern, but to the tropical Pacific meridional mode (TPMM). We present observational evidence which supports the hypothesis that the change in the TPMM was triggered by the great salinity anomaly (GSA), which manifested in the North Atlantic during the late 1960s. The GSA induced a weak Labrador convection and a SST dipole south of Greenland. The associated atmospheric structure includes a North Pacific Oscillation sea level pressure dipole in the Pacific sector. This excites the TPMM which contributes to the intense El Niño events and to the enhanced ENSO’s asymmetry, observed after the shift. *Our results imply that, if the GSA [Great Salinity Anomaly] has not an anthropogenic origin, as was suggested, then the tropical Pacific climate shift has a natural origin.* This is supported by the end of the North Atlantic regime in the 1990s and by the rebound of the tropical Pacific after 1998.


----------



## FeXL

More warmist logic from the prescient John Kerry.

WSJ corrects John Kerry: "worst that can happen" is spending trillions of dollars on a problem that we can't do anything to stop 



> Secretaries of State may want to stop making statements in the form of questions, à la "Jeopardy." First Hillary Clinton declared "what difference at this point does it make?" regarding the reasons that four Americans died in Benghazi. Then on Monday John Kerry *told graduates of Boston College that even if he's wrong about climate change, it won't cost a thing.*


Bold from the link.

Yup. Just the kind of fruit loop & whacko I'd invite to my commencement ceremony...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Settled Science: New paper 'challenges consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year'



> A new paper published in Nature "challenges the current consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year" and finds "semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2."
> 
> The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems "are currently missing from many major climate models." In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.
> 
> The paper joins many other papers published over the past 2 years overturning the "settled science" of the global carbon cycle.


----------



## FeXL

Famous for their inability to predict anything, this forecast would scare the hell out of me if I were a coastal dweller. However, if, in fact, this forecast comes true, doesn't it contradict the warmist meme of global warming causing more severe weather events?

MacDoc? You reading this craziness?

NOAA predicts near-normal or below-normal 2014 Atlantic hurricane season



> In its 2014 Atlantic hurricane season outlook issued today, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is forecasting a near-normal or below-normal season.
> 
> The main driver of this year’s outlook is the anticipated development of El Niño this summer.


Ah, yes, El Nino. All else goes by the wayside in the warmist argument whilst they await global warming caused by the naturally occurring El Nino.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc doesn't read anything but links found in deSmogBlog, I suspect.


----------



## FeXL

Funny, the planet as a whole has shown greening over the last 20 years.

A new push to get farmers in Europe worried about warming

So, somebody, somewhere, is apparently expecting nearly 2 C° of warming over the next 26 years.

Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> MacDoc doesn't read anything but links found in deSmogBlog, I suspect.


Oh, he's found a new place. It's hilarious how he tries to shore his argument with logically fallacious pleas to authority, "Do you think the president of Exxon is wrong?!!!".

Why, yes, MacDoc, as a matter of fact, I do...


----------



## FeXL

Further on U Queensland, Shollenberger & Cook's 97%...

An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ’97% consensus’ paper



> *Your dilemma is this. If the UQ ethical approval exists as you officially stated, then the paper as published grossly violated it. QtC [Quantifying the Consensus, Cook et al 2013] is therefore unethical according to UQ policy, and should be withdrawn forthwith.*


Next two links provide a similar analysis, linked here more for their comments.


University challenge



> Rud Istvan, in an open letter published at WUWT, notes that the University has claimed that the ethical approval they gave for the paper demanded that the identities of participants be kept confidential. However, as Istvan also notes, the names of the raters were published in the paper. So either the paper is unethical or, and perhaps more likely in my opinion, the ethical approval does not actually exist


The University of Queensland’s diabolical dilemma



> The paper should be retracted or the data should be released to Richard Tol and Brandon Shollenberger. I would think an apology to Brandon, or to those named in the paper would also be a bare minimum requirement.


Can't have it both ways, boys. Which is it going to be?


----------



## FeXL

Further on global drought from.

Interesting graph – Fraction of the Globe in Drought: 1982-2012




> Unless my eyes deceive me, it looks like there is no net change in global drought area for 30 years.
> 
> The graph shows the proportion of the planet in drought, by intensity, 1982-2012. The graph comes from a paper in a new Nature publication called Scientific Data and is open access.


My eyes read a slight decline over 20 years. I'd like to see trend lines on the graph for each colour. Either way, the trend is certainly *not* rising.


----------



## FeXL

As usual, _The Grunion_ has issues with the numbers reality of Antarctic ice loss...

Climate alarmists make major blunder in reporting Antarctica ice loss results



> Total ice loss from latest study is “consistent” with, not “double” prior study measurements


----------



## FeXL

Further on the erroneous coverage by the NYT of the Muir Glacier at Glacier Bay, Alaska.

New York Times ‘Best Evidence’ For Global Warming Melting Since 1700s



> Failing to provide historical context, The New York Times used Alaska’s Muir Glacier as “evidence” for global warming without mentioning that it has been melting since at least the 1700s.
> 
> On May 19, Kenneth Chang of The New York Times decried the acceleration of melting glaciers worldwide, which he blamed unequivocally on global warming. But at the top of his article (in the online version) there were pictures of the Alaskan Muir Glacier from 1941 and 2004.
> 
> These same pictures have been used by other media sources, such as Business Insider and The Huffington Post, to demonstrate that the Muir Glacier is melting for the same reasons. However, historical accounts indicate the glacier was melting as far back as the 1700s, indicate the Muir Glacier was melting much faster in the past than it is now.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds SE Asian climate was much more extreme from 14th through 18th centuries than the present



> A paper published today in _Quaternary Science Reviews_ reconstructs SE Asian climate over the past millennium and finds the climate was much more variable or "unstable" from the late 14th through 18th centuries in comparison to the rest of the past millennium, including the 20th century. The extended extreme droughts and floods that occurred during these portions of the Little Ice Age led to political upheaval and "great unrest."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The early 21st century has seen vigorous scientific interest in the Asian monsoon and significant development of paleo-proxies of monsoon strength. These include the Monsoon Asian Drought Atlas – a 700-year, gridded reconstruction of hydroclimate derived from 327 tree ring records – and several long speleothem records from China and India. Similar progress has been made on the study of monsoon climate dynamics through re-analysis data products and General Circulation Model diagnostics. The story has emerged of a variable monsoon over the latter Holocene, with extended droughts and anomalously wet episodes that occasionally and profoundly influenced the course of human history. *We focus on Southeast Asia where an anomalous period of unstable climate coincided with the demise of the capital of the Khmer Empire at Angkor between the 14th and the 16th centuries, and we suggest that protracted periods of drought and deluge rain events, the latter of which damaged Angkor's extensive water management systems, may have been a significant factor in the subsequent transfer of the political capital away from Angkor. The late 16th and early 17th century experienced climate instability and the collapse of the Ming Dynasty in China under a period of drought, while Tonkin experienced floods and droughts throughout the 17th century. The 18th century was a period of great turmoil across Southeast Asia, when all of the region's polities saw great unrest and rapid realignment during one of the most extended periods of drought of the past millennium.* New paleo-proxy records and the incorporation of historical documentation will improve future analyses of the interaction between climate extremes, social behavior and the collapse or disruption of regional societies, a subject of increasing concern given the uncertainties surrounding projections for future climate.


Bold from second link.


----------



## FeXL

John Kerry reaches new highs of beclowning himself with temperature



> I’m pretty sure he’ll blame his blathering on the heat. You have to wonder if privately, many leading climate alarmists are saying quietly _“shut up John you are blowing our argument“._


Please, let him carry on...


----------



## FeXL

Monday smiles from a Friday funny.

Friday Funny – the scientific method



> Not Josh nor Fenbeagle, but still pretty funny. I think maybe this comic was penned around the time Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth came out, which was enough to make any thinking person start doubting science.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost NOAA...

Sea Ice News Volume 5 #2 – NOAA forecasts above normal Arctic ice extent for summer 2014



> This is interesting. NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent. As readers know, late September is typically the time of the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, and this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal.


----------



## FeXL

Finally, some are starting to get it...

My local newspaper editor lowers the boom on “climate change” as a catch-all



> Thank you, David Little of the Chico Enterprise Record. Readers please note: _I had nothing to do with his Sunday column opinion piece, it is as much a surprise to me as I’m sure it will be to you._





> _Here’s the problem I have with the global warming boogeyman: It gets blamed for everything. Only now it’s called climate change, because it needs to encompass more than just hot weather.​_


----------



## FeXL

More Monday smiles.

Monckton and Monty – dead parrot parody of IPCC



> The Catastrophic Global Warming Theory is not just catastrophic: it’s catatonic.
> 
> So I says to my mate John Cleese – yes, he of the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch – I says to go down the Pet Theory Shop to complain about it and demand our money back. The shopkeeper is such a nice Indian gentleman, name of Patchy Pachauri. He used to be a railroad engineer, but now he writes best-selling bodice-ripping hard-porn pot-boilers with catchy titles like _Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report._


Hilarious.


----------



## FeXL

US tax dollars at work.

5.7 million dollar NSF grant to Columbia University for climate ‘voice mails from the future’



> You have to wonder who at the National Science Foundation thought funding a website that makes fake voicemails from the future and games that have people running around looking for fictional fallen “chronofacts” (artistic plastic disks named “chronofalls” that apparently fall out of time) was a good idea? Yes, you can hear voicemails from the future about “Arctic Corn” and “Hurricane Simulator Booths”. Your tax dollars at work.


Can you imagine the hue & cry if it was discovered that sceptics had received money for something similar?

Un. Believable.

Loving the first comment:



> I left a voicemail to them in 2021. It said “You all went to jail for a long time for embezzlement.”


<fingers & toes crossed>


----------



## FeXL

Contrary to TIPCC's™ Glacier-gate...

New paper finds Western Himalayan glaciers stable to increasing in size 



> A paper published today in The Cryosphere surveys all glaciers in the Karakoram region of the Western Himalayas and finds overall glacier ice mass is stable to increasing over the past 3 to 4 decades. The finding is in stark contrast to the IPCC's infamous & embarrassing false prediction [using fake data] that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The paper corroborates another recent paper finding most of the 2000 Himalayan glaciers are stable and in a steady state.


Abstract (open access)



> *Positive glacier-mass balances* in the Karakoram region during the last decade have fostered stable and advancing glacier termini positions, while glaciers in the adjacent mountain ranges have been affected by glacier recession and thinning. In addition to fluctuations induced solely by climate, the Karakoram is known for a large number of surge-type glaciers. The present study provides an updated and extended inventory on advancing, stable, retreating, and surge-type glaciers using Landsat imagery from 1976 to 2012. *Out of 1219 glaciers the vast majority showed a stable terminus (969) during the observation period. Sixty-five glaciers advanced, 93 glaciers retreated, and 101 surge-type glaciers were identified*, of which 10 are new observations. The dimensional and topographic characteristics of each glacier class were calculated and analyzed. Ninety percent of nonsurge-type glaciers are shorter than 10 km, whereas surge-type glaciers are, in general, longer. *We report short response times of glaciers in the Karakoram and suggest a shift from negative to balanced/positive mass budgets in the 1980s or 1990s*. Additionally, we present glacier surface velocities derived from different SAR (synthetic aperture radar) sensors and different years for a Karakoram-wide coverage. High-resolution SAR data enables the investigation of small and relatively fast-flowing glaciers (e.g., up to 1.8 m day−1 during an active phase of a surge). The combination of multitemporal optical imagery and SAR-based surface velocities enables an improved, Karakoram-wide glacier inventory and hence, provides relevant new observational information on the current state of glaciers in the Karakoram.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used (not GCM's).

New paper finds natural variability of N Carolina climate explained by solar activity & AMO 



> A paper published today in _Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics_ finds "the natural variability of climate change in NC [North Carolina] during 1950–2009 can be explained mostly by the AMO [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation] and solar activity."


Abstract (open access)



> In order to analyze low-frequency variability of climate, it is useful to model the climatic time series with multiple linear trends and locate the times of significant changes. In this paper, we have used non-stationary time series clustering to find change points in the trends. Clustering in a multi-dimensional non-stationary time series is challenging, since the problem is mathematically ill-posed. Clustering based on the finite element method (FEM) is one of the methods that can analyze multidimensional time series. One important attribute of this method is that it is not dependent on any statistical assumption and does not need local stationarity in the time series. In this paper, it is shown how the FEM-clustering method can be used to locate change points in the trend of temperature time series from in situ observations. This method is applied to the temperature time series of North Carolina (NC) and the results represent region-specific climate variability despite higher frequency harmonics in climatic time series. Next, we investigated the relationship between the climatic indices with the clusters/trends detected based on this clustering method. *It appears that the natural variability of climate change in NC during 1950–2009 can be explained mostly by AMO and solar activity.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

I doubt it...

Can We Genetically Engineer Stupid-Resistant Humans?

Headline:


> Wanted: a breed of chicken that can survive crippling heatwaves


Answer:



> US heatwaves peaked in the 1930′s and have been declining for 80 years. There is not one shred of evidence to support the idea that heatwaves are getting worse, or will get worse. Not to mention that the US is having its coldest year on record through May.


----------



## FeXL

Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?



> _Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.​_ – Spiegel


Judith responds:



> I have heard that a number of leading scientists are pretty disgusted with the way Bengtsson has been treated and see the larger issues of concern about the social psychology of our field. People are talking about writing blog posts for professional societies, trying to get signatures on a statement, etc. I hope that these individuals follow through, and that the ‘climate’ for climate research can improve.


Further:



> *Can climate scientists please stop the intimidation, bullying, shunning and character assassination of other scientists who they find ‘not helpful’ to their cause? Can we please return to logical refutation of arguments that you disagree with, spiced with a healthy acknowledgement of uncertainties and what we simply don’t know and can’t predict?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Antarctic Sea Ice Area Above Normal Every Day For The Past 30 Months



> The world’s leading climatologist – James Hansen forecast that Antarctica would see peak sea ice loss, but Antarctic sea ice has been above normal every day for the past 30 months.


----------



## FeXL

Antarctic Temperature Trends



> All the evidence points in the same direction – there has been no warming in or around Antarctica since 1979. On the contrary, if there is any trend, it is to a cooler climate.


Good graphs at the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the wild MSM stories last week about the WAIS "collapse".

Researcher ‘has a problem’ with attributing West Antarctic Ice Sheet ‘collapse’ to human activity



> *“I have a problem with the widespread implication (in the popular press) that the West Antarctic collapse can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change,” said Mike Wolovik, a graduate researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies ice sheet dynamics. “The marine ice sheet instability is an inherent part of ice sheet dynamics that doesn’t require any human forcing to operate. When the papers say that collapse is underway, and likely to last for several hundred years, that’s a reasonable and plausible conclusion.”​
> But, he said, the link between CO2 levels and the loss of ice in West Antarctica “is pretty tenuous.”*


Emphasis from the link.

While I admire his pluck, has he just consigned himself to the same sort of abuse Bengtsson recently experienced?

More:

Antarctica climate alarmism frenzy revisited – ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous media claims galore



> The manner in which these three Antarctica studies were reported and broadcast by the news media can only be characterized as an extraordinary example of what climate alarmism and climate science propaganda looks like.
> 
> It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.


Further:

Antarctica, not warming but melting? Has the missing heat turned up in West Antarctica?



> The new-old scare is Antarctica and what a messy situation it is. Only two weeks ago Matthew England was saying that Ocean winds were keeping Antarctica cool, and that Antarctica was stealing Australian rain.
> 
> Now a new Cryosat study by Malcolm McMillan et al is generating headlines saying that Antarctic ice is “disappearing at twice the rate predicted”. (Can someone calculate the date it will be all gone?)
> 
> Well, at least it’s worse now than it was *all of three years ago* when the new Cryosat data first started.


M'bold.

Helluva talent, that, being able to determine a collapse in an ice sheet with a whole 3 years of data...

And some snark:

Climatologists Recycling The Same BS From 35 Years Ago



> In 1974, Steven Schneider was busy trying to convince Nixon that global cooling was going to kill us all. But then he realized the big money was in global warming (rather than cooling) and by 1979 was peddling the identical WAIS collapse theory which was being recycled by scientists last week.


----------



## FeXL

Quote of the week: a howler from the World Meteorological Organization – what warming?



> Gosh, you’d think they’d check the data before issuing a statement like this (press release follows).
> 
> _It [CO2] was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012. Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).​_
> But, the temperature data tells an entirely different story, look at this plot of all global temperature metrics and trends from 2002-2012 – there’s no warming to be seen!
> 
> In fact, with the exception of UAH, which is essentially flat for the period, the other metrics all show a slight cooling trend.


----------



## FeXL

First off, anyone who believes in such as thing as "consensus" in science deserves to be described via a number of colourful, descriptive terms. That said, for those that still believe in "consensus science" or who just want to be further informed of the multiple myths of "97%", read on...

WSJ: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming? 



> What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?


----------



## FeXL

Official Sea Level Vs. The Oceans



> According to always trustworthy US government, sea level is rising 3.1 mm/year. As tiny as this is, it is exaggerated by more than 400% over the actual data. Of the 148 currently active (readings after 2010) NOAA global tide gauges, 83% are below the official average. The 148 stations have a mean value of 0.73 mm/year. Almost a third of the stations show no sea level rise.


----------



## FeXL

Good read.

The heart of the climate dynamics debate



> The science of climate change on decadal to century timescales most definitely is not settled, in spite of the IPCC’s highly confident proclamations. There are so many interesting and unsolved issues in climate dynamics.
> 
> ...
> 
> I’m hoping that at some point soon, climate scientists will get fed up with trying to play politics with their science and get back to researching and debating these fundamentally interesting and unsolved issues in the science of climate dynamics, rather than attacking their colleagues for suggesting that there are other ways of thinking about climate change.


----------



## FeXL

The Germans get it.

Merkel Snubs New York “Ban Ki-Moon” Climate Conference! … “Burying The Global Climate Agreement”!



> Berlin-based leftist daily TAZ here reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t going to bother attending the Ban Ki-Moon initiated climate conference in New York this coming September. The TAZ adds this has been _“confirmed by a government spokesman“_.


----------



## FeXL

Ya, about those unprecedented wildfires we're currently not having. Oh, BTW, carbon ≠ CO2, another thing that pisses me off.

A ‘regime of wildfire’ contributed to carbon sequestration 15,000 years ago



> The next time somebody says wildfires in the USA are “unprecedented” show them this. *Buried fossil soils found to be awash in carbon*
> 
> _“It looks like there was an incredible amount of fire.”​_
> Soils that formed on the Earth’s surface thousands of years ago and that are now deeply buried features of vanished landscapes have been found to be rich in carbon, adding a new dimension to our planet’s carbon cycle.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

EPA Set to Unveil Rules to Force States to Cap & Trade, Renewable Energy



> The Obama administration will next week unveil a cornerstone of its climate-change initiative with a proposed rule aimed at *allowing* states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing carbon emissions by existing power plants.


M'bold.

"Allowing". I like that... (/sarc)

More:



> Aware of the controversy, one person familiar with the drafting of the rule said it would probably use the phrase "budget program," instead of the more politically charged "cap-and-trade," even though it will mean the same thing.


Further:



> Politicians from coal-producing states are likely to fight the proposal, as are power companies that burn coal and business groups that say the rule could increase costs. The proposed regulation could also create political difficulties for Democratic candidates running this year, including incumbents Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, a top coal-producing state, and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, where energy already has emerged as a campaign issue.
> 
> ...
> 
> Aware of the political perils, last week 45 senators, including several Democrats up for re-election, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging her to double the amount of time allowed for public comments, from two months to four.


Gonna be fun to see the Dems lose control of both houses this fall...


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Ross Sea ice in Antarctica has increased 5% since 1993



> A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters reconstructs sea-ice area in the Ross Sea, Antarctica from a 130 year coastal ice-core record. The authors find the "data show prevailing stable SIA from the 1880s until the 1950s, a 2–5% reduction from the mid-1950s to the early-1990s, and a 5% increase after 1993."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> We present the first proxy record of sea-ice area (SIA) in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, from a 130 year coastal ice-core record. High-resolution deuterium excess data show prevailing stable SIA from the 1880s until the 1950s, a 2–5% reduction from the mid-1950s to the early-1990s, and a 5% increase after 1993. Additional support for this reconstruction is derived from ice-core methanesulphonic acid concentrations and whaling records. *While SIA has continued to decline around much of the West Antarctic coastline since the 1950s, concurrent with increasing air and ocean temperatures, the underlying trend is masked in the Ross Sea by a switch to positive SIA anomalies since the early-1990s.* This increase is associated with a strengthening of southerly winds and the enhanced northward advection of sea ice.


M'bold.

So, on one hand, the research provides evidence that the the Ross Sea sea ice area is currently increasing. On the other (re: bold statement above), Antarctic sea ice is currently visibly beyond the anomaly around most of the continent and is at a peak for the satellite era. Not sure how to reconcile this.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Antarctic temperatures were warmer in 1800's and 1940's 



> A new paper published in the _Annals of Glaciology_ shows Antarctic air temperatures were warmer during the early 1800's and 1940's in comparison to the end of the 20th century. The authors find evidence of a quasi-periodic climate cycle lasting 30-50 years, with at least 5 climate shifts over the past 350 years, the last beginning during the 1970's.


More:



> The paper adds to many others finding nothing unusual or unprecedented regarding the natural and cyclical changes of Antarctic climate over the past century.


Abstract (open access)



> Based on the results of geochemical and glaciological investigations in snow pits and shallow cores, regional stack series of air temperature in central Antarctica (in the southern part of Vostok Subglacial Lake) were obtained, covering the last 350 years. It is shown that this parameter varied quasi-periodically with a wavelength of *30–50 years.* The correlation of the newly obtained record with the circulation indices of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) shows that the central Antarctic climate is mainly governed by the type of circulation in the SH: under conditions of zonal circulation, negative anomalies of temperature and precipitation rate are observed, whereas the sign of the anomalies is positive during meridional circulation. In the 1970s the sign of the relationship between many climatic parameters changed, which is likely related to the rearrangement of the climatic system of the SH. *The data suggest that during the past 350 years such events have taken place at least five times.* The stable water isotope content of the central Antarctic snow is governed by the summer temperature rather than the mean annual temperature, which is interpreted as the influence of ‘postdepositional’ effects.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Sceptic describes his own version of a climate model.

Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault explains his idea about global climate forcing and his experience with climate politics



> Dr. Pinault has developed a model, which he supports with extensive statistical analyses of global spatio-temporal data, whereby relatively small solar variations (relative to the large variations occurring on the lifetime of the Sun) acquire leverage on global climate via an oceanic resonance tuning that operates on the global ocean oscillations on Earth.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Here we go again...

Yale says “Global Warming” is better distorted phrase for propaganda — dump “climate change”



> What’s the point of language — especially in science? If you are naive, you might think it’s to communicate a fixed concept so everyone understands and can voice an opinion on the same thing. You would be wrong. The real purpose of scientific terms is to motivate the punters to behave differently (especially if that means “give us more money”). That’s why the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has assigned 5 PhD’s and a guy called Feinberg to spend days, weeks and months analyzing surveys to find out which propaganda term is more “effective”. *The simple answer is “global warming” eeks out more fear and pain among democrats than “climate change”; therefore expect to see its use rocket.*


M'bold.

Personally, I've always liked "Irritable Climate Syndrome" myself...


----------



## FeXL

1871 – The Year The Midwest Burned Up



> Chicago burned to the ground in 1871, but that was just one of the smaller fires which ravaged the midwest that year.


----------



## FeXL

45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Africans, To Stop Global Cooling



> Before climate expert Paul Ehrlich was worried about global warming, he was worried about global cooling – and wanted to poison Africans.
> 
> Ehrlich and Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, warned of a new ice age.


No money in Global Cooling, however...


----------



## FeXL

IPCC: Functional stupidity?

Judith observes:



> I regard the IPCC as an impediment to both the scientific and policy processes. Beck et al. provide a good diagnosis of the problem, but nature of a useful ‘cure’, and the process by which such a cure is actually implemented, remains elusive. Bringing the academic organizational management community into such discussions would at least be interesting, and possibly useful.
> 
> In the meantime, I will be personally encouraging any developments that I see that will break up the IPCC’s monopoly on climate knowledge.


----------



## FeXL

UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled



> UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’ Tol added: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody. I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.’


----------



## FeXL

Further on polar bear numbers.

IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”



> “As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. *It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.* It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. *Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.*”


Bold from the link.

Read the first bolded passage again...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the House testimony regarding TIPCC™.

Experts Condemn the IPCC at US Hearing



> The testimony of Daniel Botkin is equally damning. Previously, I’ve discussed his scathing opinion of a species extinction paper relied on heavily by the IPCC’s 2007 report.
> 
> Botkin begins his remarks by pointing out that he has spent his long career “trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species.” In his view, the latest IPCC report does not promote “rational discussion” because its authors have dressed up “speculative, sometimes incomplete, conclusions” in misleading, “scientific-sounding” language.
> 
> Botkin excoriates the IPCC findings on polar bears, arguing that a cited paper says the exact opposite of what the IPCC claims it says. He insists that, based on direct research experience regarding “carbon uptake by vegetation,” the IPCC’s numbers are in error “by as much as 300 percent.”


More:

In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

Long, thorough.


----------



## FeXL

If you really believe there is such a thing a consensus in science but you need further debunking of that tired, old, 97% meme, hear it is.

The myth of the 97% climate change consensus



> *In reality, the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is science fiction.* The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

It'll only be a matter of time...

Large Volcanic Eruption in Indonesia – This year’s excuse for ‘the pause’?



> Near equatorial volcanoes like Sangeang Api are useful to global warming modellers, as the ash cloud can usually be detected in both hemispheres. They provide a convenient excuse for the short term cooling of the entire Earth.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Twenty-three climate models can't all be wrong...or can they? 



> A new paper published in Climate Dynamics examines 23 different climate models to determine if any were able to hind-cast temperature, sea level pressure, and precipitation of the 19th and 20th centuries, finding
> 
> _"not only do the models not agree well with each other, they do not agree with reality"
> 
> "the models are not capable to simulate the spatial structure of the temperature, sea level pressure, and precipitation field in a reliable and consistent way"
> 
> "no model or models emerge as superior"​_
> Nevertheless, climate scientists claim the entire global economy must be restructured on the basis of the overheated projections from models that are unable to reproduce the known history of climate over the past 2 centuries.


Link to a PDF of the full paper in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds Atlantic Ocean warming since 1975 was natural, not due to greenhouse gases

Absrtact (paper paywalled)



> A homogeneous monthly data set of sea surface temperature (SST) and pseudo wind stress based on in situ observations is used to investigate the climatic trends over the tropical Atlantic during the last five decades (1964–2012). *After a decrease of SST by about 1 °C during 1964–1975, most apparent in the northern tropical region, the entire tropical basin warmed up. That warming was the most substantial (>1 °C) in the eastern tropical ocean and in the longitudinal band of the intertropical convergence zone.* Surprisingly, the trade wind system also strengthened over the period 1964–2012. Complementary information extracted from other observational data sources confirms the simultaneity of SST warming and the strengthening of the surface winds. Examining data sets of surface heat flux during the last few decades for the same region, *we find that the SST [sea surface temperature] warming was not a consequence of atmospheric heat flux forcing. Conversely, we suggest that long-term SST warming drives changes in atmosphere parameters at the sea surface, most notably an increase in latent heat flux, and that an acceleration of the hydrological cycle induces a strengthening of the trade winds and an acceleration of the Hadley circulation. These trends are also accompanied by rising sea levels and upper ocean heat content over similar multi-decadal time scales in the tropical Atlantic.* Though more work is needed to fully understand these long term trends, especially what happens from the mid-1970’s, *it is likely that changes in ocean circulation involving some combination of the [natural] Atlantic meridional overtuning circulation [AMOC] and the subtropical cells are required to explain the observations.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds the 17th century had more extreme weather than the 20th century



> A new paper published in Climate Dynamics reconstructs Fennoscandian floods and droughts over the past 1,000 years and finds the 17th century [during the Little Ice Age] was the most extreme "period of frequent severe and widespread hydroclimatic anomalies" over the past millennium.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Hydroclimatological extremes, such as droughts and floods, are expected to increase in frequency and intensity with global climate change. An improved knowledge of its natural variability and the underlying physical mechanisms for changes in the hydrological cycle will help understand the response of extreme hydroclimatic events to climate warming. This study presents the first gridded hydroclimatic reconstruction (0.5° × 0.5° grid resolution), as expressed by the warm season Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), for most of Fennoscandia. A point-by-point regression approach is used to develop the reconstruction from a network of moisture sensitive tree-ring chronologies spanning over the past millennium. The reconstruction gives a unique opportunity to examine the frequency, severity, persistence, and spatial characteristics of Fennoscandian hydroclimatic variability in the context of the last 1,000 years. *The full SPEI reconstruction highlights the seventeenth century as a period of frequent severe and widespread hydroclimatic anomalies.* Although some severe extremes have occurred locally throughout the domain over the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the period is surprisingly free from any spatially extensive anomalies. *The twentieth century is not anomalous in terms of the number of severe and spatially extensive hydro climatic extremes in the context of the last millennium.* Principle component analysis reveals that there are two dominant modes of spatial moisture variability across Fennoscandia. The same patterns are evident in the observational record and in the reconstructed dataset over the instrumental era and two paleoperiods. The 500 mb pressure patterns associated with the two modes suggests the importance of the summer North Atlantic Oscillation.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Geologist argues climate 'tipping point' fears are overblown 



> Stefan Kröpelin, a geologist at the University of Cologne, has collected samples of ancient pollen and other material that suggest that the earlier episode of natural climate change, which created the Sahara, happened gradually over millennia—not over a mere century or two, as the prevailing view holds. That is why, he says, the various "tipping point" scenarios for the future of the Sahara are overblown.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Bengtsson.

The Bengtsson affair and the GWPF



> On 24 April 2014 I sent an email to an eminent meteorologist, Professor Lennart Bengtsson,[1] inviting him to become a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and three days later I was happy to receive a letter of acceptance; I duly added Bengtsson’s name to our list of Council members, and his acceptance was announced on the GWPF website.


More:



> Much to the regret of me and my GWPF colleagues, Bengtsson decided, only two weeks later, to withdraw his acceptance of my invitation. In the letter of resignation that he sent to me, he referred to ‘enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life’; and in a letter to colleagues, announcing his decision, he likewise alluded to ‘massive objections from colleagues around the world’.


----------



## FeXL

Good. I cooked up over two pounds of it this morning...

Bacon - is there anything it can't do?



> The ability of bacon to cure all known ills has long been recognised, but now, thanks to the global warming movement, its day of reckoning may be near. It seems that the humble bacon butty is causing global warming.


----------



## eMacMan

Again as sciences go climate science is very much in its infancy.

What the CAGW types (Catastrophic man made global warming) consistently fail to take into account is the damage done by stealing $7Trillion$ from ordinary citizens and passing it along to the uber-wealthy such as Al Gore and the banksters. I know the CAGW crowd thinks that is only $1000/person. However about 90% of the planets populace doesn't have that much cash on hand. So those who do get dinged will be looking at a number of around $30-40,000 per typical household. I know that is a figure I cannot live with, especially as I know it will end up either in Al Gore's vault or one of the Rothchildren's vaults.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs when they shoot themselves in the foot like this...

Obama blames bad GDP numbers on severe winter they had NOAA adjust to look normal



> The White House has released their latest disappointing estimate for Q1 GDP, and comment:
> 
> _Overall the first quarter was subject to a number of notable influences, including historically severe winter weather, which temporarily lowered growth.​_
> They go on to show this graph of heating days and comment:
> 
> _The first quarter of 2014 was marked by unusually severe winter weather, including record cold temperatures and snowstorms, which explains part of the difference in GDP growth relative to previous quarters. The left chart shows the quarterly deviation in heating degree days from its average for the same quarter over the previous five years. By this measure, the first quarter of 2014 was the third most unusually cold quarter over the last sixty years, behind only the first quarter of 1978 and the fourth quarter of 1976.​_


However...



> This is all rather strange, because the heavily adjusted temperatures, published by NOAA, show this winter to have been nothing of the sort.


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

Bend over...

U.S. climate policy discussion thread



> On Monday, Obama’s administration will announce major new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


More:



> I sure hope somebody has a plan for providing energy for unexpected cold winters or hot summers.
> 
> The adjectives we want for energy are: abundant, reliable, economical, and clean/green. Provided that abundant, reliable, and economical can be maintained, the U.S. public will support clean/green. However, the litmus test for the policies is not abundant/reliable/economical, but CO2 emissions reduction. I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that the CO2 emissions reduced under Obama’s plan will change or improve the climate.
> 
> The politics on this one will be very interesting. To date, climate change hasn’t been an issue that has influenced much at the U.S. ballot boxes. Looks like this could change with the mid-term elections coming next November.
> 
> All this is bypassing Congress, and will take years to implement. Unless I am missing something, the next Republican President can reverse all this?


Further:

Why Obama’s EPA plan is not needed and dangerous to our country



> First of all carbon pollution is ‘soot’ which we don’t have a problem with - the EPA’s own data shows in fact it is well below EPA standards, declining 50% since 1999. CO2 which is conflated with soot is a harmless (actually beneficial) gas and every breathe every human emits 100 times as much CO2 as is in ambient air. CO2 is critical for plant life and we are at the low end of the scale of CO2 for the earth’s history just above the survival level needed for plants which require it for photosynthesis - around 280 ppm.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the House hearings.

U.S. House Hearing on the IPCC Process



> Finally, Lamarr Smith’s words from the Opening Statement bear repeating:
> 
> _The President says there is no debate. Actually the debate has only just begun. When assessing climate change, we need to make sure that findings are driven by science, not an alarmist, partisan agenda.​_


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, despite NOAA's "adjustments" to the contrary, sceptic style.

Ice Still on Lake Superior in June!



> Unless everything melted overnight, there is still ice on Lake Superior — and snow on the ground in Michigan — in freakin’ _June._


Italics from the links.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> From the "It's weather, not climate" department, despite NOAA's "adjustments" to the contrary, sceptic style.
> 
> Ice Still on Lake Superior in June!
> 
> 
> 
> Italics from the links.


Surely that must be a mirage, no doubt caused by CAGW.


----------



## BigDL

*Gee! Another Take, Same Facts!*

Washington Post Story from May 27, 2014



> Record heat and record ice: Astonishing scenes from Lake Superior
> 
> Near the southern shores of Lake Superior, fragments of ice still speckled the water’s surface this Memorial Day weekend. These vestiges from the polar vortex winter presented an amazing contrast with the actual air temperature – which surged into the 80s in some areas just a few miles inland. Heat records were set in a region with record-setting ice extent – quite the incongruity.
> 
> Duluth, Minnesota – where ragged sheets of ice can still be seen from it shores – matched record high temperatures of 84 and 85 degrees Saturday and Monday, established in 1978 and 1875, respectively. Meanwhile, Environment Canada had hoisted a “special ice warning” for “rotten thick lake ice near Duluth and east of the Apostle Islands.” A similar warning was in effect for the eastern part of Lake Superior, around Marquette.
> 
> As of Memorial Day, ice covered 4.5 percent of Lake Superior according to NOAA, and 1.7 percent of the Great Lakes overall (though Superior is the only lake with remaining ice). The recent Great Lakes ice cover is unrivaled in records dating back to the early 1970s.
> Ice cover the Great Lakes has been way above normal and, at times record-setting, for months.


Seems to me to confirm a disruption of "normal" weather expectations for date and region.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Washington Post Story from May 27, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me to confirm a disruption of "normal" weather expectations for date and region.


Lemme see, a PhD and former NASA scientist versus, a newspaper reporter? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> Washington Post Story from May 27, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me to confirm a disruption of "normal" weather expectations for date and region.


Ahh yes, the Global warming bit seems to have stalled completely. Hard to find true believers when the promised palm trees along the shores of the Great Lakes have been displaced by ice and snow.

So it seems we have gone full circle. CO2 emissions were going to set off an ice age. Unfortunately about that time things started to warm up a bit, so:

Increased CO2 emissions are going to melt all the ice and snow and cause the oceans to rise and swallow Al Gore's recently purchased beach front mansion. OOPS! The damned great lakes froze over, so:

If it ain't what CAGW worshippers define as normal, it must be caused by CO2.

And the results are in: The official CAGW stance on the effects of increased CO2 emissions is 97% pure BS.


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Seems to me to confirm a disruption of "normal" weather expectations for date and region.


I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear. NOAA has adjusted mid-western North American 2014 temps upwards to make them appear veritably warm. However, with ice still on the Great lakes in June, their lie and subterfuge is exposed.

Either way, it's still *weather, not climate,* which I made expressly clear in my post.

That said, identical temps were recorded 139 years ago. Interestingly, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations >100PPM less than today. 

Amazing substance, CO2. Cooling in the past, warming in the future, and flatline today...


----------



## FeXL

Making sense of senseless sea level scares in Norfolk Virginia – 60% of the rise is from subsidence, the remainder from landfill settling



> With the satellite altimetry from the 2010 VIMS report showing essentially a zero sea level rise in the area, it seems to me that nearly all of the issue in Norfolk can be attributed to subsidence from the crater impact fractures, and subsidence from man-made landfill settling where there was originally marshland.
> 
> But surely we can discount all that and just blame “climate change” on a wholesale level and add some scary graphs to scare the bejeesus out of readers like the hapless Ms. Montgomery has done. After all, if such projections are to be believed, human greenhouse gas emissions are far more powerful than anything Nature can throw at us.
> 
> It just seems easier and more profitable to blame climate change than a poor choice of location because as we’ve seen time and again, by using those magic words, an entire banquet of Federal assistance is spread before them.


----------



## FeXL

A few on Obama's next Charlie Foxtrot...

Obama’s big EPA announcement tomorrow translates directly to higher electricity prices

EPA spokeswonk tries to sell Obama’s power plan with nirvana style graphics

EPA regulations on CO2 will accomplish nothing for climate or public health 

WSJ: Dems in energy-producing states distance themselves from EPA regulations on CO2 

Obama tries to change the weather by burning US jobs

Obama’s New Powerplant CO2 Rules: Guaranteed to Succeed (Retroactively)


----------



## FeXL

Again, I'm somewhat hesitant to post to links of this nature purely because some idiot will figger I'm endorsing doubling CO2 concentrations. I'm not. The point should be clear & salient to anyone with two brain cells to rub together...

Carbon dioxide won’t cause famines



> Our crop yields are also rising because of another surprising factor: more atmospheric carbon dioxide. This trace gas (400 ppm or 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere) acts like fertilizer for plants, and thus for the animals and people who depend on them. Studies show that doubling CO2 in the air will boost the growth of herbaceous plants by about 30% to 35%; trees will benefit even more.
> 
> Indeed, satellites show that Earth’s total vegetation increased 6% just from 1982 to 1999, as CO2 levels increased. Famines in a CO2-warmed tomorrow are therefore less likely, not more.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, about all those scary increases in extreme weather...

To President Obama: Let’s just assume for a moment we have a climate crisis



> As we start hurricane season today, we note the unprecedented 3142 day drought of major hurricane landfalls, shattering a record that goes back to the year 1900.


----------



## FeXL

Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda



> Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
> 
> Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
> 
> *None of that has happened.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman: EPA’s climate regs ‘drive me nuts’ – ‘Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant’



> Carbon Dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas. It does result in slight warming of the atmosphere but because it is only a trace gas the impact is totally insignificant. *The theory that CO2 is a super greenhouse gas that triggers radiative forcing through interaction with water vapor to cause highly significant warming has totally failed to verify and has been totally debunked by many well qualified scientists.*


M'bold.

Sums it for me...


----------



## FeXL

Further issues with the temperature record.

What Is The Time Of Observation Of A Non-Existent Temperature Reading?



> In the USHCN V1 docs, they show that TOBS (Time of Observation Bias) adjustments go flat after 1990.
> 
> ...
> 
> The USHCN V2 docs say that they use the same TOBS algorithm as V1, but their TOBS adjustment goes up exponentially after 1990. The same algorithm now produces warming, where it used to produce none. Junk science at its worst.
> 
> ...
> 
> But it gets worse. Now we find out that they have actually lost 30% of their station data since 1990.
> 
> ...
> 
> How do you calculate TOBS on an observation which doesn’t exist?
> 
> Note in the graph above that 1990 was the year when they started rapidly losing station data. It was shortly after that when their divergence from measured data started increasing exponentially.
> 
> ...
> 
> What this indicates is that their FILNET algorithm (used to generate non-existent data) is introducing a huge fake warming bias into the temperature set. It allows them to multiply bogus TOBS adjustments, by propagating them into into fake station data.


Good graphs at the link.


----------



## FeXL

I post this partly for the article but mostly for the comment snippet noted below.

The temperature forecasting track record of the IPCC

From the department of "Everything I needed to know about atmospheric physics I learned in Geology class", a comment by RG Brown at Duke:



> I do think that looking over the correspondence between CO_2 and temperature over the Phanerozoic Era (the last 600 million years, where we have decent data on both via a variety of proxies) that — well, there isn’t any. Correspondence, that is. CO_2 levels have generally but irregularly descended from 7000 ppm to the recent low water mark of 190 ppm (which really was nearly catastrophic). Temperatures have fluctuated over a much smaller relative range and are flat to rising slightly over the exact same interval. *There is simply no visible first order correlation between atmospheric CO_2 and global average temperature visible anywhere in the geological record.* Nobody who looked at the data, or a scatter plot of the data, would conclude “Gee, CO_2 is correlated with temperature.” They’d conclude the opposite.


Emphasis mine.

Read the whole comment.


----------



## FeXL

An interesting summary of the situation.

Climate Cultists



> The climate change crusaders, who have been at it for a quarter-century, appear to be going clinically mad. Start with the rhetorical monotony and worship of authority (“97 percent of all scientists agree!”), add the Salem witch trial-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters, and the categorical demand that debate about science or policy is over because the matter is settled, and you have the profile of a cult-like sectarianism that has descended into paranoia and reflexive bullying. Never mind the scattered and not fully suppressed findings of climate scientists that the narrative of catastrophic global warming is overstated, like nearly every previous predicted environmental apocalypse. It matters not. The recent crescendo of scary government climate reports and dutiful media alarm has paved the way for the Obama administration to throw its weight around in ways that would make Woodrow Wilson blush.


Pretty much nails it.


----------



## FeXL

Couple on Mikey.

Mann Overboard! – It Takes a Village in North Korea Edition



> It seems that Dr. Michael Mann has gone off the rails (again) into the sort of conspiracy theory territory that would be a perfect case study for Cook and Lewandowsky, except that they probably believe every word Dr. Mann has every written. But, after reading it, Mann’s opinion and grasp of facts seems less like a “Potemkin Village” and more like the kind of empty facade buildings we see across the DMZ in North Korea in Kijong-dong, seen at right.


Michael Mann's six new lies



> According to Mann's latest tirade, everyone would be a fearmonger and a demagogue like himself if the public became more familiar with six propositions – various would-be facts and ideas. What are they? *Are they true?*


M'bold.

<snort> Not by a country mile...


----------



## FeXL

Below Normal Temperatures Cover 90% Of The North Atlantic



> I masked off all above normal temperatures in the North Atlantic as white, and you can see that more than 90% of the region above 10N is below normal temperature. Kevin Trenberth says that the small warm spot near New Jersey is caused by global warming.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The Sad State of Environment Canada’s Sunshine Data 



> Once up a time (June of 1978 to be precise) if you downloaded Environment Canada’s monthly summaries, you would have found 313 stations with “Bright Sunshine” hours.
> 
> As of January 2014, there is only one.


I wonder if they are using something different to measure sunshine hours than Campbell–Stokes recorders.


----------



## FeXL

Q&A about the effectiveness of proxies in the face of changing data records.

A question about proxies and calibration with the adjusted temperature record



> From WUWT August 16, 2013 A new paper now in open review in the journal Climate of the Past suggests that “modern sample bias “has “seriously compromised” tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an “artificial positive signal [e.g. 'hockey stick'] in the final chronology.”
> 
> Basically, older trees grow slower, and that mimics the temperature signal paleo researchers like Mann look for. Unless you correct for this issue, you end up with a false temperature signal, like a hockey stick in modern times. Separating a valid temperature signal from the natural growth pattern of the tree becomes a larger challenge with this correction.


----------



## FeXL

More climate McCarthyism.

Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal



> Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’


More:

The Debate is finally over on “Global Warming” - Because Alarmists Won't Debate 



> By Dr. Caleb Rossiter
> 
> I am deserting from the Climate War. I will never write another climate article or give another climate talk, and I’ll bite my tongue and say oooooooooooom when I hear or see the sort of exaggerations and certainties about the dangers of heat-trapping gasses that tend to make my blood boil at their absurdity. For a decade I’ve been a busy soldier for the scientific method, and hence a “skeptic” to climate alarmism. I’ve said all I think and know about this repetitive, unresolveable topic. I’ll save hundreds of hours a year for other pursuits!
> 
> This is not like my pledge to my wife after a marathon that “I’ll never do another one.” This is real. *There is simply too little room for true debate, because the policy space is dominated by people who approach this issue not like scholars weighing evidence, but like lawyers inflaming a jury with suspect data and illogical and emotional arguments.*


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, Weepy Bill...

350.org can’t connect consecutive years, much less ‘connect the dots’



> You just have to laugh. In their zeal to make the current drought situation all about their irrational CO2 fears, Bill McKibben’s 350.org tweeted this ridiculous comparison of before and after at California’s Folsom Reservoir, near me. Only problem is, the devil is in the details.
> 
> ...
> 
> Note the “what a difference a year makes” is actually comparing 2011 and 2014. In 2011, California was reaping the liquid benefits of the 2010 El Niño. In 2014, ENSO switched to the La Niña dry pattern.


Also, the first comment:



> Furthermore, any dam operators worth a damn draw down during the winter months and then [lets it get] full during the summer months. The draw down is done to have enough room to catch spring snow-melt. The first pic was taken in July. The second pic was taken in January. Most dams similar. Low in January, high in July.


Yes, this is the science behind the warmists. Unfortunately, they get the headlines and, when it is refuted, it's never in the public eye...


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate sensitivity.

Time To Put The Climate Sensitivity Scam To Bed



> I used RRTM LW (the model Trenberth uses) to calculate the effects of increasing CO2 on downwelling longwave radiation, otherwise known as measuring the greenhouse effect of CO2.
> 
> As you can see, the effect of increasing CO2 is minuscule.


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm, interesting. Dr. David Evans, husband of Jo Nova, has been working on a solar climate model.

BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming



> We’ve been working on this for a year and a half, gradually building up the pieces bit by bit, gradually filling in a picture that is now almost complete. We’ve been bursting to tell the world about it for months, but always noting it would be better if developed and tested before it went public. (But how long is a piece of string!) The big danger is that an inadequately explained or prepared alternative explanation of how the climate works will not be given proper consideration, and thereafter ignored as “debunked”. There is never a perfect time, but we’ve reached the point where the theory will be tested and developed better by open review. It’s time to set it free…We will be serializing the project as a series of posts, one every day or two.


He notes:



> The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor.


Going to be interesting to see how this pans out. No journal submission, public peer review. 

One observation: Excel? Really? I understand that it would be difficult to convert 15,000 lines of code into another language but...


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting.

India Labels Greenpeace A ‘Threat To National Economic Security’



> An Intelligence Bureau report on foreign-funded NGOs “negatively impacting economic development” in India has called Greenpeace “a threat to national economic security”, citing activities ranging from protests against nuclear and coal plants and funding of “sympathetic” research, to allegedly helping out an Aam Aadmi Party candidate in the recent Lok Sabha elections.


India gets it...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> India Labels Greenpeace A ‘Threat To National Economic Security’
> 
> 
> 
> India gets it...


I got it many years ago where Greenpeace is concerned. They are little more than eco-terrorists.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> I got it many years ago where Greenpeace is concerned. They are little more than eco-terrorists.


I don't have much good to say about Russia these days but, I confess to enjoying how they handled the protestors at their Arctic oil rig last year.


----------



## FeXL

Judith has a post on various temperature increase predictions from TIPCC™.

On the AR4′s projected 0.2C/decade temperature increase



> It was interesting going back through the previous IPCC reports – the FAR is far and away the best one. SAR isn’t too bad, although the ‘discernible’ piece that emerged from the meeting with the policy makers has raised substantial concerns. The TAR reads more like propaganda (with the hockey stick as its centerpiece). The main thing that comes across in the AR4 is hubris associated with the climate models. The AR5 is peculiar mainly in context of the disconnect between the confidence levels of the SPM and what is written in the main text of the Report.


----------



## FeXL

Well, that's gonna leave a mark...

Stunning admission – and a new excuse for ‘the pause’ – ‘lousy data’



> The Guardian, a prominent green UK daily newspaper, reports that scientists have given up on surface temperature as a measure of global warming:
> 
> _Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
> 
> “It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.
> 
> “The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” admits Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.​_
> Obviously if the surface temperature was still rising, as it was in the 90s, instead of inconveniently contradicting model predictions, then it would still be considered a valid climate metric.


And, from the _Grunion_, no less!

Slowly, albeit surely, they're coming around...


----------



## FeXL

More surprises today!

In PNAS, a surprising letter: ‘Systemic Addiction to Research Funding’



> Andrew Resnick has written a letter published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that suggests *researchers are “addicted” to funding, much like drug addicts.* His words, not mine.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on statistics & global warming.

Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic



> IPCC studies and prediction failures were inevitable because they lack data, manufacture data, lack knowledge of mechanisms and exclude known mechanism. Reduction or elimination of the standard deviation leads to loss of information and further distortion of the natural variability of weather and climate, both of which continue to occur within historic and natural norms.


His point is thus: the average of 0 & 100 is the same as the average of 40 & 60...

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Very long article on positive feedbacks.

Nature abhors a positive feedback



> The purpose of the article is to contribute to refuting the false alarm that has been generated worldwide about excess global warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide, primarily by mischaracterizing its inherently negative feedback.
> 
> Feedback is the effect that the result of a process has on itself. Positive feedback augments the result and negative feedback diminishes it. A negative feedback does not preclude an increase in the results of a process but it does limit the ultimate magnitude of the increase. Most feedbacks in nature are negative or soon become negative. Otherwise we would have been destroyed by nature some time ago. Positive feedbacks can cause runaway effects. Nature abhors a positive feedback.


All this plus much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre dissects another proxy study.

Abram et al 2014 and the Southern Annular Mode



> In today’s post, I will look at a new Naturemag climate reconstruction claiming unprecedentedness (h/t Bishop Hill): “Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the past millennium” (Abram et al Nature 2014, pdf). *Unfortunately, it is marred by precisely the same sort of data mining and spurious multivariate methodology that has been repeatedly identified in Team paleoclimate studies.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

An academic from the UK gets his lesson on how the "science" of Global Warming actually works...

On entering the climate arena



> I was told by a teacher of mine that science describes what is going on in the world, and that if a theory doesn't explain what we observe, then that theory is wrong. It is interesting to note that no one on the IPCC has any credible explanation for the 'pause' as they call it. We currently have no confirmed mechanisms for many climate phenomena, such as El Nino, the NAO, the Madden Julian Oscillation etc and of the 'pause'. Yes, we know what they are, but we have little or no idea how or why.
> 
> *It baffles me how scientists can hold such faith in a model that disagrees so much with the actual phenomena it is supposed to be representing.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on David Evans' new model. First post on the workings thereof.

BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate



> *This is the first of many posts. It is primarily about the entirely new discovery of a notch filter, which electrical engineers will immediately recognize, but few others will know. Notch filters are used in electronics to filter out a hum or noise. You will have some at home, but everyone seems to have missed the largest notch filter running on the planet.*
> 
> This post is also about the broad outline of the new solar model. It’s a O-D (zero-dimensional) model. Its strength lies in its simplicity — it’s a top down approach. That solves a lot of problems the larger ambitious GCMs create — they are a bottom up approach, and effectively drown in the noise and uncertainty. This model does not even attempt to predict regional or seasonal effects at this stage. First things first — we need to figure out the main drivers of the _global_ climate.


Emphasis from the link.

Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

About all those predictions...

Countdown to Disaster – Exhibit #11 in the Drama Queen Files



> A chief scientist, a statesman, and an heir to a throne all say climate disaster is imminent. But their schedules don’t agree.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the academic mentioned in post 5146, above.

Another example of ‘team science’ suppression



> _Several months afterwards, the society’s ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.​_


Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Parts III & IV from Jo Nova/David Evans.

BIG NEWS Part III: The notch means a delay



> Strap yourself in. The Notch in the Earth’s response to incoming solar energy means that every 11 years (roughly) the solar energy peaks, and at the same time the climate’s response to the extra energy changes. What on Earth is going on?


BIG NEWS part IV: A huge leap understanding the mysterious 11 year solar delay



> Implacably, the discovery of a notch suggests a delay of anything from 10 to 20 years but most likely 11 years. (Don’t miss the delay post — two very big important concepts out in two posts). The big mystery is what could cause such a long delay in the correlation of solar radiation with temperatures on Earth?


And, some dissent:

David Evans' notch-filter theory of the climate is infinitely fine-tuned

Good reads, especially the comments in Nova's posts.


----------



## FeXL

I told bryanc a long time ago that in order to ensure funding for his zebrafish research, he should tie it in to global warming. I wasn't off the mark...

Climate Change is sucking funding away from biodiversity



> From the “let’s include climate change is all our work so we’ll keep getting funded” department, comes this admission in the form of a press release from The University of Kent.


From the comments:



> I love the solution proposed by the researchers—exaggerate any conceivable connection from your research to climate change, no matter how tenuous, so you can piggyback on the climate hysteria in order to get the funding.
> 
> Or as the author put it in much less transparent and more laudatory terms:
> 
> _‘Conservationists must continue to be proactive, and use the growing interest in climate change as a flagship to leverage more support and action to prevent further biodiversity loss.’​_
> Be clear, I can’t blame her for saying that. If I saw my funding drying up and all the money being poured down a carbon rathole, I’d try to stick my bucket in the money stream myself.
> 
> *It’s just a tragedy that “science” has come to this …*


M'bold

Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Twenty-five Climate Models Can’t All Be Wrong … Or Can They?



> In terms of what most people would describe as shortcomings (or maybe even failures), they say (1) “the sign of mean precipitation changes across the southern United States is inconsistent among the models, as is the annual mean precipitation change in the core NA monsoon region,” (2) the models “also disagree on snow water equivalent changes on a regional basis, especially in transitional regions where competing effects occur because of greater snowfall and warming temperatures,” (3) “the western United States is characterized by large inter-model variability in changes in the number of frost days,” (4) “substantial inter-model spread exists for projections of how ENSO teleconnection changes will affect precipitation and temperature variability in western NA,” (5) “projected changes in seasonal mean Atlantic and east Pacific tropical cyclone activity are inconsistent among models, which disagree on the sign and amplitude of changes in environmental factors that modulate tropical cyclone activity,” (6) “models have substantial difficulties in simulating the historical distribution of persistent drought and wet spells,” and (7) “model success in producing historical climate has little bearing on regional projections,” as demonstrated previously by Pierce et al. (2009). Perhaps most important of all, however, is the 31 researchers’ conclusion that “even areas of substantial agreement among models may not imply more confidence that projections are correct, as common errors or deficiencies in model parameterizations may provide false confidence in the robustness of future projections.”


I'll consider the question in the title rhetorical...


----------



## FeXL

FYI

Solar Update June 2014 – The sun is still slumping along

Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Further on the little darlin's...

New paper finds climate models simulate or predict only about 6% of altocumulus clouds 



> Thus, only 6.4% of observed altocumulus clouds are simulated or predicted by climate models. Needless to say, clouds have profound effects on Earth's radiative balance and climate; a mere 1-2% change in global cloud cover alone can account for global warming or cooling. Among their many failings, climate models are unable to simulate clouds, ocean oscillations, solar amplification mechanisms, precipitation, sea ice, albedo, convection, etc. etc.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Altocumulus (Ac) clouds are important, yet climate models have difficulties in simulating and predicting these clouds, due to their small horizontal scales and thin vertical extensions.* In this research, 4 years of collocated Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) lidar and CloudSat radar measurements is analyzed to study the along-track horizontal scales and vertical depths of Ac clouds. Methodology to calculate Ac along-track horizontal scale and vertical depth using collocated CALIPSO and CloudSat measurements is introduced firstly. The global mean Ac along-track horizontal scale is 40.2 km, with a standard deviation of 52.3 km. *Approximately 93.6% of Altocumulus clouds cannot be resolved by climate models with a grid resolution of 1°.* The global mean mixed-phase Ac vertical depth is 1.96 km, with a standard deviation of 1.10 km. Global distributions of the Ac along-track horizontal scales and vertical depths are presented and possible factors contributing to their geographical differences are analyzed. The result from this study can be used to improve Ac parameterizations in climate models and validate the model simulations.


Bold from the first link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea ice.

Sea Ice Update June 17 2014 – 100th Daily Record For Antarctica / Global Sea Ice Higher Than One Standard Deviation



> A quick update for sea ice extent for day 167 of 2014
> 
> * Global Sea Ice Extent is 715,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 5 for the day. And above the 1 standard deviation mark.
> * Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,281,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 1 for the day. That is also the 100th daily record in 2014 out of 167 days.
> * Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -567,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 31 for the day.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Another observation on models, this from Ross McKitrick.


The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy



> While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still uses the iconic word “unequivocal” to describe warming of the climate system over the past century, a new word has slipped into its lexicon: the “hiatus.” They have begun referring, with a bit of hesitant throat-clearing, to “the warming hiatus since 1998.”
> 
> ...
> 
> *A leveling-off period is not, on its own, the least bit remarkable. What makes it remarkable is that it coincides with 20 years of rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm. According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining. This is the important point about the pause in warming. Indeed, the word that ought to have entered the IPCC lexicon is not “hiatus” but “discrepancy.”*


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Predictions on 2014 Arctic sea ice.

What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice?

Judith notes:



> So how does all this add up? I would say that the Reading team should be fairly close – similar to last year. I disagree slightly with their reason for this, focusing more on the large-scale climate dynamics regime and change points, but I agree that the late onset to the melt season should be a contributor. I am definitely not placing any money on a spiral of death scenario.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

June Snow: Winter Storm in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Flooding in Glacier National Park As Summer Approaches



> A winter storm warning was issued earlier for higher elevations, and more than 14 inches of snow had already fallen at the Sperry Chalet in the park east of Lake McDonald, Glacier spokeswoman Denise Germann said.


Couple hours from here.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that India/Greenpeace story.

Crackdown: India Curbs Greenpeace Funding



> Following an Intelligence Bureau (IB) report that alleged foreign-funded NGOs were creating obstacles to India’s economic growth, the Home Ministry has clamped down on Greenpeace, an international campaign group present in 40 countries.
> 
> ...
> 
> In a letter dated 13th June, the Ministry has directed the Reserve Bank of India that all foreign contributions originating from Greenpeace International and Climate Works Foundation — two principal international contributors to Greenpeace India Society — must be kept on hold until individual clearances are obtained from the Ministry for each transaction.


Good.

Now, if we could just start getting financial support for the UN scrutinized in the same fashion, especially TIPCC™...


----------



## FeXL

First in a series.

The Greatest Climate Myths of All – Part 1



> At the website deceptively named SkepticalScience, they list “Climate Changed Before” as the skeptics’ #1 “mythical” argument. But the website’s authors have fabricated a straw man argument writing, “The ‘climate changed naturally in the past’ argument is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the arguments. It’s equivalent to seeing a dead body with a knife sticking out the back, then arguing the death must be natural because people died naturally in the past.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on David Evans/Jo Nova. Also, a response to Lubos' objections.

BIG NEWS Part V: Escaping heat. The Three pipes theory and the RATS multiplier



> This post is the second of the three posts in which we build the solar model. We already assembled a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter in cascade in part III, and in part IV we took a diversion to physically interpret the notch and the delay.
> 
> The output of the low pass filter is the record of changes in the effective temperature at which the Earth radiates to space, the “radiating temperature”. We then consider how the model will compute the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature. It turns out to require just a very simple model of the atmosphere.


Lubos and a few misconceptions



> In typical style skeptics love to criticize, it is our strength. Sadly, diplomacy, manners, courtesy — burned at the door on a moment’s notice. Sigh. After five years in this debate you’d think I’d know not to expect respect or goodwill from every fellow skeptic. Call me naive, I don’t expect them to agree with me, just to be polite. If someone asks you for a review before they publish, would you congratulate them privately, ask questions, ignore the answers, ignore large parts of the paper, then later post those misunderstood points, without so much as a courtesy check first? Yes, I’m baffled too.
> 
> Hey Lubos, no hard feelings, but next time let us save you from posting unnecessary innuendo, irrelevant criticisms, and not-so-informed commentary. It only takes an email.


----------



## FeXL

Study: U.S. droughts can be explained by ocean forcing



> In this paper, authors Richard Seager (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University) and Martin Hoerling (NOAA ESRL) examine the causes of North American drought, investigate the predictability of drought, and explore the contribution of climate disturbances to drought.


----------



## FeXL

Woohoo!

100 percent consensus finally achieved on climate



> We all know that the bogus “97% consensus” number has been the staple bullet point of non-thinking climate activists everywhere. Now, I’m sure they will be thrilled to see that we have proof (with video) of a 100 percent consensus on climate.


----------



## FeXL

On the EPA hearings.

My Response To The EPA Hearings This Week



> In one corner, we had very organized and well scripted Democrats pushing mindless dishonest global warming propaganda. On the other side (with a few exceptions) we had clueless, disarmed Republicans mumbling incoherently against the EPA regulations.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Caleb Rossiter.

Rossiter rocks



> Caleb Rossiter, the scientist blacklisted by a Washington thinktank for his temerity in asking awkward questions over global warming is interviewed by a website entitled The College Fix. This is amazing stuff.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those melting Alaska Glacier Bay glaciers...

Watch John Muir Explore Melting Alaskan Glaciers



> Glaciers have been melting in Alaska for thousands of years.


----------



## FeXL

One Day In One Location Now Determines Climate



> Yesterday, the team was hysterical about a tiny amount of surface melt across 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet.
> 
> ...
> 
> Today, the spike is gone. *Eighteen years of no global warming is just weather, but one relatively warm day in one location is climate.*


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

One more from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Summer Is A Thing Of The Past In Norway



> _The northern Norwegian city of Tromso experienced a freak summer snowfall on Monday after freezing wind from the North Pole saw temperatures plummet.
> 
> It was the first time since records began that the city had seen snowfall in June. Local meteorologist Trond Lien said that sleet and snow showers hit the city on Monday night, and there has even been some snow lying on the ground.​_


----------



## FeXL

Further on that inconvenient 1940's "blip"...

Removing The 1940′s Blip



> As of 1975, there was nearly unanimous consensus among experts that the first half of the 20th century was exceptionally warm, and that temperatures had plummeted after 1940. In fact, by the late 1960s, temperatures were colder than they were in 1900.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The 1940 spike in temperatures doesn’t fit the current global warming narrative, so government funded climate scientists decided to get rid of it.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on ocean heat content, Joules & degrees.

Ocean Heat Content -Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW 



> The latest funny bit of science from the AGW world has been the assertion that the missing heat is being carried down to the bottom of the ocean. Leading lights of AGW science like England and Trenberth have both suggested the mechanism for this heat transfer to the bottom is wind. The absurdity of those positions are dealt with here and here.
> 
> But such obvious rebuttals of the science of AGW does not stop the alarmists from peddling their beliefs and mischief.
> 
> ...
> 
> How misleading it is revealed by a commenter on the same thread who has made some excellent points and posted some cogent graphs of Ocean Heat Content [OHC]. The commenter noted this well-known NOAA graph was in Joules and not temperature


Further:



> That is astounding. Temperature at 2000 meters where England’s and Trenberth’s missing heat is supposed to be has gone up 0.09C since before 1960. Some missing heat. This is why the alarmists always post OHC graphs in Joules which have such bigger and scarier numbers. And that’s assuming the measurements are correct. The Commenter’s other valid point was that accurate measurements of OHC have really only been around since the ARGO measurements began in 2004.


----------



## CubaMark

*It's all clear to me now... why arguing with some of the anti-global-warming folk is effort wasted...*

The article published by The National Post is by Guelph University economist Ross McKitrick, an outspoken critic of the theory that humans are warming the planet by emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Last Month, McKitrick spoke at an event in Calgary funded by the Friends of Science Society, the same group that recently made headlines for putting up a billboard saying "the sun is the main driver of climate change."

McKitrick is among those who have signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that:

_"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."_​
(HuffPo: Conservative MP James Lunney Denies That Climate Change Science Is 'Settled')


----------



## Macfury

CM you should demonstrate the intelligence God gave you by looking at McKitrick's scientific arguments.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *It's all clear to me now... why arguing with some of the anti-global-warming folk is effort wasted...*


OK, so what's the thrust here? Because you happen to be religious, you can't be scientific?


----------



## eMacMan

Essentially what McKitrick seems to be saying is that nature abhors a positive feed back system. Quite bluntly were that not true, the planet would be continually on the edge of self destruction.

Yet the CO2 theory requires that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 1 or 2/1000ths of a percent of the total atmosphere will trigger a positive feed back system so ferocious that all the ice on the planet will melt, the oceans will rise and the sky will fall. It also requires that the added CO2 trap heat, without reflect it back into space. That the positive loops be triggered without triggering offsetting negative loops.

Yet look at the raw data and somehow changes in sea level are not accelerating. Shorelines are eroding but they were doing that long before man inhabited the planet. Has to do with waves battering the coast not rising ocean levels. Somehow the Northwest passage was open back in the Medieval warming era but not so much today.............................


----------



## FeXL

Further on Greenpeace.

‘No Culture of Accountability’ at Greenpeace



> Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.


From the _Grunion,_ no less...


----------



## FeXL

Willis on sunspot minima & associated cold periods.

Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima



> In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? wiki 400 years of sunspot observationsI realized that like everyone else, up until now I’ve just accepted the idea of cold temperatures being a result of the solar minima as an article of faith … but I’d never actually looked at the data. And in any case, I thought, what temperature data would we have for the Maunder sunspot minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715? So … I went back to the original sources, which as always is a very interesting ride, and I learned a lot.


Good read, much in the first half or so of the comments.


----------



## FeXL

It isn't just warmist "science" that needs to be open to scrutiny, but the EPA as well...

WSJ Op-Ed: What Is the EPA Hiding From the Public? Open the research to outside analysis



> The climate is changing and, yes, humans play a role. But that does not mean, as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy would have us believe, that the debate—over how much the climate is changing, how big a role humans play, and what can reasonably done about it—is over. Still less does it mean that anyone who questions her agency's actions, particularly the confidential research it uses to justify multimillion and billion-dollar air rules, is a denier at war with science.
> 
> The EPA's regulatory process today is a closed loop. The agency funds the scientific research it uses to support its regulations, and it picks the supposedly independent (but usually agency-funded) scientists to review it. When the regulations are challenged, the courts defer to the agency on scientific issues. *But the agency refuses to make public the scientific research it uses.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, apparently there is some history between Anthony Watts & Steven Goddard. Anthony is being critical of some of Steven's claims, Steven fires back.

Watts reasons with Goddard

Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000?

Well Known Skeptic Says I Am “Worse Than Michael Mann”

Gridding Does Almost Nothing To The US Data Set

I'm not sure where I stand here. Both sides seem to make some salient points. While scepticism is important, it is also important to realize who the opponent is on this and it's not the guys with the empirical data.


----------



## FeXL

Goddard isn't the only one tracking changes to the temperature record.

USHCN 2.5 – OMG … The Old Data Changes Every Day



> Yesterday I did a post about old USHCN changing from month to month.
> 
> So I thought why compare data sets from one day to the next. Certainly they can’t be changing old data every day … could they?
> 
> So I compared the June 21 2014 TAvg Final dataset (ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz) from here to the same file from June 22 2014
> 
> And just to keep it manageable. I compared only the data from Jan 1998.
> 
> *And here we are … the data even for 1998 changes from day to day.*


Further:



> Consider the “SANDPOINT EXP STN” station. *On June 21 the monthly average temperature for Jan 1998 was -1.33C. On June 22 2014 it was -0.89C for an increase in temperature of .44C.*


All emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

Two more updates from Jo Nova/David Evans.

BIG NEWS part VI: Building a new solar climate model with the notch filter



> This is the last of the three posts in which we build the solar model. We assembled a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter in cascade in part III, in part IV we took a diversion to physically interpret the notch and the delay, and in part V we added the RATS multiplier to model the atmosphere on the yearly timescales of the TSI datasets.
> 
> In this post we assemble these four elements in their correct order, and add the immediate path for the TSI changes that obviously warm the Earth directly. This will complete the model. We finish by examining the step response of the model.


BIG NEWS Part VII — Hindcasting with the Solar Model



> In the previous posts we built the notch-delay solar model. Now we are going to test it.
> 
> The solar model is given the TSI record from 1749 (the start of monthly sunspot records), and it computes the corresponding temperature in each month from 1770 from just the TSI data for the current and previous months. Then we compare this “hindcast” with the measured temperatures. We also test the CO2 model to compare how it performs, and we test a mix of the CO2 and solar models to show that they play together well.
> 
> Finally, we look at the significance (or not) of the solar model so far.


----------



## CubaMark

*OK, all you armchair atmospheric 'scientists' - here's your chance to set us all straight and make a bit of moola while you're at it....*

*Scientist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change*

Outraged by the unsavory tactics of climate change deniers, physicist Christopher Keating says he'll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn't real.

Keating has been involved in one way or another with climate change for the past three decades. He's been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

He recently issued a bit of a tirade via PRWeb, claiming that climate change deniers are using the same methods as the tobacco industry, and pointing to their claims as evidence.

"Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are," he writes. "The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming."

He says the science of climate change science is so overwhelming that the only way we can deny global warming is to deny science itself.

"Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting," he says. "Everywhere you look you see evidence of global warming. This isn't something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now."

To that end, Keating is offering two prizes: One that will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove — via the scientific method — that anthropogenic climate change is not real, and one that will pay $1,000 to anyone who can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn't real.

"I'm a scientist and I have to go where the science leads me. I have been studying climate change for a long time and I am certain my money is safe," he adds. "They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn't real, it would be worth the money."

More at his blog, DialoguesonGlobalWarming.blogspot.com​
(io9)


----------



## Macfury

The man is an idiot. Nobody denies that the climate changes--naturally.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> The man is an idiot. Nobody denies that the climate changes--naturally.


He may say the same about you, given that you have just revealed that you didn't even bother to read the first line of that post:

_Christopher Keating says he'll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that *human-instigated climate change* isn't real._​


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> He may say the same about you, given that you have just revealed that you didn't even bother to read the first line of that post:
> 
> _Christopher Keating says he'll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that *human-instigated climate change* isn't real._​


The amount of human-induced climate change is negligible compared to the natural change. However, there is next to nobody who doubts that humans have at least some tiny influence on climate. Even beavers influence the climate. 

It's an idiotic offer. Like trying to prove that psychic phenomena don't exist. They likely don't but you can't prove a negative.


----------



## CubaMark

There's the first one running for the hills. Who's next?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> There's the first one running for the hills. Who's next?


Gosh, that's lame. Prove that purple kangaroos don't exist and I'll give you $100,000. The man is a hideous embarrassment.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *OK, all you armchair atmospheric 'scientists' - here's your chance to set us all straight and make a bit of moola while you're at it....*


First off, science doesn't "prove" anything. It provides empirical evidence which either supports or opposes an hypothesis or theory.

Secondly, what means "Climate Change"? Does this mean the definition before warmists got hold of it or after? Does "Climate Change" mean what naturally occurs every day of every month of every year or is it merely the most recent nom du jour for the failed hypothesis of AGW?

Third, there are very few people on the sceptic side of the argument who would not agree that there is some anthropogenic effect on climate. The big question that remains completely & entirely unanswered is, how much?

Fourth, it is not incumbent upon sceptics to find evidence to support their case (as it is nearly impossible to "prove" a negative). It is incumbent upon warmists to find empirical evidence to support theirs.

Thus far, there is little empirical evidence supporting the warmist case. Models certainly do not produce empirical evidence and, even if they did, current model output certainly would be forced to remove itself from any degree of authority. If there was any sort of empirical evidence supporting the warmist case you would hear them shouting it from the rooftops. There ain't & they aren't.

Fifth, his comparison between sceptics & big tobacco does nothing to increase his credibility. It's a red herring designed to distract from the argument at hand. This, itself, clearly illustrates he has no intention of actually discussing the matter. He's a moron with a PhD.

The way he's worded his challenge ensures that his money is pretty safe. It's a cop out.

He claims that:



> "Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting,"


Yes, CO2 concentrations have been increasing. However, global surface temperatures have flatlined for nearly 18 years (and, not for the first time in the past 100 years). This is the bugaboo in their "It's CO2 wot dunnit" argument. The science was pretty clear back in the 80's & early 90's. CO2 concentrations were increasing, global temperatures were increasing, the science was settled. The flatline has caused hilarious cockroach-like scurrying, with warmists scrambling for alternative reasons to explain the flatline in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If, in fact, CO2 concentrations bear such a catastrophic relationship with global temperatures, why is the early 20th century rate of warming (when CO2 would have had little to no effect) almost identical to the late 20th century rate of warming (when CO2 concentrations were much higher)? In addition, how did the planet ever manage to recover from CO2 concentrations 10 to 15 times higher than now, 450 million years ago? And, how, in the middle of those high CO2 concentrations, did an ice age manage to develop? Perhaps that science isn't nearly as settled as warmists would lead you to believe...

As to the weather changing, the weather has always changed. There is no empirical evidence anywhere that supports an increase in extreme weather. Interestingly, hurricane intensity & frequency has dropped.

As to the oceans warming, how can anyone tell? First, there is little enough thermometer data from the surface and shallows to support this conjecture, let alone at depth. The most accurate records we have of ocean temperature come from the ARGO network which is pretty short lived. Second, if the oceans were truly warming then they would be expanding, too. This would result in an observed increase in the rate of sea level rise. This flies in the face of conclusions from several recent peer-reviewed papers that indicate that the rate of sea level rise has actually decelerated since the early 2000's.

As to ice caps melting, yes, the Arctic did experience significant melting in 2012 but has since recovered and gained on those numbers. In addition, the Antarctic is breaking daily records for sea ice & global sea ice as a whole is significantly above the average. Yes, the WAIS is experiencing some melt (which may be due to local volcanism) but the east side is gaining more than the west side is losing. Again, if there was massive ice cap melting, the rate of sea level rise would be accelerating. Again, it ain't.

BTW, CM, you haven't answered the question I posed to you on the previous page. The one about being both religious & a scientist...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> OK, so what's the thrust here? Because you happen to be religious, you can't be scientific?


Apologies, FeXL, I overlooked that post. You can certainly be religious and scientific. But I think being religious to the point of being an apocalyptic evangelical may have profound repercussions on your ability to be objective. I have a relative in that world... and IMHO those folks are incapable of any rational thought.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Apologies, FeXL, I overlooked that post. You can certainly be religious and scientific. But I think being religious to the point of being an apocalyptic evangelical may have profound repercussions on your ability to be objective. I have a relative in that world... and IMHO those folks are incapable of any rational thought.


So if your philosophy is vehemently anti-industrial, should your opinion on greenhouse gases be discounted?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> So if your philosophy is vehemently anti-industrial, should your opinion on greenhouse gases be discounted?


Anti-industrial? How did you come up with that?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Anti-industrial? How did you come up with that?


Not you, CM. It's a _for instance_ question.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> So if your philosophy is vehemently anti-industrial, should your opinion on greenhouse gases be discounted?


One can argue with someone who has an anti-industrial philosophy, provided they are working from a basis in reality.

Apocalyptic evangelists who see the hand of God reaching in to protect the earth at the last minute, or more likely in their view, bring about the end of days and fulfill scripture by bringing about the rapture... well... theological arguments on the topic of climate change are not exactly convincing. Do you think that's a proper basis for a debate?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> One can argue with someone who has an anti-industrial philosophy, provided they are working from a basis in reality.
> 
> Apocalyptic evangelists who see the hand of God reaching in to protect the earth at the last minute, or more likely in their view, bring about the end of days and fulfill scripture by bringing about the rapture... well... theological arguments on the topic of climate change are not exactly convincing. Do you think that's a proper basis for a debate?


It's not being used for debate. McKittrick uses only science and statistics in debate.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> It's not being used for debate. McKittrick uses only science and statistics in debate.


So this is of no concern to you when evaluating his contributions to discussions on the topic at hand? 

McKitrick is among those who have signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that: 
_"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence_​
....doesn't sound very scientific to me. :yikes:


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> So this is of no concern to you when evaluating his contributions to discussions on the topic at hand?
> 
> McKitrick is among those who have signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that:
> _"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence_​
> ....doesn't sound very scientific to me. :yikes:


Absolutely not. I am judging his contributions on the basis of his scientific arguments, not his faith. If someone ultimately believed the world would be consumed by GHG hellfire (Bill McKribben) I would still assess only the scientific arguments.


----------



## FeXL

Lots going on in the climate world, no time to post it all. Just going to hit a few highlights...

Steven Goddard has outed himself as Tony Heller.

Who Is Steven Goddard?



> My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.


----------



## FeXL

Further on David Evans' solar model.

BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling

In a nutshell, this is how his model operates:



> To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so.


His prediction? Imminent cooling.



> The timing for the cooling is indicated by the delay, which was deduced from the observed notch but has been independently corroborated to varying extents several times in the last decade (see Post III). The delay is most likely 11 years, though definitely between 10 and 20 years.
> 
> 2004 + 11 = 2015.
> 
> Eleven years after 2004 is 2015, suggesting the cooling will start in 2015. However, 11 years is only the average delay, and the physical interpretation of the delay (see Post IV) suggests the delay is actually the length of the solar cycle—which has varied from 8 to 14 years, but averages 11 years. The current solar cycle is a long one, probably running around 13 years:
> 
> 2004 + 13 = 2017.
> 
> So the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017.
> 
> The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024. Or it could occur as soon as 2014. An El Nino or La Nina could affect the timing too. At this stage, we don’t know. But by the end of 2018 seems fairly likely.


----------



## CubaMark

*Pretty much sums up the depth of some folks' mental abilities when it comes to an intelligent debate on climate change:*

*Political Protest Or Just Blowing Smoke? Anti-Environmentalists Are Now 'Rolling Coal'*










_Anti-environmentalists have found a new medium for exhausting their anger: exhaust. Literally.

Some truck enthusiasts are intentionally producing copious amounts of diesel exhaust, spewing black smoke into the air as a form of political protest. It's called "rolling coal." Vocativ covered the subculture in an article last month, reporting "coal rollers" can spend thousands of dollars altering their rides to produce ever greater amounts of smoke.

Modifications include a variety of components that increase the amount of fuel entering the truck's engine. When there's so much fuel that it fails to combust properly, "it leaves the engine as soot," according to an article on DieselHub.com, a website dedicated to diesel truck owners.

That soot, which coal rollers call "Prius repellent" in online videos and forums and on decals on their trucks, can then be channeled up through "smoke stacks," where it exits onto bystanders (or a Prius following too closely) in a thick, pollutant-heavy black cloud._​(HuffPo)


----------



## CubaMark

*And finally, some common sense from across the pond....*

*BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes*



> BBC Trust says 200 senior managers trained not to insert 'false balance' into stories when issues were non-contentious





> BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’
> 
> The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.
> 
> The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.
> 
> Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’
> 
> “The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.





> The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.
> 
> Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.
> 
> The report highlighted World at One edition in September of a landmark UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research project which found concluded with 95 per cent certainty that the climate is changing and that human activity is the main cause.
> 
> The programme’s producers tried more than a dozen qualified UK scientists to give an opposing view but could not find one willing to do so – so they went to Mr Carter in Australia.



(TelegraphUK)


----------



## Macfury

CM, that story is nuts. BBC news was recently excoriated for systematically doing the reverse--making its own policy on the global warming canard and instructing its journalists on how to spin the news. 

The "BBC Trust" will be scrapped by 2017--and good riddance.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> *And finally, some common sense from across the pond....*


Ya know, CM, for a supposedly bright guy with formal education right up to & including a PhD (if memory serves), you have a remarkably narrow view regarding open debate or discussion. All this amounts to is censorship of 50% of the argument, something which I'm sure you would be up in arms about if the shoe was on the other foot, especially regarding Cuba or some other pet topic.

If there was truly any overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (or whatever the fashionable name is this week) warmists would be shouting it from the rooftops.

As I've noted before, there isn't & they ain't.

If you want to bring a reasoned discussion or argument or even question to this thread, please, feel free. Otherwise, p!ss off. Your recent contributions here don't even qualify for the National Enquirer thread...


----------



## CubaMark

Such nasty people. :-(

Should I apologize for posting an article relevant to the topic? Or do you guys only like to read your own (and like-minded) posts?

Seems to me it's entirely relevant that a major news organization has decided to stop giving wingnuts and crackpots equal airtime with scientists and those who research climate science for a living, addressing an imbalance that has led people to believe that anyone - even those with no background, aptitude or credibility - should have a podium provided to them.

But hey - keep on with your extremist views, fellas. You can keep shouting them from your rooftop as the rescue helicopters come in to pluck you to safety. No doubt you'll continue to complain as they give you free shelter and food in one of them damn socialist shelters...


----------



## Macfury

Again, your prejudice and lack of depth regarding this subject is flagrant. By sitting in your own echo chamber you already assume that those supporting the AGW hypothesis are the only ones who "research climate science for a living." BBC gives plenty of time to global warming crackpots who are simply activists.

You're out of your depth here and simply linking without comprehension of the material you're presenting.





CubaMark said:


> Such nasty people. :-(
> 
> Should I apologize for posting an article relevant to the topic? Or do you guys only like to read your own (and like-minded) posts?
> 
> Seems to me it's entirely relevant that a major news organization has decided to stop giving wingnuts and crackpots equal airtime with scientists and those who research climate science for a living, addressing an imbalance that has led people to believe that anyone - even those with no background, aptitude or credibility - should have a podium provided to them.
> 
> But hey - keep on with your extremist views, fellas. You can keep shouting them from your rooftop as the rescue helicopters come in to pluck you to safety. No doubt you'll continue to complain as they give you free shelter and food in one of them damn socialist shelters...


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Such nasty people. :-(


Wah frickin' wah. If speaking the truth colours me as nasty, better grab your crayons.



CubaMark said:


> Should I apologize for posting an article relevant to the topic?


No. You should seriously consider the content of your topically related posts before you post them to see if they actually make sense. Is censorship of any topic acceptable to you?



CubaMark said:


> Or do you guys only like to read your own (and like-minded) posts?


Absolutely not. As I noted, bring reasonable, empirically-backed dissent or questions to the thread any time you wish.



CubaMark said:


> Seems to me it's entirely relevant that a major news organization has decided to stop giving wingnuts and crackpots equal airtime with scientists and those who research climate science for a living, addressing an imbalance that has led people to believe that anyone - even those with no background, aptitude or credibility - should have a podium provided to them.


First, consensus does not science make. Second, the ad homs are quickly removing any last vestiges of credibility you had. Third, you are appealing to authority, a logical fallacy. Fourth, do you honestly believe that there are no credible climate scientists who are sceptical of the warmist position?



CubaMark said:


> But hey - keep on with your extremist views, fellas. You can keep shouting them from your rooftop as the rescue helicopters come in to pluck you to safety. No doubt you'll continue to complain as they give you free shelter and food in one of them damn socialist shelters...


I'm 3400 feet above sea level. Most of the socialists live a hunnert feet above sea level, at most. Who do you think is going to confort whom?

That said, if push comes to shove and the world does go to hell in a handbasket, who do you think is going to actually survive, living off the land? It sure as hell ain't gonna be the non-gun owning, metrosexual, socialist, city slickers who can't live without their Evian, their daily lattes and are afeard to get dirt on their Birkenstocks...


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> But hey - keep on with your extremist views, fellas. You can keep shouting them from your rooftop as the rescue helicopters come in to pluck you to safety. No doubt you'll continue to complain as they give you free shelter and food in one of them damn socialist shelters...


This one made me laugh the hardest as well. The government will bring all of its forces to bear as FEMA did in New Orleans. That is if you believe in the punitive fairy tale of the greenhouse gassers.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Wah frickin' wah. If speaking the truth colours me as nasty, better grab your crayons.


No - but your telling me to "**** off" certainly lends some commentary as to your character.

Have a nice day, fellas.


----------



## FeXL

You were given an option. Play nice or p!ss off. It's a reasonable either/or. That you rashly select the latter is your choice.

It's well known on these boards that I have low tolerance for bull$h!t artists of any kind, whether online, standing on my doorstep with a bible in their hand or anyone, anywhere else, for that matter. Is that a character flaw? If so, get the crayons out again. I'll stand still for you while you put a great big "X" on my back. You've been on these boards 3 years longer than me, CM, & I've been here 10. This is not news & I take some small measure of satisfaction knowing that these boards, albeit smaller, are better off without the BS artists that couldn't take the heat & have left the kitchen.

You are perfectly capable of putting together a cohesive argument. I've seen it elsewhere. Why you choose not to on this thread is beyond me. Is that your character flaw?

Incidentally, despite being asked twice, you still haven't responded as to whether censorship is acceptable on any topic. In the absence of a response to the negative, I am left to assume that you accept censorship at some level. For one who is clearly a humanitarian, I find that stunning...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> No. You should seriously consider the content of your topically related posts before you post them to see if they actually make sense. Is censorship of any topic acceptable to you?


(a) Sorry - skipped over that because I was a bit shocked that you told me to p!ss off. 

(b) What are you talking about. What censorship? The BBC policy update has nothing to do with censorship. It's simply removing undeserved attention given to wingnuts under the guise of balanced reporting.


----------



## Macfury

The BBC is a public body, so it is required to provide balanced reporting. If the BBC itself decides on a "politically correct" view of "settled" science then it has outstepped its bounds. If you spent any time actually studying the science on this topic, you would understand that the BBC promotes the views of some of the biggest climate wingnuts on Earth. Thankfully, your team is losing this debate--as is the BBC.



CubaMark said:


> What are you talking about. What censorship? The BBC policy update has nothing to do with censorship. It's simply removing undeserved attention given to wingnuts under the guise of balanced reporting.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> (b)What censorship?


Stifling debate under any guise is nothing more than censorship. 

Period.

The science is not settled (else warmists could explain the 17 year, 10 month old flatline), the number of sceptics on the face of the planet hardly represents the fringe and consensus is not science in the first place. Need I remind you again that 100% of the scientists who believed in a geocentric orbit 500 years ago (the consensus at the time) were 100% wrong?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Stifling debate under any guise is nothing more than censorship.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The science is not settled (else warmists could explain the 17 year, 10 month old flatline), the number of sceptics on the face of the planet hardly represents the fringe and consensus is not science in the first place. Need I remind you again that 100% of the scientists who believed in a geocentric orbit 500 years ago (the consensus at the time) were 100% wrong?


CM constantly takes the position of deferring to left-biased authority. The BBC has spoken, so he prefers to hide behind that proclamation instead of taking the risk of exposing his own lack of knowledge on the subject.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Stifling debate under any guise is nothing more than censorship.


So you'd be fine with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world lining up for prime-time shouting matches on the 'vaccines cause autism' bandwagon?



FeXL said:


> Need I remind you again that 100% of the scientists who believed in a geocentric orbit 500 years ago (the consensus at the time) were 100% wrong?


The "scientists" of 500 years ago believed spirits caused locomotive motion in the human body too.... what's that an 'appeal to'? Are you _*seriously*_ comparing the scientists of a half-millenium ago to the scientific community of today, who benefit from 500 years of technological advances, of satellite monitoring tools, of oceanic data, of geologic and archaeological discoveries?

There's grasping at straws, and then there's whatever you're doing....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> So you'd be fine with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world lining up for prime-time shouting matches on the 'vaccines cause autism' bandwagon?


Personally, I've seen only anecdotal evidence linking vaccines and autism. However, I do not want to close the door on that line of thought either.



CubaMark said:


> The "scientists" of 500 years ago believed spirits caused locomotive motion in the human body too.... what's that an 'appeal to'? Are you _*seriously*_ comparing the scientists of a half-millenium ago to the scientific community of today, who benefit from 500 years of technological advances, of satellite monitoring tools, of oceanic data, of geologic and archaeological discoveries?


I would definitely compare the two. Because it's human nature that is at fault in their search for consensus--not their advanced equipment.

Interestingly, it is exactly that data that you are touting that is destroying the GHG theory.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> So you'd be fine with the Jenny McCarthy's of the world lining up for prime-time shouting matches on the 'vaccines cause autism' bandwagon?


Yes. Because empirical evidence will either support her argument or not. Maybe she is a nut case. Maybe not. Either way, I would far rather her voice her concerns & have them proven wrong than to have her shut up because some self-serving politician, news agency, environmentalist, NGO, whatever, says so.



CubaMark said:


> The "scientists" of 500 years ago believed spirits caused locomotive motion in the human body too.... what's that an 'appeal to'? Are you _*seriously*_ comparing the scientists of a half-millenium ago to the scientific community of today, who benefit from 500 years of technological advances, of satellite monitoring tools, of oceanic data, of geologic and archaeological discoveries?


Yes. Because empirical evidence stands the test of time & it is exactly that process which has brought us to the point we are at today. 

And, it's funny, despite those 500 years of advancements and all those wonderful tools we have and heaps & heaps of data & discoveries, we still don't have a cure for the common cold, we still don't truly know how gravity works and warmists have little to no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of AGW.

Until such time that they do, the science is not settled and the debate will remain open, despite infantile efforts by various lefty news agencies to stifle it.

And, if by this:



> satellite monitoring tools, of oceanic data, of geologic and archaeological discoveries


you mean you have any empirical evidence to support the warmist argument, I'd be pleased to hear it.



CubaMark said:


> There's grasping at straws, and then there's whatever you're doing....


There's avoiding the issue and then there's what you're doing: stifling debate (censoring) because you don't happen to agree with what the other side has to say. If you know something sceptics don't, bring it. If you don't, then quit embarrassing yourself by confirming it through your ad homs & logical fallacies.



Macfury said:


> Interestingly, it is exactly that data that you are touting that is destroying the GHG theory.


This...


----------



## eMacMan

Just a quick review of the warmist point of view. The earths atmosphere contains about .04% CO2 and roughly .004% man-made CO2. The warmist religion preaches that increasing that .004% to .005% will do the following: Trigger a runaway positive feedback loop, that will in turn melt polar ice caps, causing the oceans to rise and take out Al Gore's new beach front mansion.

They also claim that while CO2 will reflect heat back towards earth it will not reflect it out towards space. Nor will they even consider that negative feedback loops may offset or even more than offset the positive loop. Pressed for empirical evidence they present computer models which fail to accurately reflect the past and to date have failed miserably to predict the future.

Further pressed for data they attempt to apply fudge factors to existing data or use modern satellite measuring techniques that simply do not go back far enough to have any real meaning. Beyond that the ground control for those satellite measurements is completely inadequate. 

Their final claim is that diverting $7 Trillion dollars from the poor, working and (what's left of) the middle classes to the Banksters and Al Gore will somehow magically prevent the predicted catastrophe. But when challenged prove their beliefs and give their own wealth to The Gore and/or the Carbon Nazis, they never do so.


----------



## eMacMan

The following article would not come as a surprise if The Great Gore-acle was among the surveys participants. That however was not the case.

Uh-Oh, Climate Change Believers Waste More Electricity Than Everybody Else



> ...“The survey exposes the hypocrisy of many who claim to be ‘green’: the greater the concern people express about global warming the less they do to reduce their energy usage,” said Commons Energy and Climate Change committee member Peter Lilley to the _Telegraph__.
> ..._


Perhaps if the true-believers practiced what they preached, there world could be "saved" without stealing from those who have the least to give.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Deep Oceans Are Cooling Amidst A Sea of Modeling Uncertainty: New Research on Ocean Heat Content



> Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists from Harvard and MIT have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content (in print but available here).3 They point out where future data is most needed so these ambiguities do not persist into the next several decades of change. As a by-product of that analysis they 1) determined the deepest oceans are cooling, 2) estimated a much slower rate of ocean warming, 3) highlighted where the greatest uncertainties existed due to the ever changing locations of heating and cooling, and 4) specified concerns with previous methods used to construct changes in ocean heat content, such as Balmaseda and Trenberth’s re-analysis (see below).13 They concluded, “Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but *the uncertainties remain too large to rationalize e.g., the apparent “pause” in warming.”*


Bold from the link and the most important point in the whole article.

Much in the comments.


----------



## CubaMark

The cooling of the oceans wouldn't have anything to do with the massive new icebergs - you know, the huge ones - that have broken off Antarctica in recent years and moved into the open ocean?


----------



## Macfury

Mark, are you serious? The scale of what you're suggesting is preposterous. It's like believing that whales can cause tidal waves.



CubaMark said:


> The cooling of the oceans wouldn't have anything to do with the massive new icebergs - you know, the huge ones - that have broken off Antarctica in recent years and moved into the open ocean?


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> The cooling of the oceans wouldn't have anything to do with the massive new icebergs - you know, the huge ones - that have broken off Antarctica in recent years and moved into the open ocean?


Once again, your slip is showing.

Kevin Trenberth claims that the "missing heat" from the atmosphere has somehow passed down through the water column withut a trace and is now warming the deep ocean. This research questions that assumption.

As to your question? Unequivocally, no.

And, just in case you haven't figgered it out yet, the only time to worry about icebergs is when they are no longer being calved from glaciers. That will indicate the onset of the next ice age...


----------



## FeXL

Sea Ice News Volume 5 Number 4 – Are polar satellite sea ice sensors going wonky?



> It makes me wonder just how good these estimates of sea ice are; what else awaits discovery?
> 
> *I wish they’d exhibit the same investigative zeal when it comes to looking at Arctic sea ice record low extents*, for all we know, the 2007 low extent might also be a victim of the same algorithm shift that occurred that year.
> 
> But you see, _confirmation bias_ prevents such investigations, they expect the Arctic to be low, so they only looked at the Antarctic where there’s _more ice than there is supposed to be._ To paraphrase their viewpoint on it: “it didn’t look right”.


Emphasis from the original.

Excellent observation from the comments:



> Arctic sea ice extents is right at a -2 std deviations below its declared average for this date. Antarctic sea ice extents right at the +2 std deviations for today’s date. BUT! Antarctic sea ice is gaining now – rising towards its yearly maxim,um between mid-September and early October. So a 2 std deviation area from an average of 13.0 Mkm^2 at latitude 62 – 61 south is MUCH more important than a -2 std deviation at latitude 78-79 up in the Arctic from a Arctic area of 3 – 4 Mkm^2 at ALL dates of the year between mid-August through early April.
> 
> Thus, in calculating reflected solar energy, for 7 months of the year, Antarctic sea ice – which for 5 years has been increasing steadily – dominates the solar energy balance. For only a short 5 months of the year does the Arctic get more energy than the Antarctic.
> 
> In fact, when the Antarctic is at its maximum in mid-September, and the Arctic sea ice at its minimum, the edge of the Antarctic sea is getting FIVE TIMES the solar energy than the edge of the Arctic sea ice. Increase the Antarctic sea ice by 1.0 million sq km’s in September? You would have to delete ALL of the Arctic sea ice to get the same apparent solar energy. But that cannot happen: There isn’t 5.0 Mkm^2 of Arctic sea ice to melt!
> 
> But that’s NOT the message that Meiers wants released to his obedient minions in the well-paid highly-funded official government propaganda machine.


Anthony refers to a press release in the article. Link included below:

Claim: Antartica record high sea ice partially an artifact of an algorithm



> “This implies that the Antarctic sea ice trends reported in the IPCC’s AR4 and AR5 [the 2007 and 2013 assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] can’t both be correct: *our findings show that the data used in one of the reports contains a significant error. But we have not yet been able to identify which one contains the error*,” says lead-author Ian Eisenman of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego in the US.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

It's interesting (and entertaining) how all the science on the topic of global warming has been settled for years, yet they still clutch at straws to explain the pause.

Now, according to Shaun Lovejoy, it's natcheral variation...

Claim: natural variation ‘masked’ global warming, creating ‘the pause’

From the comments:



> So we’re kinda going full circle here.
> 
> Before the pause sank its roots deep into the data, skeptics pointed out that the warming we were seeing was well within natural variability. We were poo pooed as complete morons by climate “scientists” who insisted that natural variability was far to small to account for the anthropegenic warming signal being measured. Now they wish to argue that, in fact, natural variability is large enough to not only swamp the anthropogenic signal, but large enough to do so for 15+ years.
> 
> Given that the earth has been warming since the LIA, some 300 to 400 years, I see no reason why we should expect anything different for the next few hundred years. Fact is though, that should warming return, natural variability can’t be discounted as too small to cause it, because they’ve just stipulated that it must be large enough to explain the pause.
> 
> They can only flip flop so often. I am constantly shocked at how often, but there has to be an end to it at some point. I think.


Lovejoy, Lovejoy, that sounds soooo familiar...

(two links there...)


----------



## FeXL

It just won't die...

Mann’s Hockey Stick Goes Zombie



> Yesterday’s Daily Mail carried an article about a simulation of the climate consequences of nuclear war. The paper Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict is not paywalled gives the usual horror stories (nuclear winter, crop failures, etc.).
> 
> What caught my eye was this idea intellectual relic found in both the Daily Mail article and here quoted from the abstract of itself.
> 
> Our calculations show that global ozone losses of 20%–50% over populated areas, levels unprecedented in human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years
> .
> *1000 years would be 1014, during the Medieval Climate optimum. Digging deeper we find that, indeed, Michael Mann’s discredited hockey stick is the zombie reference for this claim.*


M'bold.

Again, from the comments:



> Science has nothing to do with the odd practice of climatology. It’s not so much fraud as much as a social science agenda masquerading as physical science. It’s not even in the same ball park as hard emperical science. Enter psychologist Lewandowsky featured on a climate model paper this week. It’s no different in scope or kind from the last hundred years of an upside down toilet as being the pinnacle of fine art. It’s not about climate. *It’s about destroying the authority of objective facts and intuition in favor of the purely arbitrary power of state sponsored facts.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another post questioning the veracity of the temperature record.

GIStemp – who needs Antarctic data or temps near ice.



> The big lumps are just that the source code is out of date, the data looks like it is missing a chunk from ‘down south’, and in 2011 the code was modified to avoid water temps from near ice. One can only wonder what possible rationalization could exist for that change. IMHO, it is totally unwarranted by any means. Might as well just start dropping any thermometers in cold places…


----------



## FeXL

In the Real World, Accuracy Counts



> I received a notice of new publications today, and along with it a graphic linking to yet another Antarctic doom paper. In it, the link uses the flawed Steig 09 temperature plot of the Antarctic taken from the cover of Nature. A particularly interesting choice considering that GRL published the corrected version (our paper), and Nature carried the flawed version proudly displayed right on its cover.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm. Very interesting...

New paper finds a decrease of sunshine in Iran since 2000. A cause of the 'pause'?



> A paper published today in the International Journal of Climatology finds dimming of sunshine occurred in Iran from the early 1960's to late 1970's [during the 1970's ice age scare], followed by sunshine brightening from the early 1980's through the end of the 20th century [in alignment with global warming], and a renewed dimming during the 2000's [in alignment with the 'pause' of global warming].


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> For a better understanding of multidecadal climate change, as well as for the production of solar power, there is a growing need for knowledge of the trends in incident sunlight at the Earth's surface, but a lack of a long-term sunlight time series dictates that a proxy measure is needed. In this study, variations of sunshine duration and diurnal temperature range (DTR) are used as proxies for surface solar radiation. Annual and seasonal composites of both variables from 29 stations are analyzed from 1961 through 2009 across the different types of climates of Iran. *The annual sunshine duration mean time series shows a decrease from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, in line with the widespread dimming of surface solar radiation observed during this period. By the early 1980s, there is an increase in sunshine through the end of the 20th century, aligning with a well-known and well-documented brightening period. In addition, a renewed dimming is observed during the 2000s, with a sharp drop in 2009.* A linear trend estimated over the 1961–2009 period was not found to be statistically significant. However, the annual DTR [daily temperature range] time series shows a widespread and statistically significant decrease since the 1960s, although the series ends without relevant variations after the 1990s. An agreement in the interannual variability of sunshine and DTR is observed except for the summer season. On decadal time scales, only the spring DTR series shows a partial agreement with sunshine series. Nevertheless, the recent leveling off in the DTR series supports a transition in the radiative regime.


Bold from first link.

Related (caution: models used):

New paper finds 23% of warming in Europe since 1980 due to clean air laws reducing sulfur dioxide 



> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that clean air laws which greatly reduced sulfur dioxide emissions explain 81% of the "brightening" of sunshine and 23% of the surface warming in Europe since 1980. However, the authors note "this phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Since the 1980s anthropogenic aerosols have been considerably reduced in Europe and the Mediterranean area. This decrease is often considered as the likely cause of the brightening effect observed over the same period. This phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models*. Here we use an original approach based on reanalysis-driven coupled regional climate system modelling, to show that *aerosol changes explain 81 ± 16 per cent of the brightening and 23 ± 5 per cent of the surface warming simulated for the period 1980–2012 over Europe.* The direct aerosol effect is found to dominate in the magnitude of the simulated brightening. The comparison between regional simulations and homogenized ground-based observations reveals that *observed surface solar radiation, as well as land and sea surface temperature spatio-temporal variations over the Euro-Mediterranean region are only reproduced when simulations include the realistic aerosol variations.*


----------



## FeXL

Further on explaining away Antarctic sea ice increases.

Of mountains, molehills, and noisy bumps in the sea-ice record



> One of global warming’s “novelties” is that satellite measurements show the extent of ice surrounding Antarctica is growing significantly, something not anticipated by our vaunted climate models.
> 
> Thomas Kuhn would predict “resistance”, and today we see yet another verification of how stubborn science can be in the face of results don’t comport with the reigning paradigm. *The paradigm, in this case, is that our climate models are always right and any counterfactuals are because something is wrong with the data, rather than with the predictions.*


Bingo. If the data doesn't fit the models, change the data...

Edit.

The large increase in Antarctic sea ice since 2002 is real 



> A new paper is being spun by warmists as debunking the recent record highs in Antarctic sea ice. According to the authors, a change in satellite sensors in December 1991 led to a "significant error" in either the data prior to 12/91 or the data after 12/91, but they don't know which one. It's also curious that this "significant error" occurred 23 years ago, but was not found until Antarctic sea ice hit all-time record highs, and that they don't know whether the data since 12/91 is erroneous or not.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

Whatever it is, is keeps on getting lower & lower...

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 levels is only about 1C



> A new paper published in Ecological Modelling finds climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentrations is significantly lower than estimates from the IPCC and climate models which “utilize uncertain historical data and make various assumptions about forcings.” The author instead uses a ‘minimal model’ with the fewest possible assumptions and least data uncertainty to derive a transient climate sensitivity of only 1.093C


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Climate sensitivity summarizes the net effect of a change in forcing on Earth's surface temperature. Estimates based on energy balance calculations give generally lower values for sensitivity (< 2 °C per doubling of forcing) than those based on general circulation models, but utilize uncertain historical data and make various assumptions about forcings. A minimal model was used that has the fewest possible assumptions and the least data uncertainty. Using only the historical surface temperature record, the periodic temperature oscillations often associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation were estimated and subtracted from the surface temperature data, leaving a linear warming trend identified as an anthropogenic signal. This estimated rate of warming was related to the fraction of a log CO2 doubling from 1959 to 2013 to give an estimated transient sensitivity of 1.093 °C (0.96–1.23 °C 95% confidence limits) and equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.99 °C (1.75–2.23 °C). It is argued that higher estimates derived from climate models are incorrect because they disagree with empirical estimates.


Link to same paper, posted here for the comments:

New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 1°C


----------



## FeXL

When they fight amongst themselves, you don't interrupt.

Greens go by air: Internal food fight over excutive response to airplane travel at Greenpeace – firings demanded



> An entertaining row has emerged over the behavior of the director of Greenpeace International Program, Pascal Husting, and the Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo. It seems they are both are in hot water over airplanes and the troops are sending angry letters, like the one I have below.
> 
> Husting was criticized for living in Luxemburg and travelling to his Greenpeace office in Amsterdam by the dreaded evil airplane, like the one above that is causing a “climate emergency”. Even the Guardian took Greenpeace to task for it.


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

US Naval Research Lab models atmospheric temperatures without using CO2



> Interesting, the US Naval Research Laboratory's empirical, global model of the Earth’s atmospheric temperature profile from ground to space is based only upon atmospheric mass densities, solar flux, and molecular composition sans CO2, with no input or consideration of CO2 levels or CO2 'radiative forcing'. Could it possibly be that atmospheric mass, pressure, gravity and solar flux determine the temperature profile of the atmosphere, not radiative forcing from CO2?


More:



> Added: see also the model documentation here, which shows assumptions for the molecular composition of the atmosphere including O3, N2O, O2, Ar, H2O, and N2, but *no mention of CO2 anywhere.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

More On The NOAA June Fraud



> NOAA says that June was the hottest month in Earth’s history, despite the fact that
> 
> 1. Satellite temperatures showed it wasn’t even close to hottest. NOAA failed to mention this in their press release, even though they are obviously aware of it.
> 2. The amount of sea ice on Earth in June was the highest in decades
> 3. Parts of Antarctica had their coldest June on record
> 4. The Arctic north of 80N was below normal temperature every day in June, and was first or second coldest on record.
> 
> NOAA is attempting to defraud the public, and should be held accountable.


Save the comments, that's the whole article.


----------



## FeXL

In 1950, they knew the MWP was warmer than today. Why don't they know that same fact in 2014?

Greenland Was Much Warmer During The MWP


----------



## FeXL

Two on the same topic, two days apart.

Arctic Approaches Ten Year Summer Sea Ice Maximum

Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Summer Decadal Maximum



> Antarctic sea ice is near an all-time record maximum for the date, and Arctic sea ice extent is also the highest in a decade for July 25.
> 
> ...
> 
> The weather has been very cold in the high Arctic, and it is possible that 15% ice extent will approach or cross the 1979-2000 median line in a few days


Related:

Sea Ice Update July 22 2014 – Antarctica Sets Another Daily Record 

As of July 22:



> A quick update for sea ice extent for day 202 of 2014
> 
> * Global Sea Ice Extent is -246,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 23 for the day.
> * Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,020,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 1 for the day.
> * Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -1,267,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 31 for the day.


----------



## FeXL

Joe Bastardi: Media Just ‘Want to Be Popular’ on Climate Change



> In an interview with the MRC’s Business and Media Institute, well-known meteorologist Joe Bastardi dissected and criticized major aspects of the climate change alarmism movement. *Drawing on his knowledge of weather and climate history, Bastardi said that “extreme weather” events the media talk about so much are commonplace and the result of normal variability.* He also attacked basic arguments about CO2, scientific consensus and alarmist media bias.
> 
> Bastardi contended that climate alarmism is “ludicrous” and “not about science.” He didn’t mince words, blasting climate alarmists as living in a “loony world.” He also criticized news media that “simply follow what the majority thinks because they want to be popular” instead of understanding the issue.


Further:



> Bastardi specializes in understanding the history of weather and climate and said he used this understanding to accurately predict both Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Arthur ahead of official warnings. In contrast, he said alarmists “don’t know what happened yesterday” or “know anything about what happened in the past.”
> 
> *As Bastardi pointed out, he has to make accurate predictions in order to be paid and has no political motivation.*


All bold mine.

Too bad warmists didn't get paid only when they were correct...


----------



## FeXL

Summer Of 1936 Obliterated All Other Summers For Record Heat



> The graph below shows the numbers of USHCN stations which set or tied their all-time record for record heat, per year.
> 
> Note that NCDC’s fake record hot summer of 2012 didn’t even rank in the top 30. There is no time bias to this graph. If 2012 matched 1936, both years would be counted.
> 
> BTW – all-time record temperatures can not be explained away using TOBS – even by the worst climate crooks.


Hot Weather In The US Peaked At 310 PPM CO2



> The frequency of 100 degree days in the US peaked just below 310 PPM CO2, and has been declining as CO2 has increased. There is absolutely no correlation between hot weather and increasing CO2.


----------



## FeXL

Good essay by Tim Ball.

Climate Science; Winning The Science Battle, But Losing the Policy War



> So-called climate skeptics, practicing proper science by disproving the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming, achieved a great deal. This, despite harassment by formal science agencies, like the Royal Society, and deliberate neglect by the mainstream media. It combined with an active and deliberate Public Relations campaign, designed to mislead and confuse. Most people and politicians understand little of what is going on so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) strategy of using created science for a political agenda moves ahead.


----------



## FeXL

New paper out. XX)

New Paper by McKitrick and Vogelsang comparing models and observations in the tropical troposphere



> This is a guest post by Ross McKitrick. Tim Vogelsang and I have a new paper comparing climate models and observations over a 55-year span (1958-2012) in the tropical troposphere. Among other things we show that climate models are inconsistent with the HadAT, RICH and RAOBCORE weather balloon series. In a nutshell, the models not only predict far too much warming, but they potentially get the nature of the change wrong. The models portray a relatively smooth upward trend over the whole span, while the data exhibit a single jump in the late 1970s, with no statistically significant trend either side.


They sum:



> Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step-change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. In my opinion the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels.


Link to the paper at WUWT for the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper out.

Why the models fail: New paper finds the climate to be 'highly nonlinear'



> A paper published today in Science finds "the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere."


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change.* New multidecadal-resolution foraminiferal oxygen isotope records from the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reveal sudden shifts between intervals of synchroneity and asynchroneity with the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGRIP) δ18O record over the past 18,000 years. Synchronization of these regions occurred 15,500 to 11,000 years ago, just prior to and throughout the most abrupt climate transitions of the last 20,000 years, suggesting that dynamic coupling of North Pacific and North Atlantic climates may lead to critical transitions in Earth’s climate system.


Bold from first link.

Once again, a link to WUWT for the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper out. XX)

New paper finds climate models unable to simulate the Holocene Climate Optimum & subsequent cooling



> A paper under discussion for Climate of the Past finds climate models are unable to simulate the mid-Holocene Climate Optimum from ~4-6 thousand years ago when global temperatures were naturally 2-3C higher than the present. The models are also unable to simulate the gradual cooling from the Holocene Climate Optimum to the Little Ice Age and pre-industrial temperatures.
> 
> According to the authors,
> 
> _ "The model does not capture the mid-Holocene "thermal maximum" and gradual cooling to pre-industrial global temperature found in the data."_​
> *If climate models are unable to simulate the Holocene Climate Optimum, Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, and little Little Ice Age over the past 4,000 years, how can they possibly be relied upon to simulate the Current Warm Period or to distinguish natural variability from anthropogenic?*


How, indeed.

Abstract (open access)



> We apply GENMOM, a coupled atmosphere–ocean climate model, to simulate eight equilibrium "time-segments" at 3000 yr intervals for the past 21 000 years forced by changes in Earth-Sun geometry, atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), continental ice sheets and sea level. Simulated global cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is 3.8 °C and the rate of post-glacial warming is in overall agreement with recently published temperature reconstructions. The greatest rate of warming occurs between 15 and 12 ka (2.4 °C over land, 0.7 °C over oceans and 1.4 °C globally) in response to changes in radiative forcing from the diminished extent of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) ice sheets and increases in GHGs and NH summer insolation. The modeled LGM and 6 ka temperature and precipitation climatologies are generally consistent with proxy reconstructions, the PMIP2 and PMIP3 simulations, and other paleoclimate data-model analyses. *The model does not capture the mid-Holocene "thermal maximum" and gradual cooling to pre-industrial global temperature found in the data.* Simulated monsoonal precipitation in North Africa peaks between 12 and 9 ka at values ~ 50% greater than those of the PI, and Indian monsoonal precipitation peaks at 12 and 9 ka at values ~ 45% greater than the PI. GENMOM captures the reconstructed LGM extent of NH and Southern Hemisphere (SH) sea ice. The simulated present-day Antarctica Circumpolar Current (ACC) is ~ 48% weaker than observed (62 vs. 119 Sv). The simulated present-day Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) of 19.3 ± 1.4 Sv on the Bermuda Rise (33° N) is comparable with the observed value of 17.4 Sv. AMOC at 33° N is reduced by ~ 15% during the LGM, and the largest post-glacial increase (~ 11%) occurs, unforced, during the 15 ka time slice.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, another paper out from our bud, Matthew England. The ink is barely dry on his last opus & he already has a new one out, completely contradicting what his last one concluded. Oh, XX)

New excuse for the 'pause': Negative phase of the natural Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation



> Matthew "say anything" England is back with a new paper which offers yet another excuse for the 17+ year pause in global warming: the negative phase of the natural Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) [excuse #14 by my count].
> 
> The paper comes hot on the heels of another paper by England et al claiming that the 'pause' was due to an entirely different mechanism of strengthened Pacific trade winds, but which was readily debunked by skeptics and apparently not even believed by England himself anymore as he now claims
> 
> _"We further demonstrate that most non-volcanic hiatuses across CMIP5 models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative [Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation] IPO phase."_​


Link to abstract, paywalled paper inside, if you really want them.

From the comments:



> *I'm glad Dr England has recognised the effect of the PDO.
> 
> Now he has found the PDO downswing explains the 'pause' perhaps he will determine how much the PDO upswing from 1970-2000 contributed to the rise in temperature during those years.*
> 
> I'll help him out. Nearly 70%.
> 
> Which was therefore not due to CO2.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

NOAA claim that May and June 2014 were hottest evah for our globe



> Of course NOAA is quoting weather station data assembled by the GHCN latest effort where most sites are in urban heat islands and then they impose zillions of blithering warming adjustments to increase the warming.
> So let’s see what the satellites say for the lower troposphere – two systems – RSS and UAH.
> 
> ...
> 
> Bad luck NOAA – both satellite systems – RSS and UAH agree there were previous hotter Mays and Junes and even the May-June 2014 combo does not fly in 2010 and 1998.
> I know what data I would have more confidence in.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Another from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

We've all heard about the hot temperatures over the course of the last year, how about the cold ones?

NOAA – 28,504 Low Max Records Set in Last 365 Days 



> 28,504 Low Max Records were set in last 365 days according to the NOAA.
> 
> A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been.
> 
> This indicates daytime cooling.
> 
> Only 13205 High Max records were set. That is over a 2:1 ratio. Brrr.


All this despite temperature record "adjustments" to the high end.


----------



## FeXL

Get rid of the rogue EPA and pointless “climate” policies. Governments can’t change the weather.



> One day people will marvel that turn of the century governments thought they could control the climate, and needed to issue decrees about how much “change” in the weather they would allow.
> 
> From different continents come two articles with a similar theme. It’s time to dump the EPA and pointless “Climate” policies.


No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

The mystery of cooling deep ocean, volcanoes, and missing heat



> All roads lead to the ocean. This time, though, we’re talking about the mysterious deep abyss, below 2,000m and even below 3,600m. Wunsch et al, claim the data shows the deep ocean cooled by one hundredth of a degree in the last 19 years. But they admit that really… this could just be noise. (Well, shock me.) But they have some new and glorious heat maps, and I use those to do some wild speculation about volcanoes.


Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

NASA’s Finest Are Climate Skeptics



> *Unlike the pathetic little weasels at GISS, NASA’s finest are climate skeptics*.
> 
> _To the long list of right-wing, knuckle-dragging know nothings who dare question so-called “global warming,” environmentalists now can add six Apollo astronauts, two rocket men who flew aboard Skylab, and a pair of former directors of the Johnson Space Center (JSC).
> 
> These veterans of America’s space program are among the 49 retired NASA employees who recently asked the space agency to halt what they consider its unscientific advocacy of climate alarmism._​


M'bold.

How do you really feel, Steven?


----------



## FeXL

Not just the temperature record?

Data Tampering With Sea Level



> Not only is satellite sea level rise much faster than tide gauges, but it is also much faster than older satellite sea level.


----------



## FeXL

Video summary of the Heartland #ICCC9 conference – plus a look at the “big oil” connection



> This short video (4:30) was shot and edited by videographer Paul Budline from New Jersey, and it encapsulates short clips from many of the speakers at the conference. It is a good summary and worth your time. There’s a bit of a “Friday Funny” on “big oil” that follows too.


----------



## FeXL

So, recall the story about high school Physics teacher Christopher Keating offering $30K to disprove CAGW? I called BS because of trying to prove a negative?

Further...

Taking Keating’s $30,000 skeptic challenge seriously, part 1



> At first glance retired physics teacher Christopher Keating’s challenge appears to be an obvious bait and switch. It opens as an invitation to “global warming skeptics” who charge that “the science doesn’t support claims of man-made climate change.” The central “claim of man-made climate change” is the IPCC’s assertion in AR5 that: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (AR5 WGI SPM p. 17, upped from “very likely” in AR4 and “likely” in the Third Area Report). So wait a minute. All we have to do is demonstrate that this assertion of great certainty that human activity caused most late 20th century warming is clearly unsupported by the available reason and evidence and Keating will give us $30,000?


Taking Keating seriously part 2: the IPCC’s human-attribution claim is prima facie unscientific

Much in the comments of both.

Part 3 is in the pipe.


----------



## FeXL

Good read.

Solar Cycle Driven Ocean Temperature Variations



> On May 3, 2014, an article on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach entitled, The Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) was posted. As he noted, the amplitude of the Slow Fourier Transform components are in the same units as the fitted data, intervals of arbitrary length and irregular data can be used and periodicities rather than frequencies are automatically extracted. In addition to rediscovering a very useful mathematical tool, Willis went on to show that there were apparently no variations of temperature associated with solar cycle variations for several long term temperature records. Now my normal inclination would be to say that if Willis didn’t find any there probably aren’t many to be found. But, on the other hand, as I showed in an October 10, 2013 WUWT article entitled The Sun Does It: Now Go Figure Out How!, it does not take much of a temperature variation to represent a very significant solar contribution to ocean surface temperatures and heat content.


Again, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Well, the warmist's wet dream of a temperature increase from a naturally occurring El Nino that they can transform into support for AGW may be slipping away.

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 14 – Warm Water Recirculated?



> There may still be a chance for an El Niño during the 2014/15 ENSO season. A new “pocket” of warm subsurface water has formed in the western equatorial Pacific. See the note in the page from the most-recent NOAA Weekly ENSO Update to the right. (Please click on illustration for full-sized image.) In their update, NOAA also makes note of that anomaly during their discussion of the Hovmoller on their page 15. That subsurface temperature anomaly appears to have been caused by the recirculation of warm water from the earlier downwelling (warm) Kevin wave, not by another westerly wind burst. Come along, I’ll show you.


----------



## FeXL

NOAA’s own trend calculator helps confirm ‘the pause’ and lack of ocean warming in the 21st century



> It seems to me that our current “pause” might simply be that we are at the top of that sine wave I see, and that we might actually see some cooling ahead, assuming it isn’t all adjusted away by the next “improvement” from NCDC.
> 
> I’ll leave you all to the squabble which will surely follow.


Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Language warning.

Quote of the week – the last word on ’97% consensus’, now in a bumper sticker



> Over at Scientific American, a place that isn’t hardly Scientific, nor American anymore (its owned by Germans IIRC) there’s a big row over Cook’s shoddy “97% consensus” paper in comments, mainly due to some pertinent ones asking some tough questions being deleted wholesale. SciAm is now citing policy as the reason.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Cook & U of Queensland.

Cook’s Fake Ethics Approval



> For over a year, John Cook and the University of Queensland have repeatedly refused Richard Tol’s requests for information on rater ID and timestamps for the SKS ratings for Cook et al 2013. Recently there have been two events that shed new light on the dispute. First, in mid-May Brandon Shollenberger located the requested information online without password protection, which he placed online a few days ago. The new information shows that the majority of ratings were done by coauthors and nearly all ratings were done by coauthors and named acknowledgees, rather than by anonymous volunteers. Second, Simon Turnill received an FOI response from the University, that showed that the University did not make ANY confidentiality agreements with SKS raters. More surprisingly, Cook had done the SKS ratings program without submitting an ethics application for this program or obtaining ethics approval. Previously, both Cook and the University of Queensland had made public statements referring to “ethical approval” and confidentiality agreements. Each of these statements is, at best, misleading, especially when parsed in the light of this new information, as Brandon has done.


----------



## FeXL

Love those career-ending moments of candor...

EPA Admits to Senate that CO2 Regs Not About Pollution Control



> On Wednesday, before the Senate EPW Committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had this priceless quote regarding the EPA’s proposed carbon dioxide regulations (italics added):
> 
> _*“And the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants…It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”*_​
> Mmm hmmm. Kind of like investment in Solyndra? Or Tesla?


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent July 25 2014 – Obliterates Daily Record By 500,000 sq km



> Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,131,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
> 
> That obliterates the previous daily record by 500,000 sq km. And is also the 127th daily record for the year.


But, but, but...the ARCTIC!!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

If you can get past all the freaking ads, further on McKitrick's model analysis.

Study: Climate Models Overestimated Global Warming For The Last 55 Years



> What this means is that tropical tropospheric temperatures were relatively flat before the late 1970s. Then, around 1977, temperatures jumped up slightly in a phenomenon called the Pacific Climate Shift. But after the climate shift, temperatures flattened out once again, showing little to no warming trend.


----------



## FeXL

Berkeley Mirth



> Fake skeptic Richard Muller convinced the Koch Brothers to give him money, so that he could generate a fake temperature graph, pretend it had converted him from a skeptic to an alarmist, and then achieve fame through his fake global warming narrative.
> 
> Satellites show there has been no warming over the global land surface for the past 15 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yet Muller’s group shows the land surface warming at a rate of about 3C/century during that same period.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

No 100 Degree Readings In The Midwest This Summer



> There have been no 100 degree temperatures reported in the midwest this summer. Climate Central defines the midwest as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.
> 
> One hundred degree days used to be very common in the midwest, and during the summer of 1936 almost 20% of afternoons were over 100 degrees.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, about that "settled" science...

A Very Unsettled Science: Just a few of the most urgent unsolved questions in climate science 



> A recent paper published in Frontiers in Earth Science briefly describes twelve of the "grand challenges" in atmospheric research over the next several years. According to the author, this "non-exhaustive" list only mentions "a few of the most urgent unsolved questions and naturally remains incomplete."


----------



## FeXL

Rate Of Climate Change and Rate of Adaptation Deliberately Distorted



> Climate changes significantly all the time. Those who point this out are considered more dangerous than global warming skeptics. Perversely and incorrectly, they are called climate change deniers, with its holocaust connotations. However, even a brief examination of the historic record shows how much climate changes naturally. This information is reaching the public and reducing people’s fear and is encouraging questions.


Further (very interesting):



> Hearne’s observations fit the climate record. The tree line advanced during the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) then retreated in the cooling to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Hearne describes this with his comment that this is “proof that the cold has been increasing in those parts for some ages”. It has warmed since Hearne’s time and the tree line has advanced with a pattern of movement appropriate for the general circulation of the region.


The paragraphs surrounding that quote should be required reading for every warmist who shouts from the rooftop about moving tree lines.


----------



## FeXL

Well, time to get this thread back on the first page...

First, from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1



> The biggest gainer this year has been the category of “Record Low Tmax”, seen at the far right, with 19,593 records set this year. What that means is that generally, temperatures have not been reaching the normally expected daytime highs, and so the Tmax is the lowest it has ever been for that day.


Further:

NOAA – 114 Low Max Records Broken and 51 Tied From Aug 25 to Aug 31.



> Some records broken by 11F


----------



## FeXL

Here's a rhetorical question for you.

Are Opinions on Climate Change Related to Dependency on Government Money?



> In our post last week titled “Climate Alarmism: When is this Bozo Going Down?” we described how new research increasingly casts doubt on the validity of climate models and their projections of future climate change. It is increasing clear that climate models simply predict too much warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> But the scientific community, or at least that part of it which makes its living off climate alarm, is slow to accept this.
> 
> Who can blame these folks? More money flows from the government into universities (or government labs) to study the effects of climate change if we all agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate change of a dangerous magnitude.
> 
> *So it is left to the emeritus or retired profs to lay bare the truth.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting. Satellite data from the 60's & 70's has been "rediscovered" & it sheds some illumination on the state of climate change since then.

Latest BS From The Team



> The Nimbus satellites, originally intended to monitor Earth’s clouds in visible and infrared wavelengths, also would have captured images of sea ice, researchers at the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center realized when they heard about the long-lost film canisters in 2009.


Steven is a _little_ less charitable:



> What a load of BS. The IPCC knew about this data in 1990, and they reported that ice extent was much lower in 1974 than in 1979.


More on that satellite data:

1960’s satellite imagery of polar ice discovers “enormous holes” in the sea ice



> *In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.
> 
> “And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

The Global Warming Scam Was Explained Almost 20 Years Ago



> Bookmark this classic 1995 article in the Canberra Times. This guy had the entire scam nailed from day one.


The article notes:



> *To blame the increase in carbon dioxide level for this alleged slight temperature increase seems to be a piece of poor scientific judgment that only a large committee could achieve.
> 
> ...
> 
> Barrett points out with some glee that much of conventional opinion 15 years ago, using similar data, was predicting the earth was heading for a new ice age.*


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

When the data doesn't fit your theory, change the data...

Past temperature in Greenland adjusted to fit new theory



> “We could see that the concentration of carbon dioxide and solar radiation was higher during the cold period between the two warm periods compared with the cold period before the first warming 15,000 years ago. But the temperature measurements based on the oxygen isotope O18 showed that the period between the two warm periods was colder than the cold period before the first warming 15,000 years ago. This was the exact opposite of what you would expect,” explains postdoc Vasileios Gkinis, Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.


Interesting. O18 works fine as a proxy the world over, but not in Greenland.

Gotcha. 

Niels Bohr is rolling over in his grave...


----------



## FeXL

Because China's government is so...superior.

The Australian Government Broadcaster asks if we should ditch Democracy to ensure a climate change response



> “Is it democracy that is blocking progress on climate change or the current limited version of it that pervades Western society?” pretty much sums up the rest of the article, which spends several paragraphs praising authoritarianism..."


----------



## FeXL

Slowly but surely...

Pittsburgh Tribune editorial calls the IPCC ‘climate-clucking Chicken Littles’



> The world’s loudest climate-clucking Chicken Littles foresee grain harvests diminishing, Greenland’s ice sheet melting, sea levels rising and extreme weather increasing. And there’s less time than ever to head off disaster by submitting to IPCC orthodoxy.
> 
> But even the loudest clucking can’t drown out contrary facts. U.S. temperatures haven’t risen in a decade. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Prior warming was within natural variability. The IPCC’s main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, isn’t a pollutant. And humanity’s climate impact is negligible, so top-down “solutions” are pointless and economically harmful, as shown by Australia repealing its carbon tax in favor of voluntary clean-energy incentives.


----------



## FeXL

Dayum. If I'da knowed Mikey was in the 'hood, I'da jumped on the back of the Hawg, rode down & introduced myself... 

Awww… Mike Mann’s summer vacation was ruined by the ‘spectre of climate change’

I may have even been in Kalispell that week.


----------



## FeXL

There's a surprise...

Oops! Obama administration dietary recommendations may be tied to increased greenhouse gas emissions



> From the University of Michigan, everything you eat is bad for GHG’s apparently, so only eat what the government says. Oh, wait.


More:



> If Americans altered their menus to conform to federal dietary recommendations, emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases tied to agricultural production could increase significantly, according to a new study by University of Michigan researchers.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, SS is at it again. 97 hours of BS...

Monday mirthiness – 97 hours, 97 opinions, 97% consensus, 100% cartooned climate science



> The latest propaganda stunt from the Skeptical Science Kidz is underway and it is about as exciting as it is predictable. Every hour, a new opinion is revealed along with a cartoon climate scientist caricature drawn by former cartoonist turned “climate expert” John Cook. Our resident cartoonist, Josh, has different ideas on that. The first cartoon character of the “97 hours of consensus” was Mike Mann, who seems to think that “recent warming does appear to be _unprecedented_ as far back as we can go”.


Unprecedented must mean less than 700 years in the climate scientist lexicon...


----------



## FeXL

There's a bit too much hype in the title but it's an interesting read, nonetheless.

New data backs 'ice age' prediction



> A new study from Lund University in Sweden, published Aug. 17 in Nature Geoscience, has reconstructed solar activity during the last ice age, the last so-called “global maximum” extending from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago. Analysis of trace elements in ice cores in Greenland and from cave formations in China indicates the growth and melting of a thick ice sheet stretching from the Arctic to northern Germany were related to variations in the sun’s UV radiation output.


Despite what the next paragraph in the article notes, this is not news. However, correlation does not equal causation & the exact mechanism is not known. With the current sunspot maximum predictions at low counts, this may lead to a cooler spell for the next couple of decades.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's a surprise...

Ooops! First animal claimed extinct due to ‘climate change’ found ‘alive and well’



> A snail once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of climate change has reappeared in the wild.
> 
> The Aldabra banded snail, declared extinct seven years ago, was rediscovered on Aug. 23 in the Indian Ocean island nation of Seychelles. The mollusk, which is endemic to the Aldabra coral atoll — a UNESCO World Heritage Site — had not been seen on the islands since 1997, said the Seychelles Islands Foundation.
> 
> Conservationists are celebrating the banded snail’s reemergence.


Glad it was conservationists that found it & not warmists...


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's another surprise...

Paper finds drought 1100 years ago in southwest US was much more severe & extreme than any drought since



> A paper published in PNAS reconstructs droughts of the southwest US over the past 1,200 years and finds the natural drought ~ 1,100 years ago [during the low-CO2 Medieval Warm Period ~1,300 to ~900 years ago] was far more severe and longer lasting than any droughts since.
> 
> The paper also reconstructs solar activity and finds similar very high levels during the Medieval Warm Period as during the second half of the 20th century. Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period are also found to be almost the same as at the end of the 20th century.


Abstract (open access)



> A key feature of anticipated 21st century droughts in Southwest North America is the concurrence of elevated temperatures and increased aridity. Instrumental records and paleoclimatic evidence for past prolonged drought in the Southwest that coincide with elevated temperatures can be assessed to provide insights on temperature-drought relations and to develop worst-case scenarios for the future. In particular, during the medieval period, ∼AD 900–1300, the Northern Hemisphere experienced temperatures warmer than all but the most recent decades. Paleoclimatic and model data indicate increased temperatures in western North America of approximately 1 °C over the long-term mean. This was a period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America. *Paleoclimatic evidence suggests drought in the mid-12th century far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of subsequent droughts.* The driest decade of this drought was anomalously warm, though not as warm as the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The convergence of prolonged warming and arid conditions suggests the mid-12th century may serve as a conservative analogue for severe droughts that might occur in the future. The severity, extent, and persistence of the 12th century drought that occurred under natural climate variability, have important implications for water resource management. The causes of past and future drought will not be identical but warm droughts, inferred from paleoclimatic records, demonstrate the plausibility of extensive, severe droughts, provide a long-term perspective on the ongoing drought conditions in the Southwest, and suggest the need for regional sustainability planning for the future.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper shows why climate models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity to CO2



> A new paper published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society demonstrates why state-of-the-art climate models are a travesty of "parameterizations," a fancy word for "fudge factors," and are not based upon basic physics as commonly believed. Not only are the models not comprised of 'basic physics', they have been found to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The connection between the large-scale tropical circulation of the atmosphere, convective mixing, and climate sensitivity is explored in a wide range of climates through a perturbed-parameter ensemble of a comprehensive Earth-System Model. *Four parameters related to the representation of atmospheric moist convection are found to dominate the response of the model. Their values govern the strength of the tropical circulation, the surface temperature, atmospheric humidity, and the strength of the tropical overturning circulation, largely through their influence on the atmospheric stability. The same convective parameters, albeit in different combinations, also have a strong influence on the equilibrium climate sensitivity of the model, which ranges from a little over 3 ∘ C to more than 10 ∘ C. The importance of the most poorly represented processes in determining important aspects of the behavior of the model argues for the need to move beyond statistical approaches to estimating climate sensitivity and focusing on the development of a better understanding and representation of convective mixing, particularly in the tropics.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Just shaking my head...

Great moments in climate science: “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then”



> Oh this is hilarious. In a “Back To The Future” sort of moment, this press release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research claims they could have forecast “the pause”, if only they had the right tools back then.


So, they ran 262 model simulations and 10 lined up with a 5-7 year period. That's less than 4% correct...

From the comments.



> The great circles of climate science.
> 
> 1. Ignore an almost two decade long halt in any global warming.
> 2. For each year therein, insist it was warmer than the previous one.
> 3. Go back, retweak the parameters of your models to predict the pause.
> 4. Announce you’re still infallible.


And this:



> In other words, after the event they altered the model so its possible behaviour could be similar to what was observed. They then ran the model 262 times and of those 262 runs there were 10 which matched what happened in reality.
> 
> And, on the basis of that, Meehl asserts that “new decadal climate predictions show promise”.
> 
> *Can anybody please explain how having amended a computer program so it can sometimes agree with past climate behaviour is evidence that the amended program is more likely to indicate future climate behaviour?*


Bold from the link.

Unbelievable.

The scariest part of all? _Nature_ found enough credence in this glorified buttwipe to publish it...


----------



## FeXL

Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013 – but there’s still no warming



> While CO2 has increased to “record” levels, the pause in global temperature continues.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the 97% zombies.

The Climate Science Zombie Apocalypse is coming



> Now, with the call for civil disobedience to solve the mostly non-existent climate problem we have the “climate science zombie apocalypse”. This is sort of like “low information voters” except they’ll be emotional global warming zealots sans science but armed with brainless talking points. Meanwhile, Earth hasn’t gotten any warmer at the surface since 1995, or in the lower troposphere for a similar amount of time. A tweet from Barack Obama today along with a call for civil disobedience from Alternet shows us what to expect:


Civil disobedience? Well, I guess that makes their case then...


----------



## FeXL

Another paper with evidence supporting a Grand Minimum in the 21st century.

New paper predicts Dalton-like solar Grand Minimum by mid-21st century



> A paper published today in Advances in Space Research finds the current solar cycle has "an unprecedented solar minimum long duration 2006-2009 that led to a prolonged galactic cosmic ray (GCR) recovery to the highest level observed in the instrumental era." The authors believe a long-term decrease in solar activity is underway to a Dalton-like Grand Minimum in the middle of the 21st century.
> 
> _ "These happenings affected our empirical predictions for the key parameters for the next two sunspot cycles (they may be progressively less active than [current] sunspot cycle 24) but it enhanced support for our prediction that solar activity is descending into a Dalton-like grand minimum in the middle of the twentyfirst century"_​


Abstract (open access)



> *The descent of [current] sunspot cycle 23 to an unprecedented minimum of long duration in 2006–2009 led to a prolonged galactic cosmic ray (GCR) recovery to the highest level observed in the instrumental era* for a variety of energetic charged particle species on Earth, over a wide range of rigidities. The remarkable GCR increase measured by several ground-based, balloon-borne, and detectors on a satellite is described and discussed. *It is accompanied by a decrease in solar wind velocity and interplanetary magnetic field at 1 a.u., reaching the lowest values since measurements of the solar wind began in October 1963*; the solar polar field strength (μT) measured at the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) is also significantly reduced compared to prior cycles since the start of the program in 1976, the polar field in the northern hemisphere reversed in June 2012 and again in February 2014, that in the southern hemisphere reversed in July 2013. If updates of WSO data confirm the second reversal in northern solar hemisphere, it would pose a *serious challenge to the Dynamo Theory. The long-term change in solar behavior may have begun in 1992, perhaps earlier.* The physical underpinnings of these solar changes need to be understood and their effect on GCR modulation processes clarified. The study discusses the recent phenomena in the context of GCR modulation since 1900. *These happenings affected our empirical predictions for the key parameters for the next two sunspot cycles (they may be progressively less active than sunspot cycle 24) but it enhanced support for our prediction that solar activity is descending into a Dalton-like grand minimum in the middle of the twentyfirst century*, reducing the frequency of the coronal mass ejections; they determine the space weather affecting the quality of life on Earth, radiation dose for hardware and human activities in space as well as the frequency of large Forbush decreases at 1 a.u.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Debunking the latest UN climate propaganda



> A report released today from the UN World Meteorological Organization makes multiple false propaganda statements about radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, ocean 'acidification', extreme weather, CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere, that climate science is the "laws of physics which are non-negotiable", that CO2 levels are "surging," and others, debunked below.


Are we still a member of this thing?


----------



## FeXL

Further on post 5275 above...

Scientists invent time-travelling models that “might have worked”



> Research shows surprise global warming ‘hiatus’ could have been forecast
> 
> [The Guardian] Australian and US climate experts say with new ocean-based modelling tools, the early 2000s warming slowdown was foreseeable.
> Australian and US researchers have shown that the slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s, known as a so-called “global warming hiatus”, could have been predicted if today’s tools for decade-by-decade climate forecasting had been available in the 1990s.


More:



> And I’ve got a model that would have predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the GFC, and the winner of the Melbourne Cup. What I would not have predicted is that lame excuses this transparent, would be made by people calling themselves scientists, Gerald Meehl, and repeated by people calling themselves journalists. (That’s you, Melissa Davey). Though I’m not surprised that research this weak had to be published by Nature. (Where else?)


----------



## FeXL

There's currently 52 excuses from warmists for"The Hiatus". So much for settled science...

Roy Spencer explains why the models got it wrong..

Water Vapor Feedback and the Global Warming Pause



> Global warming is the predicted result of increasing atmospheric CO2 causing a very small (~1-2%) decrease in the rate at which the Earth cools to outer space though infrared radiation. And the since temperature change of anything is always the result of net gains and losses of energy, a decrease in energy lost leads to warming.
> 
> The direct effect of that warming is only about 1 deg. C in the next 100 years, though (theoretically calculated, in response to an eventual doubling of CO2 late in this century). Climate models instead project 2 to 3 times as much warming as that, due to “positive feedbacks” in the climate system.
> 
> But the Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected by the global warming pundits and their positive feedbacks, especially in the tropics where deep moist convection dominates the atmosphere’s response to forcing.


----------



## FeXL

Want a good laugh? Read this crap from Ma Jones:

This Legendary Accounting Firm Just Ran the Numbers on Climate Change




> To curtail climate change, individual countries have made a variety of pledges to reduce their share of emissions, but taken together, those promises simply aren't enough. According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, "the gap between what we are doing and what we need to do has again grown, for the sixth year running." The report adds that at current rates, we're headed towards 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by the end of the century—*twice the agreed upon rate.*


M'bold.

Isn't twice nothing, nothing?

Wonder what their stake in this is...


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of those 52 excuses for "The Hiatus", here's a list:

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52


----------



## FeXL

So, American temperature records are not the only ones being manipulated to cool the past & warm the present.

The Australian BOM has also been caught with their eraser in hand and, as such, has put out a feeble excuse to CYA.

Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of “transparency” — too little, too late



> *Bottom line:* The BOM has added a page listing “Adjustments”. It’s two years late, inadequate and incomplete. Skeptics shouldn’t have had to ask for it in the first place, and we still don’t have the algorithms and codes, or rational answers to most questions. No one can replicate the mystery black box homogenisation methods of the BOM — and without replication, it isn’t science. There is still no explanation of why an excellent station like Rutherglen should change from cooling to warming, except for vague “statistics”, or why any station should be adjusted without documentary evidence, based on thermometers that might be 300 km away.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

The big chill comes early – record winter blast hits Northern Plains



> Massive early cold wave – Nearly an inch of snow at Rapid City. This is the earliest recorded snowfall going back to 1888.


More:

NOAA – 246 Low Max Records Broken or Tied From Sept 1 to Sept 10. Some records broken by 16F



> A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been. *This indicates daytime cooling.*


M'bold.

Related (from the south end of the planet):

New all-time satellite-era record for Antarctic sea ice extent

I know, I know. It's rotten ice...


----------



## FeXL

Further on those 52 excuses...

Friday Funny – 52 excuses to blow your carbon diet



> Celebrating over 50 Pause Excuses – our unique collection of fully grant fattening tasty morsels


Another Josh cartoon. He nails this one. Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

NASA also hiding that nasty post 1880 temperature decline.

A Double Shot Of Hiding The Decline At NASA



> "...a nice hockey stick caused no doubt by Grover Cleveland’s horse flatulence in the 1880’s"


----------



## FeXL

News & points you can use.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #149

First, among others:



> WMO – Omits Temperature Trends: In recent years, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has issued the “WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.” Generally, these are issued in November of the year. On September 9, the WMO issued a “Climate Summit edition” referring to the UN Climate Summit scheduled to be held in New York City, September 23, 2014. Some UN officials have declared the Climate Summit to be a “tipping point” meeting. If it is to be a “tipping point” meeting, it will be the abandonment of a key principle of science as expressed by Einstein in the Quote of the Week – Do not omit critical data.
> 
> *The WMO report omits any discussion of temperature trends.* There has been no significant warming trend in the atmosphere for over a decade, and no warming trend on the surface for about 17 years (Based on his statistical analysis, Ross McKitrck puts the periods of no atmospheric warming from 16 to 22 years.) The WMO is one of the parent organizations of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (The UN Environmental Programme is the other parent organization of the IPCC).


M'bold.

Why d'ya s'pose they don't wanna talk about the temperature trend...


----------



## FeXL

This is interesting.

Paper could explain why Mann had to "hide the decline" & relationship of solar activity to tree growth



> A paper published in New Phytologist finds "the growth of British spruce trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic rays arrive from space." The level of cosmic rays is in turn controlled by solar activity and the strength of the solar wind, which blocks cosmic rays from the Earth.


Explanatory article from BBC:

Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth

Summary (link to pdf)



> • Here, we investigated the interannual variation in the growth rings formed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) trees in northern Britain (55°N, 3°W) over the period 1961–2005 in an attempt to disentangle the influence of atmospheric variables acting at different times of year.
> • Annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. Correlations were based on Pearson product–moment correlation coeffi- cients between the annual growth anomaly and these climatic and atmospheric factors.
> • Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found. However, there was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover, there was an underlying periodicity in growth, with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation.
> •	We discuss the hypotheses that might explain this correlation: the tendency of galactic cosmic radiation to produce cloud condensation nuclei, which in turn increases the diffuse component of solar radiation, and thus increases the photo- synthesis of the forest canopy.


Further:



> The authors find
> 
> _"during a number of years, the trees' growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth's surface. When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster. The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.
> 
> *The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.
> 
> "The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible*," Ms Dengel told the BBC._​


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

What if they held a Climate Summit & nobody came?

Obama’s Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home



> The imminent climate summit in New York is rapidly turning into an utter embarrassment for President Obama and UN Secretary General Bank Ki-Moon, in addition to becoming a bit of a punishment round for national deputy leaders.


More:



> Of course, things would probably have been totally different, if the summit organisers had guaranteed that attendees would definitely not have to sit through any more boring climate presentations by former Vice President Al Gore.


Ha!

Related:

10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate



> Next Tuesday’s UN climate conference in NYC (called Climate Summit 2014) is for politicians, celebrities, and rent seekers. It’s not about climate science, nor Saving the Earth from “carbon emissions” of fossil fuels.


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon blinks, responds to WUWT story



> UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon today responded, to reports that a number of key world leaders would not be attending the upcoming climate summit in New York.
> 
> According to Ban,
> 
> “…even though the leaders from India, China and Russia will not be able to participate in the meeting, there are “other means of communications, ways and means of having their leadership demonstrated in the United Nations.”​
> *I suggest, Mr Moon, that you and President Obama are currently experiencing a sample of that “other means of communication” you mentioned.*


M'bold...


----------



## FeXL

So, just a _few_ links on temperature record "adjustments".

NASA GISS Tweaks the Short-Term Global Temperature Trend Upwards



> GISS released its August 2014 global surface temperature data today. As I was preparing the graphs for the August 2014 surface and lower troposphere temperature update, I noticed a sizeable jump in the short-term trend in the GISS data. (I’ll try to post the full update this evening.) The August GISS LOTI value is higher than July, but it should not have had that much of an effect on the trend for the period of January 1998 to present. Not too surprisingly, much of the increase in trend was caused by adjustments to data from 2000 to 2013.


A Closer Look At Record August Fraud From NASA



> August was cool in the US, western Europe, southern Asia, parts of Siberia, Australia, Africa, South America, Antarctica and the Arctic. It was the first or second coldest summer on record north of 80N.
> 
> *And NASA says it was the hottest August ever.*


M'bold.

August 2014 Is No Longer The Hottest On Record



> Yesterday, Gavin told the Huffington Post that August was the hottest on record globally. He seems to have changed his mind since then, because today his map shows August was cooler than 2011 by 0.02 degrees.


Gavin's "warmest August ever" shows 8°C to 12.6°C temperature anomaly differences over only 276 miles 



> This is today’s version of GISS divergence from RSS graph. Normally during El Nino the gap closes, because the atmosphere warms more than the surface. *This year’s mini-El Nino has done the opposite.*


M'bold.

More Spectacular Malfeasance At GISS



> Gavin has very little data in Antarctica, but that didn’t stop him from turning a large region of -0.5 degree anomaly into a + 6 anomaly, and reporting to a precision of 0.01 degrees.
> 
> ...
> 
> Similar story in Africa. Gavin has no coverage over most of the continent, and simply makes temperatures up and reports them to 0.01 degrees. RSS showed Africa below normal temperature in August.


Garvin, Garvin, Garvin...


----------



## FeXL

On the state of planetary ice caps.

Antarctic Sea Ice AREA Near All-Time Record Too – Day 255 – 29,600 sq km Short of All-Time Record

Good explanation of the difference between ice extent & area.

Preliminary Arctic sea ice summer minimum up 48% since 2012 minimum



> According to a report from the NSIDC released today, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the summer melt season stood at 5.07 million square kilometers as of yesterday, although "weather conditions near the ice edge heavily influence the timing of the minimum, which has occurred as late as September 23. We are now a day past the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15."
> 
> Compared to the Arctic sea ice minimum of 3.41 million square kilometers on September 16, 2012, sea ice extent was ~48% higher at 5.07 million km2 on September 15, 2014.


Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row



> The IPCC climate models, of which the IPCC has ad-hoc 95% confidence despite being falsified at 98%+ statistical confidence levels, laughably predicted a big decline in Antarctic sea ice, larger than Arctic sea ice.


----------



## FeXL

Great news!

A new professional society for meteorology and climatology is announced



> The Open Atmospheric Society, known as “The OAS” for short, announces its formation, and readiness to accept charter members. The purpose of The OAS is to provide a paperless and entirely online professional organization that will represent individuals who have been unrepresented by existing professional organizations that have become more activist than science based in their outlook. *It also aims to provide a professional peer reviewed publication platform to produce an online journal with a unique and important requirement placed up-front for any paper submitted; it must be replicable, with all data, software, formulas, and methods submitted with the paper. Without those elements, the paper will be rejected.* This focus on replicability up front is not found in other similar organizations that publish scientific results.


M'bold.

More:

The OAS and replicability



> My guess at the time was that no learned journal wanted to be the first to demand data and code up front, frightened of scaring away potential authors. What, then, will be the impact of the Journal of the OAS? Will mainstream climatologists simply refuse to go near it? Will JOAS wither and die for lack of papers? Or will people start to look at those who submit to the traditional publishers and ask what it is they have to hide?
> 
> *It's going to be fascinating.*


M'bold.

Yup...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: models used.

New paper finds solar energy at surface of Antarctic Peninsula controls ice melt, not CO2



> A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds the "largest contributor to the melting energy" during the melt season on the Antarctic Peninsula is the net solar energy received at the surface, which is in turn dependent upon cloud cover and 'föhn wind jets' which clear cloud cover.


Abstract (open access)



> Mesoscale model simulations are presented of a westerly föhn event over the Antarctic Peninsula mountain ridge and onto the Larsen C ice shelf, just south of the recently collapsed Larsen B ice shelf. Aircraft observations showed the presence of föhn jets descending near the ice shelf surface with maximum wind speeds at 250–350 m in height. Surface flux measurements suggested that melting was occurring. Simulated profiles of wind speed, temperature and wind direction were very similar to the observations. However, the good match only occurred at a model time corresponding to ~9 h before the aircraft observations were made since the model föhn jets died down after this. This was despite the fact that the model was nudged towards analysis for heights greater than ~1.15 km above the surface.
> 
> Timing issues aside, the otherwise good comparison between the model and observations gave confidence that the model flow structure was similar to that in reality. Details of the model jet structure are explored and discussed and are found to have ramifications for the placement of automatic weather station (AWS) stations on the ice shelf in order to detect föhn flow. Cross sections of the flow are also examined and were found to compare well to the aircraft measurements. Gravity wave breaking above the mountain crest likely created a~situation similar to hydraulic flow and allowed föhn flow and ice shelf surface warming to occur despite strong upwind blocking, which in previous studies of this region has generally not been considered. Our results therefore suggest that reduced upwind blocking, due to wind speed increases or stability decreases, might not result in an increased likelihood of föhn events over the Antarctic Peninsula, as previously suggested.
> 
> *The surface energy budget of the model during the melting periods showed that the net downwelling short-wave surface flux [the net solar energy at the surface] was the largest contributor to the melting energy, indicating that the cloud clearing effect of föhn events is likely to be the most important factor for increased melting relative to non-föhn days.* The results also indicate that the warmth of the föhn jets through sensible heat flux ("SH") may not be critical in causing melting beyond boundary layer stabilisation effects (which may help to prevent cloud cover and *suppress loss of heat by convection) and are actually cancelled by latent heat flux ("LH") effects (snow ablation).* It was found that ground heat flux ("GRD") was likely to be an important factor when considering the changing surface energy budget for the southern regions of the ice shelf as the climate warms.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

New paper links intensification of El Niño & La Niña to solar activity



> A paper published today in _Earth and Planetary Science Letters_ reconstructs the "El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [which] represents the largest perturbation to the climate system on an inter-annual time scale" from a 10,000 year Holocene proxy in the Galapagos Islands.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> *The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) represents the largest perturbation to the climate system on an inter-annual time scale, but its evolution since the end of the last ice age remains debated due to the lack of unambiguous ENSO records lasting longer than a few centuries.* Changes in the concentration and hydrogen isotope ratio of lipids produced by the green alga Botryococcus braunii, which blooms during El Niño rains in the Galápagos Islands, indicate that the early Holocene (9200–5600 yr BP) was characterized by alternating extremes in the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño events that lasted a century or more. *Our data from the core of the ENSO region thus calls into question earlier studies that reported a lack of El Niño activity in the early Holocene. In agreement with other proxy evidence from the tropical Pacific, the mid-Holocene (5600–3500 yr BP) was a time of consistently weak El Niño activity, as were the Early Middle Ages (∼1000–1500 yr BP). El Niño activity was moderate to high during the remainder of the last 3500 years. Periods of strong or frequent El Niño tended to occur during peaks in solar activity and during extended droughts in the United States Great Plains linked to La Niña. These changing modes of ENSO activity at millennial and multi-centennial timescales may have been caused by variations in the seasonal receipts of solar radiation associated with the precession of the equinoxes and/or changes in solar activity, respectively.*


Bold from first link.

Related:

Separating ITCZ- and ENSO-related rainfall changes in the Galápagos over the last 3 kyr using D/H ratios of multiple lipid biomarkers (paper paywalled)

Abstract



> We present a 3000-yr rainfall reconstruction from the Galápagos Islands that is based on paired biomarker records from the sediment of El Junco Lake. Located in the eastern equatorial Pacific, the climate of the Galápagos Islands is governed by movements of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). We use a novel method for reconstructing past ENSO- and ITCZ-related rainfall changes through analysis of molecular and isotopic biomarker records representing several types of plants and algae that grow under differing climatic conditions. We propose that δD values of dinosterol, a sterol produced by dinoflagellates, record changes in mean rainfall in El Junco Lake, while δD values of C34botryococcene, a hydrocarbon unique to the green alga Botryococcus braunii, record changes in rainfall associated with moderate-to-strong El Niño events. We use these proxies to infer changes in mean rainfall and El Niño-related rainfall over the past 3000 yr. During periods in which the inferred change in El Niño-related rainfall opposed the change in mean rainfall, we infer changes in the amount of ITCZ-related rainfall. Simulations with an idealized isotope hydrology model of El Junco Lake help illustrate the interpretation of these proxy reconstructions. Opposing changes in El Niño- and ITCZ-related rainfall appear to account for several of the largest inferred hydrologic changes in El Junco Lake. We propose that these reconstructions can be used to infer changes in frequency and/or intensity of El Niño events and changes in the position of the ITCZ in the eastern equatorial Pacific over the past 3000 yr. Comparison with El Junco Lake sediment grain size records indicates general agreement of inferred rainfall changes over the late Holocene.


----------



## FeXL

So, Mikey's lawsuit against Mark Steyn continues. Interestingly, *no one, not a single person, warmist scientist or otherwise*, has come forward with documents of support, amici briefs, to aid his case. 

Quote of the week: The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken



> Mark Steyn writes:
> 
> [Tuesday] marked a not unimportant court deadline in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, and I wouldn’t want to let it pass without comment. Ever since this tedious suit was launched by *Doctor Fraudpants* in defense of his global-warming hockey stick, Michael Mann’s supporters have insisted that it’s not, as I and my fellow defendants have insisted, about free speech. Instead, as they see it, it’s about science finally fighting back against a sustained assault by Koch-funded “denialists”. This sub-headline encapsulates the general line:
> 
> _Michael Mann is taking a stand for science._​
> Gotcha. Michael Mann is not doing this for Michael Mann, or even for Michael Mann’s science, or even for climate science. He’s doing it for science. Mann is science and science is Mann.


M'bold.

HA!

Well, it seems that science wants nothing to do with Mikey.

Further:



> A few weeks ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it.


More:



> Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:
> 
> _The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken._​
> As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. *If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.*


M'bold.

Finally:



> This development is very telling, and is the moment that the tide of consensus receded and left Mann out standing in his field.


Related:

The Mann with no friends



> Today Michael Mann invited the world to do a Q & A on Twitter. How unfortunate. The twitter hashtag #AskDrMann is being referred to as a Mock-a-lanche.


Read some of the tweets. Hilarious...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, this is rich. There's empirical evidence, & then there's what warmists consider good enough, "essentially true".

Debunking the essentially truthy climate claims of 'And then there's physics'



> Our warmist friend "Anders," proprietor of the "_And then there's 'physics_'" blog [formerly "_Wotts up with that_" blog] is taking a semi-permanent hiatus* allegedly because "he is depressed by the futility of it all, trying to have a discussion with people, who are blathering from bad faith or ignorance."
> 
> _*interesting choice of words since he doesn't believe there is a global warming 'hiatus' and over 50 publications acknowledge the 18-26 year 'hiatus' in global warming_
> 
> In his excuses for his personal 'real hiatus' post, he proclaims,
> 
> _"So, I think there are certain things that we can regard – given the evidence we have today – as_ essentially _true."_
> 
> and then proceeds to list the certain things he thinks are essentially true. I've quoted each of these followed by just a few of the Hockey Schtick posts which debunk each one of Anders' essentially truthy claims:


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, here's some irony for ya...

Blackout: Power Goes Off During House Climate Hearing with Obama Science Czar John Holdren — Lights blink on and off and stay off for almost a minute 



> Washington D.C.- *A total blackout of a House Science committee occurred during a House Hearing on Climate Change and the EPA’s power plans.* The lights went out and the room was plunged into total darkness at 10:23 AM in the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing was titled: Full Committee Hearing – “The Administration’s Climate Plan: Failure by Design” - 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | Sep 17, 2014 10:00am
> 
> The lights continued to blink off and on and then stayed off for nearly one minute. Everyone remained seated and the dark room descended into a quiet chatter among the crowd as they waited for power to be restored.


M'bold.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people at a better time.


----------



## FeXL

Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extent demonstrates the bipolar seesaw theory of climate



> Sunshine Hours has posted today a "mirror graph" of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice which illustrates the bipolar seesaw theory of abrupt climate change in action. It is well known that glaciation and deglaciation of the North and South poles are not synchronous and frequently out of phase or in opposite phases, similar to the "mirror graph" below of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice trends since 1979. This is entirely consistent with Milankovitch theory, the 1000-1500 year Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [AMOC] and other shorter-term ocean oscillations [e.g. the AMO], and the 1st law of thermodynamics which allows for relatively constant solar energy input to be shifted in location while conserving energy.
> 
> Further, the seesaw theory of abrupt climate change is far more plausible than the ludicrous, stretched-thin theory that global warming is causing record-high levels of Antarctic sea ice and more record-high levels of snow and cold. In fact, climate models robustly predicted the opposite of what has caused the recent record-cold US weather.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature record maladjustments.

Rule #1



> When making fake data, always make sure it is consistently fake.
> 
> Gavin’s GISS data shows August 2011 at 0.69 anomaly, and August 2014 as 0.70 anomaly
> 
> ...
> 
> Gavin also might have wanted to cross check with some other people at NASA who showed August as second coldest of the last decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> This scam makes Piltdown Mann look like legitimate science.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mikey's "Ask Dr. Mann" Twitter debacle.

"The Barbra Streisand Effect on Steroids"



> Twitchy has an entertaining round-up of the hashtag debacle - or, as one Tweeter calls it, "the Barbra Streisand Effect on Steroids". As readers well know from his Twitter feed and Facebook page, Dr Mann is a tireless deleter and blocker, but for #AskDrMannAnythingYouLike events such as this he takes the precaution of pre-warning any impertinent whippersnappers out there:
> 
> _Looking forward to #AskDrMann questions. Note that trolls & those engaged in bad faith will be blocked & reported._​
> "Reported"? To whom? The Climate Police? The IPCC? The EPA Swat team (that's not a joke, by the way)? It's never a smart move to launch an ask-me-anything! session by threatening to report anyone who takes the offer seriously. The ensuing comedy added greatly to the gaiety of life.


Almost makes me wish I had a Twitter account. Almost...


----------



## FeXL

Further on some of that "settled science"...

So, back on post 5272 I noted that the first species casualty of global warming had been discovered just fine, 7 years after starting the list. Now, however, the Royal Society refuses to print a rebuttal to the original paper.

Royal Society In Trouble Over False Extinction Claim Paper



> The Royal Society journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper. However, the Royal Society admitted this week, after questions from _The Times_, that the referees who had rejected the rebuttal were the same referees who had approved Mr Gerlach’s paper for publication. The society said it had since changed its policy on reviewing rebuttals… *The society has refused to publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old.*


M'bold.

Nice...

More:

The credibility of the Royal

(from the link therein)



> However, the claim that the snail was extinct had been rebutted in 2007 by four senior scientists, including Clive Hambler, a lecturer in biology at the University of Oxford and a leading authority on Aldabra. They wrote to the editor of Biology Letters in 2007, saying the paper’s author, Justin Gerlach, had wrongly claimed that “exhaustive” searches had been made for the snail. They also said he had used the wrong method to assess its decline and had made an error that resulted in the reduction in rainfall being exaggerated.
> 
> *In a rebuttal paper, they wrote: “The vast majority of the habitat is virtually inaccessible and has never been visited. It is unwise to declare this species extinct after a gap in known records of ten years. We predict ‘rediscovery’ when resources permit.”*
> 
> The journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, how's planetary ice doing?

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent sets new record, pierces 20 million square kilometer barrier



> Sunshinehours reports that the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent for September 19th, 2014 is 20.11297 million square kilometers,
> which is 1,535,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 climatological mean.
> 
> Another 58,000 sq km. was added since yesterday, making it the 7th All-Time Record in 7 Days.


64% Gain In Arctic Ice From 2012



> On September 17, 2012 the extent of 30% concentration ice in the Arctic was 2.49 million km², and this year it was 4.09 km² on September 17. An increase of 64%. The past two years have been among the four highest of the past decade.


Antarctic Sea Ice record high — 600,000km2 more than previous record



> Despite all the “missing heat” hiding somewhere in the oceans, the extent of the Antarctic Sea Ice today is at a record high of 16.8 million square kilometers. In the Southern Hemisphere the record is 600,000 square kilometers more than has ever been recorded by satellites which began tracking the sea-ice extent in 1979 when CO2 was 336ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen 20% globally since then and current global sea ice extent is slightly above than the average from 1978 -2008. The previous largest extent was 16.22 million km2 in 2012. This may not be the peak this year. Watch the chart with me this week.


Oh, and more of the old warmist heads I win, tails you lose fuzzy logic:

Growing ice is evidence of warming



> More sea ice is evidence of global warming. Less sea ice is global warming.
> 
> The problem is, I think they probably actually believe what they are saying. Their mystification as to why other people might not be convinced is a wonder to behold.


Yep...


----------



## SINC

The incompetence is staggering in all that warmists do to raise the fear threshold to make money from us all.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds global sea levels rose < 7 inches during 20th century, with no acceleration



> A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans finds global sea level rise during the 20th century was only 1.77 mm/yr or 6.96 inches per century, and with no statistically significant acceleration.
> 
> The paper joins many other papers finding global sea level rise of less than seven inches per century, with no acceleration. In fact, at least two recent papers find significant decelerations of sea level rise during the 21st century "pause" in global warming, a deceleration of 31% since 2002 and deceleration of 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Sea level variations prior to the launch of satellite altimeters are estimated by analysing historic tide gauge records. Recently, a number of groups have reconstructed sea level by applying EOF techniques to fill missing observations. We complement this study with alternative methods. In a first step gaps in 178 records of sea level change are filled using the pattern recognition capabilities of artificial neural networks. Afterwards satellite altimetry is used to extrapolate local sea level change to global fields. Patterns of sea level change are compared to prior studies. *Global mean sea level change since 1900 is found to be 1.77 ± 0.38 mm year−1 on average.* Local trends are essentially positive with the highest values found in the western tropical Pacific and in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar where it reaches about +6 mm year−1. Regions with negative trends are spotty with a minimum value of about −2 mm year−1 south of the Aleutian Islands. Although the acceleration found for the global mean, +0.0042 ± 0.0092 mm year−2, *is not significant*, local values range from −0.1 mm year−2 in the central Indian Ocean to +0.1 mm year−2 in the western tropical Pacific and east of Japan. These extrema are associated with patterns of sea level change that differ significantly from the first half of the analyzed period (i.e. 1900 to 1950) to the second half (1950 to 2000). We take this as an indication of long period oceanic processes that are superimposed to the general sea level rise.


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone who has spent time here.

WSJ Op-Ed: Climate Science Is Not Settled. We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy



> The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" file, sceptic style.

August Was Coldest In Five Years, Second Coldest In Ten Years



> Contrary to the spectacular “hottest August ever” lies being propagated by NASA GISS and NOAA ahead of Obama’s climate conference – August was the coldest in five years and the second coldest in 10 years, according to far more accurate NASA satellite data.


----------



## FeXL

Another surprise...

Climate Research Group caught using taxes to lobby and party? NSF ticks it off



> It must be some kind of misunderstanding. I’m sure the $25,000 Christmas Party was important to shed light on the impacts of climate change. (I think it’s already telling us something about invasive species.)


From the comments:



> Peter Miller
> 
> So what’s the fuss?
> 
> Is any ‘climate funding’ spent wisely?
> 
> Boondoggles and manipulated data, add goofy activists, gullible politicians, a biased media, dishonourable ‘scientists’ and Gazprom funding and not surprisingly everyone involved wants to party at the taxpayers’ expense.
> 
> 
> Joanne Nova
> 
> Good point Peter.
> 
> Money spent on parties instead of climate models is probably a net advance for science.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature record maladjustments.

Keep Extrapolating Until You Get The Answer Politicians Are Looking For



> In order to reach the desired”hottest August ever” – start at 0.66, extrapolate that out 1200 km to 0.68, and then extrapolate that out across multiple regions of the planet to get to 0.70.


Nice work, Garvin...


----------



## FeXL

Over at Climate Audit Jean S has been at work putting together a timeline for the WMO 1999 graph, pictured at the link.

Black Tuesday of Climate Science



> Today I will review the timeline of the above WMO 1999 graph in the light of the ClimateGate (CG) letters. The main events took place on Tuesday, November 16th, 1999.


Nicely done.


----------



## FeXL

Further errors in contemporary carbon budget thinking.

New paper shows nature absorbs ~83% of man-made CO2 emissions, much more than previously thought



> A paper published today in Earth System Science Data Discussions analyzes the 2014 carbon budget and predicts man-made CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels and cement production have increased by 65% since 1990. However, atmospheric levels of CO2 have only increased by 11% since 1990, indicating that ~83% of man-made emissions have been absorbed by natural sinks, far greater than the IPCC belief that natural sinks absorb 50% of man-made emissions.


Abstract (open access)



> Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe datasets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates, consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. *CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (EFF)* are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from *Land-Use Change (ELUC), mainly deforestation*, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent Dynamic Global Vegetation Models forced by observed climate, CO2 and land cover change (some including nitrogen-carbon interactions). We compare the variability and mean land and ocean fluxes to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2004–2013), EFF was 8.9 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1, ELUC 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.3 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 2.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1. For year 2013 alone, EFF grew to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, 2.3% above 2012, contining the growth trend in these emissions. ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 and SLAND was 2.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was high in 2013 reflecting a steady increase in EFF and smaller and opposite changes between SOCEAN and SLAND compared to the past decade (2004–2013). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 395.31 ± 0.10 ppm averaged over 2013. *We estimate that EFF will increase by 2.5% (1.3–3.5%) to 10.1 ± 0.6 GtC in 2014 (37.0 ± 2.2 GtCO2 yr−1), 65% above emissions in 1990*, based on projections of World Gross Domestic Product and recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2014, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach about 545 ± 55 GtC (2000 ± 200 GtCO2) for 1870–2014, about 75% from EFFand 25% from ELUC. This paper documents changes in the methods and datasets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this living dataset (Le Quéré et al., 2013, 2014). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2014).


Bold from first link.

OK, let me get this straight. Total anthropogenic CO2 contributions measure 4% of CO2 produced planet wide. 96% is natural. Of that 4%, 83% (not 50%, as previously thought) is absorbed by nature.

Got it...


----------



## FeXL

A question for those climate marchers in NYC yesterday.

WSJ: People's Climate Demarche: Climate lobby should explain 'hiatus' in warming that has lasted 16, 19 or 26 years



> Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a "people's climate march" designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won't achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.
> 
> Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn't formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.
> 
> One not-so-minor problem: The world's largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won't be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India's new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark.

Surprising PNAS paper: CO2 emissions not the cause of U.S. West Coast warming



> The rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


I'm sure a retraction is already in order...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Again, not news to anyone here.

New paper says IPCC climate models are basically worthless to project regional climate change



> A paper published today in _Nature Geoscience_ finds
> 
> "_nearly everything_ we have _any confidence_ in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics. In contrast, we have much less confidence in atmospheric circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics and exert a strong control on regional climate. Model projections of circulation-related fields, including precipitation, show a _wide range of possible outcomes [of different signs and amplitudes], even on centennial timescales._ Sources of uncertainty include low-frequency chaotic variability and the sensitivity to model error of the circulation response to climate forcing."​
> ...a damning critique of IPCC climate models and projections, which basically admits the models cannot be used to predict regional climate change with any confidence. It also implies that the models cannot be used to predict extreme weather or precipitation.


Emphasis from the link.

Abstract (paper paywalled)



> The evidence for anthropogenic climate change continues to strengthen* [wishful thinking], and concerns about severe weather events are increasing [no evidence]. As a result, scientific interest is rapidly shifting from detection and attribution of global climate change to prediction of its impacts at the regional scale. However, *nearly everything we have any confidence in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics. In contrast, we have much less confidence in atmospheric circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics and exert a strong control on regional climate. Model projections of circulation-related fields, including precipitation, show a wide range of possible outcomes, even on centennial timescales. Sources of uncertainty include low-frequency chaotic variability and the sensitivity to model error of the circulation response to climate forcing.* As the circulation response to external forcing appears to project strongly onto existing patterns of variability, knowledge of errors in the dynamics of variability may provide some constraints on model projections. Nevertheless, *higher scientific confidence in circulation-related aspects of climate change will be difficult to obtain. For effective decision-making, it is necessary to move to a more explicitly probabilistic, risk-based approach.*


Bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Warmist Climate Science: Ideology, not empirical evidence.

Who are the ideologues now? Klein doesn’t care if science is wrong. Kennedy wants to jail dissenters



> Remember how skeptics are supposedly the right wing ideologues who deny the science and are driven by their desire for free markets? Projection anyone?


More:



> The Climate March in NY was another outpouring of innumerate frustration. Marc Morano went to the Climate March, despite being listed as the hate figure of the day and found no one was even bothering to hide the real aim, which was pro-socialist and anti-capitalist. Naomi Klein even admitted that the science is irrelevant, and she would be supporting all the same “solutions” even if the science was wrong.
> 
> *During the panel discussion, Klein was asked: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes. Klein responded: ‘Yeah.’
> 
> Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions” even if the science was wrong.
> 
> “Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interview*​
> Naomi Klein’s new book is titled “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate”. The enemy is “Capitalism” — hence big-coal is a target and big-dependent-renewables are her friends. It’s all about wealth redistribution. Since Klein has a crippling problem with numbers, she would prefer a world where people get ahead by networking and speaking, and not by competition to produce things that other people want. It makes sense in a self-serving kind of way.


M'bold.

Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

Friday smiles.

Gullible activists bury their heads in the sand

Join the climate-religion. Not convinced? You too can assume a smug sense of personal worth, knowing you are a superior human being, both morally and intellectually. All you have to do is parrot the words of government committees who use namecalling — _“deniers”_ – as their most persuasive scientific argument.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

How's that old canary in the coal mine doing?

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Second Highest In A Decade, And Highest In Nine Years

and

Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown 300 Miles In The Beaufort Sea Since 2012


----------



## FeXL

New paper out by Nic Lewis & Judith Curry on climate sensitivity. They use the data from TIPCC's™ AR5 report & come up with a much lower number, inline with with a number of recent papers on the topic.

Link to the full paper, data & code inside.

Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty

More:

Significant new paper by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry lowers the range of climate sensitivity using data from IPCC AR5

New Research Finds Earth Even Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought

The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates


----------



## FeXL

Where's that blowhard, MacDoc, when you really need to rub his nose in the hypocrisy?

Climate march organizers quietly acknowledge funding from fossil fuel interests



> The foundation responsible for providing the financial support to launch and sustain Bill McKibbens group 350.org, known best for organizing the People’s Climate March in New York City this past weekend, as well as their anti-Keystone XL pipeline effort and anti-fossil fuel divestment campaign, acknowledged this week that they have millions of dollars invested in fossil fuels, including oil sands. Thanks to a well-packaged and timely roll out, however, the mainstream media completely missed the stunning revelation.


350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy



> In a blast of publicity, the Rockefellers Brothers Fund (RBF) announced it would “begin” divesting all fossil fuel investments. The Rockefellers brothers, offspring of the founder of the industry, were said to be marking a major turning point in the great trajectory of climate change. Except, they still have holdings they aren’t talking about.


BIG OIL! HYPOCRITES!

Hey, MacDoc! Whaddya think about this?


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## SINC

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now | Daily Mail Online


----------



## FeXL

Again, slowly but surely...

American Physical Society journal Physics Today: "Physicist Steve Koonin impeaches scientists’ climate consensus" 



> This could be a watershed moment, when the bad boys of climate science finally get their comeuppance from the hardest of the hard scientists - the physicists. Thanks to a hard-hitting and high-visibility _Wall Street Journal_ article by well-respected physicist Dr. Steven Koonin, in which "the veteran technoscience leader declares the science not settled," the American Physical Society journal _Physics Today_ has just published a complementary article basically endorsing the fact that APS "Physicist Steve Koonin impeaches scientists’ climate consensus."
> 
> Perhaps the hard physical scientists will now gleen from these watershed articles that the climate propaganda scientists have been lying all along about their fictitious non-statistical "95% certainty" and fictitious "97% consensus." Let's hope. If so, it could mark the beginning of the end of the grand Mann-made climate scam.


----------



## FeXL

Further on cherry picks.

Understanding How To Commit Fraud As A Government Climate Scientist



> Government climate scientists typically start their graphs in 1979 – the year of peak Arctic sea ice, which was up two million km² from 1974.
> 
> ...
> 
> 1979 was the coldest year on record in the eastern Arctic. By cherry picking 1979, they turn a long term cooling trend into a sharp warming trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> 1979 was also the coldest winter on record in the US
> 
> ...
> 
> Scientists use 1979 satellite launches as an excuse, but there was plenty of other data available.


----------



## Macfury

I sometimes envy MacDoc for living in Australia where this warming nonsense has already been buried and common sense largely prevails.

Sort of reminds me of that British couple who fled to the Falkland Islands years ago because they wanted to avoid the violence and unrest of modern society.


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds sea levels rose up to 8 times faster & to much higher levels during the last 5 interglacials



> A paper published today in Nature Communications finds sea levels naturally rose up to 5.5 meters [18 feet] per century during 5 prior interglacial periods. In addition, the authors finds interglacials "with close to the modern amount of ice on Earth, show rates sea level rise of up to 1 to 1.5 metres per century," which is about 8 times faster than sea levels are rising today with the same levels of ice on Earth [i.e. less than 7 inches per century without acceleration].
> 
> Further, in a prior paper by the same authors and using the same data, the authors state that today's sea levels are well within the levels expected from natural variability and that natural variability alone could account for 25 meters more sea level rise than the present:
> 
> "Regardless of the uncertainties surrounding the use of any one of the specific scenarios in Fig. 2, it is clear that equilibrium sea level for the present-day [CO2] of 387 ppmv resides within a broad range between 0 and +25 (±5) meters."​
> and show sea levels during at least 4 prior interglacials over the past 500,000 years were higher than during the present interglacial period [up to 31 feet higher during the last interglacial alone]. Thus, there is no evidence that the [decelerating] sea level rise over the past ~20,000 years is unusual, unprecedented, or unnatural.


Link to press release. (paper not available online at time of this post)


----------



## FeXL

New paper finds natural ocean oscillations "important influence" on US temperatures & precipitation since 1896



> Two companion papers published today in the Journal of Climate find the natural ocean oscillations the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have had significant and "important influence" upon intra- to multi-decadal [shorter and longer than 1 decade] US climate variability including temperature and precipitation since 1896.
> 
> According to the authors,
> 
> "PDO phase seems to be an important influence on spring temperatures in the northwest U.S., eastern temperature regimes in annual, winter, summer and fall temperatures are more coincident with cool and warm phase AMO regimes. Annual AMO values also correlate significantly with summer temperatures along the eastern seaboard and fall temperatures in the southwest. Given evidence of the abrupt onset of cold winter temperatures in the eastern U.S. during 1957-1958, possible climate mechanisms associated with the cause and duration of the eastern U.S. warming hole [and the ice age scare of the 1970's] period - identified here as a cool temperature regime occurring between the late 1950’s and late 1980’s..."
> 
> "...annual precipitation are in approximate anti-phase with the PDO."​


Abstracts (One and Two) (papers paywalled)

First



> The Optimal Ranking Regime (ORR) method was used to identify intra- to multi-decadal (IMD) time windows containing significant ranking sequences in U.S. climate division temperature data. The simplicity of the ORR procedure’s output – a time series’ most significant non-overlapping periods of high or low rankings – makes it possible to graphically identify common temporal breakpoints and spatial patterns of IMD variability in the analyses of 102 climate division temperature series. This approach is also applied to annual AMO and PDO climate indices, a northern hemisphere annual temperature (NHT) series, and divisional annual and seasonal temperature data during 1896-2012. In addition, Pearson correlations are calculated between PDO, AMO, and NHT series and the divisional temperature series. Although *PDO phase seems to be an important influence on spring temperatures in the northwest U.S., eastern temperature regimes in annual, winter, summer and fall temperatures are more coincident with cool and warm phase AMO regimes. Annual AMO values also correlate significantly with summer temperatures along the eastern seaboard and fall temperatures in the southwest. Given evidence of the abrupt onset of cold winter temperatures in the eastern U.S. during 1957-1958, possible climate mechanisms associated with the cause and duration of the eastern U.S. warming hole period - identified here as a cool temperature regime occurring between the late 1950’s and late 1980’s* – are discussed.


Second



> In a preceding companion paper, the Optimal Ranking Regime (ORR) method was used to identify intra- to multi-decadal (IMD) regimes in U.S. climate division temperature data during 1896-2012. Here, the method is used to test for annual and seasonal precipitation regimes during that same period. Water year mean streamflow rankings at 125 U.S. Hydro-Climatic Data Network gauge stations are also evaluated during 1939-2011. The precipitation and streamflow regimes identified are compared with ORR-derived regimes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and indices derived from gridded SSTA analysis data. Using a graphic display approach that allows for the comparison of IMD climate regimes in multiple time series, an inter-decadal cycle in western precipitation is apparent after 1980, as is a similar cycle in northwestern streamflow. Before 1980, IMD regimes in northwestern streamflow and *annual precipitation are in approximate anti-phase with the PDO.* One of the clearest IMD climate signals found in this analysis are post-1970 wet regimes in eastern U.S streamflow and annual precipitation, and also in fall (SON) precipitation. Pearson correlations between time series of annual and seasonal precipitation averaged over the eastern U.S. and sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) analysis data show relatively extensive positive correlations between warming tropical SSTA and increasing fall precipitation. The possible Pacific and northern Atlantic roots of the recent eastern U.S. wet regime, and the general characteristics of U.S. climate variability in recent decades that emerge from this analysis and that of the companion paper, are discussed.


All bold from first link.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I sometimes envy MacDoc for living in Australia where this warming nonsense has already been buried and common sense largely prevails.


Pretty sure he doesn't share your joy...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Pretty sure he doesn't share your joy...


I can just imagine him in a Foghorn Leghorn voice:

"You're gonna fry... I say, you're gonna FRYYYYYYYYYYYY for this!"


----------



## FeXL

About those temperature "adjustments"...

New paper finds global temperature data trend prior to 1950's "meaningless" & "artificially flattened"



> A correspondence published today in Nature Climate Change is a damning indictment of
> the updated HADCRUT global temperature database, which is used as the basis of all of the other land-based temperature databases including GISS and BEST.
> 
> The correspondence demolishes the claim of Ji et al that "the global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" as well as the reliability of the HADCRU database to determine global temperature trends of the past 164 years. *According to the authors, conclusions about global temperature change cannot be reliably determined prior to the 1950's due to the poor spatiotemporal coverage prior to the 1950's and trends determined from the early HADCRU data are "meaningless and "artificially flattened."*


M'bold.

Opening paragraphs (paper paywalled)



> Ji et al present a methodology to analyse global (excluding Antarctica) spatiotemporal patterns of temperature change, using mean monthly temperatures obtained from the updated *Climate Research Unit (CRU) high-resolution gridded climate database. Their analysis fails to take into account several key characteristics of the CRU database, seriously compromising the conclusions regarding the spatiotemporal patterns of global warming during the twentieth century.*
> 
> Consequently, the temporal auto-correlation of such time series is artificially high, and *the climatic variability they portray for the early decades of the record is meaningless.*


Bold from first link.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all those warming caused, increased severe forest fires.

Colorado wildfires NOT MORE SEVERE since 1800s, says ‘massive’ UColorado study

From the press release:



> *The perception that Colorado’s Front Range wildfires are becoming increasingly severe does not hold much water scientifically, according to a massive new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder and Humboldt State University in Arcata, Calif.*


M'bold.

Yeah, not so much...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I can just imagine him in a Foghorn Leghorn voice:
> 
> "You're gonna fry... I say, you're gonna FRYYYYYYYYYYYY for this!"


Don't forget the condescending "...Boy".


----------



## FeXL

On adjustments down under.

The hotter nights in Melbourne and some mysterious adjustments



> Tom Quirk takes a close look at the long historic station of Melbourne. As we would expect, things have changed around the sensor since 1855 when records started. Amazingly he finds the maximum trend in Melbourne was largely flat from 1855 – 1995. The minimums shows a classic warming from 1945.
> 
> To find out how much of the warming in Melbourne may be due to the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) we can compare the minima at the CBD station to one on the outskirts — and Laverton is 20 kilometers away. The site near the CBD is warming at 0.2C per decade faster than the site on the outskirts. It amounts to a whole degree warmer over 50 years, though the rate may be tailing off now. It’s hard to fit in more concrete or more skyscrapers than there already are.
> 
> Tom has a close look at the adjustments and finds plenty of questions but few answers. *These adjustments are done as step changes, and Tom (and I) wonder why the gradual increase in concrete would warm Melbourne “step-wise” rather than as a slope change. *Tom also wonders why the BOM say that one change is due to a “time of observation” shift. He points out that the thermometers will hold the maximum or minimum for 24 hours, so the exact moment someone goes out to read the thermometer may only affect which date the reading applies too (and really only offset it by one day), rather than raise or lower the figure. The mystery?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Odds & sods.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #151

Little bit of everything.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Antarctic ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice On Turbo-Steroids…Mutates To A Behemoth…Sets Quantum All-Time Record High Extent!



> Not only was last year’s all-time high sea ice record beaten this year, but smashed it by such a wide a margin that is meteorologically unworldly. If anyone is searching for a sign of a “tipping point”, this could be one. Unfortunately the tip seems to be in the opposite direction!
> 
> At least week’s Saturday Summary, Joe Bastardi even compared the South Pole’s new record to King Kong belting a 700-foot home run out of the ballpark. Not wanting to get too carried away, we have to keep in mind that we are looking here at the satellite record only, which goes back to 1979. Yet, it is still truly amazing by any standard.


Hey, if the warmists are OK with cherry picking 1979 as an Arctic baseline, I guess we can rub their noses in it for the Antarctic baseline. 

They certainly wouldn't accept a double standard, would they? <snort>


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

It's pretty sad that you keep repeating that claptrap, CubaMark. Do you realize how long ago that 97% figure has been exposed as fiction. You'll be posting that until the next Ice Age, I'm sure.

What's next on your list of memes? Remember the Maine?


----------



## eMacMan

The 97% claim has been so thoroughly discredited that even the most rabid worshippers should long since have abandoned that particular chapter of the AGW bible.

That said the fear monger approach to selling AGW is proof enough for me to believe the intent behind the propaganda machine is entirely evil.

Very similar to having the CIA to recruit, train and arm a bunch of thugs, call them ISIL and have do a bunch of things to provoke the west all because the MIC wants to bomb the crap out of Syria.


----------



## Macfury

I remember when the original trial balloon on the "greenhouse effect" was being launched in the early 1990s and nobody listened. Then it was suddenly replaced with "the runaway greenhouse effect" so that people would think disaster was imminent. 

All marketing.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Fish story: ‘Fish moving poleward at rate of 26 kilometers per decade’



> Cheung and his colleague used modeling to predict how 802 commercially important species of fish and invertebrates react to warming water temperatures, other changing ocean properties, and new habitats opening up at the poles.


From the comments:



> It is based on models which are hopelessly wrong, The models in turn are just a predetermined outcome to match a theory that has no basis of fact other than copious quantities of self-generated hot air. The theory in turn is generated by those with a specific hidden agenda which is too heinous to bring out in to the open.The hidden agenda in turn is based on a terminally flawed Utopian ideal that has a number of contradictions that diametrically oppose itself which have no means of resolution other than the widespread destruction of the very species that created the Utopian vision in the first place. The Utopia which these fools seek will be the very opposite of what they think will be the case. It will be Dante’s Inferno on steroids.


Nice summary.


----------



## FeXL

So, know about all the screeching that's going on about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting, all the while ignoring the record increases in the East Antarctic? And, due to the proximity of the peninsula to the Antarctic Ocean, it's due to increasing ocean temperatures?

Yeah, not so much...

New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below 



> A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.
> 
> CAGW proponents have alleged that West Antarctic glaciers such as such as the Thwaites Glacier and the neighboring Pine Island Glacier are rapidly melting due to man-made greenhouse gases and/or ocean heating, despite observations showing the air temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t risen since 1979, Antarctic sea surface temperatures have fallen since 2006, and ARGO ocean heat content of the Southern Ocean shows no increase at any level of the top 2000 meters since the system was put in place in 2004. The authors find the neighboring Pine Island Glacier also overlies the same volcanic rift system and thus may also be melting from geothermal heat below.


Same story linked at WUWT, posted more for the comments:

New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below


----------



## FeXL

Visualizing Temperature Data Tampering At NASA And NCDC



> NASA and NCDC are going to claim that 2014 was the hottest year ever, when in fact satellites show that every month of the year was cooler than 1998, with the 1998 anomalies double the 2014 anomalies.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now look at the abomination which GISS and NCDC are publishing. It shows 2014 and 1998 tied.
> 
> ...
> 
> So how do they create this fraud? They constantly cool the past and warm the present. All temperatures before 1967 have been cooled since their 2001 version, and all post-1967 years have been warmed. Based on the 1992 to 1998 inflation rate, it seems likely that 2014 is being inflated by several tenths of a degree relative to 1998, in the current version.
> 
> ...
> 
> *NASA has known for over 20 years that satellite temperatures are more accurate than surface temperatures, and that satellites should be used as the standard. They don’t do this, because satellites wreck their theory – and funding.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on all that AGW generated extreme weather...

Hurricanes Set A New Milestone



> Today marks nine years without a major hurricane (111+ MPH winds) strike in the US, and nine years without a hurricane strike in Florida. Both are records.
> 
> During the 19th century Florida averaged more than one hurricane per year, but that number has dropped in half.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

Further on those recently rediscovered NIMBUS satellite photos from the 60's.

Scientists Resurrect Treasure Trove of Satellite Data From the 1960s



> *According to the recovered data, 1964 was largest sea ice year in the Antarctic, until 2014, that is. Yet just two years later, sea ice declined by 20%, to the smallest extent on record there.* “There was wild variability going on,” Gallaher said.


Further:



> The high variability in the 1960s, based on the Nimbus satellite data, suggests that *scientists may not yet have a full understanding of what governs sea ice dynamics in the Southern Hemisphere.*


What's this? The science ain't settled?

More:



> Sea ice extents in the Arctic were much larger in the 1960s than they are now, Gallaher said, which is consistent with the global warming-induced decline in Arctic sea ice. *Still, even in years with higher volume’s of sea ice, the satellite spotted ice-free areas near the North Pole that were 200 to 300 miles across.* “We found holes in ice at North Pole that we didn’t expect to find,” he said.


All bold mine.

Say what? 

Those last two bolded passages are gonna leave a mark. Hey, MacDoc! You reading this craziness?


----------



## FeXL

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman: There is no significant man-made global warming at this time



> There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly but surely...

Finally Some Reality from RealClimate – But, Unfortunately, They Remained Unreal about Some Things



> The post Ocean heat storage: a particularly lousy policy target + Update at RealClimate finally presented a few realities of the global-warming metric known as ocean heat content—realities we have discussed numerous times. But they weren’t completely open about it and the other ocean temperature-related dataset, sea surface temperature.
> 
> That post by RealClimate founder Stefan Rahmstorf countered the 2014 comment Climate policy: Ditch the 2 °C warming goal by Victor and Fennel published in the journal Nature. Faced with the realities of the slowdown in surface temperature warming, Victor and Fennel proposed using a number of other metrics as indicators of global warming, including ocean heat content.
> 
> *I’m not sure if Rahmstorf realizes what he has done. His post at RealClimate will be used enthusiastically by skeptics for years to come. Rahmstorf’s post will raise it’s lovely head every time alarmists, like those at SkepticalScience, attempt to use a continued rise in global ocean heat content to counter the continued divergence between climate models and surface temperatures.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

On the other hand...

Guardian Deletes Comment From An IPCC Lead Author



> The Guardian deletes all comments from skeptics, because their fraud can’t stand up to any scrutiny.
> 
> How badly is their paper messed up? Today they censored a comment from an IPCC lead author.


Good ol' Grunion...


----------



## FeXL

More on "adjustments"...

Smoking Gun Of Massive Climate Fraud At NCDC And The EPA



> The EPA has this graph on their website, based on the NCDC Climate Extremes Index
> 
> ...
> 
> It shows that the area of the US with hot daily summer temperatures is at record levels.
> 
> The graph is completely fraudulent. In fact it is inverted. Prior to 1960, the area of the US which reached 100 degrees during summer was quite a bit higher, and in 1936 seventy-five percent of stations reached 100 degrees. The percentage of the US reaching 100 degrees every year is much lower now, with 2014 close to a record low.
> 
> The EPA graph shows 2012 as the hottest, when in fact it wasn’t even in the top ten. They show 1936 at 50%, when in fact it was 75%.


----------



## FeXL

Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record



> *I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.*
> 
> ..if for no other reason than this: _thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can._ The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.


All emphasis from the original.


----------



## FeXL

The compassionate, intellectual, left...

Kill Santa for the climate. Is that ISIS or Nobel Peace “Scientists” ?



> It’s 10:10 all over again in cartoon-format. *Tony Thomas at* Quadrant Online has uncovered the masterpiece “Climate Changed” by Philippe Squarzoni. The editors describe the book on Amazon as _“a feat of investigative journalism “_ which _“weaves together scientific research, extensive interviews with experts, and a call for action.”_ Action indeed. Action with an assault rifle.


Emphasis from the link.

More:



> *You might think this is a fringe, semi-satirical production, but the book is endorsed on the back cover by Dr. Jean Jouzel, IPCC Vice Chair of Working Group I*.* Indeed Jouzel apparently stars in the book, and in Thomas’ words he is the “wise dispenser of IPCC scientific platitude”s. The front cover tells us Jouzel was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — which the Nobel Prize committee would dispute. Shame about the facts, eh?


M'bold.

Nice...


----------



## FeXL

Quote of the week – massive climate FAIL by Mashable’s Andrew Freedman



> Wow, this is even dumber than Freedman’s story (complete with photoshopped images of airplanes in rising sea water) Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman a couple of years ago, which we rightfully trounced on WUWT for the sheer stupidity of the imagery that somehow, airplanes at LaGuardia would not be able to get out of the way of rising sea levels.
> 
> Get a load of this tweet from him today, replete with “conspiracy theory”


Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre still working on PAGES2K. Basically, there are errors in PAGES2K (2013) which were only partially addressed in the followup paper, McKay and Kaufman (2014).

The Third Warmest Arctic Century



> PAGES2K (2013) unequivocally stated that the Arctic was “warmest during the 20th century”:
> 
> _The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to our reconstruction.​_
> McKay and Kaufman 2014 did not withdraw or amend the above statement, instead reporting that the revision amplified the cooling trend prior to the 20th century and had only a “fairly minor impact on the relative variability” of the reconstruction . However, in the corrected reconstruction, the 20th century is only the third warmest.


The biggest change in the results noted in the followup paper stems from the inversion of an upside down proxy.

He notes:



> Thus far, Kaufman has failed to issue a corrigendum, instead choosing (and being permitted by Nature so far) to report errors in a fresh publication. I can understand why academics prefer to have a new paper on their CV, rather a Corrigendum, but *failing to correct errors in their place of publication distorts the research record. Mann got away with this in connection with the flawed no-dendro reconstruction of Mann et al 2008, where errors were acknowledged deep in the SI of a different paper (thus providing cover if challenged), but without any record of the error at the source, thereby permitting results known by the author to be erroneous to continue to be cited even in EPA documents.*


M'bold.

Agreed fully.


----------



## FeXL

Now For The Punch Line



> Yesterday I posted a piece showing that 2014 was the coolest year on the record in the US, because it had the smallest areal coverage of hot weather. This is almost identical to how Arctic sea ice is evaluated.
> 
> ...
> 
> Predictably, this brought great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual morons. They demanded that “coolness” should be evaluated as the average temperature for the whole year. That approach is idiotic – I will show you why.
> 
> *1936 had the hottest summer on record in the US. But it also had one of the coldest winters. Taken as an average for the whole year – 1936 appears to be an average year – when in fact it was both one of the hottest and coldest years on record.*


More:



> Average temperature anomaly for the year was just about zero.
> 
> ...
> 
> *But the average of areal coverage of extremes shows that 1936 was the most extreme year on record. This is a much better measure of extremes than the meaningless average temperature.*


All bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

It’s Not The TOBS



> Someone suggested that the divergence between measured US temperatures and NCDC published US temperatures is due to Time Of Observation Bias.
> 
> I tested that out by comparing only versus stations which took morning or night readings on July 15, 1936. These stations should be biased cold in the 1930s, and produce more warming than the full set of stations. It doesn’t make much difference. The frequency of 90 degree days is still very low in 2014.


More:



> Over the last 20 years, the TOBS adjustment should be a downwards adjustment. The 1936 afternoon stations are warming faster than the 1936 morning stations. *USHCN TOBS adjustments do the exact opposite and make the problem worse.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little Australian temperature record cherry picking...

BOM Hiding All Those Inconvenient Years Before 1910


----------



## FeXL

Just shaking my head...

The EPA jumps the shark, banning – ARGON ?



> ...the American EPA has stunned observers, with a list of inert additives for pesticide formulations they intend to ban, *which includes the noble gas Argon.*
> 
> Its hard to imagine a more inoffensive substance than Argon. *As a noble gas, Argon is chemically inert – it participates in no chemical reactions whatsoever, except under exotic conditions – there are no known chemical compounds which can survive at room temperature which include Argon.* Argon is not a greenhouse gas.


All emphasis mine.

Jeezuz...


----------



## Macfury

Laughing my ass off at this stuff. When nobody listens, just use up your "fear budget" all at once. I have no idea how they can up the ante after this doozie:

UN climate panel delivers stark climate change warning | CTV News



> Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts *may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero* this century, the UN's panel on climate science said Sunday.
> 
> But it underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms. *Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have a decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many consider dangerous.* _Failure to do so, which could require deployment of technologies that suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere_, could lock the world on a trajectory with "irreversible" impacts on people and the environment, the report said. Some impacts are already being observed, including rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and intense heat waves.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Just shaking my head...
> 
> The EPA jumps the shark, banning – ARGON ?


No fan of the EPA here, but they're not banning argon. Just simplifying pesticide regs by removing argon from a list of approved pesticide chemicals, because it hasn't been used in any pesticide product for many years. 

You can kill bed bugs with argon, by moving the bed to an anoxic chamber and asphyxiating them with argon:

How to Use Argon Gas to Kill Bed Bugs | eHow


----------



## Macfury

Nice to see that the "Lima Accord" has introduced a motion for development of non-binding carbon targets set by each country individually. I can't see why this had those "progressive" fools dancing around the table, since it is everything I could hope for.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo

Nice job from Bloomberg -

http://www.bloombergview.com/interactives/climate-change-in-perspective/#slide=5


----------



## Macfury

It's not a good job at all. It manages to cherry pick some of the most speculative data and treats it as a _fait accompli_. No wonder nobody believes these kooks any longer.



skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Nice job from Bloomberg -
> 
> GlobalView: Climate Change in Perspective - Bloomberg View


----------



## FeXL

Long overdue to stir up the pot...

Further on all that Greenland ice melting.

Greenland Ice Melt Geothermal, Not Manmade 



> Newly released research, primarily from NASA and the GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences, indicates that *melting of selective Greenland Glaciers is related to geologically induced heat flow, and not manmade atmospheric global warming.*


That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Couple on ocean pH.

Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data



> Empirical data withheld by key scientists shows that since 1910 ocean pH levels have not decreased in our oceans as carbon dioxide levels increased. Overall the trend is messy but more up than down, becoming less acidic. So much for those terrifying oceans of acid that were coming our way.


Does ocean pH shift with the PDO cycle?



> The man who uncovered the 80 years of missing empirical data on ocean pH is Mike Wallace. That hidden data suggested the ocean had been getting slightly more alkaline in the 20th Century –the opposite of the man-made acidification theory — but that pH change hasn’t been a linear shift. The pH has been cycling up and down, and on his blog back in February Wallace suggested that the pH of the ocean was varying naturally as the PDO cycled*.
> 
> It’s an interesting theory. He’s used the PDO index and his global ocean pelagic zone pH time series chart that was based on 1.5 million pH readings.
> 
> It’s nice to watch a real scientist at work. His blog is worth a look.


----------



## FeXL

Food for thought from the Chiefio.

Atlantic, Boreal, Cycles and Events



> So we are being constantly told that if the planet warms by just One More Degree (or sometimes two…) it will be the end of life as we know it and all manner of catastrophe will follow. Yet the language of Earth Science is littered with all sorts of ‘funny names’ that say just the opposite. It will take a very long time for the Thought Police to purge those ‘funny words’ from all the libraries (and minds) of the world. Nothing less than a complete rewriting of history will do it. With that in mind, a couple of references and a few funny words…


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

There's a fair amount of research supporting the idea that the Medieval Warming Period was global. This adds to the list.

Hottest year ever? Giant clam reveals Middle Ages were warmer than today



> Two recent papers, one is in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, have studied key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present.
> 
> The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.


Interesting read.

Links to the two papers, unfortunately both paywalled:

A composite sea surface temperature record of the northern South China Sea for the past 2500 years: A unique look into seasonality and seasonal climate changes during warm and cold periods

Abstract



> High-resolution late Holocene climate records that can resolve seasonality are essential for confirming past climatic dynamics, understanding the late 20th century global warming and predicting future climate. Here a new composite record of the sea surface temperature, SST, variation in the northern South China Sea (SCS) during the late Holocene is constructed by combining seven seasonally-resolved coral and Tridacna gigas Sr/Ca-based SST time-windows with the instrumental SST record from modern interval between 1990 and 2000. This composite multi-proxy marine record, together with the reconstructions from mainland China and tropical Western Pacific, indicates that the late Holocene warm periods, the Roman Warm Period (RWP) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP), were prominently imprinted and documented in the climatic and environmental history of the East Asia–Western Pacific region. Meanwhile, substantial and significant SST seasonality variations during the late Holocene were observed in the composite record. The observed increase in seasonality (or amplitude of seasonal cycles) during the cold periods around our study area was probably caused by the different amplitudes between winter versus summer SST variations in northern SCS, with much larger SST variation during winters than during summers for the late Holocene. In addition, the distinctive warm, cold and neutral climatic episodes identified in our northern SCS composite SST record correspond well with other paleo reconstructions from mainland China and especially well with the Northern Hemisphere-wide composites by Moberg et al. (2005) and Ljungqvist (2010). The overall agreement however also calls for more information and insights on how seasonal temperatures and their ranges vary on decadal–centennial timescales.


Higher sea surface temperature in the northern South China Sea during the natural warm periods of late Holocene than recent decades

Abstract



> The large-scale syntheses of global mean temperatures in IPCC fourth report suggested that the Northern Hemisphere temperature in the second half of the 20th century was likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years and the 1990s was likely the warmest decade. However, this remains debated and the controversy is centered on whether temperatures during the recent half century were higher than those during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, AD 800–1300) and the Roman Warm Period (RWP, BC 200–AD 400), the most recent two natural warm periods of the late Holocene. Here the high resolution sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of two time windows around AD 990 (±40) and AD 50 (±40), which located in the MCA and RWP respectively, were reconstructed by the Sr/Ca ratio and δ 18O of Tradacna gigas shells from the northern South China Sea. *The results suggested that the mean SSTs around AD 990 (±40) and AD 50 (±40) were 28.1 °C and 28.7 °C, 0.8 °C and 1.4 °C higher than that during AD 1994–2005, respectively. These records, together with the tree ring, lake sediment and literature records from the eastern China and northwest China, imply that the temperatures in recent decades do not seem to exceed the natural changes in MCA, at least in eastern Asia from northwest China to northern SCS.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, Leo Smith left a comment on another thread about climate models that got elevated to article status, without his knowledge. The comment contained some inaccurate information which he corrects in the linked article. It's a good read, especially all the comments afterwards.

Aside on the comments-when I first read the article, there were around 200 comments. As I post this, the total is well over 600. Interesting response...

On the futility of climate models: ‘simplistic nonsense’

He sums:



> The point finally is this: To an engineer, climate science as the IPCC have it is simplistic nonsense. There are far far better models available, to explain climate change based on the complexity of water interactions with temperature. Unfortunately they are far too complex even for the biggest of computers to be much use in simulating climate. And have no political value anyway, since they will essentially say ‘Climate changes irrespective of human activity, over 100 thousand year major cycles, and within that its simply unpredictable noise due to many factors none of which we have any control over’


----------



## FeXL

The trust me crowd and the show me crowd



> The show me crowd looks at the “good science” and points out that many historical predictions of doom and gloom (that previously met the test of good science) have been shown to be overheated or just plain wrong. They also point out that the best models have not done a very good job with respect to the “pause”. Given this they ask for a demonstration that the next prediction is going to be better than the last one. This does not mean that they deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. *Rather they are not comfortable with cataclysmic predictions and calls for immediate action prior to a demonstration that those predictions can be supported with something approaching real data.*


M'bold.

For the uninformed, model output is *NOT* data...


----------



## FeXL

Once again, Mikey splices proxy data and instrument data in a graph, sans acknowledgement.

More Mann Grafting



> Jeff Norman draws attention to Figure 1 in a new Mannian tirade, a variation of Mann’s stump speech in which he, as usual, tries to blame his own errors and tricks (the censored directory, verification r2 of 0, upside-down Mann, hide the decline) on right-wing interests. Amusingly, his new Figure 1 unapologetically splices proxy and instrumental data, an issue that ties to a central issue in Mann v National Review et al.


----------



## FeXL

My opinion of Lewandowsky's "science" is a matter of derisive record on this thread. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

Lewandowsky peer reviewed study includes someone 32,757 years old



> The worst paper ever published has competition. I was going to mock this, but it has all rather slipped beyond the Plains of Derision and sunk in a parallel universe. Researcher Jose Duarte is flummoxed, he simply can’t explain why a paper so weak was written, but moreso why it was ever published, and why everyone associated with it is not running for cover. It’s not so much about the predictable flaws, biased questions, and mindless results, it’s now about why UWA, The Uni of Bristol, PLOS, and the Royal Society are willing to wear any of the reputational damage that goes with it.


Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

Maths is hard...

Sans science, sans maths, sans everything



> Over at Lucia's place, there has been some interesting conversation in the comments about the technical abilities of some of those on the other side of the climate debate. This originally arose in connection the host of And Then There's Physics, who had apparently reduced Blackboard regular Paul K to laughter in a post about a paper on climate sensitivity by Craig Loehle and a response to it, Cawley et al, which was written by five of the denizens of Skeptical Science. This amusement was followed by others chipping in with their own surprise at ATTP's comments. It's all good family fun. However, it turns out that it's not only ATTP who is struggling. Nic Lewis has added a comment to the thread about the Cawley paper itself which is astonishing.


Josh has put together a cartoon to commemorate...

Boxed in - Josh 336

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Jes' lovin' the text scratched onto the on at back: "FIZzIKS WOZ NOT HERE". That & the glass of kool-aid.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

> From the _“temperature bias only goes one way department”_ and the University of Montana


Another bias in temperature measurements discovered



> In a recent study, University of Montana and Montana Climate Office researcher Jared Oyler found that while the western U.S. has warmed, recently observed warming in the mountains of the western U.S. likely is not as large as previously supposed.
> 
> His results, published Jan. 9 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, show that sensor changes have significantly biased temperature observations from the Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) station network.


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for these updates, FeXL... hard to keep up with the crumbling facade of AGW.


----------



## FeXL

You're welcome.


----------



## FeXL

Wanna run a _working_ climate model on a pocket calculator?

Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible



> A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.


Further:



> The paper, _Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model_, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
> 
> When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, *their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models*


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

This story made me laugh:

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax | Science/AAAS | News

"Progressives" jumped on the story. However, if you follow through, the text of what was voted on noted that climate is always changing. A vote on whether climate change was caused by humans did not pass.


----------



## FeXL

> Emissions have shown a historical decrease for 25 years, however we project the trend to change drastically in the next 10 years.


A decrease in methane emissions calls for stricter controls



> The Obama administration isn’t deterred by facts it cites in its drive for a legacy.


Yep. Only in government think...


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost _Nature_...

Ocean 'calamities' oversold, say researchers



> The state of the world's seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. *The team writes that scientists, journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences.* The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community.


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

Some great follow-up from Briggs;

William M. Briggs | Statistician to the Stars!



FeXL said:


> Wanna run a _working_ climate model on a pocket calculator?
> 
> Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible
> 
> 
> 
> Further:
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Not prone to watching the MSM, I haven't seen any of the hysterics. However, just in case you've been exposed to the BS about 2014 being the "hottest yeah evah!!!" (by 2/100ths of a degree or some such nonsense) or similar malarkey, following is a bit of truth & perspective on the issue...

2014, NOAA NASA produce weakest science on hottest fantasy in modern record



> The NOAA and NASA spinmeisters are parsing their press releases carefully, using vagueness to speak in half-truth-tongues. They utter no outright lie, yet misinform the crowd with lies by omission.


On the Biases Caused by Omissions in the 2014 NOAA State of the Climate Report



> According to NOAA definitions, global surface temperatures for 2014 were “More Unlikely Than Likely” the highest on record, but they failed to note that on the main page of their State of the Climate report. NOAA used a specific ENSO index to claim that El Niño conditions did not exist in 2014, when at least one other index says El Niño conditions existed. And NOAA failed to discuss the actual causes of the elevated global sea surface temperatures in 2014, while making it appear that there was a general warming of the surfaces of the global oceans.


Even the _Daily Mail_ questioned the results:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right



> The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
> 
> ...
> 
> The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.


NOAA, NASA: 2014 was probably not the warmest year on our record




> As I discussed in detail, the surface temperature record significantly disagrees with the satellite datasets when it comes to the question whether 2014 was a warmest or near-warmest year.


And, now, for the perspective:

2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?



> We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. *In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> "Progressives" jumped on the story. However, if you follow through, the text of what was voted on noted that climate is always changing. A vote on whether climate change was caused by humans did not pass.


The more I read about this garbage, the more I'm reminded to do two things:
1. Read the fine print;
2. Follow the money.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Some great follow-up from Briggs;


Good read but, as he notes, unfortunately, lost on the interviewer.


----------



## MacGuiver

I miss the days when Global Warming Clerics would attempt to defend the faith on here. The days when refuting the "irrefutable", the "overwhelming scientific consensus" was paramount to heresy and anyone that dared question it would get a public flogging. Nice to see people finally realizing the Global Warming movement is nothing but a scam. Who the heck would boldly claim a year was the hottest on record with only 38% certainty and still expect you to believe they are unbiased scientists?


----------



## Macfury

Worse still, by what sort of voodoo is the "average temperature of the world" taken? At what time of day? At how many locations? At what sort of precise geographic spacing? How have conditions changed around measuring points (urbanization, etc.). 



MacGuiver said:


> I miss the days when Global Warming Clerics would attempt to defend the faith on here. The days when refuting the "irrefutable", the "overwhelming scientific consensus" was paramount to heresy and anyone that dared question it would get a public flogging. Nice to see people finally realizing the Global Warming movement is nothing but a scam. Who the heck would boldly claim a year was the hottest on record with only 38% certainty and still expect you to believe they are unbiased scientists?


----------



## MacGuiver

Good points Macfury. I always took issue with the claim that they've created a computer program that took into consideration EVERY factor that affects our climate and it could accurately forecast the future of the global climate. To believe this is possible you'd have to believe the men creating the program were gods. Hell they can't predict 5 days of local weather with any accuracy. And then for governments to run with the claims of these models to spend billions on bandaids for a fake injury.


----------



## Macfury

I find it fascinating that no thought is ever given to global cooling. Apparently only warming is bad. If we were heading for an ice age, would there be an outcry to increase carbon dioxide production to stave it off? I'll bet they would call the Ice Age "natural."


----------



## SINC

Yesterday it was +10° here in the Edmonton region and local talk shows were filled with the usual nut jobs hollering about global warming. Reality set in on the evening news at 6:00 when local weather forecasters pointed out in unison on four channels that *the record high temperature for January 22 was 11.1°*.

*That record was set in 1892.*


----------



## FeXL

Hey, it was highly concentrated equine flatulence back then...


----------



## FeXL

The compassionate, intellectual, left...

Friday not so funny – ‘off with their heads’ !



> From Bishop Hill, another ugly day in the climate wars. At least we have Josh.


More:

Greenpeace Activist Calls for Climate Change ‘Deniers’ to be Beheaded



> A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.


----------



## FeXL

Background:



> Monckton: 'A climate science paper by Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates, Matt Briggs and me, just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Orient’s equivalent of Nature demonstrates that the billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are hopelessly wrong.'
> 
> 'Within hours a blog funded by the wealthy but mysterious “European Climate Foundation” had gathered instant rent-a-quotes from half a dozen soi-disant climate “scientists” savagely but anti-scientifically attacking our paper. The propaganda piece was misleadingly, laughably called “Factcheck”. Each of the “scientists” who were quoted made untrue assertions.'


Monckton fires back point-by-point rebuttal at warmist critics of new peer-reviewed study: ‘Shoddy, rent-a-quote ‘scientists’



> IT IS time to be angry at the intellectual bankruptcy of climate “science” today. We should also be fearful of the UN’s gruesome plan, aided and abetted by ministers and bureaucrats worldwide, to establish a global climate “government” by an irrevocable treaty in Paris this December on the basis of what is now known to be dodgy and even fraudulent science.


Give 'em hell, m'lord...


----------



## FeXL

Monday Mirthiness – polar melting test



> WUWT reader Warren Smith writes in with this quiz:
> TEST YOURSELF: What is your knowledge of how fast the polar ice caps are melting


I do like the answer options for question 3.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "Hottest Year Evah!" BS.

Super-Heated Air from Climate Science on NOAA’s “Hottest” Year



> It was bound to happen eventually. We could see it coming – a feeding frenzy from “really, it is still getting warmer” to “we told you so: this is proof positive that the science is settled and we will all boil or fry!” The latest numbers are in and they show the “hottest” year since temperature data has become available depending on which data you look at.


What's this? A retraction? 

Clarification: Hottest Year story 



> The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high — and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.


Ya don't say. And, this:

What Does Gavin Schmidt’s ‘Warmest’ Year Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity to CO2?



> In summary, after acknowledging the many other factors contributing to local temperature change, and after recognizing that data homogenization has lowered the peak warming of the 30s through the 50s in many original data sets by as much as 2 to 3°F, (a peak warming also observed in many proxy data sets less tainted by urbanization effects), ask yourself, *does NOAA’s graph and record 2014 temperatures really tell us anything about climate sensitivity or heat accumulation from rising CO2?* Or does it tell us more about climate politics and data manipulation?


Bold from the link.

Consider that a rhetorical question...


----------



## FeXL

An interesting article on how snow/ice may record CO2 levels as a proxy.

An Engineer’s Ice-Core Thought Experiment



> Ice-cores analysis has provided many valuable insights into past climate. We can be more confident for some of these insights than others. One troubling insight surrounds the peaks of historic CO2 atmospheric concentration. In this essay, I would like to describe what I believe would be an “ideal” description of the recordation process regarding the amplitude of the peaks of historic CO2 atmospheric concentration.


Article is short but much in the lengthy comments.

One in particular regarding resolution from Tim Ball is excellent.


----------



## FeXL

Steven Goddard has recently been tracking "adjustments" made to Paraguay's temperature record. Paul Homewood also comments.

Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America



> In South America, there are hardly any rural land thermometers. GISS tells us the area is warming (see the map below). Paul Homewood looked at the raw data. There are only three rural stations currently operating in the area, Puerto Casado, Mariscal, and San Juan, and they all show a raw trend that falls. As in so many other situations, after adjustments, all three show a rising trend. *The changes are breathtaking. In Mariscal raw temperatures of 25.5C turned out to be “really” 22.5C.*


M'bold.

More:

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming



> Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.


----------



## FeXL

Is reality slowing creeping in?

An Unexpected Admission from Dana Nuccitelli at SkepticalScience



> Dana admitted that during a decade-long (or multidecadal) period(s) when El Niño events dominate (when El Niños are stronger, last longer and happen more frequently), the El Niños enhance global warming, and during periods when La Niña events dominate (when there are weaker, shorter and fewer El Niño events), the absence of El Niño events suppresses the warming of global surfaces.


----------



## FeXL

Matt Ridley on his beheading.

The polarisation of the climate debate has gone too far, says Matt Ridley



> [Matt:] Then a funny thing happened a few years ago. Those who disagreed with me stopped pointing out politely where or why they disagreed and started calling me names. One by one, many of the most prominent people in the climate debate began to throw vitriolic playground abuse at me. I was “paranoid”, “specious”, “risible”, “self-defaming”, “daft”, “lying”, “irrational”, an “idiot”. Their letters to the editor or their blog responses asserted that I was “error-riddled” or had seriously misrepresented something, but then they not only failed to substantiate the charge but often roughly confirmed what I had written.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Steven Goddard has recently been tracking "adjustments" made to Paraguay's temperature record. Paul Homewood also comments.
> 
> Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America


See--global warming really is caused by humans!


----------



## FeXL

Willis on Milankovitch cycles & missing temperature swings.

Into and Out of the Icebox



> Inspired by a random comment by Steve McIntyre over at his marvelous blog Climate Audit, I got to thinking about the ice ages. I’ve long heard that the ice ages are caused by the changes in summer insolation in the northern hemisphere. As the story goes, the Milankovitch cycles of variations in the earths orbit make it so that there is a variation in how strong the summer sun is in the northern hemisphere. When the summer sun is weaker, the ice sheets advance, and eventually the buildup of ice reflects enough solar energy to spiral us into the icebox. Then about every hundred thousand years, the sun gets stronger again, and melts away the ice, and within a few thousand years the great ice sheets melt away and we’re out of the icebox.
> 
> So of course, once I’ve had that thought, I was doomed, and so I had to take a look. I got the data, and here is the variation in average northern hemisphere insolation for the months of June, July, and August.


Good read. Excellent graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> See--global warming really is caused by humans!


Of that there is no doubt...


----------



## FeXL

Gavin Says The Pause Which He Didn’t Predict And Doesn’t Exist, May Continue For 10 More Years

I guess the word "shame" is completely missing from some of these guys' lexicon...


----------



## FeXL

New website out, summarizing all the changes that global warming will bring. Some in direct opposition to each other. Pretty hard to lose the argument when you have both sides covered.. 

ClimateChangePredictions.org



> less summer rain
> January 25, 2015January 25, 2015 by admin
> 
> =========================================
> 
> A change in the North Atlantic current could lead to the end of the soggy British summers, researchers have claimed….. A decline in its speed, however, could cool the North Atlantic and put an end to the pattern, bringing colder but drier summer weather to Britain in future, experts explained.
> The Telegraph (UK) 19 Jan 2014
> 
> 
> more summer rain
> January 25, 2015 by admin
> 
> Extreme summer rainfall may become more frequent in the UK due to climate change, according to new research led by the Met Office in collaboration with Newcastle University.
> Met Office press release 2 Jun 2014


----------



## FeXL

Excellent article.

Study: Siberian permafrost has been warming for 7000 years



> For the first time, researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute have successfully decoded climate data from old permafrost ground ice and reconstructed the development of winter temperatures in Russia’s Lena River Delta. Their conclusions: over the past 7,000 years, winter temperatures in the Siberian permafrost regions have gradually risen. The study was published yesterday on _Nature Geoscience‘s_ website.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Grief — Believers mourning — It’s denial and anger (but it sure isn’t science)



> Those who believe the Glorious Climate Models (GCMs) are in trouble. Many of them have spent their entire careers soaking in dire predictions, but things are falling apart — (or rather, not falling apart) — the models don’t work, the public doesn’t care, the media are not that interested, and skeptics keep winning Bloggies awards. Spare a thought for them. It’s tough out there for unskeptical people. Children still know what snow is.
> 
> Things are unravelling in believer-land and there is pain. They are witnessing “the wholesale destruction of the planet”, or perhaps the death of a hypothesis, which is nearly as bad.


Wah... :-(


----------



## FeXL

A brief review of one of the practices BEST uses on their data.

BEST practices step uncertainty levels in their climate data

Brandon sums:



> All told, BEST’s uncertainty levels are a complete mess. They are impossible to interpret in any meaningful way, and they certainly cannot be used to try to determine which years may or may not have been the hottest.


----------



## FeXL

Sigh...

Time Magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger writes what might possibly be the stupidest article about climate ever – climate change causes volcanoes



> But, there’s a hitch, according to NOAA data, volcanic activity worldwide actually went DOWN in the 2000’s while the climate changing carbon dioxide went UP in global concentration...


Hate when empirical observation trumps creed...


----------



## FeXL

Josh's humour on the Paraguay adjustments.

It was the best of times - Josh 312

Saturday silliness – the BEST adjustments of temperature

Second link purely for the snarky comments.


----------



## FeXL

More failed predictions.

Smoking Gun Of Incompetence At The IPCC



> In 2001, the UN IPCC said “Mild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”
> 
> ...
> 
> Since they made that forecast, UN headquarters has seen five of its ten largest snowstorms.


----------



## FeXL

So, Willie Soon is part of the foursome who put together the climate model that would operate on a hand calculator that I posted about some time back.

On of the constants in a warmist argument is to use ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies against sceptics, rather than actually address the science. In the following case, Greg laden attacks Willie Soon's credibility by accusing him of receiving funding from "big oil" & demanding he step down from his position at the Smithsonian. One of Soon's coauthor's, William H. Briggs (yes, the statistician), addresses the issue. In that process, he clearly illustrates who is receiving funding from "big oil" & it ain't the sceptics...

Greg Laden, and his ‘cowardly unethical asinine foolhardy pig-ignorant act’



> This is a guest post about the execrable Greg Laden, and his calls for firing Dr. Willie Soon without having one iota of proof of his assertions. I’ve had run ins with this fool before, where I point out he’s lied about me, and even considered taking him to court for libel. In this episode, once again, Greg Laden is wronger than wrong, as is the paid political shill Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts, who put together the smear campaign seen in the photo below. As Instapundit says, “hit back twice as hard”. Its the only thing a bully truly understands.


Oh, & just in case you don't go through all the comments, here's a link to just some who have received funding from "big oil".


----------



## FeXL

New York Times Believes That 1926 Was 50 Million Years Ago



> The New York Times says the North Pole hasn’t had open water for 50 million years
> 
> ...
> 
> Apparently 1926 was a very long time ago, because in 1926 the same newspaper reported open water at the pole.


Ooops...


----------



## FeXL

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #166

Covering a few things of interest over the last week. _Cherry-Picking Temperatures_ is a good article.


----------



## FeXL

Despite what some winter storms may otherwise indicate, we are in an inter-glacial. The last one was about 120,000 years ago and there is evidence in the following paper that sea levels were up to 11 meteres higher than today. What could possibly have been the cause...

New paper finds 'catastrophic collapse of polar ice sheets & substantial sea level rise' up to 11 meters higher than present during the last interglacial



> A new paper published in Nature Communications finds the last interglacial period ~127-117 thousand years ago was characterized by "catastrophic collapse of polar ice sheets and substantial sea level rise" of up to 11 meters higher than the present. According to the authors, these climate changes are explained by changes in solar insolation "close to today's value."
> 
> Therefore, there is no evidence that the (significantly lower) sea levels and (larger) polar ice sheets of today as compared to the last interglacial are due to man's activity rather than the natural changes expected due to solar insolation changes similar today to the last interglacial.
> 
> Further, the authors find no significant changes in seasonality (temperature changes between summer and winter) of the last interglacial compared to the modern seasonality, and attribute such changes to solar insolation similar between the present and last interglacial ~118,000 years ago.


Abstract



> The end of the last interglacial period, ~118 kyr ago, was characterized by substantial ocean circulation and climate perturbations resulting from instabilities of polar ice sheets. These perturbations are crucial for a better understanding of future climate change. The seasonal temperature changes of the tropical ocean, however, which play an important role in seasonal climate extremes such as hurricanes, floods and droughts at the present day, are not well known for this period that led into the last glacial. Here we present a monthly resolved snapshot of reconstructed sea surface temperature in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean for 117.7±0.8 kyr ago, using coral Sr/Ca and δ18O records. *We find that temperature seasonality was similar to today, which is consistent with the orbital insolation forcing.* Our coral and climate model results suggest that temperature seasonality of the tropical surface ocean is controlled mainly by orbital insolation changes during interglacials.


Bold from the link.

Complete paper at the link. Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Warmist hate campaign.

The hate campaign — it’s “science by insults” revealing the deepest fear of believers



> David Rose does Daily Mail articles asking dangerous questions about error bars and wanting to know pedantic, unreasonable things like where the scientific data is. One commenter urged his children to kill him. Rose has been a journalist for 34 years. He has seen nothing like this vitriol. As he writes below, _The Guardian_ and other newspapers support brutal threats in comments but filter out skeptics.


Ah, yes, the inestimable _Grunnion_...


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Actually, we take either with a huge grain of salt, while denouncing the worst sort of climate science (and two-bit memes). But at least the groundhog is sincere.



CubaMark said:


>


----------



## FeXL

Coupla things, CM...

1. Climate modellers use the same software that weather forecasters use, just different time frames. My local weather forecasters are unable to produce an accurate forecast beyond about 4-5 days. Some days they can't hit tomorrow or the next day correctly. Why should I trust that the software will be any more accurate 20, 50, a hundred years out?

2. What evidence?

C'mon, CM, instead of sniping from the sidelines like a troll, engage the topic.


----------



## FeXL

As I suspected. All hat & no horse...

Carry on! 

Further on the fallacy of a "Global Temperature".

So, one of the issues with the global temperature datasets is missing data. In this day & age, you'd think it would be a relatively easy thing to get a thermometer reading. Apparently, not so much...

More Than Half Of NCDC December Land Temperatures Were Fake



> 58% of the land temperatures reported by NCDC for December were completely fake...


So, when there's no reading, what does NCDC do? Why, they run the surrounding numbers through their magical formula, et voila!



> The graph below shows the pixel counts of measured and published land temperatures. As you can see, the vast majority of fake pixels have positive anomalies. Their algorithms (which “work as designed”) skew fake data towards high temperatures.


Summary?



> _*The reported December land anomaly was 1.36C, but the average anomaly of the measured data showed only 0.71C.*_ Mind boggling temperature fraud by NCDC.


Yeah, emphasis mine.

Fire. Them. All.

Hey, if you got rid of this bunch of liars, there might suddenly be some cash available for some real science, the Mars Rover program...


----------



## FeXL

Lot of contradictions between this dat & TIPCC™. Who d'ya s'pose is correct? Empiricial observation or dem models?

New paper finds oceans warming only a tiny 0.002°C-0.005°C/year since 2006




> A paper published today in Nature Climate Change claims "Unabated planetary warming...since 2006" of the world's oceans of a tiny 0.005C/year from 0-500 meter depths and an even smaller 0.002C/year for the 500-2000 meter depths. This rate is equivalent to only 0.2°C to 0.5°C ocean warming per century, far less than the 3°C global warming by 2100 central estimate of the IPCC.
> 
> Examination of the paper, however, reveals multiple questionable claims and contradictions to the claims of climate alarmists and IPCC...


Excerpts at the link.


----------



## FeXL

If climate denial is a form of murder, I wonder what basic stupidity is...

Climate Craziness of the Week: ‘climate denial is a form of murder’



> Where do these people come from, and how is it they have such a warped sense of reality and scale?


An understatement...


----------



## FeXL

So, if you're the tree-hugging type & Melbourne, Australia is a bit far to travel, you can always send an email.

Write to a tree about climate change in the Melbourne City Council, and it will write back



> Wait for it… “dozens” of Melbournians are writing emails to trees and the trees are writing back (thanks to paid staff who can speak Elmlish, Oatin, and Planely). Lots of trees are being told they are set to die off thanks to climate change. The Stress!


I wonder where Lewandosky's psychological analysis of this is...


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

‘Breathtaking’ adjustments to Arctic temperature record. Is there any ‘global warming’ we can trust?



> Burton’s key point is this: where Cowtan claims that all NOAA’s adjustments have done is increased warming by a modest 3 per cent, in actuality they have increased it by 35 per cent. So, far from Cowtan’s assessment that these adjustments are “inconsequentially tiny”, they are in fact quite massively distorting.


Near the bottom of the article there is mention of a new paper by Jochem Marotzke which warmists jumped on recently as the newest be all & end all. Addressed in my next post.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, as noted in the post above, new paper out by Jochem Marotzke on the CHIMP5 models. Nic Lewis has analyzed it, along with a couple of professional statisticians. He notes:



> In putting together this note, I have had the benefit of input from two statistical experts: Professor Gordon Hughes (Edinburgh University) and Professor Roman Mureika (University of New Brunswick, now retired). Both of them regard the statistical methods in Marotzke’s paper as fatally flawed.


Marotzke and Forster’s circular attribution of CMIP5 intermodel warming differences

Specifically, from Hughes:



> _The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics.
> 
> All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and_ Nature _should get some competent referees. _


Ouch.

Technical read but very thorough.

Also covered over at WUWT, linked for the comments.

Marotzke and Forster have published a response.

The absence of mathematics

Bishop Hill notes:



> Unfortunately, when they continue to the section called "Specifics" I can't actually see any mathematics that purports to show that their original regression model was not circular. My impression is of handwaving. Steve McIntyre, in the comments at CA seems to have reached similar conclusions


----------



## FeXL

So, a few links on temperature "adjustments".

First off is a link to an article on Judith Curry's site. It's authored by 3 people working on the BEST project. I had high hopes when BEST was first announced. Now, after reading, watching, listening, I'm not so sure...

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data



> Berkeley Earth developed a methodology for automating the adjustment process in part to answer the suspicions people had about the fairness of human aided adjustments. The particulars of the process will be covered in a separate post. For now we want to understand the magnitude of these adjustments and what they do to the relevant climate metric: the global time series. As we will see the “biggest fraud” of all time and this “criminal action” amounts to nothing.


The article itself is fairly short. The comments stretch on at length but can be a good source of info if you are persistant.

Stephen Goddard, who has been champion among those claiming malfeasance in the temperature record, has repeatedly indicated that one of the main issues is the loss of rural stations & the infilling of that data from urban station readings. He has a clear & concise graphic showing exactly what he means:

Basic Math For Academics



> I put together an easy to follow explanation of temperature data abuse, which is simple enough that even an academic might be able to comprehend.


He also shows "adjustments" to data from Addison, NY.

Mind Blowing Data Tampering At Addison, New York



> Our friends at NCDC have done some pretty spectacular work to hide Addison, New York’s warm past. Thermometers tell us that Addison January afternoons were about three degrees warmer in the past than they are now, and that January 1932 was about four degrees warmer than January 2006. But through the magic of data tampering, NCDC has made the January cooling disappear, and made 2006 almost as warm as 1932.


He then compares the Addison, NY data to nearby Elmira, NY & finds major "adjustments", too.

Actually, The Temperature Adjustments Are Extremely Fraudulent



> Let’s look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering – they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. *The early part of the 20th century was cooled five degrees. What possible error could require five degrees of data tampering?*


Emphasis mine.

Questions, questions...


----------



## CubaMark

Perhaps of interest to some:

*Reddit: *Science AMA Series: Hi, I'm Dr. Kathy Crane, an oceanographer and manager of NOAA's Arctic Research Program at arctic.noaa.gov. We recently published the Arctic Report Card for 2014 that measured how climate change is affecting the Arctic. AMA! :


----------



## Macfury

Questions are inane and answers are shockingly inept.

QUOTE=CubaMark;1901666]Perhaps of interest to some:

*Reddit: *Science AMA Series: Hi, I'm Dr. Kathy Crane, an oceanographer and manager of NOAA's Arctic Research Program at arctic.noaa.gov. We recently published the Arctic Report Card for 2014 that measured how climate change is affecting the Arctic. AMA! :[/QUOTE]


----------



## FeXL

Let's take a look at the very first question & the associated answer from this NOAA "expert" for a second, shall we?



> Question: If there is a runaway greenhouse effect, will the arctic permafrost melt? Will it become a habitable land to invasive species?
> 
> Answer: Thanks very much for the important question! We know that permafrost is already thawing in places like Alaska, Canada and northern Russia, and it’s also thawing in some places on the seafloor because the Arctic is also one of the few places in the world where permafrost is found on the bottom of the ocean. So, atmospheric warming and feedbacks to this warming do contribute to the thaw of terrestrial permafrost and in addition, warming ocean currents that are entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic and the Pacific are thought to be warming the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean. There is very clear evidence showing that methane is being released from permafrost on the seafloor and the concern is that if the warming continues, then most of the methane “locked” on both the seafloor and land could be released.
> 
> Regarding the second part of your question, life is very adept at finding places to survive and either this will mean migrations to more favorable reasons… or in some cases extinctions if some forms of life are unable to move with the climate. But these are all areas that need to be explored further in the Arctic and an organization called Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Home - Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, CAFF) is looking exactly into this issue of invasive species and the rate of change of migrations from outside of the Arctic into the Arctic. Stay tuned!


I'd like to analyze the question/response, parse it some.

First off, the question starts with a hypothetical and impossible situation, "If there is a runaway greenhouse effect...". How do you respond to this? If the earth's orbit moved to within 5 million miles of the sun overnight, would the oceans boil away? Well, duh...

The unfounded fear about "runaway greenhouse effects" is based on the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There is evidence indicating that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the past have reached levels greater than an order of magnitude higher (as much as 7000ppm, compared to our current 400ppm) than what we are currently experiencing and, wonder of wonders, we're still here to talk about it. As a matter of fact, right in the middle of those high CO2 concentrations the planet experienced an ice age.

Next this NOAA "expert" explains that, yes, there is evidence that permafrost is indeed melting. 



> We know that permafrost is already thawing in places like Alaska, Canada and northern Russia, and it’s also thawing in some places on the seafloor because the Arctic is also one of the few places in the world where permafrost is found on the bottom of the ocean.


No argument. However, there is absolutely no evidence given that connects melting permafrost to "global warming" (as in, global warming caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, not that which has been occurring naturally on this planet since second one). As a matter of fact, in the last couple of weeks I linked to a draft release about an upcoming paper outlining evidence that Siberian permafrost has been warming _for 7000 years._ I guess that, seeing as we've been melting ourselves out of an ice age for the past 11,000 years or so, it just makes sense, no?

Plus, there is evidence that permafrost is also currently forming in Alaska.



> So, atmospheric warming and feedbacks to this warming do contribute to the thaw of terrestrial permafrost...


Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. Where is the anthropogenic connection? Sadly there is none given.



> ...and in addition, warming ocean currents that are entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic and the Pacific are thought to be warming the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean.


Again, no argument. Take a look at coastal temperature measurements in Alaska. They are the only ones that are increasing. The interior is not. How does this reconcile with a more or less evenly distributed global CO2 concentration? Is CO2 so talented that it can warm air over some oceanic areas (but not others) which, according to warmist theory, then gets carried down to the deep, becomes lost, but then suddenly appears off the coast of Alaska? And, all this while not affecting the land surface temperature? Is that the thrust?

Next:



> There is very clear evidence showing that methane is being released from permafrost on the seafloor and the concern is that if the warming continues, then most of the methane “locked” on both the seafloor and land could be released.


Ah, yes, methane. The next warmist bugaboo. That it is being released is, again, a non-argument. However, is there an anthropogenic connection? Let's start with this:

Inconvenient study: Methane seepage from the Arctic seabed has been occurring for millions of years



> Despite the ever present wailing from green activists that we are sitting on a “methane catastrophe”, it’s simply business as usual for Earth in the Arctic. Even Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS thinks the issue is “implausible”. This study further confirms that the issue is just another emotional overblown green issue of no merit.


So, unlikely.

As to the second question, it matters not if the hypothetical situation in part one never occurs. However, that being said, life moves to wherever it is sustainable. There is no great mystery here.

Concerning the rest of the session, softball questions from believers and softball answers.


----------



## FeXL

CO2 is scary! Methane is more potent! What about water?

Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas



> The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.


Have a look at the intentional misdirection in figure 2. Water isn't even listed in the little pie chart...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong



> Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years–and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses–apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth’s orbit, and to sea levels–may help trigger natural climate swings. *Scientists have already speculated that volcanic cycles on land emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide might influence climate; but up to now there was no evidence from submarine volcanoes. The findings suggest that models of earth’s natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted.*


Bold from the link.

Models needing yet another adjustment?  Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Just what many have been saying for years. Slowly, slowly...

Recent Paper Ends Abstract with “…Model Might Be Too Sensitive to the Prescribed Radiative Forcings”



> _*Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998–2012 hiatus period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model might be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcings.*​_


Bold from the link.



> That’s something you don’t normally see from the climate science community.
> 
> Yep. Kudos...


----------



## FeXL

Who actually receives "big funding"?

Vilifying realist science – and scientists



> Things are not going well for Climate Chaos, Inc. The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing its carbon dioxide regulations, and President Obama wants to make more Alaska oil and gas prospects off limits. But elsewhere the climate alarm industry is under siege – and rightfully so.


Good.



> Between 2003 and 2010, the US government alone spent over $105 billion in taxpayer funds on climate and renewable energy projects. The European Union and other entities spent billions more. Most of the money went to modelers, scientists, other researchers and their agencies and universities; to renewable energy companies for subsidies and loan guarantees on projects that receive exemptions from endangered species and human health laws and penalties that apply to fossil fuel companies; and even to environmental pressure groups that applaud these actions, demand more and drive public policies.
> 
> Billions more went to government regulators, who coordinate many of these activities and develop regulations that are often based on secretive, deceptive pre-ordained “science,” sue-and-settle lawsuits devised by con artist John Beale, and other tactics. Politicians receive millions in campaign cash and in-kind help from these organizations and their unions, to keep them in office and the gravy train on track.


Hint: It ain't the sceptics...


----------



## FeXL

On Feb 2 I posted about Matt Ridley's beheading comment. _The Grunion_ has, finally, given an off-hand, backwards-assed attempt at an apology. Without actually giving an apology...

The Guardian apologises



> The Guardian has apologised for its behaviour over the Bluecloud affair, in which a Greenpeace activist and sometime Guardian writer named Gary Evans discussed beheading Matt Ridley.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

Mosher Says Temperatures Are Not Being Adjusted Upwards



> NOAA says temperatures are being adjusted upwards. This graph understates the amount of current tampering by more than 100%, but clearly shows the direction of the tampering.


Read the comments, especially those by "Blade". Very revealing.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> On Feb 2 I posted about Matt Ridley's beheading comment. _The Grunion_ has, finally, given an off-hand, backwards-assed attempt at an apology. Without actually giving an apology...
> 
> The Guardian apologises


The good(?) news here is that under Canada's proposed thought police regulations, had this individual suggested beheading AGW believers he could have been charged with a criminal offense or even disappeared.


----------



## FeXL

On this thread post #5420 I linked to that BEST study by Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather & Steve Mosher.

If you've spent any amount of time perusing the comments after the article, there is an air of desperation by the authors. They are pretty much being hammered from every direction.

On that topic, Stephen Goddard puts their hypothesis to the test.

Putting Curry And Mosher To The Test



> Curry and Mosher claim that UHI has no impact on rural vs. urban temperature trends. I put that to the test in New South Wales, with two of the longest temperature records in Australia.
> 
> Sydney Observatory is right next to 20 lanes of asphalt and has warmed almost 2C since 1860.
> 
> ...
> 
> Forbes is a rural station and has cooled about one degree since the 1870’s.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is the same pattern we see at all the old rural stations in Australia like Deniliquin, Bourke, etc. SE Australia has cooled since the 19th century.
> 
> ...
> 
> Satellites show that Berkeley Earth land temperatures are diverging from atmospheric temperatures in a hockey stick. A smoking gun that Berkeley Earth is severely tainted by UHI.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

As noted earlier, Paul Homewood is also hammering away at the "adjusted" temperature records. Further:

Arctic Temperature Data From CLIMAS



> The CLIMAS (Climate information access system) was set up to provide climate data for high latitudes, although it does not seem to have been updated since 2000.
> 
> ...
> 
> The data they provide includes monthly temperature data from 28 weather stations around the Arctic. Checks at Jan Mayen Island and Nuuk confirm that these tally with the raw GHCN Version 2 data, which I used in my earlier analysis.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now compare with the new adjusted version at GISS.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The new GISS temperatures all 1.1C cooler than the CLIMAS set for 1924/5. *


And so go the "adjustments". Cool the past, warm the present, presto! Instant warming trend.

Excellent graphical comparisons between the data sets.


----------



## FeXL

New book out. Anthony has a chapter.

A new book in which I have a chapter: Climate Change: The Facts

Oh, & before the warmists start screaming "Big Oil is paying for this":



> Note: For the record, I was not paid to write a chapter nor remunerated in any way before or after publication, and, I don’t share in the profits from the sale of the book. I do get a few cents if you order the Kindle version on Amazon via Amazon’s referral program. – Anthony Watts


Also currently available from Australia as a paperback.

Sounds like a gooder...


----------



## FeXL

The quickening for Paris has started: gravy-train begins PR avalanche



> The UNFCCC meeting in Paris is a major money and power-grab, and those with snouts in the trough know that their future fat cheques depend on how well they push propanganda, silence critics, and shout down intelligent debate. At one stage they were asking for 1.5% of global GDP (about $2,500 per Western family of four annually).


----------



## FeXL

Shredding the TOPS argument for "adjustment".

Sinking The TOBS Excuse



> One of the main excuses used for this data tampering is time of observation bias, which is based on the idea that people operating thermometers used to be complete morons, and would reset their min/max thermometers only once per day near the afternoon high. The theory says this caused high temperatures to be double counted on successive days.


OK, so how do we test for this?



> That is easy enough to test, by using only stations which USHCN believes did not reset their thermometers during afternoon in the record hot month of July, 1936. These stations should be biased cold in the 1930’s rather than biased warm.


So, what do the results indicate?



> Those thermometers show exactly the same pattern as the set of all stations. *There has been no warming in the US for nearly a century, and the 1930’s were warmer than the 1990’s*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further evidence against that whole "unprecedented" argument...

New paper demonstrates East Antarctica was ~3.5-4°C warmer than the present during the last interglacial



> A new paper in _Climate of the Past Discussions_ finds from high-resolution ice core data from East Antarctica that temperatures were 3.5-4°C warmer during the last interglacial (~130,000 years ago) than during the present interglacial (the past ~18,000 years).


Link to paper (open access): Climate dependent contrast in surface mass balance in East Antarctica over the past 216 kyr

Abstract



> Documenting past changes in the East Antarctic surface mass balance is important to improve ice core chronologies and to constrain the ice sheet contribution to global mean sea level. Here we reconstruct the past changes in the ratio of surface mass balance (SMB ratio) between the EPICA Dome C (EDC) and Dome Fuji (DF) East Antarctica ice core sites, based on a precise volcanic synchronisation of the two ice cores and on corrections for the vertical thinning of layers. During the past 216 000 years, this SMB ratio, denoted SMBEDC/SMBDF, varied between 0.7 and 1.1, decreasing during cold periods and increasing during warm periods. While past climatic changes have been depicted as homogeneous along the East Antarctic Plateau, our results reveal larger amplitudes of changes in SMB at EDC compared to DF, consistent with previous results showing larger amplitudes of changes in water stable isotopes and estimated surface temperature at EDC compared to DF. Within interglacial periods and during the last glacial inception (Marine Isotope Stages, MIS-5c and MIS-5d), the SMB ratio deviates by up to 30% from what is expected based on differences in water stable isotope records. Moreover, the SMB ratio is constant throughout the late parts of the current and last interglacial periods, despite contrasting isotopic trends. These SMB ratio changes not closely related to isotopic changes are one of the possible causes of the observed gaps between the ice core chronologies at DF and EDC. Such changes in SMB ratio may have been caused by (i) climatic processes related to changes in air mass trajectories and local climate, (ii) glaciological processes associated with relative elevation changes, or (iii) a combination of climatic and glaciological processes, such as the interaction between changes in accumulation and in the position of the domes. Our inferred SMB ratio history has important implications for ice sheet modeling (for which SMB is a boundary condition) or atmospheric modeling (our inferred SMB ratio could serve as a test).


----------



## FeXL

Really good article on the introduction of temperature recording stations using Stevenson screens in Australia during the 19th century.

The mysterious BOM disinterest in hot historic Australian Stevenson screen temperatures



> *When it comes to our rare high-quality historic records, and the real long term trends of Australian weather, the yawn is deafening. There are some excellent historical records of long term temperature data from the late 1800s in Australia, which lie underused and largely ignored by the BOM.
> 
> For the BOM, history appears to start in 1910, yet the modern type of Stevenson screen thermometer was installed across Australia starting as early as 1887 in Adelaide. Most stations in Queensland were converted as long ago as 1889 and in South Australia by 1892.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Plying both sides of the argument.

How Quickly The Past Changes At The New York Times



> In 1988, global warming came into vogue, and the New York Times started helping to create the hockey stick by announcing that temperatures had risen steadily for a century
> 
> ...
> 
> This came right after the New York Times had spent 30 years reporting global cooling and a new ice age.
> 
> ...
> 
> Only 13 years earlier, the National Academy of Sciences reported that there had been no net warming in the 20th century.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Ministry of Truth has amazing powers at making the past disappear.


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk extremes...

1934 – An Extremely Extreme Year



> The year 1934 was far more extreme than anything we have experienced recently.
> 
> Maximum temperatures averaged the hottest in US history
> 
> ...
> 
> Like the current February, temperatures in the east were extremely cold
> 
> ...
> 
> Almost 70% of the US reached 100 degrees, compared to just over 20% last year.
> 
> ...
> 
> 80% of the US was in drought.
> 
> ...
> 
> The drought in the US during 1934 blew away all records, but it wasn’t just in the US – it was all over the world.
> 
> ...
> 
> Almost the entire US was over 100 degrees during June, 1934
> 
> ...
> 
> If we had a year like 1934 now, climate experts would boldly declare 99.7% certainty that such weather was impossible below 350 PPM CO2.


If we had a year like 1934 now, can you imagine the hue & cry?


----------



## Macfury

1934 sounds like a bad time for everyone. Let's eliminate it from the records.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> 1934 sounds like a bad time for everyone. Let's eliminate it from the records.


Already done...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Already done...


Thank goodness that's over!


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

4 of the 5 Great Lakes about to freeze over



> The latest NATICE graphics show Lake Erie totally covered with 9/10+ ice, Lakes Superior and Huron are nearly totally covered with 9/10+ and Ontario about 80% covered with 7/10+. It is likely Superior and Huron will join Erie with total coverage of 9/10+ in today or tomorrow’s report.
> 
> It is possible Ontario could do the same as it is experiencing near or sub-zero temperatures tonight.


Related:

Great Lakes Ice Up 400% Since 1995



> There is four times as much ice on the Great Lakes as there was 20 years ago. Experts say that global warming is to blame.


----------



## FeXL

About that climate induced, dying polar bear thing...

Twenty good reasons not to worry about polar bears and climate change



> Here’s a new resource for cooling the polar bear spin, all in one place. I’ve updated and expanded my previous summary of reasons not to worry about polar bears, which is now two years old. In it, you’ll find links to supporting information (including previous blog posts of mine that provide background, maps and extensive references), although some of the most important graphs and maps have been copied into the summary. I hope you find it a useful resource for refuting the spin and tuning out the cries of doom and gloom about the future of polar bears — please feel free to share.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

So, have a little state of the climate blurb from NOAA here.

Knowing how the current temperature record is being manipulated, adjusted, whatever, take from the temperature statistics what you will.

Global Summary Information - January 2015

That said, what interests me is this:



> Antarctic sea ice during January was 890,000 square miles (44.6 percent) above the 1981–2010 average. *This was the largest January Antarctic sea ice extent on record, surpassing the previous record set in 2008 by 220,000 square miles.*


M'bold.

That's gotta hurt...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.
> 
> 4 of the 5 Great Lakes about to freeze over
> 
> 
> 
> Related:
> 
> Great Lakes Ice Up 400% Since 1995


Which reminds me: Just for our Ontario true believers, it seems like a good time to repost this.


----------



## FeXL

Good thing I'm an anthropogenic global warming sceptic & not a climate change denier, otherwise it may be hell crossing the border this summer... 

Friday Funny: Well if I was a ‘denier’ I guess I’d be on notice by Barack Obama



> An actual email from the _“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any anti-science organization?”_ department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.


The desperation is palpable.


----------



## FeXL

Although my hopes for getting to the actual science of the issue are minimal at best (especially with the current RINO party), at least this issue is going to get some exposure. No better disinfectant than sunlight...

Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA



> California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rohrabacher is a senior member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.
> 
> Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.


Linked for the comments:

Shock News: Government Agencies Are Tampering With Temperature Data

Wanna bet emails are getting dumped as you read this?

Also linked for the comments:

Congressional hearings?

Found this one (from the 3rd) prescient:


> I agree it is not going to get to the bottom of the scientific issues and it is almost certain it would in no way find NASA deliberately falsifying data. However there is incontrovertible evidence that the current and past weather station data in use is a crock and if it says that, the whole circus would start to fall apart.


----------



## FeXL

Article by Tim Ball, an excellent read. 

The Disparity Between IPCC Science Reports, Summary For Policymakers and Reality, Requires a Political Science Solution



> The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report was the most influential in establishing global warming as a serious threat demanding political action. It contained the infamous hockey stick that Richard Muller identified as, “the poster-child of the global warming community.” However, the Report also achieved another distinction, unknown to the media, public and politicians. *Disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Science Report Of Working Group I reached an extreme.*


M'bold.

From the comments, a revealing chart on the topic of CO2 residence times:



> Why is the IPCC so far out of step from dozens of peer reviewed papers? Do they require a long residence time to support thier ‘carbon’ narrative?


Ah, yup...


----------



## FeXL

Many interesting articles in the summary of last week's Weekly climate and energy news roundup.


----------



## CubaMark

A recent scientific review article on climate and the sun similarly notes “the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades,” and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.​
So in sum: It’s not that the sun can’t influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.

And they have found that, while the sun certainly is not irrelevant, the case for steadily rising carbon dioxide as the principal factor driving the current warming trend just makes a lot more sense.

Willie Soon and some other climate change doubters would surely argue back against this finding — but it’s a strong consensus finding, as shown above. The weight of expert opinion isn’t with these doubters — but the burden of proof most definitely is.

(WashingtonPost)


----------



## Macfury

Mark, you stepped right into it. 

Fist of all, it isn't a scientific review, but some sort of ad hominem attack on Willie Soon.

That writer refers only to a study that is five years old--not a recent one--which excludes five additional years of flatlining temperatures. His comments only make any sense at all in the context of the ridiculous amount of _claimed_ warming from his own camp. Since there is no hockey stick or unusual warming in the last century, his comments are ludicrous.

Also:



> And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases...


It_ is_ insensitive to them. Case closed.


----------



## Macfury

For some reason I'm on the IPCC's list of press contacts and each e-mail begins: "Dear Colleague." It shows you how they've come to see the press as part of their organization.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> [blah, blah-blah, blah, blah-blah-blah]


Where's that projectile vomiting emoticon when you need it?

As MF noted, this is nothing more than another hit piece that has come out recently targeting Wille Soon.

I posted a link to a paper he co-authored recently, along with other prominent sceptics. Their findings were that they had a climate model (which would operate on a hand-held calculator) that was significantly more accurate than the latest round of CHIMP5 models operating on multimillion dollar computers. Warmists, unable to find anything to detract from the science in the paper, have turned to their typical ad hom attacks & are questioning his funding & anything else they can discredit him with. 

Instead of engaging in character assassination, why don't they address the science? Is it because there are fewer flaws in their model than the mighty CHIMP5? Is it because they can find nothing to be critical of?

The paper was read more than 10,000 times within days of its release, an amazing and unprecedented achievement.

In addition, I don't know of a single sceptic who would say that the climate is controlled entirely by the sun. As a matter of fact, I myself have made a number of posts regarding a connection between old Sol & climate where I've noted that "correlation is not causation".

As to your completely uncorroborated statement about rising CO2 concentrations being the driver behind recent warming trends making sense, there has been no statistically significant warming on the planet for over 18 years, despite massive injections of CO2 into the atmosphere over the same period. How does that reconcile? Plus, there was a significant global cooling between 1940 & 1970, all the while CO2 concentrations were rising. Again, how does that reconcile with your statement?

I've noted this before: Climate science was pretty easy back in the 80's & 90's. CO2 concentrations were increasing, global temperatures were rising. The science was settled. Done. Pat each other on the back, break out the champagne, handshakes all around. Then the pause, hiatus, whatever, hit &, like cockroaches scuttling from the light, warmists have been scrambling, looking for every excuse in the book to explain it away. There are currently well over 60 on record.

To date, they've yet to list a single one that hasn't been immediately shown to be groundless.

Despite massive increases in recent global CO2 concentrations, there has been little to no recent increase in global temperatures. This just proves that TIPCC's™ CO2 sensitivity estimates are way out of whack, as confirmed not only by recent peer-reviewed science but paleoclimatic evidence.

There is much more going on here than simple increases in CO2 concentration. We are only beginning to wrap our minds around it. Well, some of us...


----------



## Macfury

"B-b-b-b-b-but the_ KOCH_ brothers!"


----------



## FeXL

The goofy things is many of these warmists have their research funded by Big Oil and many NGO's and questions regarding their motivation are never brought up, nor discussed in public.

The hypocrisy is stunning.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> The goofy things is many of these warmists have their research funded by Big Oil and many NGO's and questions regarding their motivation are never brought up, nor discussed in public.
> 
> The hypocrisy is stunning.


I recall some anti-coal campaign funded by the natural gas industry!


----------



## FeXL

When this first came out I didn't link to any of it. However, now that Patchy has resigned as head of the IPCC, I'm going to post a few links.

I had this one in reserve since Sunday:

Rajendra Pachauri to miss key meeting due to sex harassment complaint



> A top United Nations climate official, Rajendra Pachauri, has pulled out of a high-level meeting in Kenya next week, a spokesman said on Saturday, as Indian police investigate a sexual harassment complaint against him.


And these today:

Pachauri Quits UN Climate Panel After Harassment Allegation



> Rajendra Pachauri, who supervised work on the two most detailed studies of climate change ever completed, stepped down as head of the United Nations panel studying the science after allegations he sexually harassed a colleague.


'Harasser' who lifts staff like little girls



> New Delhi, Feb. 21: Rajendra Pachauri, the chief of the Nobel-winning UN climate change panel, preyed serially on women employees for at least a decade at his New Delhi-based non-profit energy organisation, senior lawyers claimed today, citing a police complaint and a testimony filed by two women.


UN IPCC climate head Rajendra Pachauri resigns amid sexual harassment allegations



> From the “the hornier they are the harder they fall” department: The head of the United Nations climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has stepped down amid sexual harassment allegations.


Donna is critical of his 2 page resignation letter:

Rajendra Pachauri’s Resignation Letter



> Rajendra Pachauri resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today. It was a long time coming. As a journalist who has followed his career for the past five years, writing enough to fill a full-length book, my assessment of 74-year-old Pachauri is a harsh one: He has been a non-stop train wreck.
> 
> Today, he finally exited the stage. In true Pachauri fashion, his resignation letter is a two-page love letter to himself. You wouldn’t know that recent allegations of sexual assault, stalking, harassment, and uttering threats suggest strongly that he is a longtime sexual predator.


She has links to another 6 stories of hers on the topic.

Stein is hilarious:


Fake Nobel Laureate Facing Sex Arrest for Wandering Hockey Stick



> _Rajendra Pachauri, the cricket-loving climate-profiteering Nobel Peace Prize-winner with a carbon footprint almost as big as Al Gore's, heads up the IPCC, the global climate-change racket whose "settled science" is getting less settled by the minute. It seems an odd moment for Dr. Pachauri to branch out into bodice-heaving fiction:_
> 
> 'In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.
> 
> 'The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has "endangered the fragile ecosystem".
> 
> 'But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come..
> 
> '"Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay's bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before . . . He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni's body, caressing her voluptuous breasts."'​
> Alas, as with the IPCC reports, after all the lascivious anticipation the ol' hockey stick fails to keeps its end up:
> 
> _Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, "the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started"._​
> Oh, dear. There are times when even a climate expert can't "hide the decline".


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good. He's gone. Long overdue.

Can hardly wait to see what they stuff the chair with next...


----------



## FeXL

Couple from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Coldest January/February On Record In The Northeastern US



> With a week on 10-20 degree F below normal weather in the forecast, the Northeastern US is already having its second coldest start to the year on record. By the end of next week, 2015 should easily be the coldest.


Great Lakes Ice Above Last Year’s Record Coverage



> The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year is poised to blow away last year’s records. All of the lakes have more ice than they did on this day last year.


----------



## FeXL

So, Zeke is defending the TOBS adjustments. More interesting for the comments than anything else.

Understanding Time of Observation Bias



> Global temperatures are adjusted to account for the effects of station moves, instrument changes, time of observation (TOBs) changes, and other factors (referred to as inhomogenities) that cause localized non-climatic biases in the instrumental record.


Steven is critical.

Zeke Still Hiding Behind TOBS



> Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is the first refuge of climate scoundrels. It is normally described by alarmists as “they used to take temperatures in the afternoon, but now they take them in the morning.”
> 
> This explanation is complete nonsense. Min/Max thermometers record the lowest minimum and highest maximum since the last time they were reset. The actual claim is that people used to be incredibly stupid and reset their thermometer only once per day near the afternoon maximum, causing double counting of warm temperatures on cold days which fell after warm days.
> 
> ...
> 
> And TOBS is easy enough to test in the real world (as opposed to Zeke’s fake models) by simply excluding the claimed TOBS affected (afternoon) stations from the analysis. This experiment yields a result showing that TOBS has almost no effect on US temperature trends.
> 
> ...
> 
> Non-TOBS affected stations also show that the 1930’s were much hotter.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Global temperatures are not affected by TOBS, yet they do the same data tampering on global temperatures as they do on US temperatures.*


M'bold.

Zeke?


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark, your contributions to these threads remind me of a dog who takes a dump, then leaves after kicking some divots over it with its hind legs. Why do you never follow up your own posts?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the ongoing BS character assassination of Willie Soon.

NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’



> So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. *It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.*
> 
> What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.
> 
> The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.


M'bold.

Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon: Character assassination is not science.



> This is about much more than just Willie Soon. The fans of man-global warming know they can’t win a polite science debate. They know the biggest threat to the green gravy train is for competitive research, free debate, and independent funding for scientific research. The anti-science brigade want to stamp out and starve independent research. Where once companies would be lauded for their philanthropy, now they are forced to hide it knowing they’ll be targeted, and no matter how good the research work and publications are the results won’t even be discussed if smear-fans can talk about “funding” instead.


Reporting On So-Called Climate Reporters: Update 4



> This concerns the paper Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and I wrote entitled “Why models run hot“, which carries the good news that we have a potential and likely explanation why climate models perform so badly that they should not be trusted.
> 
> Yet instead of celebrating this or at least asking relevant or pertinent questions related to the physics, those of a certain political persuasion panicked. What matters to these sad people is not truth but belief. Only evidence which is consonant with their belief is countenanced. Evidence which questions or refutes their belief isn’t challenged or engaged, instead it is anathematized, and the bearers of the bad tidings are damned and hounded.


An excellent read authored by William Briggs, one of the authors of the above-mentioned paper.


----------



## FeXL

More on that impeccable thermometer record...

NOAA Caught Cooling The Past



> NOAA claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures 1.24F above the 20thC average of 57.0F.
> 
> In other words, 58.24F.
> 
> This is all very strange, because back in 1997, they said global temperatures were 62.45F!


The Official Iceland Temperature Series



> I have prepared an Iceland Temperature Series, combining these three stations together with other four long running sites of Grimsstadir, Storhofoi, Teigarhorn and Haell, which confirms the picture shown above.
> 
> Theses seven sites offer a fairly representative geographic mix, from north to south, and east to west. The chart below is based on anomalies from the 1981-2010 baseline, averaged across the seven sites.
> 
> *None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record*


M'bold.

Massive Adjustments At Every Icelandic Station (And Guess Which Way)



> We see clearly how GHCN has adjusted down temperatures prior to 1975, since when the numbers tally. The adjustment varies during the earlier years, reaching a maximum of 2.0C in 1940.
> 
> There are seven other Icelandic stations on GHCN, though not all current. The charts below, that GHCN supply, all show a similar pattern of cooling the period leading up to the sea ice years of the 1960’s and 70’s.


----------



## FeXL

Inconvenient study: La Niña killed coral reefs 4100 years ago and lasted over two millennia

However, there appears to be some contradictions within the paper. From the comments:



> Climate change is the leading cause of coral-reef degradation.
> ===
> That’s nice…we’ve solved that runoff, sedimentation, pollution problem
> …
> 
> Did they really just use a cold limiting..to prove warm limiting?


Much more in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent observations on climate science from Leo Smith in a comment raised to article status.

Thoughts From Leo Smith



> I have to say that I have more or less given up on the science: The jury is in for people to understand the maths and the physics and how real science works. *AGW is a crock of ****, and that’s that.*


M'bold.

Sweet & to the point. He continues:



> The real game is the war for hearts and minds. And that is a game of psychology, propaganda, money, power, politics, greed, fear, uncertainty and doubt. If we can’t win it, it will in the end destroy Western civilisation, and so it should. *If we have no answer for lies, we don’t deserve to make it.*


Why I'm here...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, you know all that nasty, high-carbon petroleum being mined out of the "tar" sands at Fort Mac? Yeah, not so much...

How clean is our ‘dirty’ oil? You’d be surprised.



> Researchers for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard have recently released new data measuring the carbon intensity of various crude oil blends, including diluted bitumen (a.k.a. ‘dilbit’) and upgraded synthetic crude oil (‘SCO’) from the Canadian oilsands. The Californian findings will not be well-received by anti-oilsands activists.
> 
> Among the findings that may surprise:
> 
> • There are 13 oil fields in California, plus crude oil blends originating in at least six other countries, that generate a higher level of upstream greenhouse gas emissions than Canadian dilbit blends;
> 
> • Crude oil from Alaska’s North Slope, which makes up about 12 per cent of California’s total crude slate, is actually “dirtier” than the Canadian dilbit known as “Access Western Blend”;
> 
> • The “dirtiest oil in North America” is not produced in Canada, but just outside Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canadian oilsands production; and
> 
> • The title of “world’s dirtiest oil” goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria, where the uncontrolled release of methane during the oil extraction process generates upstream GHG emissions that are over four times higher than Canadian dilbit.


Link to PDF paper.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Willie.

The Peril of Great Causes



> Currently, some bloggers and mainstream media sources are reviving decade-long questions about the funding of a scientist named Willie Soon, that he received funding from fossil fuel sources.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.
> 
> What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.
> 
> *Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.*
> 
> Oh for the days when we talked about science.


M'bold.

Yep.

More:

Yes, the sun (was) driving global warming 



> The global warming "pause" began almost simultaneously with the current lull in solar activity, while atmospheric CO2 levels continued a steady rise. Even the IPCC, which formerly completely dismissed the role of the Sun in climate change was forced to admit in the latest assessment report that low solar activity is one potential explanation (of at least 66 others) proposed as a cause of the 18+ year "pause" of global warming. It is nonsense to claim that solar activity only significantly affects climate when temperatures are steady to falling, but not while temperatures are rising.


----------



## FeXL

So, no surprise, Jug Ears vetoed Keystone.

WSJ: President veto & his oil-by-rail boom 



> All the more newsy, then, is Mr. Obama’s unsurprising veto of bipartisan legislation that would have authorized the Keystone XL pipeline. Opposing Keystone, it goes without saying, will not make the slightest difference to things opponents claim to care about. It will not alter by an infinitesimal fraction of a degree mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels or the continued development of hydrocarbon resources.
> 
> It will, however, give fresh impetus to America’s oil-by-rail boom.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The International Energy Agency forecasts that North America will invest $2.5 trillion in oil infrastructure over the next 20 years, of which Keystone would have represented just 0.3%. More of those dollars now will be spent to build oil-by-rail infrastructure, less to build pipeline infrastructure, although most experts consider pipeline a safer way to transport oil.*


M'bold.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid...


----------



## FeXL

Further on TOBS.

More Evidence That TOBS Is Garbage



> I ran another test of TOBS-resistant data.
> 
> Any day which has a higher maximum than the previous day can not be due to TOBS double counting. The graph below shows the percent of days over 90 degrees, which were also hotter than the previous day. Once again we see that the 1930s were much hotter. This can’t be blamed on TOBS.
> 
> ...
> 
> The pattern is essentially identical to the pattern for all days. TOBS has little or no impact on the US temperature record.
> 
> ...
> 
> Zeke and Mosher never discuss any actual testing like this on the real data, choosing instead to hide behind models and peer-reviewed junk science.


----------



## FeXL

Barack Obama Goes Full Stalin



> The level of Soviet style criminal activity at the White House has reached spectacular new lows. On February 20, The White House sent out this E-mail announcing that they were going to start attacking individual scientists who dissented from the White House global warming agenda.
> 
> ...
> 
> A few hours later, this E-mail was sent out to a large group of prominent skeptics. The author used a stolen identity of Harvard’s Dr. Willie Soon, and obtained the list of skeptic E-mails via hacking. The E-mail pre-announced an attack by the press on an individual scientist.
> 
> ...
> 
> Today they sent out another E-mail using Dr. Soon’s stolen identity, pre-announcing newspaper attacks on other prominent skeptics.
> 
> ...
> 
> This behavior by the White House, coordinated with the press corps, is straight out of the Stalin era Soviet Union.


Stunning.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> CubaMark, your contributions to these threads remind me of a dog who takes a dump, then leaves after kicking some divots over it with its hind legs. Why do you never follow up your own posts?


Well, gosh. You guys seem to have it all figured out. Think of my contributions as giving you the opportunity to re-assert your beliefs. You seem to enjoy doing so...


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Think of my contributions as giving you the opportunity to re-assert your beliefs.


What contributions? Regurgitating the same non-scientific belief system as always? And, you accuse us of promoting ours? 

You've always had difficulty supporting your side of the discussion with cold, hard facts. No surprise you maintain the same issues on this thread...


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Well, gosh. You guys seem to have it all figured out. Think of my contributions as giving you the opportunity to re-assert your beliefs. You seem to enjoy doing so...


I won't post a link, study or argument here that I don't already understand well enough to discuss or answer questions about. That's a common courtesy.


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm, interesting. Especially the comment.

Almost 30 years after Hansen’s 1988 “alarm” on global warming, a claim of confirmation on CO2 forcing



> What is really the issue related to AGW claims are the posited/modeled but not observed feedbacks and the logarithmic (not linear) saturation curve response of CO2. Along those lines, eyeballing the graph presented from the north slope of Alaska, it appears there might be a bit of a slowdown or “pause” in the rate of forcing from about 2007 onward.


From the comments:



> Quote:
> This increase (in CO2 forcing) is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
> _______________________________
> 
> *Ok, so what they are saying is that Global Warming is 90% caused by water vapour and clouds.* So why are we worrying about CO2? What is the point in trying to eliminate a source of 10% of the warming trend?
> 
> R


M'bold.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!

A number of years ago, on this very thread, bryanc & I were having a discussion about the effect of CO2 on global temperatures. If memory serves, he was estimating around 50% & I noted I thought less than 10%.

Vindication...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> A number of years ago, on this very thread, bryanc & I were having a discussion about the effect of CO2 on global temperatures. If memory serves, he was estimating around 50% & I noted I thought less than 10%.
> 
> Vindication...



Yeah, but he cuts apart the eggs of zebrafish...


----------



## FeXL

Shades of McCarthyism?

In addition to the character assassination of Willie Soon, Roger Pielke Jr (hardly a sceptic & very much a luke-warmer) is also being questioned, by a US Congressman, no less.

Democratic Congressman Draws Backlash Over Climate Funding Probe



> A House Democrat looking for ties between climate skeptics at several universities and fossil fuel interests is facing allegations that his probe goes too far. And they're not just coming from his political opponents.
> 
> Following revelations that a prominent climate skeptic failed to disclose funding from Exxon, Southern Company, and other fossil fuel industry sources, Rep. Raul Grijalva, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, sent letters to seven schools demanding information about—and "communication regarding"—specific professors' funding sources and their preparation of testimony before Congress and other bodies.


Climate scientist being investigated by Congress for not believing in global warming _enough_



> Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and six others are under investigation by Congress regarding testimony they've given on the subject of climate change.
> 
> Pielke, a believer in man-caused global warming, can't quite figure out why he's the object of a witch hunt?


Not a 100% believer? Even borderline climate apostates like Pielke must be punished in the witchhunt



> The witchhunt over tenuous connections to fossil fuel funding wants to do a lot more than just silence a few people. The aim is to maintain the global chill over all of academia. That’s why it’s so important we support the individuals under fire, and don’t give in.
> 
> Congratulations to Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Hayward, Roger Pielke, David Legates, and Robert Balling. All of them have been named to be investigated and lined up for character assassination like Willie Soon. Obviously they are effective and convincing speakers, and a threat to the climate-industry.
> 
> Stephen Hayward is flattered, and mocks the critics: “Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Climate Skeptic?”


The ‘Skeptical Seven’ Witch Hunt is Just the Beginning



> Congressman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) has sent letters to universities requesting information on the sources of financial support of seven climate researchers. A few of these might well have some portion of their funding come from energy companies, I don’t know.
> 
> The implication, of course, is that research money from fossil fuel companies to any skeptics is bad, even though much greater amounts of fossil fuel money goes to Green organizations.
> 
> *Can you spell “hypocrisy”?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Yeah, but he cuts apart the eggs of zebrafish...


But I understand he's a very good zebrafish egg cutter. Unless it's his minions...


----------



## FeXL

Hilarious!

White House: Don’t mention temperature when talking about global warming



> First rule about global warming: don’t talk global warming.
> 
> The White House quietly released a draft guidance telling federal agencies to consider the impact carbon dioxide emissions will have on the environment, but only in terms of the amount of CO2 emitted. When conducting environmental impact analyses on rules and projects, that is, federal agencies should avoid mentioning potential increases in temperature, precipitation, storm intensity, and other environmental impacts that scientists warn about.


Or, in other words, any empirical data which can actually be fact-checked & shown to be wrong. HA!

The bastards are on the run... 

Not only that, but:



> Federal environmental assessments will likely show regulations have a negligible impact on the environment in terms of temperature rises, sea level rises and such – *indeed if every industrialized country stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, temperatures would only be reduced 0.21 degrees Celsius by 2100.*


M'bold.

And, all of this for only hundreds of trillions of dollars...


----------



## Macfury

Change that to:



> ...would only be reduced by *a maximum* 0.21 degrees Celsius by 2100.


----------



## FeXL

As I've noted before, slowly, slowly...

Mikey Discovers Ocean Cycles!



> Climate “scientist”, Michael Mann, has discovered that the 17 year pause in global warming is due to “internal variability”, particularly ocean cycles.


  



> Welcome to the party, Mikey! Some of us have been explaining about this for years.


Yep.

Some just take a bit longer for it to sink in...


----------



## eMacMan

An expanded article on Roger Pielke. Despite his loyalty to the warmist cause he dared to state that he does not believe CO2 is causing more severe natural disaster. Yep the rats have resorted to cannibalism.
CU professor claims 'witch hunt' over global warming testimony


> Roger Pielke (PELL'-kee) Jr. made his comment this week after Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., asked whether he had any undisclosed funding from fossil fuel companies.
> 
> In a letter dated Tuesday, Grijalva, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, asked the University of Colorado for a list of Pielke's external funding sources. Grijalva cited Pielke's testimony before a U.S. Senate panel in 2013 in which Pielke said it was wrong to blame greenhouse gases for worsening disasters.
> 
> In a blog post Wednesday, Pielke said he gets no funding from fossil fuel companies. He also said he is not a climate change skeptic and that he supports a carbon tax and stricter regulations on carbon pollution proposed by President Barack Obama's administration. "I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically motivated 'witch hunt' designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name," Pielke wrote.
> 
> Read more at CU professor claims 'witch hunt' over global warming testimony


----------



## FeXL

On Natural Climate Variability and Climate Models



> The “pause” in global warming is becoming increasingly difficult for the climate establishment to ignore, which is a good thing. They are now coming up with reasons why there has been a “pause” (a term I dislike because it implies knowledge of future warming, which no one has), and spinning it as if it is bad new for us.
> 
> _But when they assume that natural climate variations can cause a cooling influence, they are also admitting there can be natural sources of warming._
> 
> A natural change in ocean circulation is the leading potential explanation for the pause. Due to the huge temperature difference between surface waters and deep water, any small change in ocean overturning can result in either warming or cooling of surface temperatures. If the ocean was isothermal with depth, such a mechanism would not exist.
> 
> The point of this post is to remind people of what I have stated before: _to the extent that a change in ocean circulation has negated anthropogenic warming in the last 15+ years, an opposite change likely enhanced warming during the 1970s to 1990s._
> 
> You can’t have one without the other. Natural fluctuations in ocean vertical circulation are cyclical. You can’t attribute the recent warming hiatus to natural forcings without also addressing the role of potential natural forcings in causing the previous warming period. At best, it betrays a bias in reasoning; at worst, it is logically inconsistent.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

A few from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Global warming must mean frozen seas



> ‘Most waves were around two feet with some larger sets slushing through around three foot or waist high. What an experience to be absolutely freezing on the beach watching these roll in while I mind surfed them.
> 
> ‘The next day I drive up to see if things melted but that same 300 yards out of water froze solid on the surface. No waves at all. I’ve been asking all the fishermen and surfers if they have ever seen such a thing. This is a first they all said.’


Snow for all 50 States Forecast in Next 7 Days



> The unseasonable cold is expected to continue over much of the U.S., with some interruptions, and the latest GFS model forecast shows some snow for portions of all 50 states in the next seven days.


Rideau Canal celebrates record-setting 47th consecutive day of skating (This dated Feb 25)



> And with Environment Canada forecasting continuing cold, there’s no reason to expect the skating to end any time soon.
> 
> ...
> 
> Wednesday’s record beat the previous run of 46 straight days set from Jan. 14 to Feb. 28 in 2004.


February 2015 coldest in 115 years



> It's official. Environment Canada says data now confirms February 2015 was the coldest in 115 years.
> 
> A report summing up the February weather patterns shows the Arctic air mass stuck over eastern Ontario and southwestern Quebec resulted in temperatures 5 to 9 degrees colder than normal.


And, my favourite:

Watch Jim Inhofe Throw a Snowball on the Senate Floor



> Sen. Jim Inhofe, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, tossed a snowball on the Senate floor as part of a speech expressing skepticism about the reality of climate change. The Oklahoma Republican opened by showing pictures of an igloo his daughter's family built during a snowstorm five years ago, when he said "the hysteria on global warming" began.
> 
> 
> Then Inhofe reached into a bag he had brought with him and pulled out a robust snowball.
> 
> "Do you know what this is? It's a snowball," he said to freshman Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who being from Louisiana may not be familiar with snow. "It's just from outside here, so it's very, very cold out, ... very unseasonable."


NOAA – 1913 Low Min Records Broken (272 tied) From 2015-02-19 to 2015-02-25



> Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.
> 
> The list is just the ones I could capture in a screenshot. Wow. Many records broken by over 30F.
> Imagine … the old record was 15F and it is now -23F. A 38F difference.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Patchy.

Revkin’s Source



> In Andy Revkin’s article about Pachauri’s resignation, Revkin, apparently without awareness of the irony, included the following quotation from Grist (from The Hindu in India).


Out on bail, IPCC’s Pachauri’s downward spiral continues: Resignation from the Indian Climate Council



> Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has today accepted Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation from the Prime Minister’s climate change council.
> 
> ...
> 
> The BBC reports that an Indian court has granted Pachauri bail, while police investigate claims of sexual harassment against the beleaguered former head of the IPCC.


However, most interesting, not surprisingly & entirely related to the "Yet another reason why I don't watch MSM News", this, from the comments:



> To my HUGE surprise I have heard nothing about this on our beloved CBC (Canada) either.


Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Willie Soon.

Faux outrage over Willie Soon’s disclosure? Joe Romm failed to disclose his political financial ties in a scientific paper



> If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like.


Congessional Republicans push back against the climate witch-hunt



> U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OKla.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today led all EPW Republicans in a letter promoting scientific discovery and academic freedom. The letter was sent to the same 107 recipients of letters sent earlier this week by Congressional Democrats to universities, private companies, trade groups, and non-profit organizations, asking for detailed information on funding climate science. As explained in the EPW Republican letter sent today, there is a real concern the Democrats inquiry may impose a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and free speech.
> 
> *“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,”* said the Senators in today’s letter.


Bold from the link.

Free Think



> *This isn’t about climate folks. This never was. It is about politics and enacting a totalitarian style socialist government with the same faux democracy you see in China and North Korea.* It is an openly visible government plot to gain ever more power. Driven by bureaucrats personally incentivized by the massive money and power government offers. It IS LED by liberal “progressive” Democrats and it is leading to a very bad place.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole CO2 causes only 10% of the temperature rise thing.

New result shows CO2 has almost no effect on temperature



> The temperature fell by around 4 degrees Centigrade during the 2000-2011 period! So maybe the trend from clouds and water vapour was a downward trend not an upward one? But if there was less longwave downward cloud radiative forcing, that would be because there was less cloud, which would mean there were more sunshine hours. That would have raised temperatures. On the other hand, if the reduced cloud were during winter, when the Sun is weak or absent, that would allow more outgoing longwave radiation to escape, causing surface cooling.
> 
> *Either way, what the study shows, is that increasing CO2 has had very little effect on water vapour levels or near surface air temperature in Alaska, and is easily overcome by natural variability.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, both last winter & this one, there has been much gnashing of teeth over the "Polar Vortex" by warmists, almost as if it's never happened before...

Polar Vortex Common In The 19thC



> We are all well aware of the extremely cold winters in the eastern half of the States, both this year and last. This has coincided with warm winters in the west, the sort of extreme weather which warmists would like to blame on “climate change”.
> 
> *Well it turns out that they had the same weather patterns in the 1850’s and 60’s, and the reason was just the same – a meridional jet stream.*


M'bold.

So much for unprecedented.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland



> This post follows up on the hornet’s nest stirred by Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker and my recent post on Temperature Adjustments in Australia comparing raw temperature records (GHCN V2) with homogenised (adjusted) temperature records (GHCN v3.1). The latter is currently used by NASA GISS and NOAA in global temperature reconstructions.


Historic documents show half of Australia’s warming trend is due to “adjustments”



> The difference between the original records and the adjusted ACORN dataset suggests that the adjustments cooled original temperatures by 0.4C between 1910 and 1940, *which means that around 45% of the modern “warming” trend is due to these homogenisations and adjustments* which have not been independently justified and oddly appear to go in the opposite direction to what common sense would suggest might be necessary. In the older and larger CSIR tables, there is an overall cooling adjustments of 0.5C.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Pure comedy gold...

White House: Seven in Ten Doctors Say Climate Change Is Harming Patients



> In a new blog post, the White House declares that "7 out of 10 Doctors [say] Climate Change Is Already Harming Patients’ Health."


I wonder if this is the same set of doctors who fed us the line of BS about dietary fats, etc., all those years ago.

Global warming harmful? Probably. On your mental health...


----------



## FeXL

Further on witch hunts.

Statement by Dr. Willie Soon



> “In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.
> 
> “I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. *I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.*


M'bold.

Yep...

What's this? The SOB backs off?

Grijalva: Climate Letters Went Too Far in Seeking Correspondence



> A prominent Democrat probing outside funding for seven university professors who stake out skeptical or controversial positions on climate change said his request for their correspondence with funders and others was an "overreach."
> 
> But Rep. Raul Grijalva is also strongly defending his search for ties between fossil-fuel interests and climate research against charges that it's a "witch hunt," arguing that *the thrust of the inquiry is aimed at providing important disclosures.*


M'bold.

Important to whom? Those who can not/will not debate the empirical evidence of the issue?

Bastards...

From Pielke, Jr:

Running Updates on the "Witch Hunt" 



> This post will serve as a running update on the so-called "investigation" of my research on disasters and climate change at the University of Colorado.


And this, from his Twitter feed:



> Yesterday, my 11-year old asked me if I was going to jail. Really nasty stuff.


Nice...

On the lighter side, Stein gets in a little snark. 

Romancing the Stone



> *Sharon Stone's bottom line is entirely her affair, and I'm certainly sympathetic to her so-called "diva-like" demands for first-class seats, because it's very difficult to uncross your legs in coach.* But she makes the denialists look bush-league. Willie Soon's 60 grand a year is a mere three-quarters of travel expenses for a single event for one celebrity environmentalist. For the cost of getting one planet-saving celebrity idealist to attend one eco-protest you could fund Willie Soon's corrupt fossil-fuel suck-uppery for six years.


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

It’s Proof, Proof I tell you! Australia is getting hotter and the future is… back in 1922



> Zielinski tells us Western Australia had _“several days of near-50-degree heat this summer.”_ Oh Yessity, Yes indeed. At Marble Bar a full century of global warming means it was almost as hot in 2015 as it was in 1905 and 1922. Back to the future we go.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

What Makes This Blog Different



> Unlike some other skeptic blogs, I don’t pretend that global warming alarmists and data tamperers are actually interested in science.


That's the complete post. Click the link for the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Further on data tampering.

My NCDC Data Tampering Prediction For New York



> New York state just had their coldest January/February by a wide margin, more than 2.5 degrees F colder than the prior coldest year of 1904.
> 
> ...
> 
> Based on the USHCN adjusted temperatures, I predict that NCDC will rank 2015 as second coldest, and create a non-existent warming trend of 2.3 degrees per century.
> 
> ...
> 
> The total data tampering in New York since 1893 is nearly four degrees F, with the current year nearly a full degree above the measured temperature.
> 
> ...
> 
> Zeke and Mosher say this is all first rate science.


----------



## FeXL

Further on witch hunts.

Climate scientists accuse Democrat of McCarthyism



> “Whenever you testify, you are required to submit a financial disclosure,” Curry told Watchdog.org. “All of us have complied with this. Now, in some cases, decades after the testimony we are asked to submit all sorts of additional financial information, including travel information. Exactly how is someone ‘bribed’ by accepting reimbursement for a trip?”


More:



> Just nine days before the Grijalva letters were sent, *Curry posted a letter on her blog from a Ph.D. student who complained about “massive group think” among climate academics that frustrated him so much that he left the field to work in finance.*
> 
> “That’s what my big concern is,” Curry said. “The best minds are not attracted to a field like this … People are leaving the field because of this craziness.”


M'bold.

Nice...

Further:

Koomey and Romm: the mote and the beam



> On his blog Pielke Jr remarked how undisclosed conflicts were ‘endemic’, and pointed to a paper† by Jonathan Koomey, Joe Romm and co-authors, published in _Environmental Research Letters_ as an example.
> 
> ...
> 
> Koomey and Romm appeared on the Huffington Post with an article co-signed by scientists who are among the 53 authors of the paper. *They declare no disclosure of funding was needed because they used no financial support *
> 
> ...
> 
> They [sic] irony is Koomey and Romm’s actions are like Soon’s: failure to disclose funding to journal. Only in Soon’s case the funding agency stipulated non-disclosure in some instances and in others the journal had no policy or requirement for disclosure. *Not only do Koomey and Romm fail to disclose funding, they expressly state the opposite trying to morally berate a fellow scientist.*


M'bold.

Do as we say, not as we do...

Further, yet:

Dr. Richard Lindzen in the WSJ: The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics



> Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling.
> 
> The American Meteorological Society responded with appropriate indignation at the singling out of scientists for their scientific positions, as did many individual scientists.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate FAIL: Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted



> Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong. *In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong*, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere.


M'bold.

Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Excuse #1



> Mikey Mann just used La Nina as excuse #1,038 for the global warming pause. This is the identical excuse which Hansen used in 1988


Good on them, though, for recycling...


----------



## FeXL

Eyeroller: American Thoracic Society Survey Says – Climate change affects your health!



> From the exaggeration department …because that extra 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit is somehow far more powerful than the range of climate and weather extremes that human experience and live in daily. And, since when is an opinion poll equal to science?


Further on that poll:



> The response rate was 17%. *That is, 83% of those contacted did not believe climate change questions were worth answering.*


M'bold.

Sums it up for me...


----------



## FeXL

So, with Patchy out on his arse, TIPCC™ is searching for a new chair. There have been a number of suggestions but the most interesting, by far, is Judith Curry.

Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

The only problem is, nobody really hates Judith enough to actually stick her with the position.


----------



## FeXL

Just another bit of cherry-picking by the Mann.

Another Couple of Notes about Michael Mann’s “Faux Pause” Post and Steinman et al. 2015



> The initial topic of discussion is GLOBAL warming…and Mann’s perception that there is no pause in the surface temperatures GLOBALLY.
> 
> Yet Mann in his blog post and Steinman et al. have redirected the discussion from global warming to Northern Hemisphere warming. That is, Steinman et al. (2015) was not an examination of the modeled and observed surface temperatures globally. Their paper only looked at the surface temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Mann even notes this a few paragraphs later, where he opens the paragraph with:
> 
> _We focused on the Northern Hemisphere…_​
> *But it’s well known that the hiatus, the pause, the slowdown, etc., in surface warming is more prevalent in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere.*


M'bold.

D'oh!!! Busted, again...


----------



## FeXL

Well, MacDoc will certainly be happy to hear this.

NOAA Claims: ‘Elusive El Niño arrives’ – the question is, ‘where’?



> When I got this press release from NOAA a few minutes ago, the first thing I did was check the NOAA NESDIS sea surface temperature map for the tell-tale El Niño pattern signature, because NOAA didn’t include any SST graphic in the press release. *I sure don’t see an El Niño pattern in today’s SST product.*


M'bold.

Funny, nobody else could, either.


----------



## FeXL

So, as head of the EPA, it shouldn't be a stretch that you'd have at least some command of the field, a bit of basic knowledge, the ability to answer a question or two in front of Congress, no?

Apparently, not so much...

Settled Science At The EPA



> The EPA head is certain that some imaginary climate model forecasts are correct, only she doesn’t know what they are.


In the two minute video at the link (well worth your time) you can see what a 6 figure snout in the trough nets you these days.

Stunning? More like stunned...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole adjustment thing. A very good read.

Can Adjustments Right a Wrong?



> Temperature adjustments have bothered me not because they are made, but because there is a broad assumption that they skillfully fix a problem. Somehow, climate scientists are capable of adjusting oranges into apples. However, when adjustments are made to temperature data – whether to correct for TOBS, missing data entries, incorrect data logging, etc. – we are no longer left with data. We are left instead with a model of the original data. As with all models, there is a question of how accurately that model reflects reality.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Remember Walter Cronkite?

And That’s the Way It Was: In 1972, Cronkite Warned of ‘New Ice Age’



> "Global warming activists have claimed for years that the 1970s global cooling scare never existed. They have tried to erase the inconvenient history which ironically blamed extreme weather like tornadoes, droughts, record cold and blizzards on global cooling,” said Morano.
> 
> *Morano told MRC Business, “But now -- unearthed from bowels of media archives -- comes none other than Walter Cronkite reporting on fears of a coming ice age in 1972. Having Cronkite's image and face discussing global cooling fears reveals the fickleness of the climate change claims.”*
> 
> “Climate fear promoters switched effortlessly from global cooling fears in the 1970s to global warming fears in the 1980s. In the present day, the phrase 'global warming' has lost favor in favor of 'climate change' or 'global climate disruption' or even 'global weirding,’ Morano added. “'Settled science' has never seemed so unsettled.”


M'bold.

I know, I know. We've learned so much since then. That's why TIPCC™ estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 hasn't changed since AR1 in 1990...


----------



## FeXL

Naomi Oreskes, THE Merchant of Doubt herself, uses tactics of the tobacco lobby



> While skeptical scientists always criticize the scientific claims of the Climate-Fear Lobby, Oreskes can’t fight back on that front, because she’s completely out of her depth. She wrote that a pH of 6.0 denotes neutrality (p. 67) and that Beryllium is a heavy metal (p. 29) and she blames “Oxygen-15″ in cigarette smoke for being the cause of lung cancer, though she could not explain how this radioactive isotope is generated in cigarettes. She doesn’t realize it has a half life of 122 seconds. *No wonder she trawls through the gutter instead of debating a guy like Fred Singer on the science. She wouldn’t stand a chance.*


Yep, bold mine.

Well, Joanne, tell us how you really feel...


----------



## FeXL

Judith talks about a coupla recent papers on (play really creepy music) "The Pause", including one coauthored by the Mann himself. That one has already been critiqued, twice, by Bob Tisdale & linked to on this thread. 

It's a fairly brief but good analysis.

2 new papers on the ‘pause’

She sums:



> Bottom line: The pause in global warming is NOT finally explained.


Ya don't say...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole unprecedented thing.

20thC Major Droughts



> Until 1960, there were typically seven or eight droughts per 20-year periods.
> 
> This declines to five for 1961-80 and three for 1981-95.
> 
> Clearly, up to 1995 at least, there is no evidence that severe droughts have become more common, contrary to what is often claimed.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

New paper finds large calculation errors of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere in climate models



> A new paper published in _Geophysical Research Letters_ finds astonishingly large errors in the most widely used 'state of the art' climate models due to incorrect calculation of solar radiation and the solar zenith angle at the top of the atmosphere.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere (TOA) should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear-sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m2 when an hourly radiation time step is used, and 24 W/m2 when a 3-hour radiation time step is used.


Further (linked for the excellent comments):

Whoops! Study shows huge basic errors found in CMIP5 climate models

Apparently, only 8 of the CHIMP models are affected. Interestingly, the most "accurate" model is absent this algorithm. Hey, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

On Chris Mooney & melting Arctic ice..

Mooney Tunes



> Arctic ice is, to all intents and purposes, normal for this time of year, except for the Sea of Okhotsk (the bit at the top). This is utterly irrelevant, as it all melts away by summer anyway.
> 
> Meanwhile back in the real world, in the Canadian Arctic, where the ice tends to accumulate, ice coverage for this time of year continues the trend of being well above the level of the 1970’s.


Ever notice how any warmist discussion of Arctic ice begins in the early 80's, at peak ice?


----------



## FeXL

From the comment section of the article linked to in post 5502 above on adjustments.



> Here are the changes made to GISS temperatures on just one day this February. Yellow is the new temperature assumption and strikeout is the previous number. Almost every single monthly temperature record from 1880 to 1950 was adjusted down by 0.01C.
> 
> *I mean every freaking month is history suddenly got 0.01C colder. What the heck changed that made the records in 1880 0.01C colder. Did the old thermometre readers screw up that bad?*


M'bold.

Good question.

More on adjustments:


Forecast Success



> I predicted a few days ago that NCDC data tampering would wipe out New York’s coldest year, and make it only second coldest. My prediction was spot on. They massively cooled the past to wreck this year’s record.


He notes:



> Apparently the freezing point of Lake Ontario has changed.


----------



## FeXL

Further on witch hunters unable to find flaws in sceptic science.

Merchants of ‘smear’ movie slanders eminent Physicist Dr. Fred Singer – Singer Fires Back!



> Dr. Singer: 'I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail.'
> 
> 'Oreskes book “Merchants of Doubt” contains a number of serious scientific errors; also, it is not in accordance with the kind of scholarship expected from an academic historian. Instead of primary sources, she relies on secondary and even tertiary sources who have obvious, demonstrated agenda.'


Good read.


----------



## SINC

An interesting read on the BBC.

BBC News - Global CO2 emissions stalled in 2014


----------



## Macfury

The effect of "renewables" on CO2 output is negative as Google reports. This is largely economic malaise.



SINC said:


> An interesting read on the BBC.
> 
> BBC News - Global CO2 emissions stalled in 2014


----------



## FeXL

So, the American Physical Society had a one day workshop on climate change back in January, 2014. Transcript link inside, as well as notes from the event.

Notes on the APS Workshop on Climate Change



> A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.


What I found most interesting, however, was the complete text of Harold Lewis' resignation letter from the APS, posted in the comments.



> _It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist._


Worth the read on its own.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Trenberth's missing heat.

Bad News for Trenberth’s Missing Heat – New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…

From the abstract:



> _*The global integral of vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean. These results support an inference that the near-surface thermal properties of the ocean are a consequence, at least in part, of internal redistributions of heat, some of which must reflect water that has undergone long trajectories since last exposure to the atmosphere. The small residual heat exchange with the atmosphere today is unlikely to represent the interaction with an ocean that was in thermal equilibrium at the start of global warming.*_


Bold from the link.

What's this? Heat rose from the depths of the ocean to the near-surface?


----------



## FeXL

Excellent edition of the Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup.

Witch Hunt Intensified, Push-Back, NASA, & The Atmosphere Changes? are all good sections.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, there's a new warmist movie out: _Merchants Of Doubt._

Doesn't sound like it'll be bagging any awards for accuracy, however.

Merchants Of Doubt Started With A Big Lie From An Incompetent Scientist



> The movie started out with James Hansen claiming that Venus was 600 degrees because of 97% CO2 which was trapping heat.
> 
> Apparently Hansen can’t do his own basic math.
> 
> Hansen says that each doubling of CO2 causes a 3C temperature increase. Venus has 97% (0.97 mole fraction) CO2. In order to get to 97% on Earth, we would require less than 13 doublings. That would raise temperatures by about 35 degrees, using Hansen’s own exaggerated theory. Nowhere near 600 degrees.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hansen’s own theory can’t explain the high temperatures on Venus, yet he continues to parrot the same mindless nonsense decade after decade.


More (good read):

Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme



> _At the same time that it accuses the public of falling for pseudo-scientific showmanship and believing the safe, soothing messages they want to hear, the film presents a caricature of climate science — one that comforts the choir of climate-change alarmists and ignores serious scientific concerns. The product that Merchants hawks is smear._


Judith sums:



> The bottom line here is that very sloppy history and social science research (Oreskes and Conway) is being used to justify ad hominem attacks against scientists that do not support the prevailing consensus. I find this reprehensible.
> 
> I am hoping that the ‘investigations’ of Grijalva will put to rest the idea that scientists that question aspects of AGW and the proposed policy solutions are somehow corrupted by Big Oil. It just aint so.
> 
> It’s time for the ‘convinced’ to start beefing up their scientific arguments; they are not going to win any arguments by making ad hominem attacks on other scientists.


I think I'll be passing on this one...


----------



## FeXL

From the department of "More Failed Warmist Predictions" comes this.

Experts Predict 1000 feet Of Beach Loss In The Next Nine Months



> Here is a classic from 1986. Experts were certain of one foot of sea level rise by 2016, and 1,000 feet of beach loss.
> 
> ...
> 
> These academics are morons on choom and steroids.


No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Romm’s Lies And Omissions



> It seems Joe Romm can’t even get his facts right now! He says:
> 
> _And this record February heat for California comes on the heels of the driest January ever recorded — a tough one-two punch given the epic drought that has ravaged the state.​_
> When he says the driest, apparently he means fourth driest, behind 1984, 1976 and 2014.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

Temperature Adjustments At USCRN1 Stations



> A study of US CRN1 stations, top-rated for their siting quality, shows that GHCN adjusted data produces warming trends several times larger than unadjusted data.


More:



> Typically, years of data are deleted, often several years in a row. Entire rows are erased including the year identifier, so finding the missing years is a tedious manual process looking for gaps in the sequence of years. All stations except one lost years of data through adjustments, often in recent years. At one station, four years of data from 2007 to 2010 were deleted; in another case, 5 years of data from 2002 to 2006 went missing. Strikingly, 9 stations that show no 2014 data in the adjusted file have fully reported 2014 in the unadjusted file.


Nice.

Paul sums:



> What is particularly interesting is the example of Baker City. According to the USHCN data, there has been no ore than 0.1C adjustment for TOBS, the excuse usually wheeled out to explain cooling of the past.
> 
> This tallies with the station metadata, which confirms that there has only been a minor change in observation times, from 22.00 to 24.00, a change made in 1999.
> 
> *As the location has not changed since at least 1930, on the face of it, there is no reason at all for any adjustments to be made.*


M'bold.

How many times have we heard that, only to have it ignored by the keepers of the record?

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

More on _Merchants Of Doubt._

Merchants of Doubt a Huge Flop at the Box Office



> [BoxOfficeMojo] reports that “Merchants of Doubt” has earned $23,300 in the four theaters in which it opened on Friday.
> 
> *So that means … “Merchants of Doubt” had the 314th best opening weekend ever for a documentary film in the United States! What an achievement! Congrats, guys.*


M'bold.

Woohoo!


----------



## FeXL

Further on lies about increases in extreme weather.

BBC, Tim Palmer & Cyclone Pam



> Christopher Booker has alerted me to a piece on yesterday’s BBC Today programme, in which John Humphrys interviewed Oxford professor Tim Palmer to discuss Cyclone Pam.
> 
> Palmer is a Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, interested in the predictability and dynamics of weather and climate, and is one of the gang often wheeled out when climate change is discussed on the BBC.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

Temperature adjustments in Australia



> UK blogger Paul Homewood and Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker have managed to stir public interest in the veracity of adjustments made to temperature records by the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).
> 
> The focus lies in adjustments made to GHCN V2 data in the homogenised GHCN V3 data that was released 2011. Pair wise homogenisation is supposed to detect and remove non-climatic artefacts from the data caused by, for example, moving a station, a tree growing and providing shade or a change in the thermometer.


Check out figs 5, 6 & 11 and notice, if you will, the flatlined raw temperatures for the last century.

What "global" warming?

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that recent "El Nino".

Sorriest El Nino, Ever



> Global warming is so bad, that they can’t even get a spike out of an El Nino any more.


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "unprecedented" thing.

Ross Ice Shelf Receded 30 Miles By 1930



> Alarmists blame global warming for melting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process which has been going on for centuries.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Apparently John Kerry needs to bone up on his science.

Science Lessons for Secretary of State John F. Kerry



> Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s recent remarks on climate change at the Atlantic Council were so scientifically illiterate that I find it difficult to believe that he managed to barely get a D in geology at Yale University. As a US citizen and geoscientist, I feel it is my patriotic and professional duty to provide Secretary Kerry with a few complimentary science lessons.


Another good read.

Oh, BTW, Kerry's marks in his freshman year at Yale included 4 D's: 61 in geology, 63 & 68 in two history courses & 69 in poli sci. This guy is preaching science?


----------



## eMacMan

As much as I hate to admit to it, I started out believing in man-caused global warming. After all Bill O'Reilly, Barf Limburgher and Dr. Singer all claimed it was bunk. How could anyone believe this unholy trio could be right about anything?

Then I started to try to find hard empirical evidence to back this up. The harder I looked the less I found. Eventually I had to change sides. That said climate does change, and will continue to do so, even if all traces of mankind disappear tomorrow.

So here's why I don't buy into the man-made global warming narrative:

The basic premise is that trace levels (~.04%) of atmospheric CO2 are the primary climate driver and increasing the atmospheric level of CO2 to .044%* will cause a catastrophic climate fail. The seas will rise, the sky will fall, and we will all be squeezed betwixt the two.

All this is very loosely based on an observed approximately linear correlation between CO2 and global temp. For whatever reason no real attempts have been made to discover whether CO2 leads or trails the increase. 

Then comes the monster leap of faith, a predicted 3:1 positive feedback loop. Like many claims based entirely on faith this one fails completely. The claimed relationship is linear, but somehow man-made CO2 triggers a 3:1 positive feed back loop. Now it would seem simple enough to back up this claim empirically. The temps during the medieval warming period were somewhat warmer than today. If the believers can establish that as the period approached its peak, CO2 levels dropped well below what a linear relationship would imply, that would be solid evidence that indeed a positive feedback loop does come into play and that CO2 changes do lead warming/cooling. However the claim remains that the relationship is linear, and as far as I can tell absolutely no-one has successfully proven or even tried to prove that such a positive feedback loop was in play in the latter stages of the MWP. Indeed rather than explore this area for empirical support of their theory, true believers deny the very existence of the Medieval Warming Period. At this point the claim becomes: Man-made CO2 causes a positive feedback loop whereas natural CO2 does not. To top it off, this one-two punch, which is used as the basis of all computer models, consistently fails to predict either the Medieval Warming Period or the Maunder Minimum. Those same models similarly fail to predict the current warming hiatus happening exactly when the models predict a shift into the exponential curve of the hockey stick.

*NOTE: I guessed that man-made CO2 levels are ~10-15% of natural levels, this based on splitting the difference between Al Gore's absurd 50% and the US Department of Energy's equally absurd 3% estimates (3x4=12 and 12x4=48). So going from.04% to .044% would represent a 65-100% increase in man-made CO2 emissions, if one also includes the other ridiculous provision that natural levels do not vary.


----------



## eMacMan

That brings me to another major irritant. The claim that not buying into manmade global warming makes one anti-environmental. I cringe when I read that Victoria will continue to dump raw sewage into the ocean for at least another 8 years. I also cringe every time I drive east and see the hundreds of wind turbines and the needless high voltage transmission lines that accompany them. Nuclear waste deserves far more attention than it gets. As far as I am concerned no new nuclear power plants until you figure out how to safely dispose of the waste. Instead the AGW promotors use the purported evil of CO2 to promote further nuclear power generation. 

The credo seems to be: "If you don't believe, you're not Green." It takes a big set of blinders not to see the startling parallel to Harpers promotion of Bill C-51: "If you don't surrender your freedom to fight terrorism, you must be a terrorist."

Now I know that Harper's reasons for wanting to pass Bill C-51 have absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with giving the Super Elite greater control over the rest of the population. You do not need a secret spy/police force with unlimited and unsupervised power for any other reason.

Similarly I recognize that the heavily promoted solutions for keeping that .004% of additional atmospheric CO2 from causing the sky to fall, revolve around diverting huge amounts of capital from the general population to the pockets of the Super Elite. Carbon Trade goes to the Gore gang, while Carbon Taxes bypass the Gore Vaults and go directly to the bankers. 

Think it through. Those at the low end of the income scale have already scaled back to where their "Carbon Footprint" is way below average. To have any impact whatsoever Carbon trading and Carbon taxes have to impact the poor so severely that they become homeless and/or starve to death. The next rung then becomes impoverished to the point where it has a much below average footprint. Meanwhile the upper rungs will continue to consume way above the average and total CO2 emissions will see only a minor reduction in the current level of increases. Therefore one, two, three or more rungs will also have to be chopped off the ladder. What I fail to understand is why people are so eager at great personal expense, to buy into this madness which is based entirely on an unsupported, computer generated, Chicken Little scenario. 

All that said, climate by definition is continuously changing. Best guess is that CO2 increases account for about 5% of Global warming meaning mans share is between 0.5% and 0.7%. That means at least 95% of climate change is controlled by other factors.

Unlike any other links in this post the link at the end is genuine. It links to a one hour interview which explores some of those other factors and where the scientists who try to look at the entire tool palette, believe the climate is really headed. 

Hint: If you like really scary scenarios and you live in Canada you will love this. BTW the visual time bar makes it fairly easy to pick up where you left off if you cannot set aside a one hour block.

https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/the-other-side-of-climate-change-ben-davidson-312


----------



## SINC

An interesting theory:

Warm 'blob' off our coast may explain weird weather | The Seattle Times


----------



## BigDL

Looky at what this lefty rag had the nerve to put out there Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables - Bloomberg Business



BloombergNews said:


> The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back...
> 
> ...The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added...
> 
> ...The question is no longer if the world will transition to cleaner energy, but how long it will take. In the chart below, BNEF forecasts the billions of dollars that need to be invested each year in order to avoid the most severe consequences of climate change, represented by a benchmark increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> Looky at what this lefty rag had the nerve to put out there Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables - Bloomberg Business


Absolutely zero mention of the subsidy levels for each variety? This is new construction only.

Far too much emphasis on Nuclear. Until the nuclear waste issue is resolved there should be no nuclear facilities built period. Nuclear certainly should not be included on the green side of the ledger as there is far more to being green than reducing CO2 emissions.


----------



## Macfury

I have just one question, BigDL--what does the article have to do with the GHG thread?



BigDL said:


> Looky at what this lefty rag had the nerve to put out there Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables - Bloomberg Business


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I have just one question, BigDL--what does the article have to do with the GHG thread?


He likely doesn't know as he borrowed the link from his fearless leader over on MacDiscussion.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> He likely doesn't know as he borrowed the link from his fearless leader over on MacDiscussion.


I get the impression that there's supposed to be some sort of negative reaction to articles like that. I don't care where my energy comes from, renewables or fossil fuels, provided the source of the energy is the least expensive and consistently reliable.

_Edit: I read through the article and it now comes with a disclaimer_:



> An earlier version of this story represented the IEA's scenario for solar in 2050 as a forecast when it was in fact one of several possible scenarios. The IEA does not make any forecasts for specific expectations after the 5-year mark, according to spokesman Greg Frost.


----------



## FeXL

From the above-mentioned article:



> The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.


It'll be interesting to see if that trend continues with the massive roll-back in subsidies for renewables. Renewables can not, in any way, compete with coal/oil/natural gas sans their massive subsidies.



> The price of wind and solar power continues to plummet, and is now on par or cheaper than grid electricity *in many areas of the world.*


M'bold. 

Pretty vague. What percentage of the total is "many"? In my tool collection I have 13 hammers. That's likely more than most of my neighbours own. Compared to all the hammers in Alberta, that's a drop in the bucket.

What is the geographical location of "many areas"? Supplying grid electricity to the middle of the Sahara Desert will definitely be more expensive than providing it with locally installed solar panels. Doesn't mean that solar can come close to competing in my backyard, downtown Tranna or the suburbs of Tokyo.



> In the chart below, BNEF forecasts the billions of dollars that need to be invested each year in order to avoid the most severe consequences of climate change, represented by a benchmark increase of more than *2 degrees Celsius.*


M'bold.

This 2° thing has been bandied around for years by the warmists. It's pure, undiluted, horse****. The diurnal temperature swing can be greater than 20°C. What effect is 2° going to have on that? Zero. In addition, most of the Holocene has been >2°C warmer than today & we're still all here to talk about it. I know, f'ing amazing...


----------



## Macfury

I'm petty wary of screwing around with statistics. The report only says that prices are comparable to grid electricity, not to the price of fossil fuels. If, like the Ontario Liberals, you have managed to double the price of electricity between 2003 and 2013, renewables will look good. However, fossil fuels alone will look better. 




FeXL said:


> Pretty vague. What percentage of the total is "many"? In my tool collection I have 13 hammers. That's likely more than most of my neighbours own. Compared to all the hammers in Alberta, that's a drop in the bucket.


----------



## eMacMan

I am going to add hydro to the list of energy sources that fail the true green test. For nearly a century environmentalists have fought most hydro projects tooth and nail. They did so for the simple reason that the ecological damage incurred constructing a major dam almost always exceeds the financial benefits. 

Relabeling hydro as "green energy" effectively handcuffs the opposition that these projects often richly deserve.


----------



## heavyall

Solar is VERY expensive. Without huge subsidies, it's not even viable as a proof of concept, let alone a replacement for fossil fuels.


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> Solar is VERY expensive. Without huge subsidies, it's not even viable as a proof of concept, let alone a replacement for fossil fuels.


Remember that the so-called victory is the recent "adding of capacity" not the actual output.


----------



## CubaMark

heavyall said:


> Solar is VERY expensive. Without huge subsidies, it's not even viable as a proof of concept, let alone a replacement for fossil fuels.


Subsidies have had the intended effect, driving adoption and industrial development to drive down costs and move the economy toward a decrease in dependence upon fossil fuels. Every single day, those costs are dropping as new techniques for PV cell construction come on line, moving toward components that are less toxic than the ones used before. Progress. 

*17 Jan 2015
Renewable Power Costs Plummet: Many Sources Now Cheaper than Fossil Fuels Worldwide*

The landmark report, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, concludes that biomass, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind are all competitive with or cheaper than coal, oil and gas-fired power stations, even without financial support and despite falling oil prices. Solar photovoltaic (PV) is leading the cost decline, with solar PV module costs falling 75 per cent since the end of 2009 and the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar PV falling 50 per cent since 2010.

“Renewable energy projects across the globe are now matching or outperforming fossil fuels, particularly when accounting for externalities like local pollution, environmental damage and ill health,”

* * *​
*Report highlights*:

In many countries, including Europe, onshore wind power is one of the most competitive sources of new electricity capacity available. Individual wind projects are consistently delivering electricity for USD 0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)* without financial support*, compared to a range of USD 0.045 to 0.14/kWh for fossil-fuel power plants.
The average cost of wind energy ranges from USD 0.06/kWh in China and Asia to USD 0.09/kWh in Africa. North America also has competitive wind projects, with an average cost of USD 0.07/kWh.
*Solar PV module prices have dropped 75% since 2009 and continue to decrease.*
*Residential solar PV systems are now as much as 70% cheaper than in 2008.*
B*etween 2010 and 2014 the total installed costs of utility-scale solar PV systems fell by as much as 65 per cent.* *The most competitive utility-scale solar PV projects are delivering electricity for USD 0.08/kWh without financial support,* and lower prices are possible with low financing costs. Their cost range in China, North America and South America has fallen within the range of fossil fuel-fired electricity.
*Solar power prices are dropping rapidly in the Middle East, with a recent tender in Dubai, UAE, falling to 0.06USD/kWh.*
*Renewables are competitive,* even when integrating high shares of variable renewables into the electricity. When damage to human health from fossil fuels in power generation is considered in economic terms, along with the cost of CO2 emissions, the price of fossil fuel-fired power generation rises to between USD 0.07 and 0.19/kWh.

(IRENA)


----------



## CubaMark

*This Federal Report Underestimates Renewables Every Year, And Energy Experts Have Had Enough*

Every year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) releases a report on the future of energy in America. And every year, renewable energy advocates say the report is a bust.

The Annual Energy Outlook routinely overestimates the cost of wind and solar energy and underestimates the future price of fossil fuel costs, experts say, which can lead to less renewable energy development — which means greater focus on developing conventional energy sources, such as natural gas.
* * *​Costs for solar, wind, and other renewables have dropped significantly over the past few years, and the rate of installation has greatly increased. These rapid changes can be hard to include in modeling that includes years of data, but in any case, there is a pattern in the EIA’s estimates. The EIA itself has reported that it was overly optimistic on natural gas prices for the past several years.

Meanwhile, estimates for wind capital costs have been high, said Michael Goggin, an analyst at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Capital costs used for this year’s report have not been released, he said, but the pattern of underestimating fuel costs is a problem.

“It’s not just that they are wrong — any projection is going to be wrong — it’s that there is consistent bias” in the case of natural gas...​
(ThinkProgress)


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> Subsidies have had the intended effect,


Yes. Yes, they have.

They've milked cash strapped taxpayers for subsidies that went to evil capitalistic ventures which would have not stood a chance in the free market on their own merit, and in the process artificially raised energy costs so that the cash strapped taxpayers get it both coming & going.

Why is it that you progressives, who despise capitalism, free enterprise & big business, have always got a harsh word for Big Oil but never complain about Big Solar or Big Wind? Hypocrisy, much?


----------



## Macfury

The IRENA report says that parity can only be reached with US subsidies of $46 billion per year and increased investment of $38 billion per year to 2030. 



CubaMark said:


> Subsidies have had the intended effect, driving adoption and industrial development to drive down costs and move the economy toward a decrease in dependence upon fossil fuels. Every single day, those costs are dropping as new techniques for PV cell construction come on line, moving toward components that are less toxic than the ones used before. Progress.
> 
> *17 Jan 2015
> Renewable Power Costs Plummet: Many Sources Now Cheaper than Fossil Fuels Worldwide*
> 
> The landmark report, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, concludes that biomass, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind are all competitive with or cheaper than coal, oil and gas-fired power stations, even without financial support and despite falling oil prices. Solar photovoltaic (PV) is leading the cost decline, with solar PV module costs falling 75 per cent since the end of 2009 and the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar PV falling 50 per cent since 2010.
> 
> “Renewable energy projects across the globe are now matching or outperforming fossil fuels, particularly when accounting for externalities like local pollution, environmental damage and ill health,”
> 
> * * *​
> *Report highlights*:
> 
> In many countries, including Europe, onshore wind power is one of the most competitive sources of new electricity capacity available. Individual wind projects are consistently delivering electricity for USD 0.05 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)* without financial support*, compared to a range of USD 0.045 to 0.14/kWh for fossil-fuel power plants.
> The average cost of wind energy ranges from USD 0.06/kWh in China and Asia to USD 0.09/kWh in Africa. North America also has competitive wind projects, with an average cost of USD 0.07/kWh.
> *Solar PV module prices have dropped 75% since 2009 and continue to decrease.*
> *Residential solar PV systems are now as much as 70% cheaper than in 2008.*
> B*etween 2010 and 2014 the total installed costs of utility-scale solar PV systems fell by as much as 65 per cent.* *The most competitive utility-scale solar PV projects are delivering electricity for USD 0.08/kWh without financial support,* and lower prices are possible with low financing costs. Their cost range in China, North America and South America has fallen within the range of fossil fuel-fired electricity.
> *Solar power prices are dropping rapidly in the Middle East, with a recent tender in Dubai, UAE, falling to 0.06USD/kWh.*
> *Renewables are competitive,* even when integrating high shares of variable renewables into the electricity. When damage to human health from fossil fuels in power generation is considered in economic terms, along with the cost of CO2 emissions, the price of fossil fuel-fired power generation rises to between USD 0.07 and 0.19/kWh.
> 
> (IRENA)


----------



## Macfury

Foreign companies are only bad when they own part of the Wheat Marketing Board. They're saints when they gobble up billions in subsidies and put up windmills.



FeXL said:


> Yes. Yes, they have.
> 
> They've milked cash strapped taxpayers for subsidies that went to evil capitalistic ventures which would have not stood a chance in the free market on their own merit, and in the process artificially raised energy costs so that the cash strapped taxpayers get it both coming & going.
> 
> Why is it that you progressives, who despise capitalism, free enterprise & big business, have always got a harsh word for Big Oil but never complain about Big Solar or Big Wind? Hypocrisy, much?


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Foreign companies are only bad when they own part of the Wheat Marketing Board. *They're saints when they gobble up billions in subsidies and put up windmills*.


Not so much when 100s of those wind turbines are in your back yard along with the accompanying transmission lines.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Foreign companies are only bad when they own part of the Wheat Marketing Board. They're saints when they gobble up billions in subsidies and put up windmills.


<snort> You owe me a new keyboard...


----------



## FeXL

Two other costs came to mind on the topic. First, wondering if the cost of transmission lines is included in any of those calculations. Second, wondering if the cost of maintenance & repair is included.

I doubt if either is...


----------



## Macfury

This is explicitly NOT included.



FeXL said:


> First, wondering if the cost of transmission lines is included in any of those calculations.


----------



## Macfury

The future of renewables:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/b...all-to-look-past-sustainable-development.html 



> American diplomats are upset that dozens of countries — including Nepal, Cambodia and Bangladesh — have flocked to join China’s new infrastructure investment bank, a potential rival to the World Bank and other financial institutions backed by the United States.
> 
> The reason for the defiance is not hard to find: *The West’s environmental priorities are blocking their access to energy.*


Hawwww!


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Two other costs came to mind on the topic. First, wondering if the cost of transmission lines is included in any of those calculations. Second, wondering if the cost of maintenance & repair is included.
> 
> I doubt if either is...


From talking to one of the crews, I know that each of the older wind turbines requires half a day of maintenance twice a year. Depending on which turbines it is a two or three man crew. Newer turbines just once a year.

Last week the oldest string near Cowley had 17 of its ~60 turbines shut down. Those turbines have been shut down for at least a month, some of them for most of the winter. Two of them were missing a blade and will obviously require much more expensive repairs than the routine maintenance.


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for posting that BigDL. Even if you were not able to contribute to the discussion, it was an interesting jumping off point.


----------



## FeXL

Wonder how this reconciles with BigDL's Bloomberg article.

India To Push Ahead With Coal



> _India is set to overtake China as the biggest importer of power-station coal, emerging as the leader of a clutch of regional nations that miners including Glencore Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd can tap for new orders.
> 
> Indian thermal-coal imports will surpass China’s by 2017 or sooner, Bloomberg Intelligence analysts William Foiles and Andrew Cosgrove said in a report. _​


Further:



> _India and its regional peers including Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea plan to increase their combined coal-fired generating capacity by more than *204 gigawatts, or 60%, through 2019,* as per the report.​_


M'bold.

In addition, more on the Asian Bank, AIIB:



> _What is particularly significant in all of this is the role of the newly founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB. This has been set up by China in direct competition with the US dominated World Bank. The latter has been at the centre of the controversy of whether it should be funding new coal power capacity.​_


More:



> _Given that so many of Canada’s allies, such as Britain and Australia, have signed onto the AIIB, Mr. Harper certainly wouldn’t be going out of a limb in participating. *Indeed, it might send a salutary message to Mr. Obama, whose policies have damaged Canada beyond the hold-up of Keystone XL.*​_


M'bold.

BINGO!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

When you've screwed up the discipline to the point that no one wants an education in it any more...

Claim: Graduates shunning climate studies



> The Economic Times reports that there is a profound shortage of scientists choosing to study climate change – that advanced Physics and Maths graduates are being attracted to more interesting fields, such as Cosmology.


Further:



> The issue, in my opinion, makes perfect sense if you think about it. If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded?


Nailed it...


----------



## FeXL

About those records temps & unprecedented forest fires.

US Wildfires Below Average In 2014



> Significantly, not only was last year below average, but the 5-year averages for both fires and acreage are below the 10-year average, which suggests the incidence of wildfires has actually been decreasing, contrary to popular myth.


Yeah, not so much...


----------



## FeXL

Steven Goddard has posted any number of links to stories about Global Cooling in the 70's, many of which I've linked to here. Apparently Bill Maher missed those...

Wrong, Bill Maher - Reporting in '70s on Global Cooling Not Limited to Single Story in Newsweek



> On his HBO show last night, comic Bill Maher made a dubious claim about the alleged lack of widespread reporting in the 1970s on global cooling, an assertion that even his core audience of confirmed stoners must have known was inaccurate.
> 
> Maher claimed that media accounts of the purported phenomenon were limited to a single story in a major news magazine for the entire decade -- which is true only if one ignores the scores of other stories across the spectrum of media during that period.


Yep...


----------



## Macfury

It was taught as accepted fact in my grade school.



FeXL said:


> Steven Goddard has posted any number of links to stories about Global Cooling in the 70's, many of which I've linked to here. Apparently Bill Maher missed those...
> 
> Wrong, Bill Maher - Reporting in '70s on Global Cooling Not Limited to Single Story in Newsweek
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...


----------



## FeXL

No Underlying Global Temperature Increase For 20 Years



> After taking out the effect of ENSO and eruptions, it is apparent that temperatures have been flat since the early 1990’s; indeed they have arguably been falling since.
> 
> This is significant. *We are often told that the 17-year pause, with which we are all familiar, is solely dependent on cherry picking the big El Nino year of 1998 as a starting point.*
> 
> What Santer’s study shows is that there has been no underlying upward trend in global temperatures for more than 20 years.


M'bold.

The reason 1998 date was first used as a data point was not a cherry pick by sceptics. It was a cherry pick by warmists as an indicator of global warming, despite the fact that El Nino's are a naturally occurring climatic event. You can see what the temperature record looks like at the link with the 1998 El Nino removed.

Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

NCDC Hiding The Decline In US Winter Temperature



> Andy DC dug up this 1993 NCDC document, which showed that US winter temperatures had remained essentially constant from 1896 to 1993.
> 
> ...
> 
> That of course isn’t any use for funding, so they have since altered the data to make it appear to be warming.


Again, good visuals.

More:

How CRUTEM4 Cranked Up The Warming



> The Met Office’s Hadley Center are responsible for compiling the HADCRUT global temperature datasets, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
> 
> In 2012, they brought out the new HADCRUT4 version, which had the effect of slightly increasing the warming trend, particularly in recent years. As part of the switch from HADCRUT3 to HADCRUT4, they also introduced a new land only temperature series, CRUTEM4.
> 
> *Woodfortrees noticed at the time how much this had changed since the CRUTEM3 version. And, unsurprisingly, it had the effect of increasing the warming trend.*


M;bold.

Yeah, there's a surprise.


----------



## FeXL

Bizarre Huffington Post Claim: We all need to ‘come out’ on Climate Change



> The Huffington Post thinks we’ve all been keeping our climate alarmist views in the closet. Apparently we’re all quietly worried, but we lack the courage to face our friends, and admit our guilty secret.
> 
> ...
> 
> For once I’m at a bit of a loss to know what to say. *The Huff Post article, which conflates sexual freedom and climate alarmism, has got to be one of the strangest and most desperate theories I have ever read, for why nobody talks about climate change.*


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Nicely done.

A Statistical Definition of the ‘Hiatus in Global Warming’ using NASA GISS and MLO data



> The R squared(Ref3) of 0.033 prima facie tells you this correlation is, well … just meaningless. Therefore, using a 1st order regression is meaningless, as is any calculated climate sensitivity. The spread of data indicated by the standard deviation vs. min-max spread of the data shows the data are simply a scatter, no more.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Nevertheless, the lousy R squared³ and apparent zero “fit” does allow us to conclude that during the hiatus, the assumption that CO2 is the major thing driving global mean temperature is not just a lousy hypothesis, it’s wrong and unsupported by the data (fact). We can also say that all of the variability (scatter) in the data is due to “not CO2.”*


M'bold.

Have a look at Figs 2 & 3.

Brilliant.


----------



## FeXL

No argument.

Congressmen To NASA: Stop Wasting Money On Global Warming Research



> Republican lawmakers chastised the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Friday, saying the agency’s obsession with global warming is undercutting space exploration programs.
> 
> *“There are 13 other agencies involved in climate change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration,”* Texas Rep. Lamar Smith told NASA administrator Charles Bolden in a hearing.
> 
> “The administration continues to starve NASA’s exploration programs to fund a partisan environmental agenda,” Smith said. “NASA simply deserves better.”


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

Nothing is more scary than funding a skeptic. Flannery over-reacts, shoots himself in the foot



> The Australian Government is spending $2.5 billion on Direct Action to reduce atmospheric carbon. They offer to spend a tiny $4m extra setting up a centre for an economist who studies the effectiveness of action to change the climate.


So, that amounts to 0.002%.

The response?



> Tim Flannery’s reaction to the Consensus Centre:
> *
> “…it’s an insult to Australia’s scientific community.”*


Bold from the link.

Guess Flannery's never cross-checked the cost-benefit of the GCM's...


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate change caused disasters.

E Calvin Beisner Demolishes More Climate Scare Stories In Africa



> A couple of weeks ago, I ran a post on an article written by E Calvin Beisner, which demolished claims in the Christian Post that climate change was bringing disaster to Kenya.
> 
> ...
> 
> Beisner had written a similar piece in 2013 about inaccurate claims made about Malawai, again by a couple of evangelical environmentalists. It was actually published by WUWT, but it is worth rereading now as these claims by Christian outfits are clearly part of a pattern.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little perspective.

It’s always Dark Sky Week in Africa



> _In March we enjoyed Earth Hour, when citizens were urged to turn off their lights around the world. Last week was Dark Sky Week, an effort to make citizens aware of “light pollution.” *It’s always Dark Sky Week in Africa, where the majority of a billion people don’t have access to electricity.*​_


M'bold.

Plus:



> _Ethanol and biodiesel vehicle fuels are “renewable,” and promoted by the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce petroleum-based vehicle fuel and fight global warming. *But in 2013, more than 40 percent of the US corn crop produced ethanol for only 7 percent of US vehicle fuel. Nine bushels of corn are needed to provide ethanol for one 25 gallon tank of E85 fuel for a Sport Utility Vehicle.* Biofuels require huge amounts of land for little energy output.​_


M'bold.

40%!!!  Not only that, but 9 bushels of corn? According to my calculations, that's a box of corn 28" by 28" by 28"! For one tankfull of fuel! And they wonder why people are starving. Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

Few links on glaciers & sea ice.

What The IPCC Said About Glaciers In 1990



> In other words, glaciers began receding in the second half of the 19thC, and the fastest rate of retreat was 1920-60, before CO2 emissions could have had any significant impact.


Huh? That certainly doesn't follow todays narrative.

How The Rhone Glacier Has Retreated Since The 19thC



> The 1940’s stand out as the decade of major retreat. Apart from then, the rate of retreat seems to have been pretty steady, with no sign of acceleration.
> 
> * It is also worth bearing in mind that, between 1856 and 1870, the glacier was said to have retreated by about half a mile. This would represent a rate of retreat about 60% greater than that during the 1940’s.*


M'bold.

Difficult to pin this on rising CO2 concentrations.

Ross Ice Shelf Receded 30 Miles By 1930



> Alarmists blame global warming for melting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process which has been going on for centuries.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

Geological forces trump man-made global warming again



> Two recently released and independent studies both conclude that natural forces in the form of unusually strong and persistent trade winds are the cause of the 18.5-year global warming haitus _(see references below)_. The implications are absolutely stunning!
> 
> 1. This is an admission that natural forces override / trump the effect of all man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere during this time period.
> 2. It is also a very public admission by “consensus” climate scientists that the 18 ½ lack of atmospheric warming is real, not a fabrication of global warming skeptics. The research studies even coined a phrase to describe the lack of atmospheric global warming, the “Pause”.


Three more at the link.


----------



## FeXL

So, Obama flew down to the Everglades last week to preach about global warming on Earth Day. All the while burning 9000 gallons of jet fuel...

WSJ Op-Ed: The Climate-Change Religion: Obama raises alarms about global warming based on beliefs, not science 

He sums:



> The intellectual dishonesty of senior administration officials who are unwilling to admit when they are wrong is astounding. When assessing climate change, we should focus on good science, not politically correct science.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Few links on ocean temps.

Oceans Were Warmer In MWP

From the Abstract:



> _We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century.​_


Funny, never heard about that on MSM...

What The IPCC Said About Ocean Temperatures In 1990



> It’s amazing what you find from the 1990 IPCC Report when you look. These were the days, of course, before the IPCC became fully politicised.
> 
> In their section on sea temperatures, they discuss the big cooling of the Atlantic in the 1960’s and 70’s.
> 
> ...
> 
> What they are talking about is the immense heat storing capacity of the oceans, and how changes in circulation patterns can have a significant effect on climate, maybe decades or even centuries later.
> 
> The ability of CO2 to affect ocean temperatures is tiny in comparison.
> 
> Unfortunately, many scientists today find it easier, and more profitable, to blame all changes on CO2 and ignore all of the natural processes taking place.


SST Trends Since 1900.



> While we’re on the subject of sea surface temperatures, let’s take a look at the long term changes, as measured by HADSST3.
> 
> ...
> 
> We can see the step up in 1998, since when things have been pretty much stable. *What is also noticeable though is the rapid warming from 1920 to 1950, which was a a similar rate to the more recent warming between 1980 and 2000.
> 
> As the earlier warming could not have been caused by the small increase in CO2 emissions during those years, clearly some other factor is at play.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

What's this? Finally, an investigation into global temperature "adjustments"? 

GWPF Set Up Inquiry Into Temperature Adjustments



> A high powered and independent scientific inquiry has been set up by the GWPF to look into the question of temperatures adjustments.


Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures



> Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
> 
> *But here there is a puzzle.*


M'bold.

Ya think?

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity



> An international team of eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians has been assembled under the chairmanship of Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected. The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend.


Long overdue.

The results will be an interesting read.

And, the attack has already begun.

I Wonder What They Are Afraid Of?



> It has not taken long for the left wing press to attack the investigation into the integrity of global temperature records!


Bring it...


----------



## FeXL

So, the Pope seems to think that being the world leader of one brand of religion is good enough to endorse another. Yep, if you haven't heard, he's a believer & is about to give his blessing to warmists the world over.

However...

A message for Pope Francis



> Just eight years ago, Pope Benedict XVI warned that any proposed “solutions” to global warming and climate change must be based on solid evidence, and not on computer models, unsupported assertions and dubious ideology. He suggested that concerns about man-made emissions melting ice caps and causing waves of unprecedented disasters were little more than fear-mongering. He argued that ecological concerns must be balanced against the needs of current and future generations of people.
> 
> Pope Francis apparently does not share his predecessor’s view about climate change fears. However, if he is truly committed to advancing science, the poor and creation, he should reject climate chaos claims unless and until alarmists can provide solid evidence to back up their assertions and models.
> 
> He should recognize that the issue is not global warming or climate change. It is whether human actions now dominate climate and weather fluctuations that have been common throughout Earth and human history and whether those actions will cause dangerous or catastrophic changes in the future. Science-based answers to these questions are essential if we are to forecast future climate and weather accurately and safeguard poor families, modern living standards and environmental quality.


And, what happens if a sceptic asks a question?

Vatican Heavies Silence Climate Heretics at UN Papal Summit



> Marc Morano [of Climate Depot fame], covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.
> 
> But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while *a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”*


Yeah, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

A quick perspective on sea level rise & the human component thereof.

Understanding Sea Level Rise

Good graph.


----------



## FeXL

When you've lost Scripps...

BOMBSHELL: Scripps says Arctic Sea Ice may return, forecasts of loss based on ‘oversimplified arguments’



> “We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. *None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.*”
> 
> “Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” said Wagner. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice..."


M'bold.

Unfortunately, it's still models all the way down.


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head...>

Newsweek Disgracefully Links the Mt Everest Tragedy to Rising CO2



> Last August they tried to infect our psyche’s suggesting the horrific Ebola outbreak was a function of rising CO2 writing, “Ebola and Climate Change: Are Humans Responsible for the Severity of the Current Outbreak?”
> 
> This March they hawked the notion that the brutalities of the War in Syria are due to global warming firing off that “Climate Change Helped Create Conditions for War in Syria, Study Suggests.”
> 
> Now with tragic deaths from the earthquake-caused avalanche in Nepal, not even the ground we walk on is safe from the devastating effects of climate change, as Newsweek blathers “More Fatal Earthquakes to Come, Warn Climate Change Scientists”


Who are these idiots? Worse than a tabloid...


----------



## FeXL

Well this should change the view that satellite readings are outliers.

New UAH Lower Troposphere Temperature Data Show No Global Warming for More Than 18 Years



> Dr. Roy Spencer introduced the updated and much corrected UAH atmospheric temperature data in his blog post Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade. The new temperature anomaly data for the lower troposphere, mid troposphere and lower stratosphere are presently in beta form for comment. That is, they’re not official…yet. I suspect the update will not go over well with the catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming crowd. Links to the version 6.0 beta data are at the bottom of Roy’s post, which also contains a detailed discussion of the updates.


Link to Spencer's post.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> <just shaking my head...>
> 
> Newsweek Disgracefully Links the Mt Everest Tragedy to Rising CO2
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these idiots? Worse than a tabloid...


Idiot is the correct word. News broadcasts regularly try to connect CO2 levels to whatever bit of horror is current. It is so pervasive that the only possible conclusion is that the puppet masters have ordered their news/fiction writers to do so. 

This one is so over the top that I will generously conclude the author is trying to make the propagandistic manipulations obvious.


----------



## FeXL

Lets talk ice.

Sea Ice Extent – Day 121 – 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Antarctic Sets 33rd Daily Record For 2015



> 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Above one standard deviation.
> 
> 33rd Daily Record for Antarctic – 1.75 million above the 1981-2010 mean. – Above 3 standard deviations.


Global Sea Ice Update



> With Antarctic sea ice running above even last year’s record levels, it is no surprise that global sea ice is above average.
> 
> ...
> 
> *A closer look at the global trends since the start of last year show that sea ice has been above average for 269 days out of 466. On average, area has been 132,000 sq km above the 1979-2008 mean.*


M'bold.

Funny, didn't see that on A/B/C-BC News...

Antarctic Sea Ice Expands To New Record In April



> According to NSIDC, a new record high has been set for April, beating last year. Ice is above average virtually all around the continent.


----------



## FeXL

And, going back centuries, all the way to 1976 & the 30's...

40 Years Since Climatologists Blamed California Drought On Global Cooling



> In 1976, climatologists said that that global cooling caused drought and fires in California, and produced catastrophic erratic weather globally.
> 
> ...
> 
> Jerry Brown warned that California was facing an unprecedented drought.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, Jerry Brown says that California faces an unprecedented drought, caused by global warming


I know, I know. He's learned so much more since then...

After Hundreds Of $Billions Of Research, Scientists Discover The 1930’s



> This is shocking. Humans don’t cause warm oceans and mega-droughts after all.


It's the oceans?


----------



## FeXL

A look at Arctic temperature trends back to 1880.

Arctic Temperature Trends



> Euan Mearns has an interesting post, looking at temperature trends across the Arctic and sub-Arctic areas of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the adjacent part of Russia.
> 
> The data clearly show a cyclical pattern, with the warm years of the 1930’s and 40’s at a similar level to the temperatures in the past decade. In between are the much colder 1960’s and 70’s.


Link to Euan Mearns post: Record Arctic Warmth – in 1937

Good read, lots of visual aids.


----------



## FeXL

The Grunion change their approach. SSDD, just a new angle.

Some Guardian myths about climate change



> *Ooh. Here’s a bit of a backdown. Skeptics must be getting to The Guardian. Smile.*


Bold from the link.

Smile, indeed.



> Mocking skeptics and calling them deniers has somehow failed to win them over, so the Guardian is trying a slightly new tack. This time they pretend to be balanced, and post up a list of “Myths to explode” from _both_ sides of the debate. But don’t bring the ear-muffs, or the ambulances — these bombs are pussy-foot puff balls. The air-drops on alarmist camps are so convoluted they manage to support The Big Fear Campaign even as they try (gently-bentley!) to reign in a few excesses of the believers — don’t mention human extinction, and do remember the world has been hotter before, right? On skeptical “myths”, nothing has changed but at least they’ve stopped the namecalling (Bravo!). But it’s hard for author Hannah Devlin — she even serves up a new myth to try to squash an old one. The rate of global warming is apparently “unprecedented”, as in one-degree-in-a-century has never _ever_ happened before, not once. How likely is that we could know the rate of global temperature swings to a tenth of a degree back in the days of dinosaurs and at continuous unbroken resolution of 100 year intervals?


Emphasis from the original.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs me sum early morning snark. 

UN Says Earth Was Destroyed Yesterday



> On May 4, 2007 – UN scientists gave us eight years to avoid planetary doom. That date passed yesterday, and the planet died.


Shortly thereafter, Alberta elected an NDP gov't...

See what I did there?!


----------



## FeXL

So, recall some time back when Willie Soon was excoriated by the warmists masses about his funding. Apparently the masses missed one. A small. itsy-bitsy, teeny-weenie one...

EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest



> Steve Milloy at JunkScience holds the media and EPA scientists up to the same standards they expect from skeptics like Willie Soon.
> 
> ...
> 
> Milloy wonders if $31 million in EPA grants could be a competing interest? Five of eight authors are paid grants by the EPA.


Don't look for this to be reported anytime soon in the MSM.


----------



## FeXL

So, recall a couple weeks back, I posted a link to an article about the hue & cry warmists were having about 0.02% of the UWA climate research budget dedicated to that most foul of things, a <spit> sceptic research center?

Well, it's been cancelled.

Lomborg’s Centre cancelled: UWA caves in to bullies who use anger to silence debate



> The Lomborg Consensus Centre has been axed in response to pure emotional hysteria. The Abbott government should immediately set up the Centre anyway, make it independent from the universities, which don’t deserve another cent.


Nice job, bullies.


----------



## FeXL

These guys flip-flop like a fish on the river bank...

Oklahoma Scam Turns On A Dime



> Two days ago, Oklahoma was having a drought worse than the Dust Bowl. Now it is record wet due to global warming.


Further:

Scientific American Forget The Enid Floods



> A quick look at the USHCN daily rainfall data for Enid shows just how remarkable the 1973 inundation was. Several other heavy rainfalls all occurred prior to 1990. Since then, there has been a notable absence of exceptional downpours.
> 
> The seven inches just recorded in Oklahoma is not unusual in the least.


----------



## FeXL

On anomalies vs absolute temperature readings.

Falling For Old Jedi Mind Tricks



> Zeke Hausfather claimed that US temperatures had to be measured as anomalies, rather than absolute temperatures – because of “changing station composition.” Several skeptics took the bait.
> 
> This is nonsense. The absolute temperature and anomaly graphs are nearly identical. This is because the US has a large number of widely distributed stations, and random station changes tend to null each other out over the entire group.


More:



> People should do some research before weighing in on topics they don’t understand. *The important topic is the huge amount of data tampering, not the minute and nearly irrelevant details alarmists use to distract.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Several interesting articles here.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #179

One of the items discussed is John Steinbeck's _East of Eden_ (1952), relating to the California drought.



> _“I have spoken of the rich years when the rainfall was plentiful. But there were dry years too, and they put a terror on the valley. The water came in a thirty-year cycle. There would be five or six wet and wonderful years when there might be nineteen to twenty-five inches of rain, and the land would shout with grass. Then would come six or seven pretty good years of twelve to sixteen inches of rain. And then the dry years would come, and sometimes there would be only seven or eight inches of rain. The land dried up and the grasses headed out miserably a few inches high and great bare scabby places appeared in the valley. The live oaks got a crusty look and the sagebrush was gray. The land cracked and the springs dried up and the cattle listlessly nibbled dry twigs. Then the farmers and the ranchers would be filled with disgust for the Salinas Valley. The cows would grow thin and sometimes starve to death. People would have to haul water in barrels to their farms just for drinking. Some families would sell out for nearly nothing and move away. *And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.*”​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea ice.

On the Pause in Global Sea Ice Anomalies



> There was a resurgence of sea ice globally in 2013 and 2014, however. That recent resurgence allows us to present the data in another way. We can use a linear trend analysis, starting in April 2015, to determine how far back in time we can go while the global sea ice extent data show no losses or no gains. See Figure 1. Based on the linear trend, there has been no loss (or gain) in global sea ice extent for 178 months…almost 15 years.


----------



## eMacMan

The Alarmists representation of the Antarctic Ice notwithstanding, the problem is not ice disappearing but too much ice.

Even the lame-stream has noticed.

Record Antarctic sea ice a logistic problem for scientists



> Rob Wooding said that resupplying Australia's Mawson Station -- the longest continuously operated outpost in Antarctica -- relied on access to a bay, a task increasingly complicated by sea ice blocking the way.
> 
> "We are noticing that the sea ice situation is becoming more difficult," Wooding told a media briefing on Monday ahead of two days of meetings between top Antarctic science and logistics experts in Hobart, the capital of Tasmania.
> 
> Wooding said that at Mawson, the ice typically only breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year, and some years only partially.
> 
> "In the 2013-4 season we couldn't get anywhere near Mawson due to the sea ice and we had to get fuel in there by helicopter which is inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station," he said, adding that the French and Japanese had similar problems.
> Wooding said Australia had not yet come close to shutting down a base because of sea ice, but had to look at "unusual measures" to keep operating.
> 
> Tony Worby, from an Australian centre studying Antarctic climate and ecosystems, said that in contrast to the Arctic where global warming is causing ice to melt and glaciers to shrink, sea ice around Antarctica was increasing.
> 
> It hit a new record in September last year, with the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center reporting that the ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometres (7.72 million square miles) during the month.


Note: If one pole has ice at record levels and the other is waning, it ain't _*Global* _warming, it is maintaining the balance.


----------



## FeXL

At the top of this page I linked to an article detailing the cancellation of the previously planned Lomborg centre. Apparently there has been a ton of fallout from the stupidity & a whole new cadre of sceptics has been created.

Thank you UWA — The spectacular collapse of the Lomborg centre was good for skeptics



> The UWA debacle has been the best thing to happen to skeptics for years. People who have never mentioned the climate debate to me are now approaching me to talk about it — aghast that something so tame was treated like an outbreak of Ebola. The over-reaction to Lomberg’s Consensus Centre is priceless — it has exposed just how much the pro-climate-crisis team are scared of even the tiniest deviation from their religious doctrine. They depend so entirely on their unchallenged “university” authority that the threat of any official dissent could cause the collapse of the whole facade. (What a disaster.)


Nice.


----------



## FeXL

One of the cornerstones of warmist belief is the presence of a "hot spot" in the upper troposphere. Todate, this elusive "hot spot" has evaded tens of millions of radiosondes, weather ballons.

However, in the most recent bout of garbage generated by models, it's finally been found!

Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data



> *Who’s desperate to find the missing hot-spot? Sherwood’s new paper claims to have found it, but after years of multi-layered adjustments, and now kriging the gaps, and iteratively homogenizing, the results of the new data partly “solve” one problem while creating others. There’s no documented, physical reason for the homogenizing and there’s no new insight gained. The raw data was used by airlines, the military, and meteorologists for years, yet the suggested new results are quite different to the raw data. It’s as if we can’t even measure air temperature properly. Somehow we’ve made multivariate complex models work but not simple temperature sensors? The main problem with the old results was that they didn’t fit the models. Now, after torturing the data, they still don’t. *


Bold from the link.

Further:

Claim: Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot over the Southern Ocean



> Sixth, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for. That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science. (added) The real question is, how many stations did they keep as they define as “good”?


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

When they have no science to base their argument upon, all they can produce is _ad hominem_ attacks & encourage everyone else to do the same.

Forecast-the-facts has no facts left — just demands that newspapers do inflammatory namecalling



> Forecast the Facts wants newspapers to label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally deficient deniers. Climate change is settled, beyond debate, and the evidence is overwhelming, but the the team with all that certainty seems awfully scared that the public might listen to their critics.


----------



## FeXL

Another Weekly Climate news roundup.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #180 

First, a stunning quote:



> *Even though the US government spent over $35 billion on climate science research from fiscal year 1993 to FY 2013, federal agencies have failed to create a global climate model, verified and validated, for predicting future temperatures.* Without a valid climate model, temperature forecasts are highly speculative. Thus, the core of the entire USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment is speculative. Labeling such statements with terms such as Very Likely or High Confidence is pure fiction. There is no objective method to assess likelihood or confidence. Further, there is no indication that government agencies are attempting to create a valid climate model that has predictive power (skill).


M'bold.

$35 billion. $35,000,000,000. 

Again, I ask the questions. How many clean, fresh, water wells could $35 billion have dug in Africa & elsewhere? How many forms of cancer could $35 billion have found a cure for? How much research into the treatment & curing of AIDS, _Ebola_ & malaria could $35 billion have funded? How many people the world over could have electricity installed for $35 billion? How much research could have gone into Thorium reactors or other safe, _economically viable_ forms of energy for $35 billion? How many people could have been lifted out of poverty for $35 billion? How many cats & dogs could have been neutered or spayed for $35 billion?

What's your particular bugaboo? How would a cash injection of $35 billion have changed that? 

And that is what the US alone has pi$$ed away. Add in the rest of the planet & it becomes *hundreds of billions of dollars.* I read numbers like that and I feel physically ill. 

It's not often I utilize a good, old-fashioned guilt trip but today I'm going to make an exception: to you fukcers who believe & endorse this $hit, I hope you're happy. I truly hope you feel you've gotten value for you money. You call yourselves humanitarians. Imagine what could have been...

I think I'm going to go throw up.

edit:

(From the "If I thought I felt sick before" department...)

Gobsmacked:

Nobel Chutzpah Prize 2015: UN, World Bank need “$89 Trillion” to fix climate



> The ambit claims know no bounds. Who else would ask for $89,000,000,000,000?


Who, indeed...


----------



## FeXL

A passel of articles on temperature adjustments.

NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature History (Again)



> Now Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine–as always, to make the past look cooler and the present warmer by comparison


More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data



> Weather agencies in Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland may be manipulating temperature data to create a sharper warming trend than is present in the raw data — a practice that has come under scrutiny in recent months.


Cooling The Past In The Faroes.



> Clearly the above scenario cannot possibly reconcile with the apocalyptic version of a rapidly warming Arctic, ice free Arctics, blah, blah.
> 
> So, queue the fraudulent temperature adjustments!
> 
> This is what GISS now show as the “proper” version of Faroe Islands’ temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

And a passel more on the Arctic/Antarctic.

Antarctic Temperatures Not Unusual



> The Antarctic may have warmed up since the 19thC, but are current temperatures there anything unusual?
> 
> NIPCC have a useful list of studies which show that it has been regularly warmer in the recent past.


How Geologic Forces are melting the Antarctic Larsen B Ice Shelf



> And so it begins: the ordained and predictable global warming hype has shifted into high gear in preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Summit (Paris, Nov. 30-Dec. 11, 2015). As this fervent process ramps up over the next five months, advocates of the man-made global warming theory hope to accomplish the following: flood the media with supposedly consensus, pro-global warming scientific studies, lay the groundwork for a world carbon tax, and most importantly, engage global warming skeptics in a monumental climate science war.


West Antarctic Cool Down



> This 2011 paper found that temperatures had dropped by 1.7C during the two millenia prior to 1700 CE in the West Antarctic.
> 
> Perhaps current temperatures there are not quite so “unprecedented”.


Yes, just perhaps.

And this little nugget:

Claim: New evidence has linked Arctic warming with severe weather in countries including the UK and US.



> “We are in the pre-consensus stage of a theory that links continued warming of the Arctic with some severe weather events.”


WTF? "Pre-consensus"?

From the second comment:



> Sounds like the new dictionary definition of “confirmation bias”.


No $hit...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that missing tropospheric hot spot...

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”



> One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.
> 
> The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. *Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.*


M'bold.

New satellite analysis fails to find the hot spot, agrees with millions of weather balloons



> What Roy Spencer found was confirmation for the twentieth time that the models are wrong about this their major, most important feedback.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Garvin, Garvin, Garvin... Ignoring these questions won't make them go away.

NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt goes into hiding from seven very inconvenient climate questions



> On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails. If he were a scientist without leadership responsibilities in the climate community, he certainly can choose to ignore my request. However, he is a Director of a major US federal laboratory and, as such, he (or his staff) should be responding to such requests. As of today’s date, he has not answered any of the questions.


----------



## FeXL

National Climate Assessment – AKA Lies From The White House



> As always, the residents of the White House are lying. We should all be concerned when the White House is engaged in the big lie. History tells us that this is not a good thing.


----------



## FeXL

I post this largely to underscore that fact that, of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, man is responsible for about 4% of it. 96% can be pinned on ole Ma Nature...

How worms may stave off global warming



> A new report published Tuesday in the The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the microbes that feed on decaying organic matter release roughly 7.5-9 times more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than man-made emissions worldwide. *By a lot.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Again, obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

An inconvenient truth from medical research: cold is far worse than global warming at killing people



> Summary:
> 
> _*Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.​*_


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate



> Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.
> 
> Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.
> 
> *What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Not good news for Patchy.

RK Pachauri case: Teri internal probe backs complainant



> The research analyst who had levelled serious charges of sexual harassment against RK Pachauri has been been vindicated. An internal inquiry by The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) into charges of sexual harassment at the workplace against Rajendra K Pachauri has indicted the 74-year-old scientist, sources familiar with the matter have told ET.


----------



## FeXL

No one has engaged the deniers! Says Graham Richardson. Oh really? says Jo Nova.



> _” Labor vacated the arena of argument. The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.“
> 
> — Graham Richardson, Friday May 22nd, 2015​_


Hey, Graham, here's a clue:



> *No one will debate skeptics*


Because warmists are afraid they'll get the butts handed to them on an even playing field...


----------



## FeXL

The Only People Denying Climate Change Are Those Calling Others Climate Change Deniers



> Current attacks on those who question the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are signs of desperation. You can detect the exasperation in this comment by President Obama.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all those massive oil "subsidies"...

$5.3 Trillion On Government Fossil Fuel Subsidies? What Total And Utter Bilge!



> Well, it would appear that [the IMF] resorted to a tried and tested technique which has proved enduringly popular with the environmental movement. It’s called “plucking your figures from thin air”.
> 
> Here’s the giveaway passage from the Guardian‘s article:
> 
> The vast subsidy derives largely from polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution, and to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.
> 
> In other words, the IMF doesn’t mean “subsidies” in the sense that most of us would understand: that is, handouts from the state to favoured institutions. It means “subsidies” in the sense of “vast, almost limitless taxes which the governments should have imposed but haven’t”.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

What we've learned in 40 years...

Comparing 1975 National Academy Of Sciences To 2015 GISS



> In 1975, the National Academy Of Sciences published this graph, showing about 1°C warming in the Northern Hemisphere from 1885 to 1940, and that all 1900 to 1940 warming was lost by 1970.
> 
> ...
> 
> GISS has since reduced the 1885 to 1940 warming by half, and reduced the 1940-1970 cooling by two thirds.
> 
> ...
> 
> So which one is correct? In 1923, the Arctic was very warm and melting rapidly.
> 
> ...
> 
> But in 1970, the Arctic was very cold, and ice was expanding rapidly.
> 
> ...
> 
> The 1975 NAS graph makes sense. The Arctic melting when it is warm, and freezing when it is cold
> 
> ...
> 
> But what about the current GISS graph? It shows the Arctic melting when it is cold, and freezing when it is warm.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is painfully obvious that the GISS temperatures are fraudulent, yet several prominent skeptics continue to enable this scam by pretending that the NASA/NOAA temperatures are somehow legitimate.


...lying, cheating, stealing.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that my quiet, inner voice?


----------



## FeXL

From the "I'll take Foiled Permanent Drought Predictions for $800, Alex" department. (It rained in Tejas this week...)

“Texas Hot And Dry For The Rest Of The Century”



> Four years ago, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M said Texas would be hot and dry for the rest of the century


Four Years Into The Joe Romm Permanent Drought



> Four years ago, climate fraudster Joe Romm announced the start of the southwest permanent drought
> 
> ...
> 
> As is always the case with climate alarmists, he had no idea what he was talking about. The southwest has been wetter than normal for the past two years.


And, related:

Climate Alarmists – The Ultimate Snake Oil Salesmen



> Today, climate alarmists say that rain in Texas is caused by _fossil fueled poisoned weather._
> 
> ...
> 
> These same clowns were blaming the Texas drought on global warming, and predicting it would get worse.


I jes' luvs me sum climate lessons served up with a bit o' snark...


----------



## FeXL

From the same Jeopardy game but another category: "I'll take Fraudulent Sea Level Measurements for $600, Alex".

You Could Not Make It Up!! (But They Can)



> In 2008, they found that sea level rise between 2003 and 2008 had slowed down, compared to 1993-2003. Furthermore, the authors were confident that thermal expansion had stopped and that glacial melting accounted for all of the rise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Fast forward to this year, and we find that the rate of rise previously assumed for 1993-2003 had been overstated, and that when corrected the new figures fit the models for glacial melt and thermal expansion!


Well sonuvagun... Who knew? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)


----------



## FeXL

Texas Hit By Unprecedented Hypestorms!



> The same people who were hyping unprecedented drought in Texas a few days ago, are now hyping unprecedented rain.
> 
> ...
> 
> As always, it is complete BS. Houston has had much heavier rainfall in the past.


----------



## FeXL

Having failed in climate science, this goof moves into constitutional scholarship, where he is equally successful.

Bill Nye: ‘Climate Deniers’ Are ‘Unpatriotic’ – Misquotes Constitution To Support His Claim



> _'Now he’s Bill Nye the Constitutional Scholar Guy? What a clown. He’s using the section of the Constitution that is the basis for patent law to back up his assertion that questioning the science behind his climate alarmism is somehow unpatriotic.'​_


----------



## FeXL

They're running out of excuses so they have to resort to reruns...

Recycled: 2035 Himalayan Glacier Claim



> Alarmists are busy recycling old debunked climate claims, in a desperate effort to build up momentum for the upcoming Paris climate conference.


That was the first time Patchy really stepped in it, 6 years ago.


----------



## FeXL

Finally.

EPA Busted for Ideology



> *The EPA’s attempt to harness new coal-fired power plant constructions has been exposed as ideological rather than legal.* The EPA further ignored the Department of Energy’s (DOE) earlier conclusion that carbon capture and storage (CCS) has not been “adequately demonstrated.” [1]
> 
> Thanks to commentary from The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) the EPA has been forced to retreat from their draft rule. *That rule would mandate the use of CCS, a process that would inter carbon dioxide underground which has so far proved to be little more than a thought experiment.* To mandate this technology, the court required the EPA to prove CCS was “adequately demonstrated” and “commercially available.” In that they were laid naked by E&E Legal.


M'bold.

Nice.


----------



## FeXL

New paper reviews & summarizes the NIPCC Report Climate Change Reconsidered -Physical Science



> The paper concludes,
> 
> _"While the presence of 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and [atmospheric] motions is absurd. *There is, in fact, not one iota of reliable evidence that it does.*"​_


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## Macfury

CC works flawlessly--as a way to increase the price of clean coal energy.



FeXL said:


> Finally.
> 
> EPA Busted for Ideology
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Nice.


----------



## SINC

Somebody gets it:

Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling climate change | Troy Media


----------



## FeXL

One more who gets it.

MIT Climate Scientist: Global Warming Believers a ‘Cult’



> An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.
> 
> During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
> 
> “*As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.* I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “*You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!*”


M'bold.

Just waiting for the glasses of kool-aid to arrive...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "unprecedented", global-warming caused Texas flooding...

The Age Of Disinformation



> Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.
> 
> But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison.
> 
> ...
> 
> Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.


More:



> Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

They Can’t Predict The Weather In One Month, But Know What It Will Be Like In A Century



> The same scientists who failed to predict the rain in Texas, say that the rain is exactly what they predicted all along.


Says it all for me.

The balance of the post is the comments.


----------



## FeXL

And, the temperature record isn't the only numbers being fiddled with.

NASA Has Quadrupled 1955-1980 Sea Level Rise Since 1982



> This is the current NASA tide gauge data, which shows 17 cm of sea level rise from 1870 to 1980, or 1.8 mm/year
> 
> ...
> 
> Here is the 1982 version, which shows about half that much rise.


Good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that scary 2° tipping point.

Ice core data shows the much feared +2°C climate ‘tipping point’ has already occurred…



> The much vaunted and much feared _“fatal”_ tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.
> 
> If it were possible to reach the _“potentially horrendous”_ level of +6°C postulated by Warmists, by the inclusion of major positive feedbacks from additional water vapor in the atmosphere, that extreme level would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum.


Italics from the link.

In other words, been there, done that, got the t-shirt...


----------



## FeXL

No argument.

Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims



> A co-founder of Greenpeace International, Rex Weyler, described as a “journalist”, has recently blog-posted a Gish-gallimaufry of half-truths and downright falsehoods under the heading _Global warming update._ Mr Weyler says: *“If you are environmental activist, or someone who cares and wants to help, you may find yourself confronting a denialist campaign that sows doubt and confusion.”*
> 
> As with most such compendia of codswallop from the lavishly-funded Traffic-Light Tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds – *this latest roundup of ranting rodomontade is calculated to mislead as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting analysis of the NOAA temperature record.

Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History



> Last April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled, Black Swan Climate Theory [1] (BSCT) irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. *The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms [2]) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record.*


M'bold.

Not a surprise to anyone who has ben paying attention.


----------



## FeXL

On the alleged accuracy of the ARGO buoy temperature readings.

Study shows ARGO ocean robots uncertainty was up to 100 times larger than advertised



> The Hadfield study compared the new ARGO robotic buoys to other ways of measuring ocean temperatures in a slice across the North Atlantic. The results are fairly devastating for claims that the oceans are heating by 0.005° C per year. *Hadfield et al found that the Argo network made errors around 0.5° C, and up to 2° C in one area.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on the planet's albedo (reflectivity) vs temperature.

Albedic Meanderings



> I’ve been considering the nature of the relationship between the albedo and temperature. I have hypothesized elsewhere that variations in tropical cloud albedo are one of the main mechanisms that maintain the global surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. within ± 0.3°C during the entire 20th Century). To provide observational support for the hypothesis, I’ve been looking at the relationship between temperature and albedo, both globally and more particularly in the tropics.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

First off you moron, it's carbon dioxide, not carbon (leave it to a politician). 

Second, again, does anybody know anyone who is "denying climate"?

Third, bring it. I'd appreciate the opportunity to get these bastards on the stand...

Senator Whitehouse: Use the RICO law against climate “Deniers”



> Senator Whitehouse doesn’t understand that there is no “denier” conspiracy.
> 
> Ordinary people like myself, are motivated to act because we are fed up with failed climate models being paraded as settled facts. We are fed up with our kids being force fed messages of hopelessness and despair, when they should be learning about the wonders of science. We are fed up with endless schoolyard bullying tactics, the gratuitous name calling, the utterly disproportionate legal threats, and wild, baseless accusations, being used to harass anyone who dares to question the credibility of the self appointed prophets of thermageddon.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Why "Big Oil" is in favour of carbon pricing.

Big Oil Calls For Carbon Pricing



> Perhaps the first thing to realise is that Shell and the rest won’t end up standing the cost of any carbon tax themselves, they will simply pass it on to consumers. The reason why they are actually quite keen on one is evident in the letter.
> 
> *A carbon tax will put coal at a severe disadvantage in comparison to natural gas, which, of course, is hugely important to Shell and co. Also, as they say, the six companies also have “significant investments in renewable energy”, so it is really a win/win situation for them.*
> 
> The losers, other than the coal industry, are the poor old consumers who will be saddled with the bill.


Just one more tool in your sceptic army knife for the next idiot that says, "Wul, even Big Oil wants to cut back emissions. That's why they want carbon pricing...".


----------



## FeXL

So, in the midst of all the copious global warming & the accelerated sea level rise (do I really need to put /sarc here?), the canary in the cold mine (who is s'pose to be sunning himself on a nice 70° North Arctic pelago by now) is freezing his arse off...

Nuuk, Greenland Having Its Coldest Year On Record



> Temperatures in the capital of Greenland have been the coldest on record, and they are still buried in snow. Temperatures have plummeted over the past decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> Normally by this date, around 20% of Greenland is melting. This year the area of melt is less than 2% – the latest start to a melt season on record.
> 
> ...
> 
> Greenland has gained half a trillion tons of snow and ice since September. This all has to melt in the air or flow into the sea and melt – in order to keep equilibrium of the ice sheet.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Look for climate experts to take pictures of glaciers calving into the ocean, and claim that it is an indication that Greenland is melting down.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## Macfury

Reminds me of the coal industry funding environmental wacko groups campaigning against fracking.



FeXL said:


> Why "Big Oil" is in favour of carbon pricing.
> 
> Big Oil Calls For Carbon Pricing
> 
> 
> 
> Just one more tool in your sceptic army knife for the next idiot that says, "Wul, even Big Oil wants to cut back emissions. That's why they want carbon pricing...".


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> First off you moron, it's carbon dioxide, not carbon (leave it to a politician).
> 
> Second, again, does anybody know anyone who is "denying climate"?
> 
> Third, bring it. I'd appreciate the opportunity to get these bastards on the stand...
> 
> 
> 
> Senator Whitehouse doesn’t understand that there is no “denier” conspiracy.
> 
> Ordinary people like myself, are motivated to act because we are fed up with failed climate models being paraded as settled facts. We are fed up with our kids being force fed messages of hopelessness and despair, when they should be learning about the wonders of science. We are fed up with endless schoolyard bullying tactics, the gratuitous name calling, the utterly disproportionate legal threats, and wild, baseless accusations, being used to harass anyone who dares to question the credibility of the self appointed prophets of thermageddon.
> 
> 
> 
> Senator Whitehouse: Use the RICO law against climate “Deniers”
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...
Click to expand...

Brings another thought to mind. One of the Congressional wackos is proposing a law that would redefine terrorists as anyone who threatens the government. 

Now actually looking closely at the science(?) surrounding AGW clearly threatens the official government view as the flaws in the AGW arguments became absurdly obvious. Does that mean so-called deniers would be tossed in jail without trial because they are terrorists? 

Perhaps not in the next few days as Rand Paul successfully blocked some key portions of the anti-patriot act from being renewed, but it would be naive to expect that grace period to extend for any period of time.


----------



## FeXL

OK, some some of you may have heard about a new NOAA (Karl 2015) paper that warmists are endorsing as the "next greatest thing" because it purports to eliminate the "pause" or whatever, despite the fact that the "pause" shows up on every major temperature record & has been acknowledged by some of the biggest names in the warmist world.

What the authors have done is some creative data manipulation on a dataset that is already questionable in the first place, rather than utilizing the stronger of the two datasets. At the same time, they've managed to shoot themselves in the foot. I have included a number of links to articles talking about the paper from a sceptic perspective.

The post is a longer read, but worth it to debunk the first warmist that comes along quoting the BS.

NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

In a nutshell:



> It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise.
> 
> Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.


Yep.

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?



> A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.
> 
> The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
> 
> In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.


Ross McKitrick gives his usual thorough analysis:

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

In a nutshell:



> [Karl 15] have made some relatively minor changes to the bias correction methods, and the result is a large increase in the post-1998 trend.
> 
> A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.
> 
> B. They also gave buoy data extra weight in the computations.
> 
> C. They also made adjustments to post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular a large cooling adjustment applied to readings over 1998-2000.
> 
> Taken together these changes largely explain the enhanced trend over the past 15 years. So now everybody needs to decide if they think these adjustments are valid.


Excellent read.

Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?



> Here is the obvious question. _Where is Karl’s surface warming coming from?_
> 
> It is not coming from above, for in the lower troposphere there was no warming over the 11-year period 2004-2014 (or, for that matter, over the 15-year period 2000-2014).
> 
> Four-fifths of it is not coming from below, for Karl’s paper says that from 2000-2014, the 15-year period that includes the 11 years for which we have ARGO data, the surface warming rate was equivalent to 0.116 degrees per decade – more or less exactly five times the measured ocean warming rate.
> 
> Not much is coming from the land, for Karl’s paper makes few adjustments to the rate of warming of the air above the land, which in any event accounts for only 29% of the Earth’s surface.
> 
> Where is the missing heat coming from? _Spukhäfte Fernwirkung_, perhaps? Have Mr Karl, and the peerless peer-reviewers of _Science_ who ought surely to have spotted this huge error, inadvertently repealed the laws of thermodynamics? I think we should be told. For if I am right this is the simplest, clearest, most complete refutation of Karl’s paper.


Exotic adventures in global data to unfind “the Pause”, by Karl in 2015



> The Pause has been unfound, not with new data, but with new adjustments in one odd dataset.


Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?



> Color me ‘unconvinced.’


Thoughts On Karl’s Pause-Buster Paper



> WUWT has already thoroughly covered the latest NCDC attempt to remove the pause.
> 
> But I will just add two comments.


Shooting oneself in the foot:

The climate warming pause goes AWOL – or maybe not



> Now watch the sparks fly — as *there are two major [groups of climate alarmists] that have a vested interest in the pause:*
> 
> There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
> the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.
> 
> Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause. Yours truly turns out to be amongst these. They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.


M'bold.

More Curiosities about NOAA’s New “Pause Busting” Sea Surface Temperature Dataset



> A preliminary investigation of the UKMO dataset suggests that the HadNMAT2 data do not support NOAA’s claims of no slowdown in global surface warming. In other words, the HadNMAT2 data have a much lower warming rate than the new NOAA “pause buster” ERSST.v4 data since 1998.


Very interesting...


----------



## FeXL

And a smile for the Pause Busters...

Friday funny – Don’t Ever Name It A Lull


----------



## FeXL

News from the end of the planet that the warmists never talk about.

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New Record High



> Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – *some 12 per cent above the long term average* for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 10.79 million sq.km. May sea ice extent in Antarctica is growing at a rate of 2.9 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

And this little nugget, which is sure to have heads exploding everywhere...

BREAKING – EPA: Fracking poses no ‘widespread, systemic’ harm to drinking water



> A much-anticipated EPA report on hydraulic fracturing hands a victory to the oil and gas industry by concluding that the extraction process has “not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources...


That's gonna leave a mark.


----------



## FeXL

On ocean temps & accuracy errors.

Can We Tell If The Oceans Are Warming?

In sum:



> In any case, I am glad that once again, mainstream science verifies the interesting work that is being done here at WUWT. If you wonder what it all means, look at Figure 1, and consider that in reality the errors bars are twenty times larger … c*learly, with those kinds of errors we can say nothing about whether the ocean might be warming, cooling, or standing still.*


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, Anthony Watts & Bill McKibben met mano e mano a couple days back. I'm going to withhold comment on this save one: The Sierra Nevada Taproom? Bastards...

My one-on-one meeting with Bill McKibben



> Bill and I both had a couple of beers and we shared a dessert all the while chatting away as if we’d known each other for years. Essentially we have, but we just never met in person before.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Karl 2015.

NOAA Study Takes World ‘by Storm': No Global Warming Pause!



> The climate models are the only grounds for fearing dangerous manmade warming. The eight more commonly used datasets show that they grossly exaggerate CO2’s warming effect. Karl et al.’s fiddled–er, reconstructed–dataset only shows that they somewhat less grossly exaggerate. That’s not exactly a ringing vindication. *It still leaves us with no rational basis to fear dangerous warming, and so no rational basis for policy to mitigate it.*


M'bold.

Ed Zachery...

Gavin Denies The Pause



> Richard Mallett kindly points me towards Gavin’s comments on the Karl paper. It laughingly contains this comment:
> 
> *The ‘hiatus’ is so fragile that even those small changes make it disappear.*


Bold from the link.

Garvin, Garvin, Garvin...


----------



## FeXL

Some MSM is getting it.

Climate change: 5 myths



> I’ve been writing about climate change for more than eight years, having read more than 50 books on the subject, scores of scientific papers and hundreds of articles.
> 
> During that time, I have found only one Canadian federal politician who understands that UN climate treaties are not about reducing emissions, but, as senior UN climate official and German economist Ottmar Edenhofer acknowledged in 2011, to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
> 
> That’s Harper, who, sadly, has decided Canadians can’t handle the truth and now pays lip service to green hysteria.
> 
> Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are lost causes.


No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Unfortunately, this doesn't even surprise any more.

Harvard, Syracuse Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules



> E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted “independent(ly)” of the agency.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

My tax dollars at work...

Another Model -vs- Reality problem – National Weather Offices: Canada, A Case Study With National And Global Implications.



> A simple definition of science is the ability to predict. If your prediction is wrong your science is wrong. How good is the “science” these Canadian bureaucrats produce? The answer is, by their measure, a complete failure. Figure 1 shows the accuracy of their weather prediction for 12 months over the 30-year span from 1981 to 2010.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Notice that for 90 percent of Canada the forecast average accuracy is given as 41.5 percent. A coin toss is far better odds.*


M'bold.

Yet, their wunnerful models can predict what's going to happen a century hence.

Bull$h!t. Where's that technicolor vomiting emoticon when you need it...


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...

Researchers astonished: Coral reefs thriving in a more “acidic” ocean



> The researchers at Woods Hole have spent four years doing a comprehensive study at Palau Rock Islands in the far Western Pacific, where pH levels are naturally “more acidic” (which is big-government speak for _less alkaline_). *Because of laboratory experiments Barkley et al [1] expected to find all kinds of detrimental effects, but instead found a diverse healthy system they describe as “thriving” with “greater coral cover” and more “species”.*


M'bold.

Ouch...


----------



## FeXL

First, an anecdote.

Came back from Calgary a few weeks back in the 'Burb. As we left the south end of the city the thermometer in the mirror read 8°C. The further south we came, the colder it got. As we passed through Claresholm, a little more than an hour south of Calgary, the temp bottomed at 0°. The temperature started to climb as we headed further south and by the time we hit Lethbridge, it was back up to 8°. Distance covered was <200 km. And, we never crossed any ocean/land borders.

My point? How the hell do these idiots think they can "model" the temperature in the Arctic by infilling between stations 1200 km apart, fully 6 times further than our little sojourn in southern Alberta, that cross multiple ocean/land borders?

GISS Guessing Arctic Temperatures “Introduces Substantial Errors”



> Put simply, the presence of sea ice moderates air temperatures above it, thus reducing volatility. This effect can be seen on the DMI reanalysis of temperatures north of 80 degree.
> 
> ...
> 
> In summer months, temperatures rarely vary much from the mean (1958-2002), and stay only just above zero. This the chart for last year, but most preceding years show similar patterns.
> 
> The situation on land is totally different. There, a puff of wind from the south or a bit of sunshine can dramatically increase temperatures. This effect is accentuated by low humidity in the Arctic, where a given increase in heat content will have a much larger effect than at lower latitudes.
> 
> Given these facts, there is no justification at all for gap filling from land stations in the Arctic, and it can only lead to substantial errors, as Judith Curry notes.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that 2° death knell...

New paper finds eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean was 2C warmer than present 10,000 years ago



> A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds the Eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean was ~2°C warmer than the present during the early Holocene from 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.


Abstract (paper paywalled)



> Temperature reconstructions from a shallow core (375 m) from the Peru Margin are used to test the influence of Subantarctic Mode Water (SAMW) on the eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP) thermostad and thus the effect of southern high latitude climate on interior ocean heat content (OHC). Temperature estimates, based on Mg/Ca measurements of planktonic and benthic foraminifera (Neogloboquadrina dutertrei and Uvigerina spp ., respectively) show higher temperatures in the early Holocene, a cooling of ∼2°∼2° by 8 kyr B.P. and after relatively stable temperatures to the present. The temperature signal is similar in direction and timing to a rather robust Holocene climate signal from the southern high latitudes suggesting it originated there and was advected to the core site in the EEP. Based on the N. dutertrei and Uvigerina Mg/Ca temperature and δ13C records we conclude that SAMW acted as a conduit transporting the southern high latitude climate to the interior of the equatorial Pacific. We propose that the early Holocene warmth is related to a southward migration of the Subtropical Front, which enhanced the influence of warm subtropical water in the region of SAMW formation and was then transported to the EEP thermostad. The early Holocene warmth recorded in the EEP thermostad has a muted sea surface temperature expression indicating this mechanism is important for sequestering heat in the ocean interior.


Sonuvagun. Already had it & we're all here to talk about it...


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

Climate Pause Plateau 



> After careful consideration this website has made the following policy decision.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Given the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in favour of the 18 year hiatus in global warming, the 18 Plus Years plateau in the warming of our planet, this website will no longer give coverage of the views of *climate pause deniers.*


Bold from the original.

Long overdue...


----------



## FeXL

There's a surprise.

Monthly temperature record comparisons.

Huge Divergence Between Latest UAH & HadCRUT4 Temperature Datasets (Now Includes April Data)



> Why are the new satellite and ground data sets going in opposite directions?


Good question.

From the comments, Robert Brown @ Duke University enlightens:



> The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong.


Comment is an excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

The source of the Tim Horton/Enbridge debacle.

Vivian Krause: SumOfUs is the same old tar sands campaigner



> Hardly a week goes by without a coup by the Tar Sands Campaign. The latest win is courtesy of SumOfUs, the group that pressured Tim Horton’s into pulling its ads for Enbridge, a pipeline company that transports Alberta oil across North America.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Karl 2015.

Open Letter to Tom Karl of NOAA/NCEI Regarding “Hiatus Busting” Data

Bob Tisdale sums:



> Judith Curry commented in a recent post here that that the findings of your recent Karl et al. (2015) paper were based on cherry-picked methods:
> 
> _This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.​_
> I would tend to agree. *The results of the statistical methods used on the earlier version of the NOAA sea surface temperature data (ERSST.v3b) did not provide the results NOAA was looking for now, so NOAA/NCEI, under your direction, mixed and matched methods until they found the results you wanted (ERSST.v4).*


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> The source of the Tim Horton/Enbridge debacle.
> 
> Vivian Krause: SumOfUs is the same old tar sands campaigner


That's hardly a win. I have also sent a letter to Tim's telling them that their extreme prejudice has cost them all of my business.


----------



## FeXL

Som time back I linked to a post that noted, in the matter of Michael Mann vs Mark Steyn, *not a single scientist* had stepped up to submit an amicus brief on behalf of Mann.

Since that fact became public, Steyn has been conducting a bit of research, seeking opinions from scientists the world over on what they think of the exalted Hockey Stick creator. He's put these together in an upcoming book & it ain't pretty...

A disgrace to the profession

More:

Uh, Oh. Steyn got tired of being “Mann-handled” and is doing some of his own



> It seems Mark Steyn got tired of waiting for Dr. Michael Mann to finish the required legal discovery in that defamation lawsuit and has struck a blow in the form of a new book soon to be published. I wonder if we’ll see an attempt to block publication of this title: “*A Disgrace To The Profession*”. Yikes!


Bold from the link.

A few observations:



> _Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes._
> Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford
> 
> _Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore._
> Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research
> 
> _Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong._
> Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, despite Barry's pleading to the contrary, apparently Global Warming isn't nearly the #1 threat to everyone in the US after all...

House Committee Drops Funding for State Department Climate-Change Programs



> Just months before the most important U.N. climate conference in years, Republican appropriators in the House of Representatives are taking aim at one of the Obama administration’s most cherished priorities – international climate change funding.
> 
> An appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign operations, released Tuesday, excludes funding for three major climate initiatives – the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic Climate Fund – and also removes funding for the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Oh, & Bilderberg agrees:

Bilderberg Forget About Global Warming



> _Even if you don’t happen to believe that Bilderberg is the sinister organisation that really rules the world, what cannot be denied is that its secretive meetings do to tend to attract some pretty high-level insect overlords._
> 
> ...
> 
> _Well, what’s not_ [on the topic list], _for some bizarre reason, is the threat that President Obama and his Secretary of State and most of the rest of his administration have repeatedly been assuring us represents the single greatest problem in the world today._​


Imagine that...


----------



## FeXL

Further on thriving coral reefs in the face of "acidified" oceans.

Astonishing finding: coral reef thriving amid ‘ocean acidification’



> ‘Based on lab experiments and studies of other naturally low pH reef systems, this is the opposite of what we expected,’ says lead author Hannah Barkley, a graduate student in the WHOI-MIT joint program in oceanography.


Hopefully this is a life-lesson for Miss Barkley: Get your butt out of the lab & conduct some actual, real-life, empirical research...


----------



## FeXL

But he learned so much more after that...

Early Hansen Co-authored Paper Notes “global mean temperature was perhaps 1 deg C warmer than today”



> Global surface temperature data produced by GISS indicate global surfaces have warmed since 1982, and, of course, the weasel-word “perhaps” means it may have been warmer or cooler during the Holocene Climate Optimum than the claimed 1 deg C. *But I found it amusing that Hansen and others were noting in 1982 that global surface temperatures may have been warmer in the past…without the assistance of human emissions of CO2.*


M'bold.


----------



## SINC

Interesting reads:

Hubbard Glacier defies climate change, continues advancing - North - CBC News

Why Don't The Climate Change People Mention Greenland? | The Federalist Papers


----------



## FeXL

Further on Karl 2015, temperature records & The Pause.

Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data



> *Clearly, a “pause” or “hiatus” exists in this most pristine climate data.* In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears. But don’t take my word for it, you can replicate the plot above yourself using the links, free trial program, and USCRN data I provided from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI.
> 
> Let’s hope that Mr. Karl doesn’t see the need to write a future paper “adjusting” this data to make the last decade of no temperature trend in the contiguous USA disappear. That would be a travesty.


M'bold. 

Yep, from Tom Karl's own department...


----------



## FeXL

On Andrew Revkin, columnist for The Gray Lady & author of articles on global warming that, occasionally, make for worthwhile reading.

Not this time, however...

Journalistic Failure: Revkin on Watts/Peterson



> Revkin recently committed what I consider a public journalistic offense, on his Dot Earth blog, which I had hoped to help him see in a different, more complete and fairer light, through private emails and by an advanced copy of this opinion essay sent to him yesterday (13 June). That effort failed and, in replies to my emails (in which he neither granted nor denied permission to publish, though explicitly asked), he has informed me of his reasoning and justifications (see the Postscript if that’s all you care to read). Truthfully, what Revkin says only makes his offense worse, in my opinion.


----------



## FeXL

Weekly climate news update.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #183

A bit thin this week but an interesting read if you scroll down to Articles & read the first one, _1. Dirty Rotten Ethanol Scoundrels_



> _SUMMARY: “Mark down May 29 as the date when the last tether connecting ethanol subsidies to reality came unhitched, and the fuel made from corn and tax dollars achieved a kind of postmodern perfection. *On the same day the Obama Administration conceded that the U.S. auto fleet cannot practically consume enough ethanol to fulfill Congress’s quotas, it announced a new program so motorists can consume more ethanol.*
> 
> “In other words, the point of the subsidy is the subsidy, and therefore the U.S. must subsidize ethanol because the U.S. already subsidizes ethanol. Once in place, such self-referential mandates appear to be eternal.’​_


M'bold.

Once that subsidy is there, they just can't disconnect the public teat...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting study of stalagmites from a Scottish cave reveals North Atlantic Oscillation cycles & confirms MWP.

Medieval Warm Period confirmed via cave study of 3000 years of climatic variations



> University of New South Wales Australia-led research on limestone formations in a remote Scottish cave has produced a unique 3000-year-long record of climatic variations that may have influenced historical events including the fall of the Roman Empire and the Viking Age of expansion.
> About these ads
> 
> The study of five stalagmites in Roaring Cave north of Ullapool in north-west Scotland is the first to use a compilation of cave measurements to track changes in a climate phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation.


Abstract (open access)



> Annually laminated stalagmites can be used to construct a precise chronology, and variations in laminae thickness provide an annual growth-rate record that can be used as a proxy for past climate and environmental change. Here, we present and analyse the first composite speleothem annual growth-rate record based on five stalagmites from the same cave system in northwest Scotland, where precipitation is sensitive to North Atlantic climate variability and the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). *Our 3000-year record confirms persistently low growth-rates, reflective of positive NAO states, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA). Another persistently low growth period occurring at 290-550 CE coincides with the European Migration Period, and a subsequent period of sustained fast growth-rate (negative NAO) from 600-900 AD provides the climate context for the Viking Age in northern and western Europe.*


M'bold.

Huh. The climate cycles all on it's own, with no dependancy on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

And, speaking of natural climate cycles, a little number from 2006 on the unconventional presence of Venezuelan glaciers during the Holocene.

The Little Ice Age In South America



> We can note that:
> 
> 1) The Little Ice Age was a “significant global event”.
> 
> 2) The LIA in Venezuela can be linked to changes in solar activity.
> 
> 3) During most of the last 10,000 years, glaciers were absent from all but the highest peaks in the Cordillera de Merida.


Further:



> *The conclusion from all of this is that glaciers in this part of the world are actually pretty unusual, and really only became common during the Little ice Age, for which there is strong evidence that solar oscillations were responsible.
> 
> The fact that they have now been melting back since the mid 19thC should come as no surprise to anybody. The idea that it has anything to do with AGW is frankly ridiculous.*


M'bold.

Very interesting.

Abstract (open access PDF)



> The underlying causes of late-Holocene climate variability in the tropics are incompletely understood. Here we report a 1,500-year reconstruction of climate history and glaciation in the Venezuelan Andes using lake sediments. Four glacial advances occurred be- tween anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar- activity minima. Temperature declines of -3.2 ± 1.4°C and precip- itation increases of ~20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses. These results highlight the sensitivity of high- altitude tropical regions to relatively small changes in radiative forcing, implying even greater probable responses to future an- thropogenic forcing.


Please note the genuflection to the Global Warming Gods.

"It took nacheral solar cycles resulting in -3.2° of cooling to grow ice fields in the South American Andes, but just you wait an' see what happens when anthropogenic global warming takes over!"

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

This ain't science, it's religion...

Royal Society: It will take another 50 years without warming, before we admit we were wrong



> _“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?
> 
> “Finally they conceded *they would wait fifty years.*
> 
> “We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now."​_


Bold from the link.

So, a 50 year flatline on top of the extant 18 would make them believers. This, from one of the erstwhile most respected scientific organizations on the planet.

Warmist science at its finest...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Carbon Week: The sun raises the seas



> However, a casual question back in 2000, from a colleague while I was doing post-doctoral work at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Toronto, led to surprising revelations on climate change. My colleague, an astrophysicist, asked me how cosmic rays from supernovae could affect life on earth, which led me to explore this area of study. I found that the sun’s variability as well as unrelated cosmic ray variations, explain a surprisingly large amount of the observed climate variations, from the 11-year solar cycle to geological time scales. *In fact, models including the real effect of the sun also do a much better job in explaining 20th century global warming than those limited to the influence of human carbon dioxide emissions alone.*


M'bold.

Further:



> I have reviewed the IPCC climate models and the evidence shows that their “climate sensitivity,” such as to CO2 variations, is far too high. Models which exclude the real effect of the sun require an artificially high climate sensitivity to explain 20th century warming. *This high sensitivity then predicts a high temperature rise for any given scenario over the 21st century.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Not on a bet...

Trust the New York Times? Source says Skeptic Climate Scientists are Crooks (ignore NYT’s burden-of-proof wipeout)



> After nearly two decades of a constant barrage of accusations that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie, the best the _New York Times_ can come up with is “trust us, our source has third-hand hearsay evidence which we won’t question in any manner.” Elaborating on what I tweeted to Justin Gillis and another reporter after their hit pieces against Dr Willie Soon in February, there is no Pulitzer Prize to be won from repeating worn-out talking point accusations, but a Pulitzer could be won if reporters turned the tables on the people who created the accusations.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Australian temperature record "adjustments".

If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science: BOM admits temperature adjustments are secret



> The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report is out. Finally there is the black and white admission that the BOM “adjusted” dataset cannot be replicated independently, has not been replicated by any other group, and even more so, that the BOM will not provide enough information for anyone who wants to try.
> 
> As we have said all along, the all new ACORN wonder-data was not created with the scientific method. Adjustments to Australian temperature data were done with a black box mystery technique that only the sacred guild at the BOM are allowed to know. Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.
> 
> *It’s a “trust us” approach.*


M'bold.

Riiiiiight.

Jennifer Marohasy links in the comments to her impressions of the ACORN data:

Response to ‘Yes Minister’ report by Ron Sandland



> As a member of the public who made an unsolicited submission, I would like to clarify that at no time did I suggest there was no need for adjustments, rather I have queried why there are adjustments made when, in fact, there are no documented site changes, no changes in measurement practices, and no identifiable errors. Yet adjustments are still made.
> 
> The Forum appears to have overlooked many examples of this provided in the public submissions, and published by The Australian newspaper late in 2014. *For example, the Forum has completely ignored the notorious example of Rutherglen, where a slight cooling trend was converted into a warming trend, despite an absence of any metadata providing justification.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Summer 2015 Shaping Up To Be A Complete Disaster For Alarmists



> Arctic sea ice continues to track 2006, the year with the highest summer minimum of the past decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> Temperatures near the North Pole are running far below normal again this summer.
> 
> ...
> 
> Temperatures are forecast to remain very cold in the Beaufort Sea.
> 
> ...
> 
> Greenland’s surface has gained more than half a trillion tons of ice, it is still snowing, and less than eight possible weeks left to the melt season.
> 
> ...
> 
> Greenland is having their slowest melt season on record.
> 
> ...
> 
> Greenland’s capital still has winter snow on the ground.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Arctic melting story has completely collapsed, *so government experts simply lie about it now to keep their scam alive.*


M'bold.

How?

By adjusting the temperature record & screaming from the rooftops:

"Hottest Summer Evah!!!"


----------



## FeXL

Further on Ocean "Acidification".

Basics of Ocean Acidification



> If surface temperatures don’t skyrocket soon, expect to hear a lot in the coming months about “ocean acidification.” This sounds scary, and that is the point of emphasizing it in the runup to Paris COP.


Good read & visuals.


----------



## FeXL

I made an observation on these boards years ago to this end.

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science



> The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested -- or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by _myrmidons_ of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas


With the added value of learning a new word (italicized)!


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Wonder where he got that idea from...

ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Is Promoting a Skeptical View of Global Warming: El Niño-Caused Steps



> I wasn’t too surprised to find Joe Romm’s June 16, 2015 blog post 2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step Jump in Global Temperatures at the climate alarmist website ClimateProgress. For more than 2 years, his buddy Kevin Trenberth of NCAR has been promoting El Niño-caused upward steps in global surface temperatures. But *what Romm fails to recognize: a skeptic was the first to note this is how, when and why much of the global surface warming has occurred since the early 1980s. Joe also fails to tell his readers that El Niño events are fueled by sunlight, according to Kevin Trenberth.*


M'bold.

Yep.




> Joe Romm’s post also includes a classic sleight of hand and a reference to a dataset that even climate scientists are skeptical of. *Let’s dismantle his blog post.*


Ooooooo, let's!


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of dismantling...

The journalistic self-immolation of Newsweek’s Zoë Schlanger



> Every once in a while a new reporter arrives onto the climate scene that immediately thinks they know everything there is to know about climate, and therefore doesn’t need to interview the people he/she writes about, ask questions of them, research the facts, or get any other points of view to reflect balance whatsoever, because you know, Science! Let me introduce you to Zoë Schlanger.


Nicely executed.


----------



## FeXL

After that last time the Catholic Church screwed up the science, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful. Apparently nearly 400 years is enough time to forget the lesson...

Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical: Help Poor People by Dismantling Industrial Civilization



> The Vatican released Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si’, on 18th June. *It is, in general, scientifically ill-informed, economically illiterate, intellectually incoherent, and morally obtuse. It is also theologically suspect, and large parts of it are leftist drivel, albeit couched in the vocabulary of Catholic social teaching.*


M'bold.

Sums it for me!


----------



## FeXL

How the science changes after 2-1/2 decades.

The MWP And LIA Climate Criminals



> Twenty five years ago, the IPCC reported a strong Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1992, the New York Times reported that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were “global climate phenomena, not regional temperature variations”


Unfortunately, that didn't follow the narrative...


----------



## Macfury

The pope also told tree huggers that they needed to respect human life inside the womb if they are to respect all life on Earth. Betcha that went down badly with "progressives."



FeXL said:


> After that last time the Catholic Church screwed up the science, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful. Apparently nearly 400 years is enough time to forget the lesson...
> 
> Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical: Help Poor People by Dismantling Industrial Civilization
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Sums it for me!


----------



## FeXL

Yes, _that_ Tom Karl...

1995 : Tom Karl Reported That Climate Was Becoming Less Variable



> One of the major science frauds being perpetrated by the White House, is that the climate is becoming more variable. Tom Karl reported the exact opposite in the 1995 IPCC report


----------



## FeXL

I rather doubt it...

The Tories must seize the chance to rethink climate change policy – Telegraph



> *Are we finally seeing the first signs of commonsense from the MSM, regarding climate change?*
> Apart from the likes of Booker, Dellers and Rose, there has been little more then the odd whinge about energy bills.
> 
> Enter Fraser Nelson of the Spectator
> 
> ...
> 
> He goes on to discuss climate sensivity, the pause, the CO2 benefits of fracking, fuel poverty, the uselessness of wind power, loss of industrial competitiveness, China/India and the immorality of withholding cheap energy from the third world
> 
> ...
> 
> Maybe the first real cracks are starting to appear?


M'bold.

Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Australia's temperature record.

Progress on the problems with Australia’s ACORN-SAT surface air temperature records



> The results of an independent *review of the Bureau of Mete*or*ology’s national temperature records should “ring alarm bells” for those who had believed the bureau’s methods were transparent, says a key critic, Jennifer *Marohasy.


I found this an _excellent_ read. Much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

An older report (Feb 2015) but not news to anyone who has been paying attention.

Stanford research finds climate change regulation burden heaviest on poor



> Stanford research reveals that it is ultimately people – not corporations – who would bear the costs of climate change regulation. Under a hypothetical carbon tax, households in the lowest income group would pay as a percent of income more than twice what households in the highest 10 percent of income distribution pay.


----------



## SINC

Doin' whatever it takes . . .

Low carbon eco-cows being created to reduce greenhouse gases | Daily Mail Online


----------



## MacGuiver

FeXL said:


> After that last time the Catholic Church screwed up the science, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful. Apparently nearly 400 years is enough time to forget the lesson...
> 
> Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical: Help Poor People by Dismantling Industrial Civilization
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Sums it for me!


I concur. The full endorsement of the Al Gore narrative plays into the hands of the enemies of the Church Francis leads. Much of the global warming cult dogma is smoke an mirrors for seizing power on a global scale and the "solutions" being pushed forward will do more harm to humanity than good. I think this Pope is tainted with the brush of Liberation Theology that Pope John Paul II so vehemently opposed.
Thankfully this is not considered infallible teaching and no Catholic is bound to believe it. 
Frankly this is Galileo all over again. The Catholic Church picking "winners" in science, outside of its realm of expertise.


----------



## Macfury

Clearly Il Papa will get behind anything that demands that you send your money overseas.



MacGuiver said:


> I concur. The full endorsement of the Al Gore narrative plays into the hands of the enemies of the Church Francis leads. Much of the global warming cult dogma is smoke an mirrors for seizing power on a global scale and the "solutions" being pushed forward will do more harm to humanity than good. I think this Pope is tainted with the brush of Liberation Theology that Pope John Paul II so vehemently opposed.
> Thankfully this is not considered infallible teaching and no Catholic is bound to believe it.
> Frankly this is Galileo all over again. The Catholic Church picking "winners" in science, outside of its realm of expertise.


----------



## FeXL

Nice exposé on two versions of the UAH satellite temperature data.

UAH, MSU, TLT, and other Acronyms



> The satellite-based atmospheric temperature dataset is one of the better datasets in climate science. Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy have long been scientific heroes of mine because of the quality of their work in the creation, analysis, corrections, and curation of the dataset. It is kept at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and it is based on measurements taken by a series of satellite-based instruments called “microwave sounding units” (MSU). One part of it has to do with the temperature of the lower troposphere, called “TLT”.


Couple of nice comparative graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of graphs, a little cherry picking. You may have seen graph 2 before. If not, it's very revealing.

How NSIDC Defrauds The Public With Cherry Picked Graphs



> They ignore satellite data prior to 1978, which shows that Arctic sea ice extent was two million km² lower in 1974.


Further:



> The Arctic is not melting down. Arctic sea ice is currently the thickest since 2006, and thickness is about the same (2 meters) as it was 75 years ago.


So much for the canary in the coal mine.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Doin' whatever it takes . . .


As long as a steak still tastes like a steak, let 'em play...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting. Again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. However, it does make one go hmmm...

Study Finds Increase In Solar Radiation In The 1980’s In Germany



> So, we find that irradiance was on a decreasing trend in the early part of the period, before increasing from the early 1980’s on.
> 
> The paper does not offer a view on whether this change is due to natural solar variation or reduced pollution. However, the temperature record for Trier, one of the locations surveyed, shows a clear step up in temperatures during the 1980’s.
> 
> ...
> 
> *This leaves us with the question – how much of the temperature increase seen in much of Europe in the last three decades is the result of increasing solar radiation?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Yes, it's one glacier. However, if they can't explain this...

The Hubbard Glacier defies ‘climate change’ – continues to grow



> From NOAA Earth Observatory: Since measurements began in 1895, Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier has been thickening and steadily advancing into Disenchantment Bay. *The advance runs counter to so many thinning and retreating glaciers nearby in Alaska and around the world.*


M'bold.

An explanation is attempted:



> According to Leigh Stearns, a glaciologist at the University of Kansas, Hubbard’s advance is due to its large accumulation area; the glacier’s catchment basin extends far into the Saint Elias Mountains.


So? Thought global temperatures were increasing, especially in the Arctic. That would melt snow, not allow it to accumulate.

That stubborn canary, again.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the temperature record. This time with error bars.

HADCRUT Trends And Error Bars



> It is important though to place this trend into context with the error bars, which the Met Office publish (see the thin blue lines above). For 2014, the declared temperature anomaly of 0.564C was actually only the median of an ensemble range from 0.474 to 0.656C, an uncertainty range of 0.182C.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The very slight increase in trend of 0.0022C/year is dwarfed by the error bars. Quite simply, we really have no idea whether temperatures are increasing or falling, quite apart from the issue of what is natural variation.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

MacGuiver said:


> Frankly this is Galileo all over again. The Catholic Church picking "winners" in science, outside of its realm of expertise.


More:

Gas of Life: Pope Encyclical on Climate Change Ignores Science on Carbon Dioxide



> As a scientist, I am not simply disappointed by the issue of encyclical named Laudato Si’ (Praised Be) from the office of the Pope, but I am highly disgusted because of the blatant misuse of science and the scientific method of inquiry as part of the excuse to prevent social injustice and wrong-doing.


Nicely summarized.


----------



## Macfury

https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/



> Strange, then, that a self-professed atheist and scientific advisor to the Vatican named Hans Schellnhuber appears to believe in a Mother Earth.


The RC church has really prostituted itself here. Schellenbauer is also an advocate of population control.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The RC church has really prostituted itself here. Schellenbauer is also an advocate of population control.


Perfect. The more fruit loops & whackos the warmists employ, the better...


----------



## SINC

So, some admit the sun does play a role:

Britain could have colder winters due to solar activity | Nature | News | Daily Express


----------



## FeXL

There are Russian scientists who have been predicting that for some time.


----------



## FeXL

Another reason I'm not on FB...

They’ve lost the argument: Petition to ban ‘climate deniers’ from Facebook



> As bad as climate denial is, shutting them out of Facebook would justify their persecution complex, and might engender more sympathy for their position. Really, who treats Facebook as a place to discuss science?


----------



## FeXL

A nice graphed aggregate of purported Climate Sensitivities. Notice the <cough> decline...

Relentlessly shrinking climate sensitivity estimates



> Remember how all the news stories keep telling us the evidence is growing and getting stronger than ever “against the skeptics”?
> 
> David Stockwell has done a beautiful graph of the value of climate sensitivity estimates that of recent climate research that Steven McIntyre discussed in detail.
> 
> The trend looks pretty clear. Reality is gradually going to force itself on the erroneous models.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting analysis of the solstice, seasonal warming & The Pause.

When is it Warming?–The Real Reason for the Pause

He sums:



> I find no convincing pattern of summer Tmax warming carrying over into winter Tmin warming. In other words, summers are not adding warming more than other seasons. There is no support for concerns over summer heat waves increasing as a pattern.
> 
> It is interesting to note that the plateau in temperatures since the 1998 El Nino is matched by winter months cooler than average during that period, leading to my discovering the real reason for lack of warming recently.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

The obvious question is, why?

Weak El Niños and La Niñas Come and Go from NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index (ONI) with Each SST Dataset Revision



> Back in April of this year NOAA added the 2014/15 El Niño to their Oceanic NINO Index (a.k.a. ONI). See the former version of ONI here. Last week, with NOAA’s switch to their new Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4 (ERSST.v4), the 2014/15 El Niño has now disappeared from their list of “official” El Niño and La Niña events. See the present (ERSST.v4) version of ONI here.
> 
> But the 2014/15 El Niño isn’t the only ENSO event to have disappeared from ONI with the change to the new ERSST.v4 dataset. The 2005/06 La Niña also dropped off ONI, and so did the 1983/84 La Niña. On the other hand, the 1967/68 La Niña and the 1979/80 El Niño became official ENSO events with the new ERSST.v4 data, where they weren’t qualified with the ERSST.v3b data.


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the inability of warmists to find evidence of the tropospheric "hotspot" in radiosonde data.

Sherwood’s devout unscientific faith in “climate change” and the hot spot



> In _The Age_ this week, Stephen Sherwood explains how misleading skeptics have been for repeating obvious, incontestable results from millions of weather balloons. See, all along, Sherwood knew the weather balloons were wrong, and if only skeptics had his psychic powers, or connection to God, _they would have too._ Naughty skeptics,eh?


Italics from the original.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the decine of solar activity. Oh, this'll leave a mark, too.

UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age



> UK MET office has published a study which suggests *solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years.* The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Funny how cherry picking the same data can give two sides to a story. Guess which one the BBC goes with...

A sad commentary on global warming alarmism: Science says one thing, scientists another



> If the abiotic zone appears tens of thousands of years after the temperature rises, I’m wondering why, when interviewed by Roger Harrabin, Professor Schmidt says she is worried about whether her children are going to see coral reefs and eat shellfish. Perhaps the excitement went to her head.


----------



## FeXL

I didn't feel guilty at all. Did you?

New Republic Guilt Trips Hot Dog and Hamburger Consumption



> Nowadays it seems as if the Left is politicizing everything with a plethora of new taboos. The latest item on their taboo list is your Fourth of July picnic, specifically hot dogs and hamburgers. As you gather with family and friends to munch on those treats fresh off the grill, little did you know that you are destroying the planet according to leftist political orthodoxy.


----------



## FeXL

And, from the "Is there anything climate can't do?" department...

Climate change causes more tsunamis — The ABC will believe anything



> Too much panic is never enough. Fran Kelly asks Stephen O’Brien, lawyer and UN official, about that the effects of climate change which are “already being felt”. She does not blink when his answer includes more frequent and more severe tsunamis. His qualifier… _It’s not a question of “if”, but “when”._
> 
> Yes, yes, this is “best and brightest” ideas from around the world, apparently.


Italics from the link.

Yep, you heard it here, folks.

Tsunamis, caused by seismic shifts, earthquakes, undersea volcanoes & such, will soon be more frequent & severe, all due to microscopic changes in elemental atmospheric concentrations.

Jeezuz...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the ignorance of the ABC.

History rewritten? BoM wrong on “first” July cyclone, forgets 1935, 1954, 1962



> A weak tropical cyclone has formed off the Solomon Islands, and the BOM is reporting that there has never before been a July cyclone in the Queensland region. *But Warwick Hughes has already posted up details showing that there have been quite a few cyclones in July.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head>

Global Warming to destroy sea-food as well



> Our oceans are warming by 0.005 °C per year (if you believe a thermometer system with a 0.5 °C error). *But fish that cope with five degrees of natural variation will apparently be devastated by an average rise of five thousands of a degree per year.* Who knew?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting patterns in the temperature record post data "adjustment"...

Scandal: BoM thermometer records adjusted “by month” — mysterious square wave pattern discovered



> What would you say if you knew that the official Perth thermometer was accurate at recording minimums for most of time in October in the eighties, but 0.7°C too warm all of December, and 1.2°C too cool in January? Bizarrely that same thermometer was back to being too warm in February! *Try to imagine what situation could affect that thermometer, and require post hoc corrections of this “monthly” nature. Then imagine what could make that same pattern happen year after year. All those weather reports we listened to in Perth in 1984 were wrong (apparently).* And this bizarre calendar of corrections is turning up all over Australia.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on papal climate encyclicals...

Encyclical Ghostwriter: Pope Francis ‘Did Not Intend to Canonize’ Scientific Theories

Let's sum this up in one phrase:



> “The Church has no competence on the technical and scientific level,”


No $hit...

However, not content to let this absence of scientific expertise rot on the side of the road, along comes a so-called expert to help out.

Pope recruits Naomi Klein to fight Climate Change and Capitalism



> Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action.


Perfect...

And, now, from a _real_ expert:

Dr. Bill Gray Responds To Pope Francis

In a nutshell?



> Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical Is Unwise and Should Not Be Acted Upon


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

And, from the "Polar Bears is dying..." department.

White House Demonstrates That They Are Complete Morons – Once Again



> 1. Humans don’t control the climate
> 2. Arctic sea ice is at its highest level in a decade.
> 3. Polar Bears thrive in the Hudson Bay, which is ice-free for three months every year.


Further:



> Basing policy on mindless superstition is probably not such a good idea.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been some row about the authenticity of a new high temperature record set at Heathrow Airport the last few days.

Do Automatic Temperature Sensors Overstate Warming?



> AC Osborn reminds of this earlier post from Pierre Gosselin, over at No Tricks Zone.
> 
> Pierre’s post picks up on concerns that the automatic sensor system which we have nowadays could be picking up short term spikes, which the old mercury thermometers would not have had time to react to. This sort of bias would be particularly significant at airports, where such spikes could be large.
> 
> This is highly relevant to the recent debate over Heathrow.


Further:



> _How many recent records are in fact not records at all, but rather are merely faulty readings produced from instrumentation and siting issues?​_


Good question...


----------



## Macfury

I couldn't wish any worse on climate superstition activists than having Jane Fonda join them in recent showboat tours.


----------



## FeXL

Further documentation of temperature "adjustments".

NOAA’s Data Debacle …Alterations Ruin 120 Years Of Painstakingly Collected Weather Data



> The charts above indicate that southern Maine has on average been 1/30F colder than all of Maine for the last 120 years! NOAA’s recent response to all these questions and observations can be found in their June 4th press release. They reiterated the same mantra; ignore satellite data, ignore facts given by non-scientist (and scientists alike) that disagree with NOAA’s climate data enhancements! *We should just trust what NOAA tells us.*


M'bold.

Bull$hite...

Further:

NOAA/NCEI Temperature Anomaly Adjustments Since 2010, Pray They Don’t Alter It Any Further



> There is much interest in the latest temperature anomaly adjustments by NOAA/NCEI (formerly known as NOAA/NCDC). This author has been downloading NOAA monthly temperature anomaly data since 2010. The May 2015 adjustment is not the only one. There appear to have been 8 adjustments between November 2010 and May 2015. Assuming that these changes are legitimate adjustments, one has to wonder, if they got it wrong the last 7 tries, what confidence can we have that they got it right *THIS TIME*, or will they change it again if Earth doesn’t cooperate?


Bold from the link.

Great graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Papal climate blathering...

Have Fossil Fuels Diminished the World’s Sustainability and Resilience?



> The recent Papal Encyclical on the environment’s endorsement of “changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat…warming,” and drastic reductions in carbon dioxide and other emissions is based on the notion that “it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society…” and that the “exploitation of the planet has already exceeded acceptable limits” (paragraphs 23. 27). It also reflects the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences’ Declaration which asserts that “Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience” (p. 1).
> 
> But these assertions are fundamentally flawed. *The world is not less sustainable and resilient today than it was before the Industrial Revolution. In fact, it is probably more sustainable and resilient today than previously.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Well, having had their last paper retracted, the Fruit Loops & Whackos had to find a new rag in which to publish their latest...opus. <snort>

Lewandowsky and Cook – back from the dead with another smear paper



> Having had their first paper “Recursive Fury” retracted by the journal that originally published it, these clowns are back with a reboot that has the same sad message: *“people who question the veracity of global warming/climate change are nutters”.*


M'bold.

I proudly consider myself among the counted. The line is long & distinguished...


----------



## FeXL

What is this? Reason #sixty-something, now?

Nieves et al. – Another excuse for ‘the pause': Redistribution of Heat in Oceans



> There’s really nothing new about the overall theme of Nieves et al. (2015). They blame the recent pause in surface warming on a rearrangement of heat within the oceans (like other papers)…and conclude that there has been no overall change in ocean heat uptake during the hiatus (like other papers). *One novelty: they use data (not models, not reanalyses) to show where the heat has gone.*


M'bold.

Well, that's a large step in the right direction. However, they employ an unusual definition of the Southern Ocean, use five year smoothing in some of their data, rarely display uncertainties & other issues.

Have a look at the link.


----------



## FeXL

Only five?

INTERPOL report shows five criminal activities in carbon trading markets



> A recent report from INTERPOL reviews the crimes that have already occurred in global carbon markets. The report’s introduction says, “The intangible nature of the global carbon trading markets puts them [the market] at risk for exploitation.”
> 
> Certainly, any market is susceptible to crime, but the INTERPOL report points out some of the inherent structural problems unique to carbon markets. Traditional commodities, which at some time in the marketplace, must be physically delivered to someone, carbon credits don’t represent a tangible commodity. Many sellers, buyers and traders do not clearly understand the carbon market and the lack of understanding makes carbon trading particularly vulnerable to fraud. Like other financial markets, carbon markets are at risk of exploitation due to the huge amount of money surrounding it, the immature regulation and lack of oversight.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that always unmentioned canary in the coal mine, the Antarctic.

South Polar Ice Age: Stations Show “Dramatic” Antarctic Peninsula Cooling Since 1998, Sea Ice Surge



> It is easy to see why the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The average ocean temperature from the surface to 100 meters dropped below the freezing point in 2008 and has stayed there. It is hard to melt ice when the water it is floating on is below the freezing point of fresh water, and seldom rises above that temperature.
> 
> The Southern Ocean around Antarctica has similar warming and cooling cycles as the North Atlantic, just not as strong. The cycle is now going negative, and temperatures on land and in the ocean are going sharply cooler, with ice increasing. There is no warm ocean water melting ice shelves from below. The ocean is getting colder and is below freezing most of the time. Any increase in ice calving off the glaciers must be from increased snow feeding those glaciers or geothermal heating from volcanism under the ice.
> 
> *Welcome to reality.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## Macfury

Add to that a lack of a product, service or benefit.



FeXL said:


> Only five?
> 
> INTERPOL report shows five criminal activities in carbon trading markets


----------



## FeXL

Further on China's laughable climate "pledge".

China’s Climate Pledge



> Put another way, if we would like to give [China] bucket loads of cash, they will build a few wind mills and solar panels, and pocket the rest.
> 
> If climate change really was a threat, the weak Obama and his cronies in the EU would insist on immediate cutbacks, or at the very least a freeze, in China’s emissions. Instead, they are so desperate to come home with a piece of paper to wave that they will sign up to anything.


Pretty much...


----------



## SINC

Cool down expected:

Mini ice age coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Cool down expected:
> 
> Mini ice age coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


Consistent with what climate scientists have been saying for the past several years. By climate scientists I mean those scientists who do their own research, work with raw data that has not been revised by NASA or NOAA and try to look at the entire picture, not the ones who slavishly repeat the CO2 mantra.

That said I would much prefer to see them swelter out in DC, than to freeze my buns off here in Western Canada!


----------



## FeXL

So, Nat Geo decided to conduct some research on life forms near an underground volcano in the Solomon Islands. Despite hot sea water temps & pH values that likely approach neutrality, if not actual acidity (ie., <7.0), life is doing just fine. So much for 400ppm CO2 causing a meltdown... 

The Kavachi Sharcano

He sums:



> My conclusion? I gotta say, when I see life going on at a rate of knots in hot ocean water that is not just slightly less alkaline but instead is actually acidic, it merely reinforces my belief that the slight neutralization that will likely come with increasing CO2 will have little measurable effect on the ocean. Life is amazingly adaptive, and the amount of pH change predicted from CO2 is quite small. Given this discovery that fish and sharks can hunt and feed in hot, CO2 laden, acidic seawater, water humans can’t even enter, it’s just more evidence that the ocean life likely won’t have much trouble dealing with such a small change in its current level of alkalinity.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Heathrow record temperature claim earlier this month.

First, a Josh cartoon to set the tone.

Saturday satire – Hot spot or not?

Second, data analysis.

Heathrow Hijinks

First, the excuse:



> They used this graph to claim that it’s the sun, stupid … but the first problem is, according to their graph, about twenty minutes after the peak in temperature, the clouds parted a bit and the solar input jumped up again to nearly as high as it had gone before … but the temperature didn’t change in the slightest. Well, that’s not entirely true. The second time the sun strength increased, the temperature went down. If the temperature spike early in the record were from the sun, does it make sense to you that a subsequent solar spike twenty minutes later would lead to no warming at all?
> 
> The second problem is that the sun strength stayed high, but the temperature started dropping before the succeeding decrease in sun strength.


Second, the reality:



> As you can see, the met station is about 150 metres (500 feet) from the north runway. The difficulty comes after landing and slowing down, when the jets turn off of the eastern end of the runway by the met station on one of the side taxiways. At times in that process, their jet exhaust will be pointed directly at the temperature measuring station. Indeed, when jets turn off on either of the two right-hand taxiways in the picture above, their jet exhaust is pointed directly at the met station for the entire trip down the taxiway … and did I mention that the wind was from the south and southeast during the time of the temperature record, blowing from the taxiways towards the met station?


More (good read):

Questions raised about Met Office claims of a new high temperature record



> Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to increase temperatures by 0.9C in two minutes?


Good question...


----------



## FeXL

Is this just another depressed climate "scientist" at work? John Cook (yes, he of SS fame) has been impersonating Lobus Motl.

Cooked Motl - Josh 337

What would Lewandowski have to say about this?


----------



## FeXL

So, a Canadian icebreaker which had been hired out for a 115 day expedition to study global warming has been pulled off it's summer duty to break ice in Hudson Bay for supply ships.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Arctic Global Warming Expedition Derailed By Too Much Ice

Arctic expedition to study global warming put on hold because of too much ice



> This is funny:
> “According to a Coast Guard officer, the icy conditions “are the “worst he’s seen in 20 years“


Further:

Hudson Bay Sea Ice Third Highest On Record



> Hudson Bay sea ice cover is the highest since 1992, and is the third highest on record.


About that canary in the coal mine...

Related:

Another Day Of Heavy Snow In Southwest Greenland



> It is July 27, and they are getting snow almost to the coast of southwest Greenland. Same as a day earlier.
> 
> ...
> 
> They are having their coldest year since the Mt Pinatubo cooled year of 1993.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is an area that was farmed by the Vikings, but is now much too cold. Their two week long growing season is over. Temperatures there have plummeted over the past decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> The very short melt season is Greenland has come to an abrupt end, with a net gain of 300 billion tons of ice over the past year.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Maunder Minimum & concurrent low sunspot counts.

Solar activity was really at exceptional lows during the cold Maunder Minimum

Abstract (open access)



> Aims. Although the time of the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) is widely known as a period of extremely low solar activity, claims are still debated that solar activity during that period might still have been moderate, even higher than the current solar cycle # 24. We have revisited all the existing pieces of evidence and datasets, both direct and indirect, to assess the level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. Methods. We discuss the East Asian naked-eye sunspot observations, the telescopic solar observations, the fraction of sunspot active days, the latitudinal extent of sunspot positions, auroral sightings at high latitudes, cosmogenic radionuclide data as well as solar eclipse observations for that period. We also consider peculiar features of the Sun (very strong hemispheric asymmetry of sunspot location, unusual differential rotation and the lack of the K-corona) that imply a special mode of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. Results. The level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum is reassessed on the basis of all available data sets. Conclusions. We conclude that solar activity was indeed at an exceptionally low level during the Maunder minimum. Although the exact level is still unclear, it was definitely below that during the Dalton minimum around 1800 and significantly below that of the current solar cycle # 24. *Claims of a moderate-to-high level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum are rejected at a high confidence level.*


M'bold.

Once again, with the next solar cycle prediction of low sunspot counts, it remains to be seen if the planet cools or warms.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Who would have guessed that? 

Pope’s popularity fall 17% — preaching the climate change religion not so popular?



> Pope Francis put out his pro-climate encyclical eight weeks ago, getting mass media attention, but the latest Gallop poll shows the people were not so enthused:
> 
> _WASHINGTON, D.C. — Pope Francis’ favorability rating in the U.S. has returned to where it was when he was elected pope. It is now at 59%, down from 76% in early 2014. The pontiff’s rating is similar to the 58% he received from Americans in April 2013, soon after he was elected pope.​_


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments", TOBS.

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA



> The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, *which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. *Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.*


M'bold.

What Is The Real Value Of TOBS?



> NOAA makes a large adjustment to the US temperature record based on Time Of Observation Bias. The idea is that most station operators were morons in the 1930’s, and reset their min/max thermometers in the afternoon – causing double counting of warm days.
> 
> It is easy to test this, by eliminating all stations which took readings in the afternoon during July 1936.


The result?



> This is much less than the bloated adjustment used by USHCN. But what about hot days? Did afternoon TOBS cause double counting of hot days in 1936? *The evidence shows that there was little if any such effect. The trend is almost identical between the two data sets.*


M'bold.

Related:

Mann-Made Warming At GISS



> The chart below eloquently illustrates the effect that GISS tampering has had on temperatures in the last five years.
> 
> It starts by showing the annual temperature anomalies for 1998 and 2010, as they were reported at the end of 2010, i.e. 0.56C and 0.63C respectively. *Progressively as each year has gone by since then, the anomalies for 1998 and 2010 have been subtly increased, until currently they are shown as 0.63C and 0.71C.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

The desperation is palpable...

Climate Death Squads funded by Big Oil strike people with lightning! How’s that for an ideated conspiracy?



> Big Oil knows no bounds. Not only can it derail governments, and thwart the UN, World Bank, and IMF but now it may be sending out climate death squads to assassinate Arctic Ice Experts. These expert hit squads apparently push people down stairs, run them off the road, and strike them down with lightning. Lightning! (That is one mother of aTesla Coil.) James Bond could learn something. Q, where are you?


Once again, where is Lewandowsky when you need a shrink...


----------



## FeXL

First time I've seen the numbers quantified.

Wait ’til you see these numbers on Carbon Capture and Storage



> Did you know CCS (carbon capture and storage) requires an industrial plant almost as large as the coal fired power station it is supposed to clean up? Or that it uses fully 40% of the energy of the entire output of the same station? It turns out to be such an onerous, costly pursuit it could only have been dreamed up by an enemy of coal.
> 
> The central problem is that under conditions we humans like to be in, the CO2 molecule emphatically wants to be a huge voluminous gas. To make it more compact and storable back in the small hole it came from, we either have to change it chemically, or forcibly stuff it in under some combination of extreme pressure or extreme cold. And there aren’t many cold sealed rock vaults in Earth’s thin crust, which rests on a 1000 degree C ball of magma. Any form of chemical, temperature or pressure change uses monster amounts of energy, and there is just no getting around it without fiddling with laws of chemistry. *The whole idea of CCS is so insanely unfeasible that in order to stuff a beneficial fertilizer underground it appears we must spend 60% more to build every new power station and then throw away 40% of its output as well. You can’t make this stuff up. CCS is the threat that makes new coal stations unaffordable in the West, and building those costs into the plans makes cost comparisons with renewables (and nuclear) so much more “attractive”.*


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

So, Jim Hansen (yes, that one) has a new paper out. On catastrophic sea level rise. >5 metres by the end of the century. Yep, results modelled... XX)

Quaking in your gum boots yet?

Hansen’s backfire



> The cited criticisms of the paper all make valid points. The criticisms of Mann and Trenberth are somewhat surprising to me, since I have seen them support papers that are at least as dubious as Hansen et al. Apart from the paper’s flaws, I suspect some of the backlash from these scientists is associated with the fact that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and is an integrative, interdisciplinary assessment that challenges the IPCC and other established assessment reports. Revkin cites Tad Pfeffer: _“One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on.”_ There is clearly a concern that such independent assessments, especially by well known and/or reputable scientists, can undermine the authority and messaging of ‘establishment’ assessment and scientists.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on 2014 being the "warmest year evah!"

A Return to the Question “Was 2014 the warmest year?”



> This is a repost of a blog post written by a well-known and well-respected climate scientist. To date, it is one of the best answers I have come across to the often-asked question, “Was 2014 the warmest year?” What sets it apart from most articles is its down-to-Earth discussion of probabilities.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Left's censorship.

SA Government won’t allow any non-leftist research — attacks Lomborg Centre



> *How easily it could collapse. What more proof do we need that the climate-crisis facade is maintained by hiding the counter arguments. Evidently the worst possible thing is for the public to be exposed to little pieces of paper with a message that runs against the creed.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #188

First article on the sun is interesting.



> Both papers bring into question the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), particularly the Fifth Assessment Report (AR-5) in 2013, which contained estimates that the warming influence of carbon dioxide is some 50 to 140 times natural influences on climate. As David Evans notes: “The IPCC does not include any solar influence in the climate models except the direct heating by the Sun. But the total radiation from the Sun is almost constant — it is even known as the Solar Constant, because it wasn’t found to vary until observed by satellites starting in 1979.”


----------



## FeXL

So, during the recent recession US CO2 output dropped. Unfortunately for the warmists, this had more to do with the recession itself, rather than the misguided spending of billions of taxpayer dollars...

When it comes to CO2 reduction, economy rules, activism drools



> From 2007 to 2013, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels decreased by about 11%. This decline was widely attributed to a shift from coal to natural gas in US electricity production. However, a new analysis published in the journal Nature Communications shows that, in fact, the recent economic recession accounts for the majority of the decline.


----------



## FeXL

And, from a science fiction expert...

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Climate change is not science fiction



> I’m an Arnie fan, but this doesn’t mean I’ll defer my reason to Schwarzenegger’s authority as a climate expert. I don’t doubt Schwarzenegger is sincere, but the grouping now gathered in Paris, whether individual members know it or not, in my opinion *represents part of an unprecedented attempt to shackle the global economy, to provide rent seeking renewable corporatists with an open opportunity to enslave and plunder the poor*, by driving up the price of food and energy.


M'bold.

IMHO, far too kind an analysis...


----------



## FeXL

I have made it very clear from my very first posts on the subject on these GHG threads that there is absolutely no, zero, room for the word "consensus" anywhere in science. The word itself is as unscientific as any in the English language. Hence, my complete & utter disregard for the whole "97%" meme. 

There is simply no debate required with anyone who uses that word in regards to science, save to mock the stupidity of those who actually use it. You've already clearly illustrated you know nothing about science.

That said, if you are the type who has the twisted view that somehow, somewhere, "consensus" fits into your scientific vocabulary, have a look at this:

The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%

Further:

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty


----------



## FeXL

Title sums it nicely.

Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry



> _Climate Change Business Journal_ estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. *For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.*


M'bold.

I don't know if that statement helps add some perspective to the discussion or not. If it doesn't, some people just can't be reached.


----------



## FeXL

Further on volcanic interactions with global temperatures. XX)

Volcanic Legends Keep Erupting



> Here we go again, sez I, another excuse for the current temperature plateau … and right out of the box, I note that we are dealing with a “reconstruction”, with findings that are “verified by model results”. Be still, my beating heart …


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent article disemboweling a recent paper on bees & climate change.

Plight of the Bumble Bees: How shabby climate analyses and lax peer review promote a dreadful remedy



> In July 2015 the journal Science published Kerr et al’s Climate Change Impacts On Bumblebees Converge Across Continents. It was a woeful analysis hyped by the media. It did very little to further our understanding of the causes of bumblebee declines and more likely obscured the real problems. But it did illustrate why the public is becoming increasingly suspicious of “scientific claims” regards catastrophic climate change as well as demonstrating the inadequacy of the peer review process.
> 
> There were 4 major problems.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on SS's John Cook & his identity theft.

Yes, why DOES John Cook of ‘SkepticalScience’ and the 97% have to use identity theft in his ‘research’?



> If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.


Fabulous.  

No, I'm serious. The more these fruit loops & whackos get exposed, the better...


----------



## FeXL

Good chance global temperatures will be rising. MacDoc outta be wetting himself about now...

The 2015 El Niño is shaping up to be a big one



> El Niño conditions are on the rise in the Pacific Ocean, this could potentially become a record event that might even beat the great 1997 El Niño as seen in the image above. We aren’t there yet, but the Climate Prediction Center has an advisory out that suggests we might be soon.


Oh and, of course, lowering, with the following La Nina...


----------



## FeXL

Further on tracking temperature "adjustments".

Impact of “Pause-Buster” Adjustment on GISS Monthly Data



> From my earliest available download, August 2005, through May 2015 the lowest anomaly was always for the month of January 1893. But in the June 2015 download, the January 1893 anomaly jumped up +0.17 of a Celsius degree, giving up the lowest anomaly ranking to December 1916. *Ten years ago, back in mid-2005, GISS was telling us that December 1916 was -0.56. Today they’re saying December 1916 was -0.77.* Again, what will it be ten years from now?


M'bold.

Nice...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Hansen's new paper.

Dr. James Hansen’s recent alarm of catastrophic CO2 driven sea level rise looks to just be spurious correlation in his own mind



> It seems even some of the worst offenders in alarmism, including Michael Mann, consider Hansen’s claims “over the top”. This may in fact be the first paper in recent times that Hansen has submitted that has a strong possibility of being rejected for publication. It appears he’s lost his mojo with his peers when they say thing like in the bullet point list above.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

From "The more we know, the more we find we don't know" department.

Another unknown climate feedback – plankton blooms create brighter clouds



> New research using NASA satellite data and ocean biology models suggests tiny organisms in vast stretches of the Southern Ocean play a significant role in generating brighter clouds overhead. Brighter clouds reflect more sunlight back into space affecting the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth’s surface, which in turn has implications for global climate.


Any guesses if this info is included into climate models? Don't bother, rhetorical question...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department.

Recall the hoopla the beginning of last month regarding the "hottest temperature evah!", or some such nonsense, at Heathrow? How many have heard a corresponding hue & cry about the record low, 1°, set 30 days later?

UK Sees Record Low Temperature For July



> Currently there is no mention of the record low from the Met Office, who, though admitting that July is ending up “wet and dull”, are still talking about “a record-breaking heatwave”.


Surprise, surprise, surprise...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate models fail to model accurately – again: ‘decision makers [should] not rely on a single model for predicting what the future of the Arctic’



> “*As a group, the models tend to overestimate carbon emissions from land, particularly in autumn*,” [Michael Rawlins] says. “They generally underestimate the present-day carbon sink, in our view. So there is good news, in that the region is likely storing more of the carbon being emitted by human activities than the models depict. But the lack of agreement across the models is a concern.”
> 
> He adds, “Given the wide range in sink strength across the models, we are recommending that decision makers not rely on a single model for predicting what the future of the Arctic may be. This could lead to a very biased assessment.”


M'bold.

And yet, billion dollar policy is set based on this erroneous output...


----------



## FeXL

Watch the lack of support.

The perfect storm for environmentalists: GMO engineered rice reduces greenhouse gas emissions to near zero

First:



> From the DOE/PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY and the “you can hear green heads exploding” department comes this bit of news sure to short circuit some people that are anti GMO but think the planet is doomed unless we do something about the threat of greenhouse gas emissions.


Yep.

Now, the facts:



> Rice serves as the staple food for more than half of the world’s population, but it’s also the one of the largest manmade sources of atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Now, with the addition of a single gene, rice can be cultivated to emit virtually no methane from its paddies during growth. It also packs much more of the plant’s desired properties, such as starch for a richer food source and biomass for energy production, according to a study in Nature.
> 
> With their warm, waterlogged soils, rice paddies contribute up to 17 percent of global methane emissions, the equivalent of about 100 million tons each year.


And, a solution:



> Researchers created SUSIBA2 rice by introducing a single gene from barley into common rice, resulting in a plant that can better feed its grains, stems and leaves while starving off methane-producing microbes in the soil.


I can hear the cry already: Bbbbbbbut, it's GMO!!!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

Further on the volcanic effect on climate.

Why Volcanoes Don’t Matter Much



> The main conclusion that I draw from this is that the central paradigm of modern climate science is wrong—temperature does not slavishly follow the forcings.
> 
> To the contrary, when the tropical temperature changes, the solar forcing subsequently changes in the opposite direction, negating much of the effect of the volcanoes.
> 
> And in particular, the observations agree with the theoretical predictions...


Further:



> These theoretical predictions are all visible in the graphs above, and they lead back to the title of this piece. The reason volcanoes don’t matter much is that the climate rapidly responds to re-establish the status quo ante. Yes, eruptions do put loads of aerosols into the stratosphere; and yes, these aerosols do cut down available solar energy; and yes, this does have local effects in space and time … but because available solar energy in the tropics goes up as the temperature goes down, the balance is quickly restored. As a result of this and other restorative phenomena, the climate system has proven to be surprisingly insensitive to such variations in forcing.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

So, Jug Ears has come up with a solution so off Broadway that even the greenies are wetting themselves.

Announcing Obama’s new ‘Carbon Pollution’ plan

From the comments:



> ...The USA has reached peak stupid...


I doubt they've even scratched that door, yet.

Global reaction?

A dampish squib



> So President Obama has a new climate plan out and his fans in the BBC are getting very excited about it.


The President's Clean Power Plan is Built Upon a Pack of Lies



> President Obama's Clean Power Plan is built upon a pack of lies. This I know because for the past two decades I have read and published reviews of literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have little impact on global climate. These reviews, along with some of my own original research, are archived on the CO2 Science website, CO2 Science, as well as in the 2013 publication _Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science_. This massive collection of papers definitively refutes the narrative President Obama is attempting to sell America and the rest of the world; for there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, extreme weather events are _not_ increasing, and the net impact of rising temperatures is to actually _save_ human lives.


Obama’s New Energy Plan Could Cost $2.5 Trillion in Lost Economic Growth



> The climate benefit that Americans receive for higher electricity rates, unemployment and lower levels of prosperity is almost, if not completely, nonexistent. Government regulators could limit all greenhouse gas emissions produced by the United States, and that number jumps to only a tenth of a degree of averted warming.


All This for .01 Degrees Celsius?



> *Given the facts, I can’t help but wonder: Did policymakers ever take Economics 101, or a course in how to read a chart?*
> 
> When I see simple questions that can raise doubts, if not outright debunk all this, it’s like watching the opening from the old Twilight Zone series: “You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!”


M'bold.

Obama’s $2.5 trillion plan to kill jobs, coal, make a 0.1% reduction in CO2, and cool world by zero degrees



> Obama’s new plan to stop storms and hold back the tide could make the US poorer by as much as $2.5 trillion dollars, but will not make any difference to the global climate even if it is carried out (somehow) and even if the highly immature, overly politicized science is “right” (despite the evidence). The plan is for the U.S. to cut overall electrical power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.
> 
> This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a *0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions* (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.


Bold from the link.

Reread that last paragraph & tell me if the results are worth $2.5 trillion (2,500,000,000,000) dollars...

Oh, but there is a bright side. However, it will offend the left.

New Nuclear Power Seen as Winner in Obama’s Clean Power Plan



> “Nuclear facilities will be credited because it’s new, zero-carbon generation that will be credited as part of a compliance strategy,” said U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “That’s entirely consistent and appropriate.”


----------



## Macfury

Obama doesn't care. It's all based on ideology and the subjugation of the American people.


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Why the man-made global warming climate models are a "fudge," according to Hansen himself



> Kimoto quotes the father of CAGW James Hansen from a 2000 interview stating that the lapse rate is indeed an artificially-fixed “fudge” for Hansen's 1-Dimensional climate model, stating,
> 
> _“In the 1-D model, it’s [the lapse rate] just a fudge, and you choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification.”​_


----------



## FeXL

Yep. More "adjustments"...

HADCRUT Cool The Past Yet Again



> As usual we see temperatures earlier in the record being reduced, but more noticeably temperatures have been progressively increased since the 1990’s. The amounts are only small, and the usual defence from the Met Office is that the changes make little difference to long term trends.
> 
> However, we find that similar adjustments have now been made since the original version 4.0 was released in 2012. *Note that the anomaly for 2010, (the last year that appeared on version 4.0), has increased by 0.004C on the latest revision, but by 0.029C over the four revisions since version 4.0.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on pocket calculator climate model accuracy.

Pocket-calculator climate model outperforms billion-dollar brains



> Unlike the complex climate models, each of which uses as much power as a small town when it is running, the new, “green” model – which its inventor runs on a solar-powered scientific calculator – had not been repeatedly regressed (i.e., tweaked after the event) till it fitted past data.
> 
> Lord Monckton, the inventor of the new model and lead author of the paper, said: “Every time a model is tweaked to force it to fit past data, one departs from true physics. The complex models are fudged till they fit the past – but then they cannot predict the future. They exaggerate.
> 
> “*We took the more scientific approach of using physics, not curve-fitting. But when the climate campaigners demanded that we should verify our model’s skill by ‘hindcasts’, we ran four tests of our model – one against predictions by the UN’s climate panel in 1990 and three against recent data. All four times, our model accurately hindcast real-world warming.*


M'bold.

Huh. Finally, a model which is not deserving of the "dead" emoticon...


----------



## FeXL

Further on all those extra hurricanes caused by "global warming".

NOAA: Increased likelihood of below-normal Atlantic hurricane season



> The NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s updated2015 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook calls for a *90 percent chance of a below-normal hurricane season*. A below-normal season is now even more likely than predicted in May, when the likelihood of a below-normal season was 70 percent.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

How Climate Scientists Cheat And Deceive



> Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.
> 
> Paul Matthews has a good summary here.
> 
> But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time


Yeah, there's a surprise. The issue? 



> _One of the charts, which used data from upper troposphere, appeared to show that the climate isn’t warming as much as scientists would expect. I checked that out with Hayhoe, who told me this is a common data manipulation: The upper troposphere is above the area of the atmosphere where most carbon dioxide accumulates, meaning it’s not a representative way to measure climate change.​_


Huh? Has anyone here ever heard of upper troposphere temps being used as evidence against global warming? Me, neither.



> I don’t know which chart the rancher pulled out, but I do know that no serious sceptic has ever used data from the upper troposphere to argue that there is no warming. On the contrary, the satellite datasets from RSS and UAH, which show no warming for the last 17 years, are specifically measuring the LOWER troposphere. Hayhoe will certainly also be aware that, according to general climate theory, the lower troposphere should warm faster than the surface.



More at the link.


----------



## FeXL

What happened this past week?

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #191

A few good articles.


----------



## FeXL

Further on CHIMP5. XX)

The Trouble with Global Climate Models



> The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (AR5 WG1) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was clear about the associated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) archive of atmosphere/ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs, hereafter just GCM). CMIP5 results are available via the Royal [Koninklijk] Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). The SPM said about CMIP5:
> 
> _§D.1 Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).
> 
> §D.2 Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.​_
> *Neither statement is true, as the now infamous CMIP5/pause divergence proves (illustrated below). CO2 continued to increase; temperature didn’t.*


M'bold.

Until climate models are tested & verified to be accurate, they will continue to be nothing more than a massive waste of billions of taxpayer dollars...

Related:

No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models



> As we’ve illustrated and discussed in this post, looking at the three factors that make up the TOA energy imbalance, there is no agreement among the climate models on the values of past, present and future outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation. As a result, there is no agreement about:
> 
> * what enhanced the warming we’ve experienced to date,
> * what will enhance any future warming, and
> * what the absolute values of the energy imbalance were in the past, are presently and will be in the future.
> 
> Climate models have been programmed to show global warming and all of its manifestations in response to rising energy imbalance values. But modeling groups go through very different gyrations (by manipulating clouds?) with the two computer-calculated components of the Earth’s energy budget at the top of the atmosphere in order to achieve that warming…which indicates there is no consensus on how Earth’s atmosphere and oceans have responded in the past, are responding now, and will respond in the future to manmade greenhouse gases.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Goreacle & his "24 Hours of Reality" show.

Al Gore’s Climate Reality? Dismal viewcounts; nobody is watching



> I thought to myself, “how could this be?”. Gore spent millions on a professional set, hired a leggy spokesmodel to emcee, spent huge amounts of money on web advertising, and claimed he had millions of views during the event.
> 
> ...
> 
> And yet, *only 166 views* of his flagship YouTube interview?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, Mikey Mann has delayed justice for so long that Mark Steyn has had ample opportunity to write a book about him.

"A Disgrace to the Profession" by Mark Steyn - now available



> In the US you can order Mark Styen's book here and orders can be shipped to the UK, if not from Amazon then try Mark's own bookstore.
> 
> It has cartoons by me and was a fun project to be involved in. It is also a hugely entertaining and informative read and, although I might be slightly biased, I think this is going to be this summer's must-read climate tome!


Buy early, buy often...


----------



## FeXL

Further on old Sol & the climate.

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.



> The bottom line is that the sun appears to have a large effect on the climate on various time scales. Whether or not the sunspots reflect the increase in solar activity since the Maunder minimum (as reflected in other datasets) is not very important. At most, if they don't reflect, it only strengthen's the idea that something associated with the solar wind does (such as the cosmic rays which they modulate).


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Willis takes a stab at Nir Shaviv's paper about sunspots (the previous post).

Both articles a good read, much in both sets of comments.

The New Sunspot Data … and Satellite Sea Levels



> I see that Dr. Nir Shaviv has a blog post up regarding the recent fixing of problems in the historical sunspot record. He put up several interesting graphs and made several interesting claims, and I wanted to comment on them.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the BEST data.

An analysis of BEST data for the question: Is Earth Warming or Cooling?

He sums:



> To put this into perspective, the 144-year temperature increases have been less than the 95% uncertainties of the monthly temperatures in 1870!


Simply put, the alleged temperature increases are less than the margin of error.

Sigh.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Steyn's book on Mann: A review.

A review of Steyn’s scathing new book about Michael Mann: “A Disgrace To The Profession”



> It’s a scorcher, hilarity, and a tale of science and politics gone awry all in one.
> 
> Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work on the “hockey stick”.


----------



## FeXL

Yep. You got it. More temperature "homogenization"...

The BOM: Homogenizing the heck out of Australian temperature records



> Rutherglen is a long running station in central Victoria. There are no documented site moves, but the long raw trend of slow cooling was adjusted up to a warming trend. *What was cooling of 0.35C per century became a 1.7C warming trend.*
> 
> Jennifer Marohasy, and others, have spent months trying to get answers from the BOM explaining why these massive adjustments were made. Excuses flowed. In the latest round, *the BOM claim the changes are necessary to make the Rutherglen record match the trends in the neighboring stations. What the BOM doesn’t say is that there was no warming in the neighbours either, not until after they were homogenized.*


M'bold.

What a house of cards.


----------



## FeXL

Your tax dollars at work.

Obama Administration Spends Millions to Study Climate Change....INDOORS



> The Obama Administration has awarded $8 Million in government grants to nine universities to study the impact that climate change has on indoor air quality. *The EPA defends the move by claiming that climate change's effects on indoor air pollutants that lead to asthma, as well as mold and mildew, aren't well understood. *However, as with everything negative that occurs in the world, the Obama Administration is assuming that global warming probably has something to do with it.


M'bold.

Of course...


----------



## FeXL

As the Paris deadline looms...

Halfway to Hell? – Alarmists are Growing Desperate in Their Efforts to Influence Public Opinion



> Politicians from around the globe are once again gathering this year to futilely try to reach agreement on how to achieve that goal of limiting global warming to the economist-suggested limit. So, in order to increase public awareness, we’re being bombarded weekly with speculations of pending global-warming gloom and doom. One was a recent article Earth now halfway to UN global warming limit at NewScientist. It included a graph titled “Halfway to hell”, my Figure 1, prepared by chemist Kevin Cowtan.


For anyone with a modicum of common sense, or a geology background (but I repeat myself), this 2° "tipping point" is just so much bunkum. The planet has been much warmer than 2° above where we are now many times in the past & yet, here we are, to talk about it...


----------



## FeXL

On XX)

Problematic Adjustments And Divergences (Now Includes June Data)



> As can be seen from the graphic above, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide increases and adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature record. *And these adjustments to the surface data in turn result in large divergences between surface data sets and satellite data sets.*


M'bold.

Much of the article raised from a comment by RG Brown, professor of Physics @ Duke U.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

The Week That Was...

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #192

Two very good articles, 

_Underestimating Costs_ 



> “Our study shows that on average, electricity from new wind resources is *nearly four times more expensive* than from existing nuclear and *nearly three times more expensive* than from existing coal..."


Bold from the link.

& 

_Validation of Climate Models_



> ”*No computer model has ever been validated.* An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.


M'bold.

And, on this, we're basing billion, possibly trillion, dollar policy.

Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

Maybe those of us on the frontier are just better at detecting the stench of manure...

Claim: A pioneer “frontier mentality” causes climate denial



> Naomi Klein has claimed that the reason Americans, British, Australians and Canadians are the world’s leading “climate deniers”, is that we share a “frontier mentality”.


I hold my head high to be among the counted...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Department of Settled Science"...

The ‘Arctic Methane Emergency’ appears canceled due to methane eating bacteria



> ...new research led by Princeton University researchers and published in _The ISME Journal_ in August suggests that, thanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.


Time to turn the sirens off & head back to base.


----------



## FeXL

So, with all these "record" hot months that NOAA keeps harping about, you'd think that there would be no record temperatures older than a few years.

CET Record Months



> It is interesting that the last decade does not seem overloaded with records, as might be expected.


----------



## FeXL

Guess retirement has provided him with a bit too much time...

Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen is using children to sue US government over climate



> _*This week a group of young Americans aged 8-19 filed a lawsuit against the US Federal Government to demand greater action on climate change.*
> 
> The 21 young plaintiffs sought an order from the District Court of Oregon, requiring Obama to implement a national plan for the reduction of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 350 ppm by the year 2100._


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

How Does The IPCC Explain the Severe Storms Of History?



> Every day we hear that storms of greater intensity than ever before are occurring, and it will get worse because of global warming. These claims contradict the current and historic evidence and the mechanisms of formation for mid-latitude cyclonic storms and tornadoes. The misinformation is further evidence of the misdirection created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their examination of the historic record involved creating, altering or ignoring the evidence to fit and support their narrative. In doing so, they eliminated variability, which is major evidence of the underlying mechanisms that create extreme weather.


And the result?



> By creating the “hockey stick” and other devices to support their hypothesis that it is warmer now than ever, and weather more severe, and going to get worse, they had to eliminate or ignore all the historic evidence.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Must have hurt to publish that number...

Spin Cycle: EPA Deflates Climate Impacts, Inflates Significance



> Well, well, well. The EPA has finally gone and done it. They have actually calculated the climate change impacts projected to result of one of their climate change regulations...


Further:



> The EPA calculates that the amount of global temperature rise averted by the end of the 21stcentury from the proposed regulations to be… wait, this is too good to paraphrase. From the EPA:
> 
> _The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), *global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.*_​


Huh?



> *Did you catch that?* According to the EPA’s own calculations, their regulation mandating the fuel economy of medium and light duty trucks avoids somewhere between _twenty-six thousandths_ and _sixty-five thousandths_ of a degree of future global warming.


M'bold.

Gobsmacked.

And this is worth how many trillions of dollars?


----------



## FeXL

Oh, this is rich...

Claim: You need science fiction to make sense of climate change



> The Guardian thinks climate change is so “dire”, people can only make sense of it with the help of science fiction.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

More numbers to chew on.

Cost of global warming wildly exaggerated



> Enthusiasts for a carbon tax tend to lick their lips at the sheer size of the numbers that have been conjured up out of the economic models. They see a door opening to massive economic changes, with societal change on the horizon too.


More:



> _The largest corrected mean SCC we get for estimates with uncertainty is USD 134 per ton of carbon at 2010 prices for emission year 2015; because the uncorrected mean of these estimates is 411, our results indicate that *the reported estimates of the SCC are exaggerated at least threefold on average because of the selective reporting bias.* The largest corrected mean SCC we obtain for study-level estimates with or without uncertainty is 61, *which is more than four times less than the overall mean* of 290._​


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Why do scientific papers need press releases, anyways?

Dueling press releases – one says GHG’s ’caused’ end of last ice age, other says ‘lead factor’



> I noticed these press releases for the new “ramp up to Paris” paper at Eurekalert today. One is from Boston College, the other is from Oregon State University. The headlines seem about as far apart as the schools themselves.
> 
> You’d think that authors of the same paper could get their PR straight.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Crisis, Inc.



> So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?
> 
> *The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business!*


M'bold.

No confirmation bias, no vested interests there. Nosiree...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

Realities Of Climate Change, Politics And Public Knowledge.



> The minute a small cabal hijacked climate for a political agenda it determined that setting the record straight required political answers. Naomi Klein admitted it wasn’t about the science directly. That fighting climate change was necessary to combat capitalism.


I'm not sure about his conclusion that political answers are the key to the problem. I'll keep banging away here with the science.


----------



## FeXL

Not just the Russians anymore...

Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!



> Compared to the maxima and minima of the past, the current minima and maxima show that there is nothing unusual happening today. The scientists say today’s temperature changes are within the normal range. The German authors write: _“Especially the 20th century shows nothing out of the ordinary.”_


Italics from the link.

Not crazy about using treemometers as a proxy, but sediment cores & stalagmites are good.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the increase of hurricanes due to global warming.

Hurricane expert: 10 years after Katrina, North Atlantic hurricane activity well below normal



> It is worth noting that 2005 had 11 named storms, seven of which hit land and five of which caused major damage. In contrast to that era, we’ve recently seen the fourth named storm in the Atlantic, Hurricane Danny, fizzle out back to tropical storm status last Saturday, and now as a tropical depression is listed as remnant status by NHC.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the next catastrophe, methane.

The easy solution to the looming monster methane apocalypse



> Summary: The looming disaster from the powerful greenhouse gas methane has become a standard part of alarmists’ shtick. It shows how they’ve abandoned the IPCC — the “gold standard” of climate science — and why we need the IPCC to help defend us against manipulation by activists.


Well, I'm not really in favour of giving TIPCC® any credit at all, nor using them as a credible resource, as it's nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, but...


----------



## FeXL

So, the Fruit Loops & Whackos have, after 5 other attempts, another paper published.

If only Lewandowsky, Cook, Nuccitelli, Hayhoe and others could learn from their OWN mistakes…



> From the “It’s science Jim – but not as we know it” department. (h/t Foxgoose) Sheesh. Another shedload of 97% consensus, spun to fit Paris COP21. The hubris here is astounding, but not unexpected from these egotistical...activists.


Apparently, they had some difficulty getting it past peer review.



> _"We first submitted our work to a journal called ‘Climate Research’.
> 
> The opinion of one of the reviewers on our manuscript was “profoundly negative”, with a recommendation to reject it (29 June 2012):
> 
> *“The manuscript is not a scientific study. It is just a summary of purported errors in collection of papers, arbitrarily selected by the authors.”*​_


M'bold.

Further:



> _This is a revised version of the drivel they tried to publish two years ago
> 
> ESDD - Abstract - Agnotology: learning from mistakes
> 
> It was clobbered in the comments (click on the discussion tab) and rejected by editor Matthew Huber.
> They’ve been sending it to various journals (see RC post) and it was rejected by 5 journals before they eventually found one prepared to publish it.​_


Maybe the peer review system isn't as broken as I thought it was...


----------



## FeXL

So, the MET Office has been associated with the BBC's weather for 94 years. However, the BBC has apparently decided not to renew the contract.

When I first came across this a few days ago, I wanted a bit more information to come out, thinking that maybe the request for tenders had simply not been extended yet. It doens't look like it.

BBC Pulls Plug On Met Office



> The BBC has ended a partnership with the Met Office dating back more than 90 years by deciding not to renew its contract to provide weather forecasts. The last bulletin presented by the Met Office will be broadcast in October 2016, 94 years after the first, in November 1922. Bill Giles, who led the Met Office’s team of BBC forecasters from 1983 to 2000, was among those in shock at the decision. “It’s a hell of a shame. It’s the end of an era,” he said.


One wonders what was the root cause. Have the multiple missed predictions of "BBQ summers" played a factor? How about the $30 million price tag? Maybe the MET has pushed it's stance on AGW a bit too far? Curious...

Further (love the title):

I bet the Met Office didn't see this storm coming either!



> The Met Office may only have itself and some of its more swivel-eyed defenders to blame. With its hunger for news headlines, it occasionally went further than it should have done in predicting ‘barbecue summers’ and so forth.
> 
> Sometimes you got the impression its forecasts were being written by the same hand that authored the Book of Genesis and its chapters about Noah’s flood. Gosh, they did love to whip up a storm about a few isobars.
> 
> The same hyperbolic desire for attention saw the Met Office meekly agreeing to dumb down its presentation techniques and allow broadcasting editors and producers to turn the Met’s once dry forecasts into melodramatic, matey interludes fronted by autocuties.
> 
> The men and women telling us the weather long ago stopped being dispassionate boffins. Instead they grinned, cooed, empathised, screwing up their eyelashes when they told us it was going to rain and advising us to wear sun cream during heat waves.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjusted temperatures".

Another Smoking Gun Of Fraud At NOAA



> Texas temperatures have been declining over the past century
> 
> ...
> 
> But NOAA massively tampers with the data to make it look like Texas is warming
> 
> ...
> 
> *Much of their justification is theoretically based on Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) adjustments, claiming that people during the 1930’s reset their thermometers during the afternoon, causing double counting of hot days.
> 
> That theory is easy to test out. The graph below uses only those stations which reset their thermometers at night or morning during July 1936. As you can see, it is almost identical to the top graph for all Texas stations. TOBS has almost no effect on Texas temperatures.*


M'bold.

Yep. Cut their funding...


----------



## FeXL

How about a nice poster for the classroom, illustrating a few failed statements & predictions?

Alarming Climate Predictions: an informative cartoon for the classroom wall



> One thing anyone concerned about the harm being done to schoolchildren by climate alarmism must do is help them see how incompetent so many of the prominent pushers of alarm are when it comes to science. The above cartoon would help encourage the youngsters to take the fear-mongers' confident assertions with a pinch of salt, and perhaps just a hint of amused contempt.


Nice!


----------



## FeXL

OK, normally I read the papers I link to. This particular one I haven't, it's a matter of time. Please feel free to comment upon reading it.

New paper confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 6 planets including Earth, falsifies CAGW



> An important new paper published in _Advances in Space Research_ determines that the Earth surface temperature (as well as the surface temperatures of 5 other rocky planets in our solar system) can be very accurately determined (R2 = 0.9999! & tiny standard error σ=0.0078) solely on the basis of two variables:
> 
> 1) atmospheric pressure at the surface, and
> 
> 2) solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere,
> 
> and _without any consideration of any greenhouse gas concentrations or 'radiative forcing' from greenhouse gases whatsoever._


Italics from the link.

Lots in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #193

A handful of interesting topics, including some that I referenced recently here.


----------



## FeXL

Your tax dollars at work.

Obvious science: NASA finds vegetation essential for limiting city warming effects



> Impervious surfaces’ biggest effect is causing a difference in surface temperature between an urban area and surrounding vegetation. The researchers, who used multiple satellites’ observations of urban areas and their surroundings combined into a model, found that averaged over the continental United States, areas covered in part by impervious surfaces, be they downtowns, suburbs, or interstate roads, had a summer temperature 1.9°C higher than surrounding rural areas. In winter, the temperature difference was 1.5 °C higher in urban areas.


You mean that bricks, concrete & pavement don't cool the environment? Who knew? Are they actually admitting to UHI of 1.9°C? When can we expect to see urban temperatures "adjusted" downwards...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Good read.

Climate Models Fail: Global Ocean Heat Content (Based on TOA Energy Imbalance)



> Many of the modeled oceans in the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report are not storing heat close to the (much-adjusted) observed rates, so those models are not simulating global warming as it exists on Earth. But there’s really nothing new about that either. We can simply add ocean heat accumulation and TOA energy imbalance to the list of things that climate models do not simulate properly: like surface temperatures, like precipitation, like polar sea ice, like polar amplification, like El Niño and La Niña processes, like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and so on.
> 
> *Once again, climate models have shown they are good for one thing and one thing only: to display how poorly they simulate Earth’s climate.*


M'bold.

Lengthy, good visuals, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

No argument...

The ‘Cult’ of Climate Change (née Global Warming)



> _Global warming has become a religion_
> 
> This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever , Prof. Richard Lindzen, and many others. Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:


----------



## FeXL

A problem with one of the currently used ocean temperature proxies.

TEX-86 proxy for past ocean temperature reconstructions challenged, possible 21°C error



> An increasingly popular method to deduce historic sea surface temperatures uses sediment-entombed bodies of marine archaea, one of Earth’s most ancient and resilient creatures, as a 150-million-year record of ocean temperatures. While other measures have gaps, this one is increasingly popular because it promises to fill in gaps to provide a near-global record of ocean temperatures going back to the age of the dinosaurs.
> 
> But University of Washington research shows this measure has a major hitch: The single-celled organism’s growth varies based on changes in ocean oxygen levels. Results published in August in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ show that oxygen deprivation *can alter the temperature calculations by as much as 21 degrees Celsius.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Just a _few_ failed hurricane predictions.

Throwback Thursday #5 – failed global warming driven hurricane predictions 10 years after Katrina



> Oh the mighty media quoting the mighty scientists…have fallen flat on their face. Here’s a collection of failed predictions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:


----------



## FeXL

Friday Funny...on Tuesday.

Friday funny – Stern words



> Josh writes: BishopHill has a great story on Lord Stern, infamous economist, on how he flip flops from rich nations having to forget about growth to this kind of idea being a diversionary tactic. Whatever suits, I guess.
> 
> Even more amusing is that the Guardian links both stories *on the very same page!*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further review on Steyn's book.

A detailed review of the book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, by Mark Steyn

I'll skip to the punch line:



> This is an outstanding and important book and I highly recommend it.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

How fast is the Earth warming?



> So, the next time that you hear somebody claiming that Global Warming is accelerating, show them a graph of the rate of warming. Some climate scientists seem to enjoy telling us that things are worse than predicted. Here is a chance to cheer them up with some good news. Somehow I don’t think that they will want to hear it.


Good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #194

First article, _Divergence_, is a good read on July's "hottest evah!" temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

Frightening, the suppression.

Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”



> Not only governments manipulate, but so do some universities in order to protect their grants. A perfect example happened in 2012 when I contacted the Eagle Hill Institute in Steuben Maine USA to see if they would be interested in a climate change lecture. It should be noted that the institute has very close ties with the University of Maine. So I indicted that my lecture would involve information on natural climate cycles, and they responded saying, “That is fine.” Then In May of 2013 they asked me to speak at their lecture series on June 29th – an invitation that I accepted. They even consequently advertised the event and posted it on their online calendar.
> 
> All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. But then came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (2015 Accurate Hurricane -El Nino Predictions 4 Years into the Future). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my _“lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage”_. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that _“we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th”._
> 
> So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called “The Maine Wire“ interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine _“felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”._


Huh. Apparently the truth can hurt...

More:

Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of “natural cycles”



> David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while *the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds.* Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.


M'bold.

As noted above, not science: Religion.


----------



## FeXL

Further on melting glaciers.

Obama Is The 44th President To Experience Alaskan Glacier Melting



> President Obama is travelling to Alaska to blame glacial melt and rising temperatures on global warming. This is his usual fraud, as Alaskan glaciers have been melting under every single president going back to George Washington. During George Washington’s presidency, Glacier Bay was retreating eight feet per day.


Ross Ice Shelf Retreated Five Feet Per Day From 1840 To 1930



> Experts at NASA tell us that we can stop this melting by shutting down power plants, because they are criminals paid to lie by the White House.


Ouch...

Alaskan Glaciers Lost Half Their Mass Before 1950



> Our dimwitted excuse for a human being and president, thinks that making _energy prices skyrocket_ will stop Alaskan glaciers from melting.
> 
> They have been melting for 250 years, and lost half their mass before Harry Truman left office.


----------



## FeXL

So, satellites measure troposphere temperatures, not the earth's surface. What can we do with that data? Well, TIPCC™ claims that global warming theory indicates the troposphere will warm faster than the surface of the earth. Is that happening?

IPCC Confirmed Troposphere Should Warm Faster In 2007 Report

Have a look at the graph.

Not so much...

Further:

UAH And RSS Trends

More good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

Couple on sea level rise.

More Sea Level Mischief From NOAA



> NOAA dropped 41 tide gauges after the year 2010. Apparently they weren’t cooperating with the agenda.
> 
> The tide gauges they dropped averaged 0.66 mm/year of _declining sea level_, and all but two were below the 100% fraudulent NASA/CU claim of +3.3 mm/year.


Italics from the link.

NOAA Undermines NASA’s Sea Level Lies



> NASA claims that earth is on track for three feet of sea level rise by the year 2100, even though their own data shows twelve inches and the NOAA data shows seven inches.
> 
> Reality is that both are wildly exaggerated, with the actual numbers being closer to one or two inches.


----------



## FeXL

An emergency pre-meeting meeting?

An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real “Paris” negotiation?



> United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon just announced plans to invite 40 world leaders to a “closed shop” climate meeting in just four weeks time. How often does that happen?


Hmmm... Worried that the BS won't carry enough momentum into Paris later this year?


----------



## FeXL

Tangentially related to "Global Warming".

So, the money quote (from The icebreaker gap):



> *As the United States and Russia eye new shipping routes in the melting Arctic*, political and military leaders in Washington are pointing to a crucial gap in the one type of vessel that can turn frozen waters into reliable lanes for commerce or national defense.


M'bold.

From the comments, here:



> Melting Arctic, eh? Politco is part of the problem and don't even know it. *The reason why Russia has 40 icebreakers and the U.S. only 2 is this "melting Arctic" meme isn't being bought by the Russians.*


Bingo!

But, wait!

If The Arctic Is Melting Why Is The President Ordering New Ice Breakers For Arctic?



> _President Obama on Tuesday will propose speeding the acquisition and building of new Coast Guard icebreakers that can operate year-round in the nation’s polar regions, part of an effort to close the gap between the United States and other nations, especially Russia, in a global competition to gain a foothold in the rapidly changing Arctic.​_


The million dollar question:



> *But if the Arctic is melting why doesn't Obama order regular ships?*


M'bold.

Bingo! Again...


----------



## FeXL

One of the best articles I've read on the subject this year.

The Arctic Iris Effect, Dansgaard-Oeschger Events, and Climate Model Shortcomings. Lesson from Climate Past – part 1.

Just read it. Mid-length, not too technical, much in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

This might be the real reason the BBC is giving the MET the shoe.

Another BBQ Summer Fiasco: Met Office Gets It Wrong (Again)



> Warm Bias: The Met Office’s Disastrous Track Record


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

That had to hurt. Lewandowsky's Moon Landing Hoax paper just had its knuckles rapped, big time. However, still unaddressed issues.

UWA and @PsychScience look the other way on Lewandowsky’s use of minors without consent in his “Conspiracist Ideation” and “Moon Landing” paper



> The Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer paper in PLOS ONE has been substantially corrected. I had alerted the journal last fall that there were serious errors in the paper, including the presence of a 32,757-year-old in the data, along with a 5-year-old and six other minors. The paleoparticipant in particular had knocked out the true correlation between age and the conspiracy belief items (the authors had reported there was no correlation between age and anything else.) See my original essay on this paper, what the bad data did to the age correlations, and lots of other issues here.
> 
> Deeply troubling issues remain. The authors have been inexplicably unwilling to remove the minors from their data, and have in fact retained two 14-year-olds, two 15-year-olds, a 16-year-old, and a 17-year-old. This is strange given that the sample started with 1,001 participants. It is also wildly unethical.
Click to expand...

Nice.


----------



## FeXL

So, if you've been paying attention, you've heard all the wild claims about the melting of the Greenland ice sheets. How's that stack up in the world of empirical science?

Danish Meteorological Institute Data Show GREENLAND ICE MASS BALANCE HAS GROWN IMPRESSIVELY Since 2014



> _"In the 2014/2015 season the daily course and accumulated ice mas development on Greenland measured in gigatons *since September 1, 2014 is showing a mass growth (lower chart) of around 200 gigatons, or 200 cubic kilometers.*”​_


M'bold.

Lemmee repeat that: *200 cubic kilometers*.

I'd say the canary in the coal mine is doing just fine...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article on an often overlooked part of the equation.

Ignored Heat Capacity



> *Something that has often bothered me about climate models and rain water is how the energy transfer to the rock is handled.* Each climate model I’ve read seems to address the problem in similar ways with bulk conductivity parameters that appear to ignore anything but conductive energy transfer to significant depths with basic flows of energy at shallow depths. The result is that there doesn’t appear to be much effective thermal mass in our land area on Earth. The consequence of this is that land thermal mass holds nothing of great effect with respect to global warming. Climate models are absolutely missing something important here.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another nice, short explanation.

How NASA Tries To Hide Their Fraud



> The [introduced] random noise from 1970-1990 makes no sense from a physical point of view. People aren’t moving stations back and forth every other year. Its only purpose is to hide their criminal activity.


----------



## FeXL

So, Barry's in the Arctic, renaming mountains & spreading BS.

Obama Alaska Climate Fraud Deepens



> The glacier retreated 187 feet in 2014, which was the average rate from 1894-1899, and 60% of the rate from 1914-1917. In other words, glacial retreat has slowed considerably over the last 100 years. *Deborah Kurtz is lying.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Alaska has cooled 0.1 degrees since 1977, which Kurtz calls “unprecedented warming.” *Again, Deborah Kurtz is lying.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *So we have a National Park Service Employee committing fraud, and a moron narcissist president who imagines he can stop a two hundred year old process from continuing, by shutting down power plants.*


M'bold.

Sums it up for me...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Barry in the Great White North.

Quote of the week: Obama’s Climate Claim in Alaska



> Obama Rebuffed As Superpowers Refuse To Sign Arctic Climate Agreement


D'oh!!!



> The quote from Obama:
> 
> _“If we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between *six and twelve degrees by the end of the century* ”​_


M'bold.

Seriously, we need to give this guy another term in office. You can't make up comedy gold like this...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, _Drosophila_ (Fruit Fly) Guy is back in the news!!!

The David Suzuki school of irrational thought on the climate – if only he knew what science was?



> It’s a science debate, and Suzuki pops up again, as he does periodically, with innuendo, namecalling and feets of logic. (He’s reasoning with both feet.) He’s not even offering well researched ad hom attacks. They’re not only irrelevant and unscientific, they’re wrong too.
> 
> On June 18, Suzuki told us that irrational attacks diminished the debate. On Sept 1, Suzuki is firing fallacies, no data, no research, no reasoning.


----------



## FeXL

The great "Backing Off" has begun.

Inconvenient Stanford study: ‘Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.’



> In a recently published study in the journal _Geology_, PhD students Matthew Winnick and Jeremy Caves at Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences explored these very old conditions and found that sea level might not have risen as much as previously thought – and thus may not rise as fast as predicted now.


They've probably just published their last paper.

More:



> To better understand global sea level rise, Winnick and Caves analyzed the middle Pliocene warm period, the last time in Earth’s history, *approximately 3 million years ago, when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were close to their present values (350-450 parts per million).*


M'bold.

What!!!  What's this??!! CO2 levels were previously the same as they are now??!! How is that possible?

Heathens!!!


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea level "adjustments".

More Massive Sea Level Fraud At NASA



> In 1982, NASA showed only 8cm (3 inches) of sea level rise from 1880 to 1980 (0.8 mm/year) and almost all of that occurred prior to 1950.
> 
> ...
> 
> They have since doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise to 1.6 mm/year, and have made the post-1950 pause disappear.
> 
> ...
> 
> The graph below shows the two at the same scale, normalized to 1880. They have quadrupled post-1950 rise rates.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sea level is rising no faster than 3 inches per century. Make no mistake about it – NASA climate people are criminals engaged in fraud.


Yep.


----------



## Vandave

Look what the loons at the Tyee have to say:

Haper's a climate villain and he's culpable for the Refugee crisis because of his climate record. If this were satire, it would be funny but sadly these people actually believe what they write. This is one of those things that when you look back in 50 years, you laugh at how stupid some people were.

Harper's Worst Offense against Refugees May Be His Climate Record | The Tyee

I personally can't wait for this crowd to run the country. :lmao:

The next four years is going to be a ****-show and I get a front row seat.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes, yet another well-informed member of the thespian club.

Friday funny – Unbalanced by Josh



> Emma clearly did not have a clue what she was talking about – even Richard Betts, from the UK Met Office, said she was wrong (good on you, Richard). Ed Hawkins, Climate Scientist, also tweeted “what Emma Thompson said was scientifically inaccurate & implausible.”


She needs to stick to her prepared scripts...

Further:

Emma Thinks Richard Betts Is Insane!

Pretty funny, if it weren't so sad.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the myths propagated during this process is that pikas are being driven upslope their montane location due to "global warming". A new study has just been published, debunking the myth.

A whole peck of prognosticated Pika trouble vanishes with a new study



> In February 2015, I posted an essay on WUWT about why the pika, a high elevation relative of rabbits, are not endangered by climate change. I highlighted some bad science that has been deceptively used to fear monger about catastrophic global warming, falsely suggesting pika are fleeing upslope to avoid warming, and are being driven off the mountain tops into extinction by rising CO2 concentrations. Based on bad science lawyers from the Center for Biological Diversity have sued California twice and the United States once to list pika as endangered due to climate change.
> 
> After that blog post I did receive a few emails from pika experts applauding my analyses. Although they requested to remain anonymous, they advised me that one of the world’s leading pika experts, Dr. Andrew Smith whose work I referenced, would soon be publishing a paper that would likewise show that the pika have not been endangered by global warming.
> 
> Well that paper is now published, even though it has not garnered the fanfare given to papers suggesting pika are on the verge of extinction. For some reason such good news and good science is not as profitable as the science of doom.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting article by Tim Ball on who the real deniers are.

An Update On The Real Deniers



> Denialism is defined as _“the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.”_ In climate the problem is those who label others deniers are the real deniers. They don’t even acknowledge there is a debate to deny.


----------



## FeXL

Last week's Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #195

_The Show_ is a good summary of Obama's photo op in Alaska.


----------



## FeXL

Any gamblers out there? C'mon, believers & warmists all, here's your chance to make some cool cash on the back of "Global Warming".

Aussie Bookmaker: Taking bets on which beaches will disappear due to “global warming”



> Convinced catastrophic global warming is an imminent reality? Want to make some fast money based on your belief? Australian bookmaker Sportsbet.com.au is willing to take your money, to place a bet on which Australian beach will be the first to “disappear” due to rising sea levels.


Any takers?


----------



## FeXL

Further on "The Pause".

The Pause is driving down the long-term warming trend



> The long and model-unpredicted Great Pause of 18 years 8 months in global mean lower-troposphere temperature as recorded in the RSS satellite monthly dataset is inexorably driving down the longer-run warming rate, when the IPCC’s predictions would have led us to expect an acceleration.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre on the "Ocean2K sediment proxies".

The Ocean2K “Hockey Stick”

He notes:



> One of the reasons for the strange lack of interest in this newest proxy “Hockey Stick” was that the proxy data didn’t actually show “the climate was warming about 20 times faster than it cooled during the past 1,800 years”. The OCEAN2K reconstruction (see Figure 1 below) had a shape that even David Appell would be hard-pressed to describe as a “Hockey Stick”. It showed a small decrease over the past two millennia with the most recent value having a tiny uptick from its predecessor, but, whatever image one might choose to describe its shape, “Hockey Stick” is not one of them.


This smacks of pure desperation on behalf of the authors.


----------



## FeXL

Further on alleged massive sea level rise acceleration.

Sea Level Analyst: “Not Possible To Torture Coastal Tide-Gauge Data Into Yielding A Sea-Level Rise Anywhere Near 3.3 mm/yr”!



> NOAA has done linear regression analysis on sea-level measurements (relative sea-level) from 225 long term tide gauges around the world, which have data spanning at least 50 years. (Note: the literature indicates that at least 50-60 years of data are required to determine a robust long term sea-level trend from a tide gauge record.) *There’s no sign of any acceleration (increase in rate) in most of those tide-gauge records.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "The Great Backing Off"?

Greenpeace warns of ice age dangers



> The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.


How does this possibly reconcile?


----------



## FeXL

So much for all that additional extreme weather.

It’s the peak of the hurricane season, and guess what…



> There are no hurricanes, tropical storms, or even tropical depressions anywhere on Planet Earth.


NOAA's gonna have to start naming clouds again, just to keep up the narrative...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Obama's Alaskan photo op.

Obama’s Disinformation Trek to Alaska



> President Obama squandered thousands of gallons of jet fuel this week flying to Alaska to promote his global-warming agenda. He’s pushing a civilization-crushing deal in Paris in December to curb carbon emissions.


Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever



> [T]the president needs to get his facts straight. Exit Glacier has been shrinking for 200 years — since 1815 — long before widespread industrialization and automobiles. As the president ended his trip, he sounded the alarm again: “This state’s climate is changing before our eyes.”
> 
> News flash, Mr. President: Alaska has been buffeted by cyclical swings in climate for thousands of years. That’s true for the rest of the world, too. There was a 300-year-long Medieval heat wave, followed by a Little Ice Age that began around 1300, and then the 300-year warming period we’re in now.


Global Warming Update: Obama Seeks to Still the Glaciers of Alaska



> The problem is that the solution to man’s corruption is believed to be men who are more than men, men who have somehow risen and have shed this corruption. The winds and tides would not obey King Canute, but somehow they will be subservient to Enlightened Man.


<snort>

More On Obama’s Spectacular Glacier Fraud



> The fraudster in chief hiked at the Exit Glacier in Alaska last week, and said that he could slow down melting by shutting down America’s reliable energy supply.
> 
> According to US Park Service documents, the Exit Glacier melt rate has dropped in half over the last 125 years.


Related:

NOAA Tampering In Alaska



> According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, linear trends show that temperatures have actually fallen in Alaska since 1977, by 0.1F.


Oh, and this? This'll leave a mark...

Why Did China Opt Out of the Arctic Climate Change Statement?



> After the conference, the representatives of the Arctic Council members signed a joint statement affirming “our commitment to take urgent action to slow the pace of warming in the Arctic.” The Arctic states were joined by 10 of the 12 Arctic Council permanent observers – with China and India as the holdouts.
> 
> ...
> 
> According to CCTV America, China said that it needed more time to review the document before signing. *But RT had a different take, saying that China and India “opted not to sign the document” because “reducing emissions entails huge expenditure and loss of economic effectiveness.”* (RT also said that Russia had decided not to sign, contradicting other reports).


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Heading into the final stretch.

Headlines contradictory. Pressure intense. Meetings in Bonn, NY, Lima. It’s Paris Paris Paris



> Look at the list of meetings being held (below) — last week, officials were in Bonn, “clarifying the options”, and they have another five-day session in October. On top of that ministers from 60 nations will meet for “this Sunday and Monday”. On Sept 27 a luncheon in New York has been added onto the UN General Assembly (is that the emergency meeting Ban Ki Moon called last week, or something else as well?). After that foreign ministers are meeting in Lima. This is global wheeling and dealing with big power and money at stake. *(If only the UN cared as much about poverty and disease, imagine what they could do?)*.


M'bold.

Yeah. Imagine...


----------



## FeXL

Here we go again, with another tired old meme: "Warming causes freezing".

New studies promote Arctic cooling fears

Summed nicely:



> Let’s not forget folks, that what we are dealing with is “settled science”.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, there's a surprise.

UN climate change body suffers mammoth European carbon fraud



> The United Nations body that oversees greenhouse gas reductions is reeling from another cap-and-trade scandal that may have put 600 million tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere -- roughly speaking, the annual CO2 output of Canada or Britain -- while the emissions were ostensibly suppressed, according to an independent study.
> 
> In the process, the fraudsters, largely in Russia and Ukraine, were likely able to transfer credits for more than 400 million tons of their apparently bogus greenhouse savings by April 2015 into Europe’s commercial carbon trading system -- the largest in the world --thereby undermining that continent’s ambitious carbon reduction achievements.


Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

UHI? What UHI?

♫ I left my UHI, in Sannn Frannncisco ♪



> The disparity of temperature just a few blocks away is quite stunning. In the two temperatures circled in the downtown area yesterday *there is a full 14°F (~8°C) difference.* Charles adds this note:
> 
> _These two spots are about 6 blocks apart. No fog and no wind.​_


M'bold.

Further:



> So what is the correct temperature for San Francisco at any given time? I have no idea. Pick a number, any number.


Yep.


----------



## SINC

CTV Edmonton took a look at the temperatures for the past 50 years during the month of August in Edmonton.

Guess what folks . . .


----------



## FeXL

Progressive heads exploding everywhere.

Grant money panic! Murdoch buys the National Geographic



> Given the alternative to Murdoch’s generous terms was probably bankruptcy, where nobody would get any grants, you have to wonder why some alarmists are taking such a negative view of Murdoch’s financial rescue package; After all, alarmists have long argued that the deluge of government money available to climate scientists who produce studies which support the views of politicians, has no influence on the content of the studies.


----------



## FeXL

Of course it is...

Quote of the week: climate awareness one of the ‘greatest human achievements’



> Argh. You often wonder how weapons grade hubris can be come to be.


More:



> I found this but of chutzpah in the article quite amazing:
> 
> _Just two centuries ago, humanity barely understood that a planet’s climate could change at all.​_
> Tell it to the Vikings in Greenland, the people that went through the cold and crop failures of the dark ages period with black plague, and the people that lived through the Little Ice Age, and the Peruvians.
> 
> No, nobody ever figured out the climate could change before our current crop of saviors of humanity came along. Yeah, that’s the ticket.


Fire. Them. All.


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> CTV Edmonton took a look at the temperatures for the past 50 years during the month of August in Edmonton.
> 
> Guess what folks . . .


No surprise to anyone whose been paying attention.


----------



## FeXL

Nice.

Spiegel Slams Sorrowful State Of Climate Science Communication! “Reports Hardly Trustworthy” …”Arrogant Scientists”



> Spiegel’s Bojanowski describes a smoke-and-mirrors environment within climate science and its communication. He writes climate scientists today have a _“communication problem“_, stemming in large part from _“uncertainties and knowledge gaps“_. The Spiegel journalist feels _“their results all too often remain buried“_. Citing a recent SAGE article on climate science communication, Bojanowski tells his readers that the authors of reports often present _“results coming from climate science in a troublesome way“_.


----------



## FeXL

Some historical context on TIPCC.

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII”



> But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...
> 
> ...
> 
> *One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore*...


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

Sadly, most "progressives" would be happy with that deception. They would clap and holler approval.



FeXL said:


> Some historical context on TIPCC.
> 
> Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII”
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments".

Smoking Gun Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Fraud



> In 1978, every data source showed that earth had been cooling for 30 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA showed significant cooling at all latitudes, and all levels of the atmosphere.
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA showed that temperatures were decreasing, as CO2 was increasing.
> 
> ...
> 
> There wasn’t any doubt that Earth was cooling, but this cooling was not wanted by Al Gore and Barack Obama – so their government agencies simply made the cooling disappear.


Related:

Satellite Temperatures Did Not Always Diverge From GISS



> Back in 2007, this was what the IPCC had to say about the correlation of surface and satellite temperatures:
> 
> _*Lower-tropospheric temperatures have slightly greater warming rates than those at the surface over the period 1958 to 2005.​*_
> ...
> 
> And this is almost exactly what we find when we check Woodfortrees.
> 
> ...
> 
> Indeed, the trends are identical at 0.16C/decade.
> 
> Now fast forward to today, and we find that since 2005, GISS has carried on increasing at 0.09C/decade, whilst RSS has not gone up at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> Some people would call it fraud.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Pages2K & "Ocean2K sediment proxies".

The Pages2K Goat-Rope



> Over at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre is doing his usual superb job deconstructing bad science.
> 
> ...
> 
> It shows the data in 200-year bins, centered in the middle of each bin, so the first bin is from 0-200 AD and the last bin is from 1800-2000 AD. I saw that graph and I said “Huh?” The change from 1700 to 1900 is not anywhere near 20 times as steep as the drop from the start of the study to the present, as Michael Evans claims. That is simply not true.
> 
> However, his statement is clear evidence that they are desperately looking to find a “hockeystick” shape, and are trying any method to find a way to present their results so that they appear to support their alarmist claims.
> 
> ...
> 
> In any case, I thought I’d take a bit of a different tack from that of the authors, and show their results by ocean, in the original units of degrees C.


Willis notes:



> *I cannot object in strong enough terms to professionals passing this nonsense off as science.*


M'bold.

From his summary:



> I’m sorry, but *their study is just scientific onanism.* There is no way that we can combine these 57 proxies, regardless of what technique we might use, and come out with a meaningful value for global ocean temperature changes.
> 
> But that’s just what they claim that they’ve done. They’re claiming that it’s simple, all they have to do take those crazy results from those six oceans, standardize them, take a weighted average based on the area of the ocean in question, and presto, they come up with the global ocean temperature history for the last 2,000 years …
> 
> *I say that’s dumb as a bag of ball bearings.*


M'bold.

Man, I wish Willis would get off that fence & form an opinion...


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark.

Californian climate mutiny! Democrats side with Republicans to defeat Jerry Brown



> Democrats in California seem to be finally waking up to the fact that green energy disproportionately hurts poor people.
> 
> ...
> 
> _The environmental lobby has tried to turn climate change into a social justice issue even though its anticarbon policies disproportionately harm the poor. Honest Democrats are starting to admit this, as we saw in this week’s stunning revolt in the California legislature.​_


Poor, poor Governor Moonbeam...


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting essay on the Green movement.

True Green



> Every evidence of greater comfort, cleaner society, better quality of life, reduced poverty is fully in view in capitalist society, yet the public actually pays money to listen to ignorant fools prattle on about the benefits of central control and the need to destroy the very industry they rely on. To these fools extreme poverty and human suffering so evident in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, on and on, can all be cured if we just imagine the good people in control. It’s like a war on air. We need air, but we feel it is bad so lets get rid of it!! From the idiot pope, the majority of media, to morons like Naomi, people are screaming for less production – so they can personally have more stuff and less poverty. *These people are literally that stupid. And there are a lot of them out there.*


M'bold.

Nails it...


----------



## FeXL

Another interesting read on cloud effects.

Strong evidence that Svensmark's solar-cosmic ray theory of climate is correct



> For the two hemispheres, there is thus a very good correlation between solar radiation and cloud cover. The reason that you can not see any correlation globally is likely that these variations are so much less that they drown out the noise of the large variations in the hemispheres.


Google translation so language may be a bit off.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Presidential Alaskan BS.

Alaska’s climate scientists tell us the rest of the news, what Obama forgot to mention



> Summary: Obama journeys to Alaska and says things. Our journalist-stenographers reprint this as news. They do not consult local experts, and so miss an important part of the story. This post gives you the rest of the news.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Too bad they never bothered consulting a geologist.

Mt. Baker glaciers disappearing? A response to the Seattle Times



> This was a multi-page story with numerous photographs and many predictions that glaciers in the North Cascade Mts. will be gone in 50 years. Having just finished a major analysis of Mt. Baker’s glaciers dating back thousands of years, I thought, what kind of nonsense is this? So I put together some of the data on Mt. Baker glaciers that will soon be published.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was. First article, _Model Validation_, a good read.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #196



> Probably the most persistent critic of the failure of the IPCC, and its supporters, the Climate Establishment, to validate a global climate model is Vincent Gray of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, who has been an expert reviewer of the scientific basis for all five IPCC Assessment Reports, from 1990 to 2013. In the process, he has submitted thousands of comments, and, according to reports, was influential having the IPCC change its terminology about the results of the global climate models, now calling the results “projections” rather “predictions.” Gray’s latest book and excerpts can be found in the links below.


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Is It Time To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?



> Short, medium, and long-term climate forecasts are wrong more than 50 percent of the time so that a correct one is a no better than a random event. Global and or regional forecasts are often equally incorrect. If there were a climate model that made even 60 percent accurate forecasts, everybody would use it. *Since there is no single accurate climate model forecast, the IPCC resorts to averaging out their model forecasts as if, somehow, the errors would cancel each other out and the average of forecasts would be representative.* Climate models and their forecasts have been *unmitigated failures* that would cause an automatic cessation in any other enterprise.


More:



> *Let’s stop pretending and wasting money and time. Remove that funding and nobody would spend private money to work on climate forecast models.*


All bold mine.

No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent, somewhat lengthy read on ocean "acidification".

Are the Oceans Becoming More Acidic?



> In summary, recent research publications are using a term (OA) [Ocean Acidification] that is technically incorrect, misleading, and pejorative; it could not be found in the oceanography literature before about 15 years ago.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the recent greening of deserts.

Sahel greening confirmed



> The predominance of increasing rain-use efficiency in our data supports earlier reports of a “greening” trend across the Sahel. However, there are strong regional differences in the extent and direction of change, and in the apparent role of changing woody and herbaceous components in driving those temporal trends.


----------



## FeXL

Is this why the BBC dropped them like 3 period French?

Does The Met Office Know What It Is Doing?


----------



## FeXL

So, they used a XX)

Once again, has the model output been verified? If not, then this is just so much GIGO, much like the warmists. That said, take from it what you will.

Long-term climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere linked to solar variations



> Are climate predictions over periods of several years reliable if weather forecast are still only possible for short periods of several days? Nevertheless there are options to predict the development of key parameters on such long time scales. A new study led by scientists at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel shows how the well-known 11-year cycle of solar activity affects the long-time development of dominant large-scale pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## FeXL

Part 2 of Jim Steele's essay on lessons from past climate change.

Antarctic Refrigerator Effect, Climate Sensitivity & Déformation professionnelle: Lessons from Past Climate Change – Part 2



> The Cretaceous Period (145 to 65 million years ago) was named for huge widespread chalk deposits that developed during that time period, especially in the Tethys Sea. Those chalk deposits were the result of sinking plankton that produced calcium carbonate shells like foraminifera and coccolithophorids, As discussed in Natural Cycles of Ocean Acidification, the creation of calcium carbonate shells pumps alkalinity to depth but produces CO2 at the surface thus adding to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. *More enlightening and contrary to catastrophic CO2 assertions that rising CO2 will decimate calcium carbonate shell producers, the greatest proliferation of calcium carbonate shell producers occurred during this period with the high temperatures and high concentrations of atmospheric CO2.* Quite likely, high CO2 concentrations did not produce detrimental acidification, and were the result of coccolithophorids and foraminifera pumping CO2 to the surface.


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

More Lew (toilet) paper. Oh, he signed up with a gooder this time...

Another Lew paper



> What is clear from this is that Lewandowsky and Oreskes don't understand the energy budget studies. As Nic Lewis has pointed out before, you would expect climate sensitivity estimates obtained this way to be _unaffected_ by the pause:
> 
> _In principle, the lack of warming over the last ten to fifteen years shouldn't really affect estimates of climate sensitivity, as a lower global surface temperature should be compensated for by more heat going into the ocean.​_
> What is truly remarkable is that Lewandowsky et al have managed to read all of the four publications they cite without noticing that this stability with respect to the period under consideration is prominently discussed in them. In fact in Otto et al it was pretty much the whole point of the paper. In other words, the papers cited by them say _*precisely the opposite*_ of what Lewandowky et al says they do. *Otto et al had one diagram in it, which showed that you get low climate sensitivity no matter what end period is chosen.* Indeed the ECS estimate based on a 2000s end period is higher than the one based on a 1990s end period.


M'bold.

You'd think after getting publicly humiliated & repeatedly scientifically debunked, he's just go hide under a rock somewhere.


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anyone who has been paying attention, but California has been subject to far greater droughts in the past (both longer & drier) that the current one.

California’s History of Mega Droughts



> Their data shows just how much higher the tree line was in the Middle Ages, and before, and therefore how much higher temperatures were.
> 
> The reality is that California has been hotter and drier for much of its recent history.


Yep...

Further:

In 1994 The NYT Knew The Real Truth About Californian Droughts



> There was a time when you could get proper journalism from the New York Times.
> 
> ...
> 
> Apart from the history of mega droughts, with which we are familiar, perhaps *the most significant point raised is that the last century and a half has been the third wettest period in the last three millenniums.
> *
> California clearly needs to recognise this reality and forget about blaming everything on CO2.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So much for the "Canary in the Coal Mine".

Peter Wadhams was wrong – Arctic sea ice still there, no record low this year



> Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year, even Gavin said it was ridiculous...
> 
> Clearly he’s been proven wrong


Related:

DMI Show Greenland Was Warmer in 1930’s



> Apart from the anomalously high temperatures in 2010, it is self evident that *since 2000 temperatures across the board have been at a similar level to those in the 1930’s and 40’s.* Not only that, since 2010 temperatures have been dropping away from those seen around a decade or so ago.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

(with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek...)

How to Stop Mass Starvation from Global Warming



> Pictures of this starving polar bear have been circulating throughout the worlds’ most trustworthy media outlets, providing undeniable proof that global warming is not just some theory conjured by soul‑less models that predict devastation a hundred years into the future. Global warming is here and now and this widespread starvation of animals across the globe is exactly what climate models and 97% of the scientists predicted.


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature record "adjustments" down under.

Scandal Part 3: Bureau of Meteorology homogenized-the-heck out of rural sites too



> The Australian Bureau of Meteorology have been struck by the most incredible bad luck. The fickle thermometers of Australia have been ruining climate records for 150 years, and the BOM have done a masterful job of recreating our “correct” climate trends, despite the data.


Thank goodness...


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes. The _Grunion_...

Climate Science – The Most Dishonest Profession Of All



> The Guardian has announced that the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet _“has already begun.”_
> 
> ...
> 
> Forty years ago, scientists announced the same thing.
> 
> ...
> 
> And in 1932, scientists told us that the WAIS had been receding three feet per day since the early 19th century.


----------



## FeXL

Of course it didn't.

The latest head in the sand excuse from climate science: the global warming pause ‘never happened’

From the comments:



> Translation: “The models can’t be wrong! Change the data!”


Ed Zachary...


----------



## FeXL

On XX)

How reliable are the climate models?



> *When you get a discrepancy between a model and reality, you obviously can’t change the model’s known factors – they are what they are known to be. If you want to fiddle the model to match reality then you have to fiddle the unknowns. If your model started off a long way from reality then inevitably the end result is that a large part of your model’s findings come from unknowns, ie, from factors that are not understood. To put it simply, you are guessing, and therefore your model is unreliable.*


M'bold.

Bingo!

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, now that the warmists have not been able to produce any empirical evidence to support their hypothesis, they want to stifle dissent by taking sceptics to court.

Proof-positive that AGW is not science… “World court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, says Philippe Sands…”

He sums:



> *If this <censored> thinks that the World Court or any other court is remotely qualified to “settle the scientific dispute,” he is a total fracking moron advocating a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the trial of Galileo.*


However, some are not happy simply going to World Court. Some want to try RICO.

Climate Alarmists demand Obama use the RICO act to Silence Critics



> It never fails to amaze me how climate alarmists regularly accuse skeptics of being unhinged conspiracy theorists, while at the same time the alarmists themselves regularly advance lunatic conspiracy theories, to “explain” why a lot of people refuse to accept their doomsday predictions on faith, despite the complete and utter failure of alarmist climate models to demonstrate predictive skill.


Climate Science Turned Monster



> Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money.


Failed Climate Scientists Call For RICO Investigation To Stop Criticisms, And Non-Scientist Claims Scientists Will Cause Next Genocide

From the comments:



> The letter was written by Jagadish Shukla, a climate modeler at George Mason University. *His GMU CV lists ~16 million in federal funds in five years, If we back those years (2004-08) out and go forward, he’s probably good for about 100m (that’s1/10 of a billion) in 2006 dollars over his career.* But wait, there’s more!
> 
> The letter did not come from GMU. It came from his consulting company, the Institute of Global Environment and Society [sic]. There, you will see that his wife and (apparently) his daughter are the administrators, no doubt for a princessly sum, because most CV’s don’t list your outside consulting contracts. But wait, you can get eight for one!
> 
> That’s because the largest number of people who signed this miscarriage work for him, at the same company, or at GMU, where probably a load of his consulting stuff is funneled through.


No conflict of interest there. Nope...

Here, either:

Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

And, further from the Week That Was (first article):

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #197



> This action is a clear display of the illogical thinking by some of those in the largely, publically-financed Climate Establishment whose vanity exceeds the rigor of their work. *Rather than producing compelling physical evidence that human emissions of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming, they will compel others to publically think as they do by legal action.* In effect, they are undermining their own position and their action illustrates that simply because some people trained as scientists believe X that does not make belief in X scientific.


All bold mine.

Bring it. I'd love to see what kind of documents discovery would bring to light. Then, after their case gets thrown out of court, sue their a$$es off...


----------



## FeXL

On a recent study that allegedly connects NAO cycles to solar activity. Oh, XX)

NAO and Then



> From their figure, it is immediately apparent that they are NOT looking at the real world. They are not talking about the Earth. They are not discussing the actual North Atlantic Oscillation Index nor the actual f10.7 index. Instead, their figures are for ModelEarth exclusively. As the authors state but do not over-emphasize, neither the inputs (“F10.7”) to the computer model nor the outputs of the computer model (“Filtered NAOI”) are real—they are figments of either the modelers’ or the model’s imaginations, understandings, and misapprehensions …


----------



## FeXL

When even the left is responding like this, you know the warmists have crossed a line...

NPR radio station WYPR gets an earful on climate change from an educated listener



> Anyone who has gained a position of authority on the topic of “global warming” within an organization of your type should know very well the history of the four major recent solar minima periods (from 1550 onwards), during which periods global temperatures definitely declined, often with catastrophic consequence, for extended years. There are other significant minima going backwards that are also relevant to this discussion, and surely we all know that if we go back far enough we will emerge on the far end of our current interglacial period and begin to ponder, little more than 12,000 years ago, a world with two miles of ice on top of what is today Manhattan. *So let’s be clear. We had nothing to do with the fact that there’s no ice on top of Manhattan in 2015.*


M'bold.

His summary begins:



> NPR listeners deserve a less emotional, less alarmist, and more scientifically nuanced discussion of the relationship between climate and human activity, one that starts from acknowledging the existence of very great and still poorly understood patterns of natural variation as well as admitting that numerous unresolved questions of scientific merit are raised by the dependence of “climate science” on assumption, unknown variables, and sometimes highly dubious methodologies.


Nicely put.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent summary.

Climate Insanity on steroids!



> The agenda being driven by President Obama, Pope Francis, the UN and Climate Crisis, Inc. means our huddled masses will be forced to share ever-greater scarcity, ever-lower living standards, ever-fewer jobs and opportunities. But of course it all will be apportioned “fairly and equitably” – by ruling elites and their cronies, whose desk jobs, six-figure salaries and upper crust life styles will be protected by the same executive powers they employ to protect the planet from climate raptors and hobgoblins.


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre elaborates on "Ocean2K".

The “Blade” of Ocean2K



> The Ocean2K data consisted of 57 series of wildly differing resolution: nine series had fewer than 20 values, while twelve series had more than 100 values. In geophysics, specialists always use high-resolution data where available and use low-resolution data only where better data is unavailable. *In contrast, in their main figures, the Ocean2K authors degraded all their data into 200-year bins and made composites of the data only after blurring.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

A comment from WUWT that has been raised to article status on The Hockey Schtick.

Why 'greenhouse gases' don't 'trap heat' in the atmosphere 



> Optical and electronic engineer KevinK, a frequent contributor to the Hockey Schtick, posted an excellent comment a couple days ago on the WUWT post How Reliable are the Climate Models, and with which I fully agree, and have elevated to a post here.
> 
> KevinK elegantly explains why the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect essential to the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is fictional, and confuses the actual cause (the 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al) with the effect (IR absorption and emission from IR-active 'greenhouse gases').


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the warmist's hope for RICO.

Climate Scientists give up on science, talk tobacco, want to jail skeptics



> Poor climate scientists know they can’t win the science debate against the engineers, geologists, chemists and physicists who are better scientists, better informed, mostly unfunded and unleashed all over the Internet.
> 
> To avoid coughing up the “overwhelming evidence” the climate experts say they have, but can’t seem to find, they are pulling out the Panzers, resorting to pleas for RICO investigations. Treat the skeptical scientists like Racketeers, they say!


As I noted above, bring it...


----------



## FeXL

Three articles on temperature fraud & two on sea level fraud, all served up with a bit of snark.

NOAA Temperature Fraud – Much Worse Than It Seems



> The fraudsters at NOAA have created a completely fake hockey stick of land warming over the last twenty years. It never happened.
> 
> ...
> 
> Much more accurate satellite data shows that this warming never happened, and that the recent “record” temperatures are completely fraudulent.


NOAA Takes Temperature Fraud To An Entirely New Level In August



> The criminals at NOAA have outdone themselves with their August temperature fraud, showing record heat over the land surface – by a wide margin.
> 
> ...
> 
> Satellite data shows that August was about average for the last 20 years, and nowhere near a record.


The Left Half Of NASA’s Temperature Fraud



> Half of NASA temperature fraud is manufactured by cooling the past. In 1981, Hansen showed a little over 0.3C surface warming from 1880 to 1980
> 
> ...
> 
> Now they show almost a full degree warming from 1880 to 1980.
> 
> ...
> 
> Gavin’s team accomplished this spectacular fraud by cooling the past. The graph below overlays the two images above, normalized to the five year mean of the most recent common years.


And, on sea level.

Visualizing NASA’s Spectacular Sea Level Fraud



> In 1983, NASA’s James Hansen showed 9 cm (3.5 inches) of sea level rise from 1880 to 1980, or 0.9 mm/year.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA now shows twice that much sea level rise from 1880 to 1980 – 1.8 mm/year
> 
> ...
> 
> But it is much worse than it seems. NASA now ignores tide gauge data because it shows sea level rise slowing since the 1950’s, and instead uses massively tampered satellite data to claim a sea level rise rate of 3.22 mm/year.


And, doubling down (up?) en route to Paris.

Doubling up the sea level scare for Paris using the old ‘one-two punch’ line

From the comments, one of my favorite commenters, Dr. Robert Brown at Duke:



> What a timely post! *We are now what, two and a half weeks away from it being ten years since the last major hurricane (category 3 or higher) made landfall on the continental US?* Six weeks away from extending the current all time record by at least another 9 months (as this year’s hurricane season ends) if we don’t have a major hurricane in what has so far been an entirely lackluster season with high shear over the Atlantic almost all of the time? How far are we away from doubling the previous record?
> 
> *Seems like the perfect time to catastrophize and warn people that major hurricanes are due to global warming.* That way, when one sooner or later actually does make landfall in the US again (as one no doubt will) it will be super-easy to blame it on AGW and rising sea level that, sadly, is happening so very, very slowly that it is almost impossible to see at the actual coast, we have to be told that it is happening or nobody would notice it.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Met Office.

GWPF Responds To Met Office’s Latest Missive



> David Whitehouse weighs in on the Met Office’s latest “We don’t know what’s going to happen, but we’re all going to die anyway” press release


----------



## FeXL

Good, somewhat lengthy, update on the naturally occurring ENSO.

September 2015 ENSO Update – Sea Surface Temperatures Continue to Rise in the Central Equatorial Pacific



> This post provides an update of many of the ENSO-related variables we presented as part of last year’s 2014-15 El Niño Series. The reference years for comparison graphs in this post are 1997 and 2014, which are the development years of the strongest recent El Niño and the last El Niño. I have not included animations in this post. In their place, I’ve compared present-day maps from the NOAA GODAS website to the same time in 2014. Note that I’ve also added an 2015-16 El Niño Series category at my blog for those who want to refer to the earlier ENSO updates from this year.


----------



## FeXL

Really looking forward to future articles on this.

David Evans (Jo Nova's spousal unit) has done some climate modelling on his own, I made a few posts on his Notch Filter last year. He has been working on other issues & plans to release info on them over the course of a few blog posts in the near future. The first one gives a summary of some of the issues.

New Science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research. Back to the new-old way of doing science



> For those of you who are die-hard puzzle solvers here to spar about cutting edge research: good news, here’s where we begin the long awaited update to Dr David Evans’ climate research. There are a few surprises, sacred cows, we did not expect we would need to challenge, like the idea of “forcings”.
> 
> ...
> 
> For the first time we are going to explain the architecture of the inner core of the climate models, the small model at the center that the big GCM’s are built around. It is mostly a physics model, and it’s mostly “basic” and mostly right. It’s the reason for the implacable confidence of the establishment in the climate debate. But there are a couple of big problems… and we’ll get to them. Mathematical analysis found the problem but once we explain it, it will seem obvious even without any maths. There will be a moment when people will say “Wow, they really did _that_?”
> 
> Evans takes his experience as a heavyweight expert modeler, Fourier maths PhD, and goes down through the basics, the key papers, to expose this flaw in climate model architecture. *It will turn this debate upside down.* There are now some things I used to say that I need to say differently. Some points we used to concede, that we now question.


M'bold.

Prospects sound very interesting.


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## FeXL

NCAR’s Long History Of Climate Scamming



> In 1976, NCAR director Steven Schneider was warning of disastrous global cooling, and reported his frustration that Nixon didn’t believe him.
> 
> ...
> 
> When Schneider realized that the global cooling scam wasn’t paying off, he switched to the global warming scam. In 1979 he predicted 15-25 feet of sea level rise by the year 2000.
> 
> ,,,
> 
> Kevin Trenberth is simply carrying on a long tradition of creating science fiction at NCAR, used to keep blackmailing politicians in Washington DC.


Related:

Building The Hockey Stick Ahead Of Paris



> In 2001, NASA showed little if any global warming from 1991 to 2001.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now they show a hockey stick of warming during that same period.
> 
> ...
> 
> The planet has not warmed for almost 20 years, so NASA and NOAA are simply making up fake data to keep the president’s fraudulent “climate legacy” on track ahead of Paris.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "Not A Conflict of Interest. Seriously..." thing.

Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’



> It turns out that Shukla, also a Lead Author with the IPCC in 2007, is President and Chief Executive of the Institute of Global Environment and Society Inc . Its mission is to provide society with weather and climate information, and it has been set up as an organisation exempt from income tax, according to the returns filed.
> 
> *The Accounts show that in 2013 the Institute received $3.8 million from government grants. Over the last four years, government funding has amounted to more then $16 million.* As the Institute has been trading since 1991, this figure is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Hilarious claim: “we know when global (cough, cough) warming first appeared in the temperature record, er, models”

First laugh:



> From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, *it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”*


M'bold.

Second laugh:



> Here is the abstract, yes that’s right, the title says *the entire thing is a simulation,*
> 
> (paper title) The timing of anthropogenic emergence in _simulated_ climate extremes


Bold from the link, italics mine.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Some see this as progress. I disagree, for the comment I'll quote below.

The Associated Press drops the ugly climate term “denier” in their AP stylebook



> The AP Stylebook editors today informed AP staff about a change to the entry on global warming. In addition, they described what goes into keeping the Stylebook up-to-date, including their outreach to experts.
> 
> ...
> 
> *To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.*


Bold from the link.

From the comments:



> I am not doubting or in the least bit skeptical that the climate system of the Earth changes.
> *I think this terminology is itself misdirection and I reject it outright*.
> Climate change doubter sounds like someone who thinks the climate cannot, has not, or will not change.
> I do not even doubt that there has been warming.
> It is the reasons, the degree, and the danger that are in doubt, IMO.


M'bold.

Bingo...


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that...

Strange New Climate Change Spin: The Hottest Year Ever Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?



> There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.
> 
> Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.
> 
> Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.


Yep. Can't be wrong if you argue for both sides of the discussion, something warmists have been doing for years...


----------



## FeXL

So, David Evans' explanation starts. Technical, lots of math. However, readable without getting lost in the formulae.

New Science 2: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — the engine of “certain” warming



> This post is for the independent thinkers, *the brains that want to know exactly where the famous, core, 1.2 °C figure comes from.* That’s the number of degrees that a doubling of CO2 would bring, and it’s a figure that underlies decades of research and the figure that the big models are built around. Here, as far as we know, is the simplest, accurate reference to that reasoning and their maths. We have always assumed the 1.2 °C figure is correct, and focused on questioning the feedbacks that are assumed to drive that base figure up to 3°C (or 6°C or molten-Venus-here-we-come!)


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate", sceptic style.

UK Weather Trends



> For years we have been told, by such eminent organisations such as the UKMO that the Earth is warming due to man-made emission of CO2. We are also told the frequency and strength of storms is increasing because of man-made climate change. We will experience more flooding and more droughts, but I guess these will not occur at the same time!
> 
> The UK government has been duly informed by scientists from the UKMO that we are experiencing AGW on a dangerous scale due to emissions of man made CO2 produced by industrialisation. In 2008 the UK government introduced a bill in parliament called the Clime Change Act which limited emission of CO2 in-line with EU recommendations to prevent dangerous climate change. The EU says the UK has to cut it’s CO2 emissions by 80%.


Go to the link, click on any of the 8 graphs on weather related phenomena & look at the trend lines to see the *massive* changes over the last 18 years that all this global warming has brought us...


----------



## FeXL

Nice explanation of the effect of high concentrations of CO2 on Venus vs low concentration on Earth.

The Extreme Stupidity Of The Scientific Consensus



> Nearly every academic in the country believes that Venus is hot because of the large amount of CO2 in their atmosphere, which they say is “trapping the Sun’s heat.”
> 
> ...
> 
> It is trivial to demonstrate that this theory is mindless nonsense.


He talks about "lapse rate" which can be defined as the rate at which temperature decreases in relation to an increase in altitude.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the horror.

Rent-seekers reveal awful truth: Abbott wanted to investigate BOM data, Hunt opposed “due diligence”



> In response to the embarrassment and revealing questions, Tony Abbott wanted an investigation. But Greg Hunt, and The Dept of Environment opposed the investigation and opposed doing “due diligence”. What are they afraid of? Instead, Hunt helped the BOM set up a one-day-wonder investigation with hand-picked statisticians that wasted another nine months before *admitting that the BOM methods would never be publicly available or able to be replicated.*


Jo notes:



> _If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science._


Italics from the link.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the RICO20.

Shukla’s Gold



> Roger Pielke Jr recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the #RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled “non-profit” (Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.
> 
> Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.*


M'bold.

Stunning.

Judith chimes in:

My Fox News op-ed on RICO



> A new low in science: criminalizing climate skeptics.


But wait!!!

Suddenly, in light of all this notoriety:

RICO letter disappears



> Steve Milloy notes that the letter by Shukla et al calling for sceptics to be had up on racketeering charges has suddenly disappeared from the website where it was hosted.
> 
> ...
> 
> *You can imagine the horror on the signatories' faces when they realised that some very determined people were about to take a close interest in their financial arrangements and those of their colleagues at IGES.*


M'bold.

Yep. I jes' luvs it when some of these idiots shoot themselves in the foot. Cat's outta the bag now, kids...


----------



## FeXL

OK, the next 4 instalments from David Evans.

In 3 he discusses the architecture of basic climate models.

New Science 3: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — In Full

4 brings to light the first major issue: some of the math used in the models.

New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives

5 talks about major issue 2, eliminating all feedbacks that are not temperature related.

New Science 5: Error 2: Model architecture means all feedbacks work through the surface temperature?

6 talks about the 4 major ways energy leaves the earth's atmosphere.

New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works and “four pipes” to space

Excellent reads, all.


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature "adjustments" & "estimates".

Camouflage illusions in the matrix: same mysterious temperature, same day, year after year



> Wait til you see what Lance Pidgeon has found...April 14th in 1915 and one year later in 1916 looked almost identical, as did the same day in 1917. The more he looked, the weirder things got. He plodded, year after year, all the way from 1911 to 1917, then through Jan, Feb, March, and so on. Worse, he tells me he could keep going right through to 1956 without seeing much change (though there are interesting exceptions).


Curious, that.

Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values



> As the debate over whether or not this year will be the hottest year ever burns on, it is worth revisiting a large part of the data used to make this determination: GHCN v3.


Winners and losers in the GHCN estimation derby



> As noted in an earlier post here, approximately 66% of the GHCN record is estimated after processing by the GHCN adjustment models. In the current GHCN data set, there are 226 unique country codes represented. Following are the top and bottom stewards of temperature data, by country, based on the frequency that the GHCN adjustment models replace their raw data with an estimated value.


Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values



> An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.


NOAA’s Fake SST’s Not Supported By Atmospheric Data



> Between 1979 and 1997, sea surface temperatures, SST’s, increased at a rate of 0.08C/decade, according to NOAA. This was almost exactly the same rate at which the lower atmosphere above the ocean warmed, using UAH data.
> 
> This, of course, is exactly what should be expected.
> 
> ...
> 
> However, since 1997 we find a totally different scenario.
> 
> *While NOAA say that SST’s have continued increasing, atmospheric temperatures have been falling.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Crisis? What crisis...

Another Climate Prediction Fizzles: DC Climate Rally for Pope shrinks from expected 200,000 people to just ‘hundreds’



> ‘On Thursday morning — as Pope Francis prepared to make history by addressing Congress — hundreds of activists gathered on the National Mall.


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate & win: test the models!



> Summary; Public policy about climate change has become politicized and gridlocked after 26 years of large-scale advocacy. We cannot even prepare for a repeat of past extreme weather. We can whine and bicker about who to blame. Or we can find ways to restart the debate. Here is the next of a series about the latter path, for anyone interested in walking it. Climate scientists can take an easy and potentially powerful step to build public confidence: re-run the climate models from the first 3 IPCC reports with actual data (from their future): how well did they predict global temperatures?


And another prediction:

New computer model says human emissions can ‘render Earth ice free’



> From the “department of global roasting” and the UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, where great ideas like this one are formed at Halloween parties, (yes really, see PR) comes this claim:
> 
> *UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting*


Bold from the link.

So, let's see if I can get this right...

7000ppm during the Paleozoic couldn't stop an ice age from occurring but human emissions, which currently stand at 0.0016% of the atmosphere, are going to melt the icecaps. 

Sure. Pull the other one...


----------



## FeXL

So, how's that "consensus" coming?

Another attempt at Cooking settling consensus on climate change

First:



> A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from non-climate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels...


Well, duh. I'm surprised that figure isn't closer to 100%. We were pulling out of the Little Ice Age at that time. I don't know a single sceptic that would argue the point.

Next:



> and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.


Ah, the crux of the matter, the "rub". Define significant. 1%? 10%? 25%? 50% More? Unfortunately, the article doesn't broach this subject but it does provide some interesting data on who believes what.


----------



## FeXL

Ha!

Climate Change Has Saved Countless Billions Of Dollars



> The US hasn’t been hit by a major (winds higher than 120 MPH) hurricane for nine years and eleven months, and the US has never been hit by a major hurricane during autumn of an El Nino year. So it appears that we are headed for close to eleven years without a major hurricane. This blows way all previous records.
> 
> *Carbon polluters should be given huge tax credits for the negative social cost of carbon.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

This is hilarious, from at least a couple different angles.

Obama Agrees To Let China CO2 Emissions Grow For 15 More Years



> President Obama has agreed to let Chinese CO2 emissions continue to grow for the next 15 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> *In other words, Chinese CO2 emissions will continue to grow for the next 15 years, until they have reached their natural peak.*


M'bold.

First, the bold. Ed Zachery. And this while he expects the Western world to toe the line.

Second, the unbolded. Like Obama has any real say what the Chinese do...


----------



## FeXL

Just like the good old days...

1907 : It Is Up To Bloggers To Call Out Climate Criminals Like NASA And NOAA



> The "Independent Press" as the "Voice of the People" should be not only "Vox Populi" but "Vox Dei", repressing all cheats and hoaxes, defending the truth and the best interests of the whole nation as against the self-interest of a few.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mikey.

More facts against the Mann – ‘late 20th century warming has not been unique within…the past 750 years ‘



> [A] recent paper suggests tree ring proxies (which underpin Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph that largely kicked off the global warming scare) have underestimated past temperatures, which creates the misimpression that current warming is unique.


I still don't believe that treemometers are an acceptable proxy for temperature. Simply put, far too many variables.


----------



## FeXL

Willis finds support for his hypothesis that "the climate is not a simple function of the forcing, but instead is regulated such that it varies only a very small amount (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century)."

In The Land of El Nino

Interesting read. Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

No surprise to anyone who paid attention to the UN survey of issues important to mankind in which climate rated dead last.

Google forecasts no interest in Paris COP21



> Forbes reports that, according to Google search statistics, the world’s media climate blitz has failed to date to spark any interest in global warming.


Related:

The Need To Revisit The Climategate Revelations To Counter Mainstream Media Failure And The Paris Climate Conference Plans



> These quotes are not normal discourse between academics or the goal of scientific research and publication by any stretch of the imagination. Any of the quotes is sufficient to trigger further investigative journalism. *It certainly is enough to show their work that underpinned the major findings of the IPCC is totally inadequate for the policy recommendations made at the time and now being pushed forward in Paris.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Another week that was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #198

Good article is the _Longhurst Review_, a review of TIPCC™ from 2012-2015.

Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty...


----------



## FeXL

B-b-b-but, BIG OIL!!! Koch Brothers!!!

UK Energy Minister gives £5.8 billion of funding to UN to make everyone richer, may stem migration too



> A few weeks ago UK Minister Amber Rudd cut subsidies to solar in the UK. I thought the UK government might be showing some signs of making sense, but now it appears Rudd was saving up for a UN gift:
> 
> _*The UK is increasing the money for climate activities in the development pot by at least 50%, to a further £5.8 billion of funding from April 2016 to March 2021, including at least £1.76bn in 2020.*​_


M'bold.

Stunning...


----------



## FeXL

Fallout from Australian "adjustments".

Ideology adds heat to the debate on climate change — Jennifer Marohasy



> It used to be that public trust occurred when organizations were fully investigated, accountable, and found clean. Now “Public Trust” is apparently increased when there are no investigations, or only weak whitewashes. *Either the public has got a lot stupider, or the media and ministers have.*


M'bold.

I know where I'd place my money...

More:



> _According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the Bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt. He apparently argued in Cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount. That it is important the public have trust in the Bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public know to heed warning of bushfires and cyclones.
> 
> This is the type of plea repeatedly made by the Catholic Church hierarchy to prevent the truth about paedophilia, lest the congregation lose faith in the church.​_


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "Canary in the Coal Mine".

Arctic sea ice still too thick for regular shipping route through Northwest Passage



> Despite climate change, sea ice in the (NWP) remains too thick and treacherous for it to be a regular commercial Arctic shipping route for many decades, according to new research out of York University.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the RICO20 letter.

The ‘RICO 20 letter’ to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla’s IGES website amid financial concerns



> Uh, oh…It’s about to become more about the people behind the letter, than the letter itself.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Now all we need is a steamy potboiler novel and some internal investigations and it could be Rajenda Pachauri all over again.*


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## FeXL

Further on fallout from the RICO20 letter.

Oh, the schadenfreude is strong with this one...

For a quick summary:

Scientist calling for RICO investigation on skeptics is now being investigated himself

For more in depth coverage:

Backfire on the #RICO20 and Jagadish Shukla is imminent; wagon circling, climbdown, dissolution begins

#RICO20 $4 million NSF grant while Shukla’s organization is being “dissolved” ?

Uh, oh. Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 has captured the attention of Congress, and FOIA documents are coming out

Jagdish Shukla’s #RICO20 blunder may have opened the ‘largest science scandal in US history’

Sweet, sweet, sweet...


----------



## FeXL

Two more instalments from David Evans.

New Science 7: Rerouting Feedback in Climate Models

This post talks about the possibility of another feedback route.

New Science 8: Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth

Discussion of the S-B equation & how it relates to earth, which is not a true "black-body".


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

At NOAA And NASA, Error Bars Mean Nothing



> The map below shows all of NOAA’s [hurricane] Joaquin forecast tracks since September 30 at 11:32 PM. It also shows their “Forecast Uncertainty” from September 30 in turquoise.
> 
> ...
> 
> Their current forecast is thousands of kilometers outside of their September 30 “uncertainty” – indicating that they actually have no idea how accurate their forecasts are and are simply making certainty numbers up.
> 
> With Hurricane Irene, they forecast landfall at every Eastern Seaboard state at one time or other, and then declared victory when one of their forecasts came true. They bet on every horse in the race.


----------



## SINC

I'll bet this one gets a few folks riled up!

*Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial’*



> A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change.
> 
> We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage.


Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial' - Telegraph


----------



## FeXL

This should make some heads explode...

Greenpeace founder delivers powerful annual lecture, praises carbon dioxide – full text



> But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the RICO 20.

Are Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 Guilty of Racketeering?



> What boggles the mind is not that 20 climate scientists would attempt to stifle debate, drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, and punish those who do not worship at the altar of “consensus.” There’s no shortage of “progressive” intolerance in these times. Using RICO to silence opponents is fairly tame compared to environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s demand that fossil-fuel executives be tried for treason (the usual punishment for which is death).
> 
> *What’s noteworthy about the RICO 20 is the scientists’ lack of self-awareness—their inability to judge themselves by criteria they invoke to condemn others. They have no clue how easily they can be hoist on their own petard.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, France's lead weatherman has been asked to take a holiday because of a book he had published criticizing climate alarmism.

Nice.

Petition for Climate Skeptic Philippe Verdier to be reinstated in his job at France Télévisions



> So far, all the TV network has done is unleash the Striesand Effect, heaping negative attention upon their decision, which is being seen as prohibiting free speech.


More links inside detailing the issue.


----------



## FeXL

The next few instalments from David Evans. Titles self-explanatory.

New Science 9: Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same — The Ground is not the sky!

New Science 10: Whatever controls clouds controls the climate

New Science 11: An Alternative Modeling Strategy

New Science 12: How do we model the thermal inertia of the Earth?

New Science 13: The Start of a New Architecture for Climate Models

New Science 14: Greenhouse Emission Layers — which pipe is the biggest?

Good reads, all.


----------



## FeXL

Further on methane.

Methane BS From Kevin Trenberth



> The radiative transfer model used by Trenberth’s NCAR is RRTM. That model shows that even a 500% increase in methane (CH4) would have almost no impact on Earth’s radiative balance in the mid-latitudes, where almost all of the world’s population lives.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Methane is an unstable gas which oxides quickly in the atmosphere. It occupies less than two parts per million of the atmosphere, and its absorption bands almost completely overlap with H2O .* Even a very large increase in CH4 would have almost no impact on the climate.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Despite the fact that there is zero correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & El Niño, a certain computer salesman from Mississauga will be wetting himself over this one...

NASA: current El Niño ‘appears likely to equal the event of 1997-98’



> This year’s El Niño is already strong and appears likely to equal the event of 1997-98, the strongest El Niño on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.


----------



## FeXL

So, the Lomborg Centre down under is in the news again.

Turnbull axes Lomborg Centre. No one who questions the holy power of Wind and Solar allowed in Australian academia.



> The Turnbull government has announced that that the offer of funding has now been withdrawn for the The Lomborg Consensus Centre in Australia. The bullies, and emotional hysterics win this round. At UWA he was called “dangerous”. At Flinders Uni people were “repulsed” by Lomborg . But the irrational emotional language means the fear of the freeloaders is on display. They are very very scared of critical press releases from any credible sources. No one who questions the holy power of the Wind and Solar Gods can be employed in Australian academia. Can wind-farms stop the storms? Thou shalt not ask!
> 
> *We’ll spend $10 billion on “Clean Energy” but not even $4 million to analyze whether that money was well spent. Did it change the global climate? Anyone?*


Bold from the link.


----------



## Bobby Clobber

We did it again: Last month was the hottest September on record in the history of planet Earth | National Post


----------



## Macfury

You are aware, are you not, Bobby that NOAA has completely thrown out its old measurement system in order to create warmer months? Using the more accurate system they used a few months ago, temperatures remain flat.

It's heady stuff, but read up:

Thanks partly to NOAA’s new adjusted dataset, tommorrow they’ll claim to reporters that May (and possibly June) was the ‘hottest ever’ | Watts Up With That?

The reporting in that article is appalling: "Last month was the hottest September on record in the history of planet Earth." By any stretch of the imagination that's not true in "Earth's history"--or even in the past century.



Bobby Clobber said:


> We did it again: Last month was the hottest September on record in the history of planet Earth | National Post


----------



## FeXL

First off, Bobby Clobber, I'm sure you have a point but exactly what is it? Comments supporting or detracting from the link are welcome here.

Second off, the headline is pure, unmitigated bull$h!t. One only need look at the temperature record for the last 10,000 years to disprove the statement, let alone to the Cretaceous or many other periods in the earth's history when the average temperature was as much as 10 degrees higher than today.

Third, using NOAA, NASA & JMA data as an accurate gauge of the planet's temperature is like giving young boys the keys to the car & a bottle of whiskey. If you like, I have provided a link to the only accurate temperature record here. Even a brief visual perusal over the data shows larger anomalies than last month.

Fourth, the article itself disputes the headline wherein it is noted: "NASA rated it as the second-hottest September, after 2014."

Fifth, are you attempting to draw a connection between El Niño, global temperatures & atmospheric CO2 levels? After all, this is the *GHG* thread. If so, empirical supporting evidence is required. Note: Model output is *NOT* empirical evidence.


----------



## SINC

Oh my, this is gonna leave a mark:

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam


----------



## FeXL

Further on XX)

Jennifer Marohasy tells it like it is



> _ At the meeting, I explained how Rutherglen is one of 104 weather stations used to construct the contrived official temperature trend for Australia, and that every single temperature time series was adjusted. In general, like at Rutherglen, the adjustments have the effect of cooling the past and thus making the present appear relatively hotter.
> 
> I mentioned that it was a travesty that Minister Greg Hunt had prevented a proper inquiry into the Bureau last year, and suggested that the senators and members in the room needed to ‘wake-up’ and do something. Public policy, I suggested, needed to be based on real data/real evidence, not contrived temperature series.
> 
> *After my presentation, Professor Howden began with slides indicating that because of climate change there had been a decline in crop yields. He was interrupted by one of the MPs who asked whether the charts on display represented actual real historical data, or output from a computer model. The Professor acknowledged that he was showing computer output.
> 
> At that point, I really wanted to applaud when several of the MPs promptly got up and walked out.*_


M'bold.

Why can't we have politicians like that in this country...


----------



## FeXL

I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions but the methodology is interesting.

Is The Climate Chaotic?



> After I’d published my previous post on the Hurst Exponent entitled A Way To Calculate Effective N, I got an email from Dan Hughes which contained a most interesting idea. He thought that it would be productive to compare the Hurst analysis of the records of weather phenomena such as temperatures and the like, with the Hurst analysis of the corresponding climate model outputs. He proposed that we take a look at the question and discuss and share our findings. Hey, what’s not to like?
> 
> Along the way, as such things happen, the topic of our discussion and investigation turned to a larger and more interesting question—*`which of the various natural datasets (temperatures, rainfall, eruptions, pressures, etc) and/or the corresponding global climate model outputs are chaotic?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, further examples of NOAA data manipulation, including that "Hottest Septembah Evah!!!" thing, plus Nat'l Geo.

NOAA Blows Away Their Fraud Record By A Wide Margin In September



> Lots of headlines today that September was the hottest ever – by a wide margin. The level of fraud which NOAA had to use to obtain this result (ahead of Paris) is quite stunning.


More Imagery Of The Spectacular Fraud At NOAA



> In January, NOAA had a very inconvenient problem. Temperatures hadn’t risen for 20 years, which wrecked their global warming story.
> 
> ...
> 
> So they resolved that problem by simply altering the data to make the 20 year hiatus disappear.


National Geographic Goes Full Fraud Ahead Of Paris



> How much fraud can National Geographic pack into one image?
> 
> 1. The image shows steam. They animated and colored it on their web site to make it look like fire.
> 2. The record heat claim is the result of data tampering by NOAA.
> 3. Ice has been melting for 20,000 years. It has nothing to do with CO2.
> 4. Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. It has nothing to do with CO2.
> 5. Nothing National Geographic or anyone else does will either heat or cool the planet significantly.
> 
> Every single claim they are making is fraudulent.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's some Fruit Loops & Whackos making some interesting claims about Exxon withholding data on climate science.

Exxon hits back on ridiculous RICO allegations: ‘When it comes to climate change, read the documents’



> McKibben [Yes, that one...], for instance, wrote, “Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.”
> 
> But if you read the documents, it will become clear the opposite is true.


What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)



> These folks are so desperate to create a tobacco company analogy that they really must thin[k] that the ends do justify the means.
> 
> After a cursory review of “the Pulitzer Prize–winning website Inside Climate News” and part one of their “bombshell conclusion,” I can safely conclude that Exxon didn’t know anything that wasn’t already known, published and available to the public.


----------



## FeXL

Analysis of south polar temps.

Polar Puzzle (Now Includes August Data)



> As can be seen in the above graphs, the south polar region has been cooling for the whole satellite record. *The cooling is not statistically significant, however over the complete time span of the satellite record of almost 37 years, it should not be happening if we have global warming.* Since the cooling is over the whole satellite record, it could be much longer if we had earlier records.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is also understandable that if carbon dioxide goes from 0.028% to 0.040%, that the effect would be greatest at the poles where the additional carbon dioxide does not have to compete with 2% to 4% water vapor as may be the case in the tropics. Since very cold temperatures can hold very small amounts of water vapor, the relative affect of more carbon dioxide should be largest in the polar regions. *But why are just the northern polar regions showing larger amounts of warming?* It is not as if the carbon dioxide is upside down in the south.


M'bold.

Good question.


----------



## FeXL

Ain't no Fruit Loop & Whacko like a very rich Fruit Loop & Whacko...

Tom Steyer: Wrong on the facts, economics and morality… And “all in for 2016.”



> [Steyer:] “... we have to rely on the fact that the facts are on our side, the morality is on our side and the economics are on our side.
> 
> “And, you know if that weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a chance in hell.”


Yep. Just a small debunking inside...


----------



## FeXL

Another one of these "science is settled" kind of guys. Judith goes on to some length to debunk what he posits. Personally, I think it's wasted effort. I would have used far less energy. Anybody who implies or directly states that any "science is settled" is an f'ing idiot. No further debunking required...

Climate closure (?)



> _The scientific debate is now over; the moment of closure has arrived._ – Shaun Lovejoy
> 
> EOS has published an opinion piece by Shaun Lovejoy: Climate Closure.


Ludicrous...


----------



## Macfury

Good grief... this is pathetic:



> Terry Root often goes to sleep at night wondering how she’ll be able to get up the next morning and do it all over again. Then the sun comes up and she forces herself out of bed. She might go for a run to release the pent-up anxiety. Sometimes she cries. Or she’ll commiserate with colleagues, sharing in and validating each other’s angst. What keeps Terry up at night aren’t the usual ailments; it’s not a tyrant boss or broken heart.
> 
> The diagnosis: global warming.


Good for a laugh as a freak show collection of weak-kneed "progressive" fruitcakes:

It's the End of the World ? How Do You Feel? | Fast Forward | OZY


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Good for a laugh as a freak show collection of weak-kneed "progressive" fruitcakes:


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (hic...)

The world needs more of these.


----------



## CubaMark

*The Archaeology News Network: Warming opens famed Northwest Passage to navigation*








Warming has forced a retreat of the polar ice cap, opening up a sea route through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for several months of the year. Commander Alain Lacerte is at the helm as the vessel navigates the Queen Maud Gulf, poring over charts that date from the 1950s and making course corrections with the help of GPS.

"Where it's white (on the chart), it means the area hasn't been surveyed," he explains -- leaning over a map that is mostly white. "Most of the far north hasn't been surveyed, so our maps are unreliable." The crew constantly take radar and multi-beam sonar measurements and check their position. "We don't want any shoals named after us," says the old sea dog from behind his spectacles.

* * *​
In the summer months the Amundsen is used by Canadian government scientists -- among them Roger Provost, a Canadian Ice Service meteorologist -- as well as a network of scientists led by the ArcticNet organization. Provost looked with amazement from the wheelhouse at the lack of any ice cover around the coast guard ship. 

"Anyone who still denies climate change is real has their head in the ground, they're blind," he said. In 37 years of Arctic exploration, he said he "never imagined ever seeing this," pointing to satellite images showing a clear path through the Queen Maud Gulf and the M'Clintock Channel, where the Amundsen is headed. 

Almost 112 years ago to the day, the explorer Amundsen got stuck in the pack ice here. And in 1979, Provost recalls, another Canadian Coast Guard ice-breaker had to cut short its inaugural journey, unable to push beyond this point through thick ice. Over the past five years the number of cargo and cruise ships, tankers and others crossing the Passage climbed to 117.

* * *​
The ice cover has steadily retreated over the past decade, with this year set to be the hottest on record, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The previous year saw average global temperatures rise one degree Celsius -- but by three degrees in the Arctic. What most worries Provost is the loss of "multi-year ice," formed over centuries. "In a few years it will completely disappear," he forecast. "It's a tragedy for all humanity what is happening."​
(archaeologynewsnetwork)


----------



## Macfury

Guess the "Old Sea Dog" never checked his history books:



> The Northwest Passage, a series of channels which wind their way through the Arctic Archipelago, has long been the object of attention for Arctic explorers. From Henry Hudson in 1611 to the doomed Franklin party in 1845-48, the promise of prestige and discovery - not to mention large prizes from the British Admiralty - drew men to venture across the frozen Arctic waters. The first successful transit was made between 1903 and 1906 by the Norwegian Roald Amundsen in the 47 ton herring Boat Gjøa.
> 
> Commanded by Corporal Henry Larsen, the RCMP vessel St. Roch was the first Canadian vessel to make the transit, the first ship to make the
> passage from west to east (1940-2) and the first vessel to complete the trip in only one season (1944).


Across the Northwest Passage: The Larsen Expeditions | Arctic Expedition | University of Calgary

Arctic sea ice still too thick for regular shipping route through Northwest Passage | Watts Up With That?


> Despite climate change, sea ice in the (NWP) remains too thick and treacherous for it to be a regular commercial Arctic shipping route for many decades, according to new research out of York University.


----------



## FeXL

There are so many omissions, holes & outright lies in that article I don't even know where to begin...

Let's start with a little story from this summer, date stamp late July or so. The Amundsen ice breaker, the very one that this story highlights, got called off of its scientific duty to ice break for commercial carriers in the Hudson Bay due to abnormally high seasonal ice. Curious that all that ice hadn't melted in the face of all of this "climate change", no?

"Oh, he's cherry picking the Hudson Bay!" No, actually, I'm not. See below.

First, Provost says that this year is the worst he's seen in 37 years. Interesting date, 37 years ago: 1978. That's not only the start of satellite records but it is also when peak ice occurred in the Arctic & one of the years used most used by warmists (along with 1979) to promote their fraud. 

It is well known that polar ice cycles from highs to lows & back again, with both poles in opposition to each other. When the north is high, the south is low & vice versa. Antarctic ice had its peak extent in the satellite record the last three years. That means that Arctic ice would have been at it's low during the same time.

During the last 2-3 years, Arctic ice extent has been growing, multiyear ice has also been increasing, & according to the satellite record temperatures have been dropping for the past 10 years (especially so for the last 5) in the Arctic, contrary to what the story claims.

NOAA's temperature record is little more than a fabricated crock.

As to Candlish's claims about the last such ice melt occurring prior to the last ice age 100,000 years ago, I'd love to read her source material. There are well known photographs of nuclear submarines lying in open water at the north pole, one from 1958, one from 1962, one from 1987.



> _We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water._


So, if you can find open water at the north pole in both summer & winter, why does it not make sense that the open water the Amundsen found along Devon Island, 1000 miles to the south, is "normal", as well?

The article mentions that 177 ships of various purposes hav made it through the Arctic archipelago in the last 5 years. Of course! Arctic ice has been at a low. However, there is nothing to make one believe that this trend will continue or that it was caused by that evil CO2. They mention cruise ships which brings to mind something from the Princess lines. Ha!!! Try Russian ice-breakers.

There's more but I'm done here.


----------



## Macfury

That Old Sea Dog--spinning his tall tales for the kids!


----------



## FeXL

Spinning them in advance of Paris. It pi$$es me off because the damage is already done. No retraction, apology, correction or refutation will have the same legs that the original, erroneous article did.

The bastards sure know how to work the MSM...


----------



## FeXL

Hope springs eternal, however...

D.C. court could pose problems for Paris climate talks



> A federal appeals court in Washington could spell trouble for President Obama's climate change agenda, as it reviews a request by a coalition of states and business groups looking to halt controversial climate change rules ahead of a major climate change conference in Paris.
> 
> The rules in question, called the Clean Power Plan, were published in the Federal Register Friday after months of delay, triggering multiple lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The rules were finalized Aug. 3.


Apparently the coalition of 24 states has been increased to 26. Oops, here comes the Senate...


----------



## FeXL

The week that was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #202

*Untrustworthy Wind Power* is a good read.



> More specifically, Mr Partington asks and answers four questions:
> 
> _1. “Do more wind turbines improve average output? No.
> 
> 2. Do more wind turbines reduce the periods of low or very low output? No.
> 
> 3. Do more wind turbines reduce intermittency? No.
> 
> 4. Do more wind turbines make it possible to close any conventional, fossil-fuel power stations by making up for additional demand on the grid on peak times? No.”_
> 
> Mr. Partington concludes: _“Based on the results of this and my previous analysis I cannot see why any policy for the continued increase in the number of wind turbines connected to the Grid can be justified.”_


Agreed.

More on the above post under *Number of the Week*



> Given this, it will be interesting, and sad, to see how the Administration will try to explain to the G-77 + China, in Paris, how the nation supports its plan to control CO2 emissions and how the US will provide a major share of the $100 billion demanded by the G-77 + China, *without Senate approval of a treaty.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Inside Climatestupid & what Exxon knew.

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken)


----------



## FeXL

Third article of a series by Tim Ball.

Water Vapour: The Big Wet Elephant In The Room

He sums:



> Water vapour is the giant wet elephant in the IPCC laboratory. The definition of climate change they received allowed them to ignore anything that didn’t fit their hypothesis. As a result, the IPCC focus is on eliminating, ignoring, and creating false narratives to enhance the role of CO2. This has the effect of pushing the elephant of water vapour under water so that like an iceberg the public only see about 10 percent of the mass.


Excellent read.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Third article of a series by Tim Ball.
> ......
> Excellent read.


Tim Ball? Not exactly what one would call an authoritative source. The word "wacko" comes to mind after checking him out online....


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Tim Ball? Not exactly what one would call an authoritative source. The word "wacko" comes to mind after checking him out online....


You've sourced your fair share of nutballs, CM--however, you need to form your disagreement around the science.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> ...however, you need to form your disagreement around the science.


Which is why all he's got is an ad hom...


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Which is why all he's got is an ad hom...


There's no shortage of folks questioning Ball's "science" online.... it's not just me and my _ad hominem_


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> There's no shortage of folks questioning Ball's "science" online.... it's not just me and my _ad hominem_


So which of those folks do you agree with and why?


----------



## FeXL

Nor is there a shortage of folks agreeing with him.

That's your second content-free post on this thread in a row. Are you going to make it an even three with some other inane comment, are you going to illustrate what's wrong with his science or are you just going to tuck tail & run?



CubaMark said:


> There's no shortage of folks questioning Ball's "science" online.... it's not just me and my _ad hominem_


----------



## FeXL

No argument...

Scientists Claim High CO2 Levels Are Making People Dumber



> First, United Nations officials label bacon and deli meats as carcinogens, and now scientists are claiming that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are not only heating the planet, they’re making people dumber.


Explains a lot of warmist, don't it...


----------



## FeXL

Just a little blurb on historical sea level rise.

The Inconvenient CO2/Sea Level Non-Linkage©



> *With a 38% increase in CO2 you’d expect at least a 1, 5, 12, 25% (take your pick) acceleration of Sea Level. We do have minimal increases, but zero sea level rise acceleration in tectonically inert areas. Zero!!! *
> 
> If mankind shuts down every coal and gas fired power plant, steel mill, and every auto, plane, train and ship and if we revert to a bare bones subsistence economy, with minimal fire and combustion products, we might be able to reduce CO2 growth from its average annual increase of 1.5ppm over the Keeling Curve era (since 1958) to about 0.5ppm.
> 
> When a massive 38% CO2 increase doesn’t even begin to accelerate Sea Level rise, how would we ever attempt to measure any Sea Level fall resulting from an almost impossible to achieve 1ppm reduction. The instrument that could measure that drop has yet to be invented!!!


M'bold.

Excellent read & graphics.


----------



## FeXL

The next two instalments from David Evans.

New Science 15: Modeling outgoing radiation (OLR)

New Science 16: Building the alternative model and why it solves so many major problems


----------



## Macfury

Don't read it, CM--some people disagree with it.



FeXL said:


> The next two instalments from David Evans.
> 
> New Science 15: Modeling outgoing radiation (OLR)
> 
> New Science 16: Building the alternative model and why it solves so many major problems


----------



## FeXL

Further on debunking the BS that CM posted about the Arctic in a melt-down & no muli-year ice.

Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Gain



> Greenland is blowing away all records for ice gain this year. They have gained almost 200 billion tons of snow and ice over the past two months, which is more than 50% above normal. The surface of the ice gained more than 200 billion tons during the previous 12 months.


Of course, you won't read this anywhere on the MSM...

More:

Arctic Multi Year Ice Increasing



> _*The study finds that in 2014 “more ice survived the summer as MYI than in the nine most recent years” and it was only “slightly less than during 1968–2015 on average (Figure S5)“.
> 
> Also “between November 2014 and April 2015, winter air temperatures were between −0.5°C and −1.5°C colder than during 1980–2010.”*_


M'bold.



> This bears out what I was saying back in April, when I pointed how, according to NSIDC data which they had tried to suppress, multi-year had been steadily increasing since 2008.


Curious that a fine, upstanding organization like the ANN didn't conduct due diligence & research all the readily available data sources, idn't it...


----------



## Macfury

The ice formation is fueled by their bitter tears.



FeXL said:


> Further on debunking the BS that CM posted about the Arctic in a melt-down & no muli-year ice.
> 
> Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Gain
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you won't read this anywhere on the MSM...


----------



## FeXL

Oh, there's a surprise...

NIPCC’s reply to Physics Today (that they won’t even acknowledge)



> I’ve been made privy to an email exchange with the editor of Physics Today regarding a rebuttal letter to a badly botched article by Spencer Weart that ignored a good portion of climate history. So far, editor Marty Hanna seems to be ignoring his own policy on right of reply for properly formatted and sourced letters. So, I’ve been asked to run it here. – Anthony


The summary:



> There is indeed “a major problem in communicating climate realities to the public,” but it is not the one Weart describes in his conclusion. It is that, starting in the 1980s, “consensus by committee” replaced real science in the climate debate and interest groups exploited that transition to turn a genuine scientific puzzle into a social and political movement. The results have been tragic for science as well as for the billions of people who now suffer adverse effects from public policies adopted at the height of this scandal.


----------



## FeXL

This is interesting, coming out just prior to COP21 in Paris.

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless



> _The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.
> 
> There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘
> 
> “Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.”​_


Related:

Mathematicians, Legendary Physicist, IPCC Expert Throw Wrenches Into UN Climate Summit



> As UN’s Paris summit approaches, one of France’s top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France’s best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "record" year, 2015.

Satellite Datasets Show 2015 Not At All Record Year. Are El Nino Years Getting Cooler?



> Only the repeatedly and retroactively falsified datasets of the NOAA/NCDC, NASA/GISS and MetOffice/Hadley/CRU tell us that the global warming continues on. The global warming “pause”has been simply calculated away….
> 
> *The unaltered (unfalsified) satellite measurements of the lower global troposphere (LT) by RSS and UAH through September 2015 on the other hand show no signs of a new record year since the record year of 1998 and the El Niño year of 2010.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Despite billions of dollars of support, they got no science, the screeching & rending of hair ain't getting the point across, guess it's time to pull on the heartstrings...

Hyper guilt trip time: Global warming linked to the health of children!



> All those parents leaving their children out in floods and storms, be warned:
> 
> _“Children are uniquely at risk to the direct impacts of climate changes like climate-related disaster–including floods and storms–where they are exposed to increased risk of injury, death, loss of or separation from caregivers and mental health consequences,” explained Samantha Ahdoot, MD, lead author of the policy statement​_
> Why are paediatricians selling out their good reputation by pandering to odious political correctness? What parent hears this and thinks suddenly “I must act now — I thought climate change only happened to adults!”
> 
> *And if children in poor countries are affected by climate change, then lets get them some damn coal fired electricity.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Don't have a lot of good to say about Putin but he's head & shoulders above most western leaders in this respect.

Russian President: Climate Change is Fraud



> Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that he thinks the Western climate scare is a fraud, designed to restrain industrial development in countries like Russia.
> 
> ...
> 
> _The president believes that “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia,” says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. “That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general.”
> 
> …
> 
> Putin’s scepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate”, said Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s senior economic adviser at the time and now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.
> 
> “We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” he said. *“It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”*_


Bold from the link.


----------



## Macfury

I'm no fan of Putin's strongarm tactics, but I love that he stands up for his country. 




FeXL said:


> Don't have a lot of good to say about Putin but he's head & shoulders above most western leaders in this respect.
> 
> Russian President: Climate Change is Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

OK, long post re: Karl & Peterson's "pause buster" paper back in June. Recall that the authors used a "creative" model to erase the flatline in temperatures over the last 18 years. WUWT tore the paper apart. 

Now, it seems that others are taking note.

Dissent in the climate ranks over Karl’s “pause buster” temperature data tweaking



> _The US CLIVAR project publishes a newsletter/cum journal, a recent issue of which was dedicated to the hiatus in global warming. Featuring papers from a variety of well-known climatologists, I was interested to see the headline article, from Gerald Meehl, which seems to take a fairly hefty pot-shot at the data tweaking approach adopted by many climatologists._


Now they've been issued a subpoena by Congressman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to furnish certain research documents. 

*They have refused.*

Congress Subpoenas NOAA’s Emails



> _Smith’s document request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ordered the agency to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study, according to a letter Friday by the House committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.). Johnson accused Smith of “furthering a fishing expedition” by looking for ways to discredit NOAA’s study, which was published in June in the peer-reviewed journal Science._


NCDC/NCEI’s Karl and Peterson refuse congressional subpoena on flawed ‘pausebuster’ paper



> Wow, just wow. I told Dr. Tom Peterson in an email this summer that their highly questionable paper that adjusted SST’s of the past to erase the “pause” was going to become “their waterloo”, and Peterson’s response was to give the email to wackadoodle climate blogger Miriam O’Brien (aka Sou Bundanga) so she could tout it with the usual invective spin that she loves to do. How “professional” of Peterson, who made the issue political payback with that action.


NOAA Refuse To Release Emails



> _The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.
> 
> Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed._


Secret science? What’s NOAA hiding?



> It used to be that scientists were supposed to publish their methods, discuss their reasoning, and point out the weaknesses of their work. Now, it’s confidential.
> 
> The House Science Committee in the US is demanding with a subpoena that NOAA release internal communications related to the Karl et al study (that tried to remove the “pause” in global temperatures.) NOAA is refusing saying:
> 
> _*“It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”*_
> 
> Yes. It’s been longstanding since morning tea on Tuesday.


Bold from the link.

Bull$h!t...

It ain't science unless it open & reproducible.

Related:

Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one



> Karl et al. present data they claim denies the existence of the warming pasuse or hiatus that has existed for 18 years. It is characterized by the observation that while atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps ioncreasing there is no parallel increase of warming as demanded by the greenhouse theory of global warming. An examination of their data reveals that only two observed data points even show warming. This is not sufficient to even justify writing a paper about. This and other papers by like-minded pseudo-scientists are aimed at tearing down the existence of the current hiatus, but they have no idea that there was a similar hiatus in the eighties and nineties. The reason this is not known is that the guardians of global temperature made it disappear by over-writing it with a bogus warming called “late twentieth century warming.” It is much harder to deny the existence of two hiatuses than it is to deny one. The existence of this second hiatus argues against the claim made by Karl that hiatuses do not exist.


Paul Homewood from Not A Lot People Know That noted:



> Get out the popcorn, this one could run and run.


Yep.

Research conducted by scientists paid public money should be free & open to anyone who wants to look at it. Fire. Them. All.


----------



## FeXL

Another warmist lie put to rest.

Trends in extreme rainfall events



> *There are constant claims that extreme events are becoming more frequent, but when you really dig down, you cannot see any trends even in long-term data.* Of course, the scaremongers claim that it hasn’t happened yet, but their models predict it is going to happen any day real soon now, just you wait! All agree it has been warming for at least the past 150 years. If there were any effect such as the models predict, surely we would have seen it by now? It surprises many, but there is no detectable trend in extreme events in the historical data sets.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## Macfury

All of the civil infrastructure construction companies and insurance companies say that rainfall is getting worse! Go figure!


----------



## FeXL

So, Garvin up to his old tricks again. Obfuscation & misdirection...

Wednesday Wit – Cheers, Gavin!



> I think we can conclude that this is simply Vintage Gavin (pronounced Ga-Vin) and we should all be enormously cheered up by the logic of climate science – what they can brew up with numbers is very entertaining.


----------



## FeXL

I've made it clear how I handle claims of "97% consensus" in science. However, others have their methods. Either way...

Debunking The “97%” Consensus Claims – Part I



> Someone mentioned the other day (sorry, forgot who!) that it would be nice to have a simple, go-to piece debunking the “97% of scientists agree” claptrap, which is spewed out by politicians and the media whenever they do not want to discuss facts.
> 
> There are essentially two studies which these claims are based around, so I will devote a separate post to each.


This is the first post.

Good read on the background of the myth.


----------



## FeXL

Further details on China's climate plan.

China’s Climate Plan



> We all know that China has promised to peak their CO2 emissions by 2030, but they have failed to say at what level.
> 
> *Instead they pledged to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP. And the reason is very simple, they do not want to restrict their economic growth by being harnessed to a fixed target.*


M'bold.

Exactly. Which is why, while the rest of the planet who signs on to this malarkey is expected to cut back emissions, China's emissions (already #1 in the world) will continue to increase until 2030.

Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

Further numerical fraud.

More Off Scale Fraud By NASA



> Gavin and NASA have done so much data tampering to the global temperature record since 1999, they had to nearly double the size of the Y-axis. And as an added bonus, they erased the cooling from 1940 to 1970 – just as they planned to do.


NASA US Data Tampering Has Reversed A Post-1940 Cooling Trend



> In 1999, NASA’s top climatologists reported that the US was cooling, as greenhouse gases increased.
> 
> ...
> 
> That didn’t suit the agenda, so they later tampered with the data to make the cooling disappear.


Gavin Announces How Much Sea Level Fraud NASA Plans For The Future



> In 1982, NASA reported just over three inches sea level rise from 1880 to 1980, almost all of which occurred before 1950. *Now they report almost seven inches during that same time period, and accelerating. Spectacular unabashed fraud by the US Space Agency.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

This is just rich...

DOE issues press release: The Halloween Pumpkin Climate Menace (no, really)



> The US Department of Energy has issued a (serious) press release which suggests that *Halloween pumpkins contribute significantly to global warming.*


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

He sums:



> Isn’t it reassuring, that money you would have frittered away on healthcare, education for your kids, saving for your retirement, or just having a good time, has been taken away from you as taxes, so it can be invested wisely on your behalf into defeating the pumpkin climate menace.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Friday funny – 97% Pause for a Food fight



> Josh writes: The Pause has been in the news this week with the Karl et al paper, the ‘no-you-cant-have-our-emails’ story, and the Meehl paper with comment by David Whitehouse. It looks very much like a food fight to me – cheers again, guys!


----------



## FeXL

A few articles on the state of polar ice.

First, the Arctic.

Greenland ice melt due to ‘global warming’ found not so bad after all



> Parts of Greenland’s ice sheet have been found to be less vulnerable to climate warming than was thought – a discovery that could have a small but beneficial impact on sea level forecasts.
> 
> Satellite images have revealed that despite dramatic increases in ice melt across Greenland in recent years, *the speed of ice movement in some areas has slowed down rather than accelerated.*


Curious, that. Unless, of course, you haven't seen this:

Unprecedented Growth Of Arctic Ice Continues



> We are seeing unprecedented growth of Arctic ice this autumn.
> 
> After the shortest melt season on record, and the fastest growth on record, Arctic sea ice is the highest for the date since at least 2004.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Similarly, Greenland has gained a record 200 billion tons of ice since September 1. This is more than 50% above normal.*


Oops! That doesn't follow the narrative...

How about at the other end of the planet?

Antarctic Ice Mass Growing – New NASA Study



> A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
> 
> The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.


Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !



> From the “settled science” department and former chief alarmist Jay Zwally, who for years had said the Arctic was in big trouble (only to have his prediction falsified), comes this Emily Litella moment in climate science: “Never mind!”.


<snort>

Why The New NASA Antarctica Study Is Devastating To Climate Alarmists



> The implications of this study devastate climate alarmism:
> 
> 1. Antarctica is not contributing to sea level rise
> 2. The Greenland ice loss interpretations almost certainly are wrong too
> 3. Forecasts of rapid sea level rise are untenable
> 
> The climate scam is dead scientifically. There is nothing left but fraud, lies, corruption, censorship and extortion.


Gavin's not gonna like that...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Putin & "climate change".

Vladimir Putin; Climate and Political Realist?



> The Daily Caller headline said, Russia’s Putin Says Global Warming Is ‘A Fraud.” What Putin is doing and saying is nothing new. He always knew that the IPCC climate was wrong he simply changed his political position as the situation dictated. Soviet and latterly Russian climatologists are far better than most in the west. I know Chinese climatologists are their equals because I worked with both.


Putin, Russia calls man-made climate change a “fraud”



> Bizarrely Russia may yet slow the trainwreck in Paris. The irony — the former communist state may be the one to thwart the ambitions of the freeloading global bureaucracy. We can’t relax though, because like the Chinese, Putin will have a price and if the equation changes so that Russia gains an advantage over the West (through generous exemptions or credits or some other trade deal) he’ll pay lip-service to the Climate extremists.


Sadly, I'd ignore the first link. The article is authored by that "whacko" Tim Ball. How do we know he's a "whacko"? Why, from that very voice of authority, who provided absolutely no support for his accusations, journalist Cubamark...


----------



## FeXL

Sauce for the gander?

Skeptical Climate Scientists Fire Back at RICO 20 Colleagues: Demand Investigations Against Their Warmist Accusers



> “I would like to see RICO investigations for people on the other side of this,” demanded Climatologist and former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, at a CATO Institute climate forum in DC today. Spencer is the leader of a climate research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
> 
> “People have been pushing for energy policies for people that we know will kill them. And they know that, and yet they have hidden that information from the public and from politicians for the purposes of advancing an agenda,” Spencer said.
> 
> “They should be careful what they ask” Spencer added, warning that the investigations “could be going the other direction in spades.”


Oh, that'd be saweet...


----------



## FeXL

So, let's talk Paris!

Why the Paris climate treaty will be the flop of the year



> The chief obstacle to such an agreement is exactly the same as it was at Kyoto in 1997 and at that last mammoth conference which so signally failed to get Kyoto renewed at Copenhagen in 2009. The vast majority of countries have argued all along that, if man-made CO2 is causing a problem, the fault lies with those “developed” nations that became rich before everyone else by burning fossil fuels to power their industrial revolution.


Oh, if this falls flat on it's backside, I'm gonna be smiling...


----------



## FeXL

And a few articles about Antarctica.

It Would Help If Scientists Actually Read The Scientific Literature



> Actual sea level rise is less than 1 mm/year. Sea level is one of the biggest criminal ventures in this scam. Even the most flagrant alarmists say their WAIS collapse theory won’t happen for at least 200 years.


And, XX)

Antarctic warming and greenhouse gas connection: ‘we lack sufficient evidence’; but the ice sheet will collapse anyway



> _“So far we lack sufficient evidence to tell whether or not the Amundsen ice destabilization is due to greenhouse gases and the resulting global warming,”​_
> Right, but let’s continue to issue gloom and doom press releases based on model simulations. What they neglect to tell you in the PR is that this is a simulation that runs thousands of years into the future


The Other Half Of The Big Antarctica Lie



> _A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
> 
> *The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report*, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
> 
> *“Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added* that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.​_


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

A bit of a celebration is in order.

Word Is Getting Out!



> Ten thousand twitter followers. Twenty million page views. Five million visitors.
> 
> $0.00 in funding.


Related:

Closing on a quarter billion



> As we close into the 250 millionth page view at WUWT...I’ve been thinking both back to the early days and and wondering what today would be like if WUWT never existed.


Woohoo!!!


----------



## FeXL

Hard to lose the discussion when you argue both sides of the point...

1977 Western Drought Was Blamed On Global Cooling



> In 1977, the western drought was blamed on global cooling and expanding Arctic ice.
> 
> ...
> 
> National Geographic described it as “The Year The Weather Went Wild”
> 
> ...
> 
> The weather pattern was almost identical to winter 2015.
> 
> ...
> 
> Perpetual governor Moonbeam warned of drought disaster in California.
> 
> ...
> 
> The criminals at the White House now blame the same weather patterns as 1977 on global warming and shrinking Arctic ice.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1974, scientists blamed the identical phenomenon on global cooling and expanding Arctic ice.


So, which is it, boyz?


----------



## FeXL

The next edition of David Evans' research.

New Science 17: Solving the mystery of the missing “Hotspot”



> Things are hotting up. After all the hard work of the past few posts, the payoff begins. By solving the flaws inherent in the basic conventional model we solve some of its biggest missed-predictions. And the clincher for conventional models has always been the missing hot spot. Without it, over half the projected warming just vanishes. *And if it is telling the tale of a negative type of feedback instead of a positive one, then all bets are off — not three degrees, not even one degree, it’s more like “half” a degree. Go panic about that.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Well, Philippe Verdier (the French national weatherman who had recently been put on leave) was just fired. Perfect...

Phillippe Verdier, journalist, weatherman, sacked for daring to be skeptical



> How they do overplay their hand.
> 
> *Is there any better proof of how fragile the facade is? The evidence for the Big Scare Campaign is so pathetically weak that it cannot cope with one weatherman who writes a critical book. They are so afraid they did not even muddy the waters* — it’s obvious why he was sacked. Verdier was suspended immediately after he launched his skeptical book. Now a month later, sacked.


M'bold.

Back To The Dark Ages: Top French Weatherman Fired Over Climate Change Book



> *A popular weatherman announced Saturday evening he has been sacked by leading French news channel France Télévisions for publishing a book which accused top climate change experts of misleading the world about the threat of global warming.*


Bold from the link.

BBC Interview Philippe Verdier



> _As many will know who take an interest in these things, a recent GWPF newsletter reported that France Télévisions has sacked their weather man, Philipe Verdier, for having the temerity to write a book Climate Investigations challenging the orthodoxy on climate change impacts.​_


Guess the truth was a little too much to handle going into COP21...


----------



## FeXL

So, lotta "last chances" regarding climate change over the past little while. And yet, here we are to laugh at them. Go figger...

The hilarious legacy of ‘last chances’ for climate, exposed



> _If Paris doesn’t work out, I’m sure there will be another “last chance” coming to a destination city very soon.​_


There's only eleven inside, starting in 2001...


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk fraudulent sea level rise.

How NASA Fraudsters Quadrupled Sea Level Rise



> In 1982, NASA reported sea level rising 1.0 mm/year (less than 4 inches per century) from 1880 to 1980, and nearly flat after 1950. Their published graph showed less than 0.9 mm/year.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA has since increased 1880-1980 sea level rise rates by 60% to six inches per century.


Hey, what's a 60% increase between friends...


----------



## FeXL

How about a few missed forecasts...

Hansen’s Massive 1988 Forecast Fails



> In 1988, James Hansen told Congress that the Midwest will have frequent episodes of very high temperatures in the current decades, predicted 3 to 9 degrees warming by 2025, and predicted 1 to 4 feet sea level rise by the middle of this century.


1986 : Scientists Were “Sure” Sea Level Would Rise One Foot By 2016



> In 1986, scientists were “sure” that sea level would rise one foot on the East Coast in 30-40 years, and destroy beaches and buildings, receding shorelines by 1,000 feet.


Which is exactly why we should completely ignore anything else the bastards say...


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale's got another new book out. It's free.

New Book by Bob Tisdale: On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1



> _On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1_ includes introductory discussions of 3 primary topics:
> 
> * the science behind the groupthink of human-induced global warming and climate change,
> * climate models, and
> * even more importantly, many of the numerous known modes of natural variability.
> 
> *Those fundamental presentations are in layperson terms, with links to more-detailed discussions and peer-reviewed papers.*


M'bold.


----------



## BigDL

Canada now has a Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Catherine McKenna (Ontario) -* Environment and Climate Change*.

Catherine McKenna, Ottawa Centre MP, named minister of environment, climate change - Ottawa - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan

The concept that a cabinet minister can do anything to alter the course of Climate Change is obscene.

First off if things are still warming, man at worst is responsible for maybe 20% of that change. Mostly through deforestation, which does impact local micro-climates, which in turn can alter overall climatic conditions.

Secondly all of the political focus has been and continues to be further impoverishing those with the least and passing on the loot to those with the most. Either directly to Al Gore via Cap and Trade, or to the Banksters via a carbon tax.


----------



## FeXL

Stupid is as stupid does...



BigDL said:


> Canada now has a Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Catherine McKenna (Ontario)


----------



## Macfury

Cheap pandering. It will all go away eventually.


----------



## FeXL

The Aussies get it...

54% of Australians skeptics of man-made global warming, 80% don’t donate to environment or vote for it



> The devastating result of the latest CSIRO survey: 54% of Australians don’t believe the experts at the IPCC, and are not convinced that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. Starkly, only 28% of Liberal voters agree with Malcolm Turnbull. Amazingly 40% of Labor voters and even a quarter of green voters don’t accept the IPCC litany. Presumably they think humans have some effect but are not the major cause.


Such common sense has yet to alight on this continent...


----------



## FeXL

Further on this whole 2 degrees garbage.

2 Degrees of Madness



> With the run up to the Paris conference the media has been full of “we must avoid a 2 degree rise in temperature or we will all die“. What does 2 degrees mean? Is it per annum, per decade, or per century? Of course this is just another piece of nonsense without any scientific credence.


Further:



> So is a 2C rise in temperature dangerous?
> 
> Between, 1739 (9.20C) and 1740 (6.84C) the temperature fell (-2.36C) in one year. It then recovered from 1740 (6.84C) to 1741 (9.30C), a rise of (2.46C).
> 
> ...
> 
> This one event shows a temperature increase of 2.46C per annum is not dangerous, as human life has increased exponentially, from a population of about 700million to 7billion.


And that's just in the last 276 years. There are numerous other examples of 2° warmer temperatures during the Holocene, let alone during the Paleozoic & Mesozoic.


----------



## FeXL

Another paper on Antarctic ice gain.

Yet another study shows Antarctica gaining ice mass – snowfall accumulation ‘highest we have seen in the last 300 years’



> _A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.​_


----------



## FeXL

More's the pity...

Kangaroo Farts: A Great Green Disappointment



> Scientists researching the underlying reason for the low methane content of Kangaroo farts, with a view to reducing cow flatulence, have been disappointed to discover there is nothing special about Kangaroo gut bacteria.


Wonder how much it cost the taxpayer to figger that out...


----------



## FeXL

What with COP21 on the near horizon, the timing is perfect.

A Hell Week For Global Warming Alarmists: Crumbling Consensus, Inconvenient Data And Policy Rejection



> *Putin calls global warming “a fraud”
> 
> NASA satellite measurements refute preposterous PIK models
> 
> Poland refuses to ratify Kyoto treaty in Paris
> 
> Asia moves ahead with coal power plant expansion*


----------



## FeXL

And, the latest instalment from David Evans.

New Science 18: Finally climate sensitivity calculated at just one tenth of official estimates.



> For decades the world of conventional climate research has been stuck in a groundhog day with major research overturning older ideas, but somehow the upper and lower bounds of climate sensitivity stayed the same. It’s always 1.5 – 4.5 deg C (and their models never work). Their “best” estimates of climate sensitivity are relentlessly, slowly shrinking (they were around 3.5°, now around 2°C).
> 
> ...
> 
> *Indeed it is not possible to put a lower bound on the figure — it may be almost zero. It is possible to put an upper bound on it — which is about half a degree. The most likely estimate is around 0.25°C. Empirical estimates by Lindzen and Choi,[1][2] Spencer and Braswell[3][4] and Idso[5] suggest it is 0.4°C – 0.7°C. We can argue the toss between 0.25 and 0.5, but no one can argue that we need to spend a single dollar to reduce our emissions if doubling CO2 only causes minor and beneficial warming.*


M'bold.

Hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars p!ssed away, on a doubling of 0.25. They must be proud...

Related:

Even the 'lukewarmer' position on global warming has become untenable on the basis of both observations & theory


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## FeXL

With Paris COP21 on the horizon, here's 10 questions for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

The Paris Climate Challenge



> 1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
> 2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
> 3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
> 4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
> 5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
> 6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
> 7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
> 8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
> 9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
> 10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.


Related:

Leading questions on the Paris climate treaty



> Voters, consumers, elected officials and courts must wake up and take action. House Speaker Paul Ryan, members of Congress, governors, business leaders and presidential candidates need to learn the facts, communicate forcefully, repudiate destructive energy and climate policies – and let the world know the Senate will reject any Obama treaty that binds the USA to slashing emissions and transferring its wealth.
> 
> *Above all, they must debunk, defund and demolish the mountains of anti-fossil fuel, anti-job, anti-growth, anti-family regulations that Obama & Co. have imposed – or plan to impose before they leave office – in the name of preventing a climate crisis that exists only in their minds and models.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Further fraud from NANA, NOAA, NCAR.

NOAA’s Climate People Caught Defrauding The Public Again



> NOAA’s climate people claim that sea level is rising 3.2 mm/year. Their sea level people say it is just over half that.


Oh, the data that was posted in the above link? Next day it was gone. Curious, innit:

Ministry Of Truth Hard At Work At NOAA



> NOAA reorganized the web site today and removed this proof of their “3.2 mm/year” fraud.
> 
> I anticipated they would do this and archived the page in numerous places. You can still see it here on the web archive.


NOAA Climate Criminals Can’t Cover Their Tracks Fast Enough



> NOAA’s climate people claim that sea level is rising 3.2 mm/year. Their sea level people say it is just over half that.
> 
> ...
> 
> As I reported earlier, NOAA made the sea level page above disappear yesterday. But it won’t do them any good, because it is on the web archive and because anyone can look at their actual sea level data.
> 
> *NOAA has 240 tide gauges globally, and 86% of them show less sea level rise than the claimed average of 3.2 mm/year. The average of all of the NOAA tide gauges is 1.14 mm/year, just over one third of the NOAA climate claims.*


M'bold.

NASA Has Known Since 1971 That CO2 Is Not Dangerous, Yet Lied To The Public Continuously



> New York State is investigating Exxon for telling the truth about CO2 in 1976, but the big story is that NASA and NCAR have known since 1971 that CO2 is not dangerous – yet have lied to the public about this for over 30 years.
> 
> In 1971, the top climatologists at NCAR and NASA reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible, because the CO2 absorption spectra is nearly saturated already.


1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce



> In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists knew that even a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 [a factor of 8] would produce less than 2 degrees warming. The entire basis of the catastrophic global warming scam has been known to be a fraud from day one.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting if for no other reason than the elevation of RG Brown at Duke University's comment raised to post status.

Is Climate Science Settled? (Now Includes September Data)



> In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. Then I will expand on those.
> 
> 1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
> 2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
> 3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
> 4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "Canary in the coal mine".

Record Arctic Ice Growth Continues



> Arctic sea ice continues its record growth this autumn, having gained four million km² since September 1 after the shortest melt season on record.
> 
> ...
> 
> Land ice has also grown at a record rate since September 1, with Greenland gaining about three billion tons of ice a day since September 1.


----------



## FeXL

Science by press release, weasel words included.

Basically, they went looking for a human "fingerprint" in data analyzed by a XX) & couldn't find one.

Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?

Their CYA moment?



> The disclaimer in the report itself is even funnier;
> 
> _Challenges that attribution assessments face include the often limited observational record and inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. *The failure to find a human fingerprint* could be due to *insufficient data or poor models* and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.​_


Bold & font size from the link.

Of course, it never occurred to them that maybe the complete hypothesis is so full of holes a swiss cheese would be jealous...


----------



## FeXL

In case you need a primer or a refresher.

Inside the Climate Computer Models



> In this article, I take a look inside the workings of the climate computer models (“the models”), and explain how they are structured and how useful they are for prediction of future climate.
> 
> This article follows on from a previous article (here) which looked at the models from the outside. This article takes a look at their internal workings.


----------



## FeXL

Another week that was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #204

_Un-Validated Models, Peer Review_ and _Keystone_ are good reads.


----------



## FeXL

Another in the remedial reading category, based on chapters from his latest free e-book.

Back to Basics Part 1 – What is Global Warming?



> This is the first part of a two-part series of posts that present chapters from my recently published ebook *On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1*. The introductory post for the book is here (WattsUpWithThat cross post is here), and the book in pdf format is here (25 MB). Yes, the book is free.
> 
> The topic of this post is _What is Global Warming?_ The second post, to be published next week, is _What is Climate Change?_


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "unprecedented" weather thing.

Megadroughts in past 2000 years worse, longer, than current droughts



> A new atlas shows droughts of the past were worse than those today — and they cannot have been caused by man-made CO2. Despite the claims of “unprecedented” droughts, the worst droughts in Europe and the US were a thousand years ago. Cook et al 2015[1] put together an old world drought atlas from tree rings data as a proxy for summer wetness and dryness across Europe. They compare the severity and timing of European droughts with the North American Drought Atlas (NADA) released in 2004. Yes, it’s a tree ring study with all the caveats about how trees are responding to several factors at once etc etc. But at least the modern era is measured with the same proxy as used in the old eras.


Further:



> *The worst megadrought in the California and Nevada regions was from 832 to 1074 CE (golly, 242 years). The worst drought in north-central Europe was from 1437 to 1473 CE, lasting 37 years.*
> 
> Climate models don’t predict any of the droughts below, and all of them occurred before 99% of our emissions were released.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

As the next "Last Chance" approaches...

Expect global warming rhetoric to heat up



> Let’s be blunt. Forty years of global warming hysteria never has been about the globe getting warmer, or saving the planet. *It’s always been about control and money. Their control. Your money. If you need to be told who “they” are, you haven’t been paying attention.*


M'bold. 

Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that old "Canary in the coal mine".

Just in Time for Paris—Ice Galore



> You’ll have heard of it, COP-21, the latest United Nation conference on all things climate, coming to Paris (France) in December. Wouldn’t you know it, just in time for that “cataclysmic” event, nature does not want to play according to the organizers’ script.
> 
> ...
> 
> It must come as total consternation to all those people who have claimed for years now that “climate change” or “global warming” as it used to be termed is about ready to “incinerate” all life on earth. For example, “climate modellers” like S. Rahmstorf at Germany’s PIK have claimed for years that the polar regions would be most sensitive to any warming and that the polar ice masses were going to recede in a great hurry and that the ocean levels would rise fast. In reality, none of that is the case.
> 
> *In fact, the polar ice masses continue to grow, some reaching new all-time records in both ice extent and accumulated mass. Also ocean levels are NOT rising as previously predicted.*


M'bold.

He also quotes this, rather prescient, statement translated from R Manheim:



> “The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, *all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points* and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”


M'bold.

"Settled Science!" "97%!" "Unprecedented!" "Climate Change!"

Things that make you go, Hmmm...


----------



## FeXL

So, in the face of hundreds of trillions of dollars spent on imaginary problems & the socialized transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations a fair question is: What can we expect to get for our money? How much "global warming" are we averting?

The answer? Not very damn much...

Those policies will cause HOW much cooling exactly? The best case fantasy a mere 0.17C by 2100



> Suppose we give billions to the bureaucratic geniuses in Paris. Suppose they are right about how global warming works (though we know they are not). What do we get for all that money?
> 
> *Combined, all plans, carried out, successful best case, at a cost of hundreds of trillions + : 0.17°C
> 
> More realistic more pessimistic case: 0.05°C*


Bold from the link.

Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals

Link to the open access paper herin.



> _Dr. Lomborg said: “Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world’. It is no such thing. If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05°C (0.09°F). Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030, and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by the year 2100.​_


The size of the prize



> Bjorn Lomborg has a new paper out today in the journal Global Policy. Taking a leaf out of Christopher Monckton's book he assesses the effect that all the policy measures promised at Paris are going to have on global temperatures.


Jawdropping...


----------



## FeXL

Further on corals & ocean "acidification".

Corals ask: "Ocean acidification? Are we bovvered?"



> Some months back I mentioned a fascinating study about a coral reef that was thriving at pH levels far lower than predicted by the most morbid of global warming doomsters. Hot on the heels of that rather surprising work comes another paper that finds that healthy coral reefs exhibit spikes in acidity:
> 
> _The researchers observed the chemistry of the water on the reef between 2007 and 2012. During that time, there were two sharp spikes in acidity – once in 2010 and again in 2011.
> 
> The team found that coral growth itself made the water more acidic as the corals sucked alkaline carbonate out of the water to build their skeletons. The corals also ate more food during these high-activity periods and pumped more CO2 into the water, increasing acidity further.​_


From the article at New Scientist linked within:



> The results complicate the question of how coral reefs will respond to climate change, which is raising the acidity of the oceans. “Do corals care about ocean pH if they have plenty of food and light? At this point, we don’t fully know the answer to that question,” says Andersson.
> 
> *These corals didn’t seem to mind the fluctuations in local acidity that they created, which were much bigger than those we expect to see from climate change.*


M'bold.

Sonuvagun...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Katharine Hayhoe & polar bear disinformation.

Discovery News (And Katharine Hayhoe) Spread Old Misinformation About Polar Bears



> _In a just-released Discovery News piece, Kieran Mulvaney (4 November 2015, “In the polar bear capital, an uncertain future”) repeated three misleading statements about Western Hudson Bay polar bears that keep making the rounds, despite the fact they have been laid to rest by the latest scientific reports on (Lunn et al. 2013, 2014; Stapleton et al. 2014). I reviewed these just a few weeks ago.​_


He sums:



> I am not sure if Hayhoe ever really had anything relevant to contribute on the scientific side. But, if she did, she has certainly left that well behind her, as time after time she has preferred to ignore the facts in favour of misleading propaganda.
> 
> The fact that she deletes messages from fellow scientists, who just happen to disagree with her, says it all rather eloquently.


----------



## FeXL

We're halfway there!!!

UK Met Office Raises The Bar On Climate Fraud



> Here is a new stunner in the world of government climate fraud. The UK Met Office is claiming that 2015 temperatures are above 1C warming for the first time, due to human influence.


Good! Only a degree more & then maybe the warmist BS will stop...

Related:

More Detail On NOAA Temperature Fraud



> In 2008, NOAA correctly showed the hiatus in temperatures over the previous decade.
> 
> ...
> 
> But this summer ahead of Paris, they made the hiatus disappear. NOAA currently reports directly to the Obama White House, so this sort of Grubering of the climate is to be expected.
> 
> ...
> 
> A smoking gun of fraud is that the new tampered NOAA temperature data diverges from satellite temperatures at a remarkable rate. Satellites show cooling this century, while NOAA now shows a strong warming trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> The new NOAA temperatures are diverging linearly from reality at a rate of 1.4C per century.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that massive 5/100's of a degree of global warming we're aiming to avert. In 85 years...

First article posted mostly for the comments.

Lomborg: Paris climate pact will reduce temperature increase by the end of the century by a whopping 0.05°C



> _Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. Paris COP21 commitments [by the EU] will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100​_


The Height Of Temperature Folly



> Now, a human being is typically around 1.7 metres tall, plus or minus. This means that other things being equal, the air at your head is about 0.017°C cooler than the air at your feet. And recall from above that the “impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100” …
> 
> Which means that after spending billions of dollars and destroying valuable power plants and reducing our energy options and making us more dependent on Middle East oil, all we will do is make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads … I am overcome with gratitude for such a stupendous accomplishment.


Yep.

Related:

Climate Activists Bracing for Failure at Paris



> As the upcoming Paris COP21 climate conference hurtles towards an inevitable train wreck of green disappointments, climate activists are already starting to prepare the faithful, for the bitter upsets they are likely to suffer over the next few weeks.


Also related:

Moving The Goalposts



> The U.N.’s environmental authority *has quietly raised its assessment of the level at which global greenhouse gas emissions must peak to avoid dangerous climate change*, as governments seek a new accord to fight global warming.


Well, of course they have...


----------



## BigDL

*Is This Probe Going To Hurt?*

Is This Probe Going To Hurt? Well is it?



NEWYORKTIMES said:


> Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General
> 
> The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.
> 
> According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.








InsideClimateNews said:


> Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
> 
> Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
> 
> At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.
> 
> In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
> 
> It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting article.

Tropical Evaporative Cooling



> I’ve been looking again into the satellite rainfall measurements from the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM). I discussed my first look at this rainfall data in a post called Cooling and Warming, Clouds and Thunderstorms. There I showed that the cooling from thunderstorm-driven evaporation is a major heat-regulating mechanism in the tropics. This is another piece of evidence for my hypothesis that the global temperature is regulated by emergent phenomena, including tropical thunderstorms. This regulation keeps the temperature within a very narrow range (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century).


Excellent visuals.


----------



## eMacMan

.


----------



## eMacMan

Pretty much sums it up!

MPR: Rising Toll On Eagles Is A Mystery


> MPR this morning did a story on the record number of injured eagles in Minnesota which is a problem but they aren't sure how they're getting injured. They mention that it could be summer storms or urban hazards, whatever that is, I was surprised they didn't blame Global Warming. But they seem to overlook the most obvious thing which is killing eagles all over the country, wind turbines.
> 
> Minnesota has a lot of eagles, an estimated 1,000 nesting pairs but we also have a lot of windmills. Minnesota has 2,156 wind turbines, we are ranked 6th in the country. That's over 2 wind turbines per eagle and we are adding more all the time.
> 
> I wonder if MPR looked into this angle at all, maybe that's what they are referring to when they say "urban hazards". If there was a connection to wind farms I wonder if it was edited out of the story because its not politically correct to blame wind turbines on bird deaths. It's OK to talk about bird deaths when it involves DDT, Sports Stadiums and Oil Slicks but not Wind Turbines because wind energy is saving us from Global Warming.


You tube of the embedded video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2biK1hdKHo

FYI MPR=Minnesota Public Radio


----------



## FeXL

I'm glad you brought this up. I've had a coupla links open for a fews days now.

First off, I'd like to link to the first two posts I made on the subject. One, Two.

That'll serve as background for the issue.

Now, when the LA Times reported on the incident, they refused to link to or show the document which contains the alleged problem. Here's a link to an article which shows you the document:

LA Times refuses to show so-called smoking gun against Exxon - here it is



> When you read it – which you can do here – *it soon becomes clear that the document undercuts the paper’s claims that ExxonMobil knew with certainty everything there is to know about global warming back in the 1980s yet failed to sound alarms.*


M'bold.

Further:



> By deliberately hiding this report from readers (while simultaneously citing it to make damaging claims about our corporation’s history of scientific research), the Los Angeles Times undermines the already low levels of trust in the media and in the media’s ability to cover issues of science and policy with accuracy and fairness.


The WSJ has an article:

In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies



> Scurry on board the Exxon prosecution express. Lest they be left behind and called “deniers,” Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, the attorney general of New York and Al Gore this week all demanded criminal investigation of Exxon Mobil as a result of recent media “exposés.”


Well, the list of usual suspects is certainly not impressive. More:



> Not one of these worthies likely examined the evidence, which tells a story quite different from the claim that Exxon somehow concealed its understanding of the climate debate. But the hurdle rate for “investigative” journalism has apparently become low. *The allegedly damning documents that the Los Angeles Times and the website Inside Climate News (ICN) claim to have unearthed were published by Exxon itself, in peer-reviewed journals, on its website, and in archives created by Exxon for public use.*
> 
> Technically, the reporters wallow in the equivocation fallacy. Uncertainty about whether X=2 is not the same as uncertainty about whether 2+2=4. Acknowledging and even studying man’s impact on the climate, as Exxon has done and continues to do, is not tantamount to endorsing a green policy agenda of highly questionable value.
> 
> And that’s the real problem. *Read closely and the accusation isn’t really that Exxon misled the public by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science, which are real. It’s that Exxon refused to sign up for a vision of climate doom that would justify large and immediate costs to reduce fossil fuel use.*


M'bold.

By all means, probe away. Especially, read the article with the link to the Exxon paper. Then tell me if there is anything untowards happening here.



BigDL said:


> Is This Probe Going To Hurt? Well is it?


----------



## FeXL

Well BigDL, you've had 24 hours to digest the information.

What do you think?


----------



## FeXL

The latest instalment from David Evans.

New Science 19: The invisible nameless model that controls the whole field of climate science



> This post completes the first two parts of this series — problems with the conventional basic climate model, and fixing them with the alternative basic climate model. Here are just some general comments, tying together some of the main ideas. There are hardly any acronyms, and no equations.
> 
> After this the series will embark on its third and final part, an hypothesis about the main cause of global warming. Kindly note that whether the third part of the series eventually proves to be right or wrong has no bearing on the correctness of these first two parts about climate model architecture.
> 
> This post is only about basic models, not GCMs, except where it specifically states otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs it when crap like this gets published. Anybody with a high school understanding of science can debunk it.

Climate Science ‘jumps the shark’ – Sharks hunting ability ‘destroyed’ due to higher CO2



> From the ‘Carbon Dioxide, is there anything it can’t destroy?’ department and the University of Adelaide’s department of science fiction, comes this laughable press release. Let’s see, *sharks have been around for about 450 million years, and in that time the planet has been significantly warmer than today, and has had far higher CO2 levels than today during that time. Somehow, sharks managed to cope with that.* And of course, this isn’t an in situ study of sharks hunting ability, noooo, it’s sharks in a tank with prey thrown in while these clowns jacked around with CO2 levels in the water. Studies in captivity are NOT the same as the ocean. Just ask any salt water aquarium owner how difficult it is to keep specimens healthy under even the best aquarium management practice. Even worse, they only studied one kind of shark, yet extrapolate that to all sharks in the headline of the press release. *In my opinion, this study would get laughed out of any grade school science fair, but somehow it gets a pass in peer review.*


M'bold.

Covers it for me. However, more inside, especially regarding the test conditions.


----------



## FeXL

Further on reality vs XX)

A Tale Of Two Convergences



> In the course of doing the research for my previous post on thunderstorm evaporation, I came across something I’d read about but never had seen. This was the claim that the models showed not one, but two inter-tropical convergence zones (ITCZ).


He sums:



> Now, I’m sure there’s more to learn in all of this investigation of modeled rainfall. And normally, this would be nearing the point in my investigation where I would go Google “double ITCZ climate models” or something and read some of the literature … but why? For me the model results are meaningless. Almost all of the active temperature-regulating emergent phenomena are far smaller than the model gridscale. So *phenomena like thunderstorms, dust devils, tornadoes, and tropical cumulus are not modeled, they are merely parameterized … and those are the very phenomena which keep the global surface temperature regulated between narrow limits* (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th century). In my opinion, the lack of such sub-gridscale phenomena is why the modeled rainfall patterns over the ocean are so bizarre. Without the details of how and where and when the thunderstorms emerge, it would be hopeless to try to model oceanic rainfall.


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, the timing. Couldn't have anything to do with COP21 looming on the horizon...

One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet



> Readers of WUWT and millions of climate skeptics have read this article before, and in fact it is likely one of the most cited articles ever that illustrates the chutzpah and sheer hubris on display from a climate scientist who was so certain he could predict the future with certainty. Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit who famously said:
> 
> _*“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”*​_


Emphasis mine.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Related:

Indy disappears legendary climate quote



> You've heard of something called a newspaper of record? I guess the _Independent_ is whatever the opposite of that is.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

That's too bad. I'd love to see this whole Charlie Foxtrot hit the courts. Discovery would be fascinating...

Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes



> But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions.


More:



> After all, just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, although that’s up from 20% in July of last year. Unchanged is the 63% who say that debate is not done yet. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.


So, 38% of the population of the US knows nothing about science. Must be more of that "Common Core" thing...

There's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

This is an interesting read.

Blockbuster: Are hot days in Australia mostly due to low rainfall, and electronic thermometers — not CO2?



> In this provocative report, retired research scientist Bill Johnston analyzes Australian weather records in a fairly sophisticated and very detailed way, and finds they are “wholly unsuitable” for calculating long term trends. He uses a multi-pronged approach looking at temperatures, historical documents, statistical step changes, and in a novel process studies the way temperature varies with rainfall as well.
> 
> His two major findings are that local rainfall (or lack of) has a major impact on temperatures in a town, and that the introduction of the electronic sensors in the mid 1990s caused an abrupt step increase in maximum temperatures across Australia. There will be a lot more to say about these findings in coming months — the questions they raise are _very_ pointed. Reading, between the lines, if Johnston is right, a lot of the advertised record heat across Australia has more to do with equipment changes, homogenisation, and rainfall patterns than a long term trend.


Italics from the link.

Look forward to reading more on this.


----------



## eMacMan

France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change - Telegraph



> Every night, France's chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.
> 
> Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement - criticising the world's top climate change experts.
> 
> Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.
> ...
> 
> He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”
> 
> ...
> His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. "I received a letter telling me not to come. I'm in shock," he told RTL radio. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated."
> ...


----------



## FeXL

Censorship Used To ‘Promote’ Anthropogenic Global Warming



> Warming alarmists use a curious method to promote their view of “climate change”, censorship. If 97% of the scientific community (read IPCC) are so certain that humans are responsible for global warming, they should present irrefutable, supporting scientific evidence. Instead panic and censorship are used to advance their cause. In a society where freedom of speech is a treasured attribute, and is sought for all sorts of causes, beneficial and farcical censorship is an anathema.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, innit...

Halfway to 2°C Warming – and All is Well



> Leaving aside the questionable methods of some of the world’s temperature estimates, my big question is – So what?
> 
> Just like the big noise about breaching 400ppm CO2 for the first time, this is a big deal about nothing. There is a distinct lack of extreme weather, when compared to the historical record. Crop yields are at an all time high, thanks to CO2 fertilisation. Arctic sea ice has proven to be embarrassingly resilient. And of course, lets not mention the Antarctic.
> 
> Climate alarmists can’t even produce a genuine climate refugee. Greens tried really hard, but the climate refugee case fell apart when real courts reviewed their “evidence”.


From the comments:



> One degree above the Little Ice Age, the coldest period during the entire Holocene Epoch. Oh the humanity!!


Yep. Pretty much sums it up...


----------



## FeXL

What's this? Sanity in an otherwise crazy world?

Wow? On sea-levels NSW councils told to take “scientific” approach, not IPCC predictions



> *This is a big deal. Here’s a state government telling people to be more scientific, and not blindly follow the IPCC. This is a win we need to translate to other areas.*
> 
> The former Labor government in NSW had told councils they had to plan for sea-level rise “according to the IPCC”, but that made sea-side properties unsalable, and was pretty painfully stupid compared to what the tide gauges were actually saying (like in Sydney where the rise is a tiny 6cm a century). The new strategy says councils need to be scientific and look at the conditions on each beach _separately._
> 
> In this issue, the costs of following the IPCC plan were borne by those living on the coast (and property developers), and that pain motivated them to press the State government to get the IPCC out of the way. This is a reminder that it is worth protesting and _sane things do happen._
> 
> If we can get citizens of the free west to appreciate the true cost of the IPCC, it would surely be gone by 2020. Now there’s a target..


Emphasis from the link.


----------



## FeXL

So much for sanity...

Looney green tunes



> Just when you thought our environmentalist friends couldn't become any more absurd, they have to go and outdo themselves. The editor of the Ecologist, Westminster and Oxford educated Oliver Tickell, son of the equally silly and equally posh Crispin Tickell (also Westminster and Oxford), has just written a post arguing that the Paris terrorist attacks were intended to disrupt the COP21 climate talks, driving up oil prices and putting petrodollars in the pockets of ISIS. Oh yes, and western oil interests were probably in on it too.


Is there anything Big Oil can't do?

The disconnect with reality is stunning...


----------



## FeXL

Further from David Evans.

New Science 19b: A Synopsis



> *I’ve prepared a synopsis of the 19 posts in this series. It’s a standalone document of 20 pages that explains the important points, some from a different point of view than the blog series. *The summary and introduction at the front are non-technical and suitable for politicians and journalists. The synopsis is light on for equations — there are some, but you can pretty much ignore them because it mostly reads fine without them.
> 
> If you wanted to show someone the series, this is the document to use. It is downloadable from the project home page, which is the url to give someone if you only give them one link to his work/series.
> 
> I’ve also written three introductory essays, which will soon be downloadable from there also.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Arctic temperatures.

What Drives Greenland Temperatures?



> NASA Fraudsters claim that melting of eastern Greenland’s glaciers is caused by increases in carbon dioxide, but there is zero evidence to back up their claim. Glacier melt there peaked 80 years ago when CO2 was very low.
> 
> ...
> 
> There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and Greenland temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> What does drive Greenland temperatures is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which correlates nicely.


Good visuals.


----------



## eMacMan

Wouldn't you know it. Just as the faithful start hollering about the Antarctic ice-shelf disappearing (again) along comes this:

Antarctic Ice So Thick Scientists Have Trouble Getting There | The Daily Caller



> Scientists are struggling to stage expeditions to the South Pole because Antarctica’s sea ice has been growing rapidly and hit record high levels.
> 
> The UK Guardian reports 50 scientists have gathered in Tasmania to discuss more accurate ways to predict Antarctic sea ice levels so researchers don’t get stuck in ice pack when traveling southward.
> 
> “It’s quite hard to forecast but whatever effort we put into improving our ability to forecast sea ice will ultimately pay dividends in terms of savings for national programs,” Tony Worby, head of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, told the Guardian.
> 
> Last year, ships “couldn’t get anywhere near” the Australian Antarctic Division’s research site on Antarctica, reports The Guardian.
> 
> The Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in an ice pack on Christmas Eve 2013 with 52 passengers aboard on its way to show how global warming was impacting Antarctica. After about a week of being stuck on the ice, an Australian icebreaker was sent to rescue them — that ice breaker then became temporarily stuck itself in the Antarctic ice pack.
> 
> ...


Interesting twist at the end as baffled warmists attempt to blame Global Warming!


----------



## FeXL

Another week that was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #205

Good article: *Un-Validated Models*


----------



## FeXL

Advice to attendees of COP21

Memo to Paris: don’t base policy on overblown prediction



> The Met Office is at it again. Just in time for Paris, in a stunt co-ordinated with the unspeakable BBC, it issued a characteristically mendacious press release saying that global mean surface temperature was about to exceed 1 C° above the mean for the reference period 1850-1900 for the first time.
> 
> And this, said the excitable David Shukman, the BBC’s pseudoscience editor on the ten o’clock news, was *the halfway milestone to 2 C°, which, he said, was generally accepted to be the threshold of dangerous global warming.*


M'bold.

Except, according to my count, we've been >2° higher than today a number of times in the last 10,000 years:


----------



## FeXL

Further on data "adjustments".

Corrupted Australian Surface Temperature Records



> §7 – Basic Conclusions:
> 
> · It is nonsensical when there are thousands of older stations on record, that older records that are argued to require ACORN corrections should have a smaller sample than the “more reliable” largely uncorrected data of recent times.


There are 5 additional conclusions.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> Well BigDL, you've had 24 hours to digest the information.
> 
> What do you think?


 Sorry, I guess you thought I was interested in your machinations to spread the denial of the obvious. 

It seems as if you're still under an apprehension that a controversy still exists. 

You have been taken to the woodshed and back by Cuba Mark, Bryanc and others who provided any reasonable person with sufficient schooling to know what on going on in the world. 

You want to believe the loonytic fringe. You're welcome to it.


----------



## FeXL

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Lessee, I know it's here someplace...ah, yes:



FeXL said:


> So, as you avoid the issue entirely, I guess you got nuttin'. Quelle surprise...






BigDL said:


> Sorry, I guess you thought I was interested in your machinations to spread the denial of the obvious.
> 
> It seems as if you're still under an apprehension that a controversy still exists.
> 
> You have been taken to the woodshed and back by Cuba Mark, Bryanc and others who provided any reasonable person with sufficient schooling to know what on going on in the world.
> 
> You want to believe the loonytic fringe. You're welcome to it.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Lessee, I know it's here someplace...ah, yes:


Sent that guy back to workin' on the railroad with my ignore button some time back. No more dealing with trying to filter the stupid out.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Lessee, I know it's here someplace...ah, yes:


My sincere best wishes that you are able to get your maladies under control.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Sent that guy back to workin' on the railroad with my ignore button some time back. No more dealing with trying to filter the stupid out.


HeyBuddy thanks for the shout out. Good to hear from you.


----------



## Macfury

Again, explain why you think it is obvious. None of your fellow travelers came close.

Though I agree that in "progressive circles" a certain close-mindedness may convince you there is no controversy. 

If your choice is to hide behind the skirts of authority as your strong shield, then clearly we have nothing to talk about. 



BigDL said:


> Sorry, I guess you thought I was interested in your machinations to spread the denial of the obvious.
> 
> It seems as if you're still under an apprehension that a controversy still exists.
> 
> You have been taken to the woodshed and back by Cuba Mark, Bryanc and others who provided any reasonable person with sufficient schooling to know what on going on in the world.
> 
> You want to believe the loonytic fringe. You're welcome to it.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Again, explain why you think it is obvious. None of your fellow travelers came close.
> 
> Though I agree that in "progressive circles" a certain close-mindedness may convince you there is no controversy.
> 
> If your choice is to hide behind the skirts of authority as your strong shield, then clearly we have nothing to talk about.


If you wish to continue to follow the folly then have at 'er. 

Should any reasonable person wish to follow a sensible course please, friend, do not feel your judgement is being disparaged.


----------



## Macfury

Just asking whose authority you accept regarding this belief and why you accept it. Am always willing to be schooled by you wise council.




BigDL said:


> If you wish to continue to follow the folly then have at 'er.
> 
> Should any reasonable person wish to follow a sensible course please, friend, do not feel your judgement is being disparaged.


----------



## BigDL

I have explained my views to you. 

You have your views, I accept that. You are most welcome to your beliefs.


----------



## Macfury

Certainly you have stated your views, but you have never explained why you hold them--other than through appeal to authority.



BigDL said:


> I have explained my views to you.
> 
> You have your views, I accept that. You are most welcome to your beliefs.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Certainly you have stated your views, but you have never explained why you hold them--other than through appeal to authority.


I hold my views because they are the views I hold. My understanding, on balance, is satisfactory to me. I am not attempting to convince anyone of my point of view here. 

Is it getting too lonely in this thread? It has turned to echo chamber for one. Or is it that this thread is basically a personal blog?


----------



## FeXL

I think it's important that the stupid be displayed loud & proud. The more the charlatans in this debate display their true colours, the sooner the thoughtful folk will comprehend. 



SINC said:


> No more dealing with trying to filter the stupid out.


----------



## FeXL

I wasn't aware that the legalization of pot had happened yet. Perhaps the Maritimes are ahead, after all. Take another hit on the bong for me, wouldja?



BigDL said:


> My sincere best wishes that you are able to get your maladies under control.


----------



## FeXL

You sound just like the little drummer boy who used to occasionally frequent this thread. He, too, had his butt handed to him on a regular basis here.

Every day on this thread, another hunnert views. He used to say it was bots. Funny, there are many other threads on this blog that only go up a few views a day. Or are the bots selective in what they choose to read? 

If you feel you have something to add to the discussion besides logical fallacies, non-empirical results from unverified computer games & gallons of warmist kool-aid, please, feel free.

Otherwise, your absence won't be missed...



BigDL said:


> Is it getting too lonely in this thread? It has turned to echo chamber for one. Or is it that this thread is basically a personal blog?


----------



## Macfury

In other words, you do not care to explain why you believe what you believe. Possibly, you are not capable of it. Let's leave it at that, then.





BigDL said:


> I hold my views because they are the views I hold. My understanding, on balance, is satisfactory to me. I am not attempting to convince anyone of my point of view here.
> 
> Is it getting too lonely in this thread? It has turned to echo chamber for one. Or is it that this thread is basically a personal blog?


----------



## FeXL

In the second of his remedial articles, Tisdale defines "Global Warming".

Back to Basics Part 2 – What is Climate Change?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the whole RICO-20 fiasco...

From the Department of Unintended Consequences & the Jane Fonda Effect:

Lawsuit filed in the #RICO20 case against GMU for ‘denying’ records exist



> CEI Files FOIA Lawsuit Against George Mason University for Denying Existence of Records Related to RICO-20 Letter
> 
> George Mason University (GMU) faculty claimed “no records” existed in response to a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) FOIA request regarding the involvement of Professor Ed Maibach in the RICO-20 campaign seeking prosecution of opponents of his view of climate policy. Yet, CEI has evidence of such records. This prompted CEI to sue GMU over the FOIA dispute, which aims to inform the public about the role of Maibach in organizing the campaign led by GMU Professor Jagadish Shukla calling for prosecution of their political opponents.


Saweet!!


----------



## FeXL

Which is why the past 18 years & 9 months years global temps have flatlined. Despite fully 1/3 of all man-made emissions going into the atmosphere during that same period...

Claim: Earth’s climate more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought



> From BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY and the “worse than we thought, doubling down on CO2 for Paris” department, comes this claim that we are well on our way to a hothouse Earth. *Except, the study isn’t confirmed yet, by the researcher’s own admission (see end of PR). he needs more data, but that won’t stop the headlines leading up to Paris.* Meanwhile, present day climate sensitivity seems to be far less than 3°C, if fact there’s quite a number of papers suggesting that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than IPCC model predictions.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

A grin for your Wednesday.

Tuesday titter – Alarmism in a Huff

Related:

Flashback 1974: CIA Warned GLOBAL COOLING Would Cause Terrorism



> *Decades before Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that global warming was driving terrorism, U.S. intelligence officials warned that global cooling would cause massive crop failures, destabilize government and drive violent conflict.*
> 
> A Central Intelligence Agency report from 1974 warned Earth’s “climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era… an era of drought, famine, and political unrest in the western world.” The report cited famines in the Soviet Union, drought in Latin America and flooding in the U.S. as examples of how global cooling was wreaking havoc on countries.
> 
> *This sounds eerily similar to arguments Sanders made during the Democratic presidential debate Saturday evening, in which he argued man-made global warming made Syria’s drought worse and led to the rise of the Islamic State. It’s an argument increasingly in the mouths of Democrats over the past year.*


M'bold.

So, which the hell is it boys? 

_Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong..._


----------



## FeXL

Joe, Joe, Joe... 

Further on medium term results of a successful COP21 agreement.

Lomborg pushes back against Joe Romm’s over the top screed about the lack of impact of #COP21



> Using the peer-reviewed climate model MAGICC, I estimate the marginal impact of carbon reduction promises called INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) from the EU, USA, China and the rest of the world, along with the likely global policy output. *My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.*


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Hard to lose when you argue both sides...

Before He Was Pushing The Global Warming Scam, Paul Ehrlich Was Pushing The Global Cooling Scam



> In 1974, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich said global cooling was going to kill us all.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ehrlich wrote a paper with Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, predicting a new ice age.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ehrlich and Holdren are saying the exact same things now, only it is global warming that is going to kill us rather global cooling.


----------



## FeXL

Further on melting glaciers.

Glacial Retreat Before 1910



> The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland retreated more than one foot per day from 1850 to 1903, while thinning by a _“considerable extent.”_ It was also reported that alpine glaciers were in general retreat, and _“conclusively that the glaciers of Greenland are receding”_
> 
> ...
> 
> Government climate experts say that the period of ice loss from 1850 to 1910 experienced global cooling, and was the coldest on record.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1908, National Geographic reported that Alaskan glaciers at Glacier Bay retreated eleven feet per day from 1894 to 1907, during the coldest years on record.
> 
> ...
> 
> USGS reports that Glacier Bay glaciers retreated four feet per day from 1760 to 1907.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1910, it was reported that the glaciers of the world had been retreating since at least 1836.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1911, it was reported that glaciers in the Alps were disappearing.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1902, it was reported that glaciers in the Alps were retreating more than 100 feet per year.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1932 it was reported that the glaciers of west Antarctica had been rapidly retreating for at least a century.
> 
> ...
> 
> Government climate experts claim that glacial retreat is due to global warming, yet their own fraudulent temperature data demonstrates that they are wrong.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that...

Britain Officially Demotes Climate Change



> Amber Rudd, Britain’s Energy Secretary, has officially stated energy security is Britain’s top energy policy priority, ahead of Climate Change.


----------



## FeXL

Wanna make a quick hunnert grand?

Spot the trend: $100,000 USD prize to show climate & temperature data is not random



> A UK-based math buff and former investment analyst named Douglas Keenan has posted an intriguing comment on the internet. He takes the view that global temperature series are dominated by randomness and contain no trend, and that existing analyses supposedly showing a significant trend are wrong.
> 
> ...
> 
> He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…
> 
> _A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.​_


I'm sure someone at NOAA will be snapping this up shortly... <snort>


----------



## FeXL

No surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

New urban heat island study shows surprising variation in air temperatures



> From the UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA and the “any motorcycle or bicycle rider can tell you this” department comes this study on UHI in Minneapolis.
> 
> ...
> 
> Some parts of the Twin Cities can spike temperatures up to 9°F higher than surrounding communities thanks to the “urban heat island” effect, according to a new study from the University of Minnesota.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the RICO-20 investigation.

Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report



> House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) opened another front in his war with federal climate researchers on Wednesday, saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> ...
> 
> In a second letter in less than a week to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Smith urged her to pressure NOAA to comply with his subpoena for internal communications. Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June.


Nice...

Related:

Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny



> If Chairman Lamar Smith can produce evidence to back his claims of inside information from whistleblowers, if he succeeds in forcing the release of NOAA emails, which are then discovered to contain evidence of dubious scientific procedures, the consequences will be far reaching.


HIDING SOMETHING?



> “The alarmists are basically like someone claiming that there is a monster under the bed. But when we look and see no monster, they simply say that it’s elsewhere. Considering the huge sums of money we spent on those research about climate change, it would be a good idea to have a debate on the validity of the claims,” [Sam Kazman] concluded.


----------



## FeXL

Massive Advance In Climate Science



> Climate scientists have just discovered that ice doesn’t melt at -30C, but somehow will still cause sea level to rise as it doesn’t melt.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is a brilliant physics discovery by the stupidest profession which ever existed, but they are still having some math difficulties. Last month they said that Antarctica is gaining ice and reducing sea level.
> 
> ...
> 
> They also seem to be having some rather serious modeling problems, as their models missed the minor detail that Antarctica has cooled as CO2 increased almost 25% since 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> Every legitimate indication is that Antarctica is cooling, gaining ice and reducing sea level.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris



> Gavin and Tom delivered their fraud right on schedule ahead of Paris, just as I predicted they would. They claim that October had the highest temperature anomaly ever recorded for any month.
> 
> ...
> 
> Somehow, they managed to calculate Earth’s temperature within 0.01 degrees – even though *they had no temperature data for about half of the land surface, including none in Greenland and very little in Africa or Antarctica.*
> 
> ...
> 
> This kind of mind-blowing malfeasance would get them fired and probably escorted out of the building by security at many engineering companies.
> 
> *Satellites cover almost the entire planet several times a day, and they showed that October had only the 25th highest monthly anomaly, and that the first ten months of 1998 all had a higher anomaly than October 2015.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Not only do NASA and NOAA make up fake data for much of the planet, but they massively tamper with their existing data, like this station in Siberia where they have cooled the past nearly two degrees C since 2012 – and now claim that it is two degrees C above normal.
> 
> ...
> 
> By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. *This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Perfect...

US Senate Sends The World A Climate Message



> The US Senate is sending a clear message to the world’s climate delegates, who are busy prepping for the impending COP21 conference: *This legislative body won’t ratify any kind of binding Global Climate Treaty (GCT), so don’t even try.* It will not contribute government money to a global climate fund that’s meant to spend $100 billion annually on helping poorer countries mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. This sends yet another powerful message to climate delegates. Even if negotiators stay away from a binding treaty for fear of America’s lack of participation, they won’t be able to entice the developing world to stick to national emissions reductions plans if the carrot in all of this—the climate fund—isn’t being backed by the developed world.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on cherry picking.

More Spectacular Fraud From The White House



> In their fully fraudulent “National Climate Assessment” The White House discusses fire from 1916 to 2003, and then gives a statistic from 1970 to 2003
> 
> ...
> 
> So why did they ignore the years before 1970? The reason is simple – those years completely wreck their climate change propaganda. Fire decreased by 90% from 1930 to 2003.
> 
> ...
> 
> The large amount of burned area in the 1930s was due to the record heat and drought.
> 
> ...
> 
> A fire started every three minutes in 1937. Eleven percent of the open forest burned.


----------



## FeXL

Good to see that others are taking notice, as well.

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets



> Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.


More:



> _"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] *A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.*”​_


M'bold.

More, yet:



> According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
> 
> • Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
> • Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
> • Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
> • Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
> • Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
> • With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the US Congress effect in Paris.

The one most important factor for Paris — The US congress



> When the press releases come out saying that Paris has succeeded (which will happen, *no matter the outcome*) the key factor is not just whether the agreement has any meaningful teeth, but whether it can be forced on the US without approval of Congress. The US didn’t approve Kyoto, and now, more than then, there is no reason to think anything significant would get through. The GOP Republican candidates are not paying lip service to the global warming meme anymore, things have changed so much they’re almost all competing to be skeptics.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

On cherry-picking dates.

More Mind-Blowing Fraud By Yale University And Cheryl Katz



> Yale University has a brand new article claiming that Lake Superior is overheating and its ice is disappearing.
> 
> ...
> 
> This November 2015 article is scientific malfeasance at its worst.
> 
> *Lake Superior summer water temperatures have plummeted about seven degrees F over the past five years, meaning they are just as cold now as they were in 1906. Katz ended her study right at the peak in 2010.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Inconvenient data?

Why NASA And NOAA Made Greenland Disappear



> There is plenty of temperature data available from Greenland, but NOAA has made it disappear from their analysis, as has NASA.
> 
> ...
> 
> They have good reason for this. Temperatures in southwest Greenland are plummeting, and are colder now than during the 1970s.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Greenland has gone missing, because it wrecks the NOAA/NASA climate scam.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Even more reason to stop the bastards.

The Real Objective Of Paris



> At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
> 
> *"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.*


I find her candor refreshing...


----------



## FeXL

Further from the Progressive Fruit Loops & Whackos Department...

John Kerry channels Paul Ehrlich with doomsday predictions of climate change and threats to national security



> Kerry’s rant sounds just like Paul Ehrlich’s failed predictions from the 1970’s.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Latest from David Evans.

New Science 20: It’s not CO2, so what Is the main cause of Global Warming?



> Background of the last 19 posts: our understanding of carbon dioxide is framed by the top-down conventional basic climate model. But that model has major architectural errors. When the errors are fixed, the model estimates the Earth is not very sensitive to carbon dioxide. Indeed, it’s an order of magnitude less important than the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated. All that extra atmospheric carbon dioxide very likely caused less than 20% of the global warming of recent decades*. (Kindly note that those findings are logically distinct from the notch-delay hypothesis coming up, so even if that hypothesis proves to be wrong then the critique of the architecture of the conventional basic climate stands.)
> 
> So if carbon dioxide is not the cause of 80% of global warming, what is? Let’s start by ruling out what it is _not._
> 
> * The Royal Society now talks about carbon dioxide only as causing the warming of the last 50 years, so we take the “recent decades” to mean since about 1970, so it includes the relatively fast warming of the 1970s – 90s. It probably is also applicable back to 1910, the turning point of Mann’s hockey stick, to include the 1910 to 1940 warming (though I imagine there really would have been a hotspot in the 1920s).


M'bold.

I recall having an exchange on this thread with BigDL's much vaunted hero bryanc some time back about how much effect CO2 would be responsible for in the 0.8°C temperature rise since the industrial era. He speculated something on the order of 50%. I told him I figgered single digits, certainly less than 10%. The above number, 20%, includes only the last 50 years.

Run that date back to 1880, the start of the industrial revolution, and my prediction of <10% looks pretty damn prescient...


----------



## FeXL

Further on jiggered numbers.

NOAA’s Fabricated “Record Temperatures”



> NOAA inform us that last month was another “hottest evah”.
> 
> Note how a huge swathe of South America has been labelled as “record warmest”. And what is this based on?
> 
> ...
> 
> In fact, there is virtually no temperature data available at all for that particular area, including nearly all of Brazil.
> 
> The so-called record temperatures in Brazil and neighbouring countries are pure fabrication.
> 
> Note also the red splurge across Greenland, which apparently has no data.


He concludes:



> Meanwhile, the much more accurate and comprehensive satellites show current warmth well below previous El Nino peaks in 1998 and 2010, *and a declining trend.*


M'bold.

Curious, innit...


----------



## FeXL

Used to be a computer salesman who'd visit this thread, get his butt handed to him on a regular basis & leave, only to come back with some "solid" evidence of AGW. Many times it was predicated as, "Just wait until the next El Nino arrives!!!". Unfortunately for him & all the other Gaia worshippers, there is no connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & ENSO...

Update on El Niño: Gaia disappoints the climate activists



> Summary: Climate alarmists have run wild with predictions about the “monster” “Godzilla” El Niño, a last throw of the dice before the COP-21 climate conference in Paris. Here is an example by Brad Plummer, with a little debunking. Gaia will have the last word about this El Niño. *The latest forecasts of the major climate models suggest that it will disappoint activists.*


M'bold.

Models? Hey, the warmists seem to like 'em...


----------



## SINC

Cleaner atmosphere means more Arctic sea-ice melt, study says 

Go figure.

http://www.adn.com/article/20151122/cleaner-atmosphere-means-more-arctic-sea-ice-melt-study-says


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Pretty much the whole post is a good read.


----------



## FeXL

Maths is hard.

Quote of the day, science with Guardian characteristics edition



> _Without a Paris agreement, global warming is set to reach as much as *5C (41F)* above pre-industrial levels. Scientists estimate that warming above *2C (35.6F)* will result in catastrophic and irreversible changes to the weather, including droughts, floods, heatwaves, fiercer storms and sea level rises.​_
> Fiona Harvey, award winning environment writer for the Guardian, struggles with mathematics


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Exxon accusations.

Exxon knew what the IPCC didn't



> Bernie Lewin has posted another of his must-read climate history pieces, this time looking at the history of claims about detection and attribution of temperature changes to mankind. *His point is that claims that "Exxon knew" back in the 1970s are absurd when set in the context of what climate science was saying on the subject of an anthropogenic influence ten, or even twenty years later.*
> 
> It's beautifully written and confirms Bernie's place as an important historian of global warming science. You must be able to get a very comical juxtaposition by reading Bernie's erudite thoughts after perusing the effusions of a "proper" historian like Naomi Oreskes.


M'bold.

Look, I got no love for Exxon since the _Exxon Valdez_ incident at Prince William Sound. Since then I have flatly refused to purchase a single thing from either Exxon or Esso.

However, a witch hunt is a witch hunt...


----------



## FeXL

Must be the place where Rachel gets her erroneous climate data on glaciers from.

Incompetence Or Fraud At USGS?



> The USGS is claiming that Glacier National Park is melting due to “global climate change” – predicting that some of the largest glaciers will be gone by 2030, and leaving a 100 year gap in information from 1910 to 2010.
> 
> ...
> 
> I am filling in the gap for them. The glaciers melted so rapidly before 1950 (CO2 310 PPM) that experts predicted all of the glaciers would be gone by 2000.


----------



## FeXL

Couple articles on Brazilian temperatures.

Massive Temperature Adjustments In Brazil – And Guess In What Direction?



> The adjustments that GHCN have made are massive, and have turned a cooling trend into a rapidly warming one.


Brazil’s Temperature Trends & UHI



> According to GISS, most of Brazil was a degree or more warmer last year than the 1951-80 average.
> 
> GHCN have 33 stations currently operating in the country, most of which are heavily urbanised or airport sites like Brasilia. Such sites clearly cannot be relied upon to give reliable temperature trends.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent summary. Good read.

Had Enough Therapy?



> It never looks like hysteria when you are in the middle of it. It never feels like a mania when you are being consumed by righteous zealotry. It never looks or feels like a cult when you believe it to the depths of your soul.
> 
> True believers are never swayed by the evidence. They believe the absence of empirical data is a test of their faith. They might skew the data in order to lure in those who still hold to an outmoded view of empirical science, but they themselves have given their lives to the narrative, not to the facts.
> 
> If you can still be a true believer when the facts tell another story, your status within the cult will be enhanced. If you really want to take it a step further into delirium, you should propose punishing and persecuting those who do not believe.
> 
> Up with climate change! Down with the marketplace of ideas!


More: 

_"How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”

*“There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states.*​_
M'bold.

Last quote from the French Mathematicians paper I referenced some time back.


----------



## FeXL

Second essay in the series from Kip Hansen.

Chaos & Climate – Part 2: Chaos = Stability



> The IPCC has long recognized that the Earth’s climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system. Unfortunately, few of those dealing in climate science – professional and citizen scientists alike – seem to grasp the full implications of this. It is not an easy topic – not a topic on which one can read a quick primer and then dive into real world applications. This essay is the second in a short series of essays to clarify the possible relationships between Climate and Chaos. This is not a highly technical discussion, but a basic introduction to the subject to shed some light on just what the IPCC might mean when it says “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system” and how that could change our understanding of the climate and climate science. The first part of this series is here: Chaos and Climate – Part 1: Linearity. Today’s essay covers a single common feature of non-linear chaotic systems: Stability.


Good read. Some interesting information on Chaos Theory.


----------



## FeXL

Further on coral. Gonna genetically engineer us some Super Coral...

Super Coral – the Latest Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis



> Let us hope Dr. Gates succeeds – *because its obvious that an organism which over its 500 million year history has survived dinosaur killing asteroids, huge natural climate fluctuations, enormous volcanic eruptions which poisoned the air and water on a global scale, even natural CO2 levels many times higher than today, will be utterly helpless in the face of a few PPM of anthropogenic CO2.*


M'bold.

Sums it up for me...


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been some claptrap from numerous uninformed sources claiming that climate change has been the cause of the rise of terrorism in Syria.

This paper clearly & finally debunks the hypothesis.

Drought, Climate, War, Terrorism, and Syria



> We have established that there was no drought of any unusual significance in Syria between 2006 and 2011, that climate change did not cause the crop failures which resulted in millions of farmers fleeing to the cities or that they triggered the Syrian uprising when they got there. The claim that refugees from Syria are in any way, shape or form “climate refugees” is therefore entirely without foundation, as is the claim that man-made climate change had anything to do with the Syrian civil war or the rise of ISIS.


Excellent read.


----------



## SINC

Russian Scientists Warn Earth Faces Cooling Period for 200 Years - The New Observer


----------



## FeXL

US Presidential candidates ranked for independent thinking and gullibility on climate science



> How many Presidential candidates are susceptible to groupthink, scare campaigns and low-base science agitprop? Thanks to Seth Borenstein, Michael Mann & Andrew Dessler we can rank them according to their ability to resist profoundly unscientific propaganda like “there is a consensus”.


Further:



> *Those who fall for the consensus argument are in no position to run a nation.* Firstly it’s profoundly unscientific — we don’t vote for the laws of science; scientific theories are either true or not true regardless of opinions. Secondly, it only takes ten minutes of independent searching to find that there is no consensus among scientists as a broad group, anyway.


M'bold.

Rachel? Justin? Barry?


----------



## FeXL

Once again, the complete disconnect between a country & its leader...

The Paris effect: 97% Of Americans Don’t Believe Climate Change Is Top Concern



> A new Fox News poll finds that in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, *the issue of terrorism has become the top concern of American voters.* Only 3 percent of respondents said that global warming was the most important issue facing the country today.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

On CO2 residence time.

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims



> Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at a rate proportional to the surplus CO2 concentration. The half-life of the surplus CO2 concentration is approximately 40 years. This is the conclusion of my research paper, published on defyccc.com today.


----------



## FeXL

Just in time for Paris.

Predetermined: 2016 already ‘hottest of all time’



> Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt better get cranking on their temperature adjustments.


BAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

The original meaning of “denier” was those who reject a religion



> *In 1475, the word “Denier” meant those who did not accept the church doctrine.
> 
> Five hundred years later, not much has changed.*
> 
> ...
> 
> In 2015, anyone who thinks that leeks and lightbulbs won’t stop floods in Peru is a “denier”. If you don’t accept that your air-conditioner causes war in Syria, or that sharks can protect us from heatwaves, get used to being referred to as a mindless denying apostate.


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

A few recent headlines



> UK climate diplomats face axe after COP21 Paris summit
> 
> UK scraps £1bn carbon capture and storage competition
> 
> Spending Review: Support for fracking and green energy, DECC budget slashed


He sums:



> You know that austerity is biting deep and hard when we can no longer afford battallions of climate diplomats to arrange showings of _An Inconvenient Truth_ to the natives.


BAHAHAHAHA!!!

(BTW, WTF is a climate "diplomat"?)


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature fraud.

Biggest Fraud In History – Perpetrated By Tom Karl And Gavin Schmidt



> The NASA and NOAA graphs do not have anything to do with the actual temperatures on Earth. Their only purpose is to confuse people into believing that they do.
> 
> But the illusion is much worse than it seems. *Even after all of the data tampering. temperatures are tracking right at Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C. Meaning that their models and theory have completely failed.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on pulling gov't funding.

Chancellor Cancels £1bn CCS Budget



> _CCS has the potential to halve *the costs of decarbonising the UK economy by 2050, which amounts to £32 billion a year by 2050.* In choosing to save a relatively small sum of tax payer money in 2015, government is unnecessarily committing vast amount of future energy consumers’ money.​_
> £32 billion? Politicians from all parties, not to mention the obnoxious Gummer and his cronies at the Committee on Climate Change, have been doing their best to hide numbers like this.


Bold from the link.

More:



> The decision by the Chancellor seems to be a recognition that, with the current state of technology, CCS is a dead duck.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change



> The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.
> 
> There are other similar traits, but here are four:
> 
> 1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.
> 
> 2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.
> 
> 3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body — not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.
> 
> 4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

COP this - Josh 353



> "_COP21: Public support for tough climate deal 'declines'_"
> 
> Reading the article it looks like the decline in support is pretty much worldwide - see their graphic below.


Slowly but surely...


----------



## FeXL

Edition 21 from David Evans.

New Science 21: The mysterious Notch in the Sun-Earth relationship — the dog that didn’t bark



> The notch in the Sun-Earth relationship is the dog that didn’t bark — the clue that was there all along, telling us something about the way the Sun influences Earth’s climate. There is a flicker of extra energy coming in at the peak of every solar cycle — roughly every 11 years. It’s only a small peak, but there is no warming on Earth at all — it’s like the energy that vanished. A good skeptic would be saying _but, the increase in energy is so small, how could we find it among the noise?_ And the answer is that Fourier maths is so good at doing this that it is used every day to find the GPS signals which (as David details below) are so much smaller than the noise that they are much harder to find than this signal from the Sun.
> 
> Thousands of engineers know about and use Fourier maths and notch filters, but due to a strange one-sided bureaucratic funding model, none of those thousands of experts have applied that knowledge, which is so well adapted to feedback systems to the Sun Earth energy flows. David has used an input-output “black box” method to find the empirical transfer function and discover the notch. Viva the independent scientist, supported only by independent donations — at a fraction of the cost of the billion dollar models, David Evans has done something in three years which none of the bureaucrat-driven golden icons have managed in thirty years.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

South African temperature diddling, too.

Massive Tampering With South African Temperatures



> Out of the ten stations mentioned above, there has been marked warming trends introduced by adjustments at eight. One, De Aar shows little change, but Upington, oddly enough, bucks the trend with a cooling trend added. However, when the adjustments at all ten are averaged together, the overall effect is obvious.
> 
> ...
> 
> One oddity is the 1990’s period, when seemingly temperatures were over adjusted up, only to be adjusted down since. It is one thing questioning whether temperature measurements taken in the 1880’s were accurate, but the 1990’s? Are we seriously saying they were understated by half a degree? This is clearly a nonsense, and it goes to the heart of how adjustments have corrupted the temperature dataset.
> 
> *No reputable scientists would go near this garbage with a barge pole.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Who knew?

Increased carbon dioxide enhances plankton growth, opposite of what was expected



> Coccolithophores–tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web–have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, *which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced.*


M'bold.

Which is, in fact, complete & utter BS.

From the comments:



> Why are they surprised? *Have they not seen the White Cliffs of Dover and thought about what might have caused the increase in coccolithophores in the Cretaceous??*


M'bold.

BINGO!!!


----------



## FeXL

Another article from CM's favorite climate sceptic. He talks at length about Climategate & Intellectual Property Rights.

An Important Lesson On The Anniversary of Climategate.



> We just passed the 6th anniversary of the release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), an event James Delingpole called Climategate. I would like to say celebrated, but the full impact of the release did not affect science and society like its namesake. Instead, it is impacting in negative ways as the culprits continue their assault on the advance of knowledge and dissemination of information in a free and open society. Exposure of the cover-up was Watergate’s undoing, but the Climategate cover-up succeeded.


The comments lead with talk about the Dauphin's donations to Big Climate. A salient point is made.



> Ah, he’s a big L Liberal. You have to watch both the thimble and the pea…
> 
> It is $2.65 Billion Cdn. So just under $2 Billion in “real dollars”. But it gets better than that.
> 
> It is over five years
> 
> But it is even better than THAT. You see, the first year is only $300 million Cdn. The number rises each year until it is $800 million Cdn in year 5. So… lots of time to adjust the number, or delay it as time goes forward.
> 
> But here’s the killer.
> 
> They ALSO announced that they will not support an agreement in which emission cuts are legally binding.
> 
> So….*All in all a made for the news cycle announcement.* Not much money this year, perhaps more in a few years…maybe…or not……oh and any commits we make on emissions we are telling you in advance we refuse to be held legally accountable for.


M'bold.

Typical progressive policy. Identical to the "made for the news cycle announcement" that Rachel made regarding taxing oil companies on profits only.


----------



## FeXL

So, here we are in the "Warmest Yeah Evah!!!" and, curiously, this:

Most Snow Patches Survive In Scotland Since 1994



> Seventy-three patches of snow have survived on Scotland’s hills from last winter – *the most for 21 years*, according to a man who counts them.
> 
> Iain Cameron writes about, photographs and measures snow.
> 
> His records of the white stuff are published by the Royal Meteorological Society.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Updated article on an 18,000 year timeline of climate/human history. Of course, I'm far more interested in the climate for this thread. The author originally submitted the article in 2013 & I believe I linked to it then.

Enclosed is a PDF with some great information on temperatures over the study period. It offers good perspective on the complete disconnect between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & global temperatures and historical warm periods with temperatures higher than those of today.

Climate and Human Civilization over the last 18,000 years



> Given that man-made Carbon Dioxide is a very recent phenomenon, the radical climatic changes before 200 years ago cannot be attributed to man’s influence. They must be natural. The recent warming of 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012 is pretty small compared to other temperature changes in the Holocene. It is clear from history that natural forces can cause significant climate changes. It is also clear that droughts are usually associated with colder periods, not warmer periods. Some climate changes are probably due to variations in the Earth’s orbit, but some might be due to variations in TSI (total solar irradiance) or other solar influences. *How much is due to nature and how much is due to man is unknown.*
> 
> Much of the last 18,000 years is characterized by more rapid sea-level rise than we see today. The current rise of sea level is very slow relative to the past...


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Half page ad in _The Australian_.

What you don’t know about the climate (Half page advert in The Australian)



> Here’s the full copy of a half page advert in The Australian. In a normal world, this would be discussed at conferences, and reported by science reporters in magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American, or on shows like Catalyst. Instead, private citizens have to fork out thousands to pay for an advert.


----------



## FeXL

Why do big companies endorse carbon pricing?

Why business loves carbon pricing



> Trevor Tombe, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary, tweeted that Notley’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax will raise roughly $6 billion annually in 2018 and that the money will be disbursed in the following ways.
> 
> About $2.9 billion, or *49%*, will go to large industrial emitters of greenhouse gases in what Tombe described as a “huge” output subsidy program.
> 
> Another $2.6 billion, or *44%*, will go into the Alberta NDP government’s coffers to spend however it wants. [cough-buying votes & feeding the pigs at the trough-cough]
> 
> By contrast, only *4%*, or $250 million, will go to low and middle income Albertans to help them cope with the higher cost of goods and services resulting from the carbon tax.
> 
> And only $150 million, or *3%*, will go to energy efficiency programs.


M'bold.

I think I'm gonna go hurl. In Technicolour...


----------



## FeXL

Once again, not a surprise to anyone whose been paying attention.

IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT



> Sometimes you know that something “stinks” somewhere. But you don’t know what and you don’t know where. You can search everywhere and don’t find it. Till you finally find out.
> 
> Until recently I thought about the IPCC as an organisation “filled up with science”. That thought was both right and wrong. Sure, you can find a lot of scientists and scientific results there, but, _IPCC does not (necessarily) work as science_. No, it is not science, IPCC is _government_.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Finally!

AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)



> I often get emails asking me to comment in detail on an article on global warming that pretends the “problem” is worse than it is. Here is my reply to one such request.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments"...

Pause Buster SST Data: Has NOAA Adjusted Away a Relationship between NMAT and SST that the Consensus of CMIP5 Climate Models Indicate Should Exist?



> In this post, we’re going to discuss one of the three adjustments with the greatest impacts on the new NOAA “pause buster” sea surface temperature dataset. That is, I’m going to discuss and illustrate that NOAA based one of their recent adjustments (the adjustment with the greatest impact during the slowdown in global warming) on the outputs of one climate model…clarification: one obsolete earlier-generation climate model…and that if we examine the consensus of the latest generation of climate models, we see that NOAA may have adjusted away a relationship that the consensus of newer models indicates should exist…assuming that yet another of NOAA’s assumptions is correct.


NASA Has More Than Doubled Southern Hemisphere Warming



> In 1981, NASA showed a little over 0.3C warming from 1900 to 1980 at 23°S- 90°S
> 
> ...
> 
> They now show about 0.8C warming during that same time period for 23°S- 90°S


----------



## FeXL

The Grunion needs a proof-reader. Again...

More science with Guardian characteristics



> _This week, as we near the end of a year expected to have been the warmest on record, more than 130 governments and 25,000 officials will meet in Paris to discuss how the rise in temperature can be limited to 2% above pre-industrial levels.
> 
> As Stern said, the risks of pushing past 2% to a roasting 4% or 5% are now that much greater and more needs to be done in the coming decades than he expected.​_


Hate that % sign. It's so close to shift-option-8...

Related:

BBC links Arctic sea-ice loss to sea level rise



> In an almost unbelievable display of ignorance or deliberate deception, the BBC on one of its climate alarm pages, links loss of Arctic sea ice to sea level rise. *Do they really not understand that floating ice doesn’t change sea level when it melts?* Archimedes principle has been around for a couple of thousand years, but it seems the science illiterates at the BBC skipped this class in school.


'Parently not...


----------



## FeXL

So, let's talk COP21!!!

First off, a smile:

The COP ritual

(whose that little blonde hottie in frame 4, huh?  )

Next, some facts:

COP21 – Stopping Imaginary Global Warming

More facts:

Another article from CM's favorite guest blogger.

Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong



> There are insufficient superlatives to describe the disaster that is the UN COP21 Climate Conference in Paris. None of the superlatives are the ones used by the organizers and their lackeys. It is the largest, most political conference ever, based on completely false claims deliberately created in the greatest science deception in history. It will cost more socially in direct damage to individual lives, communities, and social structures. It will cost more in economic damage to jobs, businesses, and industry. In addition, besides destroying lives it will remove freedom and actually cost lives. It will weaken economies preventing resistance to terrorism. This far exceeds any potential damage from terrorism and is much worse because it is self-inflicted


Third, the joke:

Developing Countries: We want a Trillion Dollars to Sign your Climate Agreement

Fourth, the irony:

Planetary Heroes meet in Paris to save Earth from bad weather



> If Australia somehow “succeeds” in cutting our emissions by a whopping, preposterous 25%, at the moment China will replace that in 45 days.


And, finally, fifth & last. The _only_ reason anyone should attend COP21:

Gala Paris Red Carpet Premiere For Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Documentary (During UN Summit)



> My friend Marc Morano, publisher of the number one source in the world for the real scientific facts about the global warming scare tactics Climate Depot, is the movies narrator. He promises that Climate Hustle will reveal the history of climate scares, examine the science on both sides of the debate, dig into the politics and media hype surrounding the issue, show how global warming has become a new religion for alarmists, and explain the impacts the warming agenda will have on people in America and around the world.


----------



## FeXL

So, recall the RICO 20? Well, a little bit of karma is coming to visit them.

‘Incredibly Ironic’: IRS Complaint Filed Against Professor Who Urged Feds to Use RICO Laws to Go After Global Warming Skeptics



> A professor who has demanded a criminal investigation of those who disagree with his views on climate change could be facing scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service for for alleged misuse of federal funds.
> 
> Cause of Action, a government watchdog group, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, filed a joint IRS complaint Tuesday against the Institute of Global Environment and Society to have the organization stripped of its tax-exempt status.
> 
> *The complaint alleges that IGES, run by George Mason University climate dynamics professor Jagadish Shukla, has received more than $60 million in federal grants for the stated purpose of climate research but that the funds have actually gone to benefit Shukla and his family.*


M'bold.

D'oh!


----------



## FeXL

Maurice Strong has Died



> May his movement die with him…


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate Craziness of the Week: ‘Global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth



> From the UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER and the department of doom modeling comes this press release that suggests that somehow Earth would lose all (or most of) it’s oxygen due to global warming. *However, it seems the Earth has been through this before and life survived, as this graph from Dr. Vincent Gray shows.*


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that phytoplankton thing.

Phytoplankton love carbon dioxide



> So the population of coccolithophores has increased by an order of magnitude. And since coccolithophores sequester carbon dioxide when they calcify, that means a favourable carbon cycle feedback just got a whole lot bigger.
> 
> Excellent news, I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## FeXL

Fact Checking Mark Carney’s Catastrophic Climate Claims



> Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, touched off a firestorm of criticism by claiming that catastrophic climate events are in store. In a speech given to the insurers group, Lloyds, Mr. Carney stated that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors”. The Bank of England apparently feels it can state unequivocally both the timing and magnitude of climate events well into the future.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that.

Kochs, Exxon “influence”? Yale experts hunt through 40,000 documents for Big-Oil smear, find almost nothing



> Got no actual data-trail on “big-oil” dollars? That’s no reason not to run another name-calling smear article. A Yale group has spent countless months reading through the tea-leaves of old worn out climate themes and think they’ve discovered that the Kochs and Exxon carried the most influence.
> 
> *What’s really remarkable is that the Yale group had so much funding they could trawl through 40,000 documents, track 4556 people and 164 organisation across 20 years and through 39 million words. Yet despite this, they found nothing. There’s no smoking gun, no proof that anyone was being dishonest, that the messages were wrong.*


M'bold.

Further:



> Despite running down 40,000 rabbit holes, Farrell misses the numbers that matter when it comes to money and influence. If the Koch money has influence, the trainload of government money ought be 5000 times more influential. *If, as Farrell says, only 14% of Americans think man-made climate change matters, either Koch and Exxon money is wildly effective, or just possibly, the government funded argument is a loser and 86% of Americans have figured that out.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

A losing battle.

The Truth About China – 2,400 New Coal Plants Will Thwart Any Paris #COP21 Pledges



> China will talk a good game at the UN Climate Conference in Paris, but won’t make any binding commitments, concludes *The Truth About China*, an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “China’s Communist Party has as its highest priority its own self-preservation, and that self-preservation depends overwhelmingly on its ability to continue raising the standard of living of its citizens,” states economist Patricia Adams, the study’s author and the executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, an organization that has worked closely with Chinese NGOs for decades.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the only reason to attend COP21, _Climate Hustle_, set to debut on Monday.

Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock Climate Debate



> Featuring interviews and comments from more than 30 renowned scientists and climate experts,Climate Hustle lays out compelling evidence that devastates the global warming scare. Film host Marc Morano, founder and publisher of CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service, leads viewers on a fact-finding and often times hilarious journey through the propaganda-laced world of “climate change” claims.
> 
> *The film is the first climate documentary to profile scientists who have reversed their views from supporting the so-called “consensus” position to a conversion to skepticism. The film also profiles politically left scientists who have now declared themselves skeptics of man-made global warming and United Nations scientists who have now turned against the UN for “distorting” climate science.*
> 
> David Rothbard, CFACT president and executive producer of the film says, “Climate Hustle is the most important climate documentary since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Gore’s film kicked off a decade of scaremongering junk science. CFACT’s film debunks the scare and clears the way for a return to sound science and rational debate.”


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Bring it!

Climate proponent: “Why not a war on global warming?”



> Anthropology professor Wade Davis wants to declare war on global warming, comparing the battle against CO2 to military conflict in WW2.


Another social scientist with no clew...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Antarctic & Zwally 2015. As always, a thorough article on the topic.

Antarctic Ice Mass Controversies



> Like many others, I was interested in the recent controversy arising from findings of Zwally et al 2015 that there had been ice mass gain gain of ~112±61 Gt/year over 1992-2001 and ~82±25 Gt/year over 2003-2008. Zwally’s findings obviously contradict a widely held contrary belief, expressed, for example, in IPCC AR5’s assertion there was “high confidence” that the Antarctic Ice Sheet had been losing mass for the prior two decades and that the rate of loss had “likely increased” to ~147±75 GT/year over 2002-2011 or in NASA’s widely cited statement that “the continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002”.
> 
> I had no prior interest in the literature, but was intrigued by the dramatic contrast between Zwally and IPCC on such a widely covered topic. This quickly led into a voluminous technical literature, which is the subject of today’s post. The issues were not only about interpretation of satellite data, but quickly led into thorny interpretations of the history of the entire Holocene.


Related:

Is Antarctica’s Climate Change Natural or CO2 Driven? There Is Absolutely No Consensus



> The record growth of Antarctic sea ice has long been a troubling contradiction for global warming theory. But those who embrace CO2 as the driver of climate change typically countered that global warming was still melting the continental glaciers and raising sea levels. However on October 29, 2015 a team of NASA researchers led by Jay Zwally published the paper “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses”. If the new NASA research proves correct – and there is good evidence to suggest it is – continental ice is increasing and lowering sea level. That would highlight another major failure for both CO2 driven models and models of sea level change. *The reaction of Dr. Theodore Scambos, senior research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center, was all too reminiscent of the “hide the decline” mentality evidenced by advocacy scientists in the climategate scandal. In an Al Jazeera interview Scambos asked, “Please don’t publicize this study.”*


M'bold.

Both somewhat lengthy, good reads.


----------



## FeXL

And, from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style, and "The Hottest Yeah Evah!!!"

Meteorologist: Record High U.S. snow cover for Dec. 1.



> 'U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year. 38.7% of the U.S. (including a small part of southwestern Canada) is currently snow-covered.'


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

France’s Top Weatherman Hired By Kremlin After Being Fired For Questioning Global Warming



> *France’s top weatherman has found a new gig after being fired in November for questioning global warming in his new book: he’s working for Russian state-owned media.*
> 
> French news outlet Le Figaro reports Philippe Verdier is covering the United Nations climate summit in Paris for Russia Today France. Verdier has a daily news segment dedicated to covering what goes on during the U.N. climate talks.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

A comment piece that hit the high points.

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part IX



> Perhaps you are wondering if the world truly has gone mad, or if it only seems that way. If so, take a look at the climate confab that has just gotten under way in Paris. Yes, the world truly has gone mad.


----------



## FeXL

<sigh>

Elon Musk – a Robust Carbon Tax would Speed the Clean Energy Transition



> Elon Musk, the renewable energy entrepreneur, has given a speech in which he claims that a robust carbon tax would grossly enlarge his profits speed the global transition to clean energy.


Further:



> The problem with the “skipping over” theory is it completely ignores the reality of poverty. *Poor countries in Africa and elsewhere are struggling to afford what Musk claims is a “subsidised” price for fossil fuel electricity, let alone paying high upfront costs for renewables.*


M'bold.

People. Clueless. About. "Subsidies."


----------



## FeXL

When Scientists Still Did Science



> *A great embarrassment to the warming-catastrophic community is that 40 years ago the climatology scare was about cooling and onset of an ice age. Warmists today go, “Pooh! That cooling stuff then was just a few hyped-up articles in magazines. Cooling never got any traction in the real science community!”*
> 
> Really? Then explain this away…


Bold from the link.

How quickly (conveniently?) some memories fade away...


----------



## FeXL

Further on carbon markets.

Emissions trading rorted, fraud, but hardly anyone cares if CO2 is reduced, just the appearance of it



> EU carbon markets are being horribly rorted, and almost no one is checking. (Only the silly, honest UK, and even then only about 1% of sites are audited.)
> 
> All up, something like “£14 billion has been lost to fraud”. The system was corrupted at every level — in Denmark at one stage, 4 out of 5 carbon trading accounts were fraudulent. The Ukraine and Russian governments gave away too many carbon credits, which flooded the market (and the price fell from £20 to £4). Credits were also given for things that would have happened anyway and shouldn’t have got them. (How can anyone base a market on “intentions”?) In the end, even though credits were cheap, a lot of companies didn’t bother buying credits, because no one was checking to see if they met their supposed requirements. And then there was the huge VAT Tax fraud across borders.
> 
> *Where are most Greens, most NGO’s and activists, where is the outrage?*
> 
> The fakery around the CO2 scare is legion. It is supposedly the evil pollution set to destroy life on Earth but even most climate extremists don’t care if it is actually being reduced. The whole story of the carbon markets is one of neglect — the point of the markets is evidently NOT to reduce CO2.


Bold from the link.

Where, indeed...


----------



## FeXL

Further on data "adjustments".

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever



> Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. *In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”.* First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. *Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.*
> 
> Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). *Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.*


M'bold.

Slowly, surely.


----------



## FeXL

Further on questionable TIPCC™ claims.

Precipitation - steady as she goes



> A new paper by van Wijngaarden and Syed in the Journal of Hydrology notes a claim by the IPCC:
> 
> _...the IPCC has reported that precipitation increased in some regions by as much as 1% in each decade of the 20th century.​_
> The paper's authors then set about testing this claim.


He sums:



> So if my maths is correct, the IPCC is out by as much as an order of magnitude.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Psychologists analyzing psychologists...

How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes



> At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology.
> 
> *Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths1. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories.*


M'bold.

I know. Shocka!!! 



> Jussim’s talk began with one of the most egregious examples of bias in recent years. He drew the audience’s attention to the paper: _“NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax.”_ The study was lead by Stephan Lewandowsky, and published in _Psychological Science_ in 2013.


He notes:



> Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense.


Unfortunately, not a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention. However, maybe the occasional social psychologist will have his eyes opened...


----------



## FeXL

Gotta keep that Hocket Stick handle flat.

Study shows they are still trying to erase the ‘Medieval Warm Period’



> A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Based upon signs left by old glaciers, researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived–and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later.


Yet, from the comments:



> There own twisted logic is revealed in the press release:
> 
> _Glacial advances during the Little Ice Age have wiped out most evidence of where the glaciers were during the Norse settlement. But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines​_
> By their own admission, “most evidence ” of where glaciers were when the Norsemen arrived was wiped out by later advance. This refutes any suggestion that it was just as cold during the Norse settlement,
> 
> If they have managed to identify “a few moraines” for which they think the layout indicates they survived from the Norse period this does not overturn the bulk of the evidence.
> 
> Also some of these sites were ” on neighboring Baffin Island, which the Norse *may also* have occupied”. So they are using sites where apparently there is NO evidence that the Norse actually inhabited, just “may have”.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Activists go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign



> Summary: Climate activists have begun to see the failure of their campaign to get public policy measures to fight climate change. Their actions follow the five stages of grief in the Kübler-Ross model. This helps us predict what comes next, and prepare. For example, stage four (bargaining) offers an opportunity to gain something from the expensive policy gridlock in this vital area. This is the third in a series attempting to understand the ending of this 26-year-story and find in it some useful lessons for the future.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

A simple demonstration of chaos and unreliability of computer models



> Under chaotic conditions, the same one line equation with the same initial conditions and constant but coded differently will have vastly differing results. *Under chaotic conditions predictions made by computer models are unreliable.*


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

The Green-Blob actions betray them. Greens don’t care about the environment or CO2, just power and money



> Climate change is The Greatest Threat on Earth but the Merchants of Panic don’t really care if we reduce CO2. Follow what they do, not what they say. This is our last chance to save the planet, but they won’t consider nuclear energy — apparently the planet is just not _that_ important. Nor will they consider Ultra Super Critical hot burning coal, which could reduce emissions by 15% at a stroke. Likewise fracking. Instead, the answer to everything is always inefficient, government-dependent industries and trading schemes. *These schemes don’t reduce much CO2, but they reward the patrons of big-government and punish the opponents. They suck money from independent corporations, and churn that cash through the “renewables” cheer-squad, the financial houses, and the groups that profit from keeping the climate scare going. Ponder that the EU had a monster emissions trading scheme, but the USA cut far more emissions — thanks to fracking and no thanks to any fake “free market”.* The bottom line is that we may face the Anthropocene Mass Extinction Event, but apparently things are not so bad that the Greens will consider fracking


M'bold.

Yep.

But, by all means, bring on the Carbon Tax, Rachel. 'Cause you got a plan... :greedy:


----------



## FeXL

A clear explanation of sea level "adjustments".

NASA Sea Level Fraud



> NASA shows 3.24 mm/year sea level rise on their web site. They call it “Facts” – when in fact it is blatant fraud.


Great visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Can't figger it...

RSS Continues To Diverge From GISS



> Between 1979 and 2001, the RSS satellite data increased at virtually the same rate as GISS. Since then, there has been a massive divergence, with GISS claiming that the pace of increase has barely reduced from the earlier period.
> 
> In contrast RSS (and also UAH) confirm that, if anything, temperatures have been dropping.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #207

_COP21_, _Russia_, _US Senate_ good reads.


----------



## FeXL

Further on COP21.

40,000 priests & acolytes alike in Paris, yet their message is so flimsy that a mere handful of sceptics is threatening to subvert the whole process. Ha!!!

Oh noes! A handful of climate skeptics may ‘derail’ Paris treaty – so let’s revoke their credentials



> “Some of the ‘world’s most notorious climate deniers’ had crashed the French proceedings ‘in a last-minute *attempt to derail the whole thing’.”


And, related, from the "If it wasn't so funny, it would be sad" department:

Climate skeptics in Paris branded as “criminals” – wanted posters go up in the city



> The seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris to weaken attempts to agree a global climate deal have been named and shamed as ‘climate criminals’ in a dossier published by the global citizens movement Avaaz.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Rave reviews on _Climate Hustle!_

Climate Hustle: The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth



> Climate Hustle is the Anti Inconvenient Truth. It’s for people with an open mind who want to know what’s really going on with the world’s climate – as opposed to what hucksters like Al Gore want to persuade them is going on with the world’s climate – all backed up with hard data and evidence presented by scientists who know and understand, among them the Nobel-prize-winning Norwegian physicist Ivar Giaever.
> 
> *Its message ought not to be dynamite, for it is no more than basic science and established fact.
> 
> But Climate Hustle is dynamite – at least it will be to most viewers, especially younger ones – because what it says is so totally at odds with almost every documentary, TV programme and film that has ever been made on the subject of global warming. *


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, Ted Cruz hosted the Senate Hearing on climate yesterday.

Senate hearing today: John Christy, Judy Curry, Will Happer, and Mark Steyn



> After poking fun at President Obama’s call for action at climate talks in Paris last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a GOP presidential candidate, is scheduled to convene a hearing on the effect of money and politics on climate research.
> 
> The senator last week accused Obama of mistakenly focusing on the threat of emissions over terrorism (ClimateWire, Dec. 2). *“Instead of focusing on the perceived threat to national security of the SUV in your driveway, President Obama should be standing up and leading to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during an interview in the Capitol. “But he refuses to confront the very real threats facing America today.”*


M'bold.

Gotta admit, I've peeking around the curtains of the living room for the last few days, just waiting for the 'Burb to go total anarchist...

And, for your reading pleasure, Mark Steyn's testimony. Little lengthy, excellent read.

Mark Steyn’s illuminating and entertaining testimony to the Cruz hearing on climate today



> I responded to Mann’s discovery requests almost two years ago. He has yet to respond to mine. No court around the world within the Common Law tradition to which this country is heir has ever presumed to adjudicate science. Judge Natalia Combs Greene is not competent to rule on landlord-and-tenant cases, never mind the extent of the Medieval Warm Period. *Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that, by the time she does rule on the science, global warming will have kicked in and the rising sea levels will have washed away the Maldives, Tuvalu and, with luck, the District of Columbia. My three years in the stagnant swamp of DC “justice” demonstrate why science in particular and public policy disputes in general are beyond the competence of the judges you confirm and the courts you fund.* They belong properly in what the eminent jurist Lord Moulton called “the domain of manners”.


M'bold.

Nails it.

Little lengthy, excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Just loving this. How feeble is your argument when you have to resort to entrapment to further your case? Should it not stand on its own merit? Apparently not.

Bet they didn't anticipate the fallout noted in the second link by no less than the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Happer days



> Greenpeace are getting very excited about some of their latest "undercover" reporting. It seems that some of their staff posed as representatives of a coal-mining company and asked Will Happer to write them a report. Happer seems to have said yes, but said that the proceeds should go to his sceptic organisation, the CO2 Alliance.
> 
> I think their case is that Happer doesn't actually believe any of the things he says, but that in return for large quantities of money he is willing to say anything required. I'm not sure this is going to fly.
> 
> There is also a fairly feeble attempt to involve GWPF in the story, insinuating that Indur Goklany's report was reviewed only by people internal to GWPF. Benny Peiser has said in no uncertain terms that this is not true.


BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes



> Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. *I have called in the FBI.*


Further:



> *I am profoundly dismayed that the organization I founded – an organization that once did good work addressing real environmental concerns – has descended to what I consider to be criminality and also proposes to descend to libel.*
> 
> Accordingly, I have decided to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Greenpeace’s dishonest and disfiguring attempt at entrapment of Professor Happer, whom I know to be a first-rate scientist, one of the world’s half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, and one who would never provide any scientific advice unless in his professional opinion that advice was correct.
> 
> The organization’s timing was clearly intended to spring the trap on Professor Happer hours before he was due to appear in front of Congress. This misconduct constitutes a serious – and under many headings criminal – interference with the democratic process that America cherishes.


M'bold.

Related (Josh cartoon):

Wednesday wit – Environ Mental



> With thanks (or apologies) to Tim Rayment for borrowing his phrase ’50 shades of green’ from an article in the Sunday Times – it seems a wholly appropriate phrase to describe the torturing of the planet that greens go for.


----------



## FeXL

Good. Perhaps there is hope, after all.

Ouch! Survey shows 45% of the UK want to pay nothing at all for climate adaption funds.



> When asked about paying for developing nations to adapt to climate change, the 1066 British people surveyed said they were willing to give an average of only £27 ($30US) a year. This is far below the UN gambit that hopes to take as much as $150 per head per year. But even that £27 figure is deceptively high. The real story is that the number was skewed up by a few people who were willing to pay a lot each. Nearly half the crowd didn’t want to give a cent. The median value was a paltry £6 per year. And this was in a test loaded with nice and authoritative messages about how useful those payments would be. Fully 45% of Brits surveyed did not want to contribute anything at all.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

Repeated Acts Of Data Terror By NASA



> NASA scientists have a strong conflict of interest in that they expect to see warming, and they the more alarm they create, the more money they obtain. This is why climate scientists have no business touching the temperature data. They have no training in signal processing and they have shown repeatedly that they will alter data to suit their needs.


A Closer Look At GISS Temperature Fraud



> *After altering the data by 0.6C, the criminals at GISS claimed a global temperature record by 0.01C*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, you know that ~0.8°C global warming we've had since the 1800's? Well, this guy has taken the data, converted it to Fahrenheit, & graphed it on what resembles an old Fahrenheit thermometer for your viewing pleasure.

Caution: Scary! Very, very scary!!!

How Global Warming Looks On Your Thermometer!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

Another detailed analysis from Steve McIntyre. He takes a look at some photos that accompanied a slide in a presentation to the Dauphin, _et al._

What “Science” is “Telling Us” About Climate Damages to Canada




> The Canadian government posted up a briefing by “renowned climate scientists Dr. Gregory Flato (Environment Canada) and Mr. Alain Bourque (Ouranos)” to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Cabinet Ministers, and provincial and territorial Premiers – see here.
> 
> I was particularly interested in their argument on how the “threat” to Canada manifested itself. How exactly does “science” show that a modest increase of temperature would severely damage Canada?
> 
> Too often, expositions of supposed climate damage amount to little more than loud assertions that the science is settled, with occasional interjections of “Look, polar bear!!” (to modify a phrase from And Then There’s Physics). The Flato and Bourque presentation is in this tradition. Its exposition of damages consists of only a few slides accompanied by very short explanatory text.


He notes:



> It is puzzling to me why Flato and Bourque believed that this image [kids playing joyfully in a fountain] demonstrated that “adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits” (to borrow a phrase from Eric Wolff and his fellow critics of Matt Ridley). Or, for that matter, why Trudeau and the premiers were so troubled by this particular image. *The only explanation that I can think if is that Trudeau, who is famous within Canada for his “good hair” (indeed, aside from his surname, his hair seemed to be his most obvious qualification for office), was concerned that falling water on unprotected hair could cause untold damage to their hairdos. Trudeau knows that a haircut is only worth what you pay for and he has clearly not attempted to make foolish economies on such an important issue. Trudeau must have recognized that even the most pessimistic climate scientist had not fully considered the impact of climate change on unregulated and unprotected hair care.*


M'bold.

Zing!!!


----------



## FeXL

Discrepancies, discrepancies...

NASA : Antarctica Cooling And Ice Growing



> NASA’s top temperature expert says Antarctic temperatures have decreased significantly.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA’s top ice expert says that Antarctic land ice is increasing.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA says that Antarctic sea ice is increasing to record levels.
> 
> ...
> 
> Antarctica is cooling and the ice is expanding.
> 
> *Scientists respond to this by saying that global warming threatens penguins.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate science is the first fully fact-free science.


----------



## chasMac

Celebrities keep on proving they are our most capable molders of public opinion.

Leonardo DiCaprio witnesses a ‘terrifying’ sign of climate change in Calgary â€” a chinook | National Post



> “We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, ‘This has never happened in our province ever.’ We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come.”


----------



## FeXL

And among the most clueless...

Terrifying chinook. HA! 

Ran across an article this morning wherein Harrison Ford was adding his $0.25 to the whole global warming fray. Just as well. I didn't want to see the new Star Wars movie anyway...


----------



## FeXL

Clips from the senate hearings.

Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate

Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: ‘You’re effectively enforcing a state ideology’



> This is a must watch, share it widely. Mark Steyn demolishes the “science is settled” meme in the Senate hearing yesterday. His ability to argue effectively on the fly is very impressive.


----------



## FeXL

So, Marc Morano & John Cook have a "debate" in Paris.

Debate between John Cook and Marc Morano in Paris



> _"A debate just finished within the hour here today. Cook interviewed me on camera and I audio recorded for my protection. He is going to post full video. But in meantime, anyone can post full audio. The entire global warming debate was discussed. 97% claims, etc. Richard Tol, Anthony Watts, Steve Goddard, Fred Singer, Michaels, Curry, Monckton and others were cited."​_


----------



## FeXL

Further from COP21.

India’s Priority is Poverty – Not Climate Change



> India has presented a simple yet devestating demand at COP21: If we want India to cut CO2 emissions, we not only have to pay for their renewables, we have to help them get rich, by gifting them our technological advantages. India estimates the cost of the assistance they request to be *$2.5 trillion.*


His bold.

Jaw dropping...


----------



## FeXL

McIntyre administers his usual thorough analysis of a recent paper on Arctic varve data.

Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency

He sums:



> The community reticence in calling out the incorrect interpretation of Big Round Lake series may very well come from its widespread use in IPCC multiproxy studies, including the Ljungqvist variations: Kaufman et al 2009, Ljungqvist 2010, Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2011, Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012, Ljungqvist etl 2012, Shi et al 2013, Tingley and Huybers 2014, PAGES2K – see CA here. Flipping the Hvitarvatn series had a dramatic impact on the PAGES2K Arctic reconstruction; while flipping the Big Round Lake series would not have as much impact, it would impact medieval-modern comparisons.
> 
> Also, *if the community were to admit an error on Big Round Lake, then this would require re-examination of the numerous other varve thickness series that are a staple of the IPCC AR5 millennium spaghetti graph.*


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that settled science.

Giant blob of superheated rock under West Antarctica



> A new seismic survey shows there is a blob of superheated rock 60 miles below West Antarctica. To describe it, the researchers use the phrase “like a blow-torch”. Of course, just because the parts of Antarctica that are warming are near or over this hot blob does not mean it’s causing the melting. It could be a coincidence. ; -)


Yep...


----------



## Macfury

India is being perfectly reasonable. That is their cost for adopting this foolishness--take it or leave it. I believe India understands that nobody will take them up on it.



FeXL said:


> Further from COP21.
> 
> India’s Priority is Poverty – Not Climate Change
> 
> 
> 
> His bold.
> 
> Jaw dropping...


----------



## FeXL

Things that make you go hmmm.

Stormy Weather Ushered In The Little Ice Age – HH Lamb



> Anybody who thinks that storms around the UK have anything to do with global warming should read what HH Lamb had to say about the period around the 13th and 14thC , when the warmth of the medieval period was beginning to disappear.


----------



## FeXL

So much for that whole "Extreme weather (Moar Rain!!! Less Rain!!!)" meme.

Study Finds Little Change In Global Rainfall Patterns



> •Over 1½ million monthly precipitation totals observed at 1000 stations in 114 countries analysed.
> 
> •Data record much longer than 3 recent conflicting studies that analysed a few decades of data.
> 
> *•No substantial difference found for stations located at northern, tropical and southern latitudes.
> 
> •No substantial difference found for stations experiencing dry, moderate and wet climates.
> 
> •No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present.*


M'bold.

Next?


----------



## FeXL

Just like Josh predicted...

Quelle Surprise! The #COP21 climate talks are deadlocked



> India’s crucial role at the climate change talks in Paris has once again been underlined by a high-level outreach by the United States, including a call to Prime Minister Modi from President Barack Obama who hopes to cement his legacy with an ambitious global agreement on curbing global warming.


BTW, what ever happened to that little hottie from "The Circus"?


----------



## FeXL

Not as dumb as I thought he was...

Again, why are we there? John Kerry admits at #COP21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate



> _" … The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
> 
> If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world."​_


But he still equates carbon=CO2...


----------



## Macfury

Cracking up over the circle jerk surrounding COP21--a non-binding agreement, with no binding financial commitment, and no verification--and a universal opt-out clause. This is just the sort of abject failure I was hoping for.

James Hansen's weeping and gnashing of teeth are heart-warming:



> “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bull s h i t for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”


And the _UK Guardian_: :-(



> In Paris the delegates have solemnly agreed to cut demand, but at home they seek to maximise supply. The UK government has even imposed a legal obligation upon itself, under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to “maximise economic recovery” of the UK’s oil and gas. Extracting fossil fuels is a hard fact. But the Paris agreement is full of soft facts: promises that can slip or unravel. Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made.
> 
> With Barack Obama in the White House and a dirigiste government overseeing the negotiations in Paris, this is as good as it is ever likely to get. No likely successor to the US president will show the same commitment. In countries like the UK, grand promises abroad are undermined by squalid retrenchments at home. Whatever happens now, we will not be viewed kindly by succeeding generations.
> 
> So yes, let the delegates congratulate themselves on a better agreement than might have been expected. And let them temper it with an apology to all those it will betray.


----------



## SINC

Food for thought for the billions JT is wasting on non existent climate change. And no, it's not some right wing blog.

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here


----------



## FeXL

B-b-b-but, I thought the science was SETTLED?!

NCAR: winter sea ice could hold steady in the next several years



> The team of scientists has found that *changes in the North Atlantic ocean circulation* could allow overall winter sea ice extent to remain steady in the near future, with continued loss in some regions balanced by possible growth in others, including in the Barents Sea.


M'bold.

T'hell, you say!

Not CO2? Heretics!!!


----------



## FeXL

A few posts on COP21.

#COP21 Talks Delayed – US Threatens To Walk Out Of Paris Talks If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding



> Making a veiled threat again that the agreement could fail if the US was pushed for financial obligations, Kerry said, “At this late hour, hope we don’t load this with differentiation…I would love to have a legally binding agreement. *But the situation in the US is such that legally binding with respect to finance is a killer for the agreement.*”


M'bold.

Yep...

Final draft of #COP21 reached – with a 1 year “opt out” clause



> Yep, it’s all just empty promises and speculation, even their wording pays homage to the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) models


Paris #COP21 agreement – Watered down but still dangerous



> The UN is celebrating at COP 21, but what did they really achieve?
> President Obama called the Paris climate agreement the best chance we’ve had to “save” the planet.
> 
> Not even close, Mr. President. We’ll put that bit of hyperbole right up there with your election being “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
> 
> The good news is that the final agreement is substantially weaker than the drafts that led up to it. French Soclialist Laurent Fabius, who presided over COP 21, must have spent all of Friday night yanking the teeth out of it to come up with a document everyone would sign.


From the comments:



> US got non-binding, India got differentiation (meaning they don’t have to play along), China got lack of transparency (via Preamble para 27), Tuvalu and gang did not get $100 billion/year, Kiribati and gang did not get to sue for loss and damage (preamble para 52), and France got to celebrate presiding over a largely meaningless agreement supporting the EU’s apparent fervently green desire to commit voluntary economic suicide. A pithier summary.
> 
> As for the US INDC, two points. The EPA Clean Power Plan is almost certainly unconstitutional; no less than Larry Tribe has contributed a brief providing three independent grounds.But that does not matter. The average US coal generating station is 40 years old. The average retirement age for the past two decades is 48. One third of US coal capacity will be retired anyway in the INDC time frame (I actually did the inventory analysis). They will be replaced with lower capital cost, faster to build, more thermally efficient, 65% less CO2 per MwH, lower LCOE CCGT. *The lower bound of the US INDC is satisfied by this economic transition to better natural gas generation. This will happen anyway without Obama or COP21. Neat US trick, thanks to abundent inexpensive shale gas.*


M'bold.

Yep.

The ‘Binding’ Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush



> Paris climate talks this week descended into madcap all-night negotiations, as delegates desperately tried to salvage some kind of agreement beyond empty promises to do something sometime about what President Obama insists is the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations.
> 
> He gets far more energized about slashing energy use than about Islamist terrorism, even after the Paris and San Bernardino butchery. *Determined for once to lead from upfront, he took a 500-person greenhouse gas-spewing entourage to the City of Light, to call for preventing increasing droughts, floods, storms, island-swallowing rising acidic ocean levels and other disasters conjured up by alarmist computer models.*


M'bold.

Again, yep.

Paris: impacts?



> The world’s leaders are touting victory as a result of the COP21 deliberations in Paris.
> 
> But, victory over what, exactly?
> 
> Some newspapers called the Paris deal ‘historic’. James Hansen called it ‘bull****’.


Huh? Never thought I'd be agreeing with Hansen...

Further:



> With regards to ‘victory over what?’, it doesn’t seem to be victory over dangerous human caused climate change. The Huffpo article includes this insightful quote: _The accord ‘saves the chance of saving the planet.’_


Yep. You heard that right. They're already planning for COP22 in Morocco, where the mantra of "We've only got a year" will be repeated, yet again...


----------



## FeXL

Further on psychologists on psychologists.

Stephan Lewandowsky’s “Moon Landing Paper” scathingly criticized by team of psychologists in a new book



> _Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers.​_
> *That last line is basically academic speak for “Lewandowsky, you’re full of ****”* and I make no apologies for saying that, because it’s the harsh but real truth. As far as I’m concerned, by his actions and lack of scientific integrity, Lewandowsky has made himself the poster child for noble cause corruption. His buddy John Cook, creator of the 97% consensus meme is similarly afflicted IMHO.


B'bold.

Nails it for me...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Steyn at the Senate. And others.

Saturday Silliness – Speak softly and carry a big Hockey Stick to the Senate

Another Josh cartoon. 

America, We Have a Problem



> I’m sure Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) thought he sounded erudite when he lectured the packed room, “We know by the law of the conservation of energy that additional heat cannot just magically disappear. Instead it causes our planet to get warmer.”
> 
> Congratulations, Sen. Peters. You have stated both the uncontested and the irrelevant.
> 
> The technical term among logicians for Peters’s first goof is _ignoratio elenchi_. In this case it would be nice if ignoratio translated to what it sounds like, but it doesn’t. _Ignoratio elenchi_ is the fallacy not of being ignorant but of ignoring the question.
> 
> In layman’s terms, Peters changed the subject. He argued for a point Cruz and each of his witnesses accept. If he knew that and did it anyway, he’s dishonest. If he didn’t know it, he’s either uninformed or—well, you can fill in the blank.


----------



## FeXL

Good ol' Rex. He must drive the left apoplectic...

Rex Murphy: The High Church of Global Warming



> Just as in the early centuries of Christianity, when the patristic Fathers struggled with various heresies and sought to stabilize the dogmas of the then-nascent Faith, held their great Councils to parse the finer points of esoteric doctrine, the Parisian analogue gave itself over to even more subtle ruminations: whether, for example, it was best to “commit” to ensuring the planet’s temperature doesn’t rise more than 1.5 degrees by the year 2100, or whether it was best merely to hold the thermometer to a more expansive two degrees.
> 
> How much mental energy must have been expanded over that winsome 0.5 degrees, 80 years down the road? The subtleties involved, the logical intricacies deployed, would have outpaced Aquinas and sent poor Augustine to bed early with a migraine. However, the modern monks of the High Church of Global Warming have resources that the early philosophers and theologians could not even dream of — they have computer models that dance in the direction wished of them.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209

_Evidence-Based Science_ is a good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, which the hell is it?

Climate change means days are getting longer, scientists find

Versus, I dunno, say:

Global warming will make Earth spin faster


----------



## FeXL

CRU Temperature Record Is Complete Garbage



> So how do I know that the CRU data is garbage? Because glaciers don’t lie. The 1976 National Geographic article described “abnormal warmth that prevailed in the first half of the century” and showed how glaciers disappeared during that time. CRU has made this warmth disappear.
> 
> ...
> 
> The warming and melting ice of the was well established in many references from the leading experts of the time.
> 
> ...
> 
> The glaciers of Norway and Alaska lost half their mass before 1950.
> 
> ...
> 
> Norwegian glaciers were growing again during the 1970’s ice age scare, which has also been erased by government climate criminals.


----------



## FeXL

Norway gets it...

'We will continue with oil and gas': Norway PM



> “We’re going to continue with oil and gas,” Erna Solberg said on Sunday, in comments echoed both by her Progress Party coalition partners and the Labour Party opposition.
> 
> Norwegian environmentalists on Saturday and Sunday called for a dramatic halt to new oil and gas activity in the wake of the Paris agreement.
> 
> “Parliament should cancel the entire 23rd licensing round and stop exploration for new oil and gas resources on the Norwegian shelf,” the Green Party MP and spokesman Rasmus Hansson declared in a call that was backed by the country’s Socialist Left Party.


----------



## FeXL

Illuminating.

Gavin’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record



> This has to be the Twitter conversation of the year, in the “hottest year ever”.
> 
> Kudos to this guy for getting this from Gavin.


----------



## FeXL

No surprise that, after all the hype dies down, there wasn't anything of substance in the first place...

COP21: Shortest Climate Agreement Honeymoon Ever?



> The initial explosion of green Euphoria at the announcement of the COP21 climate agreement, is rapidly giving way to dismay, as various environmentalists and other expectant parties realise how feeble their climate “victory” really is.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Study: Current climate models misrepresent El Niño



> An analysis of fossil corals and mollusk shells from the Pacific Ocean reveals there is no link between the strength of seasonal differences and El Niño, a complex but irregular climate pattern with large impacts on weather, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, and air quality worldwide.
> 
> *The finding contradicts the top nine climate models in use today, which associate exceptionally hot summers and cold winters with weak El Niños, and vice versa.*


M'bold.

Just one more thing models get wrong...


----------



## FeXL

Further on COP21

Paris Climate of Conformity



> The moment to be wariest of political enthusiasms is precisely when elite opinion is all lined up on one side. So it is with the weekend agreement out of Paris on climate policy, which President Obama declared with his familiar modesty “can be a turning point for the world” and is “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”
> 
> *Forgive us for looking through the legacy smoke, but if climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it.* What will help is human invention and the entrepreneurial spirit. To the extent the Paris accord increases political control over human and natural resources, it will make the world poorer and technological progress less likely.


M'bold.

Yep...

Related:

Experts Blast “Voluntary” Paris Treaty: “Extraordinarily Costly…Will Do Nothing”…”Meaningless Gesture”…



> As expected, we are now finding out the Paris climate climate agreement has been spectacularly oversold to the public as a success for climate protection.
> 
> *Now that the text has been examined, it is clear that the agreement, which cannot even be called a treaty, and which has yet to be “ratified”, is turning out to be an empty package of pompous proclamations, opt-outs and intents.*


M'bold.

Sorry, Barry...


----------



## FeXL

This is what peer review gets you in climate "science" these days.

NOAA Is Getting Bolder And Bolder With Their Climate Fraud



> Check out yesterday’s mind-blowing peer-reviewed Arctic fraud from NOAA’s chief scientist – Rick Spinrad
> 
> ...
> 
> But the biggest lie of all is his claim “*the lowest extent recorded since records began in 1979.*” The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report, and shows that NOAA has sea ice data going back to at least 1973, and that extent was much lower in 1974. Spinrad cherry picked 1979 because it was the maximum of the last 45 years, and hid the earlier NOAA data which showed that ice extent was much lower prior to 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> Every single one of Spinrad’s claims was either false or misleading. The norm in government climate science. Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?


Could it be 'cause it's not peer review but pal review?


----------



## FeXL

Hate that history thing.

The Winters Of 1932



> The 1932 winter Olympics in Lake Placid, NY was nearly ruined by warm weather. There was no snow two weeks before the games started.
> 
> ...
> 
> Later that year, almost the entire country east of the Mississippi was over 60 degrees on Christmas Day
> 
> ...
> 
> CO2 was 305 PPM at the time.


----------



## FeXL

Heads are going to explode.

Shocker: Vegetarian diets worse for climate than eating bacon



> Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change.
> 
> In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in _Environment Systems and Decisions_, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.
> 
> *“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,”* said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

More like basic stupidity...

Vox’s David Roberts: “Consilience” or just plain silliness?



> Mr. Roberts actually denied the scientific method prior to making his first point. Science is the process of formulating systematic explanations (hypotheses) for observations, then testing and upholding or falsifying those hypotheses. Science is not about formulating slogans that non-scientists can “tune in” to.
> 
> ...
> 
> Mr. Roberts appears to think that the initial observations are the test of the hypothesis. If he knew the least little bit about the scientific method, he would grasp the fact that his version of consilience is nothing more than plain silliness. In the oil patch, we refer to this sort of consilience as “arm waving.”
> 
> The “consilience” of rising atmospheric CO2 and various bits of evidence of warming over the past 500 years does not converge on the conclusion that rising CO2 is the cause of the warming. This is what the scientific method dictates that you have to test and verify. Platitudes (citations of Arhenius) are not tests. *The claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; therefore increasing atmospheric concentrations should cause unquantified warming – is not a test… It isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.*


Yep...

Further:



> The burden of proof is not on skeptics of a scientific hypothesis. *The burden of proof rests with its proponents to demonstrate that it systematically explains the observations.* Mr. Roberts once again confuses the observations with actual tests of the hypothesis. *He bizarrely thinks that the AGW hypothesis is upheld unless skeptics can disprove the observations and produce a replacement hypothesis.* _Science_ had never worked this way. Science cannot work this way. Politics do work this way.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

And so it starts...

Greenland May Seek UN Climate Deal Opt-Out Amid Emissions Goal



> The ink hasn’t yet dried on the UN climate accord and one of the territories most at risk from global warning is already demanding an opt-out.
> 
> “We still have the option of making a territorial opt-out to COP21," Kim Kielsen, the prime minister of Greenland, said during a visit to Copenhagen on Monday. "We have an emissions quota of 650,000 tonnes of CO2, which is the same as a single coal-fired power plant in Denmark, or a minor Danish city."


----------



## FeXL

A Physics view of Climate Change

He sums:



> Our CO2 does not control climate. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon is not a pollutant.
> 
> The best way to “address” climate change is to do nothing.


No argument...


----------



## FeXL

Anthony continues his surface temperature record research. He presented this paper at the AGU 15 meeting yesterday.

Press Release – Watts at #AGU15 The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends

In a nutshell:



> _30 year trends of temperature are shown to be lower, using well-sited high quality NOAA weather stations that do not require adjustments to the data._


Further:



> A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that *the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.*
> 
> Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010)1 for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.


M'bold.

Related:

Anthony Watts at AGU2015 shows that hot air rises off concrete (it does affect thermometers)



> Who would have thought that temperature stations near concrete are warming faster than those over grass?
> 
> Anthony Watts carefully analyzed all 1,218 surface stations in the USA and managed to find 410 good ones in the last 35 years (1979 onwards) — which is an achievement in itself. But the real point of his paper is to see if the best stations show less warming than the rest. (The good ones are the ones that are not near artificial heat sources, and haven’t been moved around). Watts finds (again) that the NOAA homogenisation practice appears to be adjusting the good stations up to the bad ones.
> 
> *About a third of the US recorded warming trend in the last 35 years may have just disappeared…*
> 
> Watts presents it today at the AGU 2015 conference.
> 
> Congratulations to Anthony Watts for what must have been a mammoth amount of work. The irony is that the conclusion — that hot air radiates or rises off concrete, asphalt, and from bricks affects thermometers is banal, yet so few can demonstrate it across such a big network. We have to wonder why no one else was looking… Maybe the Earth’s climate doesn’t matter that much to NOAA?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Willis looks at weather forecasts generated from the El Nino 3.4 area in the Pacific.

Weather Two Months From Now



> I got to thinking about just how well the El Nino 3.4 area does or doesn’t forecast the evolution of the global temperature, and I realized that I could look at that question using the CERES satellite data.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read, if for nothing more than the sheer ignorance of the subject on display by the British Medical Journal.

We forgot the geography!

He sums:



> In related news, it turns out that one of Hoskins' co-authors is a fan of Stefan Lewandowsky. Go figure.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So much for the "Canaries in the coal mine".

Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years – No N. Pole warming for nearly 14 years – No S. Pole warming for 37 years!



> The Pause: November 2015 Update
> 
> UAH v6.0 (University of Alabama Huntsville satellite) data for November were released a couple of days ago. Here are updated graphs for various regions showing the furthest back one can go to show a zero or negative trend (less than +0.01C/ 100 years) in lower tropospheric temperatures. For the second month of the climb towards the El Nino peak, there is still NO pause in the Northern Hemisphere trend. However, in some regions the pause has lengthened. Note: The satellite record commences in December 1978. The entire satellite record is now 37 years long- 444 months.


Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Paris backdowns.

Paris Unravelling Already



> 1) Britain follows Paris deal with cuts to green subsidies
> 2) UK to allow shale gas fracking beneath national parks
> 3) Greenland May Seek UN Climate Deal Opt-Out Amid Emissions Goal
> 4) Japan, South Korea Stick To Coal Policies Despite Paris Climate Deal
> 5) India Says Paris Climate Deal Won’t Affect Plans To Double Coal Output


Whew! Am I glad we got that binding contract out of the way...


----------



## SINC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc


----------



## FeXL

Anthony remarks briefly on remarks about his presentation.

Quote of the Week – Watts at AGU edition



> Some of the sniping in comments has to do with defending existing methodology for using all of the data in the surface temperature record, with warts, bumps, abscesses, and all that and expecting to be able to apply blanket algorithms to fix all those widely varied problems.


----------



## FeXL

This is interesting, especially for the comment I'm gong to quote.

UAH: UN climate change goal? New trend analysis shows we’re there now!



> *The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has warmed just over four tenths of a degree Celsius (almost three fourths of a degree Fahrenheit) during the past 37 years*, with the greatest warming over the Arctic Ocean and Australia, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Microwave sounding units on board NOAA and NASA satellites completed 37 complete years of collecting temperature data in November, giving us nearly global coverage of climate change during that time.
> 
> *If that trend was to continue for another 63 years, the composite warming for the globe would be 1.1 C (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) for the century, Christy said. That would put the average global temperature change over 100 years well under the 2.0 C (3.6 degrees F) goal set recently at the climate change summit in Paris.*


M'bold.

And, referring to Anthony's surface temperature paper, from the comments:



> Note the agreement with our host’s data from pristine surface stations.
> 
> UAH USA48 ———- .19 C / decade (11/1978-11/2015)
> Unperturbed USA — .20 C / decade (1979-2008)


Nice...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Anthony's paper.

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend



> Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.
> 
> “This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.
> 
> ...
> 
> What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Trio of links addressing "adjustments".




> NOAA Global Temperature Fraud






> In 1989, Tom Karl at NOAA reported that almost all global warming occurred before 1919, and that Earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA now shows the exact opposite. Cooling before 1919 and warming after 1921. Tom Karl simply altered the data to meet the global warming agenda.


NOAA US Temperature Fraud



> I generated the equivalent graph for 2015, which now shows about 1.5F data tampering – three times as much as they did in 1999. All of the pre-2000 adjustments are now downwards (previously were upwards) indicating that these hacks are simply making it up as they go – and not doing any actual science.


The Vicious Circle Of Climate Fraud



> NASA recently wrote a fraudulent study claiming that the Zachariae Isstrom glacier is “collapsing.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Only problem is, NASA satellite photos show that the glacier is growing, not shrinking


He sums:



> _Fraudulent junk science from agencies like NASA feeds brainless politicians making idiotic illegal treaties which hurt billions of people, leading to mind-blowingly stupid decisions – and providing more money for fraudulent junk science for agencies like NASA.​_


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting perspective on the recent senate climate hearing by CM's favorite climate scientist.

The Recent Senate Climate Hearing Failed Because It Continues To Miss The Point



> Courts will not listen to or judge scientific disputes. The basic argument is that it is “your paper” against “their paper” and they are not qualified to judge. This was the issue when I participated in appeals to the US Supreme Court over actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is also the case in the three lawsuits filed against me. They are charges of defamation and not about the science. The lawsuits are effectively Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) or a legal form of ad hominem attack. *The question is, if I am so wrong about the science, as they claim, then why the lawsuits? The answer is because they cannot say I am not qualified, although they tried, and my ability to explain the complexities of climate science in a way the public understands threatens them.*


M'bold.

I don't know if I entirely agree with his opinion but much resonates.


----------



## FeXL

Aussie tax dollars at work.

Climate Craziness of the Week: Aussie Artists bag $10,000 Public Grant to Attack Christmas Climate Waste

Question:



> Couldn’t Sydney’s Lord Mayor find any better use for that $10,000? Maybe something slightly less climate related, like helping homeless people, or perhaps funding a few drug rehab beds, to help address Sydney’s out of control substance abuse problems?


Guess not...


----------



## FeXL

Targeting the kids. Again...

It’s “The Fright before Christmas”. Can we scare the kiddies?



> What could make climate change more real for the kiddies than to get rid of Santa and drown the deer. No more presents, little ones!
> 
> Inspiration from Tim Blair. who writes: If you enjoy making small children cry – and who doesn’t? – then Fairfax has the perfect Christmas gift idea.
> 
> _An Australian scientist has written a new children’s book, just in time for Christmas, that weaves the impacts of climate change into a story about Santa Claus, his reindeers and an evil billionaire.​_
> Because billionaires are always evil. It’s important to teach kids that only nasty people get rich.


The antidote for this nightmare?



> Tell the kiddies that somehow Santa and the reindeer survived 1959 when submarines from the US Navy surfaced at the North Pole. (They even did it in winter too).


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

I agree entirely with their title. Not so much with anything else...

Study from Marvel and Schmidt: Examination of Earth’s recent history key to predicting global temperatures



> Estimates of future global temperatures based on recent observations must account for the differing characteristics of each important driver of recent climate change, according to a new NASA study published Dec. 14 in the journal _Nature Climate Change_.


It would behoove the lot of them to also analyze not only recent history but the geological record going back hundreds of millions of years to observe the complete disconnect between global temperatures & atmospheric CO2 concentrations...


----------



## FeXL

Another observation on COP21.

Booker On The Paris Climate Fiasco



> _It really is time for us all to grasp just what a charade all that wishful thinking in Paris turned out to be. Lost in their self-deluding group-think, the 40,000 delegates may have been happy to cheer the idea that we must abolish fossil fuels. But not one pointed out that the world currently depends on fossil fuels to provide nearly 87 per cent of all the energy it uses. Those useless “renewables” they want us all to use instead – based on the wind and the sun – supply less than 2 per cent.​_


No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Where's the hue & cry from the left?

California Has a Huge Gas Leak, and Crews Can’t Stop It Yet



> While the world was hammering out a historic agreement to curb carbon emissions—urged along by California, no less—the state was dealing with an embarrassing belch of its own. Methane, a greenhouse gas 70 times more potent than carbon dioxide, has been leaking out of a natural gas storage site in southern California for nearly two months, and a fix won’t arrive until spring.
> 
> *The site is leaking up to 145,000 pounds per hour, according to the California Air Resources Board. In just the first month, that’s added up to 80,000 tons, or about a quarter of the state’s ordinary methane emissions over the same period.* The Federal Aviation Administration recently banned low-flying planes from flying over the site, since engines plus combustible gas equals kaboom.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

At least some of them get it.

Papal Global Warming Encyclical Continues to Split the Church



> The papal Laudato Si’ encyclical on global warming continues to be a source of division, and has prompted reportedly heated exchanges between senior church figures, at a recent top level meeting in Rome.
> 
> ...
> 
> *I applaud the courage of senior church figures who have had the courage to speak out against this divisive encyclical. People like the North American Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, and Australia’s Cardinal Pell, church leaders with a track record of placing integrity before political convenience, who have publicly and repeatedly criticised the attempt to extend papal moral authority into deciding matters of science.*


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Another trio of links addressing "adjustments".

Spectacular Sea Level Fraud From The IPCC



> The IPCC switched measurement systems in 1993 from tide gauges to satellites, declared a huge increase in sea level rise rates, and didn’t consider the possibility that the increase in rate was due to their changing measurement systems – rather than the climate.
> 
> Any third grader trained in science would have cross-checked vs. their earlier measurement system to see if there actually was an increase in 1993, rather than just an instrumentation issue. There wasn’t – the authors and reviewers are completely incompetent.


Southern Hemisphere Temperature Fraud



> Government climate fraudsters claim that they know Southern Hemisphere temperatures back to 1880, and that they basically match northern hemisphere temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> What Gavin forgot to mention is that the southern hemisphere graph is fake. In 1978, scientists agreed data south of 30S was too meager to be reliable.
> 
> ...
> 
> The 1990 IPCC report showed that there was insufficient temperature data for analysis in much of the Arctic, most of the southern oceans, and all of the Antarctic.
> 
> ...
> 
> In Climategate E-Mails, Phil Jones admitted that much of his southern hemisphere ocean temperatures were made up, because there is no actual data.


CRU Fraud – Making The Hiatus Disappear



> The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia used to show the “hiatus” very clearly. Then they talked it over with their fellow fraudsters at NOAA and NASA – and made the hiatus disappear by switching to a new version of their data.
> 
> ...
> 
> Previously, CRU had excellent agreement with satellites about the hiatus. Satellites are supposed to show larger swings than surface data, but the trend was the same. Also note how satellite data shows much larger spikes during El Nino events, like 1998 and 2010.
> 
> ...
> 
> The new CRU data creates a warming trend where there is none. But the real smoking gun of fraud is the divergence with satellites during the current El Nino. They should be converging, not diverging.


----------



## FeXL

That inconvenient past history.

East Antarctic Ice Sheet has stayed frozen for 14 million years



> In a new study in Scientific Reports, University of Pennsylvania researchers use an innovative technique to date one of Antarctica's ancient lake deposits. They found that the deposits have remained frozen for at least the last 14 million years, suggesting that the surrounding region, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, or EAIS, has likewise remained intact.
> 
> *The work adds new support for the idea that the EAIS did not experience significant melting even during the Pliocene, a period from 3 to 5 million years ago, when carbon dioxide concentrations rivaled what they are today.*


M'bold.

Yep.

Just one more illustration of why earth scientists are among the most sceptical on the planet...


----------



## FeXL

Brilliant...

HuffPost Touts “Economic Benefits” of a $2.9 trillion annual tax hike on Fossil Fuels



> Huffington Post has a plan to address the as yet unanswered question of who will foot the bill, for the renewable transformation green advocates want, in the wake of the Paris COP21 agreement. HuffPost’s suggestion is a $2.9 trillion rise in annual taxes on fossil fuels.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #210

Much on COP21.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

The Holocene Thermal Optimum



> Raising todays atmospheric temperature 2°C involves an insignificant amount of heat relative to the total ocean/atmosphere heat present only 8,000 years ago. If the oceans absorbed 2°C worth of atmospheric heat, the ocean temperature would only go up a trivial and unmeasurable 0.002°C.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Brilliant...
> 
> HuffPost Touts “Economic Benefits” of a $2.9 trillion annual tax hike on Fossil Fuels


HuffPost doesn't even pay its contributors. They should talk about who needs to pay for their inane ideas.


----------



## FeXL

Another in a long line of excuses for "The Pause" (What is this, #64 now? So much for "settled science".).

Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Climate Balance



> A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution.


Further:



> The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings. If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out. The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible. The stronger you make the forcings, the more improbable it is, that the terms will exactly balance. Why should CO2 exactly balance pollution? Why shouldn’t one term be much stronger than the other? *Out of the near infinity of possible sums, suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility.*


M'bold.

Yep.

Related:

NASA Recycling The 1970’s Ice Age Scare



> Gavin has a new paper out explaining the cause of the hiatus (which he also just erased.) He says that burning fossil fuels is generating aerosols which are suppressing global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is the identical argument which climate scientists used in their last ice age scare of the 1970’s – during Watergate.
> 
> ...
> 
> *NASA’s top climatologists reported the same thing in 1971, and made it clear that the effects of CO2 are not dangerous, and never will be dangerous.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Obama’s science adviser John Holdren reported the same thing in 1971, and predicted a new ice age in a joint paper with Paul Ehrlich.
> 
> ...
> 
> *NOAA shot this theory down by the year 1977, so it is pretty remarkable that Gavin is trying to resurrect it in 2015.*


M'bold.

Recognize any names?

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on stuff the XX) missed...

Salty sea spray affects the lifetimes of clouds, researchers find



> From COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY and the “climate models still can’t get clouds right” department comes this interesting new study.
> 
> All over the planet, every day, oceans send plumes of sea spray into the atmosphere. Beyond the poetry of crashing ocean waves, this salt- and carbon-rich spray has a dramatic effect on the formation and duration of clouds.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read about the long term effects of vulcanization on ozone & the climate. I don't agree with everything the authors note but find the hypothesis worth a look.

Volcanoes and Ozone: Their Interactive Effect on Climate Change



> The very fact that opinions on climate change could have become as polarized as they have, even in scientific circles, suggests we may still have much to learn. Despite the best efforts of many of the world’s brightest minds, and the claims of some that “the science is settled,” climatic enigmas still persist.
> 
> For the past nine years, Peter Langdon Ward has been working steadily in retirement from his career as a geophysicist and volcanologist with the US Geological Survey to try to demystify some of these enigmas. Two years ago, I joined my old friend and colleague in his quest. Last month, we published a new theory of global warming that we feel accounts far better for temperature change over the past 100 years and throughout the Phanerozoic Eon than the currently favored greenhouse warming theory.


----------



## FeXL

Couple of articles on northern biota affected by sea ice. Interestingly, neither of them negatively...

The 2015 Arctic Report Card: NOAA Failed Walrus Science!



> The only dynamic that could have possibly offset increased ocean productivity and cause a population decline in an era of regulated hunting, and conservation efforts that are now protecting haulouts, was a strictly hypothetical dynamic that less sea ice prevents access to foraging habitat and was reducing the Arctic’s carrying capacity. *But all reported evidence discussed above contradicts that hypothesis and McCracken’s suggestion the population had declined by 50% is untenable.*


M'bold.

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine – a 30% increase in population with some of them “as fat as pigs.”



> *Survey Results: Svalbard polar bear numbers increased 30% over last 11 years*
> 
> Results of this fall’s Barents Sea population survey have been released by the Norwegian Polar Institute and they are phenomenal: *despite several years with poor ice conditions, there are more bears now (~975) than there were in 2004 (~685) around Svalbard (a 30% increase) and the bears were in good condition.*


Their bold.


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs it when they start eating their own...

Green Fundamentalists Attack Celebrity Climate Hypocrisy



> Back in April this year, WUWT reported on an unusual green attack on blatant celebrity eco-hypocrisy. Now this new green terror has gone mainstream, with rising groundswell of criticism, of celebrities whose vocal support for green causes is contradicted by their openly high carbon lifestyles.
> 
> According to the Daily Mail;
> 
> _Green campaigner Madonna uses her private jet for 120 mile journey from Birmingham to London​_


Long overdue. Not just for Madonna...


----------



## FeXL

Further on uninformed hypocrisy...

An Angry Rose



> Bette [Midler] blames the same weather as 1949 on global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Last year, she blamed cold weather on global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely, one by one...

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever



> It made sense. Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise. But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd. It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked. *There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit. As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more. Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations.* Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.


M'bold.

Related:

10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.



> Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting. We’re seeing more and more of this type of exposition from people who are becoming skeptical. How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?
> 
> Mike Van Biezen is a physics, maths and astronomy lecturer in the US. Until seven years ago, he accepted the premise that adding massive amounts of CO2 to the air would cause temperatures to rise. Then he noticed the slip in global temperatures from 1940-1980 and “could not ignore this subtle hint”. He did a lot of investigating over the ensuing years and has condensed that into ten very well written points. Like point 9: “It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist.” But things got so cold 150 years ago, people were afraid of glaciers and were asking “local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.”
> 
> I also found point 7, and 10 particularly worth discussing. Point 10 is the one that he says captures the attention of his students.


Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

More from CM's favorite sceptic.

There Is No Climate Change Disaster Except The One Governments Created



> At the Paris Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) we witnessed the biggest display of failed leadership in history from 195 countries. They established incorrect and misdirected policy based on failed and falsified science. It is a classic circular argument on a global scale. They invented the false problem of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and now they want to resolve the problem, but with a more disastrous solution.
> 
> Most countries were puppets that aspired to lead the deception but lacked the power so they contributed by serving as lackeys. Either way, all were purchased with promises of money. The majority receives money from successful countries, but all of them have an excuse for another tax.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read. Lindzen on Dyson.

Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm



> A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.
> 
> In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.” His main point, stated immediately, is that any agreement reached in these talks would “likely do more harm than good.” In an otherwise, thoughtful commentary, however, Dyson begins with a common error. He attributes the basis for climate alarm to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


----------



## FeXL

NOAA’s New “Pauses-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Data – The Curiosities Extend into the 1st Half of the 20th Century…



> We’ve discussed NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 “pauses-buster” sea surface temperature reconstruction in a number of posts this year. They are linked at the end of this post. We can add yet another curiosity to the list…this time relating to the global ERSST.v4 data during the first half of the 20th Century. Additionally, there is an error in a new paper about the NOAA ERSST.v4 that I want to discuss as well.


----------



## FeXL

No argument. In a veritable sea of lies on climate, this was the biggest..

Obama’s Climate Lie Of The Year: Warming Caused Alaska’s Glaciers To Recede



> President Obama is in the middle of his annual Christmas vacation to Hawaii, the 50th State (out of 57?) but it was only three months ago he visited Alaska, the 49th state to promote the global re-distribution of income policy also known as man-made climate change. When he visited the glaciers in Alaska, Obama claimed that global warming was melting the glaciers, which was another of the many lies he’s told during his White House tenure, and his biggest climate lie of the year. *The glaciers in Alaska been melting since before the American Revolution.*


M'bold.

More of that inconvenient history...


----------



## FeXL

Because CO2!!!

North Atlantic SST’s Dropping Sharply



> By looking at the SST’s and jet stream, it is clear why we have had a run of wet weather in recent weeks. And the culprit is that cold pool of water, not global warming.


OK. Maybe not...


----------



## FeXL

Worried About A Mild December?



> _*I think the real killer here is that, as stated in the news clipping, that it was 46.9F in December 1841, equating to 8.3C. The MET Office, ludicrously does away with this temperature by focusing on a 7.1C back in 1979. How convenient it is, to wipe out the previous 139 years of record temperature history. Note, that this temperature in itself was only 0.2C below what was usually considered an April norm!*
> 
> Here we have a December, in 1841, that was akin to a normally expected April, and the MET Office missed that! Hardly. Furthermore, this occurred just as the world was exiting the Little Ice Age. Nearly 140 years after you would hope the things were getting warmer._


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Not NOAA!!!

FOI’s Reveal How NOAA Spin Lies About Ocean Acidification



> Steve Milloy at Junk Science has obtained some emails from NOAA by FOI, which show the agency has been complicit in arranging an op-ed in the New York Times about ocean acidification, which even one of its experts says is misleading:
> 
> 
> _*Exclusive: Ocean acidification not a current problem, top NOAA scientist insists in FOIA-ed e-mails*
> 
> JunkScience.com got NOAA scientist e-mails via FOIA? Why can’t Congress?_


Bold from the link.

Good question...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

"Homogenized" US Warming Trend May Be Grossly Exaggerated 



> For years, Watts and a team of volunteers set about to photograph, or obtain photos or satellite imagery, of just about every weather station that forms NOAA’s “Historical Climate Network” (HCN), which our government claims was pretty much free of nagging problems like temperature sensors being close to parking lots or, even worse, heat sources like air-conditioning exhaust.
> 
> It turns out they weren’t, and after assiduously poring over all the pictures, Watts and his crew classified the stations into two general groups, well-sited, “compliant” stations, and poorly-sited “non-compliant” ones. From the compliant group, Watts’ team further selected only those stations which had no changes whatsoever in location or observation timing during their analysis period, 1979-2008, leaving 92 of the best quality stations distributed across the U.S.


Related:

Climate Models Have Been Wrong About Global Warming For Six Decades



> Climate models used by scientists to predict how much human activities will warm the planet have been *over-predicting global warming for the last six decades*, according to a recent working paper by climate scientists.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene



> *A new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman.*
> 
> President Obama has declared that global warming is much more dangerous than radical Islamic terrorism. States and countries are eschewing inexpensive, abundant energy sources in favor of unreliable, expensive, allegedly “green” energy sources. It is a time of silliness and hypocrisy – with many unintended consequences.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

The Silliest Post-COP21 Headline Ever?



> But one headline made me laugh out loud. It still makes me smile. It was penned by none other than SkepticalScience’s Dana Nuccitelli, whose article was posted at his home blog SkepticalScience and at TheGuardian two weeks ago. His headline read:
> 
> _The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars​_


Brilliant...


----------



## FeXL

Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!



> *One would think that the fact that 99.7% of Greenland’s ice sheet survived the 20th Century might just be more scientifically relevant than a 0.3% loss… But I guess that doesn’t make for a very dramatic headline.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Meteorologists refute media claims that Arctic storm caused by humans



> 'That's utter bull****," meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue declared on December 29, in a response to the Washington Post's claim that the Arctic event "reeks of a human-forced warming of the Earth's climate." Maue added: "*Who is feeding the media this crap?*"


M'bold.

Pssst, Ryan...it's the warmists...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole ocean acidification thing...

Suppressing the good news



> The email correspondence is therefore most enlightening, not only because it reveals that the authors who appeared on the byline had little involvement in actually writing the article, but also because behind the scenes it appears that the Times was trying to get the scientists to come up with evidence of what the present-day impacts were, and were told in no uncertain terms that there was none.
> 
> _Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. A*s I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now.* If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!​_
> It's funny, but that message somehow didn't make it into the article. Tony Thomas at Quadrant magazine has gone into the story in much more detail, and there are several other aspects that cast a fairly murky shadow over the whole affair.


M'bold.

Related:

NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification



> From a climate expert at NOAA, the study of ocean acidification is so young _“they don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health”_ and they can’t name any place in the world that is definitely affected by it.


Italics from the link.


----------



## SINC

Seems about right for this here.


----------



## FeXL

1974 : Guardian Warned Of A New Ice Age



> The Guardian claims now that there never was an ice age scare. The one they said was _coming fast_ in 1974.


Hate when they can't make that sort of stuff disappear...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

Impact Of Groundwater Extraction On Sea Levels



> ABSTRACT
> 
> _In regions with frequent water stress and large aquifer systems groundwater is often used as an additional water source. If groundwater abstraction exceeds the natural groundwater recharge for extensive areas and long times, overexploitation or persistent groundwater depletion occurs. Here we provide a global overview of groundwater depletion (here defined as abstraction in excess of recharge) by assessing groundwater recharge with a global hydrological model and subtracting estimates of groundwater abstraction. Restricting our analysis to sub-humid to arid areas we estimate the total global groundwater depletion to have increased from 126 (±32) km3 a−1 in 1960 to 283 (±40) km3 a−1 in 2000. The latter equals 39 (±10)% of the global yearly groundwater abstraction, 2 (±0.6)% of the global yearly groundwater recharge, 0.8 (±0.1)% of the global yearly continental runoff and 0.4 (±0.06)% of the global yearly evaporation, *contributing a considerable amount of 0.8 (±0.1) mm a−1 to current sea-level rise.*_


Bold from the link.



> Given that the 3.1mm/year sea level rise, claimed in the paper, includes a glacial isostatic adjustment of 0.3mm (to account for ocean basins getting larger, as the ocean bottom sinks), the actual sea level rise, as measured by tide gauges, is only 2.8mm/year.
> 
> Take away the 0.8mm from groundwater, and we are back to the 2.0mm/year, generally accepted to be the rate of rise during the 20thC.


Sunovagun...


----------



## FeXL

(18 now)

24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’ planetary emergency deadline



> Al Gore’s posited _“within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return”_ and _“a true planetary emergency.”_ is proving to be nothing more than PR bull**** to push his movie, and won’t happen by the ten year countdown of January 25th 2016.


Well, I'll be celebrating the end of the planet as we know it with a big bonfire in the backyard and some red meat on the grille...


----------



## FeXL

Damn that history...

1977 Deja Vu – Over And Over Again



> In 1977, an “errant jet stream” brought epic snow and cold to the east, while California and Alaska were warm and dry.
> 
> ...
> 
> Governor Jerry Brown warned of drought disaster.
> 
> ...
> 
> National Geographic blamed global cooling for the wild weather.
> 
> ...
> 
> But then the rains came, and California and Arizona flooded.
> 
> ...
> 
> Fast forward to 2015. The identical weather pattern occurred, only this time experts blamed global warming instead of global cooling – and Governor Jerry Brown was again hysterical about the drought.


----------



## FeXL

I find the premise of this paper a joke. Then, it goes downhill...

Antarctic Sea Ice as a “cork” to prevent CO2 release



> A new study reconstructing conditions at the end of the last ice age suggests that as the Antarctic sea ice melted, massive amounts of carbon dioxide that had been trapped in the ocean were released into the atmosphere.


Just think about this a bit. You've got a pot of water. You float a chunk of ice on the surface of the water, something that covers, say, 1/4 of the surface. Then you add CO2 to the water. How much CO2 is stopped from dissipating to the atmosphere by the ice?

Exactly...

Throw in ocean currents, etc., & what do you have?

Nuttin'.

At least they mention that the planet warmed first, then CO2 levels rose.


----------



## FeXL

So, it seems there was a "Counter COP21" summit in Paris, as well.

At Anti-UN Climate Summit, Scientist Slams Alarmist “Religion”



> In a video interview (see below) with The New American after his presentation at the anti-alarmism summit in Paris, Professor Markó also slammed the bogus “science” underpinning the new religion. Numerous summit attendees and experts from across France and beyond referred to the “climate religion” as “climatism.”
> 
> “All the conclusions being reached by the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] are actually flawed conclusions,” said Dr. Markó, who serves as a professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and co-authored The Bankruptcy of Climatism.
> 
> *In short, the IPCC is wrong and cannot be trusted, he said, echoing numerous other experts — including some who worked with the IPCC — at the summit.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "Settled Science".

Paper: Scientists Still Can’t Explain The ‘Grand Hiatus’ In Global Warming



> Scientists are not only having trouble explaining why global surface temperatures did not warm for 15 years in the 21st century, they still have not adequately explained why there was an even longer 30-year “grand hiatus” in global warming during the mid-20th century.
> 
> “*The climate models making dire predictions of warming in the 21st century are the same models that predicted too much warming in the early 21st century, and can’t explain the warming from 1910-1945 or the mid-century grand hiatus*,” Dr. Judith Curry writes in a Wednesday op-ed published in The Financial Post.


Curious, that...


----------



## FeXL

Further on cooked numbers.

Guardian Confirms NASA/CSIRO Sea Level Fraud



> In 1963, the Guardian reported a sharp drop in sea level rise rates since 1940.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA data now shows a sharp rise after 1940. The exact opposite of what actually happened.
> 
> ...
> 
> As late as 1983, NASA still showed a sharp drop in rise rates after 1940, in a study done by the modern father of global warming
> 
> ...
> 
> As with essentially all NASA climate graphs, their sea level graph has been massively tampered with and is propaganda, not science.


----------



## Macfury

The source link ha better graphs:

Unnatural consensus on climate change | Financial Post



FeXL said:


> Further on "Settled Science".
> 
> Paper: Scientists Still Can’t Explain The ‘Grand Hiatus’ In Global Warming
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, that...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Global Warming" & "It's weather, not climate" departments, sceptic style.

Record Snowfalls hit Canada, Mexico, Texas & China – ‘Insanely cold’ in Calif. – Peru sees ‘heavy snowfall’ in Summer



> In the past few days, record snow and cold has descended on many parts of the world...


----------



## FeXL

What's this? 

We have Bigger Problems than Climate Change; So sayeth IPCC AR5



> It is remarkable what gems of wisdom one can find simply by sitting down and reading the IPCC AR reports and seeing what they actually say. Having spent more time than I would like to admit on WGI (the science) over the years, I decided to spend some time on WGII (the impacts). How bad is it going to be according to the collective wisdom of 97% of the world’s climate science brain trust?
> 
> Now it is a long report, it would take weeks to work through all the chapters, the tortured language, and dig into the references, many of which would be pay walled. So I went straight for sections on the economy. Now I’m not an economist, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that anything bad that happens on a global basis will have a negative impact on our global economy. I wanted to know, if the 97% of scientists are right, how bad is it going to be? The answer blew me away. I won’t keep you in suspense, I’ll go straight to the money quote (bold theirs):
> 
> *For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement).*


Emphasis from the link.

In the face of this, all that money frittered away on "global warming". Stunning...


----------



## FeXL

They ain't gonna like this...

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Remains Stable For Another Year



> _*Summary:*
> 
> Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since.
> 
> Alarmists chafe at the words “growing” and “recovery”, and I use them poetically to counter “death spiral” terminology. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. *The rise since 2007 is slight and not statistically important, just as the loss of ice from 1979 to 1994 in the NOAA dataset was too slight to count as a decline.*_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Damn. And here I thought it was the Alberta NDP economic policy...

Carbon causes PTSD (Stressed, anxious, violent? Blame climate change)



> Once there were no storms, the climate was perfect and everyone was nice to each other. Then people got air conditioners to make the climate even more perfect, and God was not happy. Along came droughts, floods and plagues and everyone got post traumatic stress disorder.
> 
> Humans are just not designed to live in a world where the seas rise 1mm a year. (What,we can’t run fast enough?)
> 
> The news on our mental health is dire according to a report from the National Wildlife Foundation (on climate change only the Experts are right, but in other fields, anyone can have a stab, right?).
> 
> ...
> 
> *So Grok hid in a cave and made it through an ice age, but the modern pajama-boy will have a panic attack if the world warms by one degree.*


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

A Foolish Bet about 2016 Global Surface Temperatures – It’s Nothing More than a Silly Publicity Stunt



> TheHuffingtonPost published a laughable post on December 31st by Sandia Labs’ Mark Boslough titled Are Climate Bullies Afraid to Bet Me? It begins (You’re going to enjoy this):
> 
> _I, Mark Boslough, being of sound mind, do hereby challenge any individual or organization to a $25,000 bet that global warming is real and will continue. If the climatological average global land surface temperature goes up again in 2016, setting another new record, the party that accepts my challenge must donate $25,000 to a science education nonprofit of my choice. If not, I will donate $25,000 to a nonprofit designated by the accepting party.
> 
> Details are below. But it doesn’t matter. It’s a sucker bet. Everyone knows that global warming is real.​_
> Dr. Boslough is correct, inasmuch as it is a sucker bet, but not for the reason or reasons he claims. *Even skeptics expect global surface temperatures (and global lower troposphere temperatures) will be higher in 2016 than they were in 2015, but skeptics understand the reasons for it…that a strong El Niño raises global surface temperatures in the El Niño evolution year AND (typically) even more in the El Niño decay year.* That means, as the 2015/16 El Niño winds down in 2016, global surface and lower troposphere temperatures will continue to rise in response to the El Niño.


M'bold.

There goes that damn science thing again...


----------



## FeXL

The longest running temperature record on the planet now has a 17 year pause.

Central England Temperature Pause Now 17 Years Long



> Despite the warm end to the year, the annual CET ended up pretty close to the long term average.
> 
> As I have pointed out before, the Met Office only like to show the CET since 1772. *For some reason, they don’t like people to see the full picture, which just happens to include the much bigger and faster rise in temperatures in the early 18thC!*


M'bold.

That's curious, too...


----------



## FeXL

(who knew there was such a thing as the National Black Chamber of Commerce...)

National Black Chamber of Commerce Upsets Climate Pundits



> The National Black Chamber of Commerce has been upsetting climate advocates, by insisting that President Obama’s clean energy plan would hurt the US economy. The response from climate advocates has been nothing short of vitriolic.


I hope they don't back down under political pressure.


----------



## FeXL

Just a _bit_ of graphical evidence displaying a smidgeon of context from paleoclimate.

The Holocene context for Anthropogenic Global warming



> Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.
> 
> However all the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:
> 
> * the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
> * each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
> * for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
> * but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
> * the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
> * the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
> * eventually this late 20th century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
> * other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.


Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that.

1979 – UN Was Pushing The Global Cooling Scam



> In 1979, the UN WMO was pushing the global cooling scam, and blamed droughts, floods and climate change on it.
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate scientists now cleverly start their graphs in 1979, and ignore earlier data.
> 
> ...
> 
> The 1990 IPCC report showed sea ice data back to 1973, which scientists have since erased.


----------



## FeXL

So, some ice melted in Greenland in 2012. Some say it's Global Warming. Others say it's not...

Failed claim right out of the gate: Climate change altering Greenland ice sheet & accelerating sea level rise

He sums:



> So, while the University of York may be right about the firn/sponge issue not soaking up as much meltwater as before, climate change didn’t have one damn thing to do with the change in the firn. The same thing happened 150 years ago, in a few decades, the firn will be back to normal until the next 150 year melt event occurs.


----------



## FeXL

Shock Green Discovery: Negative Messages make Normal People Feel Sad



> A group of climate researchers have made the shocking discovery, that telling people everyone is going to die from the apocalyptic effects of manmade climate change, and that the only hope is for them personally to join a local group of activists who hope to influence the direction of the Washington juggernaut, makes normal people feel depressed and unmotivated.


Damn, it hurts to bite my cheeks that hard...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Update of Model-Observation Comparisons



> The strong El Nino has obviously caused great excitement in the warmist community. It should also cause any honest skeptic/lukewarmer to re-examine whether observations remain inconsistent with models. In today’s post, I’ll show two comparisons: 1) CMIP5 models (TAS) vs HadCRUT4; 2) CMIP5 models (TLT) vs RSS (UAH is only negligibly different).


I'll break the suspense:



> *For all models, the model trend is more or less double the observed trend*, somewhat more pronounced than for surface trends, but structurally very similar.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Stunning...

Watch: NASA’s chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt claims Texans won’t listen to ‘liberal, Jewish atheist from NYC’ about ‘global warming’



> 'Now, you know there's some communities I can't talk to because, you know, I'm a liberal, Jewish atheist from New York City, right? So if I go to Texas and try and tell people about climate change, I'm totally the wrong messenger, right? Because we don't have any shared values quite frankly.'


What an arrogant, conceited ass...


----------



## FeXL

Little blurb on methane.

Claim: Large and increasing methane emissions from northern lakes



> From the graph, it appears that methane is mostly a northern hemisphere problem, most likely due to leaks from natural gas wells, and distribution systems, which is a relatively easy to solve problem.


----------



## FeXL

Troposphere temps distant 3rd for 2015.

Annual Global Lower Troposphere Temperature (TLT) Anomaly Update – Distant Third Warmest for 2015



> As expected, annual global lower troposphere temperature (TLT) anomalies in 2015 for both the RSS and UAH datasets ranked a remote third warmest.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting interpretation.

Data suggests Global Temperature tracks Aviation Fuel Consumption



> The recent “hiatus” in the global temperature record has thrown a dark cloud on carbon dioxide’s position in explaining climate change. Whereas the temperature record has been relatively constant for the last fifteen or so years the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased more-or-less unabated casting doubt over its influence. Climatologists have been scrambling to explain the temperature hiatus as just that, a hiatus or pause, where the greenhouse energy is temporarily stored away in the ocean to wreck its vengeance on us at a later time.
> 
> *But maybe the simpler explanation is that we are backing the wrong gas and water vapor is the really important greenhouse gas, after all it currently accounts for more than 85% of the current greenhouse effect that supports life on this planet.* Water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by virtue of its asymmetric molecular structure that allows more vibration modes hence more opportunities to capture and adsorb radiant energy.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Poll: 73% of Americans reject so-called AGW consensus (but you wouldn’t know it from the headline)



> This is the real story:
> 
> _“Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the...marginal scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.”​_


Guess the warmists are gonna hafta run more ads...


----------



## FeXL

That's going to leave a mark...

Munich Re insurance company: El Niño And Global Warming Make Natural Disasters Less Expensive



> Due to El Niño and global warming, 2015 natural disasters are much less costly than expected, according to a study by an insurance industry group.


Unfortunately, we probably won't see rates go down...


----------



## FeXL

What to do with those useless bits lying around the house. 

Friday funny – Sustainable science



> Josh writes: New Year is always a time to resolve to do better and maybe recycle stuff from 2015 that’s lying around doing nothing useful. Happy 2016!


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the horror!!! 

Run Away! The Anthropocene Has Arrived!!!



> While at some distant point in the future, an “Anthropocene” may be identified as stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene, Walters et al., 2016 does not make much of a case for it. *This appears to be another exercise in splicing modern high resolution data onto lower resolution proxy data (AKA Hockey sticking).*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes, the mighty _Grunion_...

Claim: The Climate “Denial” Conspiracy is Growing



> The Guardian reports that discussions of climate policy are being displaced by “attacks” on climate science.
> 
> Naturally the Guardian, and the authors of the study, blame a conspiracy of climate skeptics, rather than considering other possibilities, such as legitimate doubts raised by the Climategate fiasco, and the utter inability of climate scientists to get any predictions right.


In summary:



> *Climate alarmists frequently accuse skeptics of believing in baseless conspiracy theories, but when you read something like this, it is pretty plain which side of the climate debate is living in fantasy land.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Another from CM's favorite irrefutable Canuck climate scientist. This one on the Friends of Science.

Global Warming; A Major Challenge For Science And Society Effectively Tackled By Friends Of Science (FOS)



> This group deals with the challenge of communicating science to a predominantly arts comfortable science averse society. *They are effective, as the nastiness of the attacks reflect but unlike their attackers who only seek to silence and destroy they produce valuable information for people to reach their own conclusions.* They do it with a minimal budget supported by professional people who are passionate about science and the truth. In doing so, they provide a vehicle for the large group of “working scientists” essentially without a voice.


Emphasis mine.

Huh. Where have I heard that before?

Excellent read. You may consider membership.


----------



## FeXL

Brilliant!!! Only a socialist could come up with a solution like this.

Ban-Ki Moon’s Climate Finance Plan: Despots paying off Third World Debt with More Oppression



> United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, and Kamalesh Sharma, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, have proposed that third world countries should be allowed to pay off their debts, by taking “action” on climate change.


Further:



> What a plan. Unless I missed something, Ban-ki Moon’s plan means third world despots get to fund their armies and secret police, and fill their offshore bank accounts, by running up huge national debts. Then to have those debts “forgiven”, so the tyrants can borrow even more money, all they have to do is to “create new institutions” (employ lots of UN affiliated bureaucrats), restrict access to irrigation, and ruin their domestic fishing industry.


----------



## FeXL

Nice.

Evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania



> There have been controversial debates about the existence of the MWP, the level of warming compared to the current climate as well as on regional differences in timing. Meanwhile, the MWP has been documented from all seven continents, as documented by literature syntheses prepared by the CO2Science group. (Australia & New Zealand here and here). *In this article we present an independent follow up project, coordinated by geologist Dr Sebastian Lüning, in which we map the MWP across the globe*...


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

One wonders what initiated the change. It certainly wasn't empirical evidence...

Professor Myles Allen: Normal Weather is a “Thing of the Past”



> IPCC Lead Author Professor Myles Allen, who...in 2014 stated that alarmism is unhelpful, appears to have changed his mind – his new position is that “normal weather is now a thing of the past”.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, new paper out on modelling climate sensitivities.

Appraising Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates

A thorough analysis. He sums:



> I have highlighted many serious problems with the Marvel et al. study. Because of them, its results would be of little or no relevance to observational estimation of TCR and ECS even if the real climate system responded to forcings similarly to GISS-E2-R. Using better justified estimation methods, and the GISS-E2-R effective rather than equilibrium climate sensitivity, the Historical iRF and ERF data are both found to produce efficacies within ~10% of unity, both using Marvel et al.’s estimates of the forcing from a doubling of CO2 and with them adjusted up. Marvel et al.’s claim to have shown that TCR and ECS estimated from recent observations will be biased low is wrong. *Their study lacks credibility.*


M'bold.

Related: (summary of above)

Appraising Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates


----------



## SINC

Disarming the Alarmists: Climate-change Myth Takes Three More Hits


----------



## FeXL

Data Surprise! Global Temperature Continues Stall, Polar Ice And Snow Cover Continue Surprising Growth



> The preliminary data from UAH and RSS shows that 2015 was the third warmest year since the measurements began in 1978, and thus did not set a new record. A reanalysis of the global 2m temperature from CFSv2 measured a positive deviation from the mean of 0.27 K, but put the year 2015 only in 6th place
> 
> ...
> 
> A big surprise for many has been the ice growth measured in Greenland since 2014. Moreover the Greenland ice sheet has gown some *300 km³* since September 1, 2015 alone
> 
> The northern hemisphere in November 2015 saw a total of 36.25 million km² of snow cover. That’s about *2.3 million km²* above the WMO 1981-2010 mean. It’s the 7th greatest extent since measurements began in 1966.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Remembering Way Back – To Three Weeks Ago



> Three weeks ago, experts announced that global warming is real and had wrecked NFL football.
> 
> ...
> 
> And today the Vikings may set the record for the coldest outdoor game ever played in Minneapolis.


----------



## FeXL

Hate that history thing...

It’s official! You can stop worrying about “climate change” effects on the polar bears, seals, and walrus – they’ve seen it all before, including ice-free summers



> A new paper that combines paleoclimatology data for the last 56 million years with molecular genetic evidence concludes *there were no biological extinctions over the last 1.5M years despite profound Arctic sea ice changes that included ice-free summers: polar bears, seals, walrus and other species successfully adapted to habitat changes that exceeded those predicted by USGS and US Fish and Wildlife polar bear biologists over the next 100 years.*


M'bold.

Link to open access paper inside.


----------



## FeXL

More "Settled Science".

Inconvenient: iceberg calving helps ‘carbon sequestration’ and is ‘helping to slow global warming’



> Key points:
> 
> * Giant icebergs leave trail of carbon sequestration in their wake — a month after they have passed
> * Geographers analysed 175 satellite images of ocean colour which is an indicator of phytoplankton productivity at the ocean’s surface *Giant icebergs are responsible for storing up to 20 per cent of carbon in the Southern Ocean, a new study has found.*
> 
> Pioneering research from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography discovered melting water from giant icebergs, which contains iron and other nutrients, supports hitherto unexpectedly high levels of phytoplankton growth.
> 
> This activity, known as carbon sequestration, contributes to the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore helping to slow global warming.


M'bold.

The more we know, the more we learn we don't know...


----------



## FeXL

Further from the weepy engineer...

McKibben's mindpoop



> Here's a tweet from Bill McKibben
> 
> _Um, Bolivia's 2nd-largest lake altogether dried up in the last months.​_


Curiously...



> _ When the water level of Titicaca Lake drops below 3,810 m, the flow of Desaguadero River is so low it can no longer compensate for the massive water losses due to evaporation from the surface of Poopó Lake. At this point, the lake volume begins to decrease. At its maximum in 1986, the lake had an area of 3,500 km2. During the years that followed, the surface area steadily decreased until 1994 when the lake disappeared completely. The time period between 1975 and 1992 is the longest period in recent times with a continuous existence of a water body._


And:



> _The lake seems from the records of Marin & Quitanilla (2002) to have been dry between 1939 and 1944, and nearly dry in 1970–1972._


So much for the "science" guy...


----------



## FeXL

A day late, a dollar short & a week behind...

Story time at the Guardian



> Nearly a week after Nic Lewis pubished his rather devastating critique of the Marvel et al paper, Dana Nuccitelli has decided it's time to tell the Graun readers about...the Marvel et al paper. Readers might be interested to compare excerpts from Dana's piece and Nic Lewis's one.


Further:



> *It's remarkable that Lewis has managed to refute Nuccitelli even before Nuccitelli started to write.* I imagine this happens to Dana quite a lot though.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

"Nothing in it is correct"



> The eminent statistician (and occasional BH reader) Radford Neal has been writing a series of posts on global temperature data at his blog.


More:



> They are all rather technical but very well written - the clarity of thought is striking. But I particularly recommend the last one, a gloriously deadpan take on a much-trumpeted paper (one which trashes claims of a hiatus, apparently), with gems like this:
> 
> _The authors are all at Stanford University, one of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions. Rajaratnam is an Assistant Professor of Statistics and of Environmental Earth System Science. Romano is a Professor of Statistics and of Economics.Diffenbaugh is an Associate Professor of Earth System Science. Tsiang is a PhD student. Climatic Change appears to be a reputable refereed journal, which is published by Springer, and which is cited in the latest IPCC report. The paper was touted in popular accounts as showing that the whole hiatus thing was mistaken — for instance, by Stanford University itself.
> 
> *You might therefore be surprised that, as I will discuss below, this paper is completely wrong. Nothing in it is correct. It fails in every imaginable respect.*​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

On how data is portrayed.

Graph vs. Graph = Political Journalism



> This graph supposedly hides global warming because the small increases in temperatures aren’t obvious. An online article in The Huffington Post stated it was an improper visualization that makes “just about anything seem stagnant,” and The Fix at The Washington Post complained that “it is misleading” because it “hides the actual change in temperatures.” Also online, Business Insider said the graph zooms “out so much that it makes it seem like global average temperatures haven’t changed at all.”


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

More "Settled Science".

Growth rings on rocks give up North American climate secrets



> Scientists have found a new way to tease out signals about Earth’s climatic past from soil deposits on gravel and pebbles, adding an unprecedented level of detail to the existing paleoclimate record and revealing a time in North America’s past when summers were wetter than normal.
> 
> A research team led by soil scientists at the University of California, Berkeley obtained data about precipitation and temperature in North America spanning the past 120,000 years, which covers glacial and interglacial periods during the Pleistocene Epoch. They did this at thousand-year resolutions — a blink of an eye in geologic terms — through a microanalysis of the carbonate deposits that formed growth rings around rocks, some measuring just 3 millimeters thick.
> 
> “The cool thing that this study reveals is that within soil — an unlikely reservoir given how ‘messy’ most people think it is — there is a mineral that accumulates steadily and creates some of the most detailed information to date on the Earth’s past climates,” said senior author Ronald Amundson, a UC Berkeley professor of environmental science, policy and management.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

El Niño shortens the Pause by just one month



> It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. *NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.* The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.


M'bold.

Well, it ain't there.

A number of excellent graphs & visual aids.


----------



## FeXL

Further on empirical evidence of the MWP.

Study: ‘Globally, 99% of all paleoclimatic temperature studies compiled show a prominent warming during Medieval Warm Period (MWP)



> About 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit (pdf here):
> 
> _The reconstructed temperature differences between MCA and LIA […] indicate higher medieval temperatures over the NH continents […]. . The reconstructed MCA warming is higher than in the simulations, even for stronger TSI changes and individual simulations […] The enhanced gradients are not reproduced by model simulations … and are not robust when considering the reconstruction uncertainties and the limited proxy records in these tropical ocean regions […]. This precludes an assessment of the role of external forcing and/or internal variability in these reconstructed patterns.​_


----------



## FeXL

There's some real gems here...

New research: Social scientists look for climate denial – and find it



> · Viewed largely as an extension of the conservative movement in the U.S., organized *climate denial was born out of the deep pockets of conservative foundations and corporate interest groups* committed to promoting free-market principles and rolling back government intervention in all aspects of the economy …


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Still waiting for my first cheque...



> This is powerful but devoid of meaning since the paper never defines “denial”. The literal meaning of “denying” science or “denying” climate change constitutes serious but easy to prove changes (perhaps libelous if made without evidence). *Silence on this key point is inexplicable. Where were the reviewers?*


M'bold.

Down at the pub having a politically correct Grass Martini with a sprig of clover instead of an olive...



> *This is low-grade science.*


No argument. As is the whole hypothesis...

Good for a laugh, if nothing else. A wonderful exhibition of social "science" at work.

Oh, & this from the comments:



> Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Look who just woke up" file & further on social "science"...

Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media



> _The paper was entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax“. The abstract of the study states: “Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.”
> 
> Note the term “conspiracist ideation”. The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.
> 
> When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.
> 
> *The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field…*​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Tisdale has an update on the El Nino.

January 2016 ENSO Update – It Appears the El Niño Has Peaked



> There are a number of notable things this month. First, sea surface temperature-based indices and the Southern Oscillation Index indicate the El Niño has peaked. And we discussed in the December update the upwelling Kelvin wave that will be effecting (decreasing) El Niño conditions. Those indicators do not mean the El Niño will immediately stop impacting weather conditions around the globe. Strong El Niño conditions still exist in the tropical Pacific, and there is still a large volume of El Niño-related warmer-than-normal waters below the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (see animation from GODAS website here). Strong El Niño conditions are likely to exist through February to April and weak El Niño conditions might last until June. See Figure Supplement-1. Expect unusual El Niño-caused weather anomalies for many months to come…some bad, some good.


Good read & why we should expect some unseasonably warm weather this year (no, it has nothing to do with unicorn farts or politicians' blather...).


----------



## FeXL

Nice work if you can lie enough...

Who says scientists don’t do it to get rich? Queensland climate expert in court over $500k in false expenses



> Dr Daniel Michael Alongi, 59, is accused of taking over half a million dollars in federal funds over the last seven years. The carbon sequestration, mangrove, reef, eco-expert has admitted he made false invoices to claim federal funds (Courier Mail, paywalled). He is in court on Jan 18th. The alleged sum is the rather impressive $556,000. His superannuation of $900k, and $80k in long service leave, has been frozen. (Nice work… )


Related:

Another Climate Scientist Accused of Financial Fraud



> There is no suggestion at this stage that Alongi produced fake results for research papers, but in my opinion this has to be considered a possibility, if the charges against Alongi are upheld. After all, if Alongi falsely claimed to have spent half a million dollars on radioisotope testing, it would look pretty strange if he didn’t produce any false test results, to justify the expenditure of all that money. According to Research Gate, Alongi has helped author 140 publications, and *has been cited 5,861 times.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

The abject failure of official global-warming predictions



> To the continuing embarrassment of the profiteers of doom, the least-squares linear-regression trends on Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 18 years 6 months, despite a continuing (and gently accelerating) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, shown on the graph as a gray trace...


He sums:



> The West is purposelessly destroying its industries, its workers’ jobs, its prosperity, its countryside, and above all its scientific credibility, by continuing to allow an unholy _mesalliance_ of politicians, profiteers, academics, environmental extremists, journalists and hard-left activists to proclaim, in defiance of the data now plainly shown for all to see for the first time, that the real rate of global warming is “worse than we thought”. It isn’t.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

This just in: Ice Age postponed due to global warming!



> _Global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions is blamed by scientists for intensifying storms, raising sea levels and prolonging droughts. Now there’s growing evidence of a positive effect: we may have delayed the next ice age by 100,000 years or more.​_
> Words fail me. *I won’t even bother to point out that we are living in an Ice Age which began back in the Oligocene…*


M'bold.

Oh, XX)

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The results of this will be interesting. Does the end justify the means?

US Court to hear “Climate Defence” argument in a Criminal Case



> Climate activists on trial for blocking an oil train may be about to set a controversial legal precedent. According to Mother Jones, for the first time in American legal history, activists will be allowed to present their concerns about climate change as a legal defence for their allegedly criminal actions


More:



> [T]here is precedent, a possibility the protestors might win their court case. In 2008, protestors in England were found not guilty of criminal damage, after presenting a climate defence.


Go figger...


----------



## FeXL

I'm from the, "If it's publicly funded, it's open access" department myself.

On the status of scientists’ emails



> The issue of scientists’ emails is heating up.
> 
> One would think that, following Climategate, climate scientists should expect that their emails might by made public, either through hacking or FOIA requests.
> 
> Nevertheless, more than 6 years later, the debate continues to rage over the sanctity (or not) of climate scientists’ emails.


----------



## FeXL

Kewl! New paper on treemometers!

Wilson trending



> Rob Wilson emails a copy of his new paper (£) in QSR, co-authored with, well, just about everybody in the dendro community. It's a tree-ring based temperature reconstruction of summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere, it's called N-TREND and excitingly it's a hockey stick!


Related:

New Tree Ring Study Ignores The Effect Of CO2



> It is well established that CO2 has a significant effect on plant growth, and accepted that tree ring studies can be skewed as a result.
> 
> It was therefore astonishing to find this comment from one of the study’s authors, the UEA’s Tim Osborn, on Bishop Hill:
> 
> 
> 
> _5. CO2 fertilisation effects.
> 
> We don’t identify or remove such effects. The empirical evidence for sustained effects (i.e. over decades) on trees in cool, moist locations over long periods of time is scarce.​_


This in the face of empirical evidence showing the greening of the planet with atmospheric CO2 increases...

Related:

Aproxymations



> But as always, the devil is in the details. I ran across a couple of surprises as I looked at the data.
> 
> First, I realized after looking at the data for a bit that all of the proxies had been “normalized”, that is to say, set to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. This is curious, because one of the selling points of their study is the following (emphasis mine):
> 
> _For N-TREND, rather than statistically screening all extant TR chronologies for a significant local temperature signal, we utilise mostly published TR *temperature reconstructions (or chronologies used in published reconstructions) that start prior to 1750.* This strategy explicitly incorporates the *expert judgement the original authors used to derive the most robust [temperature] reconstruction* possible from the available data at that particular location.​_
> So to summarize the whole process: for most of the data used, it started out as various kinds of proxies (ring width, wood density, “Blue Intensity”).
> 
> Then it was transformed using the _“expert judgement of the original authors”_ into temperature estimates in degrees celsius.
> 
> Then it has been transformed again, this time using the expert judgement of the current authors, into standard deviations based on the mean and standard deviation of the period 1750-1950. Why this exact period? Presumably, expert judgement.
> 
> Finally, it will be re-transformed one last time, again using the expert judgement of the current authors, back into temperatures in degrees celsius
> 
> This strikes me as … well … a strangely circuitous route. I mean, if you start with proxy temperatures in degrees C and you are looking to calculate an average temperature in degrees C, why change it to something else in between?


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Hansen Confirmed The MWP In 1981



> Climate fraudsters frequently claim that the 1990 IPCC temperature graph below showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was only a representation of Central England Temperatures (CET) and was not global.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is nonsense. The graph was derived from James Hansen’s 1981 study, which was taken from temperatures in England, California and Greenland.
> 
> ...
> 
> The MWP was real, and no matter how many different ways climate criminals find to lie about it, they can’t make it disappear.


Related:

Another MWP Smoking Gun



> It turns out that Hansen 1981 is based on a paper in Nature from 1975
> 
> ...
> 
> Hansen 1981 matched the 1990 IPCC report
> 
> ...
> 
> Briffa’s trees (green) matched the 1990 IPCC report.
> 
> ...
> 
> Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, climate fraudsters continue to insist that the 1990 IPCC graph (which is clearly marked as global) was based only on temperatures from central England.


Also related:

Baffin Island study disappoints: The illusive ‘coup de grace’ on the Medieval Warm Period



> A detailed analysis of the regional literature in Arctic Northeast Canada and west coast Greenland West yields clear evidence for a warm MWP in the region. *The claimed widespread cooling during the MWP by Young et al. 2015 is unsupported and unsustainable.* It appears that the authors have generalized a local glacier anomaly from a restricted area on Baffin Island and erroneously interpreted it as a regional phenomenon. Notably, there may be alternative interpretations for local MWP glacier advances such as increased snowfall. Furthermore the review demonstrates that surface waters in fjords may have locally cooled during MWP times due to increased influx of cold melt water, displacing warmer Atlantic water. In contrast, fjord bottom waters often show MWP warming.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Fake fixed carbon markets feed five billion to financial sharks in EU fraud



> Free markets are a hot tool, but sometimes they’re “hot” like a jackhammer at a sewing bee. Who thinks it’s smart to use a free market on a ubiquitous molecule that cycles through almost all life on Earth? Answer: people who profit from it, or people don’t know what a free market is.
> 
> About 5 years ago, the VAT tax scam with carbon credits earned financial sharks around five billion Euro. The follow up to that is that, slowly, years later, in Frankfurt about 10 people have been given prison terms. (Is that all? Only ten people and 5b, or are there others in other countries?)


----------



## FeXL

Despite what ignorant, ill-informed politicians would have you otherwise believe...

Climate change a low priority for most Canadians: Ipsos poll



> As the Liberal government goes to negotiate a new climate agreement in Paris, polling shows that climate change is a low priority for most Canadians.
> 
> When presented with a long list of policy issues, *only 13 per cent of Canadians chose climate change as one of their top three worries*, according to an Ipsos poll provided exclusively to Global News.


M'bold.

A bit dated but salient, nonetheless.


----------



## FeXL

Despite having the data confirmed by millions of radiosonde readings...

The Climateers new pause excuse born of desperation: ‘the satellites are lying’



> _The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years: the satellite data is lying.
> 
> And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and “I’d be tempted to beat the crap out of Dr. Pat Michaels” Ben Santer.​_


Related:

Friday Funny (or not so funny) – ‘satellite deniers’



> The recent act of desperation from the collection of Climategate Climateers trying to diss the satellite based global temperature record has spawned a cartoon, and it isn’t from our usual cartooning friend, Josh.
> 
> And it seems so true, these folks keep holding on to an antiquated and highly corrected and adjusted metric (the surface temperature record) which is full of bad data, while at the same time saying essentially the same thing about the satellite record. It is the ultimate science based case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I asked the question, "Does the end justify the means?"

Apparently not. 

Judge issues devastating ruling on ‘global warming’ activists



> A Washington state judge told environmentalists they could not use “necessity defense” to claim the threat of global warming justified their criminal activity — a huge blow to activists’ hopes they can use global warming as a shield from the law.


That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## FeXL

Nice summary of where this dog & pony show all started from.

Who unleashed Climatism?



> This article is intended mostly for American audiences. Today, it seems almost normal that the IPCC, UNFCCC and CAN (Climate Action Network International) interfere in American internal affairs, deciding who are scientists and who are not, telling us how much energy to use and from what sources, and generally sowing discord and polarizing society (with enormous success, I must admit). For more than 30 years, their claims of dangerous global warming caused by CO2 emissions have served as an excuse for this invasion. If there is a “problem,” and the “problem” is global and America is its main cause, they reason, why not gang up on America?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Once Again El Nino Didn’t Do What Was Forecast. Why?



> A useful article by Bob Tisdale outlined some of the problems with the sea surface temperature (SST) data that are considered an integral part of the entire El Nino and more widely ENSO process. The problem parallels the inadequacies of the overall surface temperature record. Accurate knowledge of the data, which is the effect, guarantees failure to determine the cause. Similarly, lack of knowledge and understanding of the cause guarantees failure to understand and accurately predict the effect. This is part of, but more than, the problems with turbidity, differential equations, and other basic physics that Essex and McKitrick identified so well in _Taken By Storm_. *There is much discussion about the complete failure of the IPCC models, which is not surprising considering the inadequate data and mechanisms omitted because they are not understood or deliberately left out. The problem is more elaborate models don’t produce any better results.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #212

Most of it is good reading.


----------



## FeXL

Monday mirth – Old Reliable


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that. Opportunistic politicians? Ya don't say...

“Climate change” is toxic: Republican Candidates now competing to be skeptics



> The Green Blob must be hating this. It’s the worst kind of momentum shift…
> 
> In 2008 the main US Presidential contenders were all supporters or “the free market solution” for carbon (called cap n’ trade in the US). But in 2015 the political landscape cracked, and now they’re going out of their way to reverse that. It’s now seen as a bad thing to look like a gullible patsy for Big Green.
> 
> How times have changed.


----------



## FeXL

Seth, Seth, Seth...

Seth Borenstein: “Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997”



> *WTF is “man-made heat”???*


Good question.



> The source of Mr. Borenstein’s latest exercise in scientific illiteracy is this paper…
> 
> *On what planet is “ocean heat content” synonymous with “man-made heat”?*
> 
> Even if, the rise in ocean heat content was entirely due to the rise in atmospheric CO2, the “heat” wouldn’t be “man-made.”


All bold mine.

Yep.

4% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.04%, is due to anthropogenic sources. That makes a grand total of 0.0016% of the atmosphere. The rest is Ma Nature. Pretty powerful little molecule, idn't it...


----------



## FeXL

We lost a good one...

Bob Carter — a great man, gone far too soon — tributes flow



> Professor Bob Carter (74) has been a key figure in the Global Warming debate, doing exactly what good professors ought to do — challenging paradigms, speaking internationally, writing books, newspaper articles, and being invited to give special briefings with Ministers in Parliament. He started work at James Cook University in 1981, served as Head of the Geology Department until 1998, and sometime after that he retired. Since then he’d been an honorary Adjunct Professor.


RIP.


----------



## FeXL

There actually have been "climate refugees" in the past...

Debunking the “Vikings weren’t victims of climate” myth



> Some people have claimed that Greenland was no warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. In fact, some have even suggested that it was colder 1,000 years ago. Are such suggestions made to bolster the alleged “unprecedented” warming claim for the past 135 years? Contrary to such claims, history paints a very different picture.
> 
> In this essay, I will examine some of the historical facts concerning Greenland starting 1,000 years ago and will then attempt to demonstrate how much warmer Greenland had to be in order to accommodate the history that transpired in this region.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that warmist satellite data video

20 false representations in one 10-minute video



> The short video contained 20 false representations, pretenses or implications, calculated individually and by mutual reinforcement to deceive. The deceptions are summarized briefly here and are discussed in more detail, with additional evidence, in the document linked here


Further:



> The perpetrators of the offending video are, so they think, so well protected by the current U.S. Administration’s prejudice on the climate question that they can get away with a campaign of multiple, wilful, mutually reinforcing and no doubt profitable deceptions on this monstrous scale with impunity, to the detriment not only of the truth but also of two diligent and hard-working scientists.
> 
> Without saying anything more in public at this stage, *we shall see.*


M'bold.

Sage words... 

Related:

Mohammed's Millinery

(quote near the bottom of the article)



> Meanwhile, Mann himself is now saying the satellite temperature record (which just whirrs away in space "unadjusted") is, like, totally unreliable. As Josh points out in the cartoon above, if you want a reliable temperature record, Mann's method is to use a single tree in Quebec's Gaspé peninsula that can tell you the precise temperature for the northern hemisphere - for New York, London, Cairo, Moscow, Beijing, the works - for an entire quarter-century at a time. Only deniers use mumbo-jumbo like "satellites"; a real scientist simply rubs his magic tree until it produces the desired treemometer reading.


----------



## FeXL

Further on NOAA's "Pause Buster" paper.

The Oddities in NOAA’s New “Pause-Buster” Sea Surface Temperature Product – An Overview of Past Posts



> NOAA revised their global surface temperature product in June 2015 to show more global warming during the post-1998 period. Those data manipulations supposedly ended the slowdown in global warming over that period. The changes to NOAA’s global ocean surface temperature product were the primary cause of the NOAA’s hiatus-disappearing act. That dataset, NOAA’s new Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset, version 4 (ERSST.v4), received a lot of media and blog attention when NOAA published Karl et al. (2015) Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus back in June 2015.
> 
> The new NOAA ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature dataset has since been included in both the NOAA and the GISS global land+ocean surface temperature products. Because the oceans cover about 70% of Earth’s surface, the new NOAA ERSST.v4 data are a critical component. *But there are numerous oddities in the new NOAA “pause-buster” sea surface temperature data. I’ve published a series of blog posts about those curiosities. In addition to the post-1998 period, those posts also dealt with oddities found in the earlier data as well. This article provides a summary of the past posts. I’ve also added and clarified a few discussions where necessary.*


M'bold.

A lengthy, thorough treatise.


----------



## FeXL

Another new paper on treemometers!!! :love2:

Xing's bendy hockey stick



> You wait for ages for a hockey stick to turn up and suddenly two turn up at once. Hot on the heels of the Wilson et al temperature reconstruction comes Xing et al, a new effort from a Chinese team. In their figure, shown below, it's the blue line we're interested in. In truth it's a pretty bendy hockey stick.


----------



## FeXL

From the "Hypocrisy Abounds" file and color me _not_ surprised...

Paper: Those Most Concerned About Global Warming Use MORE Energy



> People who fret about global warming use more electricity than those who care little about the issue, a U.K. study found.
> 
> ...
> 
> “Taken together the householders who strongly agreed they were not worried about climate change because it was too far in the future in fact used less electricity rather than more, counter to the hypothesis that households concerned about climate change use less electricity,” the survey says.
> 
> Researchers also found claims of turning off radios, TVs, and lights when not in use was largely inflated. *In other words, those who kvetch about global warming and energy use typically don’t do much to conserve electricity.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Gosh, a new model based study ‘puts temperature increases caused by CO2 emissions on the map’



> From the “linear thinking doesn’t follow reality” department, comes this stunning revelation that sounds pretty much just like every other press release about climate we’ve ever read. Plus, _they’ve got a map!_


Italics from the link.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

I post this less for the horror of fewer pearl necklaces & more for the comment.

Horrible new threat from global warming – fewer pearl necklaces (or not)



> The researchers tested oysters for two months under varying water temperature and pH conditions, including those predicted for oceans in 2100. Their results confirmed previous work that had found boosting acidity led to weaker shells, but that effect didn’t occur when the water temperature was also higher. The researchers concluded that warmer oceans could buffer these valuable marine animals from increasingly acidic seawater.


From the comments:



> *The oceans are heavily salt buffered, which means you could add acid to them in vast quantities and still not make them acidic.* What would happen is simply that more limestone and other rocks would form on the ocean bottom.
> 
> The White Cliffs of Dover are fossilized CO2.
> 
> ...
> 
> The notion that more CO2 would be harmful to ocean life is not supported by the paleo evidence. CO2 is the basic building block of the shells of marine life. *CaCO3 is the basic material of shell, and this is made from CO2, calcium and oxygen dissolved in the ocean. Adding more of the basic building block of shells will not weaken shells.* The fossil record contains trillions upon trillions of shells from millions of years ago when CO2 levels were much higher as proof of this.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

The compassionate, intellectual left...

Sick: Warmist Scientist William Connolley Cheers Death of Climate Skeptic Dr. Bob Carter as an ‘advancement in science’ – Gloats: ‘Science Advances One Funeral At A Time’



> Warmist William Connolley: ‘Today brings us news of another such advancement in science, with the reported death of Robert Carter.”


What a limp dick...

Related:

You Sad Little Man, Mr Connolley


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that...

Flashback 1990: AP calls satellite temperatures ‘more accurate’ – But in 2016: AP ignores satellite’s showing 18 year plus ‘standstill’ in global temps

Related:

Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’



> April 1990 - The Canberra Times: 'A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA...'
> 
> 'The [NASA] report's authors said that their satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.'


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "2015 was the Hottest Evah!!!"

Failed Math: In 1997, NOAA claimed that the Earth was 3.83 degrees warmer than today



> Steve McIntyre always told us to “watch the pea under the thimble” when it comes to climate change pronouncements, this is one of those cases. Yesterday, to much media fanfare, wailing, and gnashing of teeth NOAA pronounced that 2015 was the hottest year on record, ever! There’s only one problem with that…the Internet never forgets.


Related:

Hottest Shattering Year since the last one: Five reasons it was not hot, and not relevant



> Even if 2015 had been the hottest year in modern records (which start in 1850), *the world was still hotter many times in the last ten thousand years.* Antarctica didn’t melt. The Great Barrier Reef survived, and so did polar bears and penguins. Warm weather is not an apocalypse, and it wasn’t caused by CO2.


M'bold.

Also related:

Claim — It’s Official: 2015 Was Hottest Year on Record



> The word “satellite” does not appear in this article.


When the most accurate system we have to measure temperature doesn't follow the narrative, you just ignore it...


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm...

Early man's actions caused global warming, study says



> The world’s first farmers and their slash-and-burn agriculture may have set off global warming.
> 
> A new analysis of ice-core climate data, archaeological evidence and ancient pollen samples is being used to suggest farming some 7,000 years ago helped put the brakes on a natural cooling process of the global climate, possibly contributing the warmer climate seen today.
> 
> But the study is expected to raise a few eyebrows, given there were far fewer people on Earth back then and industrialization -- and the coal-fired power plants that come with it -- was still a long ways off.


Questions, questions...

What came first, the warming or the CO2?
If the industrial revolution hasn't caused any global warming, why would burning a few fields or forests 7000 years ago cause any?


----------



## FeXL

Further on Bob Carter.

“Bob Carter cost me my career” – Michael Smith’s praise



> Before Smith did talk back radio, he confesses that he was a Gore fan working at the University of Queensland, soaking in inconvenient propaganda and promoting the University’s carbon accounting courses. Bob not only turned around Smith’s views on climate science he did something far more important – he showed him a way to speak out “when it’s costly” which Michael Smith would go on to do. Just as visible corruption encourages more corruption, the reverse is also true. *Standing up to corruption shines a beacon.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Sunovagun. Is _that_ why there are fossilized reefs hundreds of feet thick?

Climate Experts Catching Up With 200 Year Old Science



> The geniuses at National Geographic have finally figured out why Tuvalu isn’t going to disappear.
> 
> ...
> 
> _*They found that reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward. The implication is that many islands—especially less developed ones with few permanent structures—may cope with rising seas well into the next century.*​_


Bold from the link.

More:



> This process is how very thick coral reefs like this one in West Texas formed. *As the seas rise, the coral grows with it.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate experts are the ultimate anti-science buffoons, having to re-discover 200 year old science before they begin to understand how stupid they are.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Can CO2 Warm The Oceans?



> The ocean warming fraud goes back to the early global warming models. In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald used a ‘blackbody surface’ with ‘zero heat capacity’. They created the global warming scam as a mathematical artifact of their modeling assumptions. These propagated into the Charney Report in 1979. Then an ‘ocean layer’ was added to the model. The layer had thermal properties such as heat capacity and thermal diffusion, but the CO2 flux increase had to magically heat the oceans. This is computational climate fiction. Any computer model that predicts ocean warming from CO2 is by definition fraudulent. The fraud can be found in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper and has continued ever since.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Why are the number of sites used to calculate HadCRUT4 decreasing?



> Xmetman Bruce has carried out some detailed analysis of the HADCRUT4 dataset. He has discovered that there has been an alarming drop off in the number of stations used since the 1960’s, but particularly so in the last few years. This is the case both globally and in the UK.
> 
> Looking at the UK alone, he finds that the three, high quality stations used in the CET series, Pershore, Stonyhurst and Rothamstead are NOT included, yet Heathrow is.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "Pause Buster"

The ‘Karlization’ of Earth’s Temperature



> This is alarming anthropogenic global warming. *But it isn’t caused by CO2.* It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records. A 0.1C jump in what the 2014 GISS anomaly supposedly is, manufactured during 2015. It is notable only because of the media ballyhoo that NOAA and NASA created, which they cannot now erase. There are many additional examples.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data”… Well, not *thoroughly* fabricated.



> If you can set aside the smug, snide remarks of the author, this article does a fairly good job in explaining why the surface station temperature data have to be adjusted and homogenized.
> 
> There is just one huge problem…
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> *Without the adjustments and homogenization, the post-1960 US temperatures would be indistinguishable from the early 20th century.*
> 
> I’m not saying that I know the adjustments are wrong; however anytime that an anomaly is entirely due to data adjustments, it raises a red flag with me.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "2015 Hottest Evah!!!" screech. I mean, screed...

NOAA/NASA use only land-based temps to claim 2015 hottest year ever



> Using data from heavily adjusted land-based temperature readings, NOAA and NASA declared yesterday 2015 to be the 'hottest year ever,' even though they've excluded the satellite record, and worse, ocean temperatures.


So, they've excluded temperature readings from 70% of the planet's surface. And we're s'pose to take them serious why?


----------



## FeXL

XX)

A "substantial" error in GISS Model E



> I have just discovered (from Chandler et al 2013) that there was an error in the ocean model in the version of GISS-E2-R used to run the CMIP5 simulations. The single forcing simulations were part of the CMIP5 design, although it is possible that some or all of them were run after the correction was implemented.


You mean, aside from the fact that their sensitivity is dialed way too high? That they can't model clouds? Or rainfall? Or damn little else?


----------



## FeXL

Hard to lose the argument when you argue both sides.

If it is Hot, it is Climate, if it is Cold, its Climate



> *When you have a theory which covers anything from 1.5c to 4.5c (or more!) temperature rise per doubling of CO2, and when you can claim with a straight face, that the utter failure of your theory, on terms which you yourself defined, doesn’t invalidate it, when you have to massively adjust the data to get the result you want, your faith in the climate religion is not going to be troubled by the odd flurry of snow.*


Emphasis mine.

Nails it.


----------



## FeXL

Warmist screech: "B-b-b-but, the satellites are wrooooooong!!!"

Satellite Temperature Data Supported By Radiosondes



> But what was most significant was the fact that *radiosonde data pretty much confirmed everything the satellites were telling us.*
> 
> Radiosondes, of course, don’t offer the comprehensive geographical coverage that satellites do, but they do provide more direct measurements. As such they are a useful complement to satellites.
> 
> The most significant radiosonde numbers are the 5000 and 10000 ft ones, as this is the same area that satellites measure as lower troposphere. The 10000 ft radiosonde data peak in 1998 and 2010, as do the satellites.


M'bold.

Yeah, not so much...

Related:

On that 2015 Record Warmest Claim



> But since the satellites generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets (which use all observations radiosondes, surface temperatures, commercial aircraft, satellites, etc. everything except the kitchen sink), I think the fact that NOAA-NASA essentially ignores it reveals an institutional bias that the public who pays the bills is becoming increasingly aware of.


----------



## FeXL

Arstechnica Defends Junk Science (Or Tampering In California)



> There’s a long winded piece out on something called arstechnica (whatever that is), which attempts to defend the thoroughly discredited surface temperature datasets. It looks as if it might as well have been written by Gavin and his cronies.
> 
> It is full of errors and falsehoods...


Good visuals. Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Fraudsters Romm, Mann, Trenberth Go Full Stupid On The Blizzard



> They claim that heavy precipitation events are increasing due to global warming, based on a White House study showing that heavy precipitation events have increased since 1958.
> 
> ...
> 
> The start date of 1958 was carefully cherry picked by White House fraudsters like Katherine Hayhoe, because that was the end of many years of drought, and was the lowest on record. Had they started the study in 1895, the trend in heavy precipitation events would be down.
> 
> ...
> 
> The IPCC said that global warming will “decrease heavy snowstorms.“
> 
> ...
> 
> Last month was warm in the East and there was no snow. This month is cold and there is lots of snow. Any child can understand that, but not the morons known as climate scientists. Cold air holds less moisture, so the collision of cold air with warmer humid air causes snow to fall. The amount of moisture held by cold air has not changed over time.


----------



## FeXL

2015 Global Temp, Or How Some Scientists Deliberately Mistook Weather For Climate



> One point to notice however is that even without the El Nino that made the fourth quarter much warmer than the preceding three 2015 would have been a record for the Nasa data. If the first six months of the year had been repeated then it would still have set a record. *Curiously though no single month during that period (indeed up to September) set a record for that particular month demonstrating how close the global temperature has been over the past decade or so.*


M'bold.

Interesting, that...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, little summary on the Goreacle's predictions...

State of the Climate: 10 years after Al Gore declared a ‘planetary emergency’ – top 10 reasons Gore was wrong


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Place your bets! Another hotted-up Mann-tastic modeling claim



> From PENN STATE and the department of overheated, tired, rhetoric in an El Niño year, comes this ZOMG! press release from Michael Mann and company. It’s just modeling sophistry, driven be the usual agenda, because not only is he saying that much of the last century was from AGW, he’s saying all the previous research is wrong by simply making a bet that the climate he thinks is happening aligns with odds calculated on a computer, and natural variation, El Nino, solar variance, aerosols, and a whole host of other climate factors just don’t matter. *It’s basically just another headline grabber.*


I guess that's a polite way of calling it a crock...


----------



## FeXL

Go figger...

Mystery Divergence? There’s a strange gap between temperatures measured by satellites and on the surface



> Right now there is a very odd divergence of satellite and surface thermometers. It started about two years ago. It is not like the El Nino of 1998, where all four rose together, and satellites recorded a higher spike than the surface records. This time around the satellites are lower. In the graph below, David Evans uses the older UAH official set, not the new “beta” version which would show UAH much closer to RSS and would make this divergence look even more stark.
> 
> *According to the theory of Man-Made Global Catastrophe, the satellites, which record temperatures in the lower troposphere, should be warming faster than the surface. Where is that trend?*
> 
> El Ninos slows ocean turnover, keeping a layer of warm water at the surface instead of stirring it in with the cooler water below. For some reason the thermometers near airports, carparks and cities are picking up the ocean warming better than the satellites. Hmm?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, fully 30% of all anthropogenic emissions have been pumped into the atmosphere since 2000. What has that given us? A flat-lined temperature for the same period of time. Explain to me again the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations & global temperatures?

Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.



> The global “pause” has been running for nearly 19 years. But a whopping 30% of all the human emissions of fossil fuels, ever, has come out since the year 2000. Nearly 40% of all our emissions since 1990.
> 
> All that CO2, and nothing to show for it.


----------



## FeXL

The Fraud Couldn’t Be Clearer



> 2015 was the most fraudulent year on record at the White House. Their claim is utter nonsense.
> 
> NASA’s surface temperature record shows 1.6C warming since the 1880’s, and 0.8C warming during the century from 1880 to 1980.
> 
> ...
> 
> Their 1981 version of the same graph only shows a little over half that much warming from 1880 to 1980.
> 
> ...
> 
> They added about 0.3C warming prior to 1980 by altering the data, and show another 0.2C warming since 2001, during a time when satellites show cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> Most of their surface temperatures are fake. There are vast areas of land with little or no temperature readings, and many of the thermometers they do have are contaminated by urban heat island effects.
> 
> ...
> 
> Global warming theory is based on warming in the troposphere, not in urban heat islands and fake data. NOAA and NASA’s own satellite and radiosonde data shows little or no warming in the troposphere over the last two decades, and that 2015 was not the warmest year.
> 
> ...
> 
> But the real fraud lies below. Even with all of the NASA and NOAA data tampering, they are still tracking Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C.


----------



## FeXL

Just 

Climate Craziness of the Week: Impact of Spanish missionaries triggered the ‘Little Ice Age’

I'll start with the pertinent observations:



> From the department of “correlation is not causation” department comes this weapons-grade-stupid study.


and



> OMFG. The stupid, it burns like magnesium!


It goes downhill from there...


----------



## FeXL

Inoculation Theory: Stepping up the Climate Brainwashing



> Our old friend John Cook thinks climate skeptics have to be psychologically “inoculated”, to help reeducate us into accepting climate science, without triggering a reflexive “denial” response.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



> Climate models have demonstrated no skill whatsoever at predicting the climate. There has been no improvement in the embarrassingly broad range of climate sensitivity predictions, which strongly suggests models are very incomplete, that scientists are having a hard time reconciling models with reality.
> 
> John, what is the source of your overwhelming confidence in your position? Why do you ignore the growing discrepancy between models and observations? Could it be, that you are the one who is clinging desperately to climate fallacies, in the face of a growing body of adverse evidence?


Good questions.


----------



## FeXL

The first graph says it all.

Final 2015 Statistics (Now Includes December Data)



> One of the big stories from 2015 is the record shattering anomalies on the surface temperature data sets for 2015 versus the third ranked satellite anomalies for 2015. The discrepancy between 1998 and 2015 is now larger than it has ever been between the satellites and surface records as can be seen on the graphic above. *Compare the blue end points with the red end points.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mikey's recent "paper"...

The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”



> I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous. I therefore hope this article serves as a primer in how not to analyze time series.


As always from William Briggs, good analysis.

Related:

New Mann-made global warming study is 'scientifically valueless paper



> But Mann's study does not adequately account for *natural variability* such as ocean oscillations, which have been shown to dramatically affect the climate.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Sunovagun...

NOAA’s Own Data Show Pause In Troposphere Temperatures, Confirming UAH & RSS



> We know that Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH are constantly vilified by the warmist establishment for daring to produce figures that undermine claims of “hottest years evah”. For some reason, the usual suspects never criticise RSS, which is run by Kevin Trenberth’s big buddy, Carl Mears.
> 
> But even more remarkable is the fact that temperatures for the middle troposphere are also provided by NOAA themselves, via their Center for Satellite Applications and Research, or NOAA Star. *And what do their figures show?
> 
> Sure enough, the TMT anomaly confirms that 2015 was not as warm as either 1998 or 2010. Indeed, as the joint NOAA/NASA presentation last week showed, according to STAR, last year was only 5th warmest since 1979.*


M'bold.

Curious, that...


----------



## FeXL

Further on satellites temps vs thermometer temps.

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers?



> *The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models.* But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.
> 
> And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, *the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.*


M'bold.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Remember this bet?

Decadal Global Temperature Bet



> A global decadal temperature bet was made in early 2011.
> 
> At the time the bet was made (early 2011) December 2010 marked the end of the previous ten year period. January 2011 marked the beginning of the next decade. The transition stimulated the formation of a decadal global climate bet.
> 
> And so the coolists (led by Pierre Gosselin – NoTricksZone) and the warmists (led by Rob Honeycutt – Skeptical Science) are having a bet. They agreed to use a composite of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) lower troposphere temperature – close to the earth’s surface. They agreed that the result would be accepted without quibbling, as it was agreed between them that those series are the best that we’ve got. The average of the two series will decide the bet!


Halfway in, guess which side of the bet this ain't looking so good for...

Oh, & this:



> FOOTNOTE
> 
> Don’t you find it rather curious that SkS would bet on satellite temperatures, the same ones they are now trying to rubbish as inaccurate and meaningless?


Very curious...


----------



## FeXL

Funny, that...

World will still rely on oil and gas in 2040 says Exxon — Renewables no threat to fossil fuels



> If there were grand profits to be made from renewables the big rapacious energy giants would be buying in to solar and selling out of coal and oil. They’ve done their research. The fantasy fear campaign would have us think that Big-oil is afraid of renewables, but they truth is that if renewables were worth a lot, big-oil would have bought them.*


More:



> The main Exxon predictions for the world are that oil use will grow by 25%, natural gas will grow by 50%, coal will slip a bit, but *all the trendy renewables will be producing only 4%*


M'bold.

4%. Stunning...


----------



## FeXL

Brilliance from rent-seeking NGO’s – climate change wouldn’t be a problem if we just left nature “intact”

From the comments:



> Sean says: January 28, 2016 at 8:53 am
> 
> Odd, not a word in the article about biofuels.
> 
> Reality check says: January 28, 2016 at 11:54 am
> 
> Agreed. No comments on prairie being plowed up to grow corn, trees cut and concrete poured for wind plants, etc. Wonder how they missed that?
> 
> Fly over Bob says: January 28, 2016 at 1:12 pm
> 
> They can’t be seen from their condos.
> 
> ferd berple says: January 28, 2016 at 1:34 pm
> 
> Or the jungles of Borneo being converted to palm oil for biofuels. All in the name of CO2 green.


Or whole forests being cut down in the southern US, pelletized & sent overseas to be burned by Drax.

Or any other of a whole host of other destructive "solutions" in the name of "Green Energy" that are worse than the problems they're trying to fix...


----------



## FeXL

Huffpost thinks a few inches of sea will cause Civilisation to Collapse



> Huffington Post has predicted a dystopian Mad Max / Hunger Games future, if we don’t mend our wicked ways – because they think nobody will be able to cope with rising seas. History says they are wrong – even if the sea does rise, flooding problems have been defeated many times, including in America.


----------



## FeXL

1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce



> In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists knew that even a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 would produce less than 2 degrees warming. The entire basis of the catastrophic global warming scam has been known to be a fraud from day one.


From the paper:



> _...the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less that 2°K.​_


Funny, that. Ties right in with what we've seen over hundreds of millions of years of earth's past.

Not only that but, from the comments:



> So in 1971 Stephen Schneider’s value for ECS was the same as Roy Spencer’s: 0.6 C/doubling or thereabouts.
> 
> Wow.


Plus, also from the comments:



> But it gets better.
> 
> That same paper focused on the effects of aerosols on global cooling. Although he was not a co-author, a NASA scientist provided critical modeling tools for the aerosol effects. He was acknowledged several times in the references of the paper.
> 
> His name is Dr. James Hansen. Perhaps you have heard of him?
> 
> ...
> 
> Why would Hansen help out with a global cooling paper in high-impact Science magazine, when he built his career on catastrophic global warming from CO2?


Interesting question.

Perhaps because there was no money to be made with that particular narrative...


----------



## FeXL

Further on NOAA's "adjustments".

NOAA’s Adjusted SSTs Not Supported By Atmospheric Data



> Between 1979 and 2001, atmospheric temperatures above the oceans, as measured by UAH, rose slightly faster then sea surface temperatures as measured by NOAA’s ERSST series, the one now used in their global temperature datasets.
> 
> This is exactly what would be expected.


Fine. However,



> But since 2001, that link has been broken. Whilst atmospheric temperatures have stalled, SSTs have carried on rising.
> 
> ...
> 
> As we know, the new version of SSTs, ERSST4, has been heavily adjusted to show a warming trend.
> 
> *But unless the laws of physics have changed, those adjustments are not supported by the atmospheric data.*


M'bold.

The warmists have never been intimidated by the mere laws of physics...


----------



## FeXL

Coupla smilies...

Friday Funny – Limited Integrity



> Lots on the Green Blob’s not having to tell the truth, see the post below and at Third Sector, OESG and at Michael Robert’s blog which includes Ben Websters Times article.


Saturday satire – Welcome to the new era of climate



> The *Adjustocene*, where no one will ever know what the temperature is.


M'bold.

The Adjustocene? HA!!! 

Loving that one...


----------



## FeXL

Amazing...

Calling Out Climate Central Fraud



> Climate Central says that summer maximum temperatures in St. Paul, Minnesota are going to increase by 12 degrees over the next 84 years.
> 
> This is a total fraud. There has been no change in St. Paul summer temperatures over the last 70 years (i.e. Bette Midler’s lifetime.)
> 
> They claim that Omaha will warm 11 degrees.
> 
> Omaha summers are cooling, and are more than 5F cooler than they were in the 1930s.
> 
> They claim that Harrisburg, Pennsylvania will warm 11 degrees.
> 
> In fact, they have cooled by about severn degrees.


----------



## FeXL

Local erosion "connected to", you guessed it, global warming...

Pacifica, California’s Natural Coastal Erosion and the Lust for Climate Catastrophes



> Oddly this past week I received emails from friends around the country asking if I was “all right”, thinking my little slice of heaven was falling into the sea. Not to disrespect their concern, I had to belly laugh. The news of a few houses, foolishly built on fragile land too near the sea bluffs’ edge, were indeed falling into the ocean and were now providing great photo-ops for news outlets around the world.


The sheer power of a simple molecule, CO2, never ceases to amaze me...


----------



## FeXL

On arbitrarily selecting which tree ring data to use & which to ignore.

Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo



> Unlike Briffa, *D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result*. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famously told the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie. Again in 2009 (though not noticed at the time), D’Arrigo et al 2009 stated that they could “partially circumvent” the divergence problem by only using data that went up


M'bold.

McIntyre's usual thorough analysis.


----------



## FeXL

The Biggest Fraud In Science History



> In 1978, NOAA showed 0.6 degrees global cooling since 1975 at the surface and in balloon data. The cooling was present in both hemispheres.
> 
> ...
> 
> The National Academy of Sciences knew about this cooling in 1975.
> 
> ...
> 
> This cooling was seen in the vast majority of US stations and is still present in the untampered US data.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA used to show the cooling, but have since made it disappear.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Another Week That Was.

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #214

Couple of articles on TIPCC™ & further on Mann's & Rahmstorf's paper (A New _Nature_ Trick?).


----------



## FeXL

In the ultimate of ironies, our favorite psychologist (yep, Lewandosky) has co-authored a new paper on <snort> research integrity.

Judith takes a coupla swings at it.

Violating the norms and ethos of science



> _Don’t let transparency damage science._ – Stephan Lewandowsky & Dorothy Bishop





> Public declarations can be particularly useful: in 2014, in response to the harassment of one of its professors, the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York publicly acknowledged the scientific consensus on climate change and its support for academic freedom. *[JC note: this might be most frightening statement in the entire paper – institutionalizing a politicized, manufactured consensus on a highly uncertain scientific topic as an argument for rejecting the norms of communalism and skepticism].*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on removing the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods. With Treemometers. Again...

European summer temperatures since Roman times



> As stated, the research only looks at European summer temperatures, and even then can’t find anything unprecedented about 20thC temperatures, only the last 30 years.
> 
> They claim that, based on instrumental data from HADCRUT, Europe has experienced a pronounced summer (June–August) warming of approximately 1.3 °C over the 1986–2015 period, but ignore a similar rate of rise in the first half of the 20thC, which was then followed by a sharp drop. Certainly from the peak around the 1940’s, current temperatures are not alarmingly high.
> 
> *And on what do they base they base their claim that the latest 30 year period is the warmest in the last 2000 years?
> 
> Eight sets of tree ring studies, of which only two go back 2000 years*, along with some documentary historical records. Many would think it remarkable that such wide ranging claims could be made from such a small amount of dodgy data!


M'bold.

Related:

The Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica: How two one-data-point studies missed the target



> A common claim by warmists in the climate debate is the alleged absence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere. In a previous post we discussed the MWP in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania. In the following, we will take a look at Antarctica.


Lengthy article, good read. Excellent visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Republic? Not likely. More like a Dictatorship...

Obama’s plan to get around Congress on climate change



> A few weeks ago, a group of 13 prominent environmental law professors and attorneys released a 91-page report outlining this new approach, which would allow EPA to use existing laws to quickly and efficiently regulate all pollution sources, in all states
> 
> Here’s how it works: A rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act — Section 115 — gives EPA the authority to mandate that every U.S. state cut its emissions by whatever amount the agency determines is necessary to protect public health and welfare if two things happen.


Related:

President Obama’s hidden EPA Enabling Act



> [A] a group of lawyers at Columbia Law School have urged President Obama that he invoke a little known clause in the Clean Air Act, which the advocates claim would allow the EPA to immediately seize direct control over state economies, with a view to forcing down CO2 emissions.


Nice...


----------



## FeXL

All anthropogenic? Well, of course...

Study claims there is no significant natural component to global warming, i.e. ‘it’s all your fault’



> From the “language gives away the intent of the study” department comes this clear attempt at a headline.
> 
> *Long-term global warming not driven naturally*
> 
> Study “debunks” argument that warming is driven by natural factors


Bold from the link.

Oh, I forgot: XX)


----------



## FeXL

Funny, the warmists have never felt the compelled by the burden of proof. 

Climate Change: The Burden of Proof



> [T]he burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, *alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC).*


M'bold.

Period.

Full stop.

Ain't happened...


----------



## FeXL

So, the MSM has been carrying stories about the Fruit Fly Guy wanting to jail Haper for "climate denial" or some such BS.

What about the Dauphin?

C’mon, Suzuki, let’s jail Trudeau!



> At age 79, David Suzuki has taken to referring to himself as an “elder” these days, so it would be nice if he stopped acting like a child.
> 
> Alas, in an interview with rollingstoneaus.com (Rolling Stone, Australia) Tuesday, Suzuki was at it again, arguing that former prime minister Stephen Harper should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with you-know-who about climate change, adding he was going to book a “one-way ticket to Mars” if Harper had been re-elected.
> 
> Fawning over the victory of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals as “a huge thing” and “a brighter day” for Canada, the non-partisan Suzuki went on to declare: “I really believe that people like the former prime minister of Canada should be thrown in jail for wilful blindness. If you’re the CEO of a company and *you deliberately avoid or ignore information* relevant to the functioning of that company, you can be thrown in jail.”


M'bold.

'Nuf said...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that "Hottest Yeah Evah!" thing...

2014 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, BUT 2015 IS HOTTER THAN 2014 AND 2016 COULD BE HOTTER THAN 2015!?



> *CONCLUSIONS*
> 
> As repeated frequently by the mainstream media since April 2015, NOAA and NASA officially declared that 2015 was hotter than 2014, the old hottest year on record and “promised” that 2016 could be hotter than 2015! However, the are undeniable evidences indicating that the average global temperatures calculated by NOAA and NASA appear to be inaccurate, unreliable and inconsistent with the satellite data.
> 
> *According to data on the NOAA website, 1997 was truly the hottest year on record at 62.45 oF. The average global temperature in 2015 was 58.62 oF or 3.83 oF below the 1997 temperature.*
> 
> According to data on the NOAA website, the parameters such as the 20th century average temperature and the annual temperature anomalies, which must be constants, have varying values in the annual global analyses.
> 
> NOAA and NASA corrected historical temperature data and fabricated temperature data in areas without temperature record systematically, widely, and uni-directionally to “cool” the past in an attempt to prove the soaring temperature trend.
> 
> NOAA and NASA made efforts to discredit their own satellite data – which is consistent with the balloon data – because it suggests a global warming hiatus since 1998 contradicting with the NOAA and NASA preferred narrative.
> 
> NOAA and NASA refused to give data and information requested by the US House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology committee. There is no reason for them to withhold the data and information, which are public domain, unless they have something to hide.
> 
> The headline “last year was the hottest year on record, this year is hotter than last year, and next year could be hotter than this year” is likely to be repeated years after years by the mainstream media until funding for climate change is stopped!


M'bold.

Related, and from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style:

Hottest Year Evah Update – Unheard Of Snow In Vietnam & Saudi Arabia



> First of all, there has been a lot of snow in Vietnam and much of Indo China, something virtually unheard of.


And Saudi Arabia. And Kuwait. And Mexico. And the Philippines. And Turkey. And Pakistan. And Bangladesh. And Thailand. And Korea. And Taiwan. And Laos. And Okinawa. And Japan. And...


----------



## FeXL

The MET takes another swing.

Latest MET Prediction: Large Scale Cooling, Warming at High Latitudes



> The British MET have forecast that large areas of the world will cool over the next 5 years, though they still expect global average temperatures to remain high. Of course, they also still claim that CO2 is in the driving seat.
> 
> ...
> 
> The last paragraph is interesting. The MET don’t know what caused the pause. They acknowledge the cooling effects they have identified could be substantial enough to drag down global average temperatures. *The MET still think CO2 is driving a dangerously rapid rise in global temperatures, they’re just not sure when the temperatures will actually rise.*


M'bold.

Curious, innit...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Climate Models Are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 1

He sums:



> *CLOSING*
> 
> The differences between modeled and observed warming and cooling rates of the surfaces of the global oceans strongly suggest two things: (1) that ocean circulation processes in climate models are flawed and (2) that the sensitivity of climate models to carbon dioxide and other forcings is too high.
> 
> The spatial patterns of the warming of the ocean surfaces dictate the spatial patterns of warming of the surface air over land, and those patterns of ocean warming and cooling contribute to the precipitation patterns on the continents. Because the climate models cannot simulate the spatial patterns of the warming of sea surfaces, one wonders how the modelers could hope to properly simulate the warming of land surface air or the precipitation that occurs there.
> 
> For almost two decades, the IPCC has claimed that they have found the “fingerprints” of human-induced global warming. Because they’re using climate models as the basis for those claims, it looks like they need a new method of fingerprint analysis. There are no similarities between the modeled and observed fingerprints shown in this post.


Another good read.


----------



## FeXL

Couple days back I posted a link to an analysis by McIntyre on cherry picking of Northwest Territories treemometer data for a paper.

This is another analysis of cherry picking, only this time on Gulf of Alaska treemometer data.

Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska



> *In today’s post, I’ll show a third vivid example of the impact of ex post site selection on the divergence problem in Gulf of Alaska regional chronologies.* I did not pick this chronology as a particularly lurid example after examining multiple sites. This chronology is the first column in the Wilson et al 2016 N-TREND spreadsheet and was the first site in that collection that I examined closely. It is also a site for which most (but not all) of the relevant data has been archived and which can therefore be examined.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on satellite temps vs surface temps.

Scientist Ruthlessly Debunks One Of NOAA’s Central Climate Claims



> In face of intense criticism from alarmist scientists, Dr. John Christy went to great lengths in a Tuesday congressional hearing to detail why satellite-derived temperatures are much more reliable indicators of warming than surface thermometers.
> 
> “That’s where the real mass of the climate system exists in terms of the atmosphere,” Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama and Alabama’s state climatologist, said in a Wednesday hearing before the House science committee.
> 
> “When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, Christy said. *“The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”*


M'bold.

No argument...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Initialization practices disqualify UN IPCC global circulation models from use for most climate change forecast purposes



> It appears that without transparency demands from the public, the multi – billion dollar CMIP – blessed GMS machine will endure. What is to be done about a titanic and misguided enterprise? I recommend to start, that the skill of any climate change Vendors’ decadal forecasts, predictions, projections, and hindcasts be clearly disclosed with and without initializations. Otherwise, at the very least, the playing field is not level for small independents who offer less alarming but also more accurate solutions.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

After all, the science is settled, is it not?

CSIRO wipes out climate division — 350 scientists to go — since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?



> BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?
> 
> CSIRO has announced it will axe 300 to 350 climate jobs, which will “wipe out” the climate division. The head of the CSIRO wants to focus on climate adaption and mitigation instead. Suddenly a lot of Profs who told us the debate was over are squealing that it needs more research. Climate science was “beyond debate” and in need of action, but now we “need to know more about the basic operation of the climate”. Oh the dilemma!


And, this, from the comments, the ultimate in truths...



> It seems this is something they didn’t forecast either.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Related:

Settled science bites



> It was Lord May who said to Roger Harrabin "I'm the President of the Royal Society and I'm telling you that the science is settled". I wonder if he is reconsidering the wisdom of those remarks.


Yep.

Also related:

Aussie CSIRO: Massive cuts to Government Climate Jobs



> The announcement seems to leave open the possibility that *jobs will be retained, if scientists can convince private businesses to fund their research positions.* Given intense hostility and accusations of bias directed towards some climate scientists who accept funding from private sources, it remains to be seen whether any CSIRO climate scientists will pursue this option.


M'bold.

Yeah, good luck with that...


----------



## FeXL

A resounding yes!

Is Stupidity The Main Driver Of Global Warming?



> The Washington Post says that DC snow is now caused by global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Four years ago, the same clowns were predicting cherry blossoms in February, due to global warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> Snowfall around DC is not changing. Climate science is 100% superstition and data tampering.


----------



## FeXL

Go figger.

Going to Extremes: Federal Climatologist Slams Alarmist Federal Climate Report



> The Met Office frequently try to persuade us that extreme rainfall is getting worse because of global warming. It comes as no surprise to learn that the same arguments are taking place in the US.
> 
> Unfortunately for the alarmists, a study led by NOAA’s own expert, Dr Martin Hoerling, finds little evidence that this is the case, and instead that extreme rainfall trends are largely dominated by naturally reoccurring ocean cycles.


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "big oil is subsidized more than renewables" BS.

The World According To St George Monbiot



> For many years, oil companies were seen as cash cows, making “undeserved” super profits. Even recently that has been the case. In 2002, the supplementary charge of 10% was introduced, increased to 20% in 2006, and 32% in 2011. It has only been reduced to 20% again last year in the face of the threat to North Sea oil output from lower oil prices.
> 
> On top of all of this, of course, and the fuel duties paid by motorists, which totted up to £27.2bn last year. The idea that oil, or oil companies, are being subsidised is frankly nonsense.
> 
> The same applies to natural gas. The only fossil fuel which can be said to have been subsidised is coal, back in the nationalised days of the 1970’s and 80’s, and that was not so much a subsidy of fossil fuel as one for yet another inefficient nationalised industry.
> 
> Yet somehow the idiot Monbiot thinks that subsidising the Exchequer to the tune of hundreds of billions over the years equates to “taxpayers propping up this toxic industry”.
> 
> The mind boggles!


----------



## FeXL

Some smiles for your dull Friday.

Friday funnies – a cartoon week



> Josh writes: it’s been a fun week.


----------



## FeXL

Yep, you heard it here first...

Bored dogs, ripped furniture — blame climate change



> Things are really getting serious now. There is not only extinction and endless droughts, but there are depressed dogs. _Unprecedented_ depressed dogs. The chain of effect goes like this: electric heaters cause climate change which makes winters wetter in England and owners don’t like mud, so ipso, ergo, garbo, dogs get stuck indoors, go stir crazy and rip furniture.
> 
> I presume the answer to this is to sell the car, cancel the heating, and wait for the world to warm for your dog to get happy?


So, Dr.G, any depressed doxies?


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> Yep, you heard it here first...
> 
> Bored dogs, ripped furniture — blame climate change
> 
> 
> 
> So, Dr.G, any depressed doxies?


Well, they are wired and house bound today, mon ami. Rain all day ........ they like playing in the snow but hate rain. And now, all of our snow is gone ......... at least for now. Such is Life.


----------



## FeXL

<sigh>

Study: “Wrong” kind of trees in Europe Exacerbating Global Warming



> A study claims that the shift from broadleaf to conifer trees in managed European forests has caused 0.12c (0.21F) of warming in Europe, by reducing the albedo of large areas of land, causing more sunlight to be absorbed.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Wilson's treemometers.

Nearly Two Teams of Hockey Sticks used in Massive Wilson Super Reconstruction



> So a Willis Eschenbach article at WUWT caught my attention this afternoon and cost me several hours. It is basically an average of 54 different tree ring reconstructions around the world. The sheer volume of data which went into each hockey stick and then was processed into the final hockeystick is huge. Willis demonstrated the indescribable method used to combine the data turned out to be equivalent to a simple average. The result: Hockeystick!


----------



## FeXL

Just...brilliant.

Latest Green Idea: Pouring Millions of Tons of Bubble Mix into the Sea



> A new study suggests that large ocean going ships could help reduce global warming, by pouring surfactants into their wake, to extend the life of the shiny bubbles churned up by ship’s propellers.


Of course it _might_.

Then again, it just _might_ kill millions of tiny sea creatures who depend on a clear, clean surface for their life:



> Pouring enough surfactant into the sea, to allow bubbles to survive for 10 days in open water, might kill a lot of sea life.


----------



## FeXL

Good question.

Long -Term Climate Change: What Is A Reasonable Sample Size?



> Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.


----------



## FeXL

So, Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) has put together a piece of code whereby you can generate your own location temperature graphs for data analysis.

Pulling Back The Curtain On Super Climate Sunday

Unfortunately, it's Windoze only right now but he is working on a solution.


----------



## FeXL

Remember Marcott? He of 2013 fame with the alleged Hockey Stick support paper? Well, he's back.

Marcott discovers that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” while saying “it’s worse than we thought”



> This looks far more like tabloid climatology than it does science. It will be interesting to watch which reporters regurgitate this one, and which one of the typical suspects comes to the defense of this”scientific paper” posed as activist fodder.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

Stunning. Days ago the science was settled, CSIRO made plans to lay off a few hunnert climate scientists, now they're all backpeddling on "settled science". 

CSIRO scientist on climate: “We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us”



> Tony Haymet was the Policy Director at CSIRO — and he thinks it’s like shutting down Australian cricket team (not one for exaggeration eh?). David Karoly — Shane Warne, what’s the difference? He also said, it’s a “kick in the guts” to farmers, fishermen and the navy, which it would be if only the climate models could predict things like rain, currents, and sea ice. Haymet barrells on — _“We’ve only seen the beginning of climate change. We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us”_.
> 
> *Try to rationalise the statements “97% of scientists agree” with “we don’t know what the heck…”*


Bold from the link.

Related:

CSIRO Climate Update: “We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us”



> The floor show from Aussie climate scientists whose jobs are on the line is continuing. *Now that climate job security is a thing of the past, it turns out there are all sorts of uncertainties about climate projections, which maybe didn’t get much exposure, back in the golden years of government funded research.*


M'bold.

Curious, that...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read. Excellent discussion in the comments.

A TSI-Driven (solar) Climate Model



> At first glance Figure 1a appears to confirm the theoretical log-linear relationship. However if Gaussian filtering is applied to the temperature data to remove the unrelated high frequency variability a different picture emerges.
> ...
> 
> *A much better correlation exists between atmospheric CO2 concentration and the variation in total solar irradiance (TSI).*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, the informed among you will have heard of that magical, 2° "tipping point".

The Goldilocks Approach to Global Warming



> So, I wondered, what is the significance of this 2⁰C number -- and I concluded that it is the "Goldilocks" choice. It turns out, 2⁰C is "just right" -- not too small, not too large.
> 
> *Consider for a moment what would have happened if they had given a number like 0.5⁰C. People would have shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh, we've already passed that threshold, and nothing has happened. So why worry?"*
> 
> Or suppose they had chosen 5⁰C. People would have shrugged their shoulders and said "Oh, we'll never reach that temperature certainly not in this century or the next."
> 
> So now you see why 2⁰C was just the right choice.


M'bold.

Thing is, we've also already seen 2° of rise recently, during the Holocene Optimum, 5000-7000 years ago. And, all this without man's help.

In addition, a number of times in the past we've seen far higher than 5° higher temperatures as well, both with higher & lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and yet, here we are to talk about them.


----------



## FeXL

Hate when that happens...

Obama Admin. Just Contradicted Its Own Global Warming Alarmism



> “*asically [NOAA'S] saying that the federal government’s assessment of the impacts of climate change greatly overstates the case for linking dreaded carbon dioxide emissions to extreme precipitation events across the United States,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote.
> 
> “[T]hey think that folks (including the president and the authors of the National Climate Assessment) are far too premature in linking observed changes to date with our reliance on coal, oil, and natural gas as primary fuels for our energy production,” the Cato scientists noted.*


----------



## FeXL

5 Moneyed Environmentalists Who Profit Off Global Warming



> Environmentalists like to claim skeptics are making money off hampering global warming regulations, but those same greens are making a lot of money promoting global warming alarmism. Earlier this week, the Feds even took down a green energy scheme that took $1.4 million from taxpayers.
> 
> Counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opponents. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks, according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.


Interesting list.

Nice work if you can get it...


----------



## FeXL

Interesting. 

Claim: Trendy Green Corporates “underestimating” Coal Usage



> A new report from Lux Research has suggested that Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, and other big name tech businesses, corporations which make substantial claims about the “sustainability” of their business models, have significantly underestimated how much their data centres depend on coal generated electricity.


The authors claim the error is not intentional but due to methodology.

Re: that, from the comments:



> Funny how EPA inferior methodologies seem to consistently favor renewables and dis-favor importance of fossil fuels. I guess inferior methodologies are easier to manipulate into fitting pre-ordained expectations.


Makes ya wonder...


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head...>

The EPA is out of control – now they want to ban hobby race cars



> Another example of government abuse of power, the EPA is seeking to remove more freedoms from American citizens in the name of the environment, by prohibiting the act of converting street cars into race cars. The sheer ridiculousness of this move to can be measured by how little of an impact it will have on the environment, given how little the number of cars converted into racecars per year.


----------



## FeXL

Drat! Foiled!

Supreme Court puts Obama’s “climate saving” power plant regulations on hold



> A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.
> 
> In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.


Hmmm. Legal challenges that may well take until after he's gone...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Interesting but not surprising" department.

Study proves urban heat islands exist, even in the Arctic



> A novel form of the “urban heat island” effect might contribute to why the far north is warming faster than the rest of the globe, a study of five Arctic cities finds.
> 
> Sunlight can heat dense building materials. When night falls, buildings will release some of their solar energy into the air. This helps explain why urban centers tend to be a few degrees warmer than nearby rural areas.


Further:



> Apatity, with a population of about 59,000, showed the strongest effect. *Its city center was up to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than outlying areas.*


10°!


----------



## FeXL

Got us another study & conclusion based on, you guessed it, XX)...

Study asks: How stable is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? Then says doom ahead.

There are so many weasel words in that press release, it's not even funny...


----------



## FeXL

This is the only reason there will ever be any "climate refugees" in the 21st century. 'Cause their own gov't is kicking them off their land...

UN To Make Millions Of Africans Homeless To Fight Global Warming



> The United Nations global warming deal could make another five million people homeless in the world’s poorest countries, for the express purpose of setting forest land aside to slow global warming through conservation.
> 
> Millions who live in and depend on forests for their livelihoods could be evicted from their wooded homes, according to new study which will be released later this month.
> 
> The new study by the Rights and Resources Initiative shows implementation of the U.N.’s agenda in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) could displace up to 4.1 million living in the heavily inhabited ecologically “protected” areas and another 0.9 million who depend on the region for their economic well-being. The intended goal of this mass displacement is to set aside local forest land to fight global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Ten questions to ask a warmist...

The Profiteers of climate doom



> The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious add-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.
> 
> In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – based on actual measurements to date – not much.
> 
> The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios,” based on inadequate knowledge coupled with ideological bias. Etatiste (government empowered or paid) politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.
> 
> A quarter-century has passed since the panel first predicted how fast the world would warm. Measurements since then show the predictions were much overblown.


----------



## FeXL

All this, based on a 35 year study using XX)

@NCAR claims: U.S. Southwest sliding into a drier climate, and it’s all your fault



> From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH and the “there’s no natural variation component anymore” department comes this blame game claim that seems to ignore history, like *the fact that tree rings show decade and century long droughts in the past*


M'bold.

Thirty-five whole years!  

That barely qualifies as weather, let a lone climate...


----------



## FeXL

Here's some more "settled science" for ya...

Phytoplankton suck CO2 out of sky, dump to ocean floor



> A new nature paper shows how little we know about the oceans and the whole carbon cycle. A paper (with 64 names!) suggests that phytoplankton might be sucking out extra CO2 from the sky and dumping it in Davy Jones’ Locker at the bottom of the deep blue sea.
> 
> Who needs a global carbon market? Apparently plankton are doing it for free. And all those windmills just got a bit more pointless.
> 
> Lots of living things absorb carbon, but phytoplankton seem to be more important than the others. The best predictors of sinking carbon were viruses of certain cyanobacteria. Few of the “thousands of phytoplankton species have been studied in this way”.


Bears repeating: The more we learn about the planet's climate, the more we learn we don't know.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent read. Textbook example of UHI contaminating the temperature record.

Extreme UHI Fraud At NOAA



> NOAA has 16 USHCN stations in Maryland, but they have stopped collecting data from all but four of them. One of the disappearing stations is at Laurel, which has been collecting since 1895 – but no data reported since August 2015.
> 
> Laurel raw data shows no warming over the past 60 years, but Beltsville (at I-95 and The Beltway) is five miles closer to Washington DC and shows two degrees warming during that period as the city has expanded.


----------



## FeXL

Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years



> *As you can see from the plots in Figure 1, the current level of activity of solar cycle 24 seems close to that of solar cycle number 5, which occurred beginning in May 1798 and ending in December 1810 (thus falling within the Dalton Minimum).* The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 49.2, in February 1805 (the second lowest of any cycle to date, as a result of being part of the Dalton Minimum), and the minimum was zero.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

<sigh>

Study suggests parched Earth soaks up water, slowing sea level rise



> Is there anything global warming can’t do? Now it seems that there is so much global warming that it is slowing the rise of sea levels.
> 
> As glaciers melt due to climate change, the increasingly hot and parched Earth is absorbing some of that water inland, slowing sea level rise, NASA experts said Thursday.


From the comments:



> Good lord, the abuse of incoming data is criminal.
> 
> The ONLY times the oceans receded in the past is due to more ICE, not rain.


And:



> What’s really irritating is that they are just now figuring out the fundamentals of the water table, but for decades they’ve been forecasting doom with an air of certainty reserved for Baptist ministers.


Related:

Did AGW slow Sea Level Rise?



> *JPL scientists need remedial education in geography, geology, and hydrology before publishing such nonsense in Science. Ground truthing GRACE is not hard in this case based on their map. Another failure of climate science and peer review.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Heads are gonna roll...

The outrage! One third of US teachers bring climate denial to the classroom



> They warn that the results may floor you. Strap yourself in. The National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) surveyed 1500 teachers across the US, and were shocked that a third bring dangerous climate material in to the class.
> 
> _“At least one in three teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe climate change is not caused by humans” says NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau.​_
> Frankly I am amazed. After twenty years of repeating the consensus message how is it that so many teachers are still unable to recite the permitted phrasing? (And especially in a survey where everyone knows what the right answer is!).
> 
> Put on your helmet. As many as half of US teachers actually allow students to discuss the controversy. Unthinkable!
> 
> _Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed ‘controversy’ over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion.” Scarier still: three out of five teachers were unaware of, or actively misinformed about, the near total scientific consensus on climate change.​_


All I can say is, hats off to the independent thinkers...


----------



## FeXL

Part 2 & further on XX)

Climate Models Are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 2



> The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not simulating climate as it exists on Earth. That reality of climate models will likely come as a surprise to many climate laypersons.
> 
> We presented in part 1 of this series how the spatial patterns of the modeled warming rates for the surfaces of the global oceans from 1982 to 2015 (the era of satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature observations) show no similarities to the spatial patterns of the observed (data-founded) warming and cooling. And we discussed why it’s important that the models used by the IPCC are capable of simulating where and when and why the temperatures of the ocean surfaces vary. It’s relatively easy to understand. Where and when the surfaces of the oceans warm, don’t warm, or even cool naturally and by how much—along with other naturally occurring factors—dictate where and when land surface air temperatures rise and fall and where precipitation increases or decreases…on annual, decadal and multidecadal bases.
> 
> In part 2, we’re presenting the model-data comparisons in time-series graphs globally and for a number of subsets. And as noted earlier, the data and models are being presented in absolute form. The use of sea surface temperatures instead of anomalies helps to illustrate addition problems with the models.


Once again, no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Record cold: Single digit to subzero Valentine’s Day expected for much of NE USA



> There’s a cold wind blowing for Valentine’s Day, and it blows from the Arctic.
> 
> ...
> 
> Dr. Ryan Maue says it’s going to be one for the century old record books


But, it's all because of Global Warming...


----------



## FeXL

Further on treemometers.

A Return to Polar Urals: Wilson et al 2016



> Wilson et al 2016, like D’Arrigo et al 2006, includes a ‘Polar Urals’ chronology as one of its components. *Tree ring chronologies from Polar Urals and Yamal have long been a contentious issue at Climate Audit*, dating back to the earliest days


M'bold.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Garvin's made some changes.

Marvel et al. – Gavin Schmidt admits key error but disputes everything else



> Gavin Schmidt has finally provided, at the GISS website, the iRF and ERF forcing values for a doubling of CO2 (F2xCO2) in GISS-E2-R, and related to this has made wholesale corrections to the results of Marvel et al. 2015 (MEA15). He has coupled this with a criticism at RealClimate of my appraisal of MEA15, writing about it “As is usual when people try too hard to delegitimise an approach or a paper, the criticisms tend to be a rag-bag of conceptual points, trivialities and, often, confused mis-readings – so it proves in this case”. *Personally, I think this fits better as a description of Gavin Schmidt’s article. It contains multiple mistakes and misconceptions, which I think it worth setting the record straight on.*


M'bold.

Another excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

Further on David Evans' model.

New Science 22: Solar TSI leads Earth’s temperature with an 11 year delay



> Lots of things will fall into place — as befits a potential paradigm step forward. For decades, people have been looking to see if the Sun controlled our climate but the message was perplexingly muddy. In the long run, solar activity appears linked to surface temperatures on Earth. (Solar activity was at a record high during the second half of the 20th century when temperatures were also high.) But when we look closely, firstly the solar peaks don’t exactly coincide with the surface temperature peaks, and secondly, the extra energy supplied during the solar peaks is far too small to do much warming. So how could changes in surface temperature be due to the Sun?
> 
> A few researchers noted an esoteric correlation of long solar cycles with lower temperatures in the next solar cycle, but mostly those papers were left on the shelf, ignored. Dr David Evans’ notch-delay solar delay theory can explain this odd pattern.


Interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Justice Scalia’s death could change Supreme Court position on climate – “nightmare scenario” possible for greens



> Now the EPA cannot enforce any parts of the rule until the litigation is over, a major win for the states and energy interests who argued that, if the rule were allowed to proceed and later be overturned, they would experience irreparable harm.


I fail to see the issue...


----------



## FeXL

"Climate Change?" Well, let's get the checkbook out...

Brutal Dictatorship Seeks Climate Cash to Fund Continued Atrocities



> President for life Robert Mugabe wants the UN (meaning America) to provide $1.5 billion per year, to feed Zimbabwean people who are currently going hungry, thanks to his government’s decade long policy of looting and trashing productive farms. *Naturally he blames his country’s problems on “climate change”.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Of course...

Claim: We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN



> A climate crisis role playing exercise, hosted by the World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, has concluded that the world can survive the ravages of climate change, providing we implement a global carbon tax, and create a new global governance structure.


----------



## FeXL

Further on banning hobby race cars.

A factual update to a story we ran last week on the EPA and race cars



> Last week, WUWT ran a press release from SEMA as “The EPA is out of control – now they want to ban hobby race cars” that looked to be completely legit and accurate. It was in fact legit, coming from SEMA, but it was also inaccurate in that the SEMA press release didn’t accurately gauge the EPA proposal at all. To set the record straight, see this article in Jalopnik, partially reproduced below.


----------



## FeXL

Is there anything this little molecule can't do?

Claim: Climate causes Deadly Turtle Herpes



> What astonishes me about this sad story, is the immediate attempt to pin the blame on global warming, based on what seems to be very flimsy evidence.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, this disease is believed to be spread by turtle leaches – but nobody seems to know for sure. There is even uncertainty about whether the disease is triggered by herpes virus. Yet despite this apparent complete lack of hard data, out pops the global warming / its all our fault catchall.


----------



## FeXL

Well, the conclusions are based on treemometers, a scholarly precipice I don't care for on either side of the argument.

However, if that sort of thing appeals to you, here's some alleged evidence.

Old trees reveal Late Antique Little Ice Age around 1,500 years ago led to famine and social upheavals



> Tree-ring measurements have revealed a period of extreme cold in Eurasia between 536 and around 660 CE. It coincides strikingly with the Justinian plague, migrations of peoples and political turmoil in both Europe and Asia, reports an interdisciplinary team, led by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL and the Oeschger-Zentrum of the University of Bern, in the journal _Nature Geoscience_.


----------



## FeXL

Further criticism of treemometer methodology by McKitrick.

New Light on Gulf of Alaska



> *The new data confirms my suspicion that the “missing” Wright Mountain data was inhomogeneous: it turns out that the average Wright Mountain RW was 21% higher than the average RW value from other modern sites.* Because Wiles et al used RCS with a single regional curve, the inclusion of this inhomogeneous data results in higher recent values. By itself, the Wright Mountain data doesn’t actually go up in the last half of the 20th century, but inclusion of the inhomogeneous data translates the chronology upwards relative to subfossil data. In the Calvinball world of RCS chronologies, the handling of inhomogeneous data is determined after the fact, with RCS chronologers seeming to be extremely alert to inhomogeneities that yield high medieval values (e.g. Polar Urals), but rather obtuse to inhomogeneities that yield high modern values, with decisions on site inhomogeneity always being made ex post. All too often, medieval-modern comparisons rest on Calvinball decisions, rather than the integrity of the data.


Another:

Disappearing the MWP at Icefields, Alberta



> I’ll show that the *RCS technique used in the LW2005 MXD chronology eliminated high medieval values as a tautology of their method, not as a property of the data* and that the Icefields data provides equal (or greater) justification for MXD RCS chronologies with elevated medieval values.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Chinook says...

DiCaprio wins BAFTA, says we're f***ed if we get global warming wrong



> Leonardo DiCaprio won BAFTA's Best Leading Man award on Sunday for The Revenant, but you wouldn't know it based on his global warming comments at a post-ceremony party. That's where he said his "real focus and passion is climate change" and if we don't get it right, "we're all f***ed." While his comments may not garner him any favors with the voters at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), which is the UK's equivalent to winning an Oscar's Best Actor award, it should make DiCaprio's followers happy. Lately, DiCaprio has been on a global tour trying to bring attention to the perils of global warming.


----------



## Macfury

If only bryanc were still here. That world dictatorship stuff was always music to his ears.



FeXL said:


> Of course...
> 
> Claim: We’ll survive Climate Change – if we cede More Power to the UN


----------



## FeXL

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due



> It is easy to blame Obama for the corruption of climate science, but the real credit goes to Al Gore in 1993.
> 
> As of 1990, NOAA had satellite sea ice data going back to 1973, which showed that sea ice extent was much lower in the early 1970s than in 1979.
> 
> ...
> 
> Under Al Gore, the criminal behavior of government agencies corrupting data, fraud and defunding skeptics began. Obama has simply extended and expanded Al Gore’s fraud.


----------



## FeXL

Haven't heard from Patchy in a while. Luvs me a guy like this who gets put into a position of power...

If you get a boyfriend, I will castrate him: Former TERI chief RK Pachauri told complainant



> One of the two complainants has revealed that he threatened her after seeing her interacting with a male colleague at a climate change summit in March 2014. The complainant said that Pachauri told her that "if you were ever to get a boyfriend, I will castrate him". He said this to her while they were boarding a flight at Los Cabos in Mexico, an Economic Times report said.
> 
> She further said that on an official trip to Paris in October 2013, he forcibly kissed her despite the fact that she had expressed her displeasure and had told him not to do so.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely...

Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!



> Reader Kenneth Richard has compiled and submitted a comprehensive list of some 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 2015 on climate, all supporting the premise that the Earth’s climate is driven in large part by natural factors. It now has been posted.


----------



## FeXL

D'oh!!!

New Study Shows How Coal Plants Are Greening The Earth’s Drylands



> Despite the tidal wave of environmental criticism directed at coal plants, a new study shows how emissions from coal and other fossil fuels have a huge benefit: they are greening the world’s most arid regions.
> 
> Indiana University researchers reviewed dozens of studies on the global greening phenomenon that’s been occurring over the last few decades and concluded it’s a result of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> *The study found a “consistent and statistically significant increase in the availability of soil water (11%) was observed under elevated CO2 treatments in both drylands and non-drylands, with a statistically stronger response over drylands (17% vs. 9%).”*
> 
> For years, satellite images have shown vegetation expanding into the Earth’s drylands, including areas of the Mediterranean, Sahel, Middle East, China, Mongolia and South America. Indiana researchers considered other factors, such as increased rainfall and land use changes, but found CO2 is the only viable reason for the increased greenness.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, there's a surprise.

No Takers On Ex-Greenpeace Chief’s $100,000 Climate Bet!



> In the wake of December’s Paris climate agreement, environmental scientist and Greenpeace co-founder and President Dr Patrick Moore offered a stonker of a bet:
> 
> With a $100 billion climate fund backing 188 nations’ commitments to cut greenhouse gas levels – including a minimum 40% cut from the EU – this bet seems like a sure investment for eco-warriors with cash to burn.
> 
> But more than a month later, nobody has taken up Dr Moore’s offer. Do the climate lobby not have faith in the “world’s greatest diplomatic success” to have a flutter?


Apparently not...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mugabe's billions...

Mugabe First To U.N. Trough In Global Warming Shakedown



> _Zimbabwe tyrant Robert Mugabe is asking the United Nations for $1.5 billion a year to feed his people, who he says are hungry due to global warming. *The looting begins.*​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Climate physician, heal thyself!



> A reader sent me this breakdown of a climate scientist's carbon footprint. We should not even consider listening to them until they have dealt with their own excesses.


No argument.


----------



## FeXL

Nearly a 6 year old article but relevant to the current discussion on CO2 concentrations.

Historic variations in CO2 measurements.

Lengthy, thorough.


----------



## FeXL

Fight against CO2 a ‘full-blown mystical delusion’ say French mathematicians



> “Our flustered activity will do nothing to alter CO2 concentrations, any more than it could cause the satellites of Jupiter to become bigger or smaller.” – Société de Calcul Mathématique, SA


Exactement...


----------



## FeXL

Well, that's a shame...

(Is the /sarc tag needed here?)

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres steps down



> – Lamented U.S. democracy as ‘very detrimental’ – Sought ‘centralized transformation’
> 
> – Lauded one-party ruled China for ‘doing it right’ on climate


What is it with these Fruit Loops & Whackos admiring dictatorships? Figueres, PM Pompadour...

More:



> 'Figueres legacy will be one of central planning, limiting development for the world's poor, creation of climate slush funds, appeals to climate claims and 'solutions' that would make medieval witch accusers blush. *The world can smile today that Figueres will soon be out of power.*'


M'bold.

I's a grinnin'!!!


----------



## FeXL

On an interview with Benny Peiser.

No Benny! Science is in a crisis, we need a review. If Greens cared about the planet, they’d demand one.



> Benny Peiser lays out the situation in the UK and Europe in a long interview on GWPF. It’s interesting, and I agree (more on that below), except for the point when he says it’s too soon to do a review of the science. Dear Benny, in the politest possible way — that’s barking. *The review of the science is not too soon, it’s too late — it should have been done 10 years ago, before we spent billions*, and the Greens ought to be calling for one right now.


M'bold.

Agreed. Long overdue.

Related:

Benny Peiser Interview



> The need to decarbonise transport is driven by the Climate Change Act target of an 80% cut to greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 against 1990 levels. Critics such as Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, say the Act is damaging the economy and ministers should slow the pace of action. Andrew Forster went to meet him.


----------



## FeXL

What's this? More settled science?

The 60-Year Oscillation Of Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Abstract



> A better understanding of the future climate pattern developments in the Arctic may only follow a better reconstruction of the past patterns of natural oscillations and the determination of the forcing and the resulting oscillations occurred in the climate parameters over different time scales. The proposed information for the past demonstrates the Walsh & Chapman reconstruction [1] claiming a flat sea ice 1870 to 1950 is too simple. *The Arctic sea ice experienced a drastic reduction that was phased with warming temperatures 1923 to 1940. This reduction was followed by a sharp cooling and sea ice recovery. This permits us to also conclude that very likely the Arctic sea ice extent also has a quasi-60 years’ oscillation. The recognition of a quasi-60 year’s oscillation in the sea ice extent of the Arctic similar to the oscillation of the temperatures and the other climate indices may permit us to separate the natural from the anthropogenic forcing of the Arctic sea ice.* The heliosphere and the Earth’s magnetosphere may have much stronger influence on the climate patterns on Earth including the Arctic sea ices than has been thought.


M'bold.

From the Conclusion:



> As the Arctic temperature oscillates with a quasi-60 years’ periodicity, then the Arctic sea ice should do the same, and as the Arctic sea ice has declined strongly in the recent past but it has also strongly recovered, some recovery will surely occur again in the future.


Good comments, as well.

Related:

Arctic Sea Ice In 1979



> As we know, NSIDC only publish Arctic sea ice data from 1979. As I have pointed out many times, this just happens to coincide with one of the coldest periods of the 20thC in the Arctic.


Excellent read.

Related, two:

Elephant Seals Breeding In The Ross Sea Up To 1000 years Ago – Now It’s Too Cold



> Put simply, it shows that the climate was much warmer 8000 years ago, before cooling maybe 1000 years ago. The paper notes:
> 
> _Today the region is mostly enclosed by year round land-fast sea ice, and is therefore unsuitable for southern elephant seal breeding. Elephant seals are not found along the VLC today.​_
> Put this together with evidence of a much colder climate in the Ross Sea during the Little Ice Age, and the fact that Antarctic glaciers began retreating again in the 19thC, and we can begin to see current climatic conditions there in a proper perspective.


Related, three:

Long Term Perspectives For Arctic Sea Ice



> While we get excited about short term changes in Arctic sea ice extent, it is worth looking at some of the movements back and forth over the last 300 years. The above map is courtesy of the sea ice database established at the Norwegian Polar Institute by Torgny Vinje.
> 
> Note how far sea ice expanded between 1769 and 1866. Unfortunately, nothing is shown for the warm period in the 1930s and 40s, but HH Lamb records, in Climate, History and the Modern World, how sea ice greatly expanded in what the Icelanders call the Sea Ice Years, beginning in 1965


Excellent map of ice extent changes over the centuries.


----------



## FeXL

What is the current state of ENSO?

WMO El Nino Update



> _The 2015-16 El Niño has passed its peak strength, but remains strong and continues to influence global climate patterns. It is expected to continue to weaken over the coming months, with models indicating a return to ENSO-neutral during the second quarter of 2016. Eastern and central tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures clearly exceeded 2 degrees Celsius above average in late 2015, providing evidence that the 2015-16 El Niño is one of the strongest on record, comparable with the 1997-98 and 1982-83 events. National Meteorological and Hydrological Services will continue to monitor the decline of this El Niño, and assess likely local impacts.​_


Hmmm. Wonder how big the corresponding La Nina drop will be.


----------



## FeXL

MASIE Confirms Arctic Sea Ice Remaining Stable In February



> While we’re on the topic of DMI Arctic sea ice graphs, it is worthwhile recalling Ron Clutz’s post the other day on NSIDC’s MASIE data.
> 
> You may recall that Ron showed how MASIE, which is the new all singing and dancing sea ice product, was showing about 500K km2 more ice than the old version, still used as their official publication.


Good graphs.


----------



## FeXL

DMI "disappears" a graph with inconvenient data.

DMI’s Missing Graph



> There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results. I may be being harsh, but if DMI wants to avoid these sort of accusations, the answer is imply to restore the graph, whether convenient or not.


----------



## FeXL

So, there's been a lot of BS about the rate of sea level rise increasing lately. Let's take a look at it.

Sea Level Rise: Just The Facts



> There are about sixty good-quality, 100+ year records of sea-level around the world, and they all show the same thing: *there has been no statistically significant acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 85 years or more. That means anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not measurably affect sea-level rise, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are based on superstition, not science.*


M'bold.

Yep...

Related:

Today’s Government Funded Sea Level Fraud



> _*Sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in 3,000 years, study finds​*_
> ...
> 
> Amazing because in 1990, the IPCC said the exact opposite.


From the comments:



> This study is garbage, judging from the Phys.org article and the abstract.
> 1. Brand new statistical methods. Last time we saw those in climate science they produced Mann’s bogus hockey stick.
> 2. 24 new sites around world: archeological, saltnwater marsh, coral reefs. Carefully selected so neither geological subsidence nor uplift over 3000 years? Did not yet check th SI since not yet available.
> 3. The clincher. Found surprising SLR sensitivity to temperature! ‘Sea levels declined markedly (according to the new statistics) from 1000 to 1400, a period when global mean temperature dropped 0.2C.’ *A) There is no temperature paleoproxy that accurate.* B) Temperatures rose rather than dropped during the aforesaid medieval warm period. Viking ruins on Greenland are proof, as are any number of non-Mannian paleoclimate reconstructions, most which have the MWP as warm or warmer than now. For sure in Greenland, where Viking burials are now encased in permafrost. Sea levels found statistically to fall during the MWP means either the statistics are bad or the 24 sites were geologically rising, or both. Should never have gotten through peer on basic general knowledge grounds.


M'bold.

Among others, yep.


----------



## FeXL

Yes, another outstanding piece of "science" from Chris Turney, of the Ship of Fools expedition fame...

Turney And The “Dead” Penguins



> _You may have read that an Antarctic colony of penguins was trapped by an iceberg and died, killed by climate change. But there’s a twist: *All parts of the story turn out to be untrue.*
> 
> Some good news for 150,000 dead penguins in Antarctica: They might not be dead. Bad news: *There may not be any hope for the rest of us.*​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

How The Arctic Climate Has Changed Since The MWP



> We’ve been looking at recent changes in Arctic sea ice extent, but, to put them into perspective, we also need to consider some of the longer term ones.
> 
> In this post, I want to discuss how conditions in the Arctic have changed in the last 1000 years or so.
> 
> Most of us will probably be familiar with the evidence from Greenland ice cores, which clearly show warmer temperatures than now in the Middle Ages.


More:



> I’ll leave the final words to Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and one of the world’s leading experts on ice cores. Using ice cores from sites in Greenland, he has been able to reconstruct temperatures there for the last 10000 years. So what are his conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> _I agree totally we have had a global temperature increase in the 20thC – but an increase from what? ..Probably an increase from the lowest point in the last 10,000 years.
> 
> *We started to observe meteorology at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.*​_


M'bold.

That observation should provide some perspective to anyone who can summon enough brain power to melt a snowflake on their head...


----------



## SINC

Australia PM adviser says climate change is 'UN-led ruse to establish new world order' - Telegraph


----------



## FeXL

Further on that sea level thing.

Today’s Sea Level Fraud From The University Of Colorado



> In 2004, the University of Colorado showed 35 mm sea level rise from 1993 to 2003.
> 
> ...
> 
> They now show 45 mm sea level rise during that same period, using the same data set.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1982, NASA showed 1 mm/year. Now they claim 3.3 mm/year. They have more than tripled sea level rise by simply altering the data.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Eighty-six percent of tide gauges are below 3.2 mm/year.*


M'bold.

Related:

Global sea levels rose faster in the 20th century than at any time in the past 3,000 years – And, Surprise, It’s Your Fault



> 5) And this brings us to the crux. It is undisputed that there was a massive and rapid expansion of glaciers worldwide during the Little Ice Age. (See my list here, for example)
> 
> In the European Alps, this began around 1550, and continued in fits and starts till about 1850. Similarly, glaciers in Greenland and Iceland did not reach maximum till the late 19thC.
> 
> Exactly the same patterns are seen in South America, Alaska and New Zealand.
> 
> There can be no doubt that sea levels fell during this era by far more than the 80mm quoted for the earlier period.
> 
> The only question is whether the sea rise in the last century and a half has simply cancelled that out. The evidence suggests otherwise, but even if it has, so what, We are simply back where we were before. *The rapid recovery from the Little Ice Age is no more than a reflection of the rapid descent in the first place.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

As it should be.

Paris Climate Accord: Hope, Change -- and Collapse



> The Paris Accord (PA) on global warming, concluded in December 2015, had been viewed as an enhancement of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP). But only some weeks later, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) effectively “killed” EPA’s “Clean Power Plan (CPP),” the centerpiece of the US commitment to the PA.
> 
> The CPP’s carbon regulation had been challenged by 27 states and an array of utilities, coal producers and business groups. A SCOTUS’ February 9 “stay” overturned a DC Court of Appeals panel’s decision to allow the EPA plan to go forward. Although the appeals panel had not stayed CPP, it had established an expedited hearing schedule for the case, which is scheduled to begin on June 2. After the plaintiffs lost their case in the Court of Appeals, they petitioned SCOTUS to issue a “stay,” citing the danger of “irreparable harm.”


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Follow-up article clarifying some of the data from post #6379 on sea ice.

Svalbard Sea Ice And European Whaling In The 18thC



> Regardless of the 1769 dating issue, it is evident that there have been very large swings in sea ice extent during the last 300 years.
> 
> Finally, I should point out the eruption of the Icelandic Laki volcano in 1783 was one of the key factors in the colder climate that arrived at that time.


----------



## FeXL

NASA confirms the Pacific ‘warm blob’ has disappeared



> In July 2015, temperatures were unusually warm across a large swath from the Gulf of Alaska to the California coast. By January 2016, more seasonable temperatures had returned. The development came as no surprise to weather watchers. In September 2015, Clifford Mass, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist, explained in his blog that El Niño generally brings lower-than-normal sea surface pressures to the eastern Pacific—the opposite of the systems that sustained the blob. By mid-December 2015, Mass declared that the blob was dead.
> 
> Remnants of the warm water patch still persist. “There are significant temperature anomalies extending down to a depth of about 300 meters. So while the weather patterns the past few months have not been that favorable to warming, it will take a while for all of the accumulated heat to go away,” explained Bond. That means impacts on marine life and on weather in the Pacific Northwest could linger, though Bond does not think the blob will return in the near term.


----------



## FeXL

A further takedown of Karl's "Pausebuster" paper from last summer. Look whose in the author list:



> ...Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer...


New paper shows there was a global warming hiatus this century



> Climate researchers have published a new paper this week in the journal Nature Climate Change that acknowledges there has been a global warming slowdown from 2000-2014. Their research shows a hiatus did indeed occur and continued into the 21st century, contradicting another study last June that said the hiatus was just an artifact that "vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected." This is not the first time activists have tried to hide the hiatus by using dodgy methods.


When you've lost Michael Mann...


----------



## FeXL

As always, rules are just for the little people...

Congress: Top EPA Official Racked Up Huge CO2 Footprint Pushing Global Warming Rules



> House investigators want to know how much carbon dioxide a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official spewed into the atmosphere while traveling the country promoting agency rules aimed at curbing global warming.


More:



> TheDCNF calculated that, assuming she flew home every weekend, McCarthy’s carbon footprint from airline travel alone was around 37.5 tons over four years — *more than 3.5 times the average American’s yearly carbon footprint.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further to post #6382 re: DMI's missing graph-an explanation.

DMI Explain Why Graph Was Withdrawn



> As I stated at the time, my real complaint was that they withdrew the graph with no explanation. *It is only the power of the internet that has now forced this clarification.*
> 
> Hopefully, other such organisations will learn that they too owe the public a much more open and transparent approach in future.


M'bold.

Agreed.


----------



## FeXL

Further on record-breaking sea-levels.

Leading Authority on Sea Levels Disputes Study Asserting Sea Level Rise Is Fastest in 27 Centuries



> _However, the findings of the study were immediately challenged by Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University and a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion.
> 
> “*The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles*,” Morner wrote to the Climate Depot news service. “*The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts*,” Morner continued. For instance, the Kopp paper says that the tide gauges at Christmas Island, Kiribati, show increases, yet as Morner notes, while showing the tide gauge record from that island for the past 40 years, "*How can anyone find a rapidly rising trend in this tide gauge record? It is flat or rather slowly falling — but in no way rising.*” He added that nowhere are there records of true "acceleration."​_


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Amongst other things...

NOAA Is Losing Arctic Ice



> _Something strange is happening in the reporting of sea ice extents in the Arctic. I am not suggesting that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” That issue about a Danish graph seems to be subsiding, though there are unresolved questions. What if the 30% DMI graph is overestimating and the 15% DMI graph is underestimating?
> 
> The MASIE record from NIC shows an average year in progress, with new highs occurring well above the 2015 maximum:_​


----------



## FeXL

Further on the temperature "hiatus".

Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again



> The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.
> 
> An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected1.
> 
> Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real2.
> 
> “*There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing*,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “*We can’t ignore it.*”


M'bold.

'Bout time...


----------



## FeXL

So, recall the "Ship of Fools" that got rescued from Antarctic ice back in 2014? Well, the ice-breaker that helped rescue it is stuck in, you guessed it, Antarctic ice. 

Ice Breaker Which Helped Rescue Turney’s “Ship Of Fools” Gets Jammed In Meters-Thick Summertime Antarctic Sea Ice!



> The Antarctic “*Aurora Australis*” with 68 people on board became stranded in sea ice in the West Arm in Horseshoe Harbour last Wednesday, and rescue efforts were prevented by a snowstorm. According to reports that the ship’s rump has a tear, but its structural integrity is thought not to be at risk.
> 
> The problem: Too much ice!


----------



## FeXL

Two graphs clearly demonstrating the anthropogenic effect on drought & sea level.

Climate Visual Aids



> I prepared these visual aids to help people understand mankind’s role in climate change.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, recall the "Ship of Fools" that got rescued from Antarctic ice back in 2014? Well, the ice-breaker that helped rescue it is stuck in, you guessed it, Antarctic ice.
> 
> Ice Breaker Which Helped Rescue Turney’s “Ship Of Fools” Gets Jammed In Meters-Thick Summertime Antarctic Sea Ice!


Wondered why the page had disappeared. This seems to be the accurate report:
Australian icebreaker back in the water after two days stuck on Antarctic rocks - 9news.com.au


----------



## FeXL

Hey, I'm surprised!

Global warming scientists have EXAGGERATED CO2 threat to marine life, study finds



> Previous studies claimed carbon dioxide being absorbed by the sea is damaging carbon reefs and ultimately hampering marine life and its ecosystem.
> 
> However, the new report claims there is an “inherent bias” that favours the disastrous predictions.
> 
> Previous research has excluded findings which shows marine wildlife is not damaged by ocean acidification.
> 
> *A review of previous reports found flawed methods were used in which ocean dwellers were subjected to massive increases in carbon dioxide which in fact would not be a reality.*
> 
> Howard Browman, the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science said: “*In some cases it was levels far beyond what would ever be reached even if we burnt every molecule of carbon on the planet.*


Emphasis mine.

OK, maybe not so surprised...


----------



## FeXL

More settled climate science.

Nitrogen – Active In The IR, A GHG?



> Sometimes it pays to check the most widely accepted assertions.
> 
> Just about every discussion of CO2 and “Greenhouse Gasses” includes a harangue about Oxygen and Nitrogen NOT being active in the IR and NOT being a “Greenhouse Gas”. Yet we know that any object with a temperature above nearly nothing emits photons. Some are X-rays, some are visible light, and some are infrared light. (And radio waves and microwaves and…) So how can you have a world wrapped in hot nitrogen and NOT have it radiate something? So I started to search.


Excellent read from the Chiefio.


----------



## FeXL

So, remember Jagadish Shukla of the Shukla 20, who signed a document requesting that racketeering charges be levelled against sceptics?

Well, I think it's the last letter he'll be publicly attaching his name to...

Outlook bad for Shukla



> _According to [House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith]’s letter, the audit “appears to reveal that Dr. Shukla engaged in what is referred to as ‘double dipping.’ In other words, he received his full salary at GMU, while working full time at IGES and receiving a full salary there.”
> 
> Mr. Smith cites a memo from the school’s internal auditor in claiming that Mr. Shukla appeared to violate the university’s policy on outside employment and paid consulting. The professor received $511,410 in combined compensation from the school and IGES in 2014, according to Mr. Smith, “without ever receiving the appropriate permission from GMU officials.”​_


Uh-oh...

He sums:



> Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Patchy.

UN IPCC’s Pachauri Criminal Charges Total 1,400 pages – ‘Charged with a long list of sex offences’



> Today, more than a year after a 29-year-old woman complained to the police about Rajendra Pachauri, formal charges have been laid. Early news reports out of India say the charge sheet runs to 1,400 pages and includes allegations of stalking, criminal intimidation, and sexual harassment.


----------



## FeXL

B-b-b-but...I thought the science was settled?

Climate change institute shut down



> “It can’t be a budget thing. It can’t be. I don’t want to say that Yale doesn’t support [the YCEI], but … I think it’s the administration’s lack of interest,” said YCEI New Haven Energy Scholar Intern Matthew Goldklang ’16. “I had no idea we were going to be completely cut. *It’s really sad.*”


M'bold.

<sniff>


----------



## FeXL

Further on 150,000 dead penguins.

The non-disaster of 150,000 missing penguins? They just went somewhere else.



> Much fuss was made of 150,000 missing penguins in Antarctica as if climate change had killed them. A monster iceberg had washed in, stopping the cute swimming tuxedos from getting to dinner and the colony of 160,000 suddenly shrank to 10,000. Where did all those penguins go? In previous tough times, when they could be tracked they just split up and went to different colonies.


Just one teensy, tiny, troublesome question: Where's the bodies?


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the iron...

BIll McKibben Is Now Roy Spencer’s Biggest Fan



> Last month the team spent trashing satellite data and telling us how worthless it is, and this month they are its biggest fans.


The fly in the ointment?



> Only problem is, satellites show no warming for nearly 20 years.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

So, there are 2 satellite temperature records, UAH & RSS. They've been showing nearly identical results for years. However, suddenly, RSS has veered in a somewhat...northerly direction.

As predicted a year ago...

My Climate Forecast From March 2015



> I don’t make climate forecasts. I do make forecasts of future climate fraud. *Here is one from this month last year, where I predicted the tampering which has just occurred at RSS.* Posted on March 27, 2015


M'bold.

Related:

Erasing The Satellite Hiatus



> We have a new hockey stick of data tampering!
> 
> Apparently Carl Mears didn’t like the fact that evil deniers like Ted Cruz were using his data to debunk the climate scam, so he changed the data to make the hiatus disappear. All adjustments require that the past get cooler and the present gets warmer. Because, SCIENCE.


Check out the graphed example in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

I post this next link not to laud the writer's efforts to go fossil fuel free, but to highlight the blatant ignorance of a so-called "climate scientist". He truly did not know that his air travel injects far more CO2 into the atmosphere than his car & home electricity use.

How Far Can We Get Without Flying?



> Hour for hour, there’s no better way to warm the planet than to fly in a plane. If you fly coach from Los Angeles to Paris and back, you’ve just emitted 3 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, 10 times what an average Kenyan emits in an entire year.


----------



## FeXL

OK, two posts above I noted that the newest version of the RSS satellite temperatures had shown warming. The first thing I thought when I read that is, what do the radiosondes show? Well, as it turns out, curiously, they don't show the increase in temperatures that RSS does.

Since that article was posted, there have been a number of criticisms levelled at the RSS methodology. Below are just a few.

RSS Nobbled



> As we know, RSS have been a real thorn in the side of the climate establishment in recent years. Their satellite measured temperature trends have failed to back up claims of rising global temperatures and record years.
> 
> This has also been a huge embarrassment to Carl Mears, who is responsible for the dataset.
> 
> Well, if you don’t like the data, adjust it!
> 
> No doubt under great pressure from above, RSS have now brought out a new version, starting with the Mid Troposphere temperatures, TMT, which in the words of their paper says:
> 
> _The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.​_
> *Let me stress again, this only applies at this stage to the mid troposphere, rather than the lower troposphere which we usually pay attention to. Nevertheless, Mears has made it clear that the latter will be similarly adjusted in due course.*


M'bold.

The ‘Karlization’ of global temperature continues – this time RSS makes a massive upwards adjustment

Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset



> Now that John Christy and I have had a little more time to digest the new paper by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (“Sensitivity of satellite derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment”, paywalled here), our conclusion has remained mostly the same as originally stated in Anthony Watts’ post.
> 
> While the title of their article implies that their new diurnal drift adjustment to the satellite data has caused the large increase in the global warming trend, _it is actually their inclusion of what the evidence will suggest is a spurious warming (calibration drift) in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument that leads to most (maybe 2/3) of the change._ I will provide more details of why we believe that satellite is to blame, below.
> 
> Also, we provide new radiosonde validation results, supporting the UAH v6 data over the new RSS v4 data.


Italics from the link.

They sum:



> The evidence suggests that the new RSS v4 MT dataset has spurious warming due to a lack of correction for calibration drift in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument. Somewhat smaller increases in their warming trend are due to their use of a climate model for diurnal drift adjustment, compared to our use of an empirical approach that relies upon observed diurnal drift from the satellite data themselves. *While the difference in diurnal drift correction methodolgy is a more legitimate point of contention, in the final analysis independent validation with radiosonde data and most reanalysis datasets suggest better agreement with the UAH product than the RSS product.*


M'bold.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years



> In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.
> 
> ...
> 
> Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years.


End of the satellite data warming pause?



> The climate models project strong warming in the tropical mid troposphere, which have not been borne out by the observations. The new RSS data set reduces the discrepancies with the climate model simulations.
> 
> Roy Spencer’s comments substantially reduce the credibility of the new data set. Their dismissal of the calibration problems with the NOAA-14 MSU is just astonishing. Presumably Christy’s review of the original submission to JGR included this critique, so they are unlikely to be unaware of this issue. The AMS journals have one the best review processes out there; I am not sure why Christy/Spencer weren’t asked to review. I have in the past successfully argued at AMS not to have as reviewers individuals that have made negative public statements about me (not sure if this is the case with Mears/Wentz vs Spencer/Christy).
> 
> There is a legitimate debate on how to correct for the diurnal cycle, but based on my assessment, the UAH empirically based approach seems better.


Ken Haapala On The RSS Saga



> An issue developed this week that illustrates the importance of proper re-analysis of data and independent confirmation. The issue regarding temperature trends in the middle troposphere was noticed by Anthony Watts, WUWT, discussed in several other posts, with an expanded discussion by Roy Spencer. Spencer and John Christy developed the method of measuring temperatures using data from satellites, for which they received significant recognition. Their findings are publicly posted monthly, with the data going back to December 1978. These data, known as the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) data are the most comprehensive estimates of global temperatures in existence.


----------



## FeXL

Meteorologist Trashes Jennifer Francis’ Extreme Weather Theory



> We are all familiar with claims that global warming/”melting Arctic ice” is leading to more extreme weather. This is the theory, postulated amongst others by Dr Jennifer Francis, that a warmer Arctic acts to slow down the jet stream and create a meridional jet stream flow and weather blocking.
> 
> Meteorologist, Chuck Wiese, not only destroys this theory but also asks some very searching questions that go the heart of much of the junk science produced by climate scientists.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

GISS Adjustments Since 2008



> Following the pause busting adjustments made by RSS, we need to keep in mind how GISS have been up to the same tricks for years.
> 
> Last year, of course, they instituted the same massive set of adjustments that NOAA had done, following Thomas Karl’s efforts. However, although these were by far the largest ones, in recent years other adjustments had been made, gradually cooling the past and warming the present.
> 
> One of the problems in trying to keep track is that, unlike RSS, they don’t archive old data. Also, because they only report anomalies, it is impossibly to identify which years have been adjusted in absolute terms.
> 
> Fortunately, bloggers have been archiving their own GISS records, and we also have the Wayback Machine, so we can piece together some of the recent alterations.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that...

Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports



> *A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.*
> 
> The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.


M'bold.

What? 10,000 years ago? I thought climate change didn't happen before the industrial revolution...


----------



## FeXL

Huh.

Even believer media are bored of climate change — TV coverage down



> It’s panic stations over at Believer Central. They are losing their grip on the media. And 2015 was a bumper year for Climate Scares – the hottest ever year, the giant Paris Junket, The El Nino, The Pope! (The Pope?) Despite all that, the media spent less time on the climate. It doesn’t get any better than 2015 for the Global Worriers — there is no higher level of panic. *But the free propaganda machine is slowing…*
> 
> Lookout, climate denial is on the rise


M'bold.


----------



## CubaMark

FeXL said:


> Curious, that...
> 
> Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports


One of the commenters to that article stated:

*Joglea4* Nov 02, 2015

NASA has already stated that the Arctic is losing ice faster then Antarctica is gaining it.



> "There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic," said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic."


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that...

Weather Is Climate : For A Few Months



> Satellites show very little net warming since 1990, but the current El Nino spike is being touted as proof that we need global communism to stop climate change.
> 
> ...
> 
> There was a very similar spike in February 1998. Compare the February, 1998 and 2016 images below.
> 
> ...
> 
> By December, 1998 the planet had gone cold. If that happens again this year, weather will become weather once again, and not climate..


Yep.


----------



## MacGuiver

FeXL said:


> Curious, that...
> 
> Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> What? 10,000 years ago? I thought climate change didn't happen before the industrial revolution...


So the melted glacier water is hiding in Antartica and the heat is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. That global warming is a slippery character.


----------



## FeXL

MacGuiver said:


> So the melted glacier water is hiding in Antartica and the heat is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. That global warming is a slippery character.


Yep. Plus, she's going to cause all the poisonous snakes to move into Canada.

Climate change could send venomous snakes slithering north



> Climate change could see a new risk slithering into Canada: snakes.
> 
> New research has found that rising temperatures could drive several deadly species northward to new areas, bringing them across the U.S. border with Canada. By 2050, some snakes could make their way as far north as Alberta, Quebec and southern Ontario.


Huh. Guess they don't know that there are already poisonous snakes in portions of Canada. Grew up with some in my backyard.

Oh, XX)...


----------



## eMacMan

Pretty much echos what I have more concisely said in various greenhouse gas threads.

Carbon pricing's fatal flaw | Goldstein | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Carbon taxes, and Cap and Trade rob from the poor and give to the rich. They're just Trickle Down economics on steroids.

_Cross posted in the Alberta NDP thread._


----------



## FeXL

Reality dawns...

South Korea Abandons 2020 GHG Target



> The ink on the Paris Treaty is barely dry!
> 
> From Carbon Pulse:
> 
> _South Korea on Friday announced a raft of climate policy changes, including abandoning its GHG emissions target for 2020, stripping the Ministry of Environment of its responsibility for the emissions trading scheme, and lifting a cap on Early Action Credits that observers say could boost the market’s supply by more than 40 million tonnes.​_


----------



## FeXL

Further on Marvel.

Lewis lands a blow



> Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up, leaving out land-use changes entirely.
> 
> *In a typically erm...robust article at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt ignored all the evidence Lewis had presented showing that land-use change had been overlooked, and said that Lewis's critique was made...without evidence. However, it now seems that he has decided that this position is not tenable, at the journal at least,and a correction has been issued admitting that land-use was indeed missing.*


The article:

Marvel et al.: GISS did omit land use forcing



> I followed up my first article with an update that concentrated on land use change (LU) forcing. Inter alia, I presented regression results that strongly suggested the Historical simulation forcing (iRF) time series used in Marvel et al. omitted LU forcing. Gavin Schmidt of GISS responded on RealClimate, writing:
> 
> “Lewis in subsequent comments has claimed without evidence that land use was not properly included in our historical runs…. These are simply post hoc justifications for not wanting to accept the results.”
> 
> In fact, not only had I presented strong evidence that the Historical iRF values omitted LU forcing, but I had concluded:
> 
> “I really don’t know what the explanation is for the apparently missing Land use forcing. Hopefully GISS, who alone have all the necessary information, may be able to provide enlightenment.”
> 
> When I responded to the RealClimate article, here, I inter alia presented further evidence that LU forcing hadn’t been included in the computed value of the total forcing applied in the Historical simulation: there was virtually no trace of LU forcing in the spatial pattern for Historical forcing. I wasn’t suggesting that LU forcing had been omitted from the forcings applied during the Historical simulations, but rather that it had not been included when measuring them.
> 
> *Yesterday, a climate scientist friend drew my attention to a correction notice published by Nature Climate Change, reading as follows:*


One issue dealt with, four to go...


----------



## SINC

Interesting new admission by NASA.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Forbes Welcome


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Interesting new admission by NASA.
> 
> Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
> 
> Forbes Welcome


Probably a worthwhile read, but I'd have to disable my adblocker to get there. 
If not too wordy perhaps you could include a quote? 

In any event even if polar ice does retreat it would have zero impact on sea levels as the ice is already displacing the ocean, so when it melts the level remains the same.


----------



## SINC

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.


----------



## FeXL

Brilliant...

No climate impact: EPA Chief says the ‘benefit’ of climate regs is to show ‘domestic leadership’



> Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted her agency’s signature regulation aimed at tackling global warming was meant to show “leadership” rather than actually curb projected warming. – McCarthy admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.
> 
> “I don’t understand,” McKinley said in a Tuesday hearing. “If it doesn’t have an impact on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our hard working taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to something that has no benefit?”
> 
> “We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris,” McCarthy responded.


----------



## FeXL

Ask anybody knowledgable about climate science to name the top 20 female experts in the field and, even if you can't get all 20, one name will be on all lists: Judith Curry.

Well, most lists...

The Climate Council’s Memory Hole



> Mandrake the Magician has nothing on Tim Flannery & Co when it comes to vanishing acts, from geothermal investors' equity to those frothing predictions of endless drought and "ghost cities". But the excision of sceptic Judith Curry from a list of female climate experts takes the cake


Unbelievable...


----------



## FeXL

So, recall all those soon to be unemployed scientists down under whose jobs are getting cut because the "science is settled"? Here's a job for them:

Garth Paltridge offers a solution to CSIRO climate scientists suffering from the “settled” syndrome



> May I suggest to the remaining staff that they might profitably spend their time attempting to disprove the theory of disastrous global warming rather than simply finding data to support it? There is more than enough uncertainty about climate change to give them a very good chance of upsetting what must be one of the world’s greatest scientific applecarts. Since the upsetting of applecarts is what scientists are paid to do, it shouldn’t be long before they are once again showered with money and roses. Just think of it – massive reward simply by returning to a research philosophy fundamental to scientific progress. It is known as scepticism.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Sea level graph from NOAA.

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends, 8518750 The Battery, New York 

The rate of sea level rise peaked about 1950, before CO2 could have any measurable effect on the atmosphere or melting ice. The rate of rise has been less since, despite the injection of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Sonuvagun...


----------



## FeXL

"Special" science. Must be done by those Special Snowflakes...

It’s “special” science where one Hot Month is the signal, and years of The Pause is just noise.



> It used to be that science was symmetrical — the laws of physics worked every day. You know, thou shalt not create nor destroy energy, it’s one of those unarguable things. But UNSW has a new “special” kind of science where the global temperature can pause for years and billions of quadrillions of joules of energy can disappear and who cares? In politically correct science this is noise. But one hot month, caused by an El Nino and strap yourself in, glue on the Armageddon-helmet. Panic-now, Panic-later, Fear and Hellfire. The Mystical Sign has cometh!


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

David Evans has another edition of his New Science.

New Science 23: Four mysteries and The Force-X Hypothesis



> In the last post in the climate research series we described David’s major finding that changes in total sunlight lead Earth’s temperature by one sunspot cycle. But what’s going on with the Sun — what is the mechanism? In this post David lays out four puzzling clues about solar influence on our global temperature, then puts forward a hypothesis. What force (or forces) are required to resolve all these odd points?
> 
> To recap: Both his Fourier analysis and many independent papers suggest there is a delay between total solar irradiation (TSI) and global temperature. David reasoned that the delay is a true delay, not just a smoothing effect while increased heat propagates around the planet. Because the timing is so tied to solar cycles, the trigger for the delay must start on the Sun, not on the Earth. This is not just a case of our oceans slowly absorbing the extra energy from the Sun — and there simply isn’t enough, in any case. Something quite different is going on. Something on the sun changes, in sync with the variation in sunlight, but the corresponding changes following about 11 years later and change the way the Earth responds to incoming energy. It modulates the Earth’s albedo, controlling the Earth’s temperature like a tap controls the flow of water through a pipe.
> 
> For the moment we’ll call this mysterious phenomenon Force X (think X-rays, or Planet X). Candidates include solar magnetic fluxes, solar wind changes, and shifts in the solar spectrum (during each solar cycle, the energy shifts from more UV to more infra red and back). Something going on in the sun changes things like clouds, aerosols or jet streams on planet Earth, and through these secondary changes the Sun apparently controls a lot of the variation in temperatures on Earth.


He finishes with an interesting analogy:



> An analogy may help to understand the delay.
> 
> A four stroke combustion engine has four phases: “suck, squeeze, bang, and blow”. If you know how much fuel and air is inhaled during the “suck” phase then you know how much power will be produced in the “bang” phase, which comes half a full cycle (two phases) later. Apparently something similar is happening with the Sun: the sunspots, or the tiny changes in TSI, tell us how much force X there will be half of a full solar cycle later.


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Wot's this?!

1995 Hansen Paper Showed A 16 Year Hiatus In Troposphere Warming



> Another 16 year hiatus which was erased retroactively.
> 
> ...
> 
> There was no warming from 1979 to 1995. There was also no warming from 1996 to 2015. When did this magical global warming occur?


Questions, questions...


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk ice.

More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Ice



> NSIDC has provisionally announced that Arctic sea ice extent has recorded the lowest maximum in the satellite record.
> 
> This has naturally set the media off ringing alarm bells, like this silly one from Climate Home, “Arctic sea ice fell to its lowest winter extent in recorded history”
> 
> *The reality is much more boring. According to NSIDC themselves, maximum extent this year has dropped from 5.612 to 5.607 million sq miles since last year. Such a small amount must be well within the margin of error, although these are not published.*
> 
> Far from collapsing, Arctic sea ice area has been remarkably stable in the last decade.


M'bold.

Related:

You Won’t Hear The Truth From Mark Serreze



> It’s hard to know where to start!
> 
> They can’t even get their numbers right – according to NSIDC, sea ice extent fell from 5.612 to 5.607 million sq miles, which is a drop of less than 0.1%, and not 0.2%.
> 
> But the real nonsense comes from Mark Serreze and his sidekick, Ted Scambos.
> 
> Abnormally high temperatures? Well, certainly that is what DMI report:
> 
> ...
> 
> But unprecedented? The truth is that these sort of temperatures are not unusual in Arctic winter. Intrusions of mild air from lower latitudes can have an amplified effect in the Arctic because the air is so dry. *In terms of heat content, the change means diddly squat.*


M'bold.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

So, how's El Nino doing?

El Nino Update



> There are signs that the El Nino is now rapidly declining, according to this week’s NWS update.
> 
> ...
> 
> SST anomalies have been declining since mid January, but the pace seems to have accelerated in the last week.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is not just sea surface temperatures which are falling away. A huge pool of colder than normal water below the surface is building its way back east, and has now reached 110 degrees west.
> 
> ...
> 
> Perhaps most revealing of all is the rapidly decline in upper upper ocean heat anomalies since November in the Central and Eastern Pacific, which now stand in negative territory.
> 
> ...
> 
> Strong La Nina conditions now look increasingly likely towards the end of this year.


If a La Nina does develop, it will be interesting to see how it will affect global temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

"You can't handle the truth!!!"

Afraid Of The Truth, Mikey?



> Mikey Mann has disappeared my inconvenient comment, just as he did with Tony Heller’s yesterday.
> 
> This is the graph he does not want his dopey little followers to see:


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Global Warming community's real agenda.

Fraud



> While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
> 
> We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
> 
> *If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.*


M'bold.

In sum:



> This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. *The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state.* They’ve admitted this themselves.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Here’s why women are more likely to care about the climate



> Everything is a gender equity issue. Who knew the climate was sexist?
> 
> _“…women have good reason to be worried, given that climate change will affect women around the world the most. Climate change is often framed as an ecological disaster, less frequently as a key crisis for global gender equality.”​_
> In the current climate men have shorter lifespans and higher suicide rates. The very caring women at “Women’s Agenda” don’t seem to care about that. Nevermind.


In sum:



> If the women writing “Women’s Agenda” had been socialized to understand logic and reason, they’d be fighting to make this debate more inclusive, to get women involved in the decision making, and to help women be more confident and informed on important issues worth billions of dollars.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Take out volcanic cooling, remove naturally occurring warming & cooling cycles of ENSO, that graph looks pretty flat, don't it...

Little Or No Global Warming Since 1990



> Contrary to the endless lies of government climate scientists, there has been little or no troposphere warming since 1990. There was also no troposphere warming from the 1950s to 1990 or 2000.


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

Drugs...

Dion: Climate Change played significant role in emergence of ISIS, Islamic revolutions



> Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion focused his most recent speech at the Canada in Global Affairs Conference at the University of Ottawa on the deep implications of climate change on security issues and regional instability, including by creating a fertile economic and social environment for Islamic unrest, Islamic revolutions and the emergence of Islamic global terrorist movements which openly declared war on the Western civilization.
> 
> *With mentioning the words “Islam” and “terrorism”, Dion provided his own theory (based on the “best experts”)* to the “Arab Spring” (series of uprisings lead by radical Islamic movements that has been rattling the Muslim world since 2011), the civil war in Syria between radical Shiite – Alawite Muslim coalition and radical Sunni Muslim groups and the civil war in Somalia in which Islamic radical groups took control over large swaths of the country.


Only the best ones? Well, in that case...


----------



## FeXL

From the "Department of Your Tax Dollars at Work"...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

If this wasn't so hilarious, it'd be sad...

Kill the Deniers — a government-funded fantasy play where “guns” solve climate issues



> This is your brain on government funding (pace Mark Steyn). The government of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) gave $18k to a theatre group to put on a play called “Kill the Deniers”. Now, lucky us, we can read the e-book. *Because the climate debate really needs more guns, hostages, brute force, and threats right?
> 
> Well, it does if you don’t have any evidence.*


M'bold.

Unfortunately, this isn't satire...


----------



## FeXL

Don't need to be a sociologist to figger this one out...

The Cassandra Effect — Academic Apes protecting territory



> There are three conditions that generate aggressive boundary disputes:
> 
> _This threat response appears to be heightened when three conditions exists. First against altruistic outsiders who give their labour freely and so not only threaten the academics perceived territory, but also undermine the economic value of academia. Second, outsiders who have a high level of qualification and wider experience than academia are seen as more of a potential threat. And thirdly, when outsiders formulate their contributions in the style, language and format suggestive of academic work, this in itself signals an incursion into the academic territory.
> 
> Thus, whilst academics often reject external work as being of poor quality, perversely, far from eliciting the expected intellectual response expected, work of the highest calibre, by those most qualified, and freely given, is most likely to be treated as a direct threat and stimulate the most hostile response from the “academic ape”.​_


"Boundary disputes?" Where I grew up it was called pi$$ing on yer territory...


----------



## FeXL

Those who do not recall the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them...

Met Bureau Bingo: warm autumn nights sold as “Hottest Ever” March extreme



> It’s another month of BOM Bingo. The ABC and BOM are trumpeting a “hottest” ever headline yet again, and Warwick Hughes is onto them already.
> 
> *Conveniently the ABC forgets to mention that March Maximum Temps have been hotter before many times and with a pattern that has nothing to do with CO2. How many in the ABC audience would know that?*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

The 600 lb gorilla...

CO2 emissions? It’s China China China all the way down…



> No matter which way we slice and dice it, China is The-CO2-Player that matters. India is forecast for a larger percentage-wise increase, but it’s starting from a small base. By 2030 even after doubling its output, it will still be barely a quarter of China’s total mega-ton production. The Congo and Indonesia are among countries forecast to ramp up production of CO2 massively, yet both of them are but a spec. *The hard numbers show that if CO2 actually mattered, and the eco-greens really cared about it, they be talking about “The China Problem”.*
> 
> Australia is irrelevant, except in some symbolic sacrificial way. The 28% massive reduction, at great cost, will amount to nothing globally (assuming it can even be achieved). Though Tasmania may win the global race for the fastest transition from first to third world. (North Korea here we come).
> 
> In the end, the real drivers of global CO2 may or may not be things like forest and peat fires, ocean currents, phytoplankton in any case. Won’t it be a great day when we figure exactly where all that CO2 is coming from and going to?


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely...

Thankfully, Survey Shows Many Science Teachers Reject Climate Change Dogma



> A national survey of 1,500 public middle and high school science teachers, representing all 50 states, found just half of those who discuss climate change in the classroom have partaken of the climate alarmists’ Kool-Aid and are brainwashing students to believe humans are causing catastrophic climate change. The survey was conducted by the National Center for Science Education and published in the widely read academic journal _Science_.


----------



## FeXL

The Climate Change Scam BRILLIANTLY Summed Up In One Cartoon

Yep...


----------



## CubaMark

*InfluenceMap.org Tracks Fossil Fuel Lobbying Efforts*

We hear a lot these days about how fossil fuel companies are spending large amounts of money to influence policy and legislative decisions. The parallels between the “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil” tactics the tobacco industry perfected over several decades and the concerted efforts employed by the fossil fuel industry are shocking. In essence, companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people that burning fossil fuels is completely safe and has no impact on the global climate.








The graphic above traces how much money ExxonMobil and Shell spend each year to hype their business model. It also traces the money that flows from the American Petroleum Institute. Combined with the dollars coming from a few other major players, the total amounts to $114 million annually that goes to currying political favor and sponsoring misleading advertising. “Extrapolated over the entire fossil fuel and other industrial sectors beyond, it is not hard to consider that this obstructive climate policy lobbying spending may be in the order of $500m annually,” the group says. It’s entire report is available online.​
(Gas2)


----------



## Macfury

Only difference between the tobacco companies and these lobbyists is that these lobbyists have the science behind them... and they happen to be correct.


----------



## FeXL

Cross posted from the Alternative Energy thread.

Germany To Abandon $1.1 Trillion Wind Power Program By 2019



> The government estimates that it will spend *over $1.1 trillion financially supporting wind power*


M'bold.



CubaMark said:


> Combined with the dollars coming from a few other major players, the total amounts to $114 million annually that goes to currying political favor and sponsoring misleading advertising. *“Extrapolated over the entire fossil fuel and other industrial sectors beyond, it is not hard to consider that this obstructive climate policy lobbying spending may be in the order of $500m annually,”* the group says.​


M'bold.

Hey, CM, how many $500 millions in $1.1 trillion? Let me do the math for you. 2200. And that's even assuming their numbers are anywhere near what they say they are. 

That's. One. Single. Country.


----------



## FeXL

Study: No Difference Between 20th-century Rainfall Patterns and Those in the Pre-*Industrial Era



> What a shocker. The climate cycles keep going up and down and so-called global warming” doesn’t change it
> _Predictions that a warmer *climate will lead to more rain for some but longer droughts for others might be wrong, according to a study of 12 centuries worth of data.
> 
> The study, published today in science journal Nature, found there was no difference between 20th-century rainfall patterns and those in the pre-*industrial era. The findings are at odds with earlier studies suggesting climate* change causes dry areas to become drier and wet areas to become wetter.
> 
> Fredrik Ljungqvist and colleagues at Stockholm University analysed previously published records of rain, drought, tree rings, marine sediment and ice cores, each spanning at least the past millennium across the northern hemisphere.​_


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Green heads exploding everywhere.

Cut carbon emissions by 50%? — Greens nightmare — Coal gasification may be the answer



> A new MIT report suggests a better way to use coal in power-stations and potentially cut CO2 emissions by 50%. The process involves gasifying coal and producing electricity in one process at the same site. The coal only has to be heated once, and the electricity comes from a fuel cell, not a fire — it’s a chemical reaction across a membrane. The output is potentially much more efficient, and makes no ash. The researchers argue we could get twice as much electricity for each ton of coal burned. Currently coal fired power pulls out 30% of the chemical energy in coal, but coupling these two processes might increase it to 55-60%.
> 
> This report is based on simulations, but the separate processes are already well developed and running. The next step would be a fully functioning pilot plant to put the two together and test the idea. If there was the political will it could be done in a few years. There probably won’t be.
> 
> The Greens of course will hate the idea because the Evil-Factor of coal is near 100%.
> 
> *In the eco-collectivist-world, cutting “carbon” is important, but apparently not as important as propping up a dependent lobby group for big government (that’s the entire renewables industry) or crippling independent corporations which have power and money outside big-government control. There is also the reputational damage of admitting that windmills and solar were a fantasy that has wasted billions of our children’s money. On top of that, there’s the potential death of a Really Useful Scare. All up, the future of Life on Earth is at stake, but that probably won’t be enough for the Greens to lobby for this approach to get tested.*


M'bold.

Agreed.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Study: No Difference Between 20th-century Rainfall Patterns and Those in the Pre-*Industrial Era
> Yep.


The Mann technique demands he pick his cherries to match pre-determined conclusions. This study will never pass muster with the science is settled crowd.


----------



## FeXL

Long article, good read.

Twilight of the Climate Change Movement



> The UN’s climate summit in Paris at the end of 2015 concluded with a bang. The world’s governments promised sweeping cuts in carbon emissions. Rich countries promised to help poor ones with $100 billion per year in climate assistance. The consensus quickly jelled that this was a major, historic achievement.
> 
> Then came the fizzle: The agreement is non-binding. Secretary of State John Kerry asserted on NBC’s Meet the Press that compliance would be enforced through the “powerful weapon” of public shaming, apparently implying a policy of verbal confrontation toward states that fall short. The Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg called the Paris agreement the “costliest in history” if implemented. According to Lomborg, the agreement would “reduce temperatures by 2100 by just 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)…. This is simply cynical political theater, meant to convince us that our leaders are taking serious action…a phenomenally expensive but almost empty gesture.” NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.”
> 
> Hansen’s assessment is probably close to the mark—and he and his fellow alarmists have only themselves to blame. While those who flatly deny the possibility of any global warming can be readily brushed aside, *the alarmists have been much too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about precisely what the evidence shows. Indeed, they have frequently treated such questions as heresies to be persecuted, adopting an even more virulently anti-scientific mindset than the one they accuse others of.*


Link's bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on catastrophic acceleration of sea level rates.

Broken Altimetry? 225 Tide Gauges Show Sea Level Rising Only 1.48 mm Per Year …Less Than Half The Satellite-Claimed Rate!



> Stunningly, *contrary to the claims of the modeled reconstructions* of sea level rise (with “adjustments” added), actual physical measurements indicate that sea levels are rising at rates well less than half the claimed rates when including GIA “adjustments” and satellite altimetry modeled reconstructions.
> 
> The best estimate is a median global mean sea level value of 1.48 mm/yr, or less than 6 inches per century.


Emphasis mine.

Yeah, not so much.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "Hottest Yeah Evah!"

Hot globe was a very cold year at the South Pole, very average year in Australia



> I call it Met Bureau Bingo. Ultimately there are so many hair-splitting quixotic variants of weather stats that a dedicated team can always find a record. Here are some other trends that didn’t make the media.
> 
> We all heard about the record heat in the Arctic, but we didn’t hear about the unusual cold in Antarctica where running twelve month averages are equal to the lowest recorded since satellites began in 1979.
> 
> *So carbon dioxide causes a hot Arctic and a cold Antarctic, and both at the same time.** Where’s the _global_ warming?


M'bold.

Amazing molecule, that CO2...


----------



## FeXL

The North Atlantic Keeps Getting Colder



> For the last couple of years, SSTs have been tumbling and are now back to 1980 levels. Expect a cool summer if we get weather off the Atlantic.
> 
> It is also worth noting that the North Pacific warm blob has well and truly gone.


Good visuals.


----------



## eMacMan

Old but worth a review as things have not changed much in the past 3 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkwX0x63d0


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea level rise.

Apocalypse of sea levels coming. Global Worriers on beach should sell up to deniers



> A group called NGIS Australia are helping climate skeptics find cheaper beach-houses. They’ve put up a website called Coastalrisk.com.au and an App to scarify homeowners. There’s a spike coming, it’s accelerating, and we’re talking billions of dollars.


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

On NASA defending Bill Nye.

NASA — done moon — now “smacking down” people on facebook (to help Bill Nye the science guy)



> Forget spacewalks and mars missions, today it’s newsworthy if NASA writes on Bill Nye’s facebook page.
> 
> _“NASA BRUTALLY shuts down climate change deniers on Facebook as they mock Bill Nye” — Express
> 
> “NASA smacks down climate change doubters in Facebook discussion” –Washington Post​_
> Here comes a “smackdown”…
> 
> _When it was accused of “fudging numbers” in producing global warming data, it retorted: “NASA does not ‘fudge’ numbers. All data requires statistical adjustments to remove bias.”​_
> … more a tap on the wrist with a logical fallacy and a loose generalization.


Wow. Brutal...

Is a <snort> really required here?


----------



## FeXL

The Government Knew



> The White House and Democrat state attorney generals are conspiring to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of people who disagree with the White House climate scam. The White House is openly committing a felony covered under civil rights law.
> 
> ...
> 
> The US Government has long known that runaway global warming is not possible. A 1941 Department of Agriculture climate report covered this.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1961, there was unanimous consensus that the Earth was cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> By 1970, the US and Soviet Union were worried about a new ice age.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1971, NASA’s two top climatologists reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1972, the top climate expert in the UK predicted global cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1974, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that global cooling was occurring and dangerous.
> 
> ...
> 
> That same year, the top climatologists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reported the same thing. Global cooling as occurring and a threat.
> 
> ...
> 
> Climate experts considered melting the Arctic to stop global cooling.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1975, the world’s climatologists agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1976, the CIA warned that global cooling was occurring and a serious threat.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1977, the UN reported that Earth may be headed into a new ice age.
> 
> ...
> 
> In 1978, government experts reported that there was no end in sight to the 30 year cooling trend.
> 
> ...
> 
> The White House has a global warming agenda and doesn’t want people to remember the post-1940 cooling, so they had government agencies alter the data to make the cooling disappear.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA has massively altered their own data to increase warming.
> 
> ...
> 
> *There is no global warming crisis.* There is a crisis of the White House having government agencies manipulate data, in pursuit of their global warming agenda. There is also a crisis of the White House attacking the Bill of Rights in pursuit of their global warming agenda.


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

New York Times Caught Lying – Yet Again



> The New York Times is lying about climate yet again, claiming that last year was a record fire year at 10.1 million acres and it was due to climate.
> 
> ...
> 
> The level of fraud is off-scale. The New York Times reported in 1938 that more than twice that many acres burned in 1937. Why didn’t Matt Richtel and Fernanda Santos research their own paper?


----------



## FeXL

Of course they don't...

So NASA – GISS says it does not ‘fudge’ numbers



> Thanks to Ole Humlum at Climate4U we can see NASA – GISS not-fudging temperatures below. They are very active at it.
> 
> *This graph shows how thermometers from 1910 still need to be adjusted, even 100 years later. They need constant correction (the bottom blue line is the month of Jan 1910). Strangely, even modern thermometers need correction too (the top red line is January 2000).*
> 
> Over the eight years since 2008, the anomaly for Jan 1910 was re-estimated in many steps to be 0.7C cooler than it was thought to be back in 2008. Meanwhile the anomaly for Jan 2000 was adjusted to be 0.09C warmer between 2008 and 2016. Presumably the original raw temperatures were already adjusted prior to 2008. Who knows?
> 
> And you thought that temperature data was just a number on a page and once a calendar year was over it was finished. How naive. Turns out it’s a fluid entity traveling through the fourth dimension. Luckily NASA GISS are able to capture the way temperatures of the past are still changing today.


M'bold.

Curious, init...


----------



## FeXL

Good, entertaining read. 

“The Illusion Of Debate”: A History of the Climate Issue—Part 1



> This timeline, like the climate debate, is best taken with whiskey. Strictly for climate-tragics, it’s layered deep, well aged, and may not make any sense at all. It’s art. It’s been a looong time coming (the second longest draft post ever under development on this blog). Thanks to Brad Keyes. _Smile :- )_. — Jo


----------



## eMacMan

*Cowley Ridge is Coming Down*

Cowley Ridge is coming down | Pincher Creek Echo

What the story does not mention is that no one has seen any of these turbines turning in the past two years. I suspect that the one they did get going was a test to see how much it would cost to get them running again. Obviously that number was more than Trans Alta was willing to pay.

Any ways 20 years to payback investment (with subsidies). Dead at 21. Buried at 23. Sixty down 600 to go!

Note: Each tower equates to three tons of fiberglass in the local landfill. From the sounds of things it takes a 5 man crew with crane probably an entire day or more for each tower. That half day is just to get said tower and turbine onto the ground.


----------



## FeXL

The Aussies are getting it.

Poll: Australians more skeptical. Climate change “dropped off” political radar



> In Australia the latest (unpublished) opinion poll shows concern about tackling climate change has fallen from 55% in 2007 to 35%.
> 
> Groupthinking struggles to understand


----------



## FeXL

NOAA’s US Climate Extremes Index Is Fraudulent



> I overlaid the actual NOAA data on the NOAA CEI graph below. The graphs were similar until about 1980, when the CEI graph sharply diverged from the underlying data.
> 
> ...
> 
> What could have caused this divergence? *The primary factor is that the amount of fabricated data used by NOAA has increased since 1980 from 12% to 47%. If NOAA doesn’t have station data during a particular month, they simply make the data up for that station.* For some reason, they have been losing huge amounts of data in recent years, and now almost half of their data is fake.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, Bill Nye, the un-science guy, offered a bet to skeptics a while back.

Stephen Goddard has offered one of his own.

My $20,000 Bet For Bill Nye



> Bill Nye wants to make bets about hottest year/decade ever.
> 
> My bet for Bill Nye is that the average percentage of hot days (over 90 degrees) at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network stations, will be lower this year/decade than it was in the 1930’s.
> 
> Are you up to the bet, Bill? Or do you believe that “hot” means something other than hot?


----------



## FeXL

Further on this whole Exxon Climate papers BS...

The Exxon Climate Papers



> New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched an investigation and issued a subpoena demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
> 
> Massachusetts, the US Virgin Islands, and California are also investigating ExxonMobil. It is interesting that all but one of the attorneys general are Democrats. The remaining attorney general is Claude Walker of the US Virgin Islands who is a Green leaning Independent. So, this is a very partisan investigation, carefully coordinated with anti-fossil fuel activists. How much is there to it?


----------



## FeXL

Further on the folly of the Paris meetings.

The Paris Agreement: An Assessment

I'll cut right to the chase:



> Innovation and associated economic development will likely be the most effective means by which humans address climate change. *But the commitments made under the Paris Agreement would divert trillions of dollars into low-carbon technologies and government-funded schemes for mitigation and adaptation, thereby undermining the bottom-up processes that drive more widespread innovation* and, as a result, impeding the ability of people to adapt to climate change and other threats.
> 
> Given the potential for the Paris Agreement to result in harmful and even counterproductive restrictions on economic activity, it would appear that ratification is not in the interests of the majority of signatory nations.


M'bold.

However, will that deter anyone? Unlikely. PM Pompadour is in NYC right now, getting ready to sign it. Right after his photo session in the gym. I kid you not...


----------



## FeXL

Difficult to argue when the numbers are right in front of you.

EPA Chief admits: ‘I’m not disagreeing’ states with climate regs have ‘triple’ the electric rate



> Pointing out the high costs of electricity in states that have implemented climate regulations similar to EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, Senator Bill Cassidy tells EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, “*states that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs [while those] that emit the least have the highest — in some cases triple…”* Administrator McCarthy responds, “I guess I’m not disagreeing with your– the facts that you’ve outlined them just there.”


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the screeds from warmists is about the Arctic warming uncontrollably & without precedence. The "Canary In The Coal Mine", as it were.

The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic

Abstract



> _*During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s*, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. *Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward.* The maximum recorded movement involved cod, which spread approximately 1200 km northward along West Greenland. Migration patterns of “warmer water” species also changed with earlier arrivals and later departures. New spawning sites were observed farther north for several species or stocks while for others the relative contribution from northern spawning sites increased. Some southern species of fish that were unknown in northern areas prior to the warming event became occasional, and in some cases, frequent visitors. Higher recruitment and growth led to increased biomass of important commercial species such as cod and herring in many regions of the northern North Atlantic. Benthos associated with Atlantic waters spread northward off Western Svalbard and eastward into the eastern Barents Sea. Based on increased phytoplankton and zooplankton production in several areas, it is argued that bottom-up processes were the primary cause of these changes. *The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century.* _


M'bold.

More:



> All of the factors were present then that we see now – warmer sea temperatures, reduced sea ice, enhanced Atlantic inflow, and ecosystem changes.


More:



> *Finally, while many fisheries scientists working during that era were familiar with the event, many of today’s marine ecologists and fisheries scientists have either forgotten or do not know about it.* This needs to be rectified given the important lessons it can teach us about what to expect under future climate change.


Link's bold.

Yeah, so much for unprecedented.

Next?


----------



## FeXL

In the news today - Josh 370



> 'Subsidy Sam' was written by Lyndsey Ward to counter the shameless pro-wind propaganda allowed in schools. Lyndsey asked me to help out with a cartoon and I was only too happy to oblige. Today 'Subsidy Sam' made it into The Press and Journal, a Scottish newspaper - see below.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "The Hawtest Yeah Evah".

The Hottest Year Ever



> Experts tell us that 2015 was the hottest year ever™, despite the fact that there was very little hot weather.
> 
> ...
> 
> During July, 1936 afternoon temperatures at Fairfield, Iowa averaged 19F hotter than 2015. Every single July day in 1936 was hotter than 2015 (the hottest year ever™ .)


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, the condensed version is that Gavin, among others, doesn't like the graphs having a starting point at the beginning of the data. They believe it should be somewhere near the middle. However, this visual trickery reduces the apparent effect. See Fig 4.

Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”



> In the past few weeks, I’ve been re-examining the long-standing dispute over the discrepancy between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. My interest was prompted in part by Gavin Schmidt’s recent attack on a graphic used by John Christy in numerous presentations (see recent discussion here by Judy Curry). Schmidt made the sort of offensive allegations that he makes far too often:
> 
> _@curryja use of Christy’s misleading graph instead is the sign of partisan not a scientist. YMMV. tweet;
> 
> @curryja Hey, if you think it’s fine to hide uncertainties, error bars & exaggerate differences to make political points, go right ahead. tweet._
> 
> As a result, Curry decided not to use Christy’s graphic in her recent presentation to a congressional committee. In today’s post, I’ll examine the validity (or lack) of Schmidt’s critique.


Related:

Gav loses it - Josh 371


----------



## FeXL

Could just as easy be posted in the Anti-Progressive thread.

Scientific silencers on the left are trying to shut down climate skepticism



> Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, *to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.*


Science is not decided in a court of law, nor by a show of hands (consensus).

Screw 'em...

Related:

Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech



> Matt Ridley writes in the Times:
> 
> _The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change.
> Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. *The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.*​_


M'bold.

Can't win the argument with facts & data? Shut down the conversation completely...


----------



## FeXL

Major New Complaint Submitted To BBC Over Climate Bias



> A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. *The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.*


No small potatoes...


----------



## FeXL

Further on sea level rise data.

NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering



> NASA has doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise since Hansen 1983. In 1983, NASA showed very little sea level rise after 1950. Now they show rapid sea level rise from 1950 to 1980.


----------



## FeXL

There is evidence from satellite photos that, in the presence of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the planet has had a significant "greening".

18 million square kilometers more greenery due to “carbon pollution” that the Greens hate



> Yet again, a satellite study of leaf area shows that the world is greener than it was in 1982. There are more plants mostly thanks to CO2 aerial fertilization. The biggest benefits from CO2 are in the warm tropics. The extra greenery in colder areas was due to that other disaster called “global warming”. About a tenth of the greening had nothing to do with either carbon pollution or extra warmth and was apparently thanks to nitrogen from man-made fertilizers.
> 
> *Obviously we need a $10 billion dollar program to stop this immediately.*


M'bold.

Yep.



> _the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by *18 million square kilometres — about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent* — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).​_


M'bold.


----------



## SINC

The brighter side of CO2 . . .

CO2 is making Earth greener; too bad about the rising seas - seattlepi.com


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

SNOW to sweep Britain: UK set for 10 DAYS of freezing gales and ice as temperatures drop



> Temperatures will stay well below average for the time of year with nighttime lows dipping to -5C (23F) in parts.
> 
> *Arctic gales will make it feel close to -10C (14F) in exposed regions threatening to topple the record low of -9.4C (15F) set in May 1941.*


M'bold.

Huh...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the greening of the planet & another great cartoon from Josh.

Told you so - Josh 372



> There's been a lot of Twittering over an article in Nature Climate Change about the greening of the planet. It might not exactly be ground breaking science, it is after all something sceptics have been pointing out for some time, but it is great to see the story in Nature all the same.
> 
> But to get alarmists to admit this is good news will, I suspect, be like pulling hen's teeth.


Related (& from the BBC, no less!) 

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'



> Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.
> 
> "This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."


The fact that the Beeb would even include such a quote in an article is progress in itself.


----------



## eMacMan

Once again Elmer has nailed it!
I'm a Denier


----------



## FeXL

Just...stupid.

Media Blames Canadian Forest Fires On Global Warming



> Media outlets are already linking a massive wildfire in Alberta, Canada, to global warming.
> 
> CBS News ran a piece, “Raging Canadian wildfire points to global warming” and quoted the website of the left-wing environmental group, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Glen MacDonald, a geography professor at University of California, Los Angeles, to make its scientific case. CNN made a similar argument connecting the wildfire to global warming as did the progressive outlet Mother Jones. Higher temperatures from global warming cause accelerated springs and drier conditions, triggering fires.


More:



> University of Colorado global warming specialist Roger Pielke Jr. says that *media and environmental groups who blame wildfires on global warming have engaged in “noble-cause corruption” to make a political, rather than scientific, case against global warming*. Pielke says attributing wildfires to global warming goes against the findings of scientists.


M'bold.

Related:

Alberta’s Wildfire



> _To understand why the fire has been so catastrophic, we only need to consult the above article in the Edmonton Journal:
> 
> In 1971, more than half of Alberta’s boreal forest was deemed to be young, with about a third immature, five per cent mature and a small portion deemed “overmature”.
> 
> By 2011, that had changed to less than 10 per cent young, about a quarter immature, more than 40 per cent mature, and more than 20 per cent overmature.
> 
> “Before major wildfire suppression programs, boreal forests historically burned on an average cycle ranging from 50 to 200 years as a result of lightning and human-caused wildfires,” the panel found in a report released in 2012.
> 
> *“Wildfire suppression has significantly reduced the area burned in Alberta’s boreal forest. However, due to reduced wildfire activity, forests of Alberta are ageing, which ultimately changes ecosystems and is beginning to increase the risk of large and potentially costly catastrophic wildfires.”*
> 
> The panel reported that Alberta can expect more such dire situations due to humans living closer to the forest, and the aging of the Alberta forest._​


M'bold.

Next?


----------



## Macfury

Just like California wildfires that began after brush clearing was illegalized.



FeXL said:


> Just...stupid.
> 
> Media Blames Canadian Forest Fires On Global Warming
> 
> 
> 
> More:
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Related:
> 
> Alberta’s Wildfire
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Next?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Just like California wildfires that began after brush clearing was illegalized.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely...

An Inconvenient Truth: Liberal Climate Inquisition Can’t Explain Past Temperature Changes



> The Heritage Foundation’s new Paris-bubble-popping science summary is also a case of letting the numbers tell a story. A story many never hear in the media-hyped spectacle that is international climate policy.
> 
> ...
> 
> For instance, the chart above shows reconstructed average world temperature data for the past 500,000 years. Depending on the magnification and size of your monitor, each pencil dot would span something on the order of 1,000 years. The myriad 10-degree Celsius temperature flips all happened before man-made carbon dioxide could have had any impact—the final temperature spike started at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> *Now see if you can follow this: The “science thought police” insist that even though none of the temperature variations for the first 499,950 years had anything to do with human activity, virtually none of the temperature increases of the past 50 years had anything to do with nature. Got it?*


M'bold.

Got it...


----------



## FeXL

So, the informed among you will already know about Marc Morano's climate film, _Climate Hustle_. It played Mon, May 2 at 400 theatres in the US & Canada. I wanted to see it in Kalispell, MT (closest venue to me) but was busy repairing the alternator on the Hawg & missed it. It's receiving good reviews from anybody who pays attention to the facts.

That said, apparently that late night loser, Jimmy Kimmel, pulled in a few folks a couple weeks back & taped a response to the film, even though they had not seen it.

Kimmel Airs 'F-Bomb' Clip to Mock Climate Skeptic Film He Didn't Even See



> The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host used seven minutes of his Monday show to mock a climate skeptic’s film he obviously hadn’t seen – since he repeats the very alarmist talking points the film debunks.
> 
> ...
> 
> He then aired a two-minute climate change advocacy “message” featuring scientists dropping the “F-Bomb” to insult anyone skeptical of man-made climate change.
> 
> Kimmel’s rant against “Climate Hustle” displays a complete ignorance of the content of the film – and deploys the same shopworn deceitful and mean-spirited tactics the film exposes and addresses.


----------



## FeXL

Next instalment from David Evans.

New Science 24: Is that one new Solar force, or two? The Force-ND Hypothesis



> There are two key clues, almost contradicting each other, which we must solve to figure out what Force X is.
> 
> How do we explain that mysterious pattern — the little spike of extra sunlight each sunspot cycle doesn’t warm the Earth as it arrives — and it should. Instead, the warming appears greatly amplified 11 years later (or one sunspot cycle later). What’s going on? Logically the sunlight itself is not the direct cause, but only a signal, a leading indicator of something else going on — perhaps the solar wind, the magnetic fluxes, or the changes in the UV-Infra Red spectrum. Any one of these (or all of them) or maddeningly, even something else, could be influencing cloud cover on Earth — and some action on clouds is by far the most likely mechanism to amplify the solar effect. They blanket 60% of Earth, and small changes make large differences. We live on a Water-Planet.
> 
> So having looked at the reasons for Force X, we now split it into two different forces (N and D) to see if that fits the evidence better (I think it does). Perhaps the spectral changes cause the delay, but something about the magnetic flux causes the notching effect (where the energy spikes in extra sunlight seem to disappear). If there are two forces at work Force X won’t cut it. We need Force D and Force N. The timing of one force (X) is messy — at the peak of a cycle we are notching away the current spike, but amplifying the spike found in the cycle before? Instead there is a simplicity about saying that the notching force is immediate, but different to the delayed force. It’s even possible that they both act through clouds, but they could be acting on different kinds of clouds (or through different altitudes or latitudes). David calculates that to “notch” out the extra sunlight would only take an increase in clouds of 0.05%. It’s too small to detect.
> 
> As usual, electrical engineers will be most at home with David’s analysis. Force D works like a low pass filter and notching occurs in every Western electrical system, both of which are bread and butter stuff for electrical engineers. Come with us on another step towards figuring out the system…


----------



## Macfury

I recall years ago that a study indicated that average citizens on some perverse level felt that the threat of nuclear annihilation gave their lives meaning--there was a missile with their name on it somewhere. I think "climate change" fulfills the same perverse need today.


----------



## FeXL

Nice, simple, revealing graphic.

Monckton: IPCC climate models speeding out of control compared to real world



> Christopher Monckton reminds us of just how badly the “experts” have failed in the last 15 years, even including the recent hottest ever El Nino months. China bombed the atmosphere with record carbon “pollution” — _worse than we thought_. The world though, warms sedately at a mere half a degree _per century_. *This is what 95% certainty looks like.* — Jo


Italics from the link, m'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Here they go again...

Report suggesting new carbon tax for Australia hidden until after election



> While Turnbull and the Liberals are attacking Labor for wanting a “massive new carbon tax on electricity,” it turns out that the Climate Change Authority is going to recommend the Liberals do exactly that but not ’til after the election. Allegedly Greg Hunt’s office are “very happy” that the report will be delayed. It would muddy up that scare campaign about Labor’s carbon tax if the punters knew the Libs planned to bring one in too. Labor and the Greens are crying foul, saying the report should be released now.
> 
> We are bizarrely reliving 2009. The public don’t want carbon trading. They have voted against it at every opportunity. They don’t want to spend even $2 to neutralize flights, yet both major political parties are now demanding we have one. If the report is suppressed in any way it shows Turnbull and Hunt know the public don’t want a carbon tax, but they’re going to give them one despite that.


----------



## FeXL

And, fresh from the Department of Fruit Loops & Whackos...

Climate change is making us mean, ugly and racist



> Don’t turn on the air conditioner. You might make someone a racist:
> 
> _Climate change is spawning injustice, racism, intolerance and wars, according to author and political activist Naomi Klein.​_
> Got moral decay? High Priestess Naomi Klein, expert psychoanalyst, says blame the weather. John Vidal, writer for The Guardian, believes her:
> 
> _“It is not about things getting hotter and wetter but things getting meaner and uglier, unless we change the corrosive values that are pitting people against each other,”…​_
> See, some people think mums and dads are supposed to teach values, but really it’s a humidity thing.
> 
> (Obviously, the way to fight racism is with biogas.
> 
> …and maybe ethanol.)
> 
> *Naomi’s thesis reminds us that when the weather was ideal — like in 1915, there were no wars and everyone liked everyone.*


M'bold.

Yep...

And, if you don't believe the illustrious Ms Klein on warming, perhaps this report from NCAR on the chance of an ice age in the 70's increasing terrorism will send the concept home:

NCAR 1975 : Global Cooling Caused Terrorism – National Security Crisis



> In 1975, the top climatologist in the US warned that global cooling was going to cause _terrorism, nuclear blackmail, malnutrition and starvation._
> 
> ...
> 
> Experts now know that global warming causes _terrorism, nuclear blackmail, malnutrition and starvation_, and our time to save the planet ran out in 2012.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I recall years ago that a study indicated that average citizens on some perverse level felt that the threat of nuclear annihilation gave their lives meaning--there was a missile with their name on it somewhere. I think "climate change" fulfills the same perverse need today.


The weak minded, the thin skinned & the spineless have always required constant reassurance that their lives hold meaning...


----------



## FeXL

On data: adjustments, false positives, lies, BS & other chicanery plus, historical records.

Alterations To Surface Temperatures Since 1974

Good visuals. He sums:



> It is 100% clear that the NASA temperature record is complete garbage, and that they are simply shaping curves to match the global warming agenda.


Backing Away From The Sea Level Scam

He sums:



> Like everything else about the climate scam, sea level rise is just one more thing for scientists to lie about in exchange for grant dollars.


Sinking Solomon Islands and climate link 'exaggerated', admits study's author



> A new study published in Environmental Research Letters shows that some low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands are being gobbled up by "extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development, rather than sea level rise alone." *Despite headlines claiming that man-made climate change has caused five Islands (out of nearly a thousand) to disappear from rising sea levels, a closer inspection of the study reveals the true cause is natural, and the report's lead author says many of the headlines have been 'exaggerated' to ill-effect.*


M'bold.

Huh...

Obama’s NASA – “The Wrong Stuff”



> In 1999, NASA published this global temperature graph, showing 0.4C global warming from 1880 to 1997. They also showed that there was very little difference between rural and urban stations, indicating a high degree of confidence in their data.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA’s current version of the same graph looks very different, showing about 1.0C global warming from 1880 to 1997. *By altering the data they have more than doubled the amount of warming during the same time period.*


M'bold.

1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse



> A study done on… golly, Antarctic Ice, allegedly shows that in the catchment area for Newcastle in NSW, Australia, the last 100 years have been pretty darn nice, compared to the past when droughts and big-wet periods used to last a lot longer.
> 
> Set aside, for a moment, that the ice cores are thousands of kilometers away and in a totally different climate, if they are right, if, then natural climate change is much worse than our short climate records are telling us. And if our current records are so inadequate and don’t represent the “old-Normal”, then we have a flying pigs of predicting the “New Normal”. Has the climate changed at all, or is the new one just like the old old one?


Study Finds “No significant global precipitation change from 1850 to present”



> A paper recently published finds that there has been no significant global precipitation change from since 1850.


More:



> The study is particularly critical of other studies which claim to have detected significant changes over he last few decades


Good read.

And, a couple of articles on exactly what is warming (hint: it ain't warm months getting warmer). Good visuals.

Update On Thermal Growing Seasons



> Just to pick up on one of Paul’s points, the 1981-2010 average is 270 days, implying a growing season of roughly mid Feb to mid Nov. DECC state that the increase since 1980 is largely due to the early onset of spring, which would indicate warmer Februarys, rather than warmer springs.
> 
> This would appear to correlate with the Met Office temperature record for February, showing a sharp uptick from the mid 1980s. It is clear that this is predominantly due to the lack of any really cold months since 1986, and that the warm months are not getting any warmer.


Analysis Of February CET



> This shows that high temperatures have changed little over the years. In contrast, we see that there is a clear upward trend in the lowest temperatures [in February], something that tallies with my findings for March and April.


Today’s Climate Fraud From Climate Central



> This is the standard climate fraud from people who are paid to lie about climate. They started their trend in the coldest decade of the temperature record. *Had they started in any other decade and used the actual measured thermometer data, there would have been no warming or cooling.* The warmest decade was during the 1930’s, and recent years are about 2C cooler.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Very interesting correlation. Take a look at that first graph.

Real Climate Science



> Troposphere temperatures are very closely tied to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) ocean circulation. The correlation is almost perfect.


More:



> The understanding that ocean circulation drives the climate goes back to 1894, when an ocean traveler wrote a book and published in Scientific American an explanation of the connections. The author did not understand the mechanisms driving the changes in circulation, but he did keenly understand that climate change was driven by changes in ocean circulation.


Related:

Creating A Legitimate Global Temperature Record



> In my previous post, I showed how the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) correlates with global temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> Satellite temperatures only go back to 1979. It would be nice to make correlations going back further, but the fraudsters at NASA are constantly tampering with the surface temperature record and have turned it into an meaningless political document.


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate sensitivity.

How low can ECS go?



> A new paper in a journal called Earth and Space Science says that effective climate sensititivity *could be as low as 1°C.*


M'bold.



That outta get some panties in a twist...


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk Bill Nye, the Absence Of Science Guy.

Bill Nye Is A Huckster



> Bill Nye fashions himself a voice of rational thought and scientific inquiry. His shtick has gotten him into classrooms and on an endless loop of evangelizing TV appearances. *Yet nearly every time he speaks these days, Nye diminishes genuine science by resorting to scaremonger-y nuggets of easily dismissible ideologically-motivated nonsense.*


M'bold.

Well... Tell us how you really feel.

Bill Nye At It Again



> *Nye is no more than a huckster, pure and simple.* It is sad that there are so many gullible people about who actually believe him.


M'bold.

Huckster, huh? Twice? 'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

And, let's talk other hucksters...

EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’



> Over a period of twenty months, *EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency’s sweeping climate-regulation of America’s fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth’s climate.* McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan “is not about end of pipe controls.” Instead, she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…, [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

The main issue with this is all it will do is reinforce his will to carry on.

John Cook wins award as Friend of Planet for feeding fallacies to school children



> The Sydney Morning Herald lauds the Queensland Academic who won an award and busted four myths. The fake expert tosses out non-sequitur red herrings and strawmen, ignores some of the largest forces of nature in the solar system, trashes the scientific method. Give him a Nobel eh? John Cook still doesn’t appear to know about the most relevant surveys in his chosen field.
> 
> _This week, the American National Center for Science Education gave Mr Cook its annual Friend of the Planet award, for outstanding work to advance the centre’s goals.​_
> Evidently the centre’s goals include teaching kids that science is a form of opinion polling. Nah — who am I kidding, the primary goal is training kids to pay their science tax, to salute officials in lab coats, and prostrate themselves before Big-Gov, which after all, controls the weather. Whatever else happens at schools, children must never ever question Big-Government Science. (That might lead them to question big-government grants!).


Ouch...


----------



## FeXL

"Bad faith"? Yeah, that's one descriptor for it...

Obama White House showed ‘bad faith’ in global-warming case, judge rules



> The White House showed “bad faith” in how it handled an open records request for global warming data, a federal court ruled Monday, issuing yet another stinging rebuke to the administration for showing a lack of transparency.
> 
> For President Obama, who vowed to run the most transparent government in U.S. history, Judge Amit P. Mehta’s ruling granting legal discovery in an open records case — the third time this year a judge has ordered discovery — is an embarrassing black eye.
> 
> In this most recent case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was trying to force the White House office of science and technology policy to release documents backing up Director John C. Holdren’s finding that global warming was making winters colder — a claim disputed by climate scientists.


----------



## FeXL

Climate: The Real ‘Worrisome Trend’ (Part I: Faulty Science)



> _“Government reports, writers of opinion pieces, and bloggers posting graphs purporting to show rising or record air temperatures or ocean heat, are misleading you. This is not actual raw data. It is plots of data that have been “adjusted” or “homogenized” (i.e., manipulated) by scientists – or it is output from models that are based on assumptions, many of them incorrect.”_​


Good read.


----------



## FeXL

Excellent summary on TOBS adjustments.

TOBS Adjustment Is Garbage



> The USHCN Time Of Observation BIAS (TOBS) adjustment is based on the idea that thermometers reset in the afternoon tend to double count hot days and thus produce a warm bias.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Science – The FUBAR Religion



> In 2005, our crack scientists Hillary and John announced that the North Pole will be ice-free by the end of the century _“for the first time in more than a million years.”_


<cough>bull****<cough>


----------



## FeXL

So, recall the Shukla fiasco, along with RICO and all? Coming back to bite them in the backside, big-time.

New FOIA’d Emails Tell a Very Different Story About How NY AG’s RICO Campaign Started Off



> A new batch of emails, released late Friday afternoon, pulls back the curtain further on the level of collusion and coordination between anti-fossil fuel activists, their funders, and the attorneys general that have launched climate investigations into people, companies, and think tanks with which they disagree on the issue.
> 
> These emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by brought by The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Chris Horner, show that key activists behind this campaign had hoped they could make a case for prosecuting climate “deniers” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. But, due to multiple warnings from experts that such a case would have no chance to actually succeed, they decided instead to shift their strategic focus to state-level attorneys general to get the job done. Interestingly, these emails date back to last summer, months before the *Rockefeller-funded* InsideClimate News and the Columbia School of Journalism published their #ExxonKnew investigations.
> 
> The key players that emerge from this latest batch of emails are George Mason University (GMU) professors Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach, who spearheaded a letter in September 2015 with several other colleagues to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Obama asking them to explore RICO charges against climate “deniers” and their funders.


M'bold.

Rockefeller's? Ya don't say...


----------



## FeXL

As opposed to, say, searching for empirical evidence...

Climate Modelling Dominates Climate Science

First:



> _Computer modeling plays an important role in all of the sciences, but there can be too much of a good thing. A simple semantic analysis indicates that climate science has become dominated by modeling. *This is a bad thing.*_​


B'bold. 

YES!!!

Next:



> _Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling. Modeling can be a useful tool, a way of playing with hypotheses to explore their implications or test them against observations. That is how modeling is used in most sciences.
> 
> *But in climate change science modeling appears to have become an end in itself. In fact it seems to have become virtually the sole point of the research.* _​


M'bold.

YES!!!

Last:



> _Climate modeling is not climate science. Moreover, the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models. In doing this it assumes that the models are basically correct, that the basic science is settled. *This is far from true.*_​


M'bold.

YES!!!


----------



## FeXL

Further on Holocene sea levels.

Sea Levels In The Holocene



> Perhaps the alarmist scare which gains most traction is that of catastrophic sea level rise. The idea that at some undefined point in the future our coastal cities will be under several meters of water.
> 
> It is, however, one that is easy to dismiss. Quite simply, we know that global climate has been much warmer than now for most of the years since the ice age ended. There was obviously a very rapid and large rise in sea levels when the ice age ended, but it is generally accepted that *things stabilised around 6000 years ago. During that time, despite higher temperatures, there has been no catastrophic melt of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets, and no corresponding large jump in sea levels of the type currently touted.*


M'bold.

Good graphs, good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, in a little over 2 weeks, we're going to hit another one of the doomsayers' "tipping points".

CO2 Reaches Tipping Point!



> June may sound like an insignificant date to many, but it could mark a ‘tipping point’ in the world’s history, an expert has warned.
> 
> An atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania is *expected to record a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm) on or around this day – a significant number marking a climate change milestone.*
> 
> While 400ppm has been recorded before, the Tasmanian location is regarded as one of the cleanest air sources in the world, so *such levels of pollution are said to be a real blow.*


M'bold.

I jes' luvs me some good, old-fashioned hyperbole. Oh, and bull****.

The second bolded quote first... CO2 ain't pollution. It's an essential component of life on this planet. Period. Idiots...

The first bold second... These guys are going to crap when they find out that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been 20x higher in the past. Idiots, again...

Next?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> So, in a little over 2 weeks, we're going to hit another one of the doomsayers' "tipping points".


Time for pubic rending of garments.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Time for pubic rending of garments.


I always did like me a little public garment rending...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I always did like me a little public garment rending...


Justin Trudeau might help them--especially if they're in his way.


----------



## FeXL

The Solar Wind may be changing the surface temperature of the North Atlantic



> *Could it be the missing key?* The solar wind blasts charged particles, electrons, stuff, towards Earth at 500 km a second — that’s one to two million miles per hour. It speeds up, slows down and shifts in direction as it travels past the Earth and has its own magnetic field. The wind speed varies from 300 km per second up to 800 and the impact on Earth changes with our magnetic field and our seasons. You might think this kind of monster flow might have some effect on our climate. But modern climate models are 95% certain that none of this matters. Only crazy people would think that a electrons flying past at a million miles per hour could “do something” to our stratosphere, or ozone, or cloud cover.
> 
> Curiously, a recent study shows that when the solar wind is fastest, the North Atlantic is coldest on the surface. The NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) appears to correlate. The effect is strongest in the northern winter months. Notably the modern expert climate models fail to predict any of the cycles within our major ocean basins. How immature is our understanding of space weather?


Bold from the link.

Interesting hypothesis.


----------



## FeXL

Post modern climate "science"...

Climate change causes hybrid Grolar bears? ABC cites facebook pic, no data, scientists guess



> So if a scientist reported that thermometers “seem” to be more near airport tarmacs than they were in 1910, with a photo of an unconfirmed one on facebook, would that be worth an interview, ABC feature and a photo? Can someone ask the ABC’s Sarah Sedghi — I know someone she should talk to.


Good questions...


----------



## FeXL

The Imaginary Arctic Meltdown Continues



> Temperatures are forecast to remain below freezing over the Arctic Basin for the next two weeks, well into the normal melt season.
> 
> ...
> 
> There is almost no melting occurring.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yet Arctic sea ice graphs continue to show a rapid decline.
> 
> ...
> 
> Isn’t climate science grand?


That's one word for it.


----------



## FeXL

From the "DiCaprio is a hypocrite" department...

DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!



> Everywhere in the media we read how mega-filmstar *Leonardo DiCaprio took his private jet over 12,000 kilometers – to pick up an environmental award!* See here and here.
> 
> While the millionaire Hollywood star jets-sets across the globe between stays at his mansions, awards and yachts, he likes to preach to the rest of the struggling world on responsible, humble and sustainable living.


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

More on Antarctic melting.

Another Antarctic Sea Level Rise False Alarm

He sums:



> The alarming estimates from this new Nature paper, particularly as represented by the media, *are grievously wrong both with respect to the amount of and the rate of sea level rise* that might be associated with melting of the EIAS Totten glacier.
> 
> There is unjustified author spin in the press releases and author’s interviews. There are underlying bad assumptions never mentioned except by reference to a previously refuted [here] bad paper by Rignot. A tangled web of deceit, to paraphrase a famous poem.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on climate-caused polar bear interbreeding with grizzlies.

Five facts that challenge polar bear hybridization nonsense

Fact 2:



> Derocher:
> 
> _“It shouldn’t be a big surprise that grizzlies are moving north — everything is.”_​
> Map below shows where grizzly populations are found in Central and Northern Canada (according to the SARA Registry, 2012 – see table copied below). If a grizzly male met a polar bear female along western Hudson Bay (which is the most recent putative hybridization event took place and where more grizzlies have been seen in recent years), *it could only have come from the north (see also Clark 2000; Rockwell et al. 2008).*


Bold from the link.

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Global Warmists Admit They’re Really Book Burners



> The Portland Public Schools board is going to need to buy some carbon offsets to compensate for its new book-burning campaign.
> 
> Well, okay, it’s not actually planning to burn the books, so it’s in the clear on the emissions. Perhaps it will use a more ecologically sensitive solution like composting. Either way, the politically incorrect books are on the way out.
> 
> Last week, the Portland, Oregon, public schools board voted to “abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.”
> 
> *This is the party of “science” at work. Because the rigorous suppression of doubt and skepticism is the essence of a good science education, right?*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Why this is all folly.

Former Obama Energy Chief slams EPA climate regs: ‘Falsely sold as impactful’ – ‘All U.S. annual emissions will be offset by 3 weeks of Chinese emissions’



> Former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell: 'The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.'
> 
> 'What is also clear, scientifically and technically, is that EPA's plan will not significantly impact global emissions.'
> 
> 'All of the U.S. annual emissions in 2025 will be offset by three weeks of Chinese emissions. Three weeks.'


----------



## FeXL

One more reason to vote for him.

Bravo! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Trump echoes Climate Depot’s call to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!



> Trump railed against the “totalitarian tactics” of the Environmental Protection Agency. He pledged to dismantle the EPA entirely in an April town hall, although he referred to it at the time as the “Department of Environmental” and “DEP.” He assailed Hillary Clinton for saying in March that fracking projects would be unlikely to pass muster under her environmental regime.
> 
> “Hillary’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation,” Trump said.
> 
> He railed against “draconian climate rules” and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in the past…”


----------



## FeXL

But they're improving! XX)

Another climate model paper in Nature misses a whole class of feedbacks



> It’s always the same. A new paper adds one more magical fine-tuning-cog to the models and promises “more accurate predictions”. There are a million small cogs we can add and it takes years to show they don’t deliver. These wheels can spin forever. The real climate machine has a whole extra exhaust pipe to which the models are blind.


----------



## FeXL

Ah, yes, more wisdom from _The Grunion_...

Guardian : We Passed The Tipping Point In 1982



> The Guardian says that we ran out of time to stop global warming in 1982.
> 
> ...
> 
> Global warming was so bad in 1977 – that by 1978 experts said that there “was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend”


Yep.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> From the "DiCaprio is a hypocrite" department...
> 
> DiCaprio’s Private Jet Junket Burned 30,000 Liters Of Fuel …Enough For 10,000 Cars An Entire Day!
> 
> 
> 
> Bold from the link.


I doubt that too many individuals get off using 3 liters of fuel per day. I am pretty sure if I drove the small guy for 8 hours I would use at least 40 liters. Even when I was just commuting 3 liters a day would not have gotten me all the way home and that is a car that gets 37 MPG(US). I doubt that the average commuter gets anything over 25 MPG(US). A lot less than that around here, as half the population drives heavy pick-ups with oversized V-8s, coupled with throttles that are usually fully depressed.

Divide that 10,000 cars by 2 and you may be closer to the truth. Still pretty extravagant but even so DiCaprio is still a couple of orders of magnitude behind our favorite high priest, The Arch Bishop of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore.


----------



## FeXL

Trump: Cancel Paris, Cut Funds for UN Climate, Save the coal industry



> Trump vows to cancel the Paris climate deal, stop funding UN global warming programs and save the coal industry.
> 
> Gotta love these plans. No wonder the big-government fans are apoplectic over Donald Trump as he paints targets on their most sacred cows.
> 
> In Australia Bill Shorten, potential Prime Minister, called Trump: “Barking Mad.” Shorten, showing his diplomatic talent, was burning goodwill with a potential US president and 45% of voters in the largest economy in the world and our most important strategic ally.
> 
> Below, the Trump plans this week: to use cheap energy; to stop trying to change the weather, and finish feeding faceless foreign bureaucracies.


----------



## MacGuiver

FeXL said:


> One more reason to vote for him.
> 
> Bravo! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Trump echoes Climate Depot’s call to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!


Its going to be interesting when he's elected President. I wouldn't be surprised if leftists try to assassinate him.


----------



## Macfury

Meanwhile the eco-kooks at the Washington Post are decrying Trump's energy plan of self sufficiency as "dangerous."

Why?



> Setting “energy independence” as an overriding policy goal is a policy mistake of long standing in Washington. In fact it is far less risky to participate in the global market than to erect barriers to energy imports or ban them entirely. If you rely only on yourself for your oil, you put all of your eggs in one supply basket. Disruptions due to a natural disaster or anything else that would be relatively localized in a global oil market would cause major volatility in a closed domestic one. The best way to insulate the country from oil price volatility would be to make the economy less dependent on oil, but Mr. Trump has no interest in doing so.


Talk about nonsense! Further:


> Mr. Trump’s plan is dangerous as well as incoherent. In his zeal to revoke environmental regulations, Mr. Trump promises to kill the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide rules and pull the country out of the Paris climate agreement. He also promised “clean air and clean water,” but over the past half-century, it has been government regulation, sometimes market-based, that has helped clear up the nation’s air and water. Mr. Trump’s plan would lead to dirtier air and water — and to a massive blow to the global fight against climate change. With great care and difficulty, President Obama persuaded major polluting countries such as China to listen to scientists and move with the United States toward cuts in emissions.


Boo-hoo! Obama's legacy of environmental dictatorship is at stake. Why not just lead with that? That's all the writer really cares about.



MacGuiver said:


> Its going to be interesting when he's elected President. I wouldn't be surprised if leftists try to assassinate him.


----------



## FeXL

MacGuiver said:


> Its going to be interesting when he's elected President. I wouldn't be surprised if leftists try to assassinate him.


‘Dead Within a Week’ – Donald Trump Gets SHOCKING Death Threat…You Won’t Believe Who From!



> Odd. We’ve been told that Mexicans sneak into America to escape from dire poverty, and the corruption and violence that has turned their nation into a failed state.
> 
> Clearly that particular protester didn’t get the memo: You’re not supposed to side with drug lords over American presidential candidates!
> 
> Then again, protesters like that fellow are foolishly doing for free what a roomful of high priced consultants would charge millions to do:
> 
> He’s helping make Donald Trump’s arguments for him.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the failure of the Scientific Method in Climastrology...

A Major Malaise of Climatology is Pervasive in Science



> Scientists lost the scientific script somewhere in the 20th century. The major loss involved the fact that correlation is not cause and effect. It was lost for several reasons:
> 
> * Failure to know or consistently apply scientific methods;
> * Lack of ethics as the end justifies the means;
> * Methods and process are not taught or emphasized;
> * People are more willing to bypass or ignore everything for funding;
> * Too many are willing to subjugate or exploit research for a political agenda;
> * Achieving results to advance a career is more important;
> * A person gets caught up in Groupthink as they go along to get along;
> * and scientists are unwilling to look to themselves to stop the rot.
> 
> All of these reasons were on display in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).


More:



> The media is replete with scientists speculating and reaching cause and effect conclusions when there is only a correlation. But this is only a minor part of the overall malaise in science and nowhere is it more apparent than in climate science. It is seven years since Climategate, but the evidence of wrongdoing existed at least 21 years ago with the “Chapter 8” fiasco in the 1995 IPCC Report. It is 50 years since bad science appeared in climatology and, sadly, it continues, but few know the history.


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...


Has climate change been disproved? Large Hadron boffins cast shock DOUBT on global warming



> Boffins from CERN have also discovered projected temperature increases over the next century *may have been over estimated*.
> 
> Researchers found trees may have been putting similar aerosols into the air as burning fossil fuels, long before the industrial revolution, meaning humans may have had less impact on the climate than we thought.
> 
> Scientists made the discovery during an experiment to create an artificial cloud that was thought could help cool Earth and reverse global warming.
> 
> A study published this week in the journal Nature has looked more closely at the tiny particles within clouds, known as cloud seeds, that help cool the planet and found they can be produced naturally.


M'bold.

May have??? 

More:



> Until this study, scientists thought sulphuric acid, largely produced with fossil fuel emissions, was needed to form secondary aerosols, and therefore responsible for the bulk of global warming aerosols.
> 
> *However, the research found the Earth actually produces these particles naturally, without any interference from man.*
> 
> The particles are created by a mix of tree vapours and cosmic rays - high-energy particles bombarding the atmosphere from outside our solar system.
> 
> Jasper Kirkby, CERN particle physicist and originator and spokesperson of the CLOUD experiment, said: "We found that nature produces particles without pollution.
> 
> *"That is going to require a rethink of how human activities have increased aerosols in clouds."*
> 
> The results may turn the whole climate change debate and projected temperature increases upside down, they said.


M'bold.

Sunovagun...

Well, I never! I can't figger why climate models never predicted this. Oh, wait: climate models are unable to handle aerosols...


----------



## FeXL

More from the Fruit Loops & Whackos at the UN.

UN : Global Warming To Make Stonehenge Tip Over



> Stonehenge could be toppled by moles if the climate change continues apace, a United Nations report claimed yesterday.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

Oh, the backpedaling is furious...

Nature – finally “finds” cause of Antarctic pause, will last centuries, tosses “global warming” out



> *Nature ties itself in knots here, and reveals a lot more than they probably meant too, but mostly about themselves rather than about Antarctica. If it’s correct, the implications from this study are pretty big, not that the study will tell you that. The term “Global warming” is tossed under a bus, along with almost all the Antarctic man-made scares of the last two decades. The political nature of Nature is on full display.*


Bold from the link.

More:



> This time _Nature_ claims it has found the cause of the Antarctic pause. Apparently this now finally resolves yet another conundrum (fantastic, what!) that was, as usual, not called a conundrum until it was solved. Another secret problem fixed. Where was the press release telling us there was a problem?
> 
> Those who said there _was a conundrum_ were just deniers. It’s right there in the press release, paragraph two:
> 
> _*The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers*._​
> Which rather begs the question: If there _was_ a conundrum then the skeptics who pointed it out were not _deniers_, but _correct_. And if there was no conundrum, and deniers were denying something, then this is not a new finding at all. Alternately perhaps some researchers “knew” the answer they were going to find, and the other researchers, who can’t see the future, are deniers?
> 
> Is _Nature_ reporting a discovery, or issuing a political press release?
> 
> The use of “denier” in a science paper has a price. How, I wonder, does _Nature_ define _[H]omo sapiens climate denier_? — Bipedal primates who deny the sky?


All emphasis from the link.

Excellent read.


----------



## FeXL

So, some warmists reluctantly acknowledge the presence of the MWP, others deny its existence entirely. Of those who accept the evidence, most claim that it was strictly a northern hemisphere phenomenon, mainly in the North Atlantic.

Here is a _bit_ of evidence illustrating otherwise...

Body Of Proof: Large Number Of Studies Show Medieval Warm Period “Prominent In Southern Hemisphere”



> The plotting of the Medieval Warm Period Map is making good progress. At first the basic idea was the Southern Hemisphere because of the notion that Medieval Warm Period (MWP) could be limited only to the Northern Hemisphere, mainly the North Atlantic, kept popping up. The collection of data for Africa, Antarctica, Australian and Oceania is now finished and it shows that the MWP was prominent.


Apologies for the link inside to Google Maps. I try to avoid them like the plague they are...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "Settled Science" & circumpolar currents...

Proof of global-warming farce? NASA says Antarctic sea ice has INCREASED since 1970s



> NASA experts set out to find out why the sea ice around the Antarctic was increasing in the face of global temperature increases, while ocean ice around the North Pole is retreating each year.
> 
> And the study found that despite mean temperature rises in the Southern Ocean, topping those elsewhere across the globe, *the Antarctic appears to have been proofed against global warming.*


M'bold.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the whole "anthropogenic global warming" thing is just a crock & it's 96% natural variability...


----------



## FeXL

So, let's talk hypocrites!

DiCaprio’s Disease: Survey Initiated By Munich Greens Show They’re The Biggest Abusers Of Airline Travel!



> It turns out that in the Bavarian capital city of Munich the opposition Greens were looking for a way to create an issue with which to put the ruling socialist-conservative coalition administration on the defensive, and so they sent a query to the city government demanding to know who abused (ab)used commercial flights the most. They hoped to place the blame for damaging to the environment squarely on those responsible.


More:



> It turns out the opposition Greens should have never posed the question. The answer came back from the Munich city administration, and it is truly embarrassing for them. According to Etscheit:
> 
> _*It’s the Greens. By a wide margin* who fly the most often, more often than members of the other political fractions. According to the SZ [Süddeutscheteitung] 23 flights were logged by the Greens, while the members of the SPD party, which is twice the size, flew half the number [12], the CSU even less [6].”_​


M'bold.

Ya, there's a surprise...


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mann v Steyn.

Mark Steyn files to push Mann trial forward



> *The process is the punishment.* Agents of the Big-government Blob have access to a bottomless pit of lawyers. They can not only afford endless trials, for them it’s an advantage. _Drag it out, wear opponents down, exhaust their coffers._ And while the case is ever-pending and never-ending it’s already a win for the accuser — silencing critics, and endorsing celebrity “victim-status”. When the defendants witnesses are older and wiser, there’s another dark advantage too — vale Bob Carter.
> 
> What they cannot afford though is _discovery_.
> 
> So they can’t afford to sue a guy like Mark Steyn.
> 
> This is about free speech and accountability of publicly funded scientists. Steyn could use your help. See also The criminalization of dissent.
> 
> As Steyn says: _“It is particularly absurd that an interlocutory ruling on a piece of legislation intended to expedite cases has now taken over two years and counting.”_
> 
> What is Mann hiding?


All emphasis from the link.

Two years! And nothing. 

What, indeed.


----------



## FeXL

Another update from David Evans.

New Science 25: Seven possible ways the sun could change our cloud cover



> There’s a nuclear fusion reactor in the neighborhood that weighs 300,000 times more than Earth. It’s eight minutes away at the speed of light, has 99.8% of the mass of the solar system, and surrounds us with changing magnetic and electric fields while it rains down charged particles. Some years the Sun throws ten times as much extreme-UV our way as it does in other years. Virtually none of this is included in mainstream climate models.
> 
> The constant wind of charged particles blows at a million miles an hour — the flow waves and wiggles, shifting direction. The speed of the solar wind correlates with sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. The solar magnetic field reaches right to the edge of the solar system, but despite that size, it turns itself completely upside down every 11 years. Reconnecting magnetic field lines cause explosions in space, and we have barely started to collect data on this. During the magnetic cycle the sun changes color, though the changes are invisible to us. The spectrum rolls from more UV to more infra red, and each type of light has different effects. Unlike infra red, UV transforms oxygen into highly reactive ozone which creates warming in certain zones, sometimes high over the poles, sometimes more so over the equator. These warmer blobs expand and it’s possible that they shift the jet stream positions, which affects cloud formation and albedo. UV also reaches further into the oceans where it affects plankton, which in turn produce gases that seed denser clouds. Forests and plants on land also seed clouds and influence rain.
> 
> Running through all of this, and from a different direction, are cosmic rays which also appear to seed clouds. Their path through our atmosphere is also affected by the solar magnetic field.
> 
> Complicating things even further, the Sun may have a dual core — two dynamos operating in the north and south on cycles that are nearly but not quite in sync.
> 
> *Years from now, people will gasp that the so called experts of the millennium thought the Sun could have little effect — apart from just shining light upon us.*
> 
> The extra sunlight coming from a more active Sun appears to have a much larger effect than it should in the long run, but has no effect in the year that it occurs. Something is both neutralizing it in the short run, but amplifying it in the long term. David Evans lists below some different mechanisms, with references, for ways that the Sun could be controlling our cloud cover, or albedo. There are undoubtedly others that could be Force D, N or X. One factor is briefly “notching” out the effect of the small spike in solar light during the peak of a solar cycle (Force N). Paradoxically, some other factor appears to be at work throughout the cycle but is delayed by one solar cycle (Force D) — it works in the opposite direction to Force N.


M'bold.

Agreed.


----------



## Macfury

That old devil the Sun. Who would have thought the source of 99% of our heat could affect climate?


----------



## FeXL

Science is not decided by a court of law. Period...

Fortunately, it's been "moved to inactive".

Defcon1 Legal Threat: California’s near miss on new laws to jail climate skeptics



> Here’s how a democracy becomes a technocracy: when the legislation decrees a government department edit is “truth” and threatens to jail anyone who disagrees. For a whole 3 months California’s Senate didn’t treat this bill like the democratic-leprosy that it is. Today it’s just been “moved to inactive” which means it is out of action for the moment — immediate threat over — but the fact that it was proposed and passed several Senate committee stages in California should rattle the bones of every freeman. A tyranny beckons.
> 
> There are already laws that stop people from profiting from lies and deception. They apply to everyone. Why do they need climate skeptic specific laws? Because the skeptics speak the truth.
> 
> This is nuclear stuff:
> 
> _Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”_​


More:



> *Rather than being a law that applies to one and all, the bill starts by defining their “truths”, entrenching falsehoods, and an immature corrupted scientific field into legislation — hard to believe.* If a government department was — banish the thought — wrong about something, this type of legislation would jail people for saying so — all hail the US EPA?


M'bold.

Related:

California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics



> A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
> 
> Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Also related:

The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics



> A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


The fact that this piece of garbage got this far is terrifying...


----------



## Macfury

Silence from "progressives" who twiddle their thumbs in the face of egregious assaults on freedom... because they support the result.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Silence from "progressives" who twiddle their thumbs in the face of egregious assaults on freedom... because they support the result.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

2015 Updated NOAA Tide Gauge Data Shows No Coastal Sea Level Rise Acceleration



> NOAA has updated its extensive U.S. coastal tide gauge data measurement records (Sea Level Trends - US Stations List) to include data through year 2015. These measurements include tide gauge data coastal locations for 25 West Coast, Gulf Coast and East Coast states along the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. In addition 7 Pacific island groups and 6 Atlantic island groups also have coastal location tide gauge data measurements updated as well.
> 
> In all more than 200 coastal locations are included in these measurements with more than 100 of these coastal locations with recorded data periods in excess of 50 years in duration. *None of these updated NOAA tide gauge measurement data records show coastal location sea level rise acceleration occurring anywhere on the U.S. coasts or Pacific or Atlantic island groups.*


Time to get those data "adjusters" out...


----------



## FeXL

XX)

So, they modelled Alaska's melting permafrost, the results came back that it's not as critical as they thought, now they're questioning the results.

Funny, sceptics have been doing that with models all along...

Linky



> In recent years, scientists have sounded the alarm on the climate change implications of Alaska's melting permafrost, the frozen layer of soil and rock that covers from one-third to two-thirds of the state. As it melts — far faster than once expected — it releases methane, which is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. And thus, climate change in the Arctic begets more climate change.
> 
> But the new peer-reviewed government report released Wednesday found that may not be the case, at least through the year 2100.
> 
> "I think it was surprising to us … *but it's not inconsistent with global analyses that have been conducted for the permafrost region*," said Dave McGuire, one of the report's authors.


M'bold.

Of course it isn't. All those other, _modelled_, results...


----------



## FeXL

Curious. I thought the Arctic was melted/melting...

US defense bill includes one billion dollars to fund a new polar icebreaker



> The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense Appropriations Bill has included one billion dollars in funding to accelerate construction of a new polar icebreaker for the U.S. Coast Guard, reported Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).


----------



## FeXL

What's this?! 

Top Scientists: CO2-Induced Warming Is “Weak” To Non-Existent For Greenland, Antarctica!

He sums:



> The implications of these measurements showing relatively minimal CO2 greenhouse forcing at the poles are enormous. Succinctly, the alarmist insistence of a significant anthropogenic influence on polar ice sheet melting and the consequent impact on sea level rise become highly dubious if observational evidence reveals that the CO2 greenhouse effect is only very modest (-1 to +5 W/m2) for the polar regions. For if the Arctic warming trend and sea ice decline that resumed in the 1990s cannot be significantly attributed to increases in atmospheric CO2, this severely undercuts the heart of alarming claims about humans catastrophically altering the polar — and global — climate.
> 
> The sensational headlines about melting polar ice and rapidly accelerating sea level rise would be reported with much less exhortative zeal if there wasn’t also a co-existing paradigm that says anthropogenic CO2 emissions are what drive these alleged climate changes. So when science doesn’t corroborate what the alarming headlines say about a significant anthropogenic or CO2 influence on the polar climate, ice melt, or sea level rise, that science is usually glossed over…or dismissed. After all, the science is _supposed_ to be settled. Right?


Right.


----------



## FeXL

What New Scientist wouldn't print



> A couple of weeks back, New Scientist published an article trying to up the ante on climate sensitivity.
> 
> _One headline-making 2013 study had concluded that the immediate warming that would result froma doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would be around 1.3°C - significantly less than most previous estimates. But this was before global temperatures shot past 1°C above pre-industrial levels last year, as predicted by New Scientist in July 2015. If the 2013 study was repeated using that value, it would give an estimate for the immediate warming of 1.6°C, says Piers Forster..._​
> It also claimed that Forster and Lewis's 2013 paper had got its estimates of aerosol forcing wrong:
> 
> _[Other studies] suggested that Forster's team underestimated how much warming has been masked by the cooling effect of other pollutants, such as sulphur aerosols, that we pump out alongside CO2._​
> Quite why anyone would want to estimate TCR from a single year's temperature figure is anyone's guess. This observation prompted Nic Lewis to write a letter to the editor, which, needless to say, has not been published. So you can read it here.


Curious how they never publish refutations of their narrative, idn't it...


----------



## FeXL

What's this???!!! 

CNBC breaks with the climate disaster narrative of MSM



> Not only was story accurate regarding the costs of trying to live up to the Paris accord, but it was being given prominence from a news organization I would have thought was a reliable supporter of the CAGW meme.
> Notice also the source of the information was characterized as a scientist not a denier. A peer reviewed scientist at that.
> 
> Is there some sort of shift going on in the MSM world?


Slowly, surely...


----------



## FeXL

Further on "adjustments".

NASA Climate Scamming Is Happening Everywhere

Excellent visuals, both in the body & comments.


----------



## FeXL

Ouch...

To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before



> Fifty years ago this week, the US made the first soft landing of a vehicle someplace besides earth. Three years later we landed men on the moon. A remarkable eight year accomplishment started by President Kennedy.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA can’t put men in space any more, but they have gotten quite proficient at tampering with Earth’s climate history.
> 
> ...
> 
> *By contrast to Kennedy, Obama’s eight year long accomplishment was to land a man in the ladies room.*


Yeah, my bold...


----------



## FeXL

A couple from the "We've tweaked the models and it's not as bad as we've been saying it is" department.

Further evidence supporting a lower climate sensitivity.

The Climate Alarm Death Knell Sounds Again



> But the new results, reported by Bellouin, make things much worse for them. *His team’s investigations show that the anthropogenic cooling impact from clouds is much less than “assessed” by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also much less than employed by climate models.* Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined. Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range. This result comports with the concept of “lukewarming” (which you can read more about here).


M'bold.

Study: Worsening drought from climate change may be ‘considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought’



> *Our findings imply that historical and future tendencies towards continental drying, as characterized by offline-computed runoff, as well as other PET-dependent metrics, may be considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

Further on evidence of lower CO2 climate sensitivity.

Veteran German Geologist On Models: Forcing For Solar Activity Likely Will Have To Be “Drastically Increased”!



> _"It is fundamental that climate models reproduce the past climate before they are used for future climate modelling. Noteworthy: solar activity during the MWP was equally high as during the late 20th century warming while it declined significantly during the cold Little Ice Age. The global MWP results will help to calibrate the climate models. *It is likely that radiative forcing (RF) for solar activity changes has to be drastically increased while the RF of CO2 would have to be reduced accordingly.* Climate modellers have to accept this challenge and be open for pragmatic solutions, independent of political constraints and implications.”_​


M'bold.

Poor Al Gore's NOT Going to Like This New Climate Study



> Poor Al Gore. Ever since he lost the 2000 election, he's put all his eggs in the climate change basket. But, little by little, those eggs are being tossed out onto the floor by reputable scientists.
> 
> The latest example is a scientific study conducted at the University of Reading of the interactions between aerosols and clouds, which shows the interaction is much weaker than most climate models assume - which means the Earth will warm markedly less than those climate models that the former VP has invested in.
> 
> Or, in the words of Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, instead of facing Climate Change, at worst, we *may* be facing *"global lukewarming."*


M'bold.

Oh, the horror!!!


----------



## FeXL

On Obama's purported SCC (Social Cost of Carbon).

Experts Debunk Obama’s ‘Social Cost Of Carbon’ Estimate — It Might Be Negative!



> A soon-to-be-published paper challenges the Obama administration’s so-called “social cost of carbon” estimate, which puts a monetary value on the supposed future damages from global warming.
> 
> But the new study’s authors not only say the administration’s “social cost of carbon” (SCC) is overblown, they also argue it might actually be negative based on observed temperature increases, not just climate models. That means there’s actually benefits to emitting carbon dioxide.
> 
> “The resulting Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are much smaller than those from models based on simulated parameters,” wrote Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, along with David Kreutzer and Kevin Dayaratna, both economists at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
> 
> McKitrick’s study applied a recent study of climate sensitivity to two climate models used by federal agencies to estimate the SCC. In one model, the “SCC falls by 30-50% depending on the discount rate,” they noted, while in a second model “average SCC falls by over 80%.”


McKitrick again.


----------



## FeXL

So, in response to a book titled _100 Authors Against Einstein_ voicing arguments against his Theory of Relativity, Einstein is reported to have said, _"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."_

Keep that in mind when you discover that _60,000 artists_ are being put together to sell "Climate Change".

Selling the dead-dog brand of “climate change” — it’s so ugly, they need 60,000 artist-marketeers



> It’s time for a new age of Enlightenment: why climate change needs 60,000 artists to tell its story


If the science behind "Climate Change" was so irrefutable, all it would take is a single, lonely person on this planet to make the point. Instead, they engage 60,000 artists to help spread the FUD. Oh, & since when is science determined by a show of hands?

The desperation reeks...


----------



## FeXL

Rep. Lamar Smith has valid reasons for investigating NOAA 



> eading the news lately, one might think that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is some sort of backwards character from the 19th century, a “member of the Flat Earth Society.” So great is the venom directed at him that the UK’s Guardian has referred to him as a “Witch Hunter.”
> 
> But what exactly is Smith’s crime?
> 
> Under his authority as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, he’s chosen to investigate the research methods of the taxpayer-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
> 
> Last year, NOAA released a study that found there has been no “pause” in recent global warming. Because the findings contradict every other set of observed data on global temperatures, and were issued ahead of the Paris Climate summit, *Smith wants to know if political bias factored into the report’s formulation.*


M'bold.

IF??!! 

NOAA's excuse?



> The NOAA study, though, used “significant improvements in the calculation of trends” to assemble “improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets.”
> 
> So what exactly did NOAA do to improve its data collection—and thus arrive at a new graph of temperatures that improves on all other recent methods?
> 
> 1. They disregarded satellite data of global temperatures.
> 2. They included readings from ocean buoys, but disregarded measurements from the nearly 4,000 Argo floats that have been amassing real-time ocean data since the early 2000s.
> 3. They included seawater temperature measurements collected from the engine intake valves of ocean-going vessels.
> 4. They estimated Arctic Ocean temperatures by extrapolating from nearby land areas.
> 
> The result? When compared to satellite, weather balloon, and Argo data, the new findings eliminate the net flatlining of global temperatures in the 21st century, and instead show a series of scraggly rising temperature lines.


Where I grew up, NOAA's methodology would have been known as a good, old-fashioned, cherry pick. Discard any data that doesn't follow the narrative & use only the data that does...


----------



## FeXL

Desperate Claim: Greenland’s 2015 melt records consistent with ‘Arctic amplification’



> From Columbia University and the “any weather event is now proof of global warming” department comes this reach of a paper trying to claim that a northern jet stream excursion is a signature of “Arctic amplification”. I don’t put much stock in it especially when Nature had an editorial a few years ago that said:
> 
> _Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming._
> 
> And in this case, they are citing a single event to claim “Arctic amplification” has set in. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. *We are told by climate alarmists that any cold event, such as a cold winter, or a string of record low temperatures don’t mean anything in the context of climate, that it is the trends of events that matter, not the individual events. Now, we are asked to believe that one event, a cut-off high pressure system in summer of 2015 is the signature of an Arctic-scale climate change.* Forecasters are well aware of this sort of blocking high.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...

Bombshell study: past El Niño’s ‘may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time’



> El Niño oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time
> 
> Scientists have found past El Niño oscillations in the Pacific Ocean may have amplified global climate fluctuations for hundreds of years at a time.
> 
> The team uncovered century-scale patterns in Pacific rainfall and temperature, and linked them with global climate changes in the past 2000 years.
> 
> For example, northern hemisphere warming and droughts between the years 950 and 1250 corresponded to an El Niño-like state in the Pacific, which switched to a La Niña-like pattern during a cold period between 1350 and 1900.


Natural variability? Pshaw...


----------



## FeXL

Those inconvenient minutia...

Spot the problem: Man-made emissions flat, but global CO2 hits record high



> Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

Hate when that happens.

India doesn’t commit to Paris: Media puts forward two versions of reality



> Indian PM, Modi, has shaken hands and said nice phrases but India isn’t going to commit to Paris until they are ready (if ever). *That’s a bit of a blow for the Paris agreement which has only 17 signatories of the 55 countries it needs.* For the Paris agreement to come into effect it is also supposed to include countries that produce 55% of global emissions.


M'bold.

Sucks to be the Paris agreement...


----------



## FeXL

Curious, that.

2016 Record Melt Vanishes



> Three days ago, scientists were stunned by the imaginary Arctic meltdown and pre-announced a record low for 2016.
> 
> ...
> 
> I have been blogging for several weeks that the widely reported 2016 Arctic meltdown is not occurring. Graphs from government agencies are finally getting caught up to reality. Melt has been very slow over the past month and will continue to be slow for at least another week.


Related:

Taming the Greenland Melting Global Warming Hype



> There is a new paper generating some press attention (e.g. Chris Mooney at the Washington Post) that strongly suggests global warming is leading to specific changes in the atmospheric circulation over the Northern Hemisphere that is causing an enhancement of surface melting across Greenland—and of course, that this mechanism will make things even worse than expected into the future.
> 
> *We are here to strongly suggest this is not the case.*


M'bold.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick



> In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.


Good visuals.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Hate when that happens.
> 
> India doesn’t commit to Paris: Media puts forward two versions of reality
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Sucks to be the Paris agreement...


Har! This is like the Kyoto Protocol all over again! Bitter tears will be flowing at the David Suzuki residence tonight.


----------



## FeXL

Hmmm...

North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content Dropping Rapidly



> We have become familiar with the cold blob, which has developed at the ocean surface in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last couple of years, but it is evident that it has been getting much colder below the surface as well, down at least to 700 m. Temperatures are now back down to where they were in the early 1990s.


More:



> What this shows clearly is that the cold has been building up from the bottom.
> 
> It has been claimed that “melting Arctic ice” is been responsible for colder SSTs. The ARGO data proves that this is not true.
> 
> We are reminded that it is the oceans and their cycles which dominate the Earth’s climate.
> 
> The AMO is continuing to flatline in positive territory, but are the OHC figures the first sign that things might be beginning to change?


Related:

Cooling in the North Atlantic



> Something is going on in the North Atlantic.
> 
> Paul Homewood notes the region is cooling rapidly and it is not just surface cooling, it applies to the 700m depth that Argo buoys measure. Graphs thanks to Ole Humlum.


More:



> So the climate models are wrong about the “aerosols” excuse which is used to explain any inconvenient non-warming phase. There are less aerosols over the North Atlantic now. *This cooling really shouldn’t be happening. Looks like it’s cooling due to “internal variability” which is code for natural cycles that our models don’t understand.* From Robson:
> 
> _The observed cooling is not consistent with a dominant role for surface heat flux changes due to anthropogenic aerosols12. Anthropogenic aerosol loads have decreased in the North Atlantic region since the 1990s, and would therefore be expected to have induced warming of Atlantic SSTs26, in contrast to the observed cooling._​
> As Ted M says in comments: _“It’s not consistent with ocean warming from greenhouse gas forcing either.”_


M'bold.

Flawed models? 

Ya don't say...


----------



## FeXL

CO2 Warming Grossly Exaggerated… 50+ Published Papers Find Extremely Low Climate Sensitivity To Doubled CO2!



> Although this temperature calculation of just over one degree Celsius for doubled CO2 is widely accepted in the scientific community – even by skeptics of the IPCC’s conclusions – many scientists have found a 1.2°C increase in surface temperature from doubled CO2 is still way too high.
> 
> Click here to go to the list of over 50 papers that support the conclusion that doubling CO2 concentrations to about 550 ppm results in a much lower temperature increase than 1.2°C. *The papers are divided into 3 categories: (a) quantified low CO2 climate sensitivity results (2X CO2 may cause just ~0.02 to 0.7°C of warming), (b) non-quantified low climate sensitivity results for doubling (or significantly increasing) CO2 concentrations, and (c) conclusions that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to a net cooling rather than a warming.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Record Snow in Alaska – Brazil coldest in 22 years – Argentina buried in snow – South Africa snows

A compendium of 20 weather reports announcing recent unusual snow or freezing weather conditions, ranging from Argentina to Russia.


----------



## FeXL

Finally! Paid sceptics found!!!

Peabody Big-Coal Yeti finally spotted — funds “heart and soul” of climate denial!



> Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson repeat all the usual sacred incantations completely blind to the real money. At one point they are so stuck for “big money” they whip out a $10,000 figure, and in an article about Peabody, that’s not even from Peabody, but from Arch Coal.


Ten thousand bucks. :yikes: Brutal.

Still waiting for my cheque...


----------



## FeXL

From the Departments of Settled Science & Unintended Consequences.

California’s plastic bag ban may be aiding an increase in the greenhouse gas ethane



> This study below says that after collating the data from 30,000 air flasks taken around the world, that ethane is again on the rise due to increased oil/gas production. I don’t doubt that. But there is a factor that they may have not considered: plastic bag bans. In California, there is now a statewide plastic bag ban. Recall that plastic bags were introduced because environmentalists claimed less tree felling for paper pulp would be a good thing, and plastic bags were introduced in 1982 by California grocery giant, Safeway, according to an NRDC article.


More:



> An interesting thing is that ethane (C2H6) is used for the production of plastic bags, in fact it is the only ingredient.


----------



## Macfury

I love seeing that stuff blowing up in the eco-kooks' faces!


----------



## FeXL

Further on dropping temperatures & La Nina.

Earth rapidly cooling off thanks to now-dead El Nino



> In either case, both satellite and NASA datasets show that rapid cooling is underway now that the 2015-2016 El Niño episode is officially over. Experts now believe we are headed into a La Niña event based on historical precedents. With a La Niña comes cooler temperatures and less precipitation in many areas. NOAA is forecasting a 75 percent chance one will form by September.


Related:

La Nina is coming and global temperatures are responding



> The plume of model El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) model forecasts from mid-May (above) indicate a transition to “ENSO-neutral” conditions is likely within the next couple of months and then La Nina conditions are quite likely to take over by the early fall. Sea surface temperatures have indeed changed dramatically in the tropical Pacific Ocean between the early part of this year and today with a “wavy” pattern of colder-than-normal water (bottom panel, blue region) now showing up in the same area that exhibited widespread warmer-than-normal SSTs back in January 2016 (top panel, orange region).


Related, too:

Meteorologist Bastardi: S. Hemisphere Surface Temps “Really Tanking” As Globe Cools



> Joe tweeted the following chart by Dr. Ryan Maue:
> 
> ...
> 
> It shows how the surface temperature for the southern hemisphere is well into the cooler-than-normal territory, now close to a full degree Kelvin cooler than April’s peak. The black line depicts the global temperature, which shows that it is cooling and getting close to the 1981-2010 climatological mean. Joe tweets:
> 
> _"June temps backing off quickly on NCEP CFSR, now down to 4th warmest. S hem really tanking.”_​
> As the La Niña approaches, global temperatures will almost surely dip below normal. Trace gas CO2 obviously is unable to trap the heat and keep the surface temperatures elevated. Rather the surface temperatures are driven (over the short term) by ocean oscillations – over the past year primarily by the ENSO.


Can't help but wonder if the warmists will welcome this reprieve on behalf of the planet with half as much enthusiasm as they did announcing the El Nino...


----------



## FeXL

So, in a massive state sponsored witch hunt...

Global Warming Skeptic Responds To Massachusetts AG’s Subpoena: ‘F**k Off, Fascist’



> Alex Epstein had a terse response to a subpoena sent by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Wednesday.
> 
> Healey demanded the oil giant ExxonMobil hand over 40 years of documents, including information pertaining to the company’s dealings with about a dozen think tanks and trade associations, which have been targeted by environmental groups for opposing left-wing global warming policies.
> 
> Healey’s subpoena targeted the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank founded by Epstein. Epstein wasn’t exactly happy about being targeted for disagreeing with Healey on global warming, so he sent the AG’s office the following response:


Beautiful...


----------



## FeXL

Lying is OK as long as the warmists are doing it.

Climate lies for the Planet are OK (says self-proclaimed elite brain)



> So much of what drives the cult of climate fear is the rewarding affirmation that they are intellectually gifted. “Pat me on the back! Tell me how smart I am!” It fills the low-self-esteem vacuum of a B-grade brain or an untrained naive mind. It’s a sugar-hit to the undisciplined being, looking for the easy road to social acceptance and glory.
> 
> The New Nostradamus of the North has caught a Huff Po comedian Xavier Toby suggesting that “maybe we need to lie” for the climate. There is no sign of satire.
> 
> _In order for us to start acting on climate change then, maybe we need to tell a few lies.
> 
> Advertising does lie to us all the time. The only difference with this issue is that instead of trying to convince us to buy stuff we don’t need and is often very harmful to us, by jazzing up the campaign against climate change, we’d be saving the planet and ourselves.
> 
> So let’s rename climate change: ‘lower energy bills’, ‘higher superannuation’, and ‘healthier children for generations to come’.
> 
> So instead of ‘climate change’ what about we call it ‘extreme disasters happening right now’, ‘massive worldwide death machine’ or ‘crazy killer weather’?_​


----------



## FeXL

Science Magazine Sets New Fraud Records Consistent With The Global Warming Scam



> Science Magazine claims that Greenland set melt records in 2015.
> 
> [let's get right to the summary]
> 
> *There is not one smidgen of truth to Science magazine’s claims.* Climate scientists and respectable science publications lie about the climate as their standard operating procedure.


M'bold.

Related:

Summer Temperature Trends In Greenland

We'll skip right to the end here, as well:



> *There is nothing here to suggest that the climate in Greenland in the last century is any more than a reflection of natural cycles such as the AMO.*


M'bold.

Natural cycles?! Perish the thought!!!


----------



## FeXL

Willis posits an interesting question.

Hemispheric Ocean Temperature Sensitivity



> The oddity is that although the swings in incoming solar energy are significantly larger in the southern hemisphere, the swings in ocean temperature are larger in the northern hemisphere. Why should that be?
> 
> The difference is impressive. As a raw measure, the northern hemisphere ocean surface temperature changes about seven degrees C from peak to peak, and the TOA solar varies by 216 W/m2 peak to peak. This gives a change of 0.032°C per W/m2 change in solar input.
> 
> In the southern hemisphere, on the other hand, the ocean surface temperature only swings 4.7°C, while the solar input varies by 287 W/m2 peak to peak. This gives a change of .0162°C per W/m2, about half the change of the northern hemisphere.
> 
> So that’s today’s puzzle—_why should the ocean in the northern hemisphere warm twice as much as the southern hemisphere ocean for a given change in solar forcing?_


Good discussion in the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Further on "settled science" and XX).

Important study: Waste heat is a major source of national warming, significantly pollutes climatic record



> The greenhouse effect isn’t the only thing warming things up. There is also the waste heat released when we generate and use energy – even clean energy. Yet the regional impact of that heat – which moves from warm buildings, engines and power plants into the world around us – has not been well accounted for. *A new study now shows waste heat may explain some temperature variations at a national scale better than do global climate change models.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

XX)

Laughable Claim: Antarctic snowfall accumulation won’t save us from sea level rise because weather patterns were different 10,000 years ago



> Many factors related to warming will conspire to raise the planet’s oceans over coming decades — thermal expansion of the world’s oceans, melting of snow and ice worldwide, and the collapse of massive ice sheets.
> 
> But there are a few potential brakes. One was supposed to be heavier snowfall over the vast continent of Antarctica. Warmer air will hold more moisture and thus generate more snow to fall inland and slightly rebuild the glacier, according to climate model projections.
> 
> Not so fast, says a University of Washington study published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The authors looked at evidence from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core to get a first clear look at how the continent’s snowfall has varied over 31,000 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> *“We show that warmer temperatures and snowfall sometimes go together, but often they don’t.”*


M'bold.

Say what? Models wrong? Impossible...


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...

The Antarctic Has Been Warmer Than Now For Most Of The Last 8000 Years



> The study is based in West Antarctica. I won’t go into the details, which were covered by WUWT here. But what was interesting were the temperature graphs included, based on ice cores.
> 
> We can see that for most of the time since the end of the ice age temperatures have been much higher than now. We can also clearly see the sharp drop coinciding with the LIA, and that temperatures were similar to now in the MWP.
> 
> We are continually told that humans are pushing the earth’s climate into unknown territory, but once again we see this is not true. *As far as the Antarctic is concerned, all the evidence points to the 20thC rise in temperatures being no more than a natural recovery from the LIA.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on La Nina.

Surface Temperatures Falling At The Fastest Rate In 60 Years



> Even NASA’s fake temperatures show that Earth cooled 0.35C over the past two months, the largest two month drop since 1955.


Related:

Global temperatures are heading downward, and fast



> It’s no surprise to us that the “monster” El Niño of 2015/2016 created a very large temperature global spike, after all, that’s what the natural process that creates the phenomenon results in due to the Pacific ocean near the Equator not being able to dissipate heat to space as effectively as it usually does. NOAA says that “ENSO is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. ”
> 
> But, as they say, “what goes up, must come down”. NOAA has this to say about the current state


----------



## FeXL

That _had_ to hurt...

Kerry concedes: Terrorism is a bigger threat than climate change



> Secretary of State John Kerry this week acknowledged twice that the Islamic State and the threat of terrorism around the world is a bigger threat than climate change, even though he has insisted in past years that climate is the bigger threat.
> 
> Kerry revealed his subtle change of thinking during his trip to Europe, where he twice indicated that when it comes to global threats, terrorism is first, and climate change is a very close second.


Whatevs. He's still an idiot...

Kerry & XX) related:

In Honor of Secretary of State John Kerry’s Global Warming Publicity-Founded Visit to Greenland…



> Climate science is a model-based science, inasmuch as climate models are used by the climate science community to speculate about the contributions of manmade greenhouse gases to past, present and future global warming and climate change.
> 
> *The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC cannot properly simulate Greenland’s surface air temperatures over any timeframe from 1861 to present. Basically, they have no value as tools for use in determining how surface temperatures have impacted ice sheet mass loss in the past or how they may be impacting those losses presently or how they may impact them in the future. That also draws into question any speculation about past, present and future contributions of the Greenland ice sheet losses to sea level rise.*
> 
> As noted a few times in On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1, climate models are presently not fit for the purposes for which they were intended.


M'bold.

Related, too:

John Kerry Daily Climate Fraud



> The level of fraud and stupidity from this White House is rocketing off-scale as Obama’s term ends.


----------



## FeXL

Turning up the heat on the "Science Guy"...

Dr. Willie Soon takes on Bill Nye, the Scientism Guy 



> In a recent Huffington Post article, Mr. Nye “challenges climate change deniers” by claiming, “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”
> 
> Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).
> 
> Perhaps Mr. Nye and these Australian researchers should discuss what factors other than carbon dioxide actually cause climate and weather fluctuations. They may also encounter other revelations: that climate science is still young and anything but settled; that we have little understanding of what caused major ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods in between and numerous other events throughout the ages; that computer model predictions thus far have been little better than tarot card divinations.
> 
> *As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.*


M'bold.

Well, it's a start...


----------



## FeXL

How the West got healthy and prosperous 



> *Abundant, reliable, affordable energy* – the vast majority of it fossil fuels – made all this and much more possible. It carried us from human and animal muscle, wood, dung and water wheels, to densely packed energy that could reliably power factories, laboratories, schools, hospitals, homes and offices.
> 
> Those fuels also run equipment that removes harmful pollutants from our air and water, and they ended our unsustainable reliance on whale oil, saving those magnificent mammals from extinction.
> Today, coal, oil and natural gas still provide 80% of America’s and the world’s energy, for transportation, communication, refrigeration, heat, lights, manufacturing, entertainment and every other component of modern life. Together, the scientific method and industrial-grade energy enable our Ultimate Resource – the human mind – to create more new ideas, institutions and technologies that make life for poor people in wealthier countries better, healthier, fuller and longer than even royalty enjoyed a mere century ago.


Emphasis from the link.

Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Sauce for the gander.

Bring on the climate fraud game? If Exxon can be sued, so can Al Gore, renewables, insurance, banks,



> From the Republican Attorney Generals in the US – the message that policing the “global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake.” The Rep AG’s point out this is a public policy debate, and if other AG’s are going to use the subpoena’s to shake down companies like Exxon for supporting free speech on one side of the debate, then suddenly a lot of players are opening themselves to similar cases.
> 
> Wall St Journal: Two can play at Climate Fraud
> 
> _Eric Schneiderman and Sheldon Whitehouse, call your office. The New York Attorney General and Rhode Island Senator who helped to launch the prosecution of dissent on climate change may not like where their project is headed. *Thirteen state Attorneys General have sent a letter pointing out that if minimizing the risks of climate change can be prosecuted as “fraud,” then so can statements overstating the dangers of climate change.*_​


M'bold.

D'oh!!! :yikes:


----------



## FeXL

Yosemite flora greener from Barry's carbon footprint.

Obama brings massive carbon footprint for his visit to Yosemite to hector us over global warming



> Not only did President Obama bring a 40 car motorcade to Yosemite, causing no small amount of mirth on Twitter


and:



> Back at Castle Airport (formerly Castle AFB) near Merced. The CO2 has been spewing for days and days:
> 
> _There already has been activity at Castle this week from jumbo jets delivering equipment and Marine One and Two, the presidential helicopters, said Joe Pruzzo, CEO of Castle Air Museum.
> 
> 
> He said Air Force One doesn’t go anywhere without an entourage and plenty of backup. “You’ll definitely see a secure perimeter around it,” he said. “I would assume that Secret Service (would) have a perimeter around the airfield itself.”
> 
> Pruzzo said a maintenance crew is always close by in case the equipment needs servicing and a backup plane accompanies Air Force One. Also typically in the entourage, he said, is a jet that can provide in-flight refueling._​


----------



## FeXL

Wait...wha???

South Pole is the last place on Earth to pass a global warming milestone

For the moment, ignore everything beyond the first paragraph.



> The Earth passed another unfortunate milestone May 23 when carbon dioxide (CO2) surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) at the South Pole *for the first time in 4 million years.*


M'bold.

Riddle me this, Batman: What caused atmospheric CO2 concentrations to hit 400ppm 4 million years ago?

Then we have this gem:



> "We know from abundant and solid evidence that the CO2 increase is caused entirely by human activities," Tans said. "Since emissions from fossil fuel burning have been at a record high during the last several years, the rate of CO2 increase has also been at a record high. And we know some of it will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years."


There is so much misinformation & outright lies in this paragraph I don't even know where to start...


----------



## FeXL

How about another perspective on increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Greenpeace co-founder pens treatise on the positive effects of CO2 – says there is no crisis



> This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. *As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.
> 
> This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.* It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.


M'bold.

Now, while I don't agree with everything Moore says, that bolded portion is the key part of the whole message. CO2 is not poison at 0.04% (400ppm) of the atmosphere, nor at 0.7% (7000ppm), both of which have occurred in earth's history. It is a necessary element for plants and subsequently, every other life form on this planet, to live.


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the alleged indicators for the warmist canary-in-the-coalmine theory is that, because of all the "warm weather", grizzly bears are extending their range northwards & mating with polar bears, creating blonde coloured hybrid offspring called grolars or pizzlys.

As a matter of fact, one of the alleged pizzly cubs was recently killed in south Nunavut & the discovery raised a hue & cry among the faithful. Unfortunately, when actual polar bear scientists got involved...

The unbearable lightness of polar bear ‘climate science’



> From the “Emily Litella” department (never mind) and Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford, comes yet another hilarious take-down of attempts to link polar bears and climate change last month. Turns out it’s just a blonde. Paging Andrew Derocher! Cleanup on aisle 5!
> 
> Dr. Crockford writes:
> 
> All the hubris last month about polar bear x grizzly hybrids, based on an unusual-looking bear killed near Arviat, has turned out to be wishful thinking by those who’d like to blame everything to do with polar bears on climate change. An awful lot of “experts” now have egg on their faces. *That “hybrid” was just a blonde grizzly, as I warned it might.*


Bold from the link.

And who was among the first to start spreading the BS? Here's your first clue: envision your tax dollars at work...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the methane scare.

New AGU study negates the climate ‘methane emergency’ in Alaska



> _Analysis of nearly three decades of air samples from Alaska’s North Slope shows little change in long-term methane emissions despite significant Arctic warming over that time period, according to new research published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union._​


Hate when that happens.


----------



## FeXL

So, the jet stream crossed the equator not too long ago. Warmists studying the entrails of unicorns decided that this had never happened before & are going ballistic, blaming it on globull warming.

Worst science of the year: “‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare ‘global climate emergency’ after jet stream crosses equator”

Let's get right to the meat of the matter:



> This ridiculous claim made me think of this line:
> 
> _Sometimes, number one, you just have to bow to the absurd – Jean Luc Picard, Star Trek TNG_​


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's Weather, Not Climate" department, sceptic style and further on La Nina.

Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures




> *This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.*


Bold from the link.


----------



## FeXL

It's the 70's all over again...

Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?



> The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.


Related:

U-Turn! Scientists At The PIK Potsdam Institute Now Warning Of A “Mini Ice Age”!



> The Berliner Kurier writes:
> 
> _"That’s the conclusion that solar physicists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research reached when looking at solar activity.”_​
> For an institute that over the past 20 years has steadfastly insisted that man has been almost the sole factor in climate change over the past century and that the sun no longer plays a role, this is quite remarkable.
> 
> The Berliner Kurier reports that the PIK scientists foresee a weakening of the sun’s activity over the coming years.
> 
> _“That means that conversely it is going to get colder. The scientists are speaking of a little ice age.”_​


----------



## FeXL

Tribute to John Daly, climate skeptic.

John L. Daly: a Giant of Early Climate Skepticism.



> Perhaps among the best summaries of John Daly’s role was by Professor Emeritus John Brignell, who wrote,
> 
> _Daly was the epitome of a new phenomenon of the post-scientific age, a lone scholar with all the traditions of meticulous attention to detail and truth that the word implies, with limited means upholding the principles of the scientific method in the face of adversaries with vast resources. He usually won, but the establishment media ensured that the world never got to hear of it. He was the eternal small boy gleefully pointing out that the emperor had no clothes._​


----------



## FeXL

So, Australia just had _another_ election and the lefty warmists (but I repeat myself) are up in arms, once again

Shocking – Potential Senator wants to teach scientific method, climate scepticism in schools



> The outlandish policy:
> 
> _[One Nation] wants the teaching of climate science in schools to be based on *“the scientific method of scepticism”*._​
> It’s hard to overstate how disastrous this would be to the indoctrination program. Life on Earth depends on hiding alternate views from impressionable minds. Students should continue to be taught that scientists are of one-mind, or they may grow up to think scientists are supposed to be skeptical, instead of gullible.


Bold from the link.

Heaven forbid...

Oh, but you can't blow the narrative:



> _Obviously_ The Guardian, _the_ SMH _and the_ ABC _are already training readers on the correct response: it’s dangerous, red-necked, and extreme right wing._​


Oooooooooo. Scary... 

Related:

Green Panic: “Deniers” may hold the Balance of Power in the Aussie Senate



> Greens are panicking in Australia in the wake of the recent cliffhanger Federal Election, as the likelihood grows that climate skeptic Pauline Hanson, who has repeatedly demanded a Royal Commission into Climate Change, will control the balance of power in the new Australian Senate.


----------



## FeXL

Nah...

Expanding Antarctic sea ice linked to natural variability



> The recent trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent — seemingly at odds with climate model projections — can largely be explained by a natural climate fluctuation, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).


I wouldn't put too much stock in it:



> To test if these IPO-related impacts were sufficient to cause the growth in sea ice extent observed between 2000 and 2014, *the scientists first examined 262 climate simulations created by different modeling groups* from around the world.


M'bold.

Yep: XX)


----------



## FeXL

I've never believed in the 97% concensus BS because, quite frankly, science isn't decided by a show of hands. Period.

I think that by attempting to compete at that level & count how many people or papers do or do not support one view or another is a wasted exercise, a misuse of scarce resources. That said, if this sort of thing floats your boat...

Already 240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone Show AGW “Consensus” Is A Fantasy!



> *Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role.*
> 
> Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation. Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers.


M'bold.


----------



## SINC

The Hillary Treatment for Climate Fraudsters?












> This past March, 17 attorneys general launched a coordinated effort to investigate, pursue and prosecute companies, think tanks and other organizations that say there is little credible evidence that human “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing “dangerous” or “catastrophic” manmade climate change.
> 
> *The AGs said their targets’ actions constitute “fraud” – which they described as using “polished public relations campaigns” to “muddle the truth,” “discredit prevailing climate science,” and “mislead” people about threats from higher temperatures, rising seas, floods and more severe weather. Their real goal is to intimidate and silence targeted groups, and bankrupt them with legal fees, court costs and lost funding.*
> 
> The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, ExxonMobil and other “climate denier” organizations fought back vigorously, refusing to surrender their constitutional rights to participate in this vital public policy debate. The AGs’ bravado and prosecutions began fraying at the edges.
> 
> But one wonders: How will these intrepid protectors of the public interest respond to Real Climate Fraud? To intentional misrepresentations of material facts, with knowledge of their falsity, and for the purpose of inducing persons or institutions to act, with resulting injury or damage.
> 
> Will those AGs – or other state AGs, Congress, state legislatures or the Justice Department – investigate the growing list of highly questionable actions by scientists and others who receive billions in taxpayer and consumer funds for renewable energy programs and research into manmade climate cataclysm scares … to justify policies, laws and regulations that raise energy costs, destroy fossil fuel companies and jobs, force layoffs in other industries, and harm poor, minority and working class families?
> 
> Or will they respond the way FBI Director Comey did to Hillary Clinton’s reckless disregard for national security secrets: ignore the bad conduct, and reward transgressors with more money, prestige and power?
> 
> *The case for widespread misconduct by members of the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Change & Renewable Energy Complex grows more compelling, and disturbing, by the day. A complete listing and analysis would require books, but these few examples underscore the seriousness of the global problem.*
> 
> *Crisis fabrication.* After warming 1910-1940, cooling 1940-1975, warming 1975-1998, not budging 1998-2015, Earth warmed slightly 2015-2016 amid a strong El Niño. No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a record 10-1/2 years. Seas are rising at 7 inches per century. Arctic ice is near normal; Antarctic ice is at a record high. There are more polar bears than ever.
> 
> But the White House, EPA, UN and media falsely claim we face an unprecedented crisis – and must quickly replace reliable, affordable hydrocarbons with expensive, subsidized, unreliable renewable energy, and let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats control our lives, livelihoods and living standards.
> 
> *Data manipulation.* When actual measurements don’t support climate chaos claims, dishonest scientists “homogenize” and manipulate them to create imaginary warming trends. Phil Jones, his British team and their US counterparts eliminated centuries of Little Ice Age cooling and created new records showing planetary temperatures suddenly spiking in recent decades. They used ClimateGate emails to devise devious schemes preventing outside analysts from examining their data, computer algorithms and methodologies – and then “lost” information that peer reviewers wanted to examine.
> 
> NOAA’s clever climate consortium *adjusted accurate sea-surface temperature data* from scientific ocean buoys upward by a quarter-degree, to “homogenize” them with records from engine intake systems contaminated by shipboard heat – thereby creating a previously undetected warming trend.
> 
> Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology *revised Rutherglen weather station data* to convert 100 years of data showing a slight cooling trend into a warming of several degrees per century. As with other “adjustments” (by NASA, for instance) the revisions always create warming trends – never a slight cooling – and climate crisis scientists always say humans caused the warming, even though they are unable to separate natural forces, cycles and fluctuations from alleged human influences.
> 
> 
> *GIGO computer models.* Climate models assume post-1975 warming is due to manmade carbon dioxide; exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2 levels; and simplify or ignore vital natural forces like solar energy variations, cosmic ray fluxes, heat-reflecting clouds, and recurrent phenomena like El Niño and La Niña. *They conjure up “scenarios” that alarmists treat as valid predictions of what will happen if we don’t slash fossil fuel use.* Models replace actual evidence, and play an important role in climate battles.
> 
> *It’s complete GIGO:* faulty assumptions, data, algorithms, analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out. That’s why “hockey stick” and other models are so out of touch with reality. In fact, an official IPCC graph showed that every UN climate model between 1990 and 2012 predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 F) higher than they actually were! The inconvenient graph was revised for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report.
> 
> *Report manipulation.* Activists and bureaucrats always finalize the Summary for Policymakers, the only IPCC climate document that most voters, elected officials and journalists ever read. They want to ensure that already politicized climate “science” does not undermine or contradict political themes and agendas.
> 
> A 1995 State Department document reveals the extent of this interference and manipulation. The 30-page document gave detailed instructions as to how the Clinton White House wanted the summary’s scientific explanations and conclusions revised, to make alleged climate and weather trends even more worrisome. Donna Laframboise and others document the bias, distortion and deception that dominate IPCC actions.
> 
> *Consensus fabrication.* Claims of a 97% consensus on climate cataclysm science are likewise slippery, and based on bait-and-switch tactics that look only at study abstracts of studies and then misrepresent what the abstracts say, ask one question but base their conclusions on a different one, or use other strategies and misrepresentations to hide the disagreements and debates that still dominate this topic.
> 
> *Cost-benefit falsification.* The US Government has mastered this fraudulent tactic, especially in its “social cost of carbon” calculations. EPA and other agencies blame methane and carbon dioxide emissions for every conceivable impact on agriculture, forests, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, too much or too little rain. They totally ignore the way more CO2 makes plants grow faster and better, with less water.
> 
> *They also ignore the enormous benefits of fossil fuels* for 80% of all the energy we use to transport people and products, generate reliable, affordable electricity, and manufacture fertilizers, plastics and thousands of other products. And they ignore the ways anti-energy regulations raise hospital, factory and small business costs, kill jobs, and reduce living standards, health and welfare for millions of people.
> 
> Why would they do these things? The US federal government alone spent $11.6 billion on “green” energy and climate “research” and “mitigation” programs in 2014. That money did not go to scientists who question “dangerous manmade climate change” doctrines.
> 
> Recipients and their parent institutions are determined to preserve this funding, protect their reputations and prestige, and maintain their influence and control over policies, laws, regulations, and wind, solar and biofuel mandates and subsidies. It is all inextricably tied to silencing inconvenient questions and, if needs be, engaging in systematic and systemic exaggeration, falsification and misrepresentation.
> 
> *So, AGs, by all means let’s investigate. But let’s not criminalize differences of opinion. Let’s root out actual fraud, let real science prevail, and protect our livelihoods and living standards from unscrupulous people and organizations that are using fraudulent climate chaos claims to control energy use, transform the US and global economic systems, and redistribute the world’s wealth.*


My bold.

The Hillary Treatment for Climate Fraudsters? - Paul Driessen


----------



## FeXL

Why climate?

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: Climate is a “$7 trillion opportunity”



> Anyone celebrating the recent abolition of the British Department of Energy and Climate Change needs to keep a few bottles of champagne on ice. Mark Carney, the powerful green enthusiast who runs the Bank of England, Britain’s version of the Federal Reserve, has just described climate as a “$7 trillion opportunity”.


Related:

Climate change is potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for bankers)



> Carbon pricing has failed to change the weather all over the world. Free markets don’t work when they aren’t free and when they apply to a ubiquitous molecule involved in almost every life form on the planet. And what does “clean pricing” mean anyway? The cost benefit assessment of using solar panels to reduce your exposure to flood damage in 2100 is as filthy-dirty-a-calculation as anything gets. Calculations don’t get messier, blacker or more pointless than this. Crunch those numbers and then bury them in 6 feet of volcanic ash.


----------



## FeXL

Certainly. Water vapour is the largest GHG by far & TIPCC™ has a mandate to find only anthropogenic causes. Therefore, it's missed almost entirely...

Does IPCC Practice Willful Blindness of Water Vapor to Prove a Scientific Point for a Political Agenda?



> The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change was drafted so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could direct the focus to CO2. It was equally important to prevent disclosure that natural variation in water vapor (WV) far exceeds the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It likely exceeds it in total and certainly more than any human-induced increase in CO2. IPCC displayed duplicity when they ignored WV until it became necessary to maintain demonization of CO2.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Europeans Stunned As Winter Strikes In Mid July! Snow Down To Only 1500 Meters …”Extremely Rare”



> _Clearly snow is not real unusual in June or late August at these elevations, but in July it is truly an unusual event to witness. This summer is not only behaving like fall, but even like winter.
> 
> Not only did snow fall in Switzerland, but also in Austria. The popular Großglockner high Alps pass was in parts covered by snow this morning. And it is still snowing.​_


Related:

July snowfall in three states



> Snow reported in parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.


----------



## FeXL

Gergis Australian hockeystick is back: How one typo took four years to fix



> The Gergis hockeystick was heralded in the media for a week in 2012 before it was cut apart online and months later, quietly withdrawn. Headlines raved that Australia was having the “hottest years in the millennium”. As I said at the time, it was all silly beyond belief – the whole study relied on two bunches of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand to tell us that the greater continental area was 0.09°C warmer now than it was in 1000AD. *If trees in yonder Tassie can tell the whole continental temperature to a tenth of a degree, who needs thermometers (especially the kind which need 2 degree corrections)?* Why does the BOM bother today?


M'bold.

Good question...


----------



## FeXL

UN criticises UK and Germany for betraying Paris climate deal



> Ban Ki-moon’s climate change envoy has accused the UK and Germany of backtracking on the spirit of the Paris climate deal by financing the fossil fuel industry through subsidies.
> 
> Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN special envoy on climate change and El Niño, said she had to speak out after Germany promised compensation for coal power and the UK provided tax breaks for oil and gas.


Related:

UN criticises UK and Germany for betraying Paris climate deal



> So we get a special envoy for El Nino (yes, I know, you could not make it up, could you?), and the ludicrous Natalie Bennett. Nothing like a bit of serious reporting, never mind balance, eh?
> 
> Well, I hate to spoil the greenie love in, but here are a few inconvenient facts:


2nd link, good read.


----------



## FeXL

Well, they use treemometers. I don't like them on either side of the argument. Simply too many variables. However, if it floats yer boat...

New Study, Scientists: “20th Century Warming Not Very Obvious In Our Reconstruction”



> A new 368-year tree ring temperature reconstruction has established that regional (China) summer temperatures were warmer than they are now (2012) during the mid-1600s and early 1700s, and that the temperature variations can be linked to variations in solar activity, volcanic forcing (cooling), and natural oceanic-atmospheric oscillations (AMO/PDO).
> 
> The authors are intent on pointing out that it is _“noteworthy that 20th century warming was not very obvious in our reconstruction.”_ This “noteworthy” finding is mentioned four different times in the paper.
> 
> The lack of a conspicuous 20th century warming — and the warmer periods during the 1600s and 1700s — are clearly shown in the summer temperature graph below:


----------



## FeXL

I fail to see the problem...

Britain SHUTS DOWN Its Global Warming Agency



> Britain’s new government abolished its Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Thursday morning, ridding the country of its global warming bureaucracy.
> 
> Officials stated that the DECC has been abolished and U.K.’s environmental policy is will be transferred to a new ministry called the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Some former DECC’s functions will be outright abolished, while others will be handed back to the new ministry.


With any luck it will be the Climate Change functions that'll be abolished.


----------



## FeXL

One more reason (as if you needed another) not to vote for Bill's Wife...

Global Warming’s Grand Inquisitors



> If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, her party's platform makes no bones about what is in store for those who dare to dispute the "settled science" of assorted computer modellers, grant-grabbers, propagandists and professional alarmists: a visit by the authorities


----------



## FeXL

So, some of you will glom on to this headline and say, OMG!  Anthropogenic Global Warming!!!

The shrewd among you will say, wait, wha...? The Arctic was ice free 100,00 years ago? What caused that?

Arctic could become ice-free for first time in more than 100,000 years, claims leading scientist


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Not as many idiots as I thought...

Most voters oppose government prosecution of climate skeptics, say debate isn’t over: poll



> An overwhelming majority of voters oppose government efforts to investigate and prosecute scientists and others, including major corporations, who question global warming.
> 
> A Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday found that 69 percent of likely U.S. voters are opposed to such investigations, while only 15 percent approve of them. Another 16 percent are undecided.


----------



## FeXL

I suspect the latter...

PolitiFact or Politi-fiction?



> This is a critique of the coverage of the man-made climate change debate by Politifact.com. It’s an update of a post I wrote last year. Journalism has not improved in the last 19 months and may actually be worse. Because Politifact is often characterized as an unbiased and credible source by the rest of the media it must be held to a very high standard. *This is why finding two well documented cases of the organization deliberately mischaracterizing the facts and misquoting sources on the climate change debate is so shocking. As a result of these “fact checks” it is annoying that the press cites Politifact as if it were objective and honest, it is neither.*


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

Information you won't see on the MSM.

Interesting and positive changes in Arctic sea ice volume



> Thus, 3 out of the 4 most recent years ranks number show increase in ice volume as not seen since 2003. Is this a sign of a real game changer for climate? If this tendency continues into La Nina times and continued low Solar Cycle activity years, the massive rebound of Arctic sea ice may be much closer than most would expect at this point.
> 
> What is also truly remarkable is that the year 2014 actually for Aug 8 had just as large a volume of ice as 2003 and 2006. This certainly shows that we are not in a situation of “point of no return”. It seems we can return to pre-2007 ice volume levels any year.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read.

Jupiter's Giant Red Spot is red hot & explained by the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect



> A new paper published in Nature finds Jupiter's Great Red Spot is red hot at about 2,420°F or 1,330°C (i.e. almost hot enough to melt steel at 1425°C) and that this observation,
> 
> _"could solve the mystery of the unusually high temperatures observed throughout Jupiter's upper atmosphere, which can't be explained by solar heating alone. [nor by a radiative greenhouse effect]"
> 
> "Previous heat-distribution models suggested that Jupiter's atmosphere should be much cooler, largely because the planet is about fives times further from the sun than Earth is. So, having ruled out solar heating from above, the authors of the new research found evidence suggesting this atmospheric heating is largely driven by a combination of gravity waves and acoustic waves generated by turbulences in the atmosphere below the Great Red Spot.
> 
> "Giant planets like Jupiter are measured to be hundreds of degrees warmer than current temperature models predict. Before now, the extremely warm temperatures observed in Jupiter's atmosphere have been difficult to explain, due to the lack of a known heat source."
> _​*In other words, the very hot atmospheric temperatures on Jupiter cannot be due to an Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect. The atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly comprised of the non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, but does contain small amounts of the IR-active 'greenhouse' gas water vapor. However, the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse effect perfectly explains the observed atmospheric temperature profile of Jupiter, making Jupiter the ninth planet in our solar system to follow the simple Poisson relationship of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure to temperature.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead



> Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.
> 
> The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but *some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.*


M'bold.

Can't have any evidence that doesn't support the narrative now, can we?


----------



## FeXL

So, one of the narrative's talking points is that AGW is causing melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

However, it's been melting for the last 7500 years...

West Antarctic Glaciers Have Been Retreating For Last 7500 Years



> _The new study pins down several dates and locations that trace the ice sheet’s shrinkage. The team–led by glaciologist Howard Conway of the University of Washington in Seattle and geologist Brenda Hall of the University of Maine, Orono–used radar to image old layers within the ice, which revealed its growth and decay over time. The researchers also used radiocarbon dating to analyze the ages of organic material left high and dry on beaches as the ice sheet melted away to expose land, which rises as the weight is lifted during the ice’s retreat. These and other methods revealed a pattern of steady retreat at an average rate of 120 meters per year over the last 7500 years. "We suspect this is an ongoing and long-term natural cycle triggered by rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age," says Conway._​


----------



## FeXL

Further on the effects of sea level rise.

Tropical Pacific Islands Are Not Being Drowned By Rising Seas



> _Analyses of aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite imagery indicated that the passage of Typhoon Ophelia caused a decrease in total island land area of approximately five percent, yet Ford and Kench write that “despite [this] significant typhoon-driven erosion and a relaxation period coincident with local sea-level rise, [the] islands have persisted and grown.” Between 1976 and 2006, for example, 73 out of the 87 islands increased in size, and by 2010, the total landmass of the islands had exceeded the pre-typhoon area by nearly 4 percent.
> 
> Such observations, in the words of Ford and Kench, suggest an “alternative trajectory” for future reef island development, and that trajectory is one of “continued island expansion rather than one of island withering.” And such expansion is not just limited to Jaluit Atoll, for according to Ford and Kench, “the observations of reef island growth on Jaluit coincident with sea level rise are broadly consistent with observations of reef islands made elsewhere in the Marshall Islands and Pacific (McLean and Kench, 2015).” *Given as much, it would thus appear that low-lying islands are not as vulnerable to climate change as previously thought.*_​


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Surface Frost Strikes Germany As Mid August Temperatures Shatter Old Records!



> German meteorologist Domink Jung wrote here yesterday that a number of German stations recorded surface frost, _“and that in the middle of peak summer”_ and that _“it was colder than Christmas day 2015”_.


Italics from the link.


----------



## FeXL

That's gonna leave a mark...

New NASA Survey Finds Antarctica Covered in More Ice Than Previously Thought



> Antartica is one of the most ice-covered locations in the world, but it is also one of the world’s largest land masses. Previous estimates by researchers placed the level of uncovered land in Antartica at about *1%*. However, a new survey in part by NASA shows that this estimate was rather generous and the continent is covered in a lot more ice than previously thought. Researchers from Cryosphere have shown that only *.18* percent of the entire continent is not covered by ice and snow, which is surprisingly low.


Link's bold.


----------



## FeXL

Arctic Ice: An Update – Evidence From the Past is Instructive



> Maybe Al Gore, whose credibility is on thin ice, can explain how the ice is now thickening, and polar bears are flourishing. He could also explain how the Bears survived the 1817 conditions or any of the other extreme natural variations of weather and ice in the historic record.


I doubt it...


----------



## FeXL

Sample size, sample size, sample size...

Seven days worth of data gathering cause alarming headline: “Global warming’s next surprise: Saltier beaches”



> Plus that, the study data gathering looks to be flawed from the start as they say: _“The team analyzed nearly 400 sediment samples collected during the sequential phases of a complete tidal cycle, from day to night, on seven discontinuous days.”_ *Seven days? One beach? That’s not enough to say anything useful about trends, nor to extrapolate to local, regional, or global climate.* They say “These elevated levels can only be caused by evaporation…”. Well sure, It’s called _weather._ Changes in weather cause changes in evaporation. If they were really thorough scientists, they would have setup an evapotranspiration measuring weather station nearby…so that they could factor in the changes in weather to their study.


Link's italics, m'bold.

This is what passes for "Climate Science" these days...


----------



## FeXL

Brian Cox thinks 17,000 employees at NASA always produce perfect graphs. NASA employees disagree. Who to believe?



> The key moment making headlines from the Q&A “Science Weak” episode — Brian Cox shows a temperature graph. Malcolm Roberts said the GISS temperature data has been “manipulated”. The Particle Physics Genius’ reply was argument from incredulity: gushing, gratuitous astonishment spread over six attempts to form a complete sentence:
> 
> _By who? NASA? The people the… Hang on a minute. No, no, see this is quite serious. But can I just – just one thing. NASA, NASA… The people that landed men on the moon?_​
> In a blink of reductio ad absurbum, Cox sweeps aside a potentially useful discussion about thermometers near car-parks, airports, skyscrapers, and mysterious 1,200 km homogenized smoothing. In its place he gives cheap theatrical tricks. *Follow his thought to its logical conclusion — everything that NASA does (or presumably will ever do) must be 100% correct. NASA becomes an apostle of the holy order. He treats the brand name as untouchable, but NASA is not just Neil Armstrong and a Big Step, it’s an agency with 17,000 employees. But hey, none of them have ever produced a manipulated graph.*


M'bold.

Funny, that.


----------



## FeXL

“Science Is The Belief In The Ignorance Of The Experts”



> All of the highly paid government ice experts were predicting a record Arctic low or an ice-free Arctic. Meanwhile, I was predicting this :
> 
> _2016 should end up with more ice than last year
> 
> If my prediction is correct, alarmists are in trouble – because next year will become the first year in a decade where there is a significant amount of multi-year ice on the Russian side.
> 
> My Arctic Forecast For 2016 | Real Science_​
> Looks like my analysis was spot on.


Yep.


----------



## FeXL

New book out.

In new book, scholar peels back layers of deception on global warming



> The global climate is one of the most complex, chaotic, non-linear natural systems we know. It is in a constant state of flux due to such factors as changes in the output of the sun, changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and oscillations in ocean heat uptake. The alarm movement has taken one such factor – growth in the minor atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide – to claim that human activity is changing the atmosphere to an alarming degree, leading inexorably to a much warmer climate. *While increased atmospheric carbon dioxide – from .03 to .04 percent of the atmosphere – should lead to some warming, the extent of that warming within the context of a complex system that is in a constant state of flux due to numerous forcings and feedbacks is highly exaggerated.* As UK science journalist Matt Ridley points out, “Environmental researchers are increasingly looking for evidence that fits their ideology rather than seeking the truth.” The best evidence indicates that the mild warming at the end of the 20th century was well within historical and geologic experience. Over the first decade and a half of the 21st century, there has been no net warming. The alarmist movement relies extensively on flawed computer models to make its case.


M'bold.

Sounds like a good one. I'll be picking it up.


----------



## FeXL

You Ought to Have a Look: Natural Climate Variability

I'll sum it up here:



> _So, the next time you read that such and such extreme precipitation event was made worse by global warming, you’ll know that there is precious little actual science to back that up._​


Got that? Science. Not feelings. Not wishful thinking. Not Progressive Unicorn Farts.


----------



## FeXL

Thank Gawd!

James Hansen Saved The Planet In 1988



> His testimony before Congress came during the last really hot summer in the US. Peak temperatures had already declined substantially since the 1930’s, but they plummeted further since he announced that he was certain global warming was causing the heatwave.


Go, Jimmy!


----------



## FeXL

How is that possible? Downtown DC temps are hotter than outlying areas? Say it ain't so...

Imitation is The Sincerest Form Of UHI



> The Capital Weather Gang at the Washington Post has started generating graphs like mine. Note the one below which shows a sharp rise in the number of 100 degree days in Washington DC since 1988.
> 
> ...
> 
> But if we go 50 miles west of DC to more rural regions, we see the exact opposite. The number of 100 degrees has dropped off to almost zero since 1988.


----------



## FeXL

So, how's the ice?

State Of The Cryopshere



> Experts say that the Arctic will be ice-free this year, because their funding is proportional to how big the lie is which they are willing to tell.


Inside is a link to this headline:



> Arctic could become ice-free for first time in more than 100,000 years, claims leading scientist


The warmists among you will say, "See!!! Global Warming!!!"

The sceptics among you will ask, "100,000 years ago there was no ice in the Arctic? What caused that?"

Related:

Study Shows Global Warming Thawed Antarctica 128K Years Ago: Before Fossil Fuels



> _Winter sea ice around Antarctica shrank 65 per cent in a natural warm period between Ice Ages about 128,000 years ago, when temperatures were slightly warmer than now, according to the new report in the journal Nature Communications._​


What's this?! Warmer than now? How is that possible?! What about Globull Warming? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions? Unicorn farts?

Related, too:

Stay Frosty Antarctica



> The collapse of the Antarctic ice shelves, causing oceans to rise and all sorts of climate mayhem, is a favorite theme of climate alarmists everywhere. Unfortunately for them, new reports tell a different story. It seems that the Antarctic Peninsula has actually cooled over the past two decades. *Moreover, all the hoopla about this being the hottest year ever is contradicted by findings from Antarctic ice cores that during the Eemian, the last interglacial (LIG; 130,000–115,000 years ago), global climate was warmer than today and global mean sea level was 6-9 m higher. Sorry to dampen the hysteria with actual science.*


M'bold.

That pesky science. Again...


----------



## FeXL

Weepy Bill's at it again...

McKibben: It’s The Climate World War. Hitler, Nazi’s, panic!

I don't even have a quote. Just read the absurdity. And if, like me, any of you had relatives who fought in WWII, try not to be offended by this idiot...


----------



## FeXL

Good, ol' Garvin. He never fails to disappoint.

Heavily adjusted temperature dataset shows a warming trend, but can we trust it?



> NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt, who has come under fire for being more activist than scientist, sent out a tweet yesterday predicting that 2016 would be the hottest year on record and said he was 99 percent sure of that claim. According to land-and-sea-based temperature stations, July 2016 was 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1950 to 1980 timeframe. But when compared to the 1930s, July still is not a record breaker. But only if you don’t rely on an adjusted temperature dataset.


----------



## FeXL

So, remember the temperature graphs that featured the 1998 El Nino? The peak in the middle of the plot that all the warmists were peeing themselves over, yet another "warmest yeah, evah" & certain proof of man's contribution to the climate? Well, like every other temperature record NASA can get their hands on, it's been "adjusted".

NASA Successfully Eliminates the 1998 El Nino



> _Has anyone looked at the recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis? A chart of it was used in a recent Australian Broadcasting Company debate on global warming to make the case that surface temperatures have risen continuously during the past 20 years.
> 
> There’s a pretty blatant problem with the NASA chart, however. And it’s a fault that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of climate studies would recognize.
> 
> The NASA GISS analysis essentially eliminates the 1998 El Niño. Instead of the ’98 El Niño towering above neighboring years, thanks to its massive release of stored Pacific Ocean heat content, 1998 is simply depicted as one rung on an ever-climbing temperature ladder. And then, suddenly, there’s 2016, with an El Niño that explodes far above all of the preceding years._​


Yep...


----------



## FeXL

So, for those of you who have been following the Charlie Foxtrot over on the other thread about 2016 being the "warmest yeah, evah!", here are a few more links that illustrate 1936 was far warmer than 2016. Some of the data is repeated but the point remains the same.

James Hansen – World’s #1 Climate Criminal

August 12, 1936 – One Of The Hottest Days In US History



> On this date 80 years, the entire US was engulfed in a massive heat wave which brought temperatures of 120 degrees to Oklahoma, 119 degrees in Kansas, 115 degrees in Texas, 111 degrees in Nebraska and 110 degrees in Arkansas and South Dakota.


Hottest July Ever Wasn’t Hot

Summer 2016 Vs Summer 1936



> The heatwave of 1936 was incomprehensibly hot by modern standards. July/August maximum temperatures in Clinton, Missouri averaged 16 degrees (F) warmer than 2016 so far. Eighty percent of the days in 1936 were over 100 degrees, compared to 0% of the days in 2016. During 1936, they had two stretches of six consecutive days over 110 degrees, one in July and one in August. On this date in 1936 it was 115 degrees at Clinton, 34 degrees warmer than today’s forecast.


August 14 – Before You Ruined The Climate



> * On this date in 1936, it was 115 degrees at McPherson, Kansas.
> * On this date in 1894, it was 110 degrees at Independence, Kansas.
> * On this date in 1943, it was 111 degrees at Conway, Arkansas.
> * On this date in 1923, it was 111 degrees at Claremore, Oklahoma.
> * On this date in 1919, it was 110 degrees at Mutual, Oklahoma.
> * On this date in 1930, it was 110 degrees at Altus, Oklahoma.
> * On this date in 1934, it was 111 degrees at Jefferson, Oklahoma
> * On this date in 1956, it was 113 degrees at Hennessey, Oklahoma
> * On this date in 1937, it was 114 degrees at Pierre, South Dakota
> * On this date in 1965, it was 110 degrees at Oahe Dam, South Dakota
> * On this date in 1925, it was 110 degrees at Encinas, Texas
> * On this date in 1962, it was 111 degrees at Eagle Pass, Texas
> * On this date in 1969, the same day Camille formed, it was 111 degrees at Albany, Texas.


More From The Hottest July Ever



> Climate experts say that July 2016 was the hottest month ever. In the United States, it was one of the least hot months ever.


Hottest Month Ever



> *Experts says that July 2016 was the hottest month ever. Less than 2% of US stations reached 110 degrees during 2016, compared to 24% in 1936.*


M'bold.

July 2016 hottest month ever? Bull****...


----------



## FeXL

I agree. I don't think that anybody who is stupid enough to believe the charade should have any children, either. They're actually doing the rest of us a favor...

NPR: ‘Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?’ ‘We should protect our kids by not having them’

Just...stunning.


----------



## FeXL

Connecting The Dots On Extreme Climate Fraud



> More mind-blowing climate fraud from Andrew Freedman, who claims that hurricanes, heat waves, floods and fires in 2016 are evidence of man-made climate change.
> 
> ...
> 
> The US is experiencing the quietest decade for hurricanes on record, and Andrew is trying to get people upset about hurricanes.
> 
> Forest fire burn acreage is down 80% since the 1930’s. Andrew wants his readers to believe fires are getting worse and at record levels.
> 
> ...
> 
> Andrew mentions some very questionable claims of record heat in the Middle East, ignoring that until a few years ago the official hottest global temperature was 136 in in Libya in 1922.
> 
> ...
> 
> Andrew also ignores that the current official record global temperature of 134F occurred in 1913 in California, when CO2 was 300 PPM.
> 
> ...
> 
> Andrew also ignores that Greenland set its coldest July temperature on record a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...
> 
> Every single one of Andrew’s claims is either completely wrong or wildly misleading. But that is the norm for climate reporting.


Yep.


----------



## eMacMan

Been saying this for a very long time.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/carbon-tax-must-increase-effective-183253187.html

In plain English, those on the bottom rung of the financial ladder are already doing as much as possible to conserve. To be effective a Carbon tax must be so severe that it pushes those already at an economic disadvantage out of their homes and cars. Even better if it forces them to commit suicide, then their breathing contributions are also eliminated.

The next financial tier then becomes the bottom rung realizing some minor additional reductions.

Anything short of this level will realize zero savings and serve only to fuel inflation and divert ever more cash to the Banksters. Remember all Canadian governments, federal and provincial are in the hole so any additional revenues go straight to the banksters. End of story.

Canada is a large and cold country. Survival demands that homes be heated. Six months of the year we cannot grow our own fruits and veges, so food items must be transported long distances. Carbon taxes are designed to make both of these either more expensive or inaccessible. 

The spread out nature of our nation makes individual transport a necessity not a luxury. This cannot be easily altered, requiring massive investment and a lot of time. Again the additional expense inevitably falls most heavily on those who can least afford it.

Carbon taxes are the equivalent of taxing blue sky or water and should be soundly rejected.


----------



## FeXL

Huffington Post Displays Stupidity At Its Finest



> The mental midgets at The Huffington Post note that the Sperry Glacier in Montana has retreated since 1913, and blame _man-made climate change_.


He sums:



> Progressives imagine themselves to be intelligent, when in fact they are simply superstitious nincompoops.


Too kind by half...


----------



## eMacMan

Sure does sum up consensus science.


----------



## FeXL

TFG sure has a thin skin...

Obama barks at climate protesters: 'You're interrupting me'



> "The fact is, it is manmade. It's not 'we think it's manmade.' It's not 'we guess it's manmade.' It's not 'a lot of people are saying it's manmade.' *It's not, 'I'm not a scientist so I don't know.'*"


M'bold.

No. It's, "I'm a lying politician & I don't have an f'ing clew".

And, I got no issues interrupting someone who is lying out of both sides of his face...


----------



## FeXL

This could just as easily be posted in the Anti-Prog thread...

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change



> Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
> 
> “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. *We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,”* states the email, a copy of which was provided to _The College Fix_ by a student in the course.


M'bold.

Guess I'd be finding me a new school right quick like.

When you control the narrative...


----------



## SINC

Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts In 2017

https://www.technocracy.news/index....scientist-says-global-cooling-starts-in-2017/

Physicist who foresees global cooling says other scientists tried to 'silence' her - Washington Times

New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks | Climate Change Dispatch


----------



## SINC

Rapid Global Cooling Alert Could Trigger Freeze-Up Of Warming ‘Science’

https://www.technocracy.news/index....cooling-alert-trigger-freeze-warming-science/


----------



## FeXL

Nova Scotia dry spell just a 'dress rehearsal': climatologist



> An Environment Canada climatologist is warning that a dry spell in Nova Scotia that has left some people without water is just a "dress rehearsal" for the kind of weather conditions Canada can expect in the years to come.
> 
> "These are little teasers, little dress rehearsals of what we're going to be challenged with more in the future," said David Phillips. *"It's not your grandparent's weather anymore. It's a new weather and it's weird, wild and wacky."*


M'bold.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The only thing "weird, wild & wacky" about this is the bull**** spewed from the mouths of those whose livelihood depends on the perpetuation of the narrative...


----------



## FeXL

Climate Change: The Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day



> The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.


More:



> Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:
> 
> _..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. *Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.*_​
> That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that *the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Well, there is some good news:

Top climate skeptic to lead Trump's EPA transition team



> Donald Trump is tapping a high-profile climate change skeptic to lead administration transition efforts for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
> 
> Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday.
> 
> Ebell is an outspoken, longtime skeptic of the scientific consensus that human activity is dramatically changing the climate. He often refers to warnings about global warming as climate “alarmism” and is a vocal critic of President Obama’s climate change regulations.


Nice!


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anybody informed on the topic.

The ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World, Study Finds



> One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.
> 
> *Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”*


M'bold.

Ya don't say...

4 New Papers Link Solar Activity, Natural Ocean Cycles To Climate – And Find Warmer Temps During 1700s, 1800s



> As of mid-September, there have already been 77 peer-reviewed scientific papers authored by several hundred scientists linking solar activity to climate change. There were 43 as of the end of June, as seen here. In other words, there have been 34 more papers linking solar forcing to climate change made available online just since July.


More:



> The latest papers linking solar activity as well as ocean oscillations to climate changes are listed below. Not only do these papers describe solar activity and ocean oscillations as the dominant mechanisms of climate change, they provide evidence that the modern, post-1950 period does not contain the highest temperatures of the last few hundred years. In fact, these papers each document that *temperatures during some periods of the 1700s and/or 1800s were just as warm or warmer than present temperatures.*


Link's bold.

Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Yep. Lotta climate "experts" said a lotta things that never happened...

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong



> Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.


Hate when facts get in the way of a good narrative. Talk about fear-mongering...


----------



## FeXL

One more on "adjustments".

More On The NOAA Texas Temperature Fraud



> Texas has been cooling since 1895, but that doesn’t suit NOAA’s global warming agenda. So they keep cooling the past further and further to create the appearance of a warming trend.


Related:



> 'Global warming' in Texas a farce





> *After pushing forwards its “climate change” propaganda full force, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is being accused of fraud.*
> 
> RealClimateScience.com, which refers to itself as “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog,” maintains that Texas has been cooling since 1895, but this observation reportedly "doesn't suit NOAA's global warming agenda."
> 
> Using animation, the blog illustrates the fact that the NOAA keeps manipulating and cooling down the past temperatures of the Lone Star State further and further to create the appearance of a warming trend.


Links' bold.


----------



## eMacMan

OOPS! Not really climate related, but it does deal a huge blow to the "Science is settled" crowd. By definition science is never settled. 



> * Is dark energy a real thing?
> Maybe not, new study suggests. *
> 
> *A new study from researchers at Oxford may indicate that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, which means there is no need to posit a 'dark energy' that accelerates its expansion.
> *


Is dark energy a real thing? Maybe not, new study suggests. - CSMonitor.com


----------



## CubaMark

_*Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire....*_










Canadian conservative commentator and climate science denialist Ezra Levant has won his battle with the United Nations to have staff from his media outlet accredited to cover climate talks starting next week in Morocco.

Three staffers from Levant’s online outlet, The Rebel, were initially denied media accreditation for the COP22 talks in Marrakesh, after the UN described Rebel as “advocacy media”. The Financial Post is reporting that the UN has granted Rebel two spots, but Rebel is pushing back for a third.

Since hearing from the UN in early October, Levant has been campaigning furiously to force the UN to change its mind. He gained support from three journalism groups, gathered 10,000 names on a petition and won the backing of Canada's environment minister, Catherine McKenna.

Levant even travelled to New York to hand the petition to Canada’s permanent mission to the United Nations.

But along the way, Levant has repeatedly shown footage from the last major climate change talks in Paris to bolster his case. Levant says the footage shows journalists in the Paris media room “jumping for joy”. This, according to Levant, shows their lack of objectivity and just why his “real journalists” should be allowed inside the COP22 talks as media. 

But DeSmog has investigated the origins of the clip and can confirm that the footage does not show journalists and was not filmed in “the media room”, as Levant has repeatedly claimed.

The clip was originally filmed and shared on Twitter by a passing journalist — Miranda Johnson, of The Economist — who has confirmed Rebel did not seek permission to use her footage and, if it had, it would have been refused. 



> WE HAVE A #ParisAgreement pic.twitter.com/Xh7HSPWXSD
> 
> — Miranda Johnson (@MSLJeconomist) December 12, 2015


Instead, the clip shows a side room, well away from the media centre, where civil society groups who had campaigned for action on climate change for years had gathered to watch the final moments of the Paris talks.

Levant has told viewers: “Here’s a clip from the UN global warming convention last year showing journalists in the press room cheering.”​(DeSmog see also Reddit))​


----------



## SINC

Speaking of liars . . .

*Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims*

More on Forbes


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Speaking of liars . . .
> 
> *Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims*
> 
> More on Forbes


Forbes really does not like my adblocker, and I don't like Forbes enough to disable it. Will see if I can find a back door.

I do see that it was published back in 2013. Certainly that myth has been exposed over the past 3 years. I honestly thought that it was only a tiny handful of Goreshippers who still bought into the 97% BS.

Found the front door here:
Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ‘97 Percent Consensus' Claims | Human Events


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Speaking of liars . . .
> 
> *Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims*


I've never bothered myself with the whole "97% Consensus" bull$h!t. It's a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Science is not decided by a show of hands. Case in point: 500 years ago the scientific "consensus" was that our solar system was geocentric. 100% of them were wrong.

Anybody who uses this argument is an idiot, and needs to be dismissed out of hand immediately, plain & simple. 

No further debunking is required...


----------



## FeXL

New study quantifies your personal contribution and guilt over Arctic sea ice melt



> From the MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT and the department of “it’s all YOUR fault and it’s worse than we thought” comes this guilt trip over Arctic sea ice from Greenpeace activist and NSIDC scientist (now just a person because she stopped being a scientist when she started accepting Greenpeace assistance, IMO) Julienne Stroeve. *Of course, Stroeve has no explanation of what caused dramatic sea ice melt in 1922, but she’s certain you caused it today.*


Yep. My bold.


----------



## FeXL

(article from September)

Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition



> Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.
> 
> Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.


Good. Time to limit the EPA's meddling in everyday life. Next: Paris agreement.

Related, and from the Department of Fearmongering, the rhetoric has already started. You can add "anti-science" to the long list of names the left is calling Trump:

Donald Trump's US election win stuns scientists



> The Supreme Court vacancy could put the fate of one major plank of US President Barack Obama’s climate-change strategy in Trump’s hands. The court is reviewing a regulation to curb emissions from existing power plants. Republicans have blocked Obama’s attempt to nominate a justice to fill the court vacancy, but Trump should be able to quickly fill the position. His nominee, not yet named, could cast the deciding vote in the climate case.
> 
> Fulfilling his pledge to exit the Paris agreement could take longer; legally, he would not be able to do so for four years. But Trump's election could factor into climate negotiations currently under way in Marrakesh, Morocco, where countries are hashing out how they will implement the Paris agreement. The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter, and Obama played a key part in crafting the Paris accord.


Good. You know you got the right guy in if the left is making this much noise.


----------



## Macfury

Bill McKibben, time to get out your hanky!


----------



## FeXL

There goes the narrative. Again...

8 New Papers Reveal ‘Natural’ Global Warming Reaches Amplitudes Of 10°C In Just 50 Years With No CO2 Influence



> Climate records from ice cores indicate that abrupt, *global-scale* warming events with amplitudes of up to 10°C (in the Greenland region) were reached within as little as 50 years dozens of times during the roughly 100,000 years between the last interglacial (~120,000 years ago) and the current interglacial period (11,700 years ago to present). That’s equivalent to a rate of up to *2.0°C per decade of “natural” global warming.* CO2 concentrations remained flat and low (~180 parts per million) throughout these warming (and cooling) periods, commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Schmidt and Hertzberg (2011) provide a summary and (modified) illustration of what these abrupt climatic shifts affecting the “Earth’s climate system” may have looked like.


Links' bold.

In comparison:



> In contrast to these abrupt and profound warming events in the paleoclimate record, the IPCC indicated in their 5th report (2013) that the surface temperature of the Earth rose by *0.78°C* between 1850 and 2012. That’s a warming rate of a little less than *0.05°C per decade.*


Links' bold.

Eight papers, similar results. Who knew?


----------



## FeXL

Good!

Change! Trump seeks to pull US out of Paris Climate Agreement



> Even sweeter is the immediate fiscal impact of Trump’s actions regarding the Paris Climate Agreement.
> 
> _The Trump victory makes it unlikely that the United States will make good on the $2.5 billion it still owes to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, and the new administration is likely to curtail foreign aid overall._​
> I noted that Obama had deposited $500 million into the same fund in March of this year, at a time when our Navy Seals were short of combat rifles. The fact that Trump will not empower eco-activists by funding their pseudo-science shenanigans is…delightful.
> 
> During the campaign, President Obama warned that electing Trump would undo his work. This threat actually turned out to be a selling point, and the most significant legacy Obama leaves behind is the utter collapse of the Democratic Party.
> 
> *It appears that President-Elect Trump has done more presidential work on behalf of the American people in less than a week than Obama has done during his entire 8 years.*


M'bold.

Yep...


----------



## SINC

We need to take a lesson from Oz. 

The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Time to Trump the Climate Hysteria


----------



## FeXL

Good, too!

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the moon - and beyond



> US President-elect Donald Trump is set to slash Nasa's budget for monitoring climate change and instead set a goal of sending humans to the edge of the solar system by the end of the century, and possibly back to the moon.


----------



## FeXL

The compassionate, intellectual, left...

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change



> A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.


I got nuttin'...


----------



## SINC

They are certified idiots. Arses even.


----------



## Macfury

Yeah!

(Though I expect the resident choir to say that Hitler wanted to explore space as well.)



FeXL said:


> Good, too!
> 
> Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the moon - and beyond


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> (Though I expect the resident choir to say that Hitler wanted to explore space as well.)


He did! Didn't you see the trailer for History of the World Part 2 at the end of of Brook's History of the World Part 1? "Jews in Space"? Hitler would have followed them...


----------



## SINC

Australia figured this out and cancelled the entire carbon tax scam. Notley and Trudeau plunge ahead with out money. Here is a guy they might understand, or maybe it is too basic for them?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## eMacMan

According to Goregonites, Global Warming is to blame for the extreme cold snap which has settled in on Southern AB. This has produced a corresponding spike in electrical use. And just when they are most needed those saviour wind turbines with a combined plate capacity of perhaps a Gigawatt/hour, sit totally idle. Seems they need wind to turn and a common side effect of extreme cold is no wind.

Praise the Great Gore and pass the gas!


----------



## FeXL

Not news to anybody who has been paying attention.

Solar Power Actually Made Global Warming Worse, Says New Study



> The study concluded that the solar industry has been “a temporary net emitter of greenhouse gas emissions” and more modern solar panels have a smaller adverse environmental impact than older models. *Scientists estimated that by 2018 at the latest, all new solar panels will have a net positive environmental impact.*


Oh, good! Nice to know that all those hundreds of billions in tax-payer funded subsidies will actually do some good for the atmosphere. Now, how many years will they have to operate to make up the deficit they caused...


----------



## FeXL

The Global Warming Fraud, Explained



> The climate alarmists assert that various positive feedbacks, principally an increase in the main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will amplify that scientifically-defensible one degree increase into something like six degrees. *EVERY SINGLE THING* you have ever read about the supposedly baleful effects of CO2 is based on that unproven assumption. Actually, the net feedbacks–clouds are the great unknown–may be negative rather than positive.


Links' bold.

Good read.


----------



## FeXL

So, the TTT (Trump Transition Team) has assembled a list of rather pointed questions for the DOE & the left is going into hysterics.

Trump team's questions for Energy Dept. raise concerns



> The Trump transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, *asking agency officials to identify which department employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.*


Well, it's so he knows which ones to send to the gas chamber, right? After all, he is Time's Man of The Year & so was Hitler. The resemblances are uncanny, after all...

What a bunch of idiots.

Willis talks about the list of question. Good read.

The DOE vs. Ugly Reality

He opens:



> Over at the Washington Post, Chris Mooney and the usual suspects are seriously alarmed by a memo sent out by the Transition Team at the Department of Energy. They describe it in breathless terms in an article entitled “Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings“. The finest part was this quote from Michael Halpern:
> 
> _Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, called the memo’s demand that Energy officials identify specific employees “alarming.”
> 
> “If the Trump administration is already singling out scientists for doing their jobs, the scientific community is right to be worried about what his administration will do in office. What’s next? Trump administration officials holding up lists of ‘known climatologists’ and urging the public to go after them?” Halpern asked._​
> Oh … you mean like say the Attorneys General of a bunch of states holding up their lists of known “denier” organizations and tacitly urging the public to go after them? You mean like government officials of a variety of stripes ranting about how “deniers” should be brought to trial or otherwise penalized? You mean like having sites like DeSmogBlog making ugly insinuations and false statements about every known opponent of the climate party line? You mean like Roger Pielke being hounded out of his job by the climate mob?
> 
> Mr. Halpern, _we have put up with just that treatment you describe for years now._ Let me suggest that you take your inchoate fears and do something useful with them—*you can think fearfully about how you have treated your scientific opponents for the last decade, and you can hope and pray that they are like me, and they don’t demand the exact same pound of flesh from you.*


All emphasis from the link.

He goes on:



> Now, bear in mind that the Department of Energy has been the conduit for the billions of dollars wasted on propping up failing solar companies like Solyndra, it’s been the “Friends of Obama Funding Agency” … as a result, it’s not the Augean Stables, but it’s close …
> 
> So, let’s take a look at this already infamous 74-question memo. In it we’ll find two things: (1) just what is setting their hair on fire, and (2) whatever clues are there about future actions by the new administration. I’ll discuss both individual questions and groups of questions.


----------



## FeXL

Careful there, Joe. Not everybody drives on the same side of the road...

Joe Biden: Trudeau Must Defend International 'Rules Of The Road'



> U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to be a defender of the international — "rules of the road'" to help shepherd the world through a period of deep uncertainty.
> 
> *Biden delivered that message in a stirring speech at a state dinner in his honour in Ottawa on Thursday night, in which he singled out the fight against climate change as the most important issue of this generation.*


M'bold.

Stirring. STIRRING!!!

Stupid simply cannot be helped...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the request by the TTT to the DOE.

Energy Department refuses to give Trump team names of people who worked on climate change



> The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers.
> 
> The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place.


Good. There's 90,000 people working for the DOE. Fire every other one. Not only will it get rid of the inevitable bloat, but send a clear message.

More:



> *"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies list,"* a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition team, had told Reuters.


M'bold.

Oh, you mean like the list of Tea Party members the IRS targeted?


----------



## FeXL

Climate Scare Over: Top Experts Expose Scam at Freedom Confab



> The keynote speaker for the event was Lord Christopher Monckton, the internationally known climate realist and former science adviser to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He began by going up on stage and putting a red “Make America Great Again” hat on his head. The crowd cheered. He also highlighted Brexit, the historic decision by British voters to throw off the chains of the European Union super-state by exiting the EU completely.
> 
> Lord Monckton's presentation began by outlining a series of “red flags” in the man-made global-warming theory and the alarmism surrounding it. Using a wide variety of graphs and charts focusing on everything from temperatures and trends to storms and global sea levels, Monckton showed that the United Nations was wrong about practically everything. In light of that, and more, he proposed that Britain and the United States should jointly leave the UN. Monckton, of course, has been a staple at UN “climate” summits around the world, showing up to expose the fraud, and even dropping into one of the UN confabs in South Africa with a parachute from the sky.
> 
> Much of Monckton's presentation revolved around new findings further debunking the climate scare. Monckton, the author of a number of published papers on the subject, said his new findings would be published in the not-too-distant future. Using graphs, complicated mathematical formulas, and more, Monckton showed attendees how, even if certain UN climate premises are accepted as true, the alarmist narrative collapses upon closer inspection.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## FeXL

So, DMI has a reputation for accuracy. I trust their numbers. NSIDC? Hmmm...

Greenland Enters 2017 Adding Extraordinary Amounts Of Ice And Snow



> Greenland’s ice sheet kicked off 2017 gaining about eight gigatons of snow and ice, which is well above what’s usually added to the ice sheet Jan. 1 for the last 24 years, according to Danish meteorologists.
> 
> In fact, Greenland’s ice sheet has been gaining ice and snow at a rate not seen in years based on Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) data. DMI reports the Greenland ice sheet’s “mass surface budget” has been growing significantly since October.
> 
> Greenland’s “surface mass budget” for winter 2016-2017 is already more than two standard deviations higher than the northern ice sheet’s mean snow and ice accumulation over the last 24 years. DMI data shows the ice sheet added 8 gigatons of ice and snow Jan. 1, well above the standard deviation for that day.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, DMI has a reputation for accuracy. I trust their numbers. NSIDC? Hmmm...
> 
> Greenland Enters 2017 Adding Extraordinary Amounts Of Ice And Snow


Doncha nose dat is caused by global warming? 

Yep all that extra moisture in the atmosphere falls as ice and snow on Greenland. And it turns out all that extra weight pushes Greenland down into the ocean, causing ocean levels to rise catastrophically and wipe out Al Gores $70-Million$ California beach house. 

What I haven't figgered out; is how come the water evaporating from the oceans doesn't lower sea level, thus compensating for the rise when Greenland sinks?


----------



## Macfury

It would be interesting if they created a better world--not just a brutally expensive authoritarian world built for pedestrians and bicyclists.




CubaMark said:


>


----------



## FeXL

Stunning. Tenured climate prof quits her job, largely due to all the BS in her field. One of the good ones, too...

JC in transition



> *The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.*


My bold.

That one sentence paragraph says it all.

:-(


----------



## FeXL

Slowly, surely...

Wis. agency scrubs webpage for climate change wording 



> Wisconsin’s state agency that oversees environmental regulation recently removed language from its webpage on the Great Lakes that says humans and greenhouse gases are the main cause of climate chang e.
> 
> The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources now contends the subject is a matter of scientific debate.
> 
> *The department made the changes Dec.21, striking out whole sentences attributing global warming to human activities and rising levels of carbon dioxide.*
> 
> It’s the most recent example of the agency removing information related to climate change. More broadly, the changes reflect how the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker has de-emphasized the subject since he took office in 2011.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Judith Curry's resignation.


‘Knives Sticking Out Of My Back’: Global Warming Skeptic Tells Tucker Carlson Why She Left Academia



> “I’ve been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don’t like anybody challenging their big story,” Curry told Carlson Friday night.
> 
> “I walk around with knives sticking out of my back,” she said. “In the university environment I felt like I was just beating my head against the wall.”


So much for open platforms of discussion... tptptptp


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Skepticism is Part of the Final Phase of the American Revolution



> Recently I spoke at the Freedom Force Conference in Phoenix on Climate Change. The person who made the connection between climate and freedom clearly and concisely was former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus. He was the keynote speaker at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York. His opening comment “We have just gone through 70 years of communism, why the hell would you want to go back to that?” brought a standing ovation. He summarized his views in a brief book with the pointed title “_Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom._”


More:



> Exposure of the global warming deception was one manifestation of the final phase of the American Revolution. For the first time in history, the people had access to and control of information. The battle to control information, as with all gains of the Revolution, will continue.


----------



## FeXL

Good thing, too!

Giant iceberg poised to break off from Antarctic shelf



> A giant iceberg, with an area equivalent to Trinidad and Tobago, is poised to break off from the Antarctic shelf.
> 
> A thread of just 20km of ice is now preventing the 5,000 sq km mass from floating away, following the sudden expansion last month of a rift that has been steadily growing for more than a decade.
> 
> The iceberg, which is positioned on the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica, known as Larsen C, is predicted to be one of the largest 10 break-offs ever recorded.
> 
> Professor Adrian Luckman, a scientist at Swansea University and leader of the UK’s Midas project, said in a statement: “After a few months of steady, incremental advance since the last event, the rift grew suddenly by a further 18km during the second half of December 2016. Only a final 20km of ice now connects an iceberg one quarter the size of Wales to its parent ice shelf.”


The issue is not when these large icebergs break off. It's when they stop breaking off...


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

The Sahara Desert Sees Snow for the First Time in 37 Years



> The Algerian town of Ain Sefra, known as the "Gateway to the Saharan Desert," was hit by freak snowfall on Tuesday, making for some very confused Algerians and a few gorgeous photographs.


----------



## FeXL

More from from the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Snow! 49 States Have the White Stuff, All Except Florida



> Snow is on the ground in 49 out of 50 states following winter storms Helena and Iras. Florida is the only state not to have snow after the weekend.
> 
> According to Weather.com, the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) showed 66 percent of the continental 48 states was covered by either snow or ice on Sunday morning, the highest amount of land covered this winter in the U.S.


Damn that Globull Warming...


----------



## FeXL

Hey, not only can Barry pin medals on himself, get this, he is a gen-u-wine climate scientist! Who knew?

Barack Obama, Climate Scientist



> I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They’ve published a “scientific” policy paper by the noted climate scientist Barack Hussein Obama. Not a paper with Obama as one of the signatories. No, Science magazine claims that the President wrote the deathless prose all by himself, not a co-author in sight.


Well, saaaaaaalute!


----------



## FeXL

Yep.

Richard Lindzen: Axe climate science funding. Groupthink has destroyed intellectual foundations.



> _Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.
> 
> “I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.
> 
> *“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”*_​


Links' bold.

More:



> _*The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line*, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change._​


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Frankly, I'm surprised (but pleased!) they allowed this guest article.

The constancy of change and the new catastrophism: a personal reflection on crisis-driven science



> *It is self-evident to us that the public debate concerning environmental change largely lacks an understanding of natural variability. Since the last Ice Age ended, some 12,000 years ago, Earth has been through several periods lasting hundreds of years and possibly longer when it was either warmer or colder than at present.* Several earth scientists have suggested that a study of natural variability over recent geologic time should be completed in order to provide a baseline against which anthropogenic change may be evaluated, but this important history has not been introduced fully into the public debate, and is a long way off. _*It has to be said that the natural variability of the last few thousand years or hundreds of years or tens of years has formed almost no part in the ongoing discussion of climate change which in some circles assumes that any change since 1940 is largely man-made. This opinion is uninformed by geologic science.*_


Emphasis mine.

:clap::clap::clap:

What never ceases to amaze me is ignorance of the fact that the coldest period over the last 10,000 was 300 years ago. There's a reason it is called the Little Ice Age. It's no wonder temperatures have increased...


----------



## FeXL

So, climate modellers have always insisted that there are very few "tuning" circuits inside the software of a model and that, like religion, everybody should accept their output as being accurate on faith. They claim that all they are doing is entering the data & out pops an accurate fore- (or hind-) cast.

Turns out, there may be a bit more tuning than they accede to...

Ending The Climate of Endangerment



> President Obama considers the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions one of his key legacy achievements, but those regulations' days are numbered. President-elect Trump repeatedly vowed to reverse those policies, and the task will likely fall to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, his choice for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.


The article is a good read on its own (unless you think the EPA is the next best thing to sliced bread) but inside is a link to a very interesting article itself:



> These models, in aggregate, fail miserably in their ability to simulate temperatures of the last two decades, especially those in the lower atmosphere.
> 
> Thanks to a recent paper called "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and written by Frederic Hourdin and 14 other climate modelers, we now have an idea why.





> The paper discusses *the phenomenal amount of adjustment that has been applied to the models* in order to get them to produce what the scientists called an "anticipated acceptable range" of future warming. *Among modelers, this is known as "tuning" an experiment in order to get a desired answer.*
> 
> The problem, as noted recently by Paul Voosen in an article summarizing Hourdin et al., is that, *left to their own devices, these models cannot even replicate the observed climatic history of the 20th century*. The degree of adjustment to get them to do this, he noted, was purposefully withheld from the public. Per Voosen, modelers "had been mum in public about their 'secret sauce' … *this taboo reflected fears that climate contrarians would use the practice of tuning to seed doubt about (the) models."*
> 
> The inescapable conclusion from the paper is that each fiddling of the models — which includes adjusting everything from the earth's reflectivity to the mixing of heat in the ocean — gives a different forecast of how much the earth will warm for doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). *If the ECS can be changed to a wide range of values, depending upon the "tuning" of the model, then it is the modeler and not the underlying physics that decides this number.*


My bold.

That's gonna leave a mark...


----------



## eMacMan

Spent the morning doing a copy and paste of Decembers hourly temp and wind speed for Pincher Creek into a Numbers spread sheet. Environment Canada makes those really hard to find, but they are out there. It should be noted that wind speeds are instantaneous top of the hour readings and may or may not reflect the entire hour.

Also tracked down the approximate power curve for the big wind turbines in the area. Since there are several variations the curve is only an estimate but should be close. Figured 30 to 35KPH = 50% plate capacity, 36 to 40KPH = 75% plate, 41 to 44KPH = 85% plate, 45 to 70KPH = 100%plate. Power curves assume a steady wind. The wind speed values I found could generally be considered sustained but when values get into the 45KPH+ range they would almost certainly be gusting, usually quite heavily. The fact that the manufacturer refers to steady winds clearly suggests that gusting winds will degrade performance.

I arbitrarily chose 70KPH as the cutoff, as winds above that speed would certainly have been gusting past the cutoff point. Not too relevant as only 3 hours fell into that range. FWIW The oldest surviving turbines have a marked fall off above 55KPH.

Maximum output for the entire month would have been close to 27% of plate capacity. However some turbines are shut down when more power is generated than is needed. Also at any given time some turbines are out of service for one reason or another. Not sure what those factors deduct, but 27% capacity should be considered the maximum possible not the amount that was fed into the grid.

We had a pretty severe cold snap during December. Here's how those environmental saviours performed when the chips were down.

Normal low temp for the month is -12°C. Out of 744 hours:
We had 342 hours where the temp was below the normal low.
We had 298 hours where the temp was below -15°C
We had 197 hours where the temp was below -20°C

For the time span when it was -12°C or colder the wind turbines total output was roughly 5% of plate capacity.

Take just the times it was -15°C or colder and that drops to 2% of plate capacity.

Here's where it gets really interesting. When it was -20°C or colder, and power use was way above normal, those turbines produced nada, zip, zero, diddly squat. Out of 197 hours just 13 hours with enough wind to turn the blades and zero hours with sufficient wind to produce any significant amount of power.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Uh, what's with the straw man above?


----------



## CubaMark

The National Parks service defies Trump's social media gag order by tweeting climate facts


----------



## Macfury

Guess they're out of a job!


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Guess they're out of a job!


Yep, with no one to blame but themselves. Some folks just don't get it that they have a new president, like it or not. Slow learners indeed.


----------



## heavyall

SINC said:


> Yep, with no one to blame but themselves. Some folks just don't get it that they have a new president, like it or not. Slow learners indeed.


"But, but, but.... they're being MUZZLED!"


----------



## Macfury

heavyall said:


> "But, but, but.... they're being MUZZLED!"


I think every employee should have the unlimited right to use social media at their workplace without repercussions from their employer--with no fear of losing their job! Unlimited paid self-expression for all!


----------



## FeXL

Well, wait a minute. Let's look at some of these "facts', shall we?

1. Ocean acidity has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution.

I hadn't heard this one before. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. However, if an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm represents a 30% increase in ocean acidity, what does an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppm represent, like it was 530 million years ago?

And, if the oceans were this acidic during the Paleozoic, just how did calcareous shelled fauna like clams & corals manage to not only evolve, but thrive?

Jes' askin'...

2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the last 650K years.

So, 650,000 years ago the atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high, if not higher, than it is today?

Whaddya s'pose caused that?

3. Pre-industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 280ppm. Now, they're 400.

And? 

Geological history show that the planet has survived concentrations nearly 20 times what they are today. So what?



CubaMark said:


> The National Parks service defies Trump's social media gag order by tweeting climate facts


----------



## heavyall

CubaMark said:


> The National Parks service defies Trump's social media gag order by tweeting climate facts


Looking at what they tweeted, it's easy to see why the policy is needed. They are using their positions to propagate political propaganda


----------



## Macfury

Here's something I didn't know--the politically motivated "Doomsday Clock" which supposedly assesses the danger of nuclear annihilation now also includes--you guessed it--climate change. Never mind that Trump is dialing back on Obama's push for war with Russia.



> Each year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit that sets the clock, decides whether the events of the previous year pushed humanity closer or further from destruction. The symbolic clock is now two-and-a-half minutes from midnight, the closest it's been to midnight since 1953, when the hydrogen bomb was first tested. Scientists blamed a cocktail of threats ranging from dangerous political rhetoric to the potential of nuclear threat as the catalyst for moving the clock closer towards doomsday.
> 
> “This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual…as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change,” Rachel Bronson, the executive director and publisher of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a statement.
> 
> ==========
> 
> The Bulletin pointed to President Donald Trump's careless rhetoric on nuclear weapons and other issues as well as his troubling stance on climate change.
> 
> *“Current political situation in the U.S. is of particular concern,” Titley of the Bulletin Science and Security Board said. “The Trump administration needs to state clearly, unequivocally it accepts climate change caused by human activity….”*



Doomsday Clock ticks closer to apocalypse and 1 person is to blame


----------



## FeXL

A feature, not a bug!

(Caution for Progs: Link to Breibart enclosed. It's probably all lies, anyways...)

DELINGPOLE: Trump Is Definitely Going to Pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement



> At a press conference in London – the one where the media delegates’ heads all exploded – Myron Ebell told his appalled audience that Trump would certainly be honouring his campaign promise to pull out of the UN Paris agreement.


----------



## FeXL

Further on fake data, along with an excellent comment about the "History Of The Scam".

NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data



> NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa.
> 
> ...
> 
> The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> Satellites show that NOAA’s” record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal.
> 
> ...
> 
> Gavin Schmidt at NASA claims the imaginary NOAA data has been replicated by many other institutions.
> 
> ...
> 
> However, when Gavin is confronted about his obviously bogus temperature graphs, he defends by saying “_it is not my data, I get it from NOAA_.” In fact, all of the supposedly independent agencies get the lion’s share of their data from NOAA.
> 
> ...
> 
> NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history, and this needs to end now that criminals are no longer in control of our government. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details.


Kewl. They got a whistle-blowers hotline. Any response?

First & second comment:



> Hi Tony: Any idea how many whistle blowers are contacting Kent Clizbe?
> 
> Kent said that quite a few people have contacted him in response to my article.


Good.

And, on the history (excellent summary, BTW):

HISTORY OF THE SCAM



> ******************************************************
> The goal is to come up with a UNIVERSAL fear/reason to institute World Government. Once you understand the reason everything else makes sense.
> ******************************************************


----------



## Beej

*Trump on Climate Change*

A transcript of his talk with the NY Times last year. We will see how this translates into policy this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?_r=0

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> A transcript of his talk with the NY Times last year. We will see how this translates into policy this year.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?_r=0
> 
> TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.


Almost everyone agrees there is "some" connectivity. Whether its impact is meaningful is the question--I think Trump was tossing out a hopeful nugget to the AGW crowd before cleaning EPA house and pullng out of the Paris "Accord."


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone paying attention.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data



> The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
> 
> A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.*


M'bold.

Further.



> The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. *Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.*


M'bold.

'Cause politicians and policy makers know sooooo much about science. Idiots...

Related:

Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse



> “Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,” Smith said in a statement on The Daily Mail’s story.


Fire. Them. All...


----------



## eMacMan

Since the beginning of February the southwestern corner of Alberta has had well over a meter of Global Warming dumped in our laps. We are literally up to our a55es in Al Gore dandruff. In that 5 and a half day span, those Pincher Creek Windmills, our billion dollar CO2 saviours, supposedly capable of generating a combined total of nearly 1 GW/hour or as much as 130GWH since the start of the month, have not seen enough wind to generate a combined total of even 1 MW and probably much less than that.tptptptp

Global Warming my frozen fanny!

Sorry but when the chips are down wind just won't cut it.


----------



## Macfury

You've got to keep an eye on these "cucks."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...cans-begin-push-to-tax-carbon-cut-regulations


> A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders backing a tax on carbon dioxide were taking their case Wednesday to top White House aides, including chief economic adviser Gary Cohn.
> 
> The group, including former Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and James Baker, is pressing President Donald Trump to tax carbon dioxide in exchange for abolishing a slew of environmental regulations. They unveiled their plan with a press conference in Washington and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> You've got to keep an eye on these "cucks."


From your linked article:



> "We know we have an uphill slog to get Republicans interested in this," Baker said before heading to the White House. But "a conservative, free-market approach is a very Republican way of approaching *the problem*."


M'bold.

Just what, exactly, Mr. Baker, d'ya s'pose "The Problem" is?

I've got a theory of my own. It's called Basic Stupidity... (h/t Gary Larson)


----------



## Macfury

Baker's biggest "problem" is likely the lack of a healthy income from special interests...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Baker's biggest "problem" is likely the lack of a healthy income from special interests...


Well, then he should talk to the Clinton's!


----------



## FeXL

I honestly thought I was reading the _Onion_...

According to WTOP, the Loudon County NAACP says it is standing behind the waitress.



> Goodbye Vancouver, hello San Diego.
> 
> A major climate-change study predicts temperatures in Metro Vancouver will exceed those of present-day Southern California in the coming decades.
> 
> Frost and ice will become virtually a thing of the past, heating bills will drop, and farm crops will flourish virtually year-round in the Fraser Valley.


Hat's off if you can finish the lengthy article without projectile vomiting all over your keyboard. I couldn't...


----------



## Macfury

Wrong article, man!



FeXL said:


> I honestly thought I was reading the _Onion_...
> 
> According to WTOP, the Loudon County NAACP says it is standing behind the waitress.
> 
> 
> 
> Hat's off if you can finish the lengthy article without projectile vomiting all over your keyboard. I couldn't...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Wrong article, man!


D'oh!!!

Correct link:

Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego, but at a heavy cost


----------



## FeXL

"Do as we say, not as we do..."

A-listers flew eyebrow artist 7,500 miles to do their brows for the Oscars



> Australian eyebrow-artist to the stars Sharon-Lee Hamilton was flown from Sydney to Los Angeles to tend to a select few celebrities’ brows before the 2017 Oscars.


Stunned...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> "Do as we say, not as we do..."
> 
> A-listers flew eyebrow artist 7,500 miles to do their brows for the Oscars
> 
> 
> 
> Stunned...


Was Al Gore in the crowd?


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> Was Al Gore in the crowd?


The Goreacle? Dunno. Does he need his brows done? He's probably busy working on the next instalment of _An Inconvenient Truth_, as the sequel was such a smashing success...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> The Goreacle? Dunno. Does he need his brows done? He's probably busy working on the next instalment of _An Inconvenient Truth_, as the sequel was such a smashing success...


That crapfest hasn't been released yet--give it time to tank.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> That crapfest hasn't been released yet--give it time to tank.


That's never stopped the Progs before...


----------



## FeXL

Further destruction of the polar bear narrative.

Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon



> For more than ten years, we’ve endured the shrill media headlines, the hyperbole from conservation organizations, and the simplistic platitudes from scientists as summer sea ice declined dramatically while polar bear numbers rose.


----------



## FeXL

Well, of course.

Watch Bill Nye Refuse To Answer Basic Science Questions About Global Warming



> Bill Nye the Science Guy joined Fox News’s Tucker Carlson on Monday to talk about global warming, but refused to answer any basic questions about it, and instead went on a weird rant about the White House.


I jes' luvs how the question was couched:



> “I’m asking you a simple question about the rate of climate change,” Carlson said. “I’m asking you a simple question and because, *since the science is settled*, I hope you can answer it in simple terms, which is: without human activity, how long would it have taken for us to reach this level of warmth in our climate.”


M'bold.

Beautiful...


----------



## FeXL

No surprise...

US Science Teaching Union Responds to Reason on Climate with Three Lies



> The Heartland organisation recently sent out to US schools 25,000 copies of its excellent booklet entitled 'Why Scientists Disagree About Climate Change' (follow my link to get your copy and see for yourself).
> 
> A leader of the National Science Teachers Association responded with three lies and no cogent criticism.


----------



## FeXL

Of course it is...

Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change



> According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the President’s so-called Winter White House would be partially submerged *if sea levels rose by three feet in the next 83 years.*


M'bold.

Current sea level rise is about 3mm/yr (the same it's been for decades) with no sign of accelerating. Let's do the math for the progs: 3mm/years X 83 years = 249mm. Old skool, 249mm/25.4mm per inch=9.8 inches. Something short of the 36" predicted by NOAA.

Long after Trump's grandkids are gone, Mar-a-Lago will be just fine...


----------



## FeXL

I jes' luvs me a headline that begs more questions than it answers.

In this case, what caused Triassic atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be so high? Dino RVs? 

Scientists Warn of Climate Apocalypse: CO2 Emissions Will Send Earth Back to ‘Triassic Period’



> The unchecked use of fossil fuels will produce a climate not seen since the Triassic period about 200 million years ago, researchers warn in a new report.
> 
> The culprit for this unprecedented warming is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), suggest researchers led by the University of Southampton in the UK, which by the year 2250 could reach levels equivalent to those of the “age of reptiles,” when dinosaurs roamed the earth.


Oh, and just as an aside, there weren't that many dinosaurs roaming about during the Triassic, as opposed to the Jurassic & Cretaceous...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Of course it is...
> 
> Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Current sea level rise is about 3mm/yr (the same it's been for decades) with no sign of accelerating. Let's do the math for the progs: 3mm/years X 83 years = 249mm. Old skool, 249mm/25.4mm per inch=9.8 inches. Something short of the 36" predicted by NOAA.
> 
> Long after Trump's grandkids are gone, Mar-a-Lago will be just fine...


Thanks to wave action and tides, true sea level on any given day or year is almost impossible to determine. That said back in 2006 NOAA was claiming the 1900-2000 annual sea level increase was about 2mm/ year. So the 3mm number almost certainly comes from data fudging, something for which NOAA has recently been establishing a very bad reputation.

Recent independent studies have shown the sea level rise from 1990 to 2010 to be very close to zero.

I would take even the 3mm number with a large helping of salt.


----------



## eMacMan

Also interesting are the revisionist CO2 levels now showing at the local imaginemporium. 

Up until a few years ago every study I read placed historical CO2 levels in the 300-360ppm range. Now claims are being made that over the past 800,000 years those levels have never risen above 280ppm and that was during the Medieval Warming Period. This claim is of course devastating to the ACGW cause. Current levels are claimed to be 400ppm and man is claimed to be 100% responsible for the difference. 

Here's how the revised historic CO2 claims blow the ACGW theory out of the water. Despite the 30% increase in CO2, temperatures are still lower than during the Medieval Warming Period, sea levels are still 200mm lower than the peak of the MWP, and the Northwest Passage still is not open for business as it was during the MWP.

Clearly CO2 is failing miserably to live up to its billing as the primary climate driver.


----------



## FeXL

I post this here & not the MSM thread purely because the examples are climate related.

Proof the New York Times Stealthily Revises its Articles after Publication



> NY Times regularly revises its articles after publication. The revisions are substantial, undisclosed, and are nothing like real time updates in developing stories. These are regular articles that undergo dramatic changes that appear as if NY Times editors received a commissar’s call stressing the party line and demanding the article matches it exactly, with the NY Times editors dutifully obliging.
> 
> I recently stumbled on one of such revisions. Within hours, the description of Scott Pruitt, the newly appointed EPA head, in the NY Times article went from being an “ally of fossil fuel Industry,” to a “climate change dissenter,” to a “climate change denialist.” Later, I was pointed to a helpful website newsdiffs.org. Newsdiffs archives multiple versions of news articles and shows the differences between them. That article has been revised or rewritten at least six times after its original publication, all without any notice to the readers.


Yes. The Paper of Record.

Revise an article? Absolutely. Fix spelling mistakes, clarify a point, attribute a source, point out errors in the original article, whatever.

HOWEVER...

Note the changes made & when. Period.

None of this stealth BS...


----------



## eMacMan

On a number of occasions it has been noted that various agencies manipulate figures to make the ACGW narrative appear more accurate than the data would otherwise indicate.

Here is an example: I pulled this chart of our early April temps, from a weather site that habitually advances ACGW as reality. According to this chart highs and lows are running well above averages.









Having been there and seen the weather on those days, the chart seemed somewhat bogus. Thankfully I have been recording the normal highs and lows from my daily visits to the Environment Canada forecast. I have super imposed those on the original chart.










Oops freed from the propaganda/manipulation factor, the highs are running a bit below norms and the lows are quite close to average.

It's easy to promote the ACGW cause if you don't let the facts get in the way.


----------



## Macfury

Obama official admits Obama Administration fudged climate data:

Opinion Journal: How Government Twists Climate Statistics


----------



## SINC

Looks to me like the sleazy side of Obama is being exposed. Too bad, thought he was honest at one time.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Barry's team of liars.

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy



> “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.


Related:

Oh, and this, from the compassionate, intellectual left...

Ecoterrorism?



> 7 Gunshots Fired At National Space Science And Technology Center In Possible Attempt To Intimidate Dissenting Scientists


More:



> One of the nation’s leading scientists Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama reports at his website that 7 shots were fired at the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville Alabama, all hitting the fourth floor where the office of renowned pioneering climate scientist Prof. John Christy is located.


Nice...


----------



## eMacMan

*About those Windmills*

A duplicate of a previous post from the Alberta NDP thread.
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/134705-alberta-ndp-thread-224.html#post2427401

Bottom line: Over 2016 the Pincher Creek windmills delivered at most 20% of plate capacity. When the temps got really cold they delivered less than 5% of capacity!

••••

I took the time to track down and compile the wind readings from the Pincher Creek Airport. The charts below show maximum percentage of power generated for each month and the year of 2016. 

The second chart shows how well they did when it got really cold. Will let you draw your own conclusions, but remember 35% is considered the absolute minimum for a non-subsidized 30 year payback. That does not include cost of additional transmission lines which as Albertans are discovering are not at all cheap.

I could not find a power curve for the Nordex 1.5MW which makes up the majority of windmills in southern Alberta, but I did find curves for a different 1.5MW generator and a slightly larger Nordex unit and used those as the base for my calculations. My calculations should if anything be too generous.


----------



## Beej

You can get generation data for every power plant, one month at a time, here:
Alberta Electric System Operator (click "Historical")

The format is inconvenient, so it takes some work.

Here is the asset ID list:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/AssetListReportServlet

On methodology, I'm not sure what height the airport wind readings are taken at, but that can introduce a large error.


----------



## eMacMan

Beej said:


> You can get generation data for every power plant, one month at a time, here:
> Alberta Electric System Operator (click "Historical")
> 
> The format is inconvenient, so it takes some work.
> 
> Here is the asset ID list:
> http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/AssetListReportServlet
> 
> On methodology, I'm not sure what height the airport wind readings are taken at, but that can introduce a large error.


Given how flat it is around the airport, should be close enough. The advantage is, this one reading should give a close windspeed approximation for all turbines. 

I would be very surprised if total output for the year exceeded more than 22% of plate capacity and the 5% at colder temps should be almost bang on.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, a trillion here, a trillion there. Pretty soon you're talking real money...

Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming



> A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
> 
> The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims *“additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,”* which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.


M'bold.

Not when you have ignorant world leaders at your beck & call.

Imagine what you could do with $15,000,000,000,000 in the correct hands. You could erase world poverty. You could supply fresh water to every person on the planet. You could vaccinate every child on the face of this earth. You could feed every starving soul here.

But none of that's important. F'ing hypocrites...


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Hey, a trillion here, a trillion there. Pretty soon you're talking real money...
> 
> Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
> 
> Not when you have ignorant world leaders at your beck & call.
> 
> Imagine what you could do with $15,000,000,000,000 in the correct hands. You could erase world poverty. You could supply fresh water to every person on the planet. You could vaccinate every child on the face of this earth. You could feed every starving soul here.
> 
> But none of that's important. F'ing hypocrites...


Since those are US dollars and 80% of the worlds population can't find two nickles to rub together, That works out to just over $50,000 for a Canadian family of four.

There are sure as hell better ways to spend that kind of capital than lining the new engorged Gore vaults


----------



## Beej

eMacMan said:


> Given how flat it is around the airport, should be close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a random thing or related to flatness. Wind speeds tend to be higher with more elevation (on land). This is why wind turbines are so tall (in addition to economies of scale in blade length mitigating diseconomies of structural burden).
> 
> I recommend using actual power generation data before coming to a conclusion, although your observation at colder temperatures is worth noting. That's extreme enough to flag as an inherent weakness if it is true in multiple years.
Click to expand...


----------



## FeXL

I think it's fabulous.

First off, it'll drive out the last standing companies who have not already exited to Tejas & elsewhere.

Second, it'll leave in place the fruit loops & whackos who actually believe this crap & they can pay to their heart's content.

Third, it'll cut tourism $$.

California doubles down on stupid – Court upholds cap and trade program, new fuel tax coming



> A cornerstone of California’s battle against climate change was upheld on Thursday by a state appeals court that ruled the cap-and-trade program does not constitute an unconstitutional tax, as some business groups had claimed.


More:



> Meanwhile: The California Senate just passed a new gasoline tax, and the California Assembly is expected to pass it today, adding 12 cents per gallon of gasoline to pay for road repairs, *because the other fuel tax for road repairs got co-opted for other uses by incompetent Democrats.* The excise tax on diesel fuel would jump 20 cents per gallon and the sale tax on diesel would go up four percentage points.


M'bold.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I think it's fabulous.


I remember Grovvtube crowing a few years back that Governor Moonbeam had balanced the budget through a simple tax increase. That lasted about six minutes.


----------



## eMacMan

Beej said:


> eMacMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given how flat it is around the airport, should be close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a random thing or related to flatness. Wind speeds tend to be higher with more elevation (on land). This is why wind turbines are so tall (in addition to economies of scale in blade length mitigating diseconomies of structural burden).
> 
> I recommend using actual power generation data before coming to a conclusion, although your observation at colder temperatures is worth noting. That's extreme enough to flag as an inherent weakness if it is true in multiple years.
> 
> 
> 
> While I can see some flaws in my methodology this is not one of them. The reason the turbines are elevated has more to do with getting away from the effects of gusting that occur at ground level. To obtain a steady output, turbines have to compensate for wind speed either by partial braking at higher windspeeds, or by feathering the blades according to windspeed or a combination of the two. IOW they work best with a steady or gradually changing windspeed.
> 
> There are situations where topography will increase wind speed. In this area the most notable example is the Cowley Ridge. This ridge runs North-South and is significantly higher than terrain both to the east and the west. Since our winds are predominantly from the east or west this creates a venturi effect and the turbines on this ridge should enjoy higher windspeeds than the other 600 or so in the region.
> 
> That said for some of 2016 there were about 100 turbines on the ridge. Half of these were the original windfarm and out of commission for the first half of the year and torn down completely by October. The other half are also an older variety, which probably see a fairly steep drop in production after windspeeds exceed 70KM/hr.
> 
> For the most part wind turbines are on flatter terrain that matches that found at the airport and winds slightly aloft should not vary too much from the readings at the airport. When they do it would almost always be when airport readings would already indicate plate or near plate capacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## eMacMan

I did say there were flaws in my methodology so here we go.

Wind speeds are a top of the hour average over a period of two minutes. Obviously there is no guarantee they will continue at that speed over an entire hour. Where the speed is recorded at over 44 KPH, I allowed 100% plate capacity. This number cannot be too low but could easily be too high either for the time frame or some of the turbines in the region. Lower speeds could of course vary in either direction but hopefully will pretty much balance out over the year.

While the generation curves I used should closely match the turbines in the area, they may not be perfect. I used the sea-level wind speeds in compiling my tables and also tried to err on the high side in the ramp up portion of the curve. However barometric pressure at this altitude tends to be around 88kPa, whereas at sea level the norm is 102kPa. This too would bias my results on the high side. 

Then there is the matter of overproduction. If the turbines produce more power than the grid can handle, then that production is wasted until base production can be cut back accordingly.

Driving through the area on a windy day it would be difficult if not impossible to find every turbine in a group turning. There are ~50 or 60 in each group. Usually at least two are not turning. There can be a variety of reasons for this. One is that depending on age and design, turbines are serviced either once or twice a year. If something happens in the meantime, they are shut down until the next scheduled visit. They can also be shut down if their power production is not required.

Realistically even though I have set 100% capacity for wind speeds 45KPH or higher, this number would almost never exceed 95%.

Over all I would suggest that my 20% of plate-capacity figure for 2016 should reflect maximum potential for the year, not actual production which would probably be less.


----------



## Beej

eMacMan said:


> I did say there were flaws in my methodology so here we go.


Given the lengthy and informative (thank you) response, at this point it seems best to verify with the actual generation data. I have no idea if you are correct or not, but posts explaining why the proxy/model is good when there is a way to validate the model seem odd. 

You are clearly capable and willing to put in the time to do this as accurately as can be done without private data.

That's a lot more than can be said of most posters. Take the final step and join the dark side of paralysis by analysis. beejacon


----------



## eMacMan

Beej said:


> Given the lengthy and informative (thank you) response, at this point it seems best to verify with the actual generation data. I have no idea if you are correct or not, but posts explaining why the proxy/model is good when there is a way to validate the model seem odd.
> 
> You are clearly capable and willing to put in the time to do this as accurately as can be done without private data.
> 
> That's a lot more than can be said of most posters. Take the final step and join the dark side of paralysis by analysis. beejacon


This was never intended to be a scientific paper, just a way to get an idea of how close/far wind generation came to being economically viable. It actually started during one of this past December cold snaps, with the observation: "My God it's been minus thirty for two weeks and not a breath of wind that whole time." 

The historical wind data for the area was easy to find and completely confirmed the observation. During that cold snap those ~650 wind generators probably generated something very close to absolute zero MWHs of power. 

I expanded it partly out of curiosity and partly because that was the easiest way to copy and paste the available data into spreadsheets. Since I am not being paid for my efforts, or pursuing a post graduate degree, I will happily leave it others to figure out what the "power generated/capacity" ratio is for individual generators or wind farms in the area and how the totals compare to my figures. 

My quick peak at the data source you provided, did not reveal any easy way to determine the capacity or even the power generated in the Pincher Creek region. Nor was I successful in my own searches for that information. I think it would be a worthwhile area of study for someone pursuing a degree in environmental studies, provided the data is available.

BTW the 4% plate capacity figure during cold snaps would have been even lower except for one extended blizzard which defied the normal wind versus cold observation. We do see these, but temps would more typically be in the -10° to 0°C range.


----------



## FeXL

Apparently they've had some pretty serious Globull Warming in France recently...

Hard freeze in France – Some vineyards totally destroyed



> Hard freezes in some of France’s famous wine-making regions, including Champagne, Bordeaux and Burgundy, have caused extensive damage.
> 
> Temperatures plunged in all three regions last week, sometimes to below -7C (19°F).
> 
> In the Bugey region near Lyon, winemakers said the damage was extensive, with some vineyards totally destroyed.
> 
> “Frost destroyed everything – shoots are dead,” Julien Hubail, expert at the Bugey wine union, said. *“In winemakers’ memory it had never happened, no one had ever experienced such a severe freeze.”*


M'bold.

'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, further on Bill Nye, the non-science (nonsense?) guy!!! He has a new show out!!!

Bill Nye the Science Guy’s Science Lies: The “Climate Change March” Edition



> The show is punctuated with boring experiments, meandering sketches, and just random yelling to the point where you start to wonder if Bill Nye is well. It’s not a show about science, but rather a show about #Science or Science (TM) or Sciencism. It’s about pushing a very specific narrative — the facts be damned. The problems with the climate change episode are varied, so let’s start with the basics.


Along with various other channels & shows which have been officially blacklisted at our house, my children won't be watching this one either...


----------



## SINC

The Times they are a changin'!

Bret Stephens' first New York Times column is classic climate change denialism.


----------



## FeXL

^Related.

Times subscribers are fleeing in wake of climate change column



> People are still hating on New York Times columnist Bret Stephens — with a “#ShowYourCancellation” movement growing on social media over the weekend — following his controversial piece on climate change.
> 
> “I’ve been a @nytimes loyalist for over 15 years. But hiring a ‘climate agnostic’ has gone too far,” Heather Randell tweeted Sunday. “I’m canceling. #showyourcancellation.”
> 
> Beth Holbrook wrote, “Cancelled @nytimes subscription. As a scientist, I take offense at BS opinion pieces misrepresenting scientific facts #ShowYourCancellation.”
> 
> Marlene Amaro added, “Trusted NYT all my life……oh well.”


So <sniff> sad...


----------



## FeXL

Climate Evangelists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast



> Sunny with a scientific certainty of climate change. More at 11.


Yep...


----------



## eMacMan

> Climate Evangelists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunny with a scientific certainty of climate change. More at 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...


For any that doubt that it is propaganda impure and simple I refer back to this post.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...authoritative-ghg-thread-672.html#post2469762


----------



## FeXL

Further on peddling the narrative or, My Garden's Gonna Die!!!

BBC Peddle RHS Climate Lies



> Before we look at the detail, there are two fundamental reasons why this study belongs in the bin:
> 
> 1) British climate is notoriously volatile, and this volatility on a year to year, month to month, and even day to day basis drowns out any tiny climatic signal that there may be.
> 
> Indeed, there is no such thing as a “normal” or “average” climate in Britain.
> 
> Gardens have survived decades of this “weather”, and certainly won’t be inconvenienced any climate change.


----------



## FeXL

I've posted articles linking to studies by Russian climatologists about this in the past. Is this finally hitting the mainstream?

(I know, I know. It's the Daily Star. It was either this or a paywalled version elsewhere.)

ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and could kill millions



> Experts told Daily Star Online planet Earth is on course for a “Little Age Ice” within the next three years thanks to a cocktail of climate change and low solar activity.
> 
> Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.
> 
> Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.
> 
> Both cycles suggest Earth is entering a global cooling cycle that could have devastating consequences for global economy, human life and society as we know it.


Related (from Oct, 2016):

Britain faces '1000 year ICE AGE' due to freak climate change



> Another study of past climate change shows that changes in the Gulf Stream can lead to drastic cooling in the north Atlantic ocean.
> 
> Climate boffins from Stockholm University studied fossils from an era – the Eemian – before the last ice age when temperatures were skyrocketing across the globe.
> 
> These fossils – including plants and insects – revealed an abrupt cooling event that plunged the planet into an ice age despite its warm climate.
> 
> According to the study, temperatures plummeted as much as 4C and remained low for a period of 500-1000 years.


----------



## SINC

Can farting cows be far behind?

Are methane seeps in the Arctic slowing global warming? | Science | AAAS


----------



## FeXL

Hey, I got one on farting cows, too!

From the Fart Catcher In Chief, as a matter of fact.

Obama’s ‘Cow Farts’ Climate Speech: All Left-Wing Dogma, Sparse Science



> “As people want to increase meat consumption, that in turn is spiking the growth of greenhouse emissions coming out of the agricultural sector,” Obama stated, linking the production of meat to not only methane in delicious cows, but also to the emissions factories omit while processing those delicious cows.“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows and methane,” he said. Obama then did his thing by encouraging people to just eat smaller steaks.


Fine. I'll just have the 14 oz rib steak instead of the 16 oz t-bone. Medium rare, please...



SINC said:


> Can farting cows be far behind?


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

The Planet Has A Fever

From the comments:



> Snow (water equivalent) in the Northern Hemisphere has been more than one standard deviation above average, all season.


As noted elsewhere on these boards, was in Kalispell, MT over the weekend. The surrounding Rockies are still covered in snow. Spring melt has barely started & every stream & river I saw was already full to the banks, if not already flooding slightly.

According to one local denizen I had lunch with, Kalispell had 7 feet of snow over the winter & the local ski hill above Whitefish had 313 feet at the peak.

Thought all this Globull Warming was s'pose to make skiing a thing of the past... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Ain't a government problem on the planet that can't be fixed with MOAR CASH!!!

UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year to Alleviate the Tedium



> The UNFCCC Bonn Climate Conference, due to end in a few days, has accepted a report which demands an additional $300 billion per year on top of the $100 billion already promised by the world’s governments. The cash is to be disbursed via existing green groups, because it is “so tedious” to set up a new UN bureaucracy to spend your money.


He sums:



> The sooner these arrogant parasites are cut off from our money, the better.


No argument...


----------



## FeXL

And, we got us s'more settled science here...

Scientists Found A ‘Totally Unexpected’ Source Of Climate Cooling



> *Arctic waters absorbed vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect that’s 230 times greater than the warming from methane emitted from underwater seeps, according to a new study.*
> 
> The findings are a complete reversal of what scientists previously believed — that methane seeps in the Arctic Ocean were contributing to global warming.


M'bold.

Hate when the narrative gets eviscerated like that...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "Skiing is a thing of the past" narrative.

The Planet Has A Fever

Maybe a little cowbell would help...


----------



## Beej

Odd use of baseball by a Brit, but this video addresses a recent round of claims about Greenland's ice.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY[/ame]


----------



## Macfury

Beej said:


> Odd use of baseball by a Brit, but this video addresses a recent round of claims about Greenland's ice.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEieWJghRNY


It essentially addresses one claim repeated three times. It's hard to figure out what his actual claim is about the Greenland ice shelf/sea ice.


----------



## FeXL

A few quick observations...

I found the screams & baseball theatrics annoying & distracting from the points he's trying to make.

I also note he's guilty of the same "cherry picking" he accuses others of when he uses the NASA GISS temperature graph. Try a temperature record that doesn't have adjustments built in.

In addition, the accumulation/melt graph he uses (whether it's actually accurate or not) shows the two plot lines diverging from about 1900. Even the most fanatic of Globull Warming advocates agree that there was not enough anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere to affect climate until after 1950. So, what caused the divergence prior to that & is the rate of divergence since 1950 accelerating? Eyeballing the graph doen't seem to confirm the latter.

(edit)

Plus, the graph that is used to show ice levels declining since 1980 is also misleading. It's well known that global sea ice levels peaked around 1979. Find a graph that goes back to the early 70's, prior to the whole global cooling scare.


----------



## FeXL

Granted, it's been a few years since I've read the US constitution, but I have no recollection thereof...

Crazy litigious climate : “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”



> _Making America Great Again? USA leads the way in frivolous climate lawsuits_
> 
> From the “next, let’s sue because the weather was bad for my picnic today” department comes this study that shows just how crazy it’s become. I mean really, what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? I would not be surprised if we see something like that this year. The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed. Stable climate is nothing more than a fable. And, just where in the US Constitution does is say we have a right to stable weather or climate? Nowhere.


----------



## FeXL

Wah.

Merkel Furious With Trump After "Unprecedented" G-7 Failure To Reach Consensus On Climate Change



> ...Merkel who had hoped to leave the Saturday summit with the G-7 agenda endorsed by everyone, including Trump, was furious at the US president.
> 
> “*The whole discussion about climate has been difficult, or rather very unsatisfactory*" German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters Saturday. "*Here we have the situation that six members, or even seven if you want to add the EU, stand against one.* That means there are no signals until now whether the U.S. will remain in the Paris Agreement or not. We have therefore not talked around it but made clear that we the six member states and the EU remain committed to the goals of the agreement.”
> 
> The unhappy German continued: "The fact that we have not been able to make progress here is of course a situation in which you have to say that there is no common support for an important international agreement. _This Paris Agreement is not simply any old agreement, but it’s rather a core agreement._”


Links' bold, my italics.

So, one voice of reason beside 6 uninformed kool-aid drinkers. And, a _core agreement_. Well, saaaaalute!!!

More:



> Moments later, the final declaration released a just as stunning statement, which said that *the U.S. was "not in a position to join consensus"* on climate change.


M'bold.

Good. Once again, science isn't decided by a show of hands.


----------



## FeXL

Curious, they don't mention the first thing that will happen: their funding will cease.

Scientists explain what will happen if Donald Trump pulls out of Paris climate change agreement



> In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analysed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects.
> 
> Scientists said it would worsen an already bad problem, and make it far more difficult to prevent crossing a dangerous global temperature threshold.
> 
> Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year. When it adds up year after year, scientists said that is enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.


Three questions, in the face of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1950 commensurate enough to allegedly affect climate:
1. What empirical evidence do we have that ice sheets are melting faster now than any other time in the last 70 years?
2. What empirical evidence do we have that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated in the last 70 years?
3. What empirical evidence do we have that extreme weather events have increased in the last 70 years?

More:



> One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.


A "worst-case" scenario? How about a "best-case" scenario?

Are these the self-same computer simulations that can't predict next week's weather forecast? And we're s'pose to trust their predictions for decades & centuries out?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## minstrel

But FeXL...

Next week's forecast...that's not climate...that's weather.


----------



## FeXL

minstrel said:


> But FeXL...
> 
> Next week's forecast...that's not climate...that's weather.


Thx. That made me LOL... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

And it's done. The US is out. Beautimous.

Two things. First the left is becoming even more unhinged than what it usually is. Here are some of the reactions:

The 14 Dumbest Reactions to Trump Quitting the Paris Climate Accord [Updated!]



> Nevertheless, the news that Trump is officially withdrawing America from the accord has brought on a level of hyperbole that is almost ... anti-science in its sheer disproportionality.


Second, a nod to the blogs that greatly assisted in this decision:

"Pittsburgh, Not Paris"



> I was on the road between Minneapolis and Fargo this afternoon, so was unable to blog the Trump announcement live.
> 
> You know where to find the cascade of reaction.
> 
> It's a day that makes me proud to be a blogger, and among those who began speaking out, and pushing back, and sharing the information so many years ago when we were just crazy little voices in the wilderness. Thank you all for supporting this blog and others during this battle. Today we celebrate a victory in a fight in which we played a major role.
> 
> Thank you.


Well done.

I draw some satisfaction from knowing that I contribute (& will continue to do so) in a small way to the dissemination of information on the topic.


----------



## Macfury

With that and the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, Trumps is already a successful president. Anything beyond this is cream.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, despite failed prediction after failed prediction, the Gorecle is still proselytizing.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace Confronts Al Gore With His Failed Global Warming Predictions



> “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace confronted former Vice President Al Gore on his 2006 claim that unless drastic action was taken humanity would face a “true planetary emergency” in the next decade.
> 
> “Unless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years,” which Gore said would precipitate a “true planetary crisis” due to man-made global warming.
> 
> Wallace pointed out it’s been 11 years since Gore made the claim in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and there doesn’t seem to be a planetary emergency.
> 
> So did Gore admit he was wrong? Of course not!


----------



## FeXL

Bill Whittle's Firewall: Bill Nye the Science Lie

There is much that is salient but I'll just post this particular quote from the "Settled Science" department:



> Just last night, by a very happy coincidence, I heard the super-progressive BBC discussing climate change with a climate scientist who said that up until 2012, there had been no reliable data for the amount of trees in what’s known as a DRY FOREST HABITAT. Finally, using satellite imaging, they started to get real data, and then a little over a year ago they realized that there were more dry forest trees than they had assumed there were when they built their computer models.
> 
> How much more? Five percent? Ten? *Well, it turns out that there are FORTY PERCENT more trees in the dry forests than they thought when they made a guess – that’s almost half again more green, cheap, FREE CO2 scrubbers in dry forest environments than originally thought.* How big are the Earth’s dry forests? Well, they are in YELLOW on this map. Almost half again more trees in the yellow areas, now that we have actually measured it rather than estimated it.
> 
> You’ll be relieved to know that this actual data increase of 40% will be fed into the climate computer models.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Only 80? 

DELINGPOLE: ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017



> “Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.
> 
> In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie.


More:



> The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
> 
> *Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.*


M'bold.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, the things science knew back in 1912 . . .


----------



## FeXL

More about the politics surrounding the issue than anything,

The Treasonous Secession of Climate Confederacy States



> After President Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states.
> 
> Scotland and Norway’s environmental ministers have mentioned a focus on individual American states. And the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.
> 
> *The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.”*


M'bold.

Interesting read.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the things science knew back in 1912 . . .


I looked at the full article in the original _Mechanics Illustrated_ from which this was gleaned. The article was quick to point out that natural cycles governed climate but that it was possible that the world would _benefit_ from slightly warmer temperatures over the space of centuries. It wasn't an alarmist article.


----------



## SINC

One man's opinion, but he has some valid points.

*The Paris Accord Is A Globalist Scam*

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/06/02/paris-accord-globalist-scam/


----------



## FeXL

Well, I take some solace in knowing that, on average, Alberta contains nearly 30% fewer stupid people than the ROC, Conservatives contain 40% fewer stupid people than the NDP & 35% fewer stupid people than the Liberals, and my age group has 5% fewer stupid people than Gen X'ers & 13% fewer stupid people than Millennials. 

Floods caused by climate change, say most Canadians



> Canada has been facing experience significant floods in recent years, with corresponding increases in the relief costs borne by governments, and rising financial pressures on insurers and the insured.
> 
> In our latest poll, we asked whether people felt this type of weather related emergency is caused by climate change.


Frankly, I think the question itself is misleading. Define "Climate Change". If asked to participate in this poll it's the first clarification I would have asked for. No answer? No poll.

Is it what the believers would define as "Any change is attributable to mankind" or what sceptics would define as "Natural cycles"? Or something else?


----------



## Beej

> Frankly, I think the question itself is misleading. Define "Climate Change". If asked to participate in this poll it's the first clarification I would have asked for. No answer? No poll.
> 
> Is it what the believers would define as "Any change is attributable to mankind" or what sceptics would define as "Natural cycles"? Or something else?


I find the question poorly worded because it implies all or nothing. There is no room for the likelihood that human-caused global warming was a contributing factor. Just the likelihood of causing the flooding. As if significant amounts of flooding could not exist otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to MotherCorpse inside.

From the "Department of Irony":

Climate change researchers cancel expedition because of climate change – Manitoba



> A team of scientists had to abandon an expedition through Hudson Bay because of hazardous ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland caused by climate change.
> 
> About 40 scientists from five Canadian universities were scheduled to use the icebreaker CCGS Amundsen for the first leg of a 133-day expedition across the Arctic. It’s part of a $17-million, four-year project led by the University of Manitoba that looks at both the effects of climate change as well as public health in remote communities.
> 
> Their trip began May 25 in Quebec City, but due to bad ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland, the icebreaker was diverted from its course to help ferries and fishing boats navigate the Strait of Belle Isle, said David Barber, a climate change scientist at the University of Manitoba and leader of the Hudson Bay expedition called BaySys.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Can't figger why their multi-million dollar weather predicting programs didn't foresee this... beejacon


----------



## eMacMan

For those who believe there is no harm in pursuing a reduced carbon agenda if/when the science proves to be fatally flawed.

Hundreds still missing, death toll could soar following London high-rise fire



> The 24-storey tower was a “disaster waiting to happen” experts said. Fears were raised that green energy concerns were prioritized ahead of safety as it emerged that cladding used to make the building more sustainable could have accelerated the fire.


Those who have seen some of the videos will have no doubt that the cladding did indeed accelerate the fire.


----------



## Macfury

This is where the greenies gibber like fools and claim they are only parroting the opinions of noted scientists.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> For those who believe there is no harm in pursuing a reduced carbon agenda if/when the science proves to be fatally flawed.


Related:

Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules



> The Telegraph noted that cladding “is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.” *Some 30,000 buildings in the U.K. have been retrofitted with cladding to cheaply comply with green energy mandates.*


M'bold.


----------



## eMacMan

Damned pack ice just won't co-operate!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-cancels-research-climate-203809238.html



> Scientists studying climate change say they have had to cancel part of their research because of global warming.
> 
> 
> Their icebreaker ship, CCGS Amundsen, specifically would have encountered “the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice,” the  University of Manitoba said in a statement. That Canadian research vessel, after handling the rough conditions on its way north to its destination, would have arrived at the location too late to perform the scheduled research.


No that would be global cooling. Were it warming there would be less pack ice. Amazing what a propaganda spin doctor can do.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Related:
> 
> Deadly London Tower Fire Fueled By ‘Green Energy’ Rules
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Telegraph noted that cladding “is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.” *Some 30,000 buildings in the U.K. have been retrofitted with cladding to cheaply comply with green energy mandates.*
> 
> 
> 
> M'bold.
Click to expand...

Sounds like this cladding is banned in the USSA. Wonder about Canada?


----------



## FeXL

Damn. There goes the narrative...

ICYMI: NASA found out that a key Antarctic glacier isn’t melting as fast



> The melt rate of West Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier is an important concern, because this glacier alone is currently responsible for about 1 percent of global sea level rise. A new NASA study finds that Thwaites’ ice loss will continue, but not quite as rapidly as previous studies have estimated.
> The new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, finds that numerical models used in previous studies have overestimated how rapidly ocean water is able to melt the glacier from below, leading them to overestimate the glacier’s total ice loss over the next 50 years by about 7 percent.


I jes' luvs me some good, ol' fashioned, settled science.


----------



## FeXL

Article from a couple years back. Interesting read, good visuals, salient comments.

The Hunt For Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Summary



> In recent months I’ve had a series of posts looking at the temperature histories of a number of land areas in the Southern Hemisphere [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. This was in response to a post by Roger Andrews where he presented an analysis of about 300 climate stations from the Southern Hemisphere that, when combined, showed substantially less warming than the reconstructions presented by various groups (BEST, GISS, HadCRUT) [6]. I found this to be both intriguing and important and wanted to see if I could replicate Roger’s result.


In sum:



> The main results have by now already been presented. These large areas of the southern hemisphere land mass show little significant warming since 1880. To place this in context the results are re-plotted at a more conventional scale in Figure 5. *This shows that from 1880 to 1973 (almost 100 years) the trend was effectively flat. In the mid 1970s, centred on 1976, something strange happened to Southern Hemisphere climate. A marked cool period, accompanied by higher rainfall, gave way to an era of marginally higher temperatures, perhaps 0.2˚C warmer than the previous era.*


M'bold.


----------



## eMacMan

For those who still believe in the ACGW myth. Logan's Pass in Glacier National Park opened on the 27th of June. Normally they try for Father's Day so it's only late by a week or. Certainly not early as we should expect to see, especially in light of an unusually warm June.

https://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/conditions.htm


> Going-to-the-Sun Road is now open in its entirety to motorized vehicle travel. Visitors can drive the whole length of the road, including access at Logan Pass. Park work crews finished snow removal, assessed conditions, cleaned up rocks and other road debris, finished guard rail installation, and prepared facilities for visitor use.
> 
> Services at Logan Pass include restroom facilities and potable water. Logan Pass Visitor Center is also now open daily. Vehicles and vehicle combinations longer than 21 feet, and wider than 9 feet, are prohibited along the Going-to-the-Sun Road between Avalanche Campground and Rising Sun.
> 
> There is lingering winter snow around Logan Pass. Drive with caution and be aware of snow walls and possible rockfall along the road.


BTW The motor boat closure is also in effect at Waterton Park.


----------



## FeXL

Nah...

EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data



> A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years *“are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”*


Yeah, my bold.

More:



> Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”


Related:

How They airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause

Let's cut right to the chase:



> First, on most of the global-temperature datasets, much of the warming of recent decades was not evident in the raw data and has been created by ex-post-facto manipulation of the data – whether for good reasons or bad. That raises the legitimate question whether our observational capacity is sufficiently reliable and sufficiently well resolved to provide useful illumination of the question whether our very small perturbation of a very large atmosphere will have a very small or a very large influence on future global temperature.
> 
> Secondly, no Inconvenient Pause will ever again be allowed to show in most datasets, even if there is one. Some parameter or another will be Karlamelized after the event, and numbly acquiescent pal-reviewers will check it not for scientific merit but simply for conformity to the Party Line, whereupon they will wave the paper through.
> 
> Thirdly, the rate of global warming, even after the ever-upward temperature tampering of almost all datasets (only UAH has gone the other way), is a lot less than predicted. RSS, having previously showed just 0.36 K global warming since 1990, now shows 0.52 K, near-coincident with IPCC’s least prediction made in 1990, but still well below its central prediction and a very long below its high-end prediction. In reality, even after the tampering, it’s a whole lot less bad than we thought.


----------



## FeXL

There goes the narrative...

Stephen Hawking Flies off the Scientific Reservation



> I can understand when pop-scientists like Bill Nye spout scientific silliness.
> 
> But complete nonsense coming from Stephen Hawking? Really?
> 
> In this video, Stephen Hawking claims that Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Accord could lead to the Earth being pushed past a tipping point, with Venus-like 250 deg. C temperatures and sulfuric acid rain.


----------



## FeXL

And, lest we forget a just a few of the failed predictions from our so-called _expert_ climate scientists...


----------



## FeXL

Mikey going to lose his butt?

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann



> Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
> 
> The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”


Good.

Now, if we could just see some progress on Steyn's case.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Mikey going to lose his butt?
> 
> Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Now, if we could just see some progress on Steyn's case.


Only good reason to refuse to produce the data, would be that he knew it was fraudulent and would never withstand careful scrutiny.


----------



## FeXL

I can't believe the Goreacle still draws a crowd...

Al Gore Compares Climate Fight To Slavery, Gay Rights & Apartheid



> Former Vice President Al Gore likened the battle against “global warming” to previous social causes. Gore spoke to the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. The conference is being held from July 12-14.
> 
> “Abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, anti apartheid movement, civil rights movement, stopping toxic phase of nuclear arms, gay rights, all these movements have one thing in common. they were all met with ferocious resistance,” Gore said on July 13th during his talk to the conference in Melbourne.


Really, Al?

And a geocentric solar system, the geosynclinal theory and a flat earth were all consensus positions, also all met with ferocious resistance, until empirical data proved them wrong...


----------



## FeXL

Tell ya what. Why don't we go one better? How about complete sterilization?

Warmists first...

Study Recommends Having One Less Child Because Climate



> A new study has collated climate recommendations from other studies. Top of the list is convincing parents to have smaller families, one less child, to reduce the human carbon footprint.


It'd certainly lessen the stupidity.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that my quiet inner voice?


----------



## FeXL

So, mere weeks until we find out if yet another warmist prediction comes true.

Only A Few Weeks Left until The Maldives Drown



> According to government experts, all 1200 of the Maldives Islands will be gone by the end of this year, and they ran out water 25 years ago.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Central Continues Their Arctic Fraud



> Heidi Cullen’s Climate Central claims the Arctic is “crazy warm” and Arctic sea ice is doomed.
> 
> ...
> 
> In fact, the North Pole has had below normal temperatures every day since May 1, and is having one of their coldest summers on record.


----------



## FeXL

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...

Climate Scientists Move Global Meltdown from 2018 to 2168



> In 1988, climate change “scientist” James Hansen predicted that within 20 to 30 years New York City’s West Side Highway would “be under water.”
> 
> “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds,” Hansen said at the time, as recalled by reporter Bob Reiss during an interview 16 years ago with Salon. “And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars … (because) you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
> 
> Uh huh …


Nothing wrong with changing your opinion when the facts change. It's the responsible thing to do. However, what facts have changed since 1988, save the narrative has crashed?


----------



## FeXL

Well, there goes the narrative that it's _not_ all about the money...

US scientists fleeing Donald Trump head to France after Emmanuel Macron's call to ‘help make our planet great again’



> The French scheme, worth a total of about £53m, offers *four-year grants worth up to about £1.3m*. Officials were also headhunting some leading researchers, Dr Peyroche added. The 50 scientists given grants under the scheme will be announced towards the end of this year.


M'bold.

Good. The more warmists leave the US, the faster the situation will right itself.


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read on Vostok ice core data & reconciling CO2, CH4 & temperature data.

The Data Adjustment Bureau



> A few weeks ago I posted on The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag. Blogger, “And Then There’s Physics” (ATTP) picked up on it and posted a critique. Some useful information came to light in the comments and I said I would respond via a separate post, and so here it is.
> 
> In summary, the main evidence presented to refute my findings was a 2001 Nature paper by Cuffey and Vimeux [1]. These authors make many of the same points as I do but set about solving the problem by adjusting the temperature scale in Vostok that is derived from dD in ice.
> 
> They try to create a better fit between T and CO2 but fail to do so completely. The adjusted T data still leads CO2 by about 5000 years at the inception. At the Eemian termination and inception the alignment between T and CH4 is EXACT. The temperature adjustment made by Cuffey and Vimeux will destroy that fine relationship and we have to conclude that the Cuffey and Vimeux data adjustment is not valid.


Lots in the comments.


----------



## SINC

Hmmmm

“Earth has shifted”-Inuit elders issue warning to NASA and the world (Video) – The Indigenous Peoples


----------



## SINC

Hmmmm again:

Al Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLING


----------



## eMacMan

Hypocrisy thy name is Gore!


----------



## eMacMan

About those nuclear power plants that are going to take over base generation from gas and coal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-ca...tion-nuclear-reactors-170318208--finance.html



> COLUMBIA, S.C. (Reuters) - South Carolina utilities said on Monday they are abandoning two unfinished reactors that were hailed as the start of a U.S. nuclear power renaissance before they were dogged by billions of dollars in cost overruns.
> 
> The twin-reactor project known as V.C. Summer is majority owned by SCANA Corp, with state-owned utility Santee Cooper owning 45 percent.
> 
> "We arrived at this very difficult but necessary decision following months of evaluating the project from all perspectives to determine the most prudent path forward," said SCANA Chief Executive Officer Kevin Marsh in a statement.
> 
> The project was expected to begin producing power last year, but is less than 40 percent complete due to construction problems, disputes with regulators and poor quality work.
> 
> A presentation to Santee Cooper's board showed the estimated cost to complete the project had soared 75 percent and the project was not expected to begin producing power until 2023, more than six years behind the original schedule.
> 
> The utilities blamed the delays and rising estimated cost on the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric Co, which designed and had been constructing the V.C. Summer project when it filed for bankruptcy in March. Westinghouse was also building a similar nuclear power plant in Georgia known as Vogtle.
> 
> *The projects were the first new U.S. reactors since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, and were expected to usher in a new era of nuclear plants that were safer to operate, cheaper to build and carbon free.*
> 
> Instead, Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse said in March it could not afford to finish the fixed-price contracts for the two projects, which add to a long list of abandoned U.S. nuclear projects.
> 
> SCANA said the project was prohibitively expensive, even with $2.168 billion that Toshiba Corp of Japan, Westinghouse's parent company, agreed last week to pay for its guarantee on the Westinghouse contract.
> 
> It said work would cease immediately and the thousands of staff on site would shift to winding down operations and securing the property.
> ...


----------



## FeXL

Further on temperature data "adjustments".

Making the Measurements Match the Models – Part 2: Sea Surface Temperatures



> Matching sea surface temperatures (SSTs) to climate models requires a large stair-step cooling adjustment. *In this post we review whether this adjustment is valid and find that it isn’t.* The specific implications are that combined land-ocean “surface temperature” series underestimate global warming between 1910 and 1950 by approximately 0.3°C and that most of the sea surface warming in the 20th century occurred before 1950, not after. And because discarding the spurious adjustments applied to the raw SST data results in a large mismatch between models and observations the general implication is that we still have no good understanding of what drives temperature changes at the ocean surface.


My bold.


----------



## Macfury

Har!

‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office – Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount | Climate Depot



> “By filling theaters, we can show Donald Trump and the other climate deniers in the White House that the American people are committed to climate action –– no matter what they do, say, or tweet!” Gore wrote in an email alert sent to his supporters on Friday August 4th, the day of his nationwide opening.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Further on temperature data "adjustments".
> 
> Making the Measurements Match the Models – Part 2: Sea Surface Temperatures
> 
> 
> 
> My bold.


Thanks, that was an interesting read.


----------



## FeXL

Beej said:


> Thanks, that was an interesting read.


Welcome.

I don't know how well read you are on early measurements of SST using wooden buckets, insulated wooden buckets & metal samplers but there is huge potential for massive data errors in daytime sampling (hence the use of the night time subset, which could minimize some errors but still doesn't eliminate other potential errors):

1) Was the sampling device sitting in direct sun prior to being dipped into the water?
2) Was the thermometer suspended in the water or merely dropped to the bottom of the device?
3) Was the sample measured immediately?
4) Was the sample measured in the sun or shade?
5) From what depth was the sample drawn?
6) From what position on the ship was the sample taken?

Among others.


----------



## FeXL

Nah...

Scientists call out New York Times for incorrect claim about climate report



> Scientists appear to have debunked The New York Times' claim it was leaked a secret, gloomy climate change report which it published amid fears President Trump would suppress it.
> 
> On Monday, The New York Times published a story saying there are concerns that the Trump administration could suppress what’s known as the National Climate Assessment, a project of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
> 
> The story, titled “Scientists fear Trump will dismiss blunt climate report,” said the draft report “has not yet been made public” but “a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.”
> 
> The paper also said “those who challenge scientific data on human-caused climate change" are worried the report will be publicly released.
> 
> *But those who worked on the report are pushing back against the claims, saying the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months.*


M'bold.

Ah, yes. The Paper of _Record..._


----------



## FeXL

Hottest year on record? Not exactly - the chart shows a different story



> Most obvious in the chart, is that calendar year comparisons can be deceptive. Specifically, the year 2016 (red) was NOT the hottest year on record because every month was a record, but because the first four or five months were abnormally hot, a trend that actually began the last three months of 2015 (yellow). The first nine months of 2015 would characterize that year as moderate, at least in terms of recent years.


----------



## FeXL

So, the strength of the first major hurricane to make landfall in nearly 12 years (GLOBAL WARMING WILL INCREASE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS!!! ) gets blamed on, get this, global warming.

No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation



> Writing in the leftist British newspaper The Guardian, under the alarming headline "It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly," Mann had this to say: "Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge."


Oh, and this:



> "There is no reason to be debating Harvey and climate change in the context of an unfolding disaster, other than political opportunism and attention-seeking," said climate scientist and University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke. "It's not a good look for scientists or journalists who are promoting this issue."
> 
> Pielke destroys the notion that global warming has made hurricanes or tropical storms worse by noting that *from 1926 to 1969, a period of 44 years, there were 14 category 4 hurricanes that made landfall. From 1970 to 2017, or 47 years, there have been just four.* If anything, if you were a global warming advocate and being honest, you'd have to say that higher temperatures have caused the number of severe hurricanes hitting the U.S. to decline by 70%.


M'bold.


----------



## eMacMan

> if you were a global warming advocate and being honest,


That would make you an Oxymoron.


----------



## FeXL

Study blames global warming, not cell phones, for spike in car accident deaths



> Global warming was responsible for thousands of road deaths in 2015, according to a new study, contradicting many public safety experts who blame increased cell phone use for the spike in traffic fatalities.


XX)


----------



## FeXL

Further on the Goreacle.

Al Gore Outsold On Kindle By An E-Book Debunking ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’



> Former Vice President Al Gore’s new book is lagging in sales, and, in fact, is being outsold on Amazon Kindle by an e-book debunking many of the claims made in “An Inconvenient Sequel.”
> 
> Climatologist Roy Spencer authored an e-book, “An Inconvenient Deception,” to critique the “bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods” in Gore’s latest movie and book, which were released in August. Now, it’s ranked higher in Amazon’s Kindle store.
> 
> “*There are three big weaknesses in Gore’s new movie: science, economics and energy policy*,” Spencer, a noted skeptic of catastrophic global warming, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.


M'bold.

Don't leave much, does it...


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

Funny. I read that first line of the quote as "monster", not "minister". Dr. Freud would be proud... 

I’m 'so done' with Liberal climate nonsense



> With Catherine McKenna as Canada’s climate change minister, it’s as if we’re all trapped in high school whenever the subject comes up.
> 
> I mean, literally, given McKenna’s tweet Sunday that she is “so done” with the Conservatives on climate change.
> 
> Excuse us. “So done”?


----------



## FeXL

There goes Scotland...

The Terrifying Risk of Climate Change in Scotland

Let's skip right to the meat & potatoes:



> *The report in The Sunday Herald is nothing more than pure propaganda with near zero foundation in fact or science.* Academics, NGOs, Civil Servants and The Press have joined forces to support the Green mission that is to undermine the welfare of humanity through depriving human beings of the primary energy and food required for survival. Governments should enquire into this conduct, a lot of it supported by public funds being spent to promote the egos of a few at huge cost to the many.


Yeah, my bold.

Or not...

Excellent read.


----------



## Macfury

I sense a palpable disappointment among media outlets that Irma has been downgraded to CAT 1. More death and destruction would have made a better platform for better AGW propaganda.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I sense a palpable disappointment among media outlets that Irma has been downgraded to CAT 1. More death and destruction would have made a better platform for better AGW propaganda.


Agreed.

Related:


----------



## FeXL

Well, there goes another narrative.

Atlantic Hurricane Trends and Mortality Updated



> *The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall has not increased since 1880.* The reported increase in the frequency of all hurricanes can be explained by under-recording in the pre-flight, pre-satellite era. *The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index in the North Atlantic has been flat since 1950.* Changes in ACE with time may be associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and clearly has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. *The maximum intensity of hurricanes has not increased with time. Nor has the cost of hurricane damage increased in the USA.*


My bold.

'Nuf said.


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

My tax dollars at work.

C'mon, Juthdin. Come & get me, you trust fund pussy. [email protected]

Canada now investigates 'climate denial'



> It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.
> 
> Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group.


More:



> If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time.
> 
> I read and hear politicians making “false and misleading claims” about climate change almost daily, particularly with regard to what federal and provincial carbon pricing schemes will actually accomplish, as opposed to what our governments are claiming they will accomplish.
> 
> But the way to decide these issues is through public debate, not running to an agency of the federal government to shut up people we disagree with, particularly a government that itself makes false and misleading claims about man-made climate change all the time.


Nails it.


----------



## FeXL

Former NASA scientist disses @NASAGISS – says it’s a “monument to bad science”



> _Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.
> 
> I know from working there for 7 years that NASA GISS has almost been defunded several times in its life anyway. It's a small group over a restaurant (Tom's Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don't need a rocket to get to it, it's not space.
> 
> Besides, NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.​_


----------



## FeXL

Touches on a number of topics besides climate science but his point is well taken.

When to Trust the Experts (Climate and Otherwise)



> As soon as you hear that someone has a complicated prediction model, that’s red flag. If you hear that the model involves human assumptions and “tweaking,” that’s a double red flag. If you hear there are dozens of different models, that’s a triple red flag. If you hear that the models that don’t conform to the pack are discarded, and you don’t know why, that is a quadruple red flag. And if you see people conflating climate projections with economic models to put some credibility on the latter, you have a quintuple red flag situation.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> Touches on a number of topics besides climate science but his point is well taken.


Interesting read. The attempted transfer of authority from the basic science, through an uncertain collection of climate models (uncertainty does not equate to inaction, but it's relevant), and finally to a wide range of politicized economic analysis should make people ask more questions. 

To the extent the "economics is settled" it does not support the majority of existing and proposed climate change policies. Just technology development (controversial in that the term gets redefined to mean "buy people shiny new things") and the tax. Arguably cap and trade if a tax is off the table. After that, mostly unsettled if not outright mistaken economics.


----------



## FeXL

Prog. Heads. Exploding. Everywhere.

So, a paper published in that bastion of all things warmist, _Nature_, actually admits to climate models being wrong.

Yep. Shocka... :yikes:

Wondered how long they were going to push the narrative when all observations to the contrary showed otherwise.

Climate scientists: Previous warming estimates were ‘on the hot side’



> They’re not canceling the apocalypse but a group of mainstream climate scientists published a study Monday stating that the earth’s climate situation may not be quite as desperate as they previously thought.


Links to various coverages in the story inside, including a link to the paper in _Nature_ and this extensive one in the WaPo:

New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right

(Well, they couldn't be any more wrong than they already have.)



> In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, a team of 10 researchers, led by Richard Millar of the University of Oxford, recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above temperatures seen in the late 19th century. It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable — but the new study would appear to give us much more time to get our act together if we want to stay below it.


More:



> s very hard to see how we could still have a substantial CO2 emissions budget left for 1.5 °C, given we’re already at 1 °C, thermal inertia means we’ll catch up with some more warming even without increased radiative forcing, and any CO2 emissions reductions inevitably comes with reduced aerosol load as well, the latter reduction causing some further warming,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany said by email.


Funny, all the trusted data I've read puts us at about 0.8 °C since the industrial revolution. Must be more of that new math.

Wondered how long they were going to push the narrative when all observations to the contrary showed otherwise.

Frankly, I see this more as warmists covering their butts in the face of irreconcilable differences than the recognition of any real error in their precious models...


----------



## SINC

Yup, pretty much . . .


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Yup, pretty much . . .


Global warming was, among a host of other things that haven't materialized either, s'pose to increase extreme weather. This is why there had not been a land-making hurricane in the 142 months prior to Harvey...


----------



## FeXL

As always, Rex nails it.

Rex Murphy: All global warming predictions are infallible... until they're not



> It isn’t settled. The science is emergent. The conclusions are at best tentative. I leave you with this consolation: All global warming predictions are infallible, but some global warming predictions are less infallible than others.”


----------



## FeXL

Ouch. There goes another warmist narrative...

Uh Oh Al Gore, Sea Levels Are Falling All Around the Globe



> Al Gore said in 2006 that the sea levels would rise by as much as 20 feet in the near future. The man who made hundreds of millions of dollars pushing the most extreme form of climate hysteria, was wrong again. It is a fact sea levels fell in 2016 and from January to now, they fell.
> 
> Despite the claims of global warming alarmists that sea level rise will put major coastal cities under water in a few short years, NASA put up a chart confirming sea levels are actually falling around the globe.
> 
> Posted at NASA’s Global Climate Change page in it’s “Vital Signs” section on sea level, the charts show the falling sea levels.
> 
> On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism, NASA’s own data reveals that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm.


Hate when that happens.

So, where'd all that water go? Contrary to what the warmists would like you to believe, it isn't in the atmosphere as super-heated steam (snort):



> According to Robert Felix at Ice Age Now, the water is actually “being locked up on land as snow and ice.” In fact, Greenland just recorded its largest accumulation of snow and ice ever, surpassing even last year’s growth.
> 
> Antarctica’s ice is so thick the penguin females, who gather the food, have to travel much further this year and many are dying before they even reach it.


----------



## FeXL

<snort>

I know what a tantrum about anything at our house accomplished...

New Book Encourages Kids To Throw ‘Tantrums’ To Stop Global Warming



> An Australian author and noted climate scientist are asking for donations to publish a children’s book that “explains climate change to kids and empowers them to act” and is also carbon neutral, according to their KickStarter page.
> 
> The children’s book, “The Tantrum That Saved The World,” encourages kids to become global warming activists.
> 
> Author Megan Herbert and scientist Michael Mann want to publish a children’s book that tells a “story about a little girl who comes face to face with an enormous challenge, feels all kinds of frustration as she tries to overcome it, and then channels those strong emotions into action, rallying all those around her to do the same,” the authors wrote on KickStarter.
> 
> *In a promotional video, Herbert said that while parents should ordinarily discourage kids from throwing tantrums, “these are not ordinary times.*”


M'bold.

The iron... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

There goes another warmist narrative.

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero



> A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm).
> 
> The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response (TCR, the average temperature response centered around the time of CO2 doubling) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the temperature response upon reaching an equilibrium state after doubling) are shown to be declining from an average of about 3°C earlier in the century to below 2°C and edging towards 1°C for the more recent years.
> 
> This visual evidence would appear to indicate that past climate model determinations of very high climate sensitivity (4°C, 5°C, 6°C and up) have increasingly been determined to be in error. The anthropogenic influence on the Earth’s surface temperature has likely been significantly exaggerated.


More:



> Below is a new, updated graph that (1) includes some of the previously unidentified papers and (2) adds the 10 – 12 climate sensitivity papers published in the last 3 years. Notice, again, that the trend found in published papers has continued downwards, gradually heading towards zero.


----------



## Beej

FeXL said:


> There goes another warmist narrative.
> 
> Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
> 
> 
> 
> More:


If true, that's great news.


----------



## FeXL

Further on the "consensus".

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth



> When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
> 
> Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.
> 
> Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?


More:



> In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.
> 
> Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.
> 
> *CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS??*


Links' bold.

Excellent read.

Related:

Lies and Manipulation: The Sorry State of Global Climate Alarmism



> As a citizen of a third-world country, I bring a different perspective about climate change from that held by most people in wealthy countries. While they fret about possible tenth-of-a-degree changes in global average temperature, I think about how a billion of my fellow Indians and I will obtain the food, water, health care, and other things we need that our richer neighbors take for granted.


----------



## FeXL

I don't know about the "best thing" boast but definitely some salient points.

The István Markó Interview: Possibly the Best Thing You Will Ever Read on Global Warming. Pt 1: The Science.



> Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.
> 
> Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
> 
> Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English translation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.


Link to the complete English translation of the interview inside. Good read.


----------



## CubaMark

_Well, it should be interesting to see how the usual suspects in here dance around this betrayal by their favourite Buffoon-in-Chief:_

*U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials*

WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”
(NYTimes)​


----------



## Macfury

The report was already released to the _NYT_ in August. What point would there be in correcting it now, especially since it won't affect policy?


----------



## FeXL

My response?

First, don't expect me to click on a link to the Grey Lady any more than one from MotherCorpse. Ain't happenin'.

Second, I put as much faith in gov't issued climate reports as I do gov't issued food warnings. In short? Zero.

Third, asked & answered. Already. Head up to post #6812 just above. Read. Learn.



CubaMark said:


> Well, it should be interesting to see how the usual suspects in here dance around this betrayal by their favourite Buffoon-in-Chief


----------



## FeXL

So, the warmists are wetting themselves about a report in the BBC talking about a "record surge" in atmospheric CO2 that's all mankind's fault.

Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016



> Last week the BBC carried another scare story on climate change, this time citing a report on CO2 from the World Meteorological Organisation:
> 
> _“Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)._​


First off, why would we have any reason to doubt a branch of the UN? I know, huh?

More:



> Since this reporting is from the BBC, my default reaction is to treat it with a good deal of scepticism. So I decided to check out the numbers.
> 
> To my surprise the “50% higher than the average of the past 10 years” appears to be correct (Figure 1). The mean dCO2 2006-2015 was 2.1 ppm. The 2016 figure of 3.4 ppm is indeed 62% higher than the prior 10 year mean. We need to ask the serious question if this is a cause for concern?


Shocka. Their claim actually appears to be correct. OK. Now, why 50% higher?

The punch line:



> Let me go back to the 50% higher than prior 10 years statistic. dCO2 in 1973 was 2.2 ppm and the mean of the prior 10 years was 0.9 ppm. The spike up in 1973 was 144% of the preceding decade. dCO2 in 1998 was 2.97 ppm and the mean for the preceding decade was 1.5 ppm. This is a 98% jump. *I think we can conclude that the CO2 spike is entirely down to the 2016 El Niño and that set against a rising baseline there was nothing unusual about it.*


M'bold.

Nothing quite like the sound of all the air being let out of an argument... :lmao:

Excellent read. Good visuals.


----------



## FeXL

Hey, a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon yer talking real money...

The Cost Of ‘Climate Action’: $5.2 Trillion To Avert 0.2 Degrees Of Warming




> The United Nations is demanding more “climate action,” urging member countries to mobilize trillions of dollars more to fight man-made global warming.
> 
> UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said “the very fabric of life on Earth is under threat” from global warming “We must act right here, right now,” Espinosa told delegates and activists gathered in Bonn, Germany for another round of climate talks.


And this eyewatering statement:



> *A recent Stanford University report put the cost of meeting the Paris accord at $58 trillion over the next 25 years.* That comes out to about $2.3 trillion a year for the next quarter century.


Un-f'ing-believable...


----------



## CubaMark

Take it up with Trump. He's apparently a believer now.


----------



## FeXL

Don't care. Bill's Wife will never be POTUS.



CubaMark said:


> Take it up with Trump. He's apparently a believer now.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Take it up with Trump. He's apparently a believer now.


And you derived that from a bunch of snowflake US bureaucrats--well done as usual!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> And you derived that from a bunch of snowflake US bureaucrats--well done as usual!


It was on MotherJones. You know, the one that's currently being investigated for sexual violence in the workplace...


----------



## FeXL

Global temperature continues to cool



> Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping, now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.


More:



> In May 2014, at the beginning of the ENSO event, Global Temperature Anomaly was 0.608, now in September 2017, it has cooled to 0.561. It appears all affects from that ENSO event are now removed from the global temperature record.
> 
> Looks like claims of the “hottest year ever” won’t be happening in 2017, and we may see a return of “the pause” soon.


----------



## FeXL

Two and a half year old article that is every bit as relevant today.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever



> When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
> 
> Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
> 
> This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.


----------



## arminia

Arctic climate change being felt farther south, scientists say - Technology & Science - CBC News


----------



## FeXL

arminia said:


> Arctic climate change being felt farther south, scientists say - Technology & Science - CBC News


You'll probably get a better response from a non-MotherCorpse link.

Jes' sayin'...


----------



## FeXL

Further on that whole "Climate Is Settled Science" thing.

The Science Is Settled: Scientists Discover "Wetlands" Are a Major Producer of a *Real* Greenhouse Gas, Methane; "Models" Have Failed to Account for Large Amounts of Methane Being Produced by Wetlands



> In other words, a major real greenhouse gas, methane, has been undermodeled in these #FakeNews models, so that increases in temperature have been attributed to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas so weak it's an open question if it should be classified as a greenhouse gas at all.
> 
> But you're a Science Denier for reading this actual science.


PS. Careful on the accusations of increases in temperature, too...


----------



## Macfury

I checked the report, but it's largely about projections using models. Also appears to use peak sea ice of 1978 as the baseline, eliminating all previous major fluctuations from consideration.



FeXL said:


> You'll probably get a better response from a non-MotherCorpse link.
> 
> Jes' sayin'...


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I checked the report, but it's largely about projections using models. Also appears to use peak sea ice of 1978 as the baseline, eliminating all previous major fluctuations from consideration.


Thx.

So, arminia, you didn't include a comment with your post. Do you agree with the premise of the article? Disagree with it? What are your thoughts?


----------



## FeXL

I've heard/read this forecast a couple times now.

Brace yourself for the ’classic’ Canadian winter, meteorologist says



> British Columbia, the Prairies, Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes are all in store for above normal levels of precipitation, according to the forecast.


Tons of global warming dropping on us this winter. Also below seasonal temps.

Thought the narrative was steady boiling off of our oceans? :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Theory ‘Completely Disconnected From the Observations’



> Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and *thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.*


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

Haven't read anything from Judith in a while.

A veneer of certainty stoking climate alarm

She was privileged to write a foreword for the essay by Rupert Darwall. She includes the foreword, as well as excerpts from the essay & a link to the complete paper.

I'll include just a single quote:



> _In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public._ – Rupert Darwall


----------



## FeXL

Why the climate debate is paralyzing free thinkers and undermining democracy



> To make a long story very short: The investment of roughly 60,000 Euros to produce the most important film in my life, left me behind with a sour taste and skimpy bank account.
> 
> But not only that, it left me with an even bigger fear. It wasn’t the loss of my friends or the climate fear.
> 
> It was openly excluding opinions and groups from the debate. Under the skin of that specific ‘responsibility’ were the frustrating ideologies fueled by radical movements and dividing society with extremism.
> 
> Frankly, I knew the film would face challenges, but not as much and aggressive as it eventually did. It let me experience and understand the deeper cause and consequences of polarization in a time where critical thinkers are needed.


----------



## FeXL

“Green energy” fairy tale turning into a nightmare for Canada



> Once upon a time in a northern dominion called Canada, a thriving oil industry provided fuel for vehicles, trains and airplanes. There was also a large natural gas industry that kept the people warm during the long, cold winters and supplied the raw material for plants that manufactured plastics, detergents, fertilizer, synthetic clothing and a great many other items needed and used by people every day.
> 
> That oil and natural gas industry employed more than a million people and its exports were the biggest contributor to the county’s international balance of payments.
> 
> People working in the industry were proud that their operations were among the most technically advanced and environmentally responsible in the world.
> 
> Then a report written by a scientific advisory group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published. It stated that the Earth was warming and carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were the likely cause.


----------



## FeXL

<just shaking my head...>

Giant Fans will cool Great Barrier Reef to stop bleaching



> To calm a few panicking people, the Australian Government will pay for large fans to circulate water on a minuscule portion of the 2,300 kilometer long Great Barrier Reef. The reef creatures, which have been coping with higher temperatures and bleaching for two hundred million years, will hopefully avoid the moving parts. Marine life adapts to heatwaves by chucking out the symbionts that don’t thrive in higher temperatures and replacing them up new inhabitants that do. If the fans achieve anything, it may stop this natural process (called Symbiont Shuffling) thus possibly making small sections of the reef more vulnerable to future heatwaves and El Ninos. Who knows?


More:



> Mark this one up as a pagan symbolic idol that symbolizes our grandiose delusions of weather-control.


Or basic stupidity...


----------



## FeXL

So, Susan Crockford is a zoologist who studies, among other things, polar bears.

Retraction request for Harvey et al. attack paper on Dr. Susan Crockford



> Essay by Dr. Susan Crockford (republished from her website https://polarbearscience.com )on Retraction request to Bioscience: FOIA emails document another harsh criticism of Amstrup’s 2007 polar bear model
> 
> Today I sent a letter to the editors of the journal Bioscience requesting retraction of the shoddy and malicious paper by Harvey et al. (Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy) published online last week.
> 
> The letter reveals information about the workings of the polar bear expert inner circle not known before now, so grab your popcorn.


Detailed read.


----------



## SINC

This is a great question:

*Why did climate scientists emit 30,000 tonnes of C02 this weekend?*

Around 25,000 of my colleagues flew to a conference, leaving a colossal carbon footprint in their wake. This makes our warnings less credible to the public

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> *Why did climate scientists emit 30,000 tonnes of C02 this weekend?[/B*


*

'Cause they're saving the plaaaaaanet!!!*


----------



## FeXL

OK. My curiosity is piqued.

Quote of the week: The clouds, the 1%, and the ‘holy grail’ of climate science



> Today my inbox got what some people might describe as an important clue to finding the “holy grail” of climate science. It’s a big step forward, it’s an even bigger step to get those entrenched, invested, and employed in the “CO2 rules the climate” theory industry to accept it. The battle of self-correcting science is about to be fought.
> 
> In a few days, I’ll be able to tell you what it is, since it is embargoed, but for now, I wanted to remind you all of this quote from the past:
> 
> _“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”_​


----------



## FeXL

*Because it's 2015!*

Further on the Clown Prince of Hair...

NAFTA Talks Stall Over Climate Change



> Negotiations for a new North American Free Trade Agreement have reportedly stalled at least in part over whether climate change should be included in the text of the agreement.
> 
> ...
> 
> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate posturing rarely fails to entertain.
> 
> ...
> 
> Then to prove his green sympathies, Trudeau backflips and tosses absurd climate demands into high profile events, like the current NAFTA renegotiation.
> 
> Given how many people Trudeau has upset, you really have to wonder who he thinks his target audience is, or whether he even has a target audience.


Oh, he does... :baby:

Many of the comments are priceless.


----------



## FeXL

FeXL said:


> OK. My curiosity is piqued.


Here's the paper alluded to in Anthony's earlier post:

New paper: The missing link between cosmic rays, clouds, and climate change on Earth



> Last week I hinted at this upcoming paper, which was embargoed until this morning. I noted then something Dr. Roy Spencer said in his book about clouds: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists and how this new paper could be the “holy grail” of climate science, if it is true.


Interesting hypothesis. Interesting, too is Svalgaard's response.

I look forward to reading more of the debate. If you can wade through the BS, there is a good discussion in the comments.


----------



## SINC

Uh Oh! A new ice age?

Could we face a mini ice age in the next 30 years? | Daily Mail Online


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Uh Oh! A new ice age?


There have been a number of Russian scientists working on research suggesting an upcoming mini-ice age for several years now.


----------



## FeXL

Love the title.

NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update



> The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures. It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments. It is not thermometer readings. It is models all the way down.
> 
> In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time. I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).
> 
> *At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.
> 
> What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA's website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)? The answer is 0.66˚ C.
> 
> How did warming accelerate if we are looking at the very same years?*


Yeah, my bold.

There are some on these boards who think that, in order to have a discussion about a particular topic, one requires a PhD. Or something. 

Logical fallacies & all, that's pure bull$h!t.

It don't take a rocket surgeon to notice that a single number has been increased by 13%, _with no accompnaying explanation_.

Excellent read.


----------



## SINC

This guy gets it.



> Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.
> 
> So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
> 
> "I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.
> 
> Dyson came to this country from his native England at age 23 and immediately made major breakthroughs in quantum theory. After that he worked on a nuclear-powered rocket (see video below). Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
> 
> "I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
> 
> That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
> 
> But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.


Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor | NJ.com


----------



## FeXL

Ya don't say... :yikes:

New Study Shows Past Research On Rising Ocean Temps Built On Faulty Science



> *Ocean temperatures have risen only 0.1 degree Celsius over the last five decades, according to a landmark study some scientists argue could change the way researchers measure the ocean’s temperature levels.*
> 
> Each layer of water in the ocean has vastly different temperatures, so determining the average temperature is nearly impossible without glossing over important data. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego decided on a different model – they measured the ratio of noble gases in the atmosphere, which are in direct relation to the ocean’s temperature.


M'bold.

More:



> The ratio of these gases allows for a much more effective and exact calculation of average global ocean temperature, according to Severinghaus and his team of researchers at Scripps. They discovered that xenon and krypton are well preserved in ice cores and can, therefore, provide temperature information that scientists can use to study many other aspects of the earth’s oceans.
> 
> “Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to make better calculations going forward.


There goes another Prog narrative...


----------



## FeXL

Hate when that happens...

In Climate Science, Predictions Are Hard, Especially About The Future



> As hard as they may be to get right, predictions about the future are the core of the field that goes by the name of "climate science." Because of predictions about the future by climate scientists, everybody knows that human burning of fossil fuels will cause world temperatures to increase by multiple degrees over the coming century, leading to a series of calamities ranging from sea level rise to droughts to floods to hurricane and tornadoes. After all, the climate scientists have sophisticated computer models! If you don't believe the predictions of the models, you must be a "science denier."


More:



> For example, there was the prediction that our national weather bureaucracy (NOAA) came out with back in October as to the severity of the upcoming winter. How do they come up with that prediction? Eric Niler at Wired wrote a post on the prediction on October 29 that revealed that *the seasonal predictions rely on models using the same theories of "heat trapping" greenhouse gases as they use for the longer-term models*:
> 
> _NOAA climate scientists incorporate heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels when they run the models that produce their seasonal climate predictions._​
> So what was the prediction?
> 
> _Warmer-than-normal conditions are most likely across the southern two-thirds of the continental U.S., along the East Coast, across Hawaii and in western and northern Alaska._​
> Oops!


M'bold.

Oops, alright...

If the f'ing models can't even predict a season ahead, how the hell do they expect us to believe any predictions a hunnert years out?


----------



## FeXL

"Snow will be a thing of the past..."

French Alps hit by 'once-in-a-generation' snow storms



> Parts of the French Alps have been hit by the kind of snowfall that only comes once every 30 years. These images show ski resorts buried in the snow.
> Schools, nurseries have been closed and roads cut off in the French Alps after the Savoie department was placed on red alert -- the highest warning -- for avalanches on Monday.
> 
> Near the French-Italian border, in Haute Maurienne and Haute Tarentaise snow levels reached up to 80-90 centimetres in just 24 hours with the "maximum intensity" of the snowfall hitting on Monday evening.
> 
> "We will have had 2.40 m of snow in 48 hours," said the mayor of Bonneval-sur-Arc Gabriel Blanc on BFMTV on Monday night.


----------



## FeXL

Washington Governor Claims ‘Just 59 Days’ To Save Children From Global Warming



> Washington state’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee warned there was “just 59 days” to save future generations from *“an endless cycle of crop-killing droughts one year, and rivers spilling their banks the next.”*
> 
> Inslee went on a lengthy Twitter rant in efforts to convince the state legislature to pass legislation to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Washington residents voted down Inslee’s last carbon tax plan by a wide margin in 2016.


M'bold.

You mean, like regular climate does?

If this doesn't pass you think he's going to set the example & do the responsible thing with his own children?

Jes' askin'...


----------



## Macfury

I just want the weather to be exactly the same on the same day each year. Is that too much to ask from politicians?


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> I just want the weather to be exactly the same on the same day each year. Is that too much to ask from politicians?


Like most of the crap that comes from politicians, that'll just be another failed legislative policy they'll blame on someone, anyone, but themselves.


----------



## FeXL

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Angela Merkel Lectured Trump On Global Warming, Now Germany Abandoning Its Climate Goal



> Germany will abandon its 2020 national global warming goal, a huge embarrassment to Chancellor Angela Merkel, as part of a deal to put together a coalition government in the wake of September’s elections.
> 
> Sources tell Reuters that Merkel’s would-be coalition will drop a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Ahead of the elections, Merkel said she’d find a way to meet the 2020 target. That was before she failed to put together a majority governing coalition.


Amazing the compromises you're willing to make when your political life is on the line...


----------



## FeXL

From the Department of the Blindingly Obvious.

Humans Did Not Cause the US Cold Snap



> The cold snap that sent temperatures plunging last week and brought the most frigid new year in recorded history, in some places, had nothing to do with climate change, according to a new study.


It's a decent enough read, but be forewarned: far too much implication of the Globull Warming narrative with little to no evidence is intermingled with the facts of the story.


----------



## FeXL

HA!

ExxonMobil Prepares To Sue California Cities over Climate Change Claims



> Legal Insurrection readers will recall that several California cities and counties sued a number of gas companies, asking for billions of dollars to protect against rising sea levels they blamed on climate change.
> 
> 
> However, in an intriguing turn of events, ExxonMobil is turning the tables and counter-suing these municipalities. The company notes that though these same cities and counties claim that they are seriously threatened by floods and other environmental problems because of “climate change”, they clearly failed to disclose these dire concerns to potential bond investors.
> 
> _…ExxonMobil accused the localities of exaggerating the climate-change threat in court documents, arguing that they failed to raise red flags about climate-driven disasters such as drought, wildfires and ocean acidification in their earlier bond offerings.
> 
> “Notwithstanding their claims of imminent, allegedly near-certain harm, none of the municipalities disclosed to investors such risks in their respective bond offerings, which collectively netted over $8 billion for these local governments over the last 27 years,” said ExxonMobil in its petition in Texas District Court.
> 
> *“To the contrary, some of the disclosures affirmatively denied any ability to measure those risks; the others virtually ignored them,” said the petition.*_​


My bold.

Lovin' it.


----------



## FeXL

The Climate Change Doomsday Just Got Canceled



> The study, published on Thursday, finds that if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled, global temperatures would climb at most by 3.4 degrees Celsius. That's far below what the UN has been saying for decades, namely that temperatures would rise as much as 4.5 degrees, and possibly up to 6 degrees.


Frankly, I find that 3.4° estimate on the high side.

More:



> As it happens, though, on the same day the Nature study was published, NASA released its latest report on global temperatures, declaring that 2017 was the second hottest year on record, with 2016 the hottest.
> 
> Guess which story made front page news?


Yeah.


----------



## FeXL

The Goreacle and the Non-science (nonsense?) Guy hardest hit...

Pentagon erases “climate change” from the National Defense threat list



> The Pentagon released a National Defense Strategy that for the first time in more than a decade does not mention manmade global warming as a security threat.
> 
> An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” All 22 uses of the word “environment” refer to the strategic or security landscape.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> The Climate Change Doomsday Just Got Canceled
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I find that 3.4° estimate on the high side.
> 
> More:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.


Also not mentioned, for CO2 levels to double, mans output has to increase about 10 fold!


----------



## FeXL

Further on rubber rulers...

2017 : Fakest Year On Record At NOAA



> The usual fake news sources are hysterically parroting the standard NOAA and NASA fake news about 2017 being the hottest something or other.
> 
> ...
> 
> As with every other month, the bright red NOAA map is fake. It shows red almost everywhere!
> 
> ...
> 
> *The actual NOAA thermometer map (below) shows 50% of the land surface as missing data, 14% of the land as below normal temperature, and just over one third of the land surface as above normal.* NOAA simply makes data up to create the appearance of red hot burning planet.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

HYPOCRITES: 1700 Private Jets Fly Into Davos To Discuss “Climate Change”



> Just one private jet flight from New York to Paris produces more CO2 than the typical American produces in an entire year.
> 
> If these people were truly concerned about “climate change” why the use of 1700 private jets? Why the high-priced meals with items like Kobe Beef and salmon flown in from across the globe? Why the $40000 cost to attend?
> 
> It’s a hoax. A scam. A money-shifting chess game whereby international corporations and anti-American nations are hoping to play upon the fears and emotions of the simple-minded that human beings can actually alter the weather over the next century even as we struggle to predict the weather next week.


Well. Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

:-( 

Oscars snub Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel



> Is climate change losing its luster as an issue for the Hollywood left? Or have so many "Inconvenient Truths" about global warming been debunked that it has forced Hollywood into an embarrassed silence?
> 
> The sequel to Al Gore's 2006 documentary _An Inconvenient Truth_ released in 2017 and titled _An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power_, failed to pick up a single Oscar nomination. The 2006 film won "Best Documentary" and "Best Song."


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## FeXL

Them's fightin' words...

From egg and bacon to the all-day breakfast, scientists reveal which SANDWICHES are bad for climate change: Here are the worst offenders



> Scientists claim there is a surprising climate change culprit: sandwiches.
> 
> The overall annual consumption of sandwiches across the UK has the same environmental impact as the use of around eight million cars a year, scientists have claimed.
> 
> Researchers arrived at the figure after studying the carbon footprint of different types of sandwiches – both home-made and pre-packaged.


----------



## FeXL

Just wanted to post a couple of anecdotes from recent experience.

First, related to the 1200km "smoothing" applied to temperatures in the Arctic due to the removal of temperature recording stations.

Was in Calgary a few weeks back for one of the littluns sports events. Headed home in the evening. As always, the thermometer in the mirror of the 'Burb was turned on. Leaving the city the temp showed -4°C. Driving further south, the temperature started dropping until it hit its low of -12°C at Claresholm, about an hour out of Calgary. As we came closer to Lethbridge, the temperature started creeping back up until it surpassed the original -4°C at -2°C.

In sum, in less than two hours (and <200km) we experienced a drop of 8°C and subsequent increase of 10°C.

Tell me again how precisely that 1200km smoothing represents the actual temperature at any given location?

Second, got up yesterday morning & temp outside was -29°C, again, according to the 'Burb thermometer. Went for a short drive, about 70k round trip. At times the thermometer showed temps as cold as -34°C. Bitterly cold. Checked the forecast online, they were predicting -33°C for today.

Got up this morning, a chinook had blown in overnite. It was -3°C.

My point? If the selfsame models they use to forecast climate conditions a hunnert years out can't come any closer than 30°C in a 24 hour period, why the hell should we believe anything they say about a century down the road?

Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question...


----------



## FeXL

As the first commenter notes, One for the good guys.

BREAKING: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed!



> _This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech._​


----------



## FeXL

There goes another warmist narrative.

STUDY: These Islands 'Sinking' From Global Warming Are Actually Growing In Size



> A new study produced by researchers at the University of Auckland concludes that forecasts about the impact of climate change on some low-lying islands have failed to take into account key factors and thus have overstated the danger posed to inhabitants. The most "counterintuitive" finding in the study: the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu — the poster child of "sinking" island fears — is not only _not_ shrinking, it's actually _growing_ in size.


I jes' luvs me sum good, ol' fashioned, "settled" science...


----------



## FeXL

Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence



> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
> 
> This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
> 
> If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.
> 
> Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD.
> 
> You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?
> 
> That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
> 
> We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.


However, if you listen to Progs like Freddie & CM, none of this counts as valid criticism 'cause Paul Homewood ain't a gen-u-wine <snort> climate scientist...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> However, if you listen to Progs like Freddie & CM, none of this counts as valid criticism 'cause Paul Homewood ain't a gen-u-wine <snort> climate scientist...


Freddie supports whatever theory generates more sweet, sweet milk flowing from the government teat.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Freddie supports whatever theory generates more sweet, sweet milk flowing from the government teat.


Then he'll hate this Globull Warming garbage. Ask him if he's seen his natural gas bill for January yet.

Go, Rachel!!!


----------



## FeXL

Nope. Nothing to do with religion. Nosiree. It's all based on "the science"...

People Tell NYT About Their ‘Religious Conversion’ To Climate Alarmism



> The New York Times spoke to several people from different industries who all associated their conversion to climate activism as at a type of religious epiphany.
> 
> Many of the newly converted transitioned from extreme climate skepticism to radical proponents of the belief that global warming must be tackled before it’s too late. The retired coal miner, evangelical minster, and Miami mayor reporters talked to wrap their new-found position in religious overtones.
> 
> “I liken it to a religious conversion, and not just because I saw something I’d never seen before — I felt a deep sense of repentance,” Rev. Richard Cizik said in an interview with the TheNYT. He admitted to membership in the church of the “religious right” before hearing a Rev. Jim Ball, a founder of the Evangelical Environmental Network, wax poetic about the climate activism.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, pretty much.



> Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink
> 
> NEW STUDY: CLIMATE GROUPTHINK LEADS TO A DEAD END
> 
> London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink.
> 
> Written by one of Britain’s leading newspaper columnists Christopher Booker, the report is based on research by Professor Irving Janis, the American psychologist who is famous for his theory of “Groupthink”. But as Booker explains, Janis never looked at the application of his theory outside the policy areas he was interested in:
> 
> “Janis’s focus was on decision-making in the foreign policy arena. However, as soon as you look, you see that his ideas apply elsewhere. The climate debate is a case in point – all of the characteristic ‘rules’ of groupthink are there: warmist ideas can’t be tested against reality, and so to ensure they are upheld as the truth, they have to be elevated into a ‘consensus’ and anyone who challenges them must be crushed. These are precisely the features that Janis used to define Groupthink.”


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/20/global-warming-zealotry-a-case-study-in-groupthink/


----------



## SINC

A London scientist wades into the debate over weather versus climate change.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Climate Barbie.

Precis: First off, she's so stupid she doesn't know what the provincial flag of Manitoba is. Second, she's so stupid she thinks CO2 is pollution.

I jes' luvs me a good, old-fashioned, compassionate, intellectual, lefty politician...

Climate Barbie

Comments also very relevant.

But ignore all of the above 'cause none of us rubes has been professionally trained in vexillology or climate science...


----------



## FeXL

Caught: Gov’t Agency Lying About Sea Ice, Advancing Green Agenda



> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has consistently perpetuated the narrative that Arctic sea ice has been melting at a catastrophic rate, even releasing a report in late 2017 claiming that Arctic ice melting is still a major problem.
> 
> As noted in a piece by Vox, the NOAA released its annual Arctic Report Card in December, analyzing the current state of polar ice caps — and it was not good.
> 
> ...
> 
> However, despite these doomsday style graphs and claims made by the NOAA, notable climate skeptic Paul Homegood investigated data concerning Arctic ice sheets and discovered something interesting — the NOAA is lying.
> 
> According to Homegood, the chart pictured above is actually depicting “summer sea ice minima.”
> 
> “As we know from DMI, sea ice extent has stabilized in summer, and has slightly increased since 2007,” Homegood wrote.
> 
> Homegood also revealed that research has shown Arctic sea ice growing in thickness over the last decade, as can be seen below in two graphs provided by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


More:



> “In fact, Arctic temperatures have varied little in the last decade,” he stated, further noting that the claim of the Arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world “is simply a reflection of the upward part of the cycle.”
> 
> “Changes in Arctic temperatures are invariably amplified, either warming faster or cooling faster,” Homegood continued.
> 
> *And as can be seen in another graph below, temperatures haven’t varied much at all, and are no higher than temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s.*


Bold mine...


----------



## eMacMan

Sums it up pretty well. Thanks Ray!
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORyzsMZPPUg[/ame]


----------



## FeXL

DAMN!!! Wish I'd have known. There would have been a few penetrating questions and much derisive laughter from one point in the audience...

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe tries to scare Canadians with threats of warmer temperatures



> As the IPCC Cities Conference progressed in Alberta’s capitol city of Edmonton, March 5-8, 2018, Canada’s energy center was not going to be left out. The Calgary Climate Change Symposium featured “Climate George” – George Marshall, activist and author of the UK, and Dr. Katharine Hayhoe of the Political Sciences department at Texas Tech University.
> 
> Marshall introduced the idea that it was too difficult to talk about climate change because it was such a polarizing issue, suggesting that conversations would immediately turn to talk about the spinach tart at dinner rather than the climate ‘crisis.’ The conversation would be especially difficult in Alberta where so many jobs rely on oil, gas and coal, he intimated.
> 
> *Marshall noted that his background is in the social sciences and that facts and evidence just turn people off* – so the way to go is to have people tell personal stories of how climate change has affected their lives.


M'bold.

Well, they turn off Progs, sociologists & warmists. But I repeat myself.

As to stories of how climate change affected me personally, I'm afraid I'd have nothing to contribute to the narrative...

More:



> Dr. Hayhoe then charmed the audience with her folksy presentation telling us how her mother’s tulips were coming up in March instead of April and how this had never happened in all the time she was growing up in Ontario. This would normally be termed an anecdotal commentary, not scientific evidence, but this is the path the “Alberta Narrative” has taken.


Fine. I can honestly say that this past February was not only the coldest but the snowiest in my memory. Must be sum of dat der Globull Warming...

Further:



> Likewise, *Dr. Hayhoe said Alberta’s winters were good because they kept nasty bugs, insects and poisonous snakes away from Alberta.* Likewise, noxious weeds like kudzu, which she said cannot take root in any region with extremely low winter temperatures but has been found in Ontario. Kudzu ? Pueraria montana - Canadian Food Inspection Agency This was apparently meant to show that Ontario is warmer than ever. *(Note – in fact there are poisonous snakes in Alberta in the Medicine Hat region...)*


There's rattlesnakes a helluva lot further west than Med Hat in southern Alberta. Upstream along the Milk River from the Montana border to within 10 miles of the town by the same name. Also all over Writing On Stone provincial park.


----------



## Macfury

Living in Ontario, I have seen no tulips. Even the snowdrops are late.


----------



## eMacMan

Not sure about historically, but this February was the coldest since we have lived here. Been Keeping records since 2007 and this was not only the coldest but the snowiest. My right shoulder is still a bit stiff and sore. Probably related to the several tons of snow I moved last month.


----------



## FeXL

Cherry Blossom Superstition Of The Global Warming Religion



> The news is full of stories that Washington DC’s cherry blossoms are blooming earlier and earlier due to “global warming.”


More:



> It is simple enough to test these theories out, using actual data. Since CO2 hit 350 PPM, the average peak bloom date has changed from March 31 to April 2 – i.e. *the trees are blooming two days later than they did 30 years ago.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Unbelievable.

Yet some Prog warmist is going to set their teeth into this garbage as "PROOOOOF!!!" of Globull Warming.

Sea level fears as more of giant Antarctic glacier floating than thought

First:



> More of a giant France-sized glacier in Antarctica is floating on the ocean than previously thought, scientists said Tuesday, raising fears it could melt faster as the climate warms and have a dramatic impact on rising sea-levels.


Second:



> The Totten Glacier is one of the fastest-flowing and largest glaciers in Antarctica with scientists keen to keep a close eye on how it melts given the enormous amount of water it could potentially unleash.


Excuse the first:

If the ice is already floating, then the body of water supporting it has already raised to accomodate it. No further increases will be recorded. Case in point? Glass of bourbon with an ice cube in it.

Excuse the second:

Precisely what circumstances create a "fast" flow of ice in a glacier? High accumulations of snow up top...

I'll leave the balance of that mystery to be puzzled out by some Prog warmist.


----------



## FeXL

TABLES TURNED: Alarmists Now ‘Deny’ Climate Science While Big Oil Defends It



> Something bizarre happened Wednesday after the U.S. District Court for the District Northern California held a “tutorial” hearing on global warming science.
> 
> Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said.
> 
> *California cities, environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated.* Effectively, those seeking to punish oil companies are throwing aside the oft touted “consensus” on climate science.
> 
> The irony was not lost on University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., who published peer-reviewed studies on climate science and policies.


My bold.

Outdated?

<snerk>

Curious that...


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Scam Continues To Unravel



> After spending 30 years lying about sea level rise and “entire nations drowned” – reality is starting to set in. *Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.*
> 
> _“Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown …. Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent._​


Yeah, bold mine.


----------



## SINC

*The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy*



> Remember Paris? It was not even two years ago that the celebrated climate accords were signed — defining two degrees of global warming as a must-meet target and rallying all the world’s nations to meet it — and the returns are already dispiritingly grim.
> 
> This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again. Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty. To keep the planet under two degrees of warming — a level that was, not all that long ago, defined as the threshold of climate catastrophe — all signatory nations have to match or better those commitments. There are 195 signatories, of which only the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines. This puts Donald Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the treaty in a useful perspective; in fact, his spite may ultimately prove perversely productive, since the evacuation of American leadership on climate seems to have mobilized China, eager to claim the mantle and far more consequential to the future of the planet because of its size and relative poverty, to adopt a much more aggressive posture toward climate. Of course those renewed Chinese commitments are, at this point, just rhetorical, too.


The Paris Climate Accords Are Starting to Look Like Fantasy


----------



## FeXL

Hey, TIPCC (The International Pack of Climate Crooks) is meeting again!!!

Global experts gather in Christchurch to tackle climate change



> Some of the world's brightest minds are gathering in Christchurch this week to discuss how best to tackle the ever-pressing issue of climate change.
> 
> The city will host 120 scientists from 59 countries as they examine how to manage some of the thorniest problems caused by our rapidly-changing environment.
> 
> As members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a global coalition of scientists and academics – they will spend the next five days drafting a report that will inform and influence how governments deal with the problem in the decades ahead.


What, only 120 flew all the way in to New Zealand? Emissions will be down this year... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Further on those "adjustments"...

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare 



> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
> 
> What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.


Hey, CM, you know a lot about statistics <snort>. Why is it that that past temperatures are always cooled & recent temperatures are all warmed? Statistically, shouldn't both those adjustments be closer to 50/50? Some up & some down? Please, explain this to me...


----------



## SINC

Global warming my . . .

Calgary expecting the coldest Easter weekend since 1940

https://trib.al/HK9zSYa


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Global warming my . . .
> 
> Calgary expecting the coldest Easter weekend since 1940


Currently -12 here. Daytime high of -2, overnite low of -11, high Easter Sunday of -2. Write those numbers down 'cause in 6 months, when the "adjustments" are made, Easter weekend will have been sunny, blue skies & +10...


----------



## SINC

Canada May Already Be Carbon Neutral, So Why Are We Keeping It A Secret? | St. Albert's Place

Tax revenue, that's why.


----------



## FeXL

Developing Nations to Study Ways to Dim Sunshine, Slow Warming 



> Scientists in developing nations plan to step up research into dimming sunshine to curb climate change, hoping to judge whether a man-made chemical sunshade would be less risky than a harmful rise in global temperatures.
> 
> Research into "solar geo-engineering," which would mimic big volcanic eruptions that can cool the Earth by masking the sun with a veil of ash, is now dominated by rich nations and universities such as Harvard and Oxford.
> 
> Twelve scholars, from countries including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Jamaica and Thailand, wrote in the journal _Nature_ this week that the poor were most vulnerable to global warming and should be more involved.
> 
> "Developing countries must lead on solar geo-engineering research," they wrote in a commentary.


Ah, yes. That bastion of climate objectivity, _Nature_.

I know! Maybe they could suspend some of their dim politicians overhead. That'd work, no? :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Further on Watermelons vs Oil Companies.

Climate Oil Conspiracy “Smoking Gun” Goes Up in Smoke



> The California vs Chevron lawsuit against five oil companies is not going well for greens. After suggesting Climate Scientist Myles Allen presented a misleading graph about CO2, and *after receiving an admission from Oceanographer Gary Griggs that ice ages and other violent climate shifts, far greater than today’s mild warming, can be caused by natural forcings*, Judge Alsup turned to the centrepiece of the conspiracy charge, the “Smoking Gun” memo.


Yeah, bold mine.

What's this?! :yikes: Natural forcings can move that thermometer more than the 0.8°C warming we've seen since the LIA?! Heretics!!!

Shocka...


----------



## Macfury

Watching these eco-loons present their best case has been hilarious fun. The Keystone Kops coudn't have looked like bigger idiots presenting that "evidence."



FeXL said:


> Further on Watermelons vs Oil Companies.
> 
> Climate Oil Conspiracy “Smoking Gun” Goes Up in Smoke
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, bold mine.
> 
> What's this?! :yikes: Natural forcings can move that thermometer more than the 0.8°C warming we've seen since the LIA?! Heretics!!!
> 
> Shocka...


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk "Settled Science" s'more.

New Source Of Nitrogen Challenges Understanding Of Climate Change



> New information published in the journal Science suggests a new source of nitrogen – calling into question the validity of our understanding of how plants get their resources.
> 
> For centuries at this point, it was understood that all of the nitrogen that plants need to function was absorbed through the atmosphere. However, new research recently published by the University of California, Davis, suggests that more than a quarter of the source of nitrogen that plants use to thrive comes from the Earth’s bedrock. This finding also solves the mystery of the “missing nitrogen” – offering an explanation for why we were finding more nitrogen in plants than we were seeing absorbed from the air.


----------



## FeXL

Further from the, "It's weather, not climate (yet) department", sceptic style.

Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball



> Right now, the sun is a cueball, as seen below in this image today from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and has been without sunspots for 10 days. So far in 2018, 61% of days have been without sunspots.


Related:

Array Of Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off



> Schneefan at German weather and climate analysis site wobleibtdieerderwaermung.de here brings us the latest on atmospheric temperatures.


h/t SDA, from whence comes this & other precient comments:



> According to one of the radio/tv weathermen Edmonton is setting a record today for the longest stretch of freezing days. In other words every day since Oct 30, 2017 has seen the temperature drop below 0 for at least a few hours. The old record was set in 1975 when we were all concerned about an imminent ice age.


Waiting for the spin doctors 'splaining us how Globull Warming leads to Globull Cooling, as well...

And, just as an aside, all last week & up to & including this past Tuesday morning the forecasters were calling locally for a foot of snow yesterday (Thursday). By Tuesday noon the forecast had been updated to 1-3", which is about what we received. If their 3 day forecast is off by 9-11" of snow, how the hell do they expect us to believe their predictions 20 years, 50 years, a hunnert years out, using the same models?


----------



## FeXL

More from the, "It's weather, not climate, department", sceptic style.

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Shiver



> When a summer storm tips over grain bins, it’s “climate change”.
> 
> ...
> 
> When ground’s too frozen to get seed in the ground – it’s “weather”.


----------



## FeXL

1952 : Arctic “Melting At An Astonishing Rate”



> Scientists say the Arctic is warming at an astonishing rate.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sixty six years ago, experts used the exact same words.
> 
> ...
> 
> Same story 80 years ago.


Yeppers...


----------



## SINC

*To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...larmists-global-cooling-is-here/#291968144dcf


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> *To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here*
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterf...larmists-global-cooling-is-here/#291968144dcf


Probably a good article, and likely confirming what Russian climate scientists have been saying for several years. Unfortunately Forbes Adblock blocker won't let me in.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Probably a good article, and likely confirming what Russian climate scientists have been saying for several years. Unfortunately Forbes Adblock blocker won't let me in.


Here ya go Bob:



> To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here
> 
> Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.
> 
> Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.
> 
> Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.
> 
> Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.
> 
> The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.
> 
> The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.
> 
> Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.
> 
> The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.
> 
> The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.
> 
> The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.
> 
> Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.
> 
> The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
> 
> At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,
> 
> “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”
> 
> That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
> 
> But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
> 
> “Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”
> 
> That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.
> 
> The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
> 
> “German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years - and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age." Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”
> 
> Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,
> 
> “Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”
> 
> 
> A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,
> 
> “Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”
> 
> Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”
> 
> Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.
> 
> Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.
> 
> Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!
> 
> Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”
> 
> But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.


----------



## eMacMan

My initial impression confirmed. Very good article.


----------



## FeXL

As good a place as any.

Ah, the irony of reading an in-flight magazine, worrying about the CO2 emissions - of a sandwich.

h/t SDA, from whence comes this prescient observation:



> I remember when a green sandwich was something one found in the back of the office lunch room refrigerator.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

This could easily be posted in the Can Poli thread, as well.

Eco-Imperialism in North America and the World



> This Press fails to report that on those Reservations apparently opposing the pipelines and development the people are organized and paid to protest by the Tides Foundation,
> 
> _Totaling US$35 million, Tides made more than 400 payments (2009 to 2015) to nearly 100 anti-pipeline groups. Without all that Tides money, pipeline projects would not be facing well-organized opposition._​
> The Toronto Sun reported that,
> 
> _A left-wing lobby group in San Francisco wired $55,000 to the bank account of an Indian chief in Northern Alberta, paying him to oppose the oilsands._​
> The Tides Foundation is the creation of billionaire George Soros who makes money destroying national economies. He is a member of the Club of Rome formed at the Italian estate of David Rockefeller in 1968 and progenitor through another member Maurice Strong of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Consider the irony of these people making their money from capitalism and then using it to promote the deception of global warming to enslave the middle class.


Much more to the article, good read.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> This could easily be posted in the Can Poli thread, as well.
> 
> Eco-Imperialism in North America and the World
> 
> 
> 
> Much more to the article, good read.


If it feels evil you can bet it traces back to Soros.


----------



## FeXL

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See



> A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. If these findings hold true, it's huge news. No wonder the mainstream press is ignoring it.


If? _IF_?! :yikes:

More:



> In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
> 
> As Lewis explains: "Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.


Hey, CM, there's a link to the paper inside. Why don't you have a little perusal, tell us what you think? Is the methodology strong? Measurements accurate? Conclusion supported?


----------



## FeXL

Thirty years ago, experts predicted the Maldives would drown by 2018. 

I know, I know. Photoshop...


----------



## FeXL

Solar Activity Flat Lines…Cycle 24 Weakest In 200 Years…Link To Recent Northern Hemisphere Ice Rebound?



> As the current solar cycle nears an end, it will go down as the weakest in close to 200 years. And as inhabitants of the northern hemisphere dig themselves out of an especially icy and snowy winter and Arctic sea ice rebounds, it may all be in part linked to low solar activity as many scientific studies have long suggested.


----------



## FeXL

Drugs...

Minnesota court says activists can use climate change as a defense in trial



> Does climate change pose such an imminent threat to the planet that it’s okay to break the law in order to stop it?
> 
> Four climate activists currently awaiting trial in Minnesota for shutting off a tar sands pipeline think so — and on Monday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that they should be allowed to make that argument before a jury when their case goes to trial.


----------



## eMacMan

Sukuki fans might want to read this:

Corbella: David Suzuki told me to ‘F-off’ | Calgary Herald



> .....
> 
> Suzuki, who did not return calls to respond, spends a lot of time hectoring others about over-population (but he has five children), reducing our carbon footprint (he has a jet-set lifestyle of the rich and famous), living smaller (he owns four houses in B.C. and an apartment in Port Douglas, Australia) and much else besides. So much hypocrisy from this guru of green.
> 
> If Suzuki was really convinced that the Earth is going to perish because of increasing amounts of man-made carbon being released into the atmosphere, would he seriously own a vacation getaway in Australia, so far away from Vancouver?
> 
> The amount of CO2 created by one economy airfare from Vancouver to Cairns, Australia, is 4.5 tonnes, according to an online carbon calculator, or one-third of the total amount the average British Columbian produces in an entire year (13.7 tonnes), according to a report called By the Numbers: Canadian GHG Emissions.
> 
> In short, David Suzuki doesn’t live like he believes his own press releases. He’s essentially told his message to F-off by the way he lives. *When faced with a choice, he chooses his comfort over his convictions. It’s long past time we all stopped believing his press releases, too.*


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?



> Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from _GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis_ (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.


Related:

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling



> *Inconvenient Science*: NASA data show that global temperatures _dropped_ sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?


Emphasis from the link.

The iron...


----------



## FeXL

Brain. Dead.

Could reviving Woolly-Mammoth genes fight the effects of global warming?



> Woolly mammoths have been extinct for more than 4,000 years, but with new gene-editing techniques, they could help mitigate the effects of a modern problem: climate change.
> 
> Most of the hype so far has focused on bringing these shaggy beasts back to life using their permafrost-preserved DNA. But this time, scientists aren't aiming for a "Jurassic Park" scenario — they're not trying to bring back entire mammoths exactly as they were in the last ice age. Rather, they're hoping to mingle some of the mammoths' ancient genes with those of today's Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), to increase the elephants' tolerance to the cold, said George Church, a Harvard and MIT geneticist who is heading the Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival team.
> 
> "I don't even think it's desirable" to bring back the entire mammoth, Church told Live Science Friday (May 11) here at the 2018 Liberty Science Center Genius Gala. He thinks a few ancient genes will do more good, by boosting the survival chances of threatened elephants, which could then be reintroduced to northern parts of the globe. *Once there, the genetically tweaked elephants would topple trees that keep the area warm in the winter, thereby restoring a more climate-friendly ecosystem.*


Bold mine.



More:



> When mammoths roamed in a northern area known as the "mammoth steppe," that ecosystem was rich in grasses. *But after the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) went extinct and other grazers left the area, grasses gave way to shrubs and a tundra ecosystem, an environment that the Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival team says is "contributing to human-driven climate change."*


:yikes:

h/t SDA, from whence comes this prescient observation:



> _Let me see, GMO food, evil, GMO species good. We need to open an elephant burger stand._


Yeppers...


----------



## FeXL

As far as I'm concerned, the fewer of these idiots that breed, the better...

Environmentalists Have Blamed Children For Climate Change For 50 Years



> “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiancé,” Kimberly Nicholas, a member of an environmental research team at Lund University in Sweden told The Guardian in July 2017. “Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”


----------



## FeXL

Caution: link to MotherCorpse inside.

What a billion & a half bucks a year gets you...

So, global warming is going to cause volcanos in Canada?



> Our state broadcaster literally broadcast that. They’ll say anything to please their political master, Justin Trudeau. They’ll look like utter fools. But they’ll get their $1.5B/year.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Spring snow storm closes schools along the northeast coast of Newfoundland



> A spring storm that has buried cars in snow and closed a slew of schools in Newfoundland has prompted dismay -- and disbelief -- from residents along the northeast coast of the island.
> 
> Photos posted on social media show a barbecue entombed in snow and drifts that reached halfway up a front door.


----------



## FeXL

Normally I take _anything_ a <snort> sociologist says with a truckload of salt. However, as this guy has finally hit the 21st century & is repeating things others of us have known for years...

In defence of cow farts: Livestock emissions aren't about to destroy the world, researcher says



> Despite their reputation, flatulent cows aren’t capable of destroying the world, an environmental politics professor argues in forthcoming research paper. But still, livestock are saddled with an outsized share of the blame for climate change. And if that misunderstanding persists, and pushes policymakers to force a societal shift from meat-eating, it could lead to disaster, says Ryan Katz-Rosene at the University of Ottawa’s school of political studies.


I do, however, take issue with this paragraph:



> At feedlots, the livestock feed is produced industrially rather than naturally. The cows don’t graze, fertilizing the soil with their manure as they go. *They are fed crops that have been produced using synthetic fertilizers* and heavy machinery, trucked from farm to feedlot. There’s fossil fuels burned at every stage, he said.


Bold mine.

Where does he think all the manure produced at the feedlots goes?


----------



## FeXL

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Earth Records 600 Millionth Consecutive Cooler-Than-Average Month



> According to Scotese, the Earth “has alternated between a frigid ‘ice house,’ like today’s world, and a steaming ‘hothouse,’ like the world of the dinosaurs.”
> 
> That’s correct, he described today’s temperatures as frigid. It turns out that most of Earth’s history since the explosion of life in the Cambrian Period nearly 600 million years ago was hotter than our climate today — a lot hotter, notwithstanding the views of former Vice President Al Gore (pictured above).
> 
> *For fully two-thirds of that time, the Earth experienced temperatures that were much warmer than today. During these periods of “hothouse” conditions, there was no ice at either pole. We “only” entered our current “ice house” conditions about 50 million years ago.*


Bold mine.

But, but, but...GLOBULL WARMING!!!!! :-( ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS!!!!! :-( HELLFIRE!!!!! :-( DAMNATION!!!!! :-(


----------



## FeXL

Oooooo. Ahhhhhh...

Climate showdown of the decade?



> This manntastic event looms large. With the irascible Dr. Mann pitted against Moore and Curry, fireworks are almost guaranteed. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed by Mann’s huge ego and need to control the conversation. Their idea to hear a “collegial and balanced” discussion may very well be a pipe dream, especially after what happened the last time when Mann and Curry were testifying before congress.
> The event is open to the public.


While I encourage open debate on the topic, a forum like this is always more welcoming to quick sound bites (such as those Mann uses) than to lengthy, fact-based rebuttals (like Curry uses).

If I was nearby, I'd attend.


----------



## FeXL

With the Globull Warming problem all but solved, I guess things are pretty slow in warmist academia...

ACTUAL PAPER: How Would Aliens Solve Global Warming?



> How would alien civilizations solve a problem like global warming? Sounds like a science fiction novel, but a group of researchers are actually taking the question seriously.
> 
> Adam Frank, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, was the lead author of a study trying to model the “possible histories of alien planets, the civilizations they grow, and the climate change that follows.”
> 
> Frank’s study was published in the journal Astrobiology in early May, but Frank wrote about his work for The Atlantic. “We’re interested in how exo-civilizations develop on their planets,” Frank wrote Wednesday.


----------



## FeXL

Chevron Wins $38M From Enviros Behaving Badly: Extortion, Fraud, Corruption, More



> In 2011, environmentalists won the world’s largest judgment against Chevron (holy moly $18 billion), but it turned out it was all based on fraud, fake witnesses and telling lies.
> 
> Who would think people who say they like trees and human rights would be so self-serving? The award has since been overturned — indeed the tables have turned, and last week Chevron was awarded $38 million in damages.
> 
> Strangely, bad behavior of planet-saving-people doesn’t appear to rate highly in the news. Hands up who thinks the BBC/ABC/CBC would fail to mention it if environmentalists won a $38m suit against a money-laundering-witness-tampering oil company?


Damn! Where's that hands up emoticon when you need it? I guess this one'll hafta do: :clap:


----------



## FeXL

JMA Corrects Antarctic’s Long-Term Sea Ice Trend: It’s Growing (By A Lot)



> The Global Environment and Marine Department of the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) recently corrected the long-term trend in the annual mean sea ice extent in the Antarctic area: from 0.015 x 106 km2per year to 0.019 x 106 km2 per year on 11 May 2018.
> 
> That’s more than a 25% adjustment (15,000 sq. km to 19,000 sq km). So while chunks the size of Manhattans may break off from time to time, about 300 Manhattans of new ice get added annually.
> 
> *The report notes that in the Antarctic Ocean: “the annual maximum and annual mean sea ice extents have shown a long-term trend of increase since 1979”.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Winter-weary Newfoundland wakes to dusting of snow, frigid wind chills



> Some people waking up in parts of Newfoundland got a wintry jolt when they looked out their window this morning and saw white.
> 
> Areas around Gander and St. John’s got a light dusting of snow as temperatures dipped to about -1 C, with a wind chill of about -7 C.


More:



> Meteorologist Brian Walsh says the wintry weather this late in the year is rare, *noting it’s been 22 years since St. John’s airport last recorded snow in June.*


Huh...


----------



## FeXL

Judith Currie's debate presentation.

The debate: my presentation

Good read. Comments always interesting.


----------



## FeXL

Thick first year ice? As in, a colder 2017-18 winter? Heresy!!!

Does thick first year ice on Hudson Bay mean a late date ashore for WH polar bears in 2018?



> Following up on my previous post, it appears sea ice conditions on Hudson Bay this year might be headed for a late breakup due to the dominance of thick first year ice. That would mean a relatively longer on-ice season for polar bears in Western and Southern Hudson Bay.


----------



## FeXL

Of course it will...

Claim: Climate Change will be Solved by Feminism



> According to former President of the Republic of Ireland and former UN commissioner Mary Robinson, more feminism will solve the climate crisis.
> 
> _“*Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution*,” she said at a meeting of climate experts at London’s Marshall Institute for Philanthropy and Entrepreneurship._​


Links' bold.

Let's get The Eyebrow on it, right now...


----------



## FeXL

NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally puts the hammer down: ‘Antarctica is gaining ice’



> Is Antarctica melting or is it gaining ice? A recent paper claims Antarctica’s net ice loss has dramatically increased in recent years, but forthcoming research will challenge that claim.
> 
> NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally first challenged the “consensus” on Antarctica in 2015 when he published a paper showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet.
> 
> Zwally will again challenge the prevailing narrative of how global warming is affecting the South Pole. Zwally said his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Meanwhile, In The Arctic...



> In a development *that could further advantage OPEC members* as they step up production to compensate for falling exports out of Venezuela and (potentially) Iran, the Barents Observer is reporting that *two of Russia's largest Arctic out-shipment points for oil and LNG have become "packed with ice" leaving tankers and carriers stranded in the "paralyzed" area*, which hasn't been this packed with ice at midsummer in four years. Experts had expected that ice clogging up the Gulf of Ob would melt with the summer months, allowing Rosatomflots, the state-owned energy company responsible for the region, to avoid relying on their nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear the area.


Links' bold.

If only Canada was a petroleum producing country. We could take advantage of said shortages... :-(


----------



## SINC

Yep. 

Thirty years of climate hysterics being proven wrong over and over again

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/co...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530281967


----------



## FeXL

Gee, there's a shocka.

And precisely what many of us have been saying for decades. 'Magine that...

‘Father of Global Warming’ Scientist Finally Admits Theory Is Wrong



> The scientist widely known as the “Father of Global Warming” has admitted for the first time that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fradulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda.
> 
> In 1986 the former NASA scientist, James Hansen, testified to Congress during a hearing on global warming organized by then-Congressman Al Gore to produce scientific models based on a number of different scenarios that could impact the planet.
> 
> According to Hansen, Al Gore took the data provided in a “worst-case scenario” and intentionally twisted it, rebranding it as “Global Warming,” making tens of millions of dollars in the process.


More:



> However a new study that compares real-world data to the original Scenario B model — finding no correlation — has received Hansen’s backing, with the “Father of global warming” admitting he is _“devastated”_ by the way his data has been used by climate alarmists.


Devastated, I tell you! 'Cause the damn thing didn't work out the way I said it would, dammit!

So, any of you warmists out there care to make a comment? Now that the foundation for the hypothesis has just been destroyed? 

Anyone? Bueller? Where's MacDoc when you want to make a horse's patootie out of him? Again.

Yeah, thought not...


----------



## FeXL

*~Becauth ith's 2015!*

Justin Trudeau and the climate alarmists are the fear mongers



> A recent column in The New York Times may be the silliest production of the human mind since the first spark of consciousness, or the latest episode of The View.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, of course, and inevitably, it’s by a global warmer. As a piece of scare-pessimism, “Raising My Child in a Doomed World” is quite unsurpassable. It was emoted/written by a John Scranton, author of a book on the same theme: We’re Doomed. Now What? Essays on War and Climate Change. He is a professor of English literature, although I think it fair to claim that neither English nor literature should be thought complicit in Mr. Scranton’s fifteen-alarm brand of climate lugubriousness and pitiless despair.


More:



> Prof. Scranton is not a cheerful boyo. No one will don the party hat after reading his explanation that one logical conclusion is “… the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die.”


The line forms behind Prof. Scranton.

Further:



> These are considerations to keep in mind when you read of Justin Trudeau’s latest bath in stagnant waters of rhetorical cliché. He’s gone for the weary “politics of fear” meme, so stale even the moths have stopped chewing on it. Lately, in the face of growing anger over his leadership, he’s taken to accusing “conservatives across the country (of) playing the fear card.” Nor does he limit it to local conservatives: he sees this as a global phenomenon: “I think one of the things that we’ve seen… they are playing not just here in Canada, but around the world a very dangerous game around the politics of fear, the politics of division … raising the kinds of anxieties…” etc. etc.


Ah, yes. Us conservatives. We are the ones fear mongering about the end of the planet. If he truly believes this hogwash, he can get into line right behind Prof. Scranton. After all, the Progs say it's the responsible thing to do.


----------



## FeXL

*Slate?!* 

Slate: Climate Is 'Complicated' and 'Influenced by Many Factors'



> "Doling out blame for any single weather event is a tall order because weather is complicated. For one, it’s influenced by many factors: from planetary orbits to ocean currents to human activity."


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Another lie from the left on climate change.

Quelle surprise...

'Nat Geo' Photographer Admits Viral Photo Of Polar Bear 'Dying From Climate Change' Is False



> One year later, National Geographic has finally admitted to facilitating "fake news" regarding climate change. The magazine's most viral video ever, which featured heart-wrenching images of a starving polar bear, perpetuated the narrative that the animal's imminent death was caused by climate change. However, the climate change aspect of the story is void of any real evidence.
> 
> "*We had lost control of the narrative*," admitted Cristina Mittermeier, the photographer of the polar bear. Mittermeier explained the climate change deception in a piece titled "Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong" for the magazine's August issue.
> 
> Mittermeier conceded that the images of the bony, emaciated polar bear were meant to sound an alarm about climate change, though she complains that people took the image "literally."


Bold mine.

Curious how bull$h!t does that in the face of empirical evidence...


----------



## FeXL

2018 Global Weather-Related Disaster Losses At Record Low (So Far)



> “For 1st half 2018 global disaster (not just weather) losses are in $ the lowest since 2006.”
> $45B vs $41B in 2018$
> From 2006-2018 global GDP increased ~60%
> Through 7 months 2018 lowest since 1990 (losses/GDP)


Interesting red trend line in that graph.

So much for the narrative...


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

Climate activists furious after NYT debunks #ExxonKnew narrative



> ExxonMobil received a helping hand Wednesday in its battle to debunk the climate-change movement’s #ExxonKnew narrative from an unexpected source: the New York Times.
> 
> An exhaustive investigative article in the New York Times Magazine said that Exxon was one of multiple entities that “knew” decades ago about the potential perils of climate change, the others being the federal government, the auto industry, trade groups for the electrical grid and the television-watching public.
> 
> “Everybody knew,” said the article by Nathaniel Rich, who spent 18 months researching and writing the piece that took up the entire magazine.
> 
> He cited an episode of “The Bell Science Hour,” a popular educational film series, that warned on prime-time television in 1958 that “man may be unwittingly changing the world’s climate” through the release of carbon-dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.


----------



## FeXL

From the It's Weather, Not Climate department.

San Diego’s Scripps Pier Records Highest Ocean Temperature in Its 102-Year History



> The sea surface temperature at the Scripps Pier in La Jolla hit 78.6 degrees on Wednesday, the highest reading in the pier’s 102-year history, according to UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
> 
> The reading broke the previous record of 78.4 degrees, set in 1931.


Question 1: What was the cause of the previous record, set in 1931? 

This was ~20 years prior to the commonly accepted date of 1950 for anthropogenic CO2 to have a measurable effect on the planet. 

Question 2: After all the untold trillions of tons of anthropogenic CO2 that have been pumped into the atmosphere a single sea temp record in a single location is the only one broken? 

Is that the point they're trying to make?


----------



## FeXL

Further from Climate barbie.

Climate change likely to cause more sewage leaks, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna warns



> More than one hundred municipal wastewater systems did not report how much raw sewage overflowed from their pipes in 2017 but Environment Canada is only investigating two of them for violating federal regulations.


I wonder if this is how she reconciles Vancouver & Montreal dumping raw sewage into the Pacific & the St. Lawrence: "IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

RELATED:


CLIMATE CLOWNS: Under Trudeau Government, A Record Amount Of Raw Sewage Is Flowing Into Canada’s Waterways



> Think about how absurd this is. _*Canada’s energy industry is the most environmentally careful in the world, using high ethical standards, strong labour practices, and a commitment to environmental protection. Yet, McKenna targets them anyway, slamming them (and by extension all Canadians), with a massive carbon tax that is economically destructive.*_
> 
> Meanwhile, a gargantuan amount of raw sewage is flowing into our water, and McKenna _“isn’t specifically looking at ways”_ to get the issue solved.
> 
> This just goes to show that the Trudeau government doesn’t actually care about dealing with solvable pollution problems, and would rather hit us with a carbon tax so they can virtue-signal about everything they’re ‘doing’ to address ‘climate change.’
> 
> It’s pathetic, and it’s yet another reason that Trudeau & McKenna are Climate Clowns.


Links' emphasis.

Hey, as long as it's not that DIRTY ALBERTA OIL!!!, it's fine.


----------



## FeXL

There goes another warmist narrative...

Coral Bleaching Is A Natural Event That Has Gone On For Centuries, New Study



> Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, *with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before Euro*pean settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.*


More:



> Published in Frontiers in Marine Science, the research by *scientists from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities reconstructs temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620-2001. The findings are at odds with claims that mass coral bleaching is a recent phenomenon due to climate change. Scientists studied the tree ring-like lines of annual growth in 44 coral drill core samples. They were able to reconstruct the history of bleaching events each coral had survived. *Results showed the number of bleaching years per decade had increased between 1620 and 1753 when up to six years of each decade showed bleaching in at least 20 per cent of coral cores.*
> 
> The frequency then reduced until the first half of the 19th century when only one year of every decade had evidence of bleaching in at least 20 per cent of coral cores. *Bleaching increased again between 1821 and 2001 to three years per decade but there were periods of low prevalence and *frequency, including from the 1820s to 1830s.*


So, from 6 years of bleaching per decade prior to the Industrial Revolution to 3 years of bleaching per decade in the midst of all this horrible GLOBULL WARMING!!!


----------



## FeXL

Based on NASA's past history regarding their temperature record, I have grave doubts about the accuracy of their claim of the last three July's being the _warmest evah!_

That said, I have a question about the headline: What was the cause of the warming 120,000 years ago and what evidence do they have that "the last three July's being the _warmest evah!_" haven't had precisely the same cause?

Earth is the warmest it's been in 120,000 years

I jes' luvs me this quote:



> There's little doubt among scientists that we're now probably experiencing the warmest climate in some 120,000 years, even reaching above a particularly warm period around 7,000 years ago, during a post-ice age era called the Holocene.


First, "there is little doubt...probably". That rings like a fact, doesn't it?

Second, "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED".

:lmao::lmao:

Further down, under the subheading "The critical difference is carbon", they interchangeably talk about carbon & CO2. Sorry, but they are _not_ equivalent. In addition, they talk about current atmospheric CO2 concentrations being around 409 ppm, the highest they've been in 800,000 years.

Question 1: So, the planet has had atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 409 ppm before. What was the cause of that?

Question 2: So, the planet has had atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 409 ppm before. Why didn't the planet burn up?

Question 3: The planet has had atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 7000 ppm in its geologic history. How come we're still here to talk about it?

Below that, I jes' luvs me the idle speculation:



> Another degree or two of warming — if we don't transition to cleaner energies — would bring us closer to the realm of the Eemian, a time that wasn't just warmer — it was a period distinctly different from the present day.
> 
> "Will the world be a warm world, or a very different world?" wondered Karnauskas.


You mean, like the planet has already experienced throughout much of our history? And we're still here to talk about it?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

I jes' luvs me some good, ol' fashioned, _the science is settled_ climate BS first thing in the morning.


----------



## FeXL

I'm sorry. UN-who?

UN Appointed Climate Science Team Demands The End of Capitalism



> *A team of scientists appointed by the United Nations has reported that a free market system cannot provide the economic transition required to defeat climate change.*


Yeah, bold mine.

'Course not. Not nearly enough stupid, gullible, spineless people willing to roll over.

You just gotta "admire...your basic dictatorship" for being able to shove this much manure down someone's throat, en masse...


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

Ship of Fools V – Yet Another Greenie Expedition Scuppered by Ice



> Yet another Arctic expedition to raise awareness of “global warming” has been frustrated by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.
> 
> This time the climate chumps were a party of scientists, students and filmmakers from the University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center (ISC) sponsored – your tax dollar at work – by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
> 
> Their mission: “Research to aid understanding of/document climate change effects” in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago aboard a Russian ship Akademik Ioffe.
> 
> But now the ship has been damaged after becoming grounded in the ice and its passengers have had to be rescued.


----------



## FeXL

And even more too-much-Arctic-ice related issues!

Ice Conditions in Arctic Northwest Passage Disrupt Cruise Ship Voyages



> Extremely challenging ice conditions in the Northwest Passage are disrupting high-yielding expedition voyages for two expedition cruise operators.
> Ponant announced that due to the ice conditions, as well as a poor weather outlook, it is currently unable to sail through the Northwest Passage. Two ships, Le Boreal and Le Soleal, are altering their routes and will continue their expedition voyages to Kangerlussuaq (Greenland), which they will reach on September 10 and 18, respectively.


Damn that Globull Warming!


----------



## FeXL

Bill Nye Gets Dealt Blistering Fact-Check by an Actual Scientist



> On Friday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, who blew the liberal climate change theories out of the water.


With all respect due Dr. Spencer, frankly, not that difficult.

More:



> In the interview, Dr. Spencer threw cold water all over Bill Nye the Science Guy’s statements that Hurricane Florence is caused by climate change.


Once again, with all respect due Dr. Spencer, not that difficult.

Further:



> Dr Spencer explains to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson: “Well, it has gotten warmer as you said, since the 1950s there has been a warming trend, but what we haven’t seen in terns of any long term weather measurements is whether there’s been any change in severe weather. There hasn’t been any increase in hurricanes. That’s on a global basis in the United States.”
> 
> “*The frequency of hits of the United States by major hurricanes has gone down by 50 percent since the 1930s and 1940s. There’s been no increase in droughts, no increase in floods. Tornados are down* but still weather varies a lot especially hurricanes, year to year, decade to decade.”


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

A global warming summit that made no fracking sense



> Earlier this month, business leaders, government officials, and environmental activists from around the world gathered in San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit. Event organizers say they want to bend "the curve of emissions down."
> 
> If that's what they truly wanted to accomplish, they would have ended the summit early to drill for more natural gas. *Because the natural gas sector has done far more than any environmentalist group or government to slash carbon emissions.*


Bold mine.

Yeppers.


----------



## FeXL

From the "It's weather, not climate" department, sceptic style.

Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.



> The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:


----------



## FeXL

The International Pack of Climate Crooks using bogus data? Say it ain't so...

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors



> Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data” that it is effectively useless.


#DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land



> _What were they thinking?_
> 
> The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems. Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.
> 
> Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.


Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit



> The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set has found it to be so riddled with errors that it is effectively useless.
> 
> HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.
> 
> But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.
> 
> *“It’s very careless and amateur,” he says. “About the standard of a first-year university student.”*


Bold mine.

Close enough for gov't policy!!!


----------



## FeXL

Further on the International Pack of Climate Crooks.

Y2Kyoto: Lies, Damned Lies and the IPCC



> WUWT
> 
> _The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
> 
> For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – *but now it is the 30 years centred on the present*.
> 
> There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists._


Bold mine...


----------



## FeXL

Not that anybody informed on the topic needed further evidence of Red Rachel's, The Dope's, Climate Barbie's & related brain dead idiots cranial rectal inversion, but if you can't sell a radically Green Weenie state like Washington on carbon taxes...

Climate Change Alarmists Suffer Huge Blow In Deep Blue Washington State 



> Environmentalists were hoping to score a huge victory in Washington state with a statewide tax on CO2 emissions. Alas, even liberals in Washington don't believe climate change is that big a threat.
> 
> Before the election, glowing stories in the press talked about Washington "taking up the fight" on climate change after President Donald Trump dropped out of the Paris climate deal. The state would make history. It would be a "bellwether," and would start a trend across the country.
> 
> The initiative proposed a $15 tax on each ton of carbon emissions in the state starting in 2020, with the tax rate climbing each year. It would have cost families in the state nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.


----------



## SINC

*NASA’s Man-Made Adjustments Have Made 1910-2000 temperatures 53% warmer*



> Since 2008, overseers of the NASA GISS global temperature dataset have been busy utilizing cool-the-past-and-warm-the-present adjustment techniques to alter the slope of the overall warming trend.


Details at the link.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/n...zRuvKM0VC48mb7U6dQVdSfDwK2DS6ufLQJY4oOJ8rVTT8


----------



## FeXL

Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice



> An widely-circulated study which concluded that global warming is far worse than previously thought has been called into question by a math error, reports the _Daily Caller_'s Michael Bastasch.
> 
> Princeton scientist Laure Resplandy and researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography concluded in October that the Earth's oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed.
> 
> The report was covered or referenced by MSM outlets worldwide, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.
> 
> _The Washington Post_, for example, reported: "The higher-than-expected amount of heat in the oceans means more heat is being retained within Earth’s climate system each year, rather than escaping into space. *In essence, more heat in the oceans signals that global warming is more advanced than scientists thought*."
> 
> The New York Times at least hedged their reporting, claiming that the estimates, "*if proven accurate*, could be another indication that the global warming of the past few decades has *exceeded conservative estimates and has been more closely in line with scientists’ worst-case scenarios*."
> 
> Unfortunately for the Princeton-Scripps team, *it appears that their report has been proven inaccurate. *
> 
> _Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher. -Daily Caller_​


Links' emphasis.

Somewhere, on some distant warmist blog, MacDoc is pounding away at his keyboard in futile denial... :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

It's called natural selection. And, the fact that yer not passing yer genes on to another generation is a _good_ thing...

If You're So Miserable About Climate Change You Don't Want Kids, You're Not Alone



> According to a US climate organisation, it is increasingly common for adults in their 20s and 30s to factor climate change into their considerations about having children.
> 
> Gillespie has met many people in her research who are grappling with this question.


Gawd, I jes' luvs me sum Snowflakes...

More:



> "There are a lot of people who are feeling depression, *those who really understand the science* … and how significant the necessary action is," said Ride.


Yeah, bold mine.

If all these people who are reconsidering offspring truly _understood the science_ these freshly minted eco-shrinks would be out of a job.


----------



## SINC

*IPCC author will admit error if five more years of no warming*



> A warmist scientist admits there's been no warming for 15 years, and another five will be critical:
> 
> United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years. “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch... "According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero," Storch told Der Spiegel. "This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. IPCC may have to revise its climate models to reflect real-world climate conditions, Storch noted. "At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation... "If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models..."
> 
> From the interview:
> 
> SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
> 
> The worry for Storch - Britain's warmist Met recently tipped no further warming for another four years:
> 
> Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017...


https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...g/news-story/3d050943230fe0888d356f8a58ae2d7a


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> IPCC author will admit error if five more years of no warming


I don't need no steekin' International Pack of Climate Crooks author to tell me his hypothesis is full of holes...


----------



## FeXL

There goes another warmist narrative.

'So many bears:' Draft plan says Nunavut polar bear numbers unsafe



> There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn't yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking.
> 
> The proposed plan -- which is to go to public hearings in Iqaluit on Tuesday -- says that growing bear numbers are increasingly jeopardizing public safety and it's time Inuit knowledge drove management policy.
> 
> "Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern," says the document, the result of four years of study and public consultation.
> 
> "Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold."


More:



> Scientists say only one population of bears is growing; Inuit say there are nine. Environment Canada says four populations are shrinking; Inuit say none are.


Curious the gov't bastards want First Immigrants' input into gas pipelines but not polar bear populations.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> There goes another warmist narrative.
> 
> 'So many bears:' Draft plan says Nunavut polar bear numbers unsafe
> 
> Curious the gov't bastards want First Immigrants' input into gas pipelines but not polar bear populations.


I am still waiting for one of our resident ACGW true believers to explain how the Polar Bears survived the Medieval Warming period, yet are sure to be extinguished this go round. That detail is always missing from the Goreshippers sermons.


----------



## FeXL

We need more expose's on Nazi collaborator Soros & his money.

Soros Money Standing Behind Climate Activism in Texas



> A George Soros-funded government attorney in Texas has been leading the charge against a chemical manufacturing company that stands accused of jeopardizing the public safety. The optics of the case have not been good for the company. But the money trail that flows between Soros and elected officials comes with its own baggage and points to an agenda that is not necessarily in the public interest.


----------



## FeXL

RACISTS!!! Or sumthin'...

Climate Hoax: Not A Single G-20 Country Is Close To Hitting CO2 Emission Targets



> *A new report calls the lie on the grand Paris climate change treaty. None of the promised cuts in CO2 emissions that 200-plus countries made will come close to preventing a climate "catastrophe." And many of the industrialized nations aren't even living up to the promises they did make.*
> 
> Two years ago, when the Paris agreement took effect, then-President Obama declared that "history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet."
> 
> It was a turning point in the level of empty rhetoric, perhaps. But it won't make a bit of difference to the planet.
> 
> This farce was made abundantly clear in an annual report by Climate Transparency, an international group focused on the G-20 nations.


Bold mine.

More:



> A number of G-20 countries actually saw their emissions increase in 2017, including Australia, Brazil, *Canada*, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Turkey.


Bold mine.

Time to crank up that pollution tax, Mr Dressup!


----------



## FeXL

Further on that _small_ Princeton data discrepancy

Delingpole: ‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study



> The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.


Yeah, that's an understatement...


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Alert: "Mini Ice Age" on the Way



> predictions to match recent weather patterns.
> 
> Winter is coming.
> 
> _Humanity is facing a long, cold winter which could see temperatures across the planet plunge to depressing lows.
> 
> That's the warning from a Nasa scientist who fears sunspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped so low that it could herald the arrival of a uniquely grim mini Ice Age.
> 
> 'We see a cooling trend,' Martin Mlynczak of Nasa's Langley Research Center told Space Weather. 'High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy.
> 
> 'If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.'_​


*A NASA scientist?!*

Writing about climate issues noticed by the Russkies years ago?

HERETIC!!!

He'll soon get his comeuppance...


----------



## FeXL

From the, "It's weather not climate" department, sceptic style.

DID YOU NOTICE IT SNOWED IN HOUSTON?



> Yes, Houston, as in Texas. According to the National Weather Service, the home of the NFL Texans got it’s earliest-ever recorded snowfall on November 13.


----------



## FeXL

I see Barry's still as adept without his teleprompter as always. Not to mention his heretofore undisclosed psych degree...

Obama: Americans Oppose Climate Initiatives Due To 'Mommy Issues,' 'Racism'

Just a taste:



> "We are fraught with stuff and, and so if that's the case, the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all, and look I'm a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and evidence-based learning, all that good stuff, I'm, I',m people call me Spock for a reason," Obama rambled on. "I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values."


W. T. F?


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Models with a proven track record. Whaddya know. 

Professor Valentina Zharkova Breaks Her Silence and CONFIRMS “Super” Grand Solar Minimum



> Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.
> 
> *Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.
> 
> Her models have run at a 93% accuracy* and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.
> 
> The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.
> 
> This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.


Bold mine.

More:



> Lee Wheelbarger sums it up: *even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.*


Bold also mine.

But, not to worry! From the comments:



> The “solutions” for Global Freezing are the same as for Global Warming: raise Americans’ taxes, and restrict Americans’ productivity. The Democrats have it all figured out.


Nailed 'er. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to the Clinton News Network inside.

Liberal scientists proposes most idiotic way to stop "climate change"



> Liberal scientists at Harvard and Yale are proposing that we tackle climate change by dimming the sun. They are proposing stratospheric aerosol injection, or spraying sulfate particles into the Earth's stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles.
> 
> *It sounds crazy, because it is! According to their research, it could cut the rate of fake global warming in half!*


Yeah, my bold.

From the comments:



> The sun is already dimming, you dimwits. Its called the Grand Solar Minimum, and the proof is record early snow and cold around the globe. WAKE UP!


Nails 'er.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Caution: Link to the Clinton News Network inside.
> 
> Liberal scientists proposes most idiotic way to stop "climate change"
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, my bold.
> 
> From the comments:
> 
> 
> 
> Nails 'er.



I guess it's a great idea, if the goal is to see Canada and Minnesota under a mile of ice as the mini ice-age establishes itself.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> I guess it's a great idea, if the goal is to see Canada and Minnesota under a mile of ice as the mini ice-age establishes itself.


The irony is, if all they want is sulphate particles in the atmosphere, go back to burning coal, most of which has high sulphur content, and get rid of low-sulphur diesel! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Another Day, Another Dire Climate Prediction



> David Wallace-Wells has written a new piece of “Climate Disaster Porn” : UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.
> 
> This isn’t the first time.
> 
> One of the comments to his newest piece is priceless:
> 
> _* I love the certainty with which the author makes these pronouncements. There “will” be a tipping point. Killer heat waves “will” kill millions. Rising seas “will” swallow cities. You guys have been making these scary predictions for 30 years, with zero results. Why should we believe you now?
> 
> “Um, because now we really, really, really–better add a couple more–really, really mean it. Don’t make us BREAK OUT THE ALL CAPS!”
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 is a minor, very minor, player in the overall climate. It’s modest effect as a greenhouse gas, a fraction of water vapor, diminishes rapidly with increasing concentration. The current 400 ppm provides a very, very slight increase in warming over the Pleistocene average of 280 ppm, which is extremely low by long-term averages anyway. Furthermore, the human contribution of CO2 is less than 5 percent of the total.
> 
> Yes, the climate was warmed by a degree or so over the last 150 years or so. So what? Be thankful. One hundred fifty years ago, the planet was still recovering from the effects of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period in about 10,000 years. Since that time we have rebounded to the Holocene average and a trifle extra. Big. Freaking. Deal.*_​


Bold mine.

Delicious...


----------



## FeXL

Experts on Climate Change Assessment: ‘Every Conclusion of This Latest Government Report Is False’



> The federal government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment, released on Friday, has gained praise from leftists and left-wing environmental groups as a dire warning of the coming death and destruction in the United States if we don’t stop global warming.
> 
> But critics of the report, including scientists, have slammed it as “exaggeration,” bad science and even said its conclusions are “false.”
> 
> “This latest climate report is just more of the same – except for even greater exaggeration, worse science, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute said in statements released by the free-market think tank following the report’s release.
> 
> “With a new volume out in December, The Heartland Institute has published 4,000 pages of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Huelskamp said. “Those reports cite many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how every conclusion of this latest government report [is] false.”


----------



## FeXL

Further on the above:

Global Warming: Fake Science Again Serves Far-Left Political Agenda



> "The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. *"It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.' "*
> 
> As we said, at some point the scientific malpractice of these government exercises in global warming propaganda has to end. This isn't fake news. It's fake science, which is just as dangerous.


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL

Brazil's New Top Diplomat: Climate Change is a Marxist Hoax



> In his blog, Araujo has written that climate science is a "dogma," and that it is pushed by "cultural Marxists" who want to undercut Western economic growth and promote a globalist agenda.


I can find nothing to argue with here.

Related:

Obama official helped prepare dire National Climate Assessment



> A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown.
> 
> Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.


----------



## FeXL

Could just as easily be posted in the Fruit Loops & Whacko's thread.

Environmental groups decry meat-heavy menu at climate talks



> Three environmental groups are criticizing the organizers of global climate talks in Poland for having too much meat on the meeting menu.
> 
> *The U.S.-based groups said their analysis showed that twice as many meat dishes as plant-based ones are being offered in the main food court of the conference venue.*


M'bold.

I fail to see the problem.

More:



> The Center for Biological Diversity, Farm Forward and Brighter Green said that if all meeting participants choose meat dishes, it would be the equivalent of burning half a million gallons of gasoline.


I wonder how many gallons of jet fuel, gasoline & diesel are going to be burned by the up to 40,000 attendees, both to & from the meetings? Where's the hue & cry from environmentalists about that?

F'ing hypocrites...


----------



## FeXL

Related to the above and further from Progs' "Do as we say, not as we do" department.

Bernie Sanders’s Campaign Spent $300k on Private Plane Travel in October



> Sanders says 'climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet'


Of course it is!

More:



> The re-election campaign for Vermont senator Bernie Sanders spent nearly $300,000 to travel on a private jet in the final stretch of the midterm election, filings with the Federal Election Commission show.
> 
> The spending on private travel was for a campaign trip Sanders did to boost far-left candidates in nine different states, his campaign spokesman said.
> 
> "This expense was for transportation for the senator's nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day," campaign spokesman Arianna Jones told VTDigger.org, which was first to identify the spending. "This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont."


Further:



> Air travel is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, with some estimations saying that the aviation industry accounts for about 11 percent of transportation-related emissions in the country. The environmental impact is greatly magnified in cases of private flights, which carry far fewer people per trip than commercial jets.


So, any Progs going to step up to the plate & criticize the hypocrite?

Anyone? Bueller?


----------



## FeXL

Delingpole: Across the World Climate Alarmism Is in Retreat



> From Poland to France, from Canada to the U.S, the climate alarmists are in retreat as the public begins to tire of their taxes, their constrictive regulations, their dodgy, ugly, inefficient renewable projects and their hysterical junk science scare stories. Economics is beginning to reassert itself over green propaganda.


Further:



> [John Constable for the Global Warming Policy Foundation] concludes:
> 
> _ The plain reality is that the global market coercions, and related policy pressures favouring renewables are already intense and incessant, and have been so with growing intensity for over fifteen years. Many economies, large and small, have tried very hard indeed, but the global energy markets have barely moved. Why? *Because the effort is wasted; the picked winners, the renewable technologies, remain stubbornly uneconomic*, with the consequence that spontaneous, uncoerced and rapid adoption remains a dream._​
> This is what _policy failure_ looks like.


M'bold.

Wai..What?! But the _progressive thinkers_ told me that renewables were at parity!

Related:

Populist Revolt Against Climate Change


----------



## Macfury

CM sez most people think as he does... except when they have to live with the actual consequences of "greening" I guess.


----------



## FeXL

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Too late...

Climate change likely to make us more stupid, study finds



> The team made clear that research on raised CO2 and human cognitive performance was still in its infancy, but said the “global nature” of the potential problem meant more studies were needed.


<snort> Of course they are...


----------



## FeXL

The Hoax of 'Climate Change'



> Obama knows. John Kerry knows. And Al Gore, the man who has made an enormous amount of money perpetuating the biggest hoax foisted on the human race, knows. Human-inspired “climate change” is a ruse. It is all a control-grabbing, land-grabbing, money-grabbing hoax. For instance, Al Gore, the king of carbon credits, whose home has a giant carbon footprint, and who flies all over the world in private jets, has raked in millions from his green investments and "sustainability research." This, after preaching (An Inconvenient Truth) that fossil fuel is the culprit in “global warming.”
> 
> The real inconvenient truth is that the earth’s climate has been warming, cooling and dramatically changing since the beginning of time. How many of us know that Chinese sea captains reported melting ice caps as far back as 1434? Mega earthquakes and tsunamis as well as blizzards, raging fires, crippling droughts, powerful storms, horrific tornadoes and scorching heat waves have been around since antiquity. “Climate deniers,” as the alarmists so lovingly refer to us, do acknowledge changes in the climate, but most of us do not accept the premise that human activity the cause.


----------



## FeXL

Climate Hoax: Global CO2 Emissions Spike, Despite Paris Climate Pledges



> Three years after leaders from around the world signed on to the Paris climate agreement, pledging to cut their carbon footprints, global CO2 emissions accelerated. Does anyone still think President Donald Trump was wrong for pulling the U.S. out of this sham agreement?
> 
> According to the Global Carbon Project, which monitors this, global CO2 emissions climbed by 1.6% last year. They are on track to shoot up by 2.7% this year. That's after three years of annual emissions remaining flat.
> 
> *Wait a minute. The accelerating growth in carbon emissions came after some 200 countries signed the Paris agreement?*
> 
> At the time, Barack Obama called the Paris agreement "an enduring agreement that reduces global carbon pollution and sets the world on a course to a low-carbon future. "
> 
> It "sends a powerful signal that the world is firmly committed to a low-carbon future," Obama said. He even called the agreement "a turning point for the world."
> 
> Right.


Bold mine.


----------



## SINC

When I get tired of all the BS by politicians about saving the planet, I just rerun this George Carlin video and get some relief.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

When I get tired of all the BS by politicians about saving the planet, I just rerun this George Carlin video and get some relief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=youtu.be


----------



## SINC

Yup. 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


----------



## FeXL

UAH Global Temperature Update for December 2018: +0.25 deg. C



> The 2018 globally averaged temperature anomaly, adjusted for the number of days in each month, is +0.23 deg. C, making 2018 the 6th warmest year in the now-40 year satellite record of global lower tropospheric temperature variations.
> 
> The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through December 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Lessons Of Dieselgate



> 11 Comments
> 
> Via Instapundit;
> 
> _ However you slice it, cars just aren’t that big a part of an ostensible CO2 problem. Personal cars sit idle 95% of the time. Planes, trains, ships, trucks, buses and other commercial vehicles account for well over half the emissions associated with the transport sector globally. And the transport sector itself accounts for only 14% of all emissions.
> 
> Now for the knee-jerk response from groups like Union of Concerned Scientists: Yes, but road-vehicle emissions are a significant share of total emissions in the U.S. and Europe.
> 
> This is a perfect example of the politics of the meaningless gesture, the dominant motif in climate policy. The planet doesn’t care where the emissions happen. The U.S. and Europe could ban driving altogether and it wouldn’t make a sizable difference._​
> That’s not why they want to ban driving.


Comments salient.

Here is a link to the complete article away from the _WSJ_:

Germany’s Diesel Disaster & The Lessons of ‘Dieselgate’


----------



## FeXL

Climate Change: The Poetry of Dreams and the Prose of Reality

First:



> George Bernard Shaw so aptly wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.”


Wait... The latter sounds like Progs!

More:



> There couldn’t be a better description of a newly released climate-change report compiled by 13 federal agencies. The report blames human activities and emission of CO2 for the rise in temperature and warns that it will hurt the U.S. economy and lead to thousands of deaths. Apparently, “Apocalypse Now” is threatening a host of calamities, and we should blow trillions of dollars to save the planet. Haven’t we heard this song before?
> 
> To make the argument more convincing, the proponents of climate change insist that the majority of the scientific community -- they call it “scientific consensus” -- supports global warming. This is a fallacious argument that the Romans called argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people) or argumentum ad numerum (appeal to the number). Furthermore, the "majority argument" is totally irrelevant because scientific disputes are not settled by majority consent. The majority once believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth; the atom could not be cracked and so on, and has been proven wrong throughout history.


More, yet:



> Here is the prose of reality; there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the source of climate change is man-made. There are other persuasive causes such as the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s reflectivity, could affect temperatures on this planet.


Further:



> Recent fires in Southern California demonstrated that Mother Nature can produce in several days more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the region in a whole year. California’s yearly fires have been known since the Spanish conquistadors first visited it in 1542. *If we add volcanoes spitting into the air millions of tons of CO2 every year for millions of years, then according to the proponents’ theory, we should already be living on small islands surrounded by an ocean of melted Arctic ice.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

I'm going to post this article here, as Greenpeace is cranio-rectally inverted, too.

Greenpeace’s Iconic ‘Rainbow Warrior’ Ship Chopped Up On A Third-World Beach, Sold For Scrap



> Greenpeace quietly admitted in November one of its “Rainbow Warrior” boats was “scrapped on a beaching yard in Bangladesh” — a method it spent years campaigning against.
> 
> “We have made a mistake, one that we have tried to correct,” Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, admitted in mid-November, adding it allowed Rainbow Warrior II “to be scrapped on a beaching yard in Bangladesh, in a way that does not live up to the standards we set ourselves and campaigned with our allies to have adopted across the world.”


The iron...

(literally!)


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> I'm going to post this article here, as Greenpeace is cranio-rectally inverted, too.
> Greenpeace’s Iconic ‘Rainbow Warrior’ Ship Chopped Up On A Third-World Beach, Sold For Scrap
> 
> The iron...
> (literally!)


As with The Great Goreacle and the Sukuki, their actions drown out their words.


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> As with The Great Goreacle and the Sukuki, their actions drown out their words.


Yeppers.


----------



## FeXL

First ‘Polar Vortex’ Of 2019 Touted As Evidence Of Global Warming. It’s Not



> Large swaths of the U.S. are experiencing the first “polar vortex” event of 2019, and The New York Times is out with an article suggesting cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming.
> 
> The Times rolled out an article Saturday claiming “_f it seems as if these polar freezes are happening more often, you’re right.” Temperatures dipped across the snow-covered Midwest and Northeast where millions of Americans can expect below-zero wind chill.
> 
> The Times’ “polar vortex” article, published Saturday, rests heavily on two scientists who *“suspect that the more frequent polar vortex breakdowns can be tied to climate change.”*_


_

Bold mine.

*Suspect?!* Well, then... Let's rewrite the history books!_


----------



## FeXL

Just in case anybody needed further evidence of Bill Nye's cranio-rectal inversion...

Y2Kyoto: New Hope For North Igloolandia



> Bill Nye says global warming will mean America needs to grow its crops in Canada:
> 
> "The agriculture is going to have to move north into what would normally be Canada and we don't have the infrastructure, the roads and railroads to get food from that area to where we need it." pic.twitter.com/aoazDTHu9N
> 
> — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 30, 2019​


I'm tellin' ya, it was a PITA fixin the wheel on the ol' Red River cart last night, what with all the rock-strewn dirt trails my lovely bride has to negotiate en route to the one-room schoolhouse. Third time this school year. Good we still had sum bacon, coupla thick slices & the axle is lubricated again! She keeps talkin' 'bout gettin' one of them nice, comfortable, newfangled four-wheeled buggies with the springs under the seat that the neighbour's got but I think they're just bein' uppity.

Speakin' o' school, she was pleasantly surprised by the new hand-held school bell she got at Christmas. The parents all pitched in to buy it and I don't think the blacksmith charged anywhere near what it was worth. The boys were tired of running across the school grounds in bare feet through the snow & ringing that big one by the pull rope at the gate.

And, _and_, next week when the snow & bitter cold hits, I'm going to have to make sure the sleigh runners are in good repair & the buffalo robes are piled high so she don't freeze to death on the way to work. At least she'll get a warm start: we bucked up a coupla extra cords of wood for the cabin stove last fall. She does complain somethin' terrible about the cold outhouse seat & last year's Eaton's catalog, though. I keep tellin' her, while she's settin' there doin' her business, crumple up the catalog pages a few times: it makes them much softer!

Good thing Hector & Schultz, the oxen, have a full hay yard. The one wooden collar is in poor repair but it'll have to wait until spring when we can find a supple young willow sapling down by the river to form the curve. The traces are new from last year so that's good.

Well, enough of this nonsense. Time for sum fresh meat, I'm tired of dried fish & the root cellar's got nothing but wrinkled potatoes left. I poured sum new bullets for the Flintlock last week so I'm going to head out into the bush, see if I can find a spruce grouse or two, maybe a rabbit. The wife don't care for the pungent taste of the birds, but they're so dumb sometimes you can just knock them outta the tree with a stick as they're lookin' down at ya: don't even need to waste powder or a bullet!


----------



## eMacMan

^^^^
Sounds like the propaganda mill is beginning to crank up. Clearly the USofAsses wants to install a puppet government in Ottawa. Maybe there is just not enough support down soused to invade Canada just for its oil, so they are going to have to toss food into the mix.

Hey do you really believe they are going to stop after Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and Venezuela???


----------



## FeXL

You got it. Globull Warming causes record high temps, record low temps, more rain, less rain, more hurricanes, less hurricanes...

Polar Vortex: Killer Freeze Is Really Due To...Wait For It...Global Warming



> The record freezing temperatures blanketing the Midwest and Northern states are breaking records. How cold is it? It's so cold that for some it confirms just how bad global warming is.
> 
> No, that's not a joke. As frigid, killing cold besieges Midwestern cities such as Chicago, newspapers, and pundits repeat this foolishness that the warming climate is responsible for this record cold snap. They expect those of us who don't know any better, or who fear being ridiculed, to swallow their climate-change propaganda whole.


XX)


----------



## FeXL

Warmist heads exploding.

Study: Global Warming Does Not Cause Hurricanes



> Global warming *has not caused* an increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, a study published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has confirmed.


Emphasis mine.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to MotherCorpse inside.

It’s Cold



> And Hell has truly frozen over.
> 
> “One only had to examine the official Environment Canada data for Ontario as well as for the entire country to acknowledge that the claim made in the article was inaccurate. Such acknowledgement would at the same time have addressed the complainant’s criticism regarding the lack of data to corroborate Dr. Feltmate’s claim about the increased frequency of extreme rainfall events in Canada. To make that correction, and for it to be meaningful, the writer would no doubt have had to change more than just the sentence in question – which, I admit, would have contradicted, in part, the theory described in the article and the accompanying interview with Dr. Feltmate.​


----------



## SINC

Telling it like it is 101.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past



> Some things just never grow old.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

TGF is more like it...

House Democrats Held The First Climate Change Hearings In Six Years. It Was A Mess



> * House Democrats held the first hearings on global warming the chamber has seen in six years.
> * The hearings, though, weren’t the serious policy debates Democrats may have hoped for.
> * Rather, the hearings relied on testimonies from climate activists and even *religious leaders.*


With little empirical evidence to back it up, Globull Warming is little more than _religion_ in the first place...


----------



## SINC

Basic knowledge on climate cycles, NOT global warming is worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFal8OLbK_4


----------



## FeXL

Well well, @NASA now confirms both global cooling in upper atmosphere due to solar minimum



> and global greening of entire planet from elevated CO2: nasa.gov/feature/goddar… I wonder what Gavin Schmidt, who blocks me, has to say about that??


I wonder what Climate Barbie would have to say about that.

Actually, I know: "There's no poisonous snakes in southern Alberta!"


----------



## FeXL

Climate change: Ban gas grid for new homes 'in six years'



> They want new-build homes in the countryside to be warmed by heat pumps - and cooking done on induction hobs, rather than using gas boilers and hobs.
> 
> In cities, new housing estates and flats should be kept warm by networks of hot water, says the report.
> 
> The water could be heated by waste heat from industry.
> 
> An alternative approach is to use heat pumps, which draw warmth from the sea or lakes; or burn gas from waste.
> 
> The report, from the independent Committee on Climate Change, recommends these changes are made to new homes at first because it's much more economical that way. They say it costs £4,800 to install low-carbon heating in a new home, but £26,300 in an existing house.
> 
> What's more, these systems will only work if homes are insulated to the highest standards so they need little heating.


----------



## SINC

Well, well, well.

*Bill Gates, defying the Climate Barons, tells the ugly truth about renewables*

https://business.financialpost.com/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1550844623


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Well, well, well.


Good read.

Unfortunately, Gates will be viewed as an outlier, not a maven.


----------



## FeXL

So, climate is such an issue for the left few even bothered showing up...

Louie Gohmert Ends Climate Change Hearing Due to Lack of Democrat Attendance



> The House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on Tuesday titled, “The Denial Playbook: How Industries Manipulate Science and Policy from Climate Change to Public Health,” which Democrats hoped could help push their climate change agenda.
> 
> At one point in the hearing, because not enough Democrats attended the hearing, Rep. Gohmert decided to adjourn the meeting.


----------



## FeXL

"Kid's won't know what snow is!!!"

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Fever



> Snow In Malibu


Related:

It's not just MN, try AZ



> MN just set a 'record' for snowfall in February...but it's NOT just MN, but AZ now!
> - Flagstaff, AZ broke a 103-year old 'record' for snowfall.


----------



## FeXL

CNN says climate change extremes are getting SO bad that ‘normal people’ aren’t talking about them much



> The Left is working hard to start a general panic about man-made climate change, doing everything from saying that to stop global warming, it’s time to consider not having kids if people won’t implement the Green New Deal, and also wealth from billionaires might have to be confiscated (they like to cut right to the chase don’t they?). Meanwhile, at CNN, they’re trying to help the libs sound the alarm this way:
> 
> *The extreme weather that comes with climate change is becoming the new normal, so normal that people aren't talking about it as much — and that could make them less motivated to take steps to fight global warming, according to new research* https://t.co/FvLBkbnXXf
> 
> — CNN (@CNN) February 25, 2019​


Bold mine.

Or, _normal_ people are just shelving the BS where it belongs...


----------



## FeXL

Article from August last year.

Your tax $$$ at work. From the Department of Climate Change.

Take that, Farmers' Almanac: Environment Canada's Dave Phillips predicts milder winter



> Before you book a one-way ticket to the southern hemisphere or prepare for a months-long hibernation in reaction to the Farmers' Almanac’s bleak winter forecast this week, you might want to wait for Environment Canada to weigh in.
> 
> Days after the Farmers' Almanac released its winter forecast calling for “teeth-chattering cold,” Environment Canada’s senior climatologist has teased a more moderate outlook that is sure to be welcome news to many Canadians.
> 
> *Senior Climatologist Dave Phillips said Environment Canada is expecting a “milder than normal” winter this year*, thanks to El Nino. The routine climate pattern related to warm water in the Pacific Ocean is projected to be weak to moderate this year, Phillips said.
> 
> “It’s a little bit uncertain right now, but we certainly think it will seem shorter than last winter and maybe not as tough as it was last year,” he told CTV’s Your Morning on Friday.


Bold mine.

Anybody else have a "milder" winter this year? We sure as hell haven't.

Yet, _yet_, using those self-same models, they swear they can predict climate decades, if not hunnerts, of years hence.


----------



## SINC

Some very interesting and telling reading here.

*ClimateGate continues – the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are now public*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03...-university-of-arizona-emails-are-now-public/


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Some very interesting and telling reading here.


Wow. Mann & the rest of the crooks (BIRM) had been fighting the release of these emails for so long now I'd forgotten about them.

<rolls up sleeves, checks popcorn futures...>


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Political Science



> Via ZH;
> 
> The big danger isn’t climate change, it’s hysteria. And government, and the types who manipulate it, destroying the economy. I’m afraid that many scientists on the global warming bandwagon are there for purely selfish economic reasons. Unfortunately most science funding today is done directly and indirectly through the government. It’s a political process.
> 
> And if you’re a scientist who’s considered politically unreliable, who believes politically incorrect things, you’re not going to get the funding. You’re not going to get journals to publish your articles. You’re not going to get positions in universities, which are universally controlled by leftists. It’s interesting that the people who believe in AGW [anthropogenic global warming] are almost all leftists, and the people who don’t believe in it tend to be non-leftists.​


Once again, comments gold.


----------



## SINC

An interesting read, that seems to ring true.

*Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’*

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/201...-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to MotherCorpse inside.

Things You’re Going To See On The CBC



> Just straight up propaganda: The sun is quieter than normal, but don’t panic!
> 
> “No Maunder Minimum. Certainly no Little Ice Age,” said David Hathaway, an astrophysicist who once headed NASA’s solar physics branch at the Marshall Space Flight Center. “The next cycle looks like it’s going to be very much like this one.”
> 
> He explains that, while the sun does dim during a minimum, it’s only by a tenth of a per cent, which translates into a tenth of a degree Celsius. And with the warming by about 1C that we’ve seen due to climate change — and the warming that is to come — it’s unlikely that we’ll notice.​
> *Because while a rise from .03 to .04 percent of the atmosphere is the driver of catastrophic climate change that demands the complete destruction of the world economy — a .1 percent drop in energy coming from the sun is completely insignificant.*


Bold mine.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here...


----------



## eMacMan

Actually that .1% drop refers to only the ultra violet portion of the spectrum. Total drop is significantly higher. But what the hey, according to the CAGWAs the sun could disappear into an alternate universe and there would be no impact on our planet.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Make Greenpeace Great Again!



> Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!
> 
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 12, 2019​
> Leftie twitter is apoplectic, but this one kindly posted the video.


I post this largely for these two comments:



> Patrick Moore couldn’t have paid money for a broader platform to get that message out. This gon’ be fun.


And



> The snowflakes calling him down, don’t know who he is, what he has done, studied, and knows. He FOUNDED Greenpeace, no bigger greenie than Dr Moore. He realized later on, that GP was turning into a BS machine, rentseekers to advance a ridiculous agenda. He tried to change it, and got tossed.
> Don’t expect the brainwashed little tards to think about it, there is no thinking in an NPC


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Y2Kyoto: Make Greenpeace Great Again!
> 
> I post this largely for these two comments:
> 
> And


I have heard other interviews with Patrick Moore. A very valid point he makes is there are very serious environmental concerns that are now being completely ignored thanks to the CO2 scam.


----------



## FeXL

Update to my post #7004 above.

Greenpeace has gone into full blown denier mode, claiming Moore was never a co-founder.

The Wayback Machine says otherwise.


----------



## FeXL

Kids just won't know what snow is...

Across the entire U.S. if all snow since October 1, 2018 fell uniformly, then 39.6" would cover the Lower 48.


----------



## eMacMan

No doubt the greenie weenies will trot this one out but neglect the competent analysis included in this article.
https://driving.ca/hyundai/kona/fea...uth-why-you-wont-want-trudeaus-5000-ev-rebate

Bit long for a quote but the gist of it is that while the hairdoo is offering a $5000 rebate on EVs, almost none of them will qualify.


----------



## FeXL

Nebraska Flood



> It’s bigger than Nebraska, of course and we’re hearing virtually nothing about it.


As someone who grew up on a farm, I simply can't imagine what it would feel like seeing a year's production & a lifetime of hard work under water like that...


----------



## FeXL

Narrative Fail: Polar bears vanish . . . from media as their population explodes



> *Crockford makes the case that the polar bear population in 1975 was around 5,000. It is presently estimated to be around 32,000. Clearly, the decision to continue to list the bears as a threatened species is about politics, not science.*
> 
> ...
> 
> *This information might have been useful to the BBC crew that found themselves surrounded by 13 polar bear mothers and cubs while filming late last year.* The men seemed shocked when one of the animals began sizing them up for a snack.
> 
> The crew seemed surprised, but delighted, that all the bears seemed robust and healthy. Happily, the men made it out safely and will not be part of the more frequent “bear attack” stories that are seen nowadays.
> 
> However, it is an object lesson on the dangers of believing politicized science instead of the real kind.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to mutual masturbation blog inside.

It's probably for the best



> A growing group of women concerned about climate change *are choosing not to reproduce*. Called BirthStrikers, *they agree to not bear children* “due to the severity of the ecological crisis and the current inaction of governing forces in the face of this existential threat.”


I fail to see the problem.


----------



## FeXL

Well, that goes against the narrative...

Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years, NASA study shows



> A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.
> 
> The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience...


So, could this simply be natural variation?



> ...Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.


'Course not... XX)

But wait!



> *A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters* likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation — a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific.


Bold mine.

So, it _could_ just be a response to a natural cycle.



> While this is “good news” on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author.


'Course not... XX)

We didn't know how big a factor ocean temperature was in glacier retreats & advances but we're _sure_ this is only temporary relief.



> “In the long run we’ll *probably* have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” Willis said.


Bold mine.

No, really. Temporary only...



> What’s happening, Joughin said, is “to a large extent, a temporary blip. Downturns do occur in the stock market, but overall the long term trajectory is up. This is really the same thing.”


I'm sorry. Have I missed something? What empirical evidence do you have to connect stock market prices (a man made phenomenon) and GAST (Ma Nature)?

Do these idiots even read the crap they spew?


----------



## FeXL

Winter is Coming – Super Grand Solar Minimum



> Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018.
> 
> Zharkova models solar sunspot and magnetic activity. *Her models have run at a 93% accuracy* and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum could begin in 2020.


Bold mine.

93% accurate, huh?

That's ~100% more accurate than the warmist's models, no?


----------



## SINC

*The climate alarmists are keeping poor people in the dark — literally*

From the article:



> These comments may set alarmists’ hair on fire, because religious-like conviction does not tolerate conflicting evidence. Unrealized forecasts should induce modesty rather than intensify certainty.
> 
> We should responsibly develop the resources we have been blessed with because we owe it to our countrymen in the here and now. Also, economic growth can finance science and adaptation, which offer the best opportunity for breakthroughs in innovative technology and environmental protection.
> 
> These issues are particularly stark for developing countries.


https://business.financialpost.com/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1553686703


----------



## FeXL

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE



> Canada is warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world and that warming is “effectively irreversible,” a new scientific report from Environment and Climate Change Canada says….​
> I MEAN, IT SURE IS LUCKY WE FINDING THIS OUT FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS ON THE SAME DAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS IMPOSING CARBON TAXES ON DENIER PROVINCES.


Curious how a _single landmass_ has twice the warming of the balance of the planet, no? If that observation in itself doesns't set off warning bells then maybe, just perhaps, you're part of the problem... XX)

Comment gold.


----------



## Macfury

The so-called science of claiming that a 1 degree Celsius warming is twice 0.5 degree warming is pretty embarrassing. We need to start from absolute zero at -273 C and then provide reference temperatures. So a rise from 10.5 C to 11.0 C would be a rise of .0018%.


----------



## FeXL

Just a little history lesson.

The Little Ice Age – Back to the Future



> Extreme scientists and politicians warn we will suffer catastrophic climate change if the earth’s average temperature rises 2.7°F above the Little Ice Age average. They claim we are in a climate crisis because average temperature has already warmed by 1.5°F since 1850 AD. Guided by climate fear, politicians fund whacky engineering schemes to shade the earth with mirrors or aerosols to lower temperatures. But the cooler Little Ice Age endured a much more disastrous climate.


----------



## SINC

*Ross McKitrick: Hold the panic: Canada just warmed 1.7 degrees and … thrived*

Saying Canada warmed twice as fast as the whole planet doesn’t prove anything.

https://business.financialpost.com/...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1554899766


----------



## FeXL

Kids just won't know what snow is!

Blizzard warnings issued across central U.S. as region faces "bomb cyclone"



> A storm impacting Rockies and Plains states has met the scientific definition of what's commonly known as a "bomb cyclone." It's the second such blast to hit the region in less than a month. Hundreds of flights have been canceled and some roads in the region are becoming impassable or accidents have already occurred.


More:



> *The National Weather Service said up to 2.5 feet of snow could fall in parts of eastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota.*


Two and a half feet of Globull Warming, in April!!!

Further:



> Watertown, South Dakota, is in the bullseye of the storm, Diaz reports, where the area could get up to 24 inches of snow — *on top of the 56 inches that has already fallen this year, nearly triple the norm.*


All bold mine.


----------



## SINC

Ran across this Facebook post by a guy who helped install monitoring stations in Inuvik and Yellowknife. A good read.

Is anyone surprised?



> Dennis Althouse
> April 6 at 11:26 AM
> 
> The CBC JUST PUT OUT A LEAKED REPORT SAYING THE NORTH IS WARMING AT TEMPERTURES 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD.... THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE ARCTIC...
> 
> The air quality monitoring stations that were installed after 2000 are a point of faulty data collection. The person who installed them (i helped them find locations for the ones in Inuvik and Yellowknife) were placed in locations to to get 'hits' ... when I asked the person in charge why he wanted them in locations where it would obvious give high readings he told me they want 'hits' so they can get more funding.
> 
> I thought that was bad science so I would only approve a site that was average air quality for the town of Inuvik by a soccer pitch and no buildings or traffic near it... since they are going to use that single point to represent the surrounding 500 km I felt that was best... the person complained to the SAO and Mayor ... but I held firm on my assertion that the location away from direct sources of pollution was a better location to collect a representative sample. Since I moved away they moved the air quality station next to the boiler end on one of the larger buildings in Inuvik (Midnight Sun Rec Center) obviously to get 'hits' ... the air quality monitoring station in Yellowknife (see pictures) is next to one of the larger sewage lift stations (think pig barn) in the city... I would get calls a couple times a year from environment Canada asking about a high numbers...LOL! so the data from any of these sources are suspect... not because I don't believe data... quite the opposite ... I collect and analyze data professionally... there are serious problems when the data is collected to get 'hits'... the report 'leaked' by CBC has been fixed with 20 years of manipulated data... we are being miss-lead.
> 
> If this is happening on Canadas Arctic... where else has the data collected been placed so the monitoring system will get 'hits'?


----------



## FeXL

Professor Winter Soldier Testifies About Climate Change



> Former Secretary of State, former senator, occasional Vietnam veteran, and armchair climatologist John Kerry testified earlier this week on climate change before the House Oversight Committee.
> 
> Why would Kerry be on a panel presumably stocked with climate experts? There’s no good answer for that but he was there and “took questions on the national security threat posed by climate change.”
> 
> Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.), an MIT-trained scientist and one of the best congressmen on the hill had some questions for Professor Winter Soldier.


More:



> Kerry had difficulty responded to Massie’s questions about the climate. The WaPo classifies this as “bizarre” since the panel wasn’t expecting questions on, you know, science-y things.
> 
> * Massie, during his bizarre back and forth with Kerry, asked why carbon dioxide was higher on Earth millions of years ago than it is today, to which Kerry responded, “But there weren’t human beings; that was a different world, folks.”
> 
> “Did geology stop when we got on the planet?” Massie asked.
> 
> An exasperated Kerry replied, “This is just not a serious conversation.”*​


Bold mine.

It most certainly is _not..._

I jes' luvs it when all these supposed "experts" get roasted.


----------



## FeXL

Nice!

VICTORY: Climate skeptic scientist Peter Ridd wins big!



> In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.


----------



## SINC

*Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie*



> (NaturalNews) The highly-politicized climate change debate rages on as we approach the crucial 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite an ever-growing body of evidence revealing the fact that "catastrophic man-made global warming" is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
> 
> And the November election may prove to be a victory for the hoaxers, according to experts who happen to be among those who dare to challenge the spurious climate change narrative.
> 
> One of these experts is Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who is now warning that the election could prove to be a "tipping point" in favor of people like Al Gore, who continue to amass vast fortunes based on the global warming scam.
> 
> In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:
> 
> "Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the 'global warming' debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years."


More at the link.

https://www.naturalnews.com/055151_global_warming_science_hoax_climate_skepticism.html#


----------



## FeXL

Just so you know – exponential environmental rhetoric growth turns into a joke right about…well, some time ago. Saving the planet just got a lot harder



> Climate change discourse has become so pervasive and escalating and forceful that it is now being tuned out. We have been overwhelmed with messages of fear, and it does not take a rocket scientist to start piecing all this together with suspicion.
> 
> And then there’s one other headline that stands out among the rest: “World energy demand in 2018 rose by decade-high 2.3%” – including increased demand for all three fossil fuels.
> 
> Read more, including about how everywhere is warming faster than everywhere…


And this particularly prescient comment:



> Or think if it this way if you have an industry background: if you have an operational or process problem then you talk to an experienced tradesperson or an engineer. They not only know their stuff but they are accountable if they get it wrong. You never expect the bean counters, HR or upper management to help because they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to solving operational problems. They make a mess out of everything they touch and avoid responsibility and accountability like the plague.
> 
> *And that’s exactly what happened, the politicians, social activists and economists have destroyed any chance of resolving the problem effectively. They’ve been wrong repeatedly, wasted billions, made people poorer for no reason and yet there’s been no consequences.
> 
> We would have been a lot better off if it has gone from climate science to applied science/tech innovation rather than climate science to social science/politics/economists.*


Bold mine.


----------



## SINC

An interesting read.

*Hey Leo, Big Fan, But I Have A Few Questions..*



> Did you know that same study found the "dirtiest oil in North America" is not produced in Canada, but just outside your own hometown of Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canada's oilsands? Actually, the title of "world's dirtiest oil" goes to Brass crude blend from Nigeria where the uncontrolled release of methane during the oil extraction process generates upstream GHG emissions that is over four times higher than Canadian diluted bitumen?


More at the link.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cody-battershill/leonardo-dicaprio-fort-mcmurray_b_5712725.html


----------



## FeXL

A Climate Change Poll Goes Horribly Wrong



> But first, this message from the poll sponsors;
> 
> A large group of Canadian climate scientists, environment advocates, business owners and corporate executives want climate change to be the No. 1 issue for voters this fall, including problems and solutions beyond the federal carbon tax.
> 
> A hundred of them signed an open letter to Canadians this week, urging them to understand the impacts of climate change and the solutions each party offers before casting their ballots in October.
> 
> Those behind the letter fear important discussions about climate change are being lost in the sea of political rhetoric for or against a national carbon price.
> 
> *“It’s a national emergency,” said Gavin Pitchford, the CEO of recruiting firm Delta Management and executive director of Clean50.*​


Yeah, bold mine.

Ya know, if 10's of millions of illegal aliens in the US doesn't rank as a national emergency, then I have great difficulty with Globull Warming as one, either...


----------



## SINC

Does no one else find it odd that people who stand to make the most money raise the loudest alarm about warming? Who promoting the fear above does not stand to get rich on scaring the crap out of people with bullchit?


----------



## SINC

Interesting viewpoint.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Going the way of Russia Collusion



> Clearly there are factors at play in climate cycles that we barely understand and certainly cannot control. Some play out in shorter time spans, which we as humans can observe directly. Others are on a far longer and grander scale than human existence, much less our individual life spans, which are merely the blink of an eye by comparison.


----------



## SINC

CHINA BUILDING 300 NEW COAL POWER PLANTS AROUND THE WORLD

China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

https://www.thegwpf.com/china-building-300-new-coal-power-plants-around-the-world/


----------



## FeXL

Shocka...

Study sponsored by NOAA finds that poorly-sited air temperature monitoring stations have artificially boosted global warming data



> Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That reports on an important scientific paper sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the official keepers of temperature records) that confirms what Watts and other critics have maintained for years. To its credit, NOAA decided in 2012 to test Watts’s critique that a substantial portion of the surface air temperature monitoring stations that are used to generate data for claims of global warming are located in places that have become surrounded by urbanization in the form of asphalt and concrete surfaces and other facilities that absorb heat during the day and discharge it at night -- thereby artificially raising the average air temperatures.


More:



> *Lo and behold, the scientific paper promised in 2012 has been published and it confirms the critique.*


Yeah, emphasis mine.

There goes another Prog narrative...


----------



## FeXL

Climate Protesters Have Been Exploited By Adults



> Fourteen year old Estella Brasier is so terrified about climate change that she can’t even speak to a journalist about her fears without breaking down in tears.
> 
> “We need to find new politics,” is all she can manage before dissolving into sobs and burying her head in her friend’s shoulder.


----------



## FeXL

B-Bb-Bbbbu-But... TAR SANDS!!! COAL MINES!!!

The Sound Of Settled Science



> @Kenneth72712993 – A new tropical Atlantic subsurface temperature reconstruction indicates it was 7°C warmer than today during the Younger Dryas/Bølling-Allerød (~15,000-11,500 years ago), when CO2 concentrations hovered around 210-220 ppm.
> 
> Paper is here.


Related:

Pollspotting



> A poll at the Lethbridge Herald that needs a little love: _Do you agree with the call for Canada to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030?_


----------



## FeXL

KIDS WON'T KNOW WHAT SNOW IS!!!

Rare early May ARCTIC COLD BLAST engulfs Europe, bringing severe hail storms, heavy snowfall and gale-force winds



> Almost the whole of Europe has seen a brief return to a few days of winter-like weather because an Arctic wind blew south as the month of May came in. Temperatures dropped typically at least 10°C from one day to the next. The driving force, a centre of low pressure over Scandinavia, seems to be reluctant to move.


----------



## FeXL

KIDS WON'T KNOW WHAT SNOW IS!!!, too.

May snowstorm breaks 117-year-old record in Minnesota



> While the calendar shows it's more than six weeks into spring, Mother Nature dealt a wintry blow to Minnesota with a winter-like storm that unleashed historic snow amounts in some locations on Wednesday into Thursday.
> 
> The same storm system that brought an outbreak of severe weather to the South-Central states through the first portion of this week created enough cold air to produce a zone of heavy accumulating snow on its cold side.
> 
> Snow fell along a zone from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to Duluth, Minnesota. While not accumulating, snowflakes even managed to fall in parts of Minneapolis.
> 
> Through Thursday morning, Duluth was blanketed with 10.9 inches of snow, leading to a number of broken snowfall records, according to data from the National Weather Service.


More:



> The 8.3 inches set the all-time record for most snow on a single day in the month of May. The previous record was 5.5 inches, set on May 10, 1902.


----------



## SINC

What scientists don't get about their own actions!

Solution to “Climate Crisis”: Ban scientific conferences/conventions



> Science and academia in general are not only a source of knowledge but also a guide to how reason can build a better society. Although most researchers do not intend to claim an ethics for humanity, they should nevertheless set an example of behavior for the rest of the population since they symbolize the wisdom of our epoch. However, at present we observe that science and technological progress, far from being a solution, are driving one of humanity’s major problems: an ecological crisis.
> 
> A recent article referring to Sweden declares that universities and colleges account for the greatest emissions of carbon dioxide from air travel among State employees. More than half of their 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) released in 2017 originated from the Ministry of Education.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...risis-ban-scientific-conferences-conventions/


----------



## FeXL

Curious that Climate Barbie & The Dope haven't addressed this...

The Marijuana Industry’s Dirty Little Secret



> The cannabis industry is hiding a dirty little secret.
> 
> According to Evan Mills, a California-based energy and climate change scientist, the marijuana industry has a major problem…and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better.
> 
> “Legislators and energy agencies have largely turned a blind eye to the carbon footprint of indoor cultivation, which already belches out greenhouse-gas emissions equal to that from 3 million cars in America,” says Mills.
> 
> In fact, just one marijuana cigarette creates over 10 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution.
> 
> An entire kilogram of finished product?
> 
> That produces a staggering 4600 kg of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.


More:



> Cannabis cultivation generates $6 billion in energy costs each year, and uses about 10x more power per square foot than a standard office building.
> 
> In Denver, 4% of all electricity goes to cannabis cultivation. Total power consumption in the cannabis sector has nearly tripled since 2013.


I know! Build s'more solar panels & windmills! Add some Tesla battery packs!

Prog paradise!

Woohoo!!!


----------



## eMacMan

Speaking of energy hogs: The Cannabis bit makes you wonder how much CO2 is produced in those high production egg farms?


----------



## FeXL

h/t AoS.

Only 7 months to go...


----------



## eMacMan

So just checked the Glacier National Park website. If they don't get any more snow in the meantime, they are hoping to have the Going to the Sun Road open the weekend after Father's Day. A week later than normal.

Global Warming my frozen fanny.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> B-Bb-Bbbbu-But... TAR SANDS!!! COAL MINES!!!
> 
> The Sound Of Settled Science
> 
> 
> 
> Related:
> 
> Pollspotting


15,000 years ago and much of North America was still under a mile or more of Ice and snow, so I am not buying this one.

OTOH as that continental ice shelf melted, oceans were rising at a rate 5 to 10 times faster than current claimed climate crisis rates. And yes it was with CO2 rates down around .02% of the earths atmosphere.


----------



## FeXL

NY AG’s Office Hiding Climate Activist’s Emails Behind Whistleblower Defense



> The New York attorney general's office is trying to use a whistleblower defense to keep emails between their office and a third-party attorney sealed and out of public view, despite the person at issue's active efforts to persuade governments across the country to sue large energy producers.


Don't think that's what it was designed for...


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Fever



> Experts predicted an ice-free Arizona, and it may happen later this summer pic.twitter.com/EG7pq7FB8M
> 
> — Steve Goddard (@SteveSGoddard) May 31, 2019​


<snort>


----------



## FeXL

Let's talk Climate Bimbetta!!!

Climate Barbie



> Imagine having a staff of 24 people working on her Twitter communications, and not one of them saying, um, boss, it’s a bit off.
> 
> More here… in the replies.


Caution Progs: Link to The Rebel inside. Your head will explode. You've been warned. Don't come crying to me...


----------



## FeXL

You simply cannot fix stupid...

Elizabeth Warren Claims Climate Change Is A 'Bigger Threat Than World War II' On Eve Of D-Day Anniversary



> Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made her first campaign stop in Michigan on Tuesday, and launched a shocking $2 trillion "infrastructure investment" plan designed to address the burgeoning problem of climate change, which Warren claims is a bigger threat to the American way of life than the enemies the Allied Forces faced in World War II.


----------



## FeXL

Perfect Father's Day gift for The Bigot: Gaia going up in flames.


----------



## FeXL

It probably will. It's just not how they've been told it will...

Companies Expect Climate Change to Cost Them $1 Trillion in 5 Years



> The costs of a disturbed climate are becoming increasingly burdensome and apparent. In 2018 the US sustained $91 billion in damages from climate-related disasters, including tropical cyclones, severe storms, inland floods, droughts, and wildfires.
> 
> “Climate change is no longer a distant threat but something that is impacting economies now,” says Bruno Sarda, president of CDP North America, a nonprofit that encourages companies to report how climate change might affect them.
> 
> A growing number of companies are recognizing that fact and are now publicly reporting the effects of climate change on their businesses. A new report published Tuesday by CDP shows that 215 of the world’s biggest companies, including giants like Apple, JPMorgan Chase, Nestlé, and 3M, see climate change as a threat likely to affect their business within the next five years, with a cumulative cost of a trillion dollars.


----------



## FeXL

Global Cooling..errr...Global Warming...errr...Climate Change! But Mostly Virtue-Signalling, Redistributionist Policies Of The Left



> No theme to this other than the ridiculousness of the whole scam.
> 
> ...
> 
> Superstar rapper Drake, who rails against climate change, buys massive private jet
> Nothing new here, other than the size of the jet...
> 
> Climate Science Violates The Basic Precepts Of Science
> 
> * Climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science.*​


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

For more than a decade, NOAA weather model would create "bogus-canes" or forecast hurricanes that never would occur ... in long-range or 1-2 weeks in future. Sadly ... the new FV3-GFS model upgrade coming in mid-June is up to old tricks.


----------



## FeXL

Be gone, climate dementors! Alarmist gibberish fools no one, alienates all & detracts from valid pollution-reduction/environmental footprint goals



> A creature from the world of Harry Potter provides a perfect characterization of the miserable, soul-sucking climate change media narrative. We’ve seen the media lose its collective mind now and then when it gets overexcited and wets its pants at some new trend…Seldom however has the media succumbed in such a broad-based way to a fear-driven narrative as with speculation about what a changing climate might bring. No one believes this stuff anymore, not even dejected climate scientists that generate the ludicrous headlines…


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to MotherCorpse inside.

Kids just won't know what snow is!

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Fever

This comment nails it:



> This is what Alberta deserves for dissing the carbon tax.
> 
> This’ll teach them.


<snort> As does this one:



> I think it was causethed by that water er ah um boxth with ..aa um ah a plastic straw thrown away in the ditch.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Kids just won't know what snow is!

Roll Out Those Lazy, Hazy, SNOWY Days of Summer



> Nat King Cole recorded “Those Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer” way back in 1963. In “Those days of soda and pretzels and beer,” summers were hot, and the only thing frosty was the beer. Not so much this summer.
> 
> The summer solstice passed a few days ago, the longest day of the year with the most sunshine. Only a couple of weeks before July 4th, thoughts are on hitting the beach or pool, with the only worry being about whether sunscreen is going to save your life or kill you.
> 
> But not this year. Portions of Colorado are under “a winter weather advisory this weekend” as reported by the Denver Post, with “snowfall expected in the mountains.” Wait a minute, it’s officially summer, isn’t it?
> 
> *This is not just a few snow flurries. “Snowfall of 2-6 inches is expected this weekend for altitudes about 9,000 feet, and slush could accumulate along mountain passes. Some road closures have been issued due to adverse weather conditions.” Such a forecast is common in January, but not in late June.
> 
> Steamboat had almost two feet of snow, as reported by CBS News. CNN chimed in, noting, “The last time the city saw snow this late was on June 17, 1928.” Almost a century ago.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Perhaps one of you Globull Warming-believing geniuses can try to explain this to me...

Y2Kyoto: Temperature Tampering



> It’s still going on.


----------



## FeXL

Good!

YNoKyoto: (Not) Showing Up To Riot



> The president of the Oregon Senate said Tuesday there weren’t enough votes in his majority Democratic caucus to approve a landmark climate bill that has sparked a walkout by Republicans and exacerbated tensions between urban and rural areas.
> 
> All 11 Republican senators extended their walkout involving the issue for a sixth day, denying Democrats enough lawmakers to muster a vote on the plan that calls for capping and trading pollution credits among companies.
> 
> Hundreds of protesters flooded the capitol steps to protest the GOP walkout then unexpectedly found themselves pushing back against Democratic Senate President Peter Courtney, who disclosed that the climate plan has lost support among members of his own party.


----------



## FeXL

CLIMATE EMERGENCY SWEEPSTAKES!



> CLIMATE EMERGENCY SWEEPSTAKES! Win a seat on a private jet! https://t.co/qFHjUExAWg
> 
> — Stephen Taylor (@stephen_taylor) June 24, 2019​


Woohoo!


----------



## FeXL

The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition



> Here's a nice correlation for you...the amount of CO2 in the air is proportional to the decrease in climate-caused mortality, therefore CO2 is protective.
> 
> Prove me wrong!


----------



## FeXL

They just noticed? Welcome to the 20th century...

Mainstream Media Abandons Journalism for Activism on Climate Change



> For more than 20 years I’ve watched media outlets fail to accurately portray the debate surrounding climate change. Unfortunately, things are getting worse.
> 
> Over the past six months, news outlets including _The Guardian_, long a mouthpiece for leftist propaganda, and _Telemundo_ announced they will now use the fear-invoking term “climate emergency” instead of the more descriptive phrase “climate change.” In Florida, rather than competing for news on climate matters, six news outlets — _Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Tampa Bay Times_, and _WLRN Public Media_ — are collaborating on climate coverage under the moniker Florida Climate Reporting Network (FCRN). This means each news outlet that receives their climate stories from FCRN will be speaking with one voice on the issue.


----------



## SINC

Ya don't say. 

Global Warming Alarmism: When Science IS Fiction

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...O9GDHRigI2jCKLzMMQOrBkpu7p_x4jU4#468f41be7012


----------



## FeXL

Yet dare quip that developing nations should roll back their energy use & watch Prog heads explode...

Developing nations latest decade of energy & emissions growth torpedoes alarmist global emissions control scam



> This latest decade energy and emissions data clearly demonstrates that the developing nations completely dominate global energy and emissions. This includes both present levels as well as future growth. These results also show that the developed nations play a minority role in these measures both presently and in the future.
> 
> The results for the last decade show that global energy use grew by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that energy growth accounted for by the developing nations.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: And The Heat Goes On…

Yep.


----------



## FeXL

All right. Let's go with their 18 month deadline. However, if the planet doesn't burn up in some Faustian nightmare, I want these fukcers to immolate themselves so I don't have to listen to their next 27 dire warnings...

Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months



> Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"?
> 
> Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.


Related (just in case you've been hearing the latest version of "the hottest year evah!!!", again):

‘Hidden’ NOAA temperature data reveals that 6 of the last 9 months were below normal in the USA – and NOAA can’t even get June right

Let's head right to the punch line:



> Note the below average value for June, 2019 at *-0.14°F*
> 
> The data, taken directly from NOAA’s national climate data page, shows not only that much of 2019 was below average, but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started.


Links' bold...

Read the comments.


----------



## FeXL

Celebrities, Plutocrats Jet to Roman Bacchanal to "Rap" with Google About Climate Change



> *Now, you might think that throwing a rager in a Roman ruins and inviting the ultrarich to jet in to do ecstasy and rap about the environment would demonstrate that the environment must be in pretty good shape on the whole.*
> 
> But you'd be wrong!
> 
> Because #TheScience has been rechecked, and the #FinaglersConstant readjusted, and it turns out that we don't have 12 years to save the earth -- *we only have fourteen months*, which puts the last possible moment to save the planet at just about the time of the next US presidential election, conveniently enough!


Bold mine.

Fourteen months now! That must be because of all the CO2 emitted by yachts & private planes en route to this elite conflab...


----------



## FeXL

Further on the above:

Rex Murphy: There's no hypocrite like a rich, jet-setting anti-global-warming one



> But there is no issue on this orbiting Earth, nor has there even been, that has the burden and depth, the volume and intensity of the rawest hypocrisy — that burns on the flames of hypocrisy itself — as that of global warming.
> 
> The hypocrisy of politicians is as a bead of sand, a pimple in the shadow of Everest compared to the hollow, fake piety of the mega rich and famous gospellers of global warming.
> 
> Those howling loudest at people to use public transport — “for the planet’s sake” — should not, per exemplum, own $400-million yachts, travel themselves by private jet, have a dozen vast mansions in a dozen countries, and hold suppers that cost $100,000 in ancient Greek temples. But they do.


He sums:



> *The great maxim of Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, was never more richly illustrated: “I’ll believe that it’s a crisis when the people who claim it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”*


Ya, my bold.

Precisely.


----------



## FeXL

Even more on the above:

Prince Harry Would Have To Plant Hundreds Of Trees To Offset Carbon Footprint He Left Attending Posh Climate Change Summit



> A gaggle of A-list celebrities flocked to a posh Italian resort this week for Google Camp, described as a major summit on climate change.
> 
> Of course, they did so in the only way liberals do: They flew in on at least 114 private jets, whipped around in gas-guzzling helicopters, motored up in $200 million yachts with 2,300-horsepower engines. Once there, they were ferried around in huge Maserati SUV's that get 15 miles per gallon.


More:



> "[W]hat is conference going to achieve, other than a glamorous knees up for the rich? Also, and I may be out on a limb here, but *I do believe there are scheduled flights and ferries to Sicily*," wrote BBC presenter Andrew Neil.


Bold mine.

How positively...pedestrian!


----------



## FeXL

Shocked. SHOCKED, I tells ya!!!

E-Scooters are worse for the environment than many claim, study indicates



> * Electric scooters, which have exploded in popularity since 2017, claim to be carbon-free. But a new study has found they emit about half as much as a conventional car.
> * The aluminum, rubber and lithium used to make these short-lived devices are the main culprits, the study found.
> 
> * Scooters are often recharged by many people driving cars, which also adds to their carbon impact.


----------



## SINC

Yep, it's bullchit. 

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Yep, it's bullchit.
> 
> Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See


Hadn't come across that. May be time to start perusing the climate links again. 

Interesting read. Thx.


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone paying attention.

Finland & Japan Confirm Global Warming Data is not Supported



> *“During the last hundred years, the temperature increased by about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”.* This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just-published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily.
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm
> 
> These findings are extremely significant in that both groups have identified the ‘umbrella effect’ as the prime driver of climate warming rather than anthropogenic (human) factors.


Bold mine.

That ratio comes as no surprise to me, as mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is about 4%, as opposed to 96% coming from natural causes.


----------



## FeXL

:clap::clap::clap:

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs



> But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money. News first broke in Wattsupwiththat, via an email Ball sent to Anthony Watt. Later, Principia-Scientific offered extensive details, including much background on the hockey stick.


Yesssss!!!


----------



## FeXL

And this:


----------



## FeXL

The Sound Of Settled Science



> Ross McKitrick made the same argument over a decade ago: Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?
> 
> “Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,” says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the “validity of a ‘global temperature.’”
> 
> “The temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.”
> 
> But a “temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system,” says Andresen. The climate is not regulated by a single temperature. Instead, “differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.​


Related:

Listen to the Trees!



> Tree stumps tell us that trees once bordered Arctic shores 9000 years ago. Since then, cooler temperatures have pushed trees to lower latitudes and warmer elevations. Hikers in the Sierra Nevada often encounter dead trees several hundred feet above our current tree line. Accordingly, researchers determined that for the last 3 thousand years, tree line was mostly higher than today because temperatures were much warmer. However, during the Little Ice Age, between 1300 AD and 1850 AD, it got so cold, tree line dropped and tree seedlings in the Ural Mountains couldn’t germinate for hundreds of years. Ancient tree lines suggest if temperatures increase over the next century, it will not be a crisis. Trees will simply reclaim their former habitats.


----------



## FeXL

I fail to see the problem...

U.S. Navy Shut Down Climate Change Task Force



> The U.S. Navy shut down its Task Force Climate Change (TFCC), which was established by President Barack Obama in 2009, reported E&E News' Greenwire.
> 
> The closure was quiet and occurred in March, according to Greenwire, and "the group's tab on the Navy's energy, environment and climate change website was removed sometime between March and July."


More:



> "By not mentioning climate change, we are signaling the events that we're experiencing now, the impacts, are not something that immediately needs to be attended to and planned for."


No $h!t, Sherlock...

Razor sharp perception like that must be why she got paid the big bucks under Barry...


----------



## FeXL

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve



> A new study has found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000BC – regardless of human activity – but the mainland scientists behind the research warn there is no room for complacency or inaction on climate change, with the prospect of a sudden global cooling also posing a danger.
> 
> The study found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. *It appears to have little to do with the increase in greenhouse gases which began with the industrial revolution, according to the researchers.*


Bold mine.

Once again: Not a surprise to anyone paying attention.


----------



## SINC

Yep.

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/


----------



## FeXL

Little too much John Carpenter, perchance?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Warns That ‘Diseases Could Escape’ From Frozen Glaciers Due To Climate Change



> Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told fans on a live stream Tuesday that if climate change isn’t stopped, glaciers could melt and expose humans to diseases tens of thousands of years old.
> 
> “There are a lot of diseases that are frozen in some of these glaciers that scientists fear that there is a potential that a lot of diseases could escape these melted glaciers,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Instagram Live.


----------



## FeXL

Further on Mikey Mann.

Michael Mann's Tree-Ring Circus



> This has been a tough week for climate hustler Michael Mann, who lost his defamation and libel lawsuit against respected climatologist and warming skeptic Dr. Tim Ball at the same time it was announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that there has been no U.S. warming since 2005.
> 
> Mann, who poses as a climatologist at Penn State, has had his court case against genuine climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball dismissed, with Mann ordered to pay court costs, for failure to produce supporting evidence to prove his claim that global temperatures took a sharp upward turn when the Industrial Revolution and fossil-fuel use began pouring CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
> 
> He didn’t because he can’t, and the fact is that the global warning he speaks of is Mann-made, a fantasy based on a career of perpetrating climate fraud, as indicated by NOAA’s report that there hasn’t been any U.S. warming for nearly a decade and a half and maybe even beyond that...


(I jes' luvs me the title...)


----------



## FeXL

Oh lord, stop with the “climate emergency” nonsense – debasing the word emergency will not motivate a weary public to change its lifestyle



> People are terrified about climate change. We get it. The message is universal and deafening and omnipresent. Fear has been instilled so deep that a considerable subset of the population is willing to stand up and support the idea that there is a true emergency going on here.
> 
> The problem is, no one truly believes it. Not even the climate scientists who claim to weep with despair and rage at the inaction. The entire concept of an emergency is a paper tiger, and that fact remains even if it is true – that is, even if humans are causing global warming, and if a 2 degree temperature rise will cause even half the problems activists claim – people may scream murder but won’t change their ways.


----------



## FeXL

*~Becauth ith's 2015!*

Climate Barbie



> When alone with friends: “The overall [carbon tax] approach will be reviewed in 2022 to ensure that it is effective and to confirm future price increases”


----------



## FeXL

The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition



> Well, the UN has spoken, so I guess it's all over except for the actual warming.
> 
> U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
> 
> Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
> 
> He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.​


Which is why Barry Soetoro is working on purchasing a $10 million mansion in Martha's Vineyard on an island a foot or so above sea level...


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: New Normal



> Better than the old normal.
> 
> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, warns, “This is what climate change looks like.” Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders one-ups that, tweeting: “Hurricane Dorian has everything to do with climate change, which is the existential crisis of our time.”
> 
> Julian Castro is also tying Dorian to global warming.
> 
> They’re wrong, but their warnings fit a pattern. When hurricanes Harvey and Irma both hit mainland US in quick succession in 2017, critics claimed this was the “new normal.”
> 
> In fact, those two storms, along with Michael in 2018, were the only three major hurricanes greater than a Category 3 to hit the continental US in the last 13 years. That’s a record low since 1900. For comparison, the average over the same timeframe has been nearly eight major hurricanes.​
> Related.


----------



## SINC

Chief of World Meteorological Organization Castigates Climate Alarmists

https://m.theepochtimes.com/chief-o...ion-castigates-climate-alarmists_3073666.html


----------



## FeXL

SINC said:


> Chief of World Meteorological Organization Castigates Climate Alarmists


Hmmm...

Pretty weak sauce. Yeah, he's critical of the extremist Fruit Loops & Whackos, but he says nothing about Globull Warming. I'd expect nothing else from the people who jumped on the bandwagon in the first place.


----------



## FeXL

The iron...

Y2Kyoto: DON’T EAT THE CANNED MEAT



> WUWT;
> 
> Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance.
> 
> *Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors.*​
> Related.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Very important paper.

The Sound Of Settled Science



> Abstract:
> 
> The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm–2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm–2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm–2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, *uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection.* Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. *The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.*​


Related:

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.



> Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. *The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.*


All bold mine.

While none of this is news to anybody paying attention, it's nice to see a published summation. :clap:

Where's MacDoc when you want to rub his nose in some settled science?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error.


I spend a lot of time explaining to people that these models don't magically replicate the environment--they're just models where the warming assumption is built in. You couldn't use these models to discover some sort of anomalous outcome unexpected by the modeler.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Come Ski The Climate Emergency!

Comments salient.


----------



## FeXL

*~Becauth ith's 2015!*

Caution: Progs, do not click on the following link. Not only is it a link to Rebel News, but the facts contained therein will cause both your heads & narrative to explode.

Further on Climate Barbie.

Climate Barbie’s Historical Data Modeling Gig



> It’s a doozie.


Unbelievable.


----------



## FeXL

I fail to see the problem...

ENDORSED



> Teens are pledging not to have kids until leaders take action on climate change https://t.co/xMAAxwYJw0 pic.twitter.com/T53D1bHhIT
> 
> — CBS News (@CBSNews) September 19, 2019​


----------



## FeXL

50 Years of Failed Global Warming Doomsday Predictions



> Last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez casually mentioned that if nothing is done about carbon emissions, Miami would disappear "in a few years" due to climate change.
> 
> *AOC is hardly alone in making spectacularly stupid predictions about global climate catastrophe.* The Competitive Enterprise Institute has compiled a list of the best, the worst, the funniest, and the most banal predictions from climate change hysterics that somehow, someway, never quite managed to come true.
> 
> More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.
> 
> While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.​


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Prog heads exploding...

Climate crisis solved! A quick, socialist-friendly path to environmental nirvana. Who could compl[ain?]



> The world’s simplest, cheapest, most elegant, and most easily supported plan to realistically lower global emissions in a material way. And it will be completely ignored, because, at the end of the day, the climate crisis is not about the environment.


----------



## FeXL

"Kids won't know what snow is!!!!!"

North America Braces for Monster (potentially historic) Late September Snow



> Latest GFS runs show MONSTER snow falling across much of North America over the next 10 days.
> 
> From Sept 20 thru Sept 30, higher elevations, particularly those in the west, are set to receive anywhere up to 72 inches (6 feet) of powder, in the month of September!
> 
> The U.S. state of Montana looks set be the worst hit with the largest accumulations there settling at Glacier National Park, adding to the sizable snowpack which, _against all the global warming odds_, survived 2019’s summer melt season:


----------



## FeXL

Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions



> or more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.
> In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.
> 
> And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.
> 
> Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.


More:



> Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?


Sanity left the barn a long time ago...


----------



## wonderings

I do not follow the climate, environmental stuff much. I do my part to be clean and responsible as I think most Canadians do. I do find it curious though with all the attention this young activist Greta Thunberg is getting as she speaks boldly and yet, unless I have not read it, she seems to not say anything about the large billion + populations in Asia who are probably responsible for most of the junk in the ocean and pollution on the planet. If people really are that concerned why is the spear head not pointed in that direction?


----------



## FeXL

Related to my post at the top of the page.

European Winter brought forward to October 5 this Year — Arctic Blast set to deliver plunging Temps and Heavy Early-Season Snow



> We’re _admittedly_ a long way off, but latest GFS runs are forecasting a brutal beginning to October for the majority of Europe, with widespread plunging temps and large accumulations of early-season snow building over higher elevations.
> 
> The cold is on course to descend during the first week of October, with temperature departures of more than *20C below average* in store for regions like the Balkans, located to the SE.


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> If people really are that concerned why is the spear head not pointed in that direction?


'Cause it don't fit the narrative...


----------



## eMacMan

wonderings said:


> I do not follow the climate, environmental stuff much. I do my part to be clean and responsible as I think most Canadians do. I do find it curious though with all the attention this young activist Greta Thunberg is getting as she speaks boldly and yet, unless I have not read it, she seems to not say anything about the large billion + populations in Asia who are probably responsible for most of the junk in the ocean and pollution on the planet. If people really are that concerned why is the spear head not pointed in that direction?


For years we have taken our cardboard, paper, glass and plastics to the recycle bins in Frank. last week the owner announced he is closing the recycling portion of his business. He can't sell the stuff and he can't even give it away,especially after Canada ticked off the Chinese by holding the Huwai exec hostage and attempting to deport her to the Unbalanced State of America. Seems China can find plenty of stock to feed their recycling industry without help from Canada or the US.

My question is why have we not developed a homegrown industry? If you want people to recycle the loop cannot be held hostage at the collection stage. It needs to be complete all the way to the end product.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> My question is why have we not developed a homegrown industry? If you want people to recycle the loop cannot be held hostage at the collection stage. It needs to be complete all the way to the end product.


Because most of this recycled material is valueless garbage. It's way cheaper to make glass from scratch than it is to grind up broken glass to make new bottles. The local recycling facilities can't even process the material properly to separate it. In Toronto, we can't add black items because they aren't recognized on a black conveyor belt. Squashed aluminum cans gum up the works. We're constantly being offered a new menu of items that were once recyclable but now are not and vice versa. We can't place steel in recycling bins even though it's one of the few commodities that have objective value.

The only way to build a market for that junk is to punish companies until they recycle it at an unacceptable price--and then pass those costs on to the consumer.


----------



## SINC

This says it all.

The Tragedy Of Greta Thunberg

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...5lnMv-0t83jusLYfQqbB-pc#.XYqJRpQk-F0.facebook


----------



## FeXL

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’



> More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.
> 
> Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.
> 
> “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”


Related:

If You Can't Sell Your Hysteria to Adults, Try Kids



> The entire American left — the mainstream media, the environmentalist movement and Democratic politicians in particular — are celebrating the involvement of teenagers and even younger children in protesting the world's "inaction" with regard to global warming.
> 
> And not just the American left, of course. The left throughout the world is celebrating. A 16-year-old Swedish girl whose contempt for adults is breathtaking is an international hero. Congressional Democrats invited her to testify in Congress, and the United Nations has likewise invited her.
> 
> The mayor and city council of New York City further politicized their city's public schools by allowing students to skip school to actively participate in a global warming protest.
> 
> The message of young climate change activists is: "You adults aren't doing your job. As a result, we have no future." *As a sympathetic reporter — are there any non-sympathetic reporters? — for the Los Angeles Times put it, "(T)eens are still waiting for a sign that their elders get it."*


Bold mine.

Curious, that. I'm still waiting for a sign that most adults get it...

In addition, this merely throws into sharp relief why 16 year olds shouldn't vote.


----------



## FeXL

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'



> A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has rejected the unscientific bases of the doom-mongering over a purported climate crisis. His work has not yet been picked up in this country, but that is about to change. Writing at the Australian site Quadrant, Tony Thomas introduces the English-speaking world to the truth-telling of Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (hat tip: Andrew Bolt, John McMahon).
> 
> There's a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry "Nonsense!"on the "global warming crisis" evident to climate modellers but not in the real world.​


More:



> But who are you going to believe: a superbly qualified Japanese scientist or a Swedish teenager with mental issues?


Questions, questions, questions.


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone paying attention.

America Is The Real Climate Hero: Natural Gas Has Helped Reduce US Emissions More Than Many Paris Signatories



> If the rest of the world would follow America’s lead and use more natural gas, the planet would be a much cleaner and wealthier place. Energy poverty is one of the great inhibitors of economic development across the globe and for the wealthy nations to lecture poor nations to use wind and solar power is to deny them the path to better and healthier lives.


----------



## FeXL

Carbon Dioxide Known Only Since 1930



> Thousands of children skipped school last week to march in the streets and demand government action about the hypothetical threat that human industrial activity will change the Earth's climate. It would have been better if the students had stayed in school and learned something about real science.


Yeppers.


----------



## wonderings

FeXL said:


> Carbon Dioxide Known Only Since 1930
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers.


I am pretty sure they are teaching global warming as a fact and not looking at scientists from both sides of the table. A shame that even in schools there is some agenda rather than being taught to think critically.


----------



## FeXL

wonderings said:


> A shame that even in schools there is some agenda rather than being taught to think critically.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## FeXL

Further on decades of failed climate prognostications.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions



> Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.
> 
> None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
> 
> What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.
> 
> More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.
> 
> While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.


----------



## FeXL

Michael E Mann, Loser and Liar ...and Scofflaw and Deadbeat?



> Doctor Fraudpants then issued a statement in which, as I noted, he denied that he had lost at all. Mann's statement (curiously presented to the world as "our statement", although it is obviously not the work of lawyers or anyone else but him alone) contained multiple falsehoods, but also a bit of unfinished business:
> 
> The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.​
> The thirty-day deadline has passed. So there will be no appeal, and Mr Justice Giaschi's dismissal of Mann's case stands: Ball has won, Mann has lost. Period.
> 
> Oh, wait. Before the period, Mann has to write in the dollar amount:
> 
> The provision in the Court's order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball's legal fees.​
> As I explained last time, he might not be on the hook for every penny, but, per His Lordship's order and under the applicable rules in the British Columbia courts, he will certainly be paying a significant proportion of them. The first interview with Dr Ball since his decisive court victory in Vancouver contains this intriguing tidbit:
> 
> The judge in the Mann-v-Ball case ruled that the defeated Mann must pay Ball's legal costs, which are in excess of US$700.000. But Mann has already indicated he won't pay.​
> If the above number is correct, Doctor Fraudpants is on the hook for a hefty six-figure sum.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## SINC

Goose eggs: No climate doomsday warning has come true

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...b2Fm-vfCWKACE4brfgaMF3WwdpB1KqnwpFgzPXYbCpR4M


----------



## FeXL

Horrifying: Media and Climate Hoaxers (But I Repeat Myself) Report That Literally Everywhere on Earth is Warming at Twice the Rate of the Rest of the Earth



> If that headline doesn't make sense, well, no it doesn't, but the media and climate hoaxers have been pumping out a huge number of "stories" and "studies" claiming that literally everywhere on earth is warming faster than the rest of the earth.
> 
> I assume they do this so they can target one country's population with the propaganda that _Country X is Warming at Twice the Rate of the Rest of the Earth_ as well as targeting Country Y and Country Z with the same basic story.
> 
> The scam works so long as people don't see they're running this game with every country as country X.
> 
> But what happens when someone does start searching for this type of story, and then collects up all the nonsensical claims that everywhere on earth is warming faster than the rest of the earth?
> 
> After going through many headlines today, I've learned that that the entire planet is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet.
> 
> Please disregard all my previous tweets debunking climate change. I'm now a believer.https://t.co/UA6ZRJZo77
> — Natalia Mateo (@Natalia01Mateo) October 2, 2019​


----------



## FeXL

Just one?

The Problem with 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'



> The IPCC believes that rising anthropogenic CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity; if the ocean can't absorb excess CO2, it remains trapped in the atmosphere with nowhere to go. As climate physicist Edwin X. Berry pointed out (2019), if this were true, concentration of atmospheric CO2 would be many times higher than it is now, given average CO2 variation across geological and evolutionary timescales. The IPCC apparently believes that anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 have the same molecular formulas but different molecular structures, a preposterous assumption that violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
> 
> *The most accurate models always supply us with an explanation that best fits the data. Berry's simple mathematical model "shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow." After nuclear testing during the 1950s and '60s, there was a temporary accumulation of C14 in the atmosphere, which eventually dissipated after 1970. In order for the Bern model to be correct, this man-made CO14 would have remained trapped in the atmosphere. The data show this to be false, forcing us to conclude that Berry's "physics model" is the most accurate explanation.*


Yep, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

A new Big Bang is brewing – unimpeded climate activists are assuming control and demanding a truly impossible energy transition. Things are about to get wild



> Make no mistake, we are mere steps from anarchy. Witness this week’s XR traffic tactics, in particular the one in Edmonton. Nine activists, might have been ten but I get nauseous when I look at the footage, marched out onto a major bridge and shut it down just before rush hour. Fewer than a dozen people accomplished this. The astounding part was what happened when the police arrived some time later. *In a scarcely believable scene, the handful of officers guarded the protesters, later proudly stating that they had “negotiated a stand down” half an hour earlier than the protesters had wanted.*
> 
> Extinction Rebellion must have been dancing their dreadlocks off back at headquarters. The tiny group brought a significant section of the capital city to a halt, and not only were they not arrested or even chastised, they had the police eating out of their hands. They “settled” by cutting off their protest a bit earlier than hoped, and in a move that truly boggles the mind, the Edmonton police noted the goodwill of the protesters, how they actually packed up a few minutes earlier than agreed upon. Doesn’t that just melt your heart, the magnanimity of that little horde of hijackers?


Bold mine...


----------



## FeXL

Kids just won't know what snow is...

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Fever



> 1:32 PM, 10/24: Another round of moderate #thundersnow with near #whiteout conditions has arrived in #Amarillo, #Texas. Be careful when driving in the Texas Panhandle if caught in one of these #snow bands. #phwx #txwx pic.twitter.com/aOA7cHLsqc
> 
> — Stephen Bieda III (@DrWildcatWx) October 24, 2019
> 
> North Dakota? Nope, this is Canyon, Texas (near Amarillo) today. Snow beginning to accumulate with reduced visibility due to the strong winds.
> 
> 📸: @PaintCornersPod pic.twitter.com/kTKF8TpCg1
> 
> — Christopher Nunley, Ph.D. (@chrisnunley) October 24, 2019​


Comments hilarious. Interesting links, as well.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Frozen Food



> It’s probably nothing.


(21 minute vid)


----------



## FeXL

Y2KYoto: The Planet Has A Fever



> COLDTOBER … Vancouver breaks 103-year-old temperature record as arctic front continues … Chicago gets earliest snowfall in 30 years … Utah sees record cold of -43.6 ºF … Denver Weather: Another Record Broken …


But, but, but...GLOBULL WARMING!!!


----------



## FeXL

Holding her bref until she turns blue.

Greta Thunberg Calls on Facebook to Censor Her Critics



> The celebrated Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has threatened to quit Facebook if the social media platform refuses to silence her critics.
> 
> “I am, like many others, questioning whether I should keep using Facebook or not,” Thunberg wrote in a Facebook post last week. “Allowing hate speech, the lack of fact-checking and, of course, the issues of interfering with democracy… are among many, many other things that are very upsetting.”
> 
> “The constant lies and conspiracy theories about me and countless others, of course, result in hate, death threats and ultimately violence. This could easily be stopped if Facebook wanted to. *I find the lack of taking responsibility very disturbing,” she added.*


Bold mine.

The iron...


----------



## FeXL

The Australian Bureau of Met hides 50 years of very hot days



> The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has not only disappeared the Very Hot Days graph but they have wiped out thousands of 40 plus hot days in the years from 1910 – 1963 — years when almost all temperatures in Australia were recorded on Stevenson screens by trained officials under the central management of the Bureau. Volunteer, Chris Gillham, found the data and the changes between ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 and created this transformative graph below.
> 
> 1952 had more hot days than any year since. Not any more. All those poor sods in 1952 who endured an average twenty one 40-degree-plus days will find now that it wasn’t really that hot. The BoM is like an air conditioner that cools the country 70 years in the past. And it’s only a million dollars a day…


More:



> Chris Gillham also tested the effect of the latest secret ACORN 2 changes on the “old century” 100F cut off, and found, remarkably that there were more “hotter-than-100″ days in the raw data in the first half of last century. All that global warming eh? You’ll be shocked I tell you, shocked, to find that the BOMs latest adjustments change that trend from a fairly stable one to … an increase.


----------



## FeXL

You simply cannot fix stupid...

Climate Idiot: NY Gov. Cuomo Says There Were No Hurricanes Before Global Warming



> Maybe he was just trying to protect his baby brother because today he said something so stupid, that Andrew Cuomo must have taken the family Fredo title from his brother Chris.* Appearing on MSNBC on Friday, Gov. Cuomo declared there were no hurricanes or tornadoes before global warming.*
> 
> Notice the anchors didn’t push back?


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

As #COP25 has officially been moved from Santiago to Madrid I’ll need some help.



> It turns out I’ve traveled half around the world, the wrong way Now I need to find a way to cross the Atlantic in November... If anyone could help me find transport I would be so grateful.


Well, Greta, I know Juthdin has some fine, taxpayer-funded canoes in bright Liberal red...


----------



## FeXL

Why COP25 was cancelled in Chile & moved to Spain.

Expensive Climate Policies Sparked Chile Riots and #COP25 climate conference cancellation



> Climate activists and the United Nations are suffering a major black eye this week as protests and riots resulting from high energy prices have erupted in Santiago, Chile.
> 
> Chile, which will host a major U.N. climate conference in December, earned praise from climate activists for recently imposing a carbon dioxide tax on conventional energy sources and switching the Santiago Metro system to renewable power. Now, the people of Chile are rising up and firing a shot across the bow of other nations considering similar energy taxes and expensive renewable energy programs.


----------



## FeXL

Climate change freight train accelerating, the bridge is out, and Lord of the Flies children calling the shots. Nothing to do but enjoy the scenery until the climate masterplan blows sky high

Let's head right to the punch line:



> This incredible, dumbfounding, global **** show will not stop until a major catastrophe occurs. Fuel supplies will be strangled and people will freeze to death, or mass power outages from unreliable power sources like wind and solar will lead to some sort of humanitarian disaster. And the youth will rise up and shout that we need to try harder, and the cycle will repeat, until the dead bodies are piled sufficiently high for the light bulbs to start going on in these young minds, the first suspicions that maybe they’ve been lied to.
> 
> All we can do is sit back and watch the tragedy unfold.


----------



## eMacMan

> This incredible, dumbfounding, global **** show will not stop until a major catastrophe occurs. Fuel supplies will be strangled and people will freeze to death, or mass power outages from unreliable power sources like wind and solar will lead to some sort of humanitarian disaster. And the youth will rise up and shout that we need to try harder, and the cycle will repeat, until the dead bodies are piled sufficiently high for the light bulbs to start going on in these young minds, the first suspicions that maybe they’ve been lied to.
> 
> All we can do is sit back and watch the tragedy unfold.



Uh no. Our incredibly wise conmen chiefs have banned real light bulbs.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Uh no. Our incredibly wise conmen chiefs have banned real light bulbs.


No longer banned in the U.S.


----------



## FeXL

Formula 1 champ Lewis Hamilton flies 200 times/yr by private jet, goes vegan to save the planet, then lectures leaders who “don’t care about the environment” – is climate dialogue possible when no one considers that crazy?



> When a Formula 1 champion, who moves more by private jet than by car any other mode, lectures the world about how it needs to do a better job of caring for the environment, we have reached a point of discourse that is detached from reality. It’s hard to see a constructive path forward that doesn’t end in some sort of conflict.


Yep. And, from the comments:



> What this maroon doesn’t say is that “his industry” i.e. Motor Sports – are a large contributor to CO2 production. None of those engines meet EPA standards for anything let alone CO2, so shut down Formula One, Nascar, Stock Car, Indy Car and Formula E – and don’t forget to close down all those kids go-kart tracks! Once you are on a roll go for the motorcycle racing and all the various boat races too with the exception of sailboats of course, but they must all have their auxiliary engines removed. Not only would that reduce a huge chunk off useless CO2 production but he wouldn’t have to fly anywhere ever again! After all isn’t the Green New Deal going to get rid of all gas powered cars in 10 years – that would include his Formula One car too right – or is he special and exempt?


Once again, when these Fruits Loops & Whacko's begin practicing what they preach, I'll consider them serious. Until then...


----------



## FeXL

The Greta Effect



> We have a successor!
> 
> 30°F as high Tuesday in Nashville might occur in ~30 minutes at midnight … destroying record for coldest high temp. (Also, earliest coldest high in winter season.) pic.twitter.com/7OOwMV4bRW
> 
> — Ryan (@RyanMaue) November 12, 2019​


----------



## FeXL

Nasty Democrat Blob Mazie Hirono: You Must Believe in the Cult of Global Warming Like It's a Religion, Not a Science



> Well, she's right about what it is.
> 
> Her advice that you should join this admitted cult is wrong, of course.
> 
> During her speech, Hirono encouraged Americans to leave their "comfort zone," and protest for left-wing issues. She also said that Americans should view climate change as more of a religion than a science.
> 
> ...
> 
> "Get people to -- out to vote so that we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights and environmental rights, climate change, *believe in climate change as though it’s a religion and not a science*, and all the things that remains to be done and there’s a lot," She said.​


M'bold.

Sound advice...


----------



## FeXL

It’s Probably Nothing



> International Sunspot Number


----------



## FeXL

But, but, but...GLOBULL WARMING!!!

Ruthless cold breaks dozens of long-lasting records in major cities throughout the East



> *Temperatures in several major cities fell this week to lows not seen since the Taft Administration, shattering dozens of records as a bone-chilling cold front swept through the eastern half of the United States. As a punishing wave of January-esque Arctic air brought dangerously cold conditions, some cities had low-temperature records that hadn't plunged that low in more than 100 years.*
> 
> Before Tuesday and Wednesday's jarring cold, many cities around the country had record low temperatures that were set in 1911. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), that storm shocked half of the nation with an incredible variance in temperature.


Yeah, my bold.


----------



## FeXL

Caught a blurb on this last night on the tube. Wondered how long it would take for Globull Warming to be blamed.

Y2Kyoto: Submergence Of Venice



> @RyanMaue – I knew something was off when Venice’s mayor immediately blamed climate change for his city’s flooding. *After the 1966 flooding, an infrastructure project called Moses was planned to hold back 53 years later it still hasn’t been finished.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Everything You Hear About Billion-Dollar Disasters Is Wrong



> The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) counts the number of disasters in the United States that result in losses of greater than $1 billion, starting in 1980. Over the past three decades that count has shown a sharp increase, from five or less such disasters each year in the decade of the 1980s to ten or more in each of the past 4 years.
> 
> That increase must be due to climate change, right? Actually, no. The billion-dollar disaster tally is easy to understand, simple to communicate, but—regrettably—incredibly misleading and just plain bad economics.


Well, he gets it half right. I'll let the reader figger out which half is BS.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: 11,000 “Scientists” Say We’re All Gonna Die! Oh My!



> It’s a real _who’s who_.
> 
> ...
> 
> Update: It’s no Mickey Mouse organization. Oh, wait…


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: The Planet Has A Fever



> It’s not the lowest elevation on the planet but -35C at 50deg latitude in mid November. *Getting rediculous and no news coverage*. pic.twitter.com/HTKpu1yVNY
> 
> — Syn Kronos (@KronosSyn) November 16, 2019​


Bold mine.

Can't allow the narrative to be questioned...


----------



## FeXL

Put down the pitchforks – CO2-removing tech will succeed before the world even formulates a plan to stop using petroleum products



> Human ingenuity is rising to the perceived challenge of climate change. if governments can scrape together enough wisdom (a tall order, I know) to put their full weight behind these efforts, we may be spared from whatever type of war that we are headed for as Luddites keep trying to smash energy machines with no realistic alternative to replace them.


I'm with Frances in the comments:



> We already have many, many CO2 removal devices. They’re called plants.


Yeppers...


----------



## eMacMan

OK so we know for a certainty that the Cataclysmic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist crowd is pretty much devoid of either math skills or awareness of scientific methods. This is without a doubt due to the New Math and Science by Consensus curriculum currently being pimped in our schools. Nor would I expect to sway that crowd from their profoundly held religious beliefs. After all the same lamestream media which promotes never ending war, blatantly lies about 9/11, bought the Christopher Steele dossier for several million... continually assures us that the CO2 generated by man is entirely responsible for any global warming ever seen.

For those who a appreciate a far more rigorous approach to the study of climate drivers, this video while long is well worth your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ


----------



## FeXL

The Sound Of Settled Science



> Mapping the Medieval Warm Period;
> 
> About 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit […]
> 
> Surprisingly, the media have not picked up on this important issue. Maybe because the information is hidden in small print on page 415 of the voluminous report and omitted in the Summary for Policy Makers? The implications of the mismatch of model vs. reality may be serious: It is common practice in all fields of modeling to test models first on existing data, i.e. a known development, before using them as predictive tools. Models first have to pass the ‚hind cast‘ or ‚history match‘ before they qualify to be used for predictions. According to the IPCC, the climate models seem to have failed this test, appear to be on the road without driving license – so to speak – and are therefore unfit for future climate predictions.​


Comments salient:



> I have always said that I could never bring myself to accept the notion that CO2 is the earth’s “thermostat” until somebody explains why Greenland was warm enough for Lief Erickson and his buddies to farm there for about 400 years before it got cold again, and that whatever caused it to be that warm then cannot possibly occur again. And I always note that polar bears didn’t just evolve after it got cold after the MWP, which means that they must have survived in the absence of ice.


----------



## FeXL

Google search manipulations show power and skill of climate activists at silencing dialogue and creating division



> Besides the data gathering, Google has become insidious in the way it is gamed by very clever people. Sometimes that’s just the way marketing works, and the onus is on us to realize that we are being marketed to. In other ways though, the distortions are much more nasty and devious especially when our familiarity with the search engine leads us to trust it. That is not a good idea.


DuckDuckGo


----------



## FeXL

It's been a long time since I visited the Chiefio's site.

Well That’s A Problem



> Looks to me like pretty much everything “Out West” gets hammered with snow and wind and rain and Oh My! I’ve bolded some bits in the below quote.


More:



> I think we’re about to get a “taster” of what is in store in the Grand Solar Minimum we are entering.
> 
> Global Warming, this isn’t.


Kids just won't know what snow is!!!


----------



## SINC

Too much doubt for my liking to swallow the climate bull sheet.

*European Parliament Told: There Is No Climate Emergency*

https://climatechangedispatch.com/e...Yoc_G4US_4UJC1G90ZQxlGoWHT-njg5Ywan0cJkLtH3JU


----------



## FeXL

Kids just won't know what snow is!!!

Snow emergency declared in Minneapolis as storm buries central US



> Mother Nature dished a hearty helping of snow to a swath of the central United States just one day before Thanksgiving, causing major disruptions for last-minute travelers.
> 
> A general 5 to 10 inches of snow fell from central Nebraska through northern Wisconsin from Tuesday through Wednesday morning with a few spots being buried in over a foot of powder.


More:



> This comes just one day after the same storm unloaded over 30 inches of snow in parts of Colorado.


I've shovelled about 8" of global warming off my driveway & sidewalks since yesterday morning.


----------



## FeXL

Apocalypse Deferred



> This discussion with Mark Steyn is the only time Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, and Anthony Watts have appeared together on stage. It occurred while on the Alaskan Mark Steyn Club Cruise in September.~cr
> 
> From Mark Steyn online.
> 
> Joining me for the discussion were three people at the forefront of pushing back against Michael E Mann and his fellow warm-mongers: Anthony Watts, proprietor of the world’s Number One climate website, WattsUpWithThat; and the dynamic duo that broke Mann’s hockey stick, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.​


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: That Was The Moment That The Rise Of The Oceans Began To Slow



> Prepare yourself to be shocked.
> 
> Remember when President Barack Obama was running around telling everyone how he’d convinced China to get serious about cutting its carbon dioxide emissions? *A new report shows that Obama was easily duped.*
> 
> 
> Over the course of three years, Obama met with Chinese President Xi Jinping to, he said, agree to “climate targets” (in 2014), “lay out additional actions” (in 2015), and sign the Paris Agreement (2016). […]
> 
> 
> Worse, even before Obama made his boast it was clear that China’s state-controlled emissions data were unreliable. In late 2015 it came to light that the country had far more coal plants that it had admitted, and as a result had been emitting a billion tons more CO2 that it officially proclaimed. A report in Skeptical Science last year notes that CO2 emissions for China still “aren’t known with any accuracy.”
> 
> In other words, while Obama wanted the U.S. to actually cut emissions, neither he nor anyone else in the industrialized world knew what China was up to, other than what it claimed.
> 
> Now a new study shows that while China was telling Obama that it was taking bold steps on climate change, it was business as usual inside the Middle Kingdom.​
> It’s hard to understand the “long view” Chinese. The act as though they think the whole climate emergency thing is just a gigantic fraud.


Bold mine.

It's a shocka, alright...


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Claim: More Blockbuster Snowstorms, Less Snow



> Climate scientists struggling to reconcile model predictions of the end of snow with the observed abundance of white stuff have come up with a way to predict more and less snow at the same time.
> 
> ...
> 
> Let’s hope global warming is halted in time to prevent the East Coast from being buried under a permanent snowpack.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL

Pelosi Flying out with Democrats to U.N. Climate Meeting in Spain



> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will fly out Sunday with a large delegation of congressional Democrats heading 3,781 miles across the Atlantic to the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid.
> 
> A key element of the conference will seek to place financial penalties on global commercial aviation to stop people flying and making “unnecessary contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution.” The Pelosi delegation will join almost 25,000 people and 1500 journalists flying into the Spanish capital to attend the meeting.


Question: For those of you who believe in this Globull Warming hogwash, how many tons of CO2 is being emitted directly into the atmosphere by all the aircraft carrying these hypocrites, & how does that square with your belief system?

Askin' for a friend...


----------



## Beej

A reminder that the media and environmental activists are grossly over-stating their case.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...y-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#5b7eba5412d6



> Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.


The induced panic underway has little to do with climate science. We didn't have this kind of mad response to poor air quality in the 70s and 80s, yet managed to reduce the pollution plus add millions more cars to the road. Stop being crazy, environmentalists and media doomsters.


----------



## Macfury

The Weather Network website is one of the worst offenders. It refers constantly to problems caused by "man-made climate change." At one point, they allowed comments, which generally disagreed with their claims, but they routinely scrubbed any comment that challenged the story. They eventually killed comments altogether. A recent headline claimed that the death of some sort of island rat was the first extinction caused by "man-made climate change." The rats were not native to the island, nor a unique breed. The culprit: native sea birds and sea turtles had destroyed the ground cover, killing the 10 or 20 rats remaining there. That seems like a relatively good environmental story --the resurgence of native species. Instead, they blamed humans for some vague problem that caused the death of the rats.


----------



## FeXL

Beej said:


> A reminder that the media and environmental activists are grossly over-stating their case.


Journalists, activists & the Progressive left (BIRM) have no, zero, interest in accuracy or honesty. Until they have the entire planet running around with their hair on fire, they will continue to promulgate the bull$h!t.


----------



## FeXL

Defamation Case Against National Review by Climate Change Advocate Proceeds



> The Supreme Court ruled that a defamation case against the magazine _National Review_, filed by a known proponent of “global warming,” will be allowed to continue *after seven years*, as reported by _The Epoch Times_.
> 
> The case involves Michael Mann, most famous for producing a graph that, in its depiction of an alleged spike in global temperatures in recent years, was compared to a hockey stick. After _National Review_ accused Mann of “misconduct” and “manipulation” of data in producing the chart, Mann sued the magazine for defamation.


Bold mine.

So much for swift justice...


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Postcards From A Fevered Planet



> You-know-what is freezing to the sidewalks: _San Francisco ties record-breaking cold temps set in 1896_


Yeah, so much for Globull Warming...


----------



## FeXL

Though Her District is an Environmental Disaster, Pelosi Heads to a Climate Change Junket in Spain



> Legal Insurrection readers will recall that President Donald Trump’s EPA has slammed San Francisco, which includes the 12th District of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, with potential environmental violations over its handling of sewage and wastewater.
> 
> However, instead of cleaning up the mess in her district, Pelosi is heading off to Spain for a climate change junket.


----------



## FeXL

So, for those of you who worship the Globull Warming gods, how much of peoplekind's CO2 "savings" did this minor eruption just nullify?

Asking for a friend...

Volcano Erupts In New Zealand



> Tourists, climate targets hardest hit.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> So, for those of you who worship the Globull Warming gods, how much of peoplekind's CO2 "savings" did this minor eruption just nullify?
> 
> Asking for a friend...
> 
> Volcano Erupts In New Zealand



'Twas only a little burp but I'm sure it easily offset all the carbon savings The Great Goreacle generated by flying hither and yon in a private aircraft. Not to mention all those idling limos waiting to whisk him safely away from rational inquiries.


----------



## FeXL

Sunspot update Nov 2019: The longest flatline in centuries



> he Sun is now in what appears to be the longest stretch ever recorded, since the 11-year solar sunspot cycle reactivated in the 1700s after the last grand minimum, of sunspot inactivity. This record-setting dearth of practically no sunspots has now stretched to six months in a row.


Now, correlation does not equal causation. That said:



> And as I have noted repeatedly in the past decade in these monthly sunspot updates, the arrival of a new grand minimum, the first since the 1600s, could have important consequences for our climate. *Past grand minimums have been accompanied by a cooling climate. In the 1600s they called it the Little Ice Age, with failed crops and some years with no summers at all.
> 
> At the moment we do not know the link between these two events (a grand minimum and a cooling climate).* There is evidence that lack of activity allows more cosmic rays to hit the upper atmosphere, which produces more cloud cover which repels sunlight, thus causing the climate to cool. This theory has not been confirmed however. A new grand minimum will allow scientists to find out, however.
> 
> If we find that a lack of sunspot activity does cool the climate, then every climate model predicting a coming age of global warming will turn out to be very wrong. And those models have not been very right so far.


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

Lord Monckton At COP25 Madrid



> Just gotta luv it when Lord Monckton rips them to their faces…
> 
> Full or a lot of subtile bits that I need to ponder again. Especially the formulas where he says they got their math wrong and the greenhouse effect is very tiny as a result.


----------



## FeXL

I got no love for Exxon. I refuse to buy their product stateside or even anything from Esso in Canada. 

That said, hooray!

Exxon Found 'Not Guilty' in Politically Motivated Climate Change Suit



> The state of New York sued American oil giant Exxon Mobile for withholding the "true costs" of climate change from investors. In fact, the charges used to be much broader when the suit was filed by the New York attorney general 4 years ago. At that time, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman claimed that Exxon knew about the impact of climate change but failed to inform shareholders.
> 
> But even the reduced charges didn't fly with the judge. New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager not only ruled that Exxon did not mislead investors, but that the AG office lied about producing investors as witnesses who had actually been harmed by the company's "lies."


----------



## FeXL

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Y2Kyoto: Live From The UN Climate Action Summit



> The UN decided to hide the diesel generators this year. It's about 3°C, so they can't do without them, they just don't want you to know. pic.twitter.com/GqOWbzE9oQ
> 
> — Keean Bexte 🇨🇦🇭🇰 (@TheRealKeean) December 10, 2019​


----------



## FeXL

Millions of Years Ago, the Poles Moved — And It Could Have Triggered an Ice Age



> Geologists at Rice University have uncovered evidence that suggests Earth’s spin axis was in a different spot millions of years ago, a phenomenon called “true polar wander.” The change, which occurred sometime in the past 12 million years, would have shifted Greenland further up into the Arctic Circle – which may have contributed to the onset of the last major Ice Age, 3.2 million years ago.


But, but, but... CO2!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FeXL

Not a surprise to anyone paying attention...

Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise



> Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
> 
> The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
> 
> But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.


More:



> The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”
> 
> *That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.*


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL

See that upward trend?

Me, neither.

Y2Kyoto: Blown Away

50 years of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and what do we see? A downward trend...


----------



## FeXL

Brexit Done -- Now for Clexit



> Thanks to Boris Johnson, Brexit will now occur. And thanks to Donald Trump, the U.S. has formally exited from the destructive Paris Climate agreement. And the UN alarmists made little progress at the big climate-fest in Madrid.
> 
> It’s now time for Clexit (Climate Exit) - the great climate escape from all UN/IPCC alarmism and entanglements. Australia should join this rush for the exits.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Don’t Eat The Tinned Meat!



> _…the two ‘explorers’ refuse to leave the vessel by helicopter, probably as it destroys the narrative of their journey._


Hilarious.

As is the first comment:



> Lance says:
> December 19, 2019 at 3:53 pm
> 
> They could walk back….we know this is safe, as there are no more polar bears!


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Nails it.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Y2Kyoto: Don’t Eat The Tinned Meat!
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> As is the first comment:
> 
> 
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Nails it.


Actual story here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12...eveloping-into-a-silly-case-of-poor-planning/

Hey it's only 80kms with a blizzard moving in. They should have no problem hoofing it, unless of course Darwin chooses to sit in.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Up In Smoke



> Oh, there’s lots of people who have plenty to show for it — it just happens none of them are us.
> 
> Alarming @NRCan study says there's little to show for $269M in #ClimateChange subsidies to green tech. Solution: more subsidies! https://t.co/7cjmsHGzgy #cdnpoli #Titanic #iceberg pic.twitter.com/xongnMSWFY
> 
> — Blacklock's Reporter (@mindingottawa) December 18, 2019​
> But wait! There’s more!
> 
> *Canadian federal agency invests $141M in China’s coal industry.* Because #ClimateEmergency. @cppib #HongKong #cdnpoli https://t.co/cWXuRBeNCU pic.twitter.com/EGtNpo28OB
> 
> — Holly Doan (@hollyanndoan) December 18, 2019​
> Because… one must keep the benefactors happy.


Bold mine.

F'ing Prog hypocrites...


----------



## FeXL

Globull Warming!!!

Canada Will Hit With -65 C This February And Will Be Coldest Place On Earth



> According to The Weather Network, Canada is going to be even colder than Antarctica and the North Pole next month as temperatures will drop to -65C with windchill values.
> 
> Over the next month, Canada will experience one of the most extreme temperature anomalies on the planet, TWN reports.


More:



> Environment Canada has issued extreme cold weather warnings for a total of eight provinces today: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick. This means that more than half of the Canadian provinces are expected to experience extreme cold temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: I’ll Miss The Greenland Ice Sheets



> *Update: preliminary data at Summit Station, Greenland from Thursday, Jan 2, 2020 showed all-time record low temperature of -86°F.*
> 
> The station spent much of yesterday stuck in the -80°s 🌡 https://t.co/M6RMxKCOpg pic.twitter.com/kLKtgBOUas
> 
> — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) January 3, 2020​


Bold mine.

No worries. By the time the Globull Warming acolytes get that ol' record low temperature transmogrified & "adjusted", it'll be a few points shy of the boiling point...


----------



## FeXL

How Greens Made Australia’s Bushfires Worse



> Australia is on fire, at least 17 people have been killed, hundreds of homes have been destroyed, and an estimated half-billion animals — both livestock and wildlife — have been burned alive.
> 
> The area burned in the bush fires so far is six billion hectares — six times the area burned in last year’s Amazon rainforest fires and 60 times the area burned in California.


More:



> So, to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This is not — repeat *NOT* — a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.
> 
> There is, nonetheless, a good reason to believe that the stupidity and irresponsibility of man are at least partly to blame for this disaster — just not quite in the way that the left-liberal MSM and the green wankerati would have you believe.


----------



## FeXL

Yet one more child Climate Expert!!!

Move over Greta Thunberg — there is a new child climate change 'expert' in town



> On Thursday's episode of "Pat Gray Unleashed," Pat Gray discussed the latest climate change "expert," Francisco Javier Vera, a 10-year-old leading Columbia's climate fight, and following in the footsteps of climate change activist Greta Thunberg.


:clap::clap::clap:

Precisely what the Globull Warmists need to shore up their argument!


----------



## eMacMan

Nothing that will come to any surprise except the most faithful followers of the Great Goreacle.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...flames-along-with-the-australian-bush-country

I still think had Danielle avoided that brain fart inspired tango with Prentice, she would be Alberta's Premier.



> Self-professed climate change skeptic Tony Heller’s most recent video starts with this: Australian experts declared a permanent drought in 2008, and two years later there was flooding so intense it actually caused the sea level to fall. Heller says “alternating flood and drought in Australia is not climate change, it is their normal weather.” And he presents a chart going back to 1789 to prove it. Heller says the reason people like to think that man is causing disasters is “it makes them feel very powerful to believe they can control the climate.”
> 
> The most recent Australian bush fires are indeed caused by man, but not in the way you might think. Scientist David Packham warned five years ago that failed fire management policy caused by “misguided green ideology” had caused forest fuel levels to climb to their most dangerous level in thousands of years and would cause devastation when it ignited. In addition, as of this writing, police have taken action against 183 people for deliberately or carelessly setting fires, including laying charges against 24 for arson.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Drove through GNP last fall. Glaciers were still there!

The telling tale of Glacier National Park’s ‘gone by 2020’ signs



> Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions.
> 
> This rookie error has been the undoing of charlatans, cultists and false prophets through the ages, from Martin of Tours, who predicted that the world would end by 400, to Harold Camping, who claimed it would happen on Sept. 6, 1994.
> 
> The latest poor saps to join the oops club are the authorities in charge of Montana’s Glacier National Park. For years they’ve been warning on their visitor signs that their main attraction, the glaciers, would be “gone by 2020.” Instead, it’s those misleading signs that have had to go, because 2020 has now arrived and those pesky glaciers, all 29 of them, remain stubbornly unmelted by climate change.


----------



## eMacMan

I notice the CAGWa club has been totally silent as the temps drop into the -30s and -40s.

I wonder if they turned their heat down so low that their computers have frozen solid???


----------



## FeXL

eMacMan said:


> I wonder if they turned their heat down so low that their computers have frozen solid???


Nope. Their brains...


----------



## FeXL

Kids won't know what snow is!

Bomb cyclone buries St. John's, delivers new snowfall record



> Many residents of Newfoundland opened their doors Friday and Saturday to find a wall of snow trapping them within their own home. One family opened their garage door to find the snow piled up to more than half of the entrance. Another family opened the door for their dog, who began climbing and digging through the snow.
> 
> The storm system that had slammed the northeastern United States earlier in the week with strong winds, snowfall and lake-effect squalls exploded into a bomb cyclone on Friday after tracking into the Atlantic Ocean. The storm set its sights on portions of Atlantic Canada.


Brutal storm dumps wintry mix on northeastern interstates before moving offshore



> Lingering snow across northern New England will gradually wind down on Sunday as snow showers and squalls remain across the Great Lakes.
> 
> Motorists were faced with travel difficulties during the long holiday weekend as snow and ice created treacherous driving conditions across the Northeast in cities such as Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston.
> 
> New York City Emergency Management issued a Travel Advisory for Saturday as a Winter Weather Advisory took effect in the city.


----------



## FeXL

Rex Murphy: We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:



> _Recent news report: Thanks to the recent deep freeze in North America, Calgary Zoo had to take extreme measures to protect its animals from the weather — including even the most naturally cold-resistant (animals on earth), the zoo’s king penguins. Michelle Starr, ScienceAlert_
> 
> It’s good to see the carbon (dioxide) tax is working so effectually. Especially in areas out West, where it is most critically needed. The Prairie provinces in particular have for years, decades, even earlier been plagued by severely milquetoast weather during the winter season — weather described by more than one hardy farmer as “one parka, no mittens” days.
> 
> If you live in the tough northern regions of any of those provinces, a single parka is known as the Prairie swimsuit. “What’s the point of winter without icicles from your eyebrows and hoarfrost on the morning cornflakes?” asks more than one disappointed Westerner.


On a related note...

Had a chinook move in locally yesterday. Temps jumped from -24 to +5 in about 7 hours.  For those of you ignorant on the subject, they are caused by warm _winds_ blowing in from the Pacific. _Winds_, people.

The local weather forecast? They called the chinook, they got the temperature rise more or less accurate but they were significantly off in the wind prediction. They called for 14 kph winds with gust up to 21 kph. Absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who has weathered a single chinook in southern Alberta will tell you flat out the wind blows like a bugger during a chinook. You don't need a goofy computer program to erroneously tell you otherwise. At any rate, later on they adjusted their forecast to 21/64 kph.

The reason I address this is that, with these self-same models, forecasters claim they can predict weather 50, a hunnert years out. All this when they can't even accurately predict 4 hours hence.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Rex Murphy: We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!
> 
> :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
> 
> On a related note...
> 
> Had a chinook move in locally yesterday. Temps jumped from -24 to +5 in about 7 hours. For those of you ignorant on the subject, they are caused by warm _winds_ blowing in from the Pacific. _Winds_, people.
> 
> The local weather forecast? They called the chinook, they got the temperature rise more or less accurate but they were significantly off in the wind prediction. They called for 14 kph winds with gust up to 21 kph. Absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who has weathered a single chinook in southern Alberta will tell you flat out the wind blows like a bugger during a chinook. You don't need a goofy computer program to erroneously tell you otherwise. At any rate, later on they adjusted their forecast to 21/64 kph.
> 
> The reason I address this is that, with these self-same models, forecasters claim they can predict weather 50, a hunnert years out. All this when they can't even accurately predict 4 hours hence.


Yep locally they were predicting a high of -16°C, but that the winds would turn around and come from the west. Any idiot would know when that east wind reverses, then the temp is going to come way up. In our case it rose from -14°C to +2°C in less than an hour. Same hour as the wind started coming from the west. 

Anyways the CAGWA types are rejoicing and calling a somewhat weak Chinook proof of global warming.


----------



## FeXL

ZOMG We're All Gonna Die: 2019 Second-Hottest Year on Record (Except It Isn't)



> First I'll show you some very scary headlines. Then I'll give you a 20-pound salt lick to take them with.
> 
> • Earth just suffered through a new second hottest year on record.
> 
> • Scientists show 2019 was the second hottest year since 1850 as official figures reveal the past decade was the warmest in recorded human history.
> 
> • 2019 was likely Earth’s second-hottest year on record.
> 
> The weather is getting interesting, isn't it? And if you want me to define interesting, I'll just quote Hoban 'Wash' Washburn: "Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?"
> 
> No, we're not all going to die. According to the smartest sources in the world, we have literally _months_ before that's going to happen.


Whew!

'Cause I was gettin' worried there...


----------



## SINC

Yep, nails it!

Repeat After Me: Canada is Uninhabitable Without Fossil Fuels – David Yager

https://energynow.ca/2020/01/reality-check-canada-is-uninhabitable-without-fossil-fuels-david-yager/


----------



## FeXL

The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition



> It's those pesky facts again! The third world (or "The Developing World" if you like) produces the majority of the so-called global warming emissions, and also run much less efficiently, so by far the biggest bang for the whiny little SJWs who want to save Gaia from the depredations of rampant capitalism would be found in those countries.
> 
> But those countries also have robust systems to keep foreign criticism in check, and their populations sort of like the idea of entering the 21st century, with air conditioning and clean water and abundant power for those things that make life better. They are much more willing to look at Saint Greta of the scold and say, "LOLGF."
> Historian Slams Greta Thunberg: "I Don’t See Her in Beijing or Delhi"
> 
> “60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China… but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem… which is frustrating because it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter,” said Ferguson.
> 
> “If you’re serious about slowing CO2 emissions and temperatures rising it has to be China and India you constrain,” he added, noting that while Greta travels to New York and Davos, “*I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.*”​


Bold mine.

Nails it.


----------



## eMacMan

Interesting fear mongering tactics by the CAGWAs.
https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Crab-larvae-suffering-shell-damage-from-ocean-15001283.php

Note; the term acidification of the ocean, the intent is to make the reader believe the ocean is becoming dangerously and corrosively acidic.

Truth is the oceans are slightly alkaline with a ph of about 8.1. Mans CO2 contribution equaling .004% (or less) of the atmosphere will have an order of magnitude less impact than mother nature's inherent .04% CO2. 

Even then the ocean is not becoming corrosively acidic, just slightly less alkaline.

So why the fear mongering? Hey the CAGWAs are trying to get us schmucks to divert $25Trillion$ of our hard earned dollars to Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, the assorted Rothchilds, and all the other usual members of that cabal. That ain't gonna happen if you're thinking clearly! Hence the fear mongering.

Funny how that initial $3Trillion$ has escalated so rapidly. Proof positive that CAGWA is nothing but the worlds biggest con job.


----------



## FeXL

Good!

San Francisco Restaurants Adding “Climate Change” Surcharge to Bill



> Despite its reputation as a tourist draw, San Francisco saw more than 400 restaurants closed during 2019.
> 
> In 2019, many business owners found it too challenging to run their restaurants in a high-priced city. According to data gathered by Yelp, San Francisco had 411 restaurant closures between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31. In that time, some of the notable closures included Plouf, Rosamunde Sausage Grill, Dosa, and Famerbrown, which had 14 to 23 years in service. The elegant Jardinière, which opened in 1997 by chef-owner Traci Des Jardins, also bid farewell after 21 years.​


More:



> Well, it turns out that there may soon be another reason for diners to reconsider their eating options. *Some restaurants are adding a “climate change” surcharge to the bill.*
> 
> Diners at some of San Francisco most popular restaurants might notice a new line item on their bills this month, a one percent add-on that’s known as the Restore California surcharge — a fee that’s intended to assist in efforts against climate change.​


Bold mine.

As JJ Sefton at AoS The Morning Report noted:



> Side order of feces and needles is free...


Yeppers.


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming's 50 Years of Fraud



> The theory for those pushing the green new deal or some other radical energy policy that will destroy tens of millions of jobs and greatly harm the poor and middle class is that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels cause warming and climate change. This warming causes the ice to melt in Alaska, then the melting ice causes sea levels to rise and the rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to under water.
> 
> *They have predicted the coastal cities to disappear for the last 100 years and they have been wrong for 100 years.*


Bold mine.


----------



## eMacMan

Turns out Rex Murphy does great interviews. This one with Dr. Patrick Moore a founder of Greenpeace.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5nEboAQNcQ&feature=emb_title[/ame]


Sadly I am sure that none of our Goreshippers will bother to watch. They could learn a lot.


> Rex sits down with Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and an outspoken critic of the climate-change hysteria and eco-fanaticism which currently inundates politics, journalism, and academia. Dr. Moore talks about his adventures confronting Soviet and Japanese whaling ships, sailing across the ocean to stop nuclear bomb tests, advocating for Golden Rice (a GMO food for the poor), why he became disillusioned with Greenpeace’s mission, and the rampant untruths and myths surrounding global warming.


----------



## FeXL

Done!

Waste No Tears on the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri



> It’s a worthy saying, “Do not speak ill of the dead”, but I’ll make an exception for Dr Rajendra Pachauri. The chair of the IPCC for 13 years, to 2015, died at 79 last Thursday, January 13, of heart problems. He bugged out of the IPCC abruptly when a 29-year-old woman employed at his TERI think-tank called the cops about his sexual harassment for 15 months since almost the day she arrived there. He then used the labyrinths of the Indian court systems to stall the prosecutors for five years and ruin the life of his courageous young victim.


More:



> Apart from taking sexual advantage of his top-dog status at TERI and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, *Pachauri was a perjurer, an habitual liar and fantasist about the IPCC, a hypocrite, corrupt, and a non-scientist prepared to defame real scientists to cover his own and the IPCC’s gross bumbling.* All round, he was an exemplar of the carpet-baggers aboard the catastrophic-warming bandwagon, currently on a roll involving $US1.5 trillion global spending a year. This essay documents the above.


Bold mine.

Sounds like a Prog!


----------



## FeXL

Pew Research 2019 survey: ‘Climate Change’ Still Ranks As Low Priority – 17th place out of 18



> *Pew Research polling found: ‘Dealing with global warming’ ended up in second last place in 2007. Between 2008 and 2013, it ranked last (select a year and then ‘Overall’ here). Here’s what happened after that:
> 
> 2014: second last
> 
> 2015 second last
> 
> 2016 third last (the first year Pew began calling it ‘global climate change’)
> 
> 2017: second last (see bottom of the page)
> 
> 2018: second last
> 
> 2019 second last
> 
> Moral of the story: There has never been any evidence that climate change is a top concern for most Americans. This is not a crowd-pleaser or a vote-getter.*


From the results one can glean two things:
1) Sceptics are not concerned about Globull Warming;
2) Warmists may or may not be concerned about Globull Warming, but they are definitely _not_ interested in any life-altering actions. F'ing hypocrites...


----------



## FeXL

One teenage climate expert is just as good as another, right?

‘Anti-Greta’ Teenager Naomi Seibt To Confront Climate Extremists At CPAC



> America is about to be introduced to a climate change skeptic dubbed the “anti-Greta.”
> 
> Naomi Seibt, 19, will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC], this week where Donald Trump is the main speaker.


Hey, Bigot: Here's your chance to get even & make a sticker of your own...


----------



## SINC

*Canada’s “Climate Crisis” Is Entirely Political*



> It has been almost three decades since delegates from 172 countries met at the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that since then, the Earth’s atmospheric temperature has risen by an average of 0.03° Celsius per year. At that rate, the planet’s climate will warm by 2.4° by 2100. That’s a sizable amount over 80 years, but even if the planet warms exactly as forecast, it’s certainly not the “climate emergency” needed to galvanize people into making life-altering sacrifices such as giving up cars or air travel, moving en masse into “tiny homes” or switching to “eco-friendly” food.
> 
> Gradually warming temperatures are unlikely to persuade the mass of people to radically alter their lifestyles. They’ll need to be forced.
> 
> The answer to every climate activist’s prayer came in the form of Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg. Her transformation into the world’s pre-eminent climate-change warrior began in 2018 at the age of 15, with Fridays spent demonstrating outside the Swedish Parliament while gaining the attention of financially capable fellow warriors. Her carefully choreographed journey last year to New York by “zero-carbon” sailboat (in fact a rakish and well-equipped ultra-modern racing yacht, built largely out of petroleum products, with an expert crew who all had to be transported back home again) was timed to coincide with the UN Climate Action Summit, where she passionately delivered her apocalyptic “How dare you!” tirade heard around the world.
> 
> Impossible without oil: The “zero carbon” racing yacht that whisked Thunberg across the Atlantic is built almost entirely from petroleum products.
> 
> Here in Canada Thunberg’s performance inspired radicalized groups including “Extinction Rebellion,” which enraged drivers by blocking roads and bridges during busy rush hours, generating uncounted tonnes of needless greenhouse gas emissions. A one-day climate strike shut down school classes across the country as pupils joined climate emergency rallies. In a scant few days, the angry scowling Swede evoked existential climate-change anxiety in teenagers everywhere. Unfortunately, her words had an even greater effect on younger kids, striking terror into pre-teens. In one elementary class, a child yelled out, “I don’t wanna die.” Another went home and said, “Mommy, they say that we’re going to die in eight years.” Traumatizing young children by telling them the world is about to end crosses the line from eco-activism to emotional eco-terrorism.


More at the link.

https://c2cjournal.ca/2020/01/canad...vX_cFDSrmppIgvz0WJK1bDSkNGauS76IoOrbTfZHdrjkE


----------



## FeXL

Calculating Temperatures Without Thermometers



> Over the past 30 years, NOAA has been rapidly losing US thermometers. In 1989, 1,205 stations reported some daily temperatures, but last year only 871 stations reported some daily temperatures.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Thirty-five percent (424) of the stations in 2019 were zombie stations, meaning that NOAA estimated data for all twelve months. This is done even for some of the thermometers which reported at least a little data in 2019.*


Bold mine.

Purdy easy to predict global warming when you control the data going in...


----------



## FeXL

Climate change zealot Senator Mary Coyle billed nearly $17,000 in flights to taxpayers



> One of the biggest climate doomsayers of the Senate loves to rack up the airmiles.
> 
> Mary Coyle was appointed by Justin Trudeau to the Senate in 2017.Her official Senate biography indicates that she has lived a life of privilege and extreme social justice.


I think that anybody who believes in this $h!t should be forced to live by the very rules they're trying to shove down everyone else's throats. No more flights, Mary. That'd be a good start...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Calculating Temperatures Without Thermometers
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine.
> 
> Purdy easy to predict global warming when you control the data going in...


Most of the missing thermometers are, coincidentally, in the north.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Most of the missing thermometers are, coincidentally, in the north.


_Entirely_ coincidentally...


----------



## FeXL

Caution: Link to MotherCorpse inside.

Amazing.

Climategate 2020: Disappeared



> The historic heat wave at Marble Bar, Australia.
> 
> For generations it was a Guinness Book of Records type thing. Now it’s gone.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1924 Marble Bar set a world record of the most consecutive days of 100 °F (37.8 °C) or above, during an incredible period of 160 days starting in 1923. It was legend — but thanks to the genius homogenized adjustments, we now find out all along it was wrong. It’s another ACORN triumph, rewriting history, extinguishing the hot days of days long gone. The experts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have reanalyzed the temperatures from 4000 km away and nine decades in the future and apparently it wasn’t that hot.​
> Hey, Yellowgrass — watch your back.


----------



## FeXL

What Is Earth's Temperature, Now or Then?



> Is Planet Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same? I often challenge advocates for climate alarmism: what is the temperature of the planet today? Or we can use any specific day in recent years for which data are available. We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.
> 
> Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet. Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town. One single temperature reading for the entire globe. To put it that way immediately sounds strange.
> 
> But if we don't have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all? We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only. The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: Just Don’t Ask How It Got There



> GWPF;
> 
> A team of researchers from the Innlandet County Council and NTNU University Museum in Norway and the University of Cambridge in the U.K. has found a large quantity of Viking-era artifacts in a long-lost mountain pass in Southern Norway. In their paper published in the journal Antiquity, the group describes the location of the pass, explains why it is suddenly revealing artifacts, and outlines what has been found thus far.​


----------



## FeXL

Further on Weepy Bill.

Y2Kyoto: Not A Big Picture Guy



> "You imbecile."


Sums it up for me.


----------



## FeXL

All together now: awwwwwwwww... :-(

It’s All Over For Europe’s Green Deal As Angela Merkel’s MEPs Say ‘It’s No Longer Viable’



> Opposition to the EU’s Green Deal promoted by EU Commission leader Ursula von der Leyen is growing among Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU MEPs in the European Parliament.


----------



## FeXL

A Science Project in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day



> Normally, in spring, middle school students do science experiments. These days, they often do them in honor to the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day in April 1970, which will be held on April 22 this year. Here's an idea for one, which can even comply with social distancing rules as students can do this in their homes with a computer. All it involves are data and graphs. No additional supplies from stores are necessary.
> 
> The purpose of the experiment is to support Democrat policies as they seek to stop people from using oil. The students would believe that if the showed the public the actual scientific data, instead of just repeating talking points and regurgitating dire warnings, that they could finally shut up idiotic climate change deniers and get this sensible agenda passed.
> 
> The Hypothesis: The increasing number of humans, increasing CO2 and oil use are causing a significant increase in global temperatures over the last 140 years. Those rising temperatures then cause the ice to melt, cause sea levels to rise and increasing and more powerful storms.


----------



## FeXL

Y2Kyoto: “Hottest Year Ever”



> Gets off to a roaring start.
> 
> Coldest Mother's Day in 35 years for the eastern US. Crop destroying freezes likely from Michigan to Tennessee. pic.twitter.com/3Mpkk9Sm3Y
> 
> — Temperature Global (@TempGlobal) May 4, 2020​


----------



## eMacMan

Usually the Greenie Weenies are all over the latest Michael Moore film. Not this time, they are even trying to censor it. Course that happens whenever they are faced with trying to support their own views, debate is just too much of a brain strain.
https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion...ent/wcm/510db129-7465-4d24-b90f-a89a8d0192b5/


> The green movement is getting a much-needed wake-up call.
> 
> Some of its most prominent members have become whistleblowers and heretics. They’re calling attention to the dirty reality that few environmentalists will acknowledge, that green energy such as solar and wind are inefficient and unreliable when it comes to creating energy, and they’re also heavily polluting, resource and land-intensive, and backed by aggressive and scheming billionaires.
> 
> Two weeks ago, activist documentary maker Michael Moore — a hero of the political left for his attacks on everything from former U.S president George W. Bush to the evils of globalization and capitalism — released on YouTube his new documentary, Planet of the Humans. The film spells out the downside of wind and solar power and biofuels.
> 
> Green energy lobbyists have howled in protest since then. A week ago, Justin Trudeau associate and green energy power broker Gerald Butts took to Twitter to denigrate the documentary: “Hopefully, Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans will go down as the last wheezing gasp of climate denialism. It’s a sad turn for Moore’s career.”
> 
> But as of today, it has had more than six million views. It’s hardly a wheezing gasp. Instead it’s a sermon powered by righteous wrath, made all the more credible and compelling because it comes from Moore and director Jeff Gibbs, former true believers in the mystical promise of harnessing the power of the wind and the sun to heal the planet.
> ...


Article covers more territory, Worth taking the time to read it.


----------



## FeXL

No, Antarctica Is Not ‘Rapidly Melting’



> Perhaps the most alarming sounding statistic was the following, quoting from NASA/JPL:
> 
> The two regions [Greenland and Antarctica] have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.​
> This sounds like a lot of ice, “6.4 _trillion_ tons.” But it’s not. This equates to 6,400 billion tons, which may also be referred to as 6,400 gigatons, which is 6,400 cubic kilometers. That would be an ice cube 18.5 kilometers on a side, or, to revert to the imperial system of measures, an ice cube 11.5 miles on a side. *If you dropped this ice cube in the world’s oceans and let it melt, it would raise the level of the oceans by 18 millimeters—that’s 9/16ths of one inch.*
> 
> How horrible.


Bold mine.

Guess Barry's & the Goracle's seaside mansions are still safe...


----------



## FeXL

Sun Goes Into Cooling 'Lockdown' -- Greta Thunberg Hardest Hit



> The New York Post reports that the big, flaming ball in the sky is about to go into “lockdown” just like the rest of us.
> 
> ...
> 
> The sun’s cooling ought to offset the alleged warming the earth has experienced over the past decade or century. In addition to (hopefully) muting global warming zealots for a while, it may cause 2020 to be the most memorable blur of a year in a long time. The last major sunspot minimum, the Maunder Minimum, ushered in a “little ice age.”
> 
> During the Maunder Minimum, temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined, relative to twentieth-century averages, by about one degree Celsius. That may not sound like much – especially in a year that is, globally, still more than one degree Celsius hotter than those same averages – but consider: seventeenth-century cooling was sufficient to contribute to a global crisis that destabilized one society after another. As growing seasons shortened, food shortages spread, economies unraveled, and rebellions and revolutions were quick to follow. Cooling was not always the primary cause for contemporary disasters, but it often played an important role in exacerbating them.​


----------



## FeXL

Latest warmist scheme: Record ‘climate change’ as cause of death on death certificates



> Just wait for the headlines about "Millions killed by climate change." And "Climate change death toll mounts." If it bleeds, it leads.
> 
> Politicized science is now a fact of life in the Western world, undermining the very foundations of the technological and material progress that liberated the mass of humanity from permanent poverty, the normal state of affairs until the scientific and industrial revolutions changed the state of civilization. Stalin was the pioneer in bending science in service of a political agenda, and under him, Trofim Lysenko led the charge to corrupt science, which ended disastrously when agriculture was forced to accept practices based on phony science. Lysenkoism is the name given to the practice of bending science to politics.


----------



## eMacMan

FeXL said:


> Latest warmist scheme: Record ‘climate change’ as cause of death on death certificates
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait for the headlines about "Millions killed by climate change." And "Climate change death toll mounts." If it bleeds, it leads.
> 
> Politicized science is now a fact of life in the Western world, undermining the very foundations of the technological and material progress that liberated the mass of humanity from permanent poverty, the normal state of affairs until the scientific and industrial revolutions changed the state of civilization. Stalin was the pioneer in bending science in service of a political agenda, and under him, Trofim Lysenko led the charge to corrupt science, which ended disastrously when agriculture was forced to accept practices based on phony science. Lysenkoism is the name given to the practice of bending science to politics.
Click to expand...

Yet the claims that the entire Covid Panicdemic are an elitist plot to return all but the elite to perpetual poverty are mislabeled as mere conspiracy theories.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. The Goreacle wrong again? Shocka...

An Inconvenient Truth: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong on Glacier National Park



> In his 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012. “Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed, ‘the park formerly known as Glacier,’” Gore wrote. Here in 2020, however, glaciers remain in abundance in the Park. Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed.
> 
> On page 47 of his book, Gore writes, “I climbed to the top of the bigger glacier in this park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.”
> 
> Yet, Caitlyn Florentine, a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that *26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park, eight years after Gore’s no-glacier deadline.*


Bold mine.

Related:

Sunspot update: The deep minimum deepens



> NOAA last week did its monthly update of its graph for tracking the monthly activity of sunspots on the Sun’s visible hemisphere. Below is that updated graph, annotated by me to show the past and new solar cycle predictions.


----------



## FeXL

Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case-scenario climate model



> RCP8.5 was created as an outlier; an improbable worst-case scenario, not a likely business-as-usual forecast. Yet countless scientists and economists have been using it as one. You know how the game works: feed RCP8.5 into a climate model, observe the catastrophe, then call it the “likely” scenario if we don’t cut emissions.


More:



> Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights.


Thing is, if the alarmists cite the lower end, nobody will care. If they run around with their hair on fire, screaming worst case scenarios, they're hoping for at least something.


----------



## FeXL

:clap::clap::clap:

Getting Expensive for Mann



> Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.


----------



## FeXL

Sunspot update: More evidence of an upcoming weak maximum



> On July 4th NOAA updated its monthly graph tracking the monthly activity of sunspots on the Sun’s visible hemisphere. Below is that updated graph, annotated by me to show the past and new solar cycle predictions.


----------



## FeXL

Locally, we've had 8-10" of globull warming fall on us in October already. -18°C last night.

Y2Kyoto: Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past



> BANFF:
> 
> Banff’s Mount Norquay Ski Resort is preparing to open the mountain on Saturday (Oct.24), the earliest date in its 95th year of operation.
> 
> Norquay will be the first ski hill to open in the country this season, and is typically one of the first resorts to open for the ski season.
> 
> “We’ve received over 30 centimetres of snow with great overnight temperatures that allowed us to make a lot of snow,” said general manager Andre Quenneville.
> 
> “We have also made some improvements to our snowmaking system since last winter, which has increased our efficiency. Having overnight temperatures hovering around -9, -10 is what has really allowed us to open up so early.”​
> Related: _Numerous records were broken, including in Val Marie, where the mercury dropped to -27 C, breaking the record of -14 C set back in 2002, and making the community the Canadian cold spot for most of the morning Friday._


----------



## FeXL

One from the "he admires their basic dictatorship" file. I'll probably be accused of being RAYCISS!!! by posting this article but, seeing as the study is done by a Chinese university, here goes:

*Another Global Warming Fact Alarmists Want Buried*



> The entire climate change movement has been shady from its beginnings. Data have been hidden, truth has been sacrificed to politics, and hypocrisy and personal interests among its “leaders” have produced a giant credibility deficit. The more we learn, the worse the alarmists look.
> 
> *Take, for instance, a new report that shows greenhouse gas emissions are not an American or Western problem. They are primarily a Chinese problem. A study from Sun Yat-sen University in China found that more than half of the world’s urban greenhouse gas emissions are generated in only 25 big cities, and 23 of them are located in China.*
> 
> In other words, if the entire developed world cut its greenhouse gas emissions as activists, politicians, journalists, and celebrities have demanded, nothing would change regarding the climate. (This assumes human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for warming the planet, which is a load of speculation that’s yet to be proved.)


Bold mine.

Well, it's a load of something...


----------



## MacDoc

Still peddling your bull**** I see ...talk about clinging to a dead meme. 👎

ouch


> *U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming*
> By Paul VoosenJul. 27, 2021 , 4:50 PM
> Next month, after a yearlong delay because of the pandemic, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will begin to release its first major assessment of human-caused global warming since 2013. The report, the first part of which will appear on 9 August, will drop on a world that has starkly changed in 8 years, *warming by more than 0.3°C to nearly 1.3°C above preindustrial levels*.


more

so much for 1.2


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, the IPCC has become a politically-charged clown show long ago. These reports "model" whatever the authors want them to, then blame their predictions on whatever source they want to. A child's fantasy.


----------



## groovetube

> the IPCC has become a politically-charged clown show long ago.


A decade of not being here, and you still can't do better than this useless canned response attacking a source with pretty much nothing. No wonder no one is left here!

that combined with the spewing of nonsensical climate change denial website links, this place is a total echo chamber! Is this the ‘normal’ you guys wanted back in 2013? Looks good on ya!


----------



## FeXL

Well, well, well...

If it ain't ol' Doomsday Dave. Hello, DH! Still ridin' yer <snort> scooter around? I see a brush with death ain't made ya any smarter.

Tell me something, Dave: You joined these boards near 20 years ago. In all that time, exactly how many Globull Warming predictions have come true? How many climate Faustian nightmares have borne fruit? Can you name even one? 

'Cause, according to The International Pack of Climate Crooks and the rest of you Fruit Loops & Whackos, this planet should have gone up in flames a half dozen times by now.

Recently they even had to admit that their much vaunted models (ooooo, ahhhh) were cranked up on high & had to be scaled back. Just like the rest of us have been saying for years.

Shocka.

Talk about dead memes...



MacDoc said:


> Still peddling your bull**** I see ...talk about clinging to a dead meme. 👎


----------



## groovetube

_looks around, sees tumbleweeds floatin by, not a soul around…_

you know, I predicted years ago that no one would give a crap about your barrage of nonsense right wing blog links.

appears I was right in that prediction! Good job!!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> 'Cause, according to The International Pack of Climate Crooks and the rest of you Fruit Loops & Whackos, this planet should have gone up in flames a half dozen times by now.


We sure had some corking predictions from old Maccy!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> We sure had some corking predictions from old Maccy!


Yeppers. Still waiting for a single one to come true.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Yeppers. Still waiting for a single one to come true.


The predictions all ended up with that fiery preacher vibe: "You're gonna fry for your sins of living comfortably."


----------



## groovetube

Speaking of “no content” posts! You pair are priceless. Look at your forum! Always blaming someone else.

you pair own this cesspool. Lock stock and barrel! Looks good on you!


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> The predictions all ended up with that fiery preacher vibe: "You're gonna fry for your sins of living comfortably."


Nothing quite like a good, ol' fashioned, pulpit slamming, fire & brimstone sermon to the unwashed.


----------



## groovetube

No one cares


----------



## MacDoc

You pair are amusing ...most have lost their illusions...even your dear leader. Take a hint...


> *O'Toole declares 'the debate is over' on climate change, but ...*
> https://nationalpost.com › news › politics › otoole-decla...
> 20 Mar 2021 — OTTAWA — Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole has made it clear he wants to move past debates about the existence of climate change, .


Yes I ride a 70 mpg motorcycle regularly in Australia.

I concur that the "predictions" are flawed ....the unfolding of consequences is more rapid than predicted....which you would know if your read some science outside your right wing echo chamber tho even that has gaping cracks these days.
The IPCC is by nature necessarily too conservative, tho has to toady to fewer dinosaurs of late to dilute the message...it's kinda obvious.

You guys remind me of the last Japanese soldier refusing to surrender long after his war was lost.



> The last Japanese soldier to formally surrender after the country's defeat in World War Two was *Hiroo Onoda*. Lieutenant Onoda finally handed over his sword on March 9th 1974. He had held out in the Philippine jungle for 29 years.


☕


----------



## groovetube

Ha. That’s a far better analogy than my Statler and Waldorf. Indeed, even parties on the right have gotten the memo.


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, didn't think you could come with a successful Globull Warming prediction. No worries. Nobody else on this planet has been able to, either.

Dear leader? He ain't my leader. I guess some fools see him that way. However, he's more like a pig-ignorant, uninformed commie every day, ain't he? Throw a purdy hairdo on him, hang an oversized schnoze on his blackface, stuff his pants with a banana, grope a coupla chicks, toss an elbow or two into a woman's chest in Parliament, fire a coupla uppity female MP's (and those sox! ) and the left will lap up everything he says! N'est-ce pas?

70 mph?! Ain't that wastin' a lot of resources? Better save the planet & slow down. Ten is good. Six is better. Six-mile-an-hour MacDoc. Perfect. Hey, it's faster'n walking. An' look whatcher doin' for the planet!

Australia? Again, perfect. Enjoying the lockdowns? Been out to see the Great Barrier Reef recovery yet? That's gotta be an uncomfortable topic, no? Goin' against the narrative an' all?

Faster? T'hell you say! The planet must have already burned up while I wasn't lookin'! Thank God. I thought it was going to be worse.

Science? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You haven't read a word of science in the last two decades. More like science fiction. Speakin' o' science fiction, are you still contributing to Mikey Mann's failed attempt to sue Steyn? And Tim Ball? Heard money got tight for Mann, havin' to pay those court costs an' all. Hope you sent a fat cheque. Did he forward you a big, autographed copy of that hockey stick graph by way of thanks?

And, I see yer still rollin' dem eyes. The more things change...

Enjoy your scooter, slim. The world's gonna end tomorrow.



MacDoc said:


> You pair are amusing ...most have lost their illusions...even your dear leader. Take a hint...
> 
> Yes I ride a 70 mpg motorcycle regularly in Australia.
> 
> I concur that the "predictions" are flawed ....the unfolding of consequences is more rapid than predicted....which you would know if your read some science outside your right wing echo chamber tho even that has gaping cracks these days.


----------



## MacDoc

Wow....confusing mpg and mph ....had your dementia check?

No lockdowns here ...kicked an ant's nest I guess...such vitriol....
I guess your 1st bit of sig sums you up ☕


----------



## FeXL

Dementia? A misread is interpreted as dementia? It's no wonder you guys believe in Globull Warming. Take another hit from the bong.

Vitriol? Read the post again. Hell, I'm LMAO! 

And yes. My sig does sum me up. 'Course, it's all in the interpretin'...



MacDoc said:


> Wow....confusing mpg and mph ....had your dementia check?
> 
> No lockdowns here ...kicked an ant's nest I guess...such vitriol....
> I guess your 1st bit of sig sums you up ☕


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Wow....confusing mpg and mph ....had your dementia check?
> 
> No lockdowns here ...kicked an ant's nest I guess...such vitriol....
> I guess your 1st bit of sig sums you up ☕


Macdoc, this is the same one that is busy telling everyone that India cured covid by giving its billion plus poplulatuon horse dewormer…. And no one noticed, and that they sentenced a chief WHO scientist to death and no news agency reported that, ‘cause, like his climate change theory websites, apparently some website said it.

that should pretty much put all his theories here into perspective.


----------



## FeXL

Go ahead, MacDoc. Shatter his fragile, little Prog world.


----------



## Macfury

This one made me laugh:










Get yer motor runnin' MacDoc!


----------



## groovetube

Oh macfury. I love that you aren’t aware of how this looks. 

LOL


----------



## FeXL

Hey, maybe there's another riding season left on this old planet yet! 'Course, ya may have to put on long johns...

*Brrr… Arctic Sea Ice Melt the Lowest in 15 Years, Antarctic Sea Ice Above Average*



> The Arctic Ocean gained a record amount of sea ice during the first week of September. Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased almost 200,000 km. sq. This will not be reported by @CNN @BBCNews or the @nytimes https://t.co/jxEZ5RU80N pic.twitter.com/sAW9BwmvUF


Related:

*20% Increase In Arctic Sea Ice Volume*



> Arctic sea ice volume is up 20% from last year and is just below the 2004-2013 average.
> 
> ...
> 
> NOAA says earth just experienced the hottest month ever. But the ice forgot to melt.


Related, too:

*All Fake News – All The Time*



> CBS News says the Arctic is record hot at 100 degrees and bazillions of scientists say we have to take action to save the climate.


Some great imagery at the last link.

And, here's one more, from the old days:

*1979 – The Beginning Of Time*

Missed predictions from Kerry & the Goreacle, etc, etc, etc. All kinds of fun!


----------



## MacDoc

Wow ...a wayback machine for AGW deniers...such nostalgia. August | 2021 | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis








 ☕

I was riding a 305 SuperHawk BEFORE that movie came out.I went to the movie on it and kept a wary eye on pickups for a while after.
..weighed the same as my CB300F now which gets twice the mpg.
Next ride will be an EV.








Electric Motorcycles Forum


ElectricMotorcyclesForum.com is a forum community dedicated to electric motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about motorcycles from Zero, Arc, Lightning, Energica, Damon, Brammo, Victory and many others.




www.electricmotorcyclesforum.com













Living with an electric Livewire, and the Harley sounds of silence


Livewire is an extremely cool looking bike, and represents the absolute premium of electric motorcycle technology available today.




thedriven.io





I hear there are noise packs out for them for them


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you picked a chart that begins in 2008 because the extended data set doesn't make any point.


----------



## MacDoc

have trouble with trends do you.

try this








or this








For ****s sake grow up and acknowledge there is a problem, it's our fault and it will have expensive consequences.....already has expensive consequences.
Like Covid ...it's going to be a matter of adapting rather than preventing...all we can do at this point is blunt the impact.


----------



## groovetube

Talking to these two is rather like putting a pair of old deaf Siamese cats on a leash thinking you’re going to go for a walk.


----------



## Macfury

1979 is the the typical cherry picked year for doing a sea ice chart because it featured record breaking sea ice coverage.

I would acknowledge that there is a problem, it's largely in your head, and you need to do something about it.



MacDoc said:


> have trouble with trends do you.
> 
> try this
> or this
> 
> For ****s sake grow up and acknowledge there is a problem, it's our fault and it will have expensive consequences.....already has expensive consequences.
> Like Covid ...it's going to be a matter of adapting rather than preventing...all we can do at this point is blunt the impact.


----------



## groovetube

You’ll stoop as far as you need to for a windup won’t you.


----------



## MacDoc

> 1979 is the the typical cherry picked year for doing a sea ice chart because it featured record breaking sea ice coverage.


You don't know what the **** you are on about ...1979 is when we could measure sea ice by satellite - wow - flaunt your ignorance a little more. You know absolutely nothing about climate so shut the **** up before you dig a deeper hole.

What ever happened to your pause in the 90s.?? That actually was the denidiots cherry picking the then record 1997 year....








Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Hint - it ain't the record year anymore....

















2020 was Earth’s 2nd-hottest year, just behind 2016


It’s official: 2020 ranks as the second-hottest year on record for the planet, knocking 2019 down to third hottest, according to an analysis by NOAA scientists.




www.noaa.gov


----------



## FeXL

Excuse me?



MacDoc said:


> ...1979 is when we could measure sea ice by satellite...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Excuse me?


Yep, he thinks that sea ice records began to be recorded that year.


----------



## FeXL

Is that correct, MacDoc? Satellite measurement of polar ice began in 1979?


----------



## Macfury

If you go with 1979 as the beginning of the sea ice record you have to weigh the chances that this tiny 40-year sliver represents something abnormal against tens of thousands of years. We don't really know what level of sea ice is normal, but we do know through carefully reconstructed records that the patterns don't appear to be anomalous.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

Waldorf and Statler doesn’t totally work as an analogy for macfury and fexl. I mean yeah they’re both grumpy, but the former beneath their gruff exterior actually have some intelligence.


----------



## groovetube

Folks this is what happens when you mix horse dewormer with fake Wordpress sites.


----------



## FeXL

Huh. Silence. Suddenly not quite so sure of yourself, MacDoc? You shouldn't be.

So here's the claim, in all its hubristic, colourful language:



MacDoc said:


> You don't know what the **** you are on about ...1979 is when we could measure sea ice by satellite - wow - flaunt your ignorance a little more. You know absolutely nothing about climate so shut the **** up before you dig a deeper hole.


It's really too bad you didn't bother reading my earlier link (how did you put it? "Wow ...a wayback machine for AGW deniers...such nostalgia."). You would have avoided a little self-inflicted public humiliation. And maybe learned something in the process.

According to _two_ of the holiest of your bibles, TIPCC AR1 & AR2 (you have heard of those, right?), satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started in _1973_, fully 6 years before your claim of 1979. 

And, _and_, if you give the data even a passing glance you will note at least two things:
1) 1979 is at or near the peak of Arctic sea ice, which is precisely why it's been used by warmists since day one to formulate the false narrative, and
2) There is no trend. Which is, again, precisely the conclusion that they found:



> “Neither hemisphere has exhibited significant trends in seaice extent since *1973 when satellite measurements began*”


Bold mine.

You find that little gem on page 150 of Working Group 1's Second Assessment Report, along with the data. The data can also be found on page 224 in the First Annual Report.

Now, I know the Chattering Class knows little to nothing on the topic. I know MF has a handle on the topic. And I know you think you know lots about Globull Warming but you are nowhere near the expert you purport yourself to be.
One of the Chattering Class summed it nicely: "It's the best when they ensnare themselves in their nonsense."

A little humility is in order.


----------



## groovetube

I love how it declares its wealth of knowledge on this subject, after barraging us with just pure horse****.

face it pal, there’s a reason why no one engages you here anymore, and merely mocks you.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Huh. Silence. Suddenly not quite so sure of yourself, MacDoc? You shouldn't be.


When you use the IPCC reports as a Bible, you're opening yourself to significant error. When you use media articles on the IPCC reports as your sole source of information, you're almost certainly going to be wrong.


----------



## groovetube

who do they remind you of?  
‘nuff said.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> When you use the IPCC reports as a Bible, you're opening yourself to significant error. When you use media articles on the IPCC reports as your sole source of information, you're almost certainly going to be wrong.


Thing is, TIPCC's AR's are s'pose to be the "gold standard" of climate information. Why does someone who fancies himself as informed on the topic not know the contents? Why does it take a lowly "denier" to actually cite the science and prove him wrong? 

Curious thing about the AR's. If you go through the earlier versions, there is actually some decent science being conducted. The later versions are the ones that leave science behind in favour of politics.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Curious thing about the AR's. If you go through the earlier versions, there is actually some decent science being conducted. The later versions are the ones that leave science behind in favour of politics.


The crazy accelerated timelines and the lack of humility over previous errors and failures are the hallmarks of the newer reports.

Steve Koonin, a former Obama climate scientist, wrote a recent climate book called _Unsettled _and says:

“We get information about climate science at the end of a long game of telephone. It starts with the data and research literature, goes through the assessment reports and their summaries to the media reporting. There are ample motives and opportunities for distortion at each step in that chain.”

That sums it up well.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The crazy accelerated timelines and the lack of humility over previous errors and failures are the hallmarks of the newer reports.
> 
> Steve Koonin, a former Obama climate scientist, wrote a recent climate book called _Unsettled _and says:
> 
> “We get information about climate science at the end of a long game of telephone. It starts with the data and research literature, goes through the assessment reports and their summaries to the media reporting. There are ample motives and opportunities for distortion at each step in that chain.”
> 
> That sums it up well.


Unless you're a scientist with peer reviewed studies, you're opinion is that of a dipstick. Both of you. It's a total joke either of you think you're smarter than the world's scientists with these credentials. You aren't "thinking for yourself", googling headlines or from right wing nonsense blogs mangling data means diddlysquat.


----------



## MacDoc

suck it up dendies









For the first time ever, this election wasn’t a debate on climate change. It was on what Canada should do about it


Every major federal party offered platform policies that could meaningfully reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions.




www.thestar.com


----------



## FeXL

Which is precisely one of the reasons the Tool lost tonite. Add in a little gun control, a pinch of mandatory vaccines, et voila! A losing recipe.


----------



## Macfury

Every election claims to be "What we should do about climate change." The answer is: more taxes and virtue signalling--and India and China making up way more than the difference. Suck it up, Maccy D, you're on the losing end of this crusade.

The decimation of Green Party support in this election is just the beginning.



MacDoc said:


> suck it up dendies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time ever, this election wasn’t a debate on climate change. It was on what Canada should do about it
> 
> 
> Every major federal party offered platform policies that could meaningfully reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com


----------



## groovetube

FeXL said:


> Which is precisely one of the reasons the Tool lost tonite. Add in a little gun control, a pinch of mandatory vaccines, et voila! A losing recipe.


Seemed to be the winning recipe for the winning party!!!

BAH HA HA HA HA


----------



## Macfury

Hey MacDoc, are you a "coal denier"?









China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?


China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.




time.com


----------



## MacDoc

and ...what ****ing moral authority can you possibly imagine that would keep China from building its wealth just the way the rest of the first world did.

China also immense nuclear, hydro and solar capacity ..closing old inefficient coal plants also is in play.


> *President Xi says China will start cutting coal consumption from 2026*
> By Reuters and David Stanway, Cate Cadell











President Xi says China will start cutting coal consumption from 2026


China will start phasing down coal use from 2026 as part of its efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions, President Xi Jinping said at a summit of global leaders on Thursday, a move that disappointed campaigners hoping for more ambitious pledges.




www.reuters.com





What kind of inane point are you attempting to make - that China is not doing its share??? neither are Canada or Australia - at least they are not in denial of the problem like you








‘Big line in the sand’: China promises no new coal-fired power projects abroad


Experts welcome Xi Jinping’s announcement at UN as hugely influential, but concerns remain over domestic emissions




www.theguardian.com




...how about getting on Alberta for proposing a million bit mining machines...
China's cast offs as too damaging to its fossil fuel reduction goals. ☕


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Hey MacDoc, are you a "coal denier"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?
> 
> 
> China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> time.com


Are you curing covid with it?


----------



## Macfury

Don't get all hot under the collar. You've always assumed the moral authority to tell people what sort of energy they need to generate. I'm fine with China using coal. 

We've heard from you for years how we can build a strong economy on renewable energy. This is the first time you've been honest about the link between the use of fossil fuels and the wealth of a nation.



MacDoc said:


> and ...what ****ing moral authority can you possibly imagine that would keep China from building its wealth just the way the rest of the first world did.


----------



## groovetube

I think the forum troll wants everyone to believe that a nation can only build wealth with fossil fuels. That may have been somewhat more true decades ago. But even China sees the writing on the wall. Either get in when it's building or let other countries capitalize on this industry.

I think this is the same idiot that declared electric cars as a niche product with very sad sales 10 years ago. On my street alone (not a very long street) there are likely 10 plus parked on the street of various brands. He doesn't seem to have much of a track record predicting things...


----------



## MacDoc

Fellow crim for the AGW trolls








Rupert Murdoch Has Known We’ve Been in a Climate Emergency Since 2006, Documents Show


Murdoch’s News Corp has spent the past 15 years mitigating its own climate risk while giving media outlets like Fox News carte blanche to deny climate change altogether.




www.vice.com





Tho Exxon knew since the 1970s


----------



## Macfury

Some corporate ESG green-washing always looks good at head office! But now that Murdoch is your fellow traveler, can I interest you in aligning with his other pronouncements?



MacDoc said:


> Fellow crim for the AGW trolls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rupert Murdoch Has Known We’ve Been in a Climate Emergency Since 2006, Documents Show
> 
> 
> Murdoch’s News Corp has spent the past 15 years mitigating its own climate risk while giving media outlets like Fox News carte blanche to deny climate change altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vice.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tho Exxon knew since the 1970s


----------



## groovetube

Holy troll fail man. Do you even bother reading the post before furiously jacking off in the thread? Because that’s pretty all you’re doing at this point.


----------



## MacDoc

Any reasonable expectation of staying within 2C of pre-industrial will depend on both cutting emissions AND actively sequestering carbon already present in the atmosphere.
By BOTH biological means and active engineered withdrawal of C02. Won't be around to see it but kids will bear the brunt of change....Canada may even benefit in some respects which tends towards complacency.

I suspect it's more like 3-4C increase by 2100 and that will dramatically alter the coast lines and makes some areas either unliveable or untillable.









The climate disaster is here – this is what the future looks like


Earth is already becoming unlivable. Will governments act to stop this disaster from getting worse?




 www.theguardian.com





Interesting times ☕


----------



## Macfury

The IPCC has done so well at predicting "global temperature" — whatever that actually is — that we really need to be mindful of their additional spreadsheets forecasts.The Guardian has long since thrown in with the globalist green lobby — it's not shy about admitting it. This is their monthly helping of weather porn!


----------



## MacDoc

You know and understand nothing ...

Paper is behind a paywall...forgive the venue but a very interesting approach









A cheap and efficient way to directly convert industrial CO₂ offgas into oxygen and solid carbon


We can’t go on belching CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we’ve been doing it. But CO2 is a product of combustion, and combustion’s not going to disappear in time to meet any climate goals. Far from it. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner on that...




www.dailykos.com


----------



## Macfury

Lots of money to be made for already-large corporations to offer the panacea of removing carbon from the atmosphere--for the children, of course. Governments also love green taxes that do nothing but build revenue. This movement represents one of the largest upward wealth transfers in history. Don't give it much thought folks, it's an emergency! Trillions to be made.


----------



## Macfury

This is the perfect characterization of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference and what it stands for. What a clown show!


----------



## groovetube

I’d like additional info macfury, I don’t understand your post. It doesn’t give any information past surface criticisms. 


MacDoc said:


> You know and understand nothing ...
> 
> Paper is behind a paywall...forgive the venue but a very interesting approach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cheap and efficient way to directly convert industrial CO₂ offgas into oxygen and solid carbon
> 
> 
> We can’t go on belching CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we’ve been doing it. But CO2 is a product of combustion, and combustion’s not going to disappear in time to meet any climate goals. Far from it. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailykos.com


 Very cool. It is a fact that we can’t shut off fossil fuels as quickly as we need to. It I feel simply complaining and not pushing for solutions, is just giving up. We need some solutions like this to make it into widespread use (after determining it works and is safe of course)


----------



## Macfury

Solutions to what? Affordable and dependable power?



groovetube said:


> It I feel simply complaining and not pushing for solutions, is just giving up. We need some solutions like this to make it into widespread use (after determining it works and is safe of course)


----------



## groovetube

You forgot about climate change and the disasters that that will bring about. You would have to take on the entire world’s scientific community if you wish to dismiss this. So far I haven’t seen anything but surface declarations, which mean nothing really without a very detailed explanation.


----------



## Macfury

There's a large and profitable alliance of government and industry that are arranging a massive wealth transfer of trillions of dollars to address this problem for you. And the people who can least afford it will be cheering as it happens.



groovetube said:


> You forgot about climate change and the disasters that that will bring about. You would have to take on the entire world’s scientific community if you wish to dismiss this. So far I haven’t seen anything but surface declarations, which mean nothing really without a very detailed explanation.


----------



## groovetube

More surface allegations. Ive heard all these allegations from the likes of Alex Jones rush Limbaugh and Steve Banon, who’ve all made many millions off of pedaling this stuff as well. Never any hard evidence, likely because people believe this stuff without any!


----------



## Macfury

We need hard evidence that any climate change we're experiencing is unusual on a geologic scale. We don't have it. Then we need proof that this obsessive focus on carbon would make any difference, when water vapour represents the largest source of "greenhouse gas" by orders of magnitude. Finally, we need to see who benefits financially from this massive enviro-grift.




groovetube said:


> More surface allegations. Ive heard all these allegations from the likes of Alex Jones rush Limbaugh and Steve Banon, who’ve all made many millions off of pedaling this stuff as well. Never any hard evidence, likely because people believe this stuff without any!


----------



## groovetube

So to be clear, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of the world’s scientists who all have said there IS. I’m inclined to agree with that vast amount of knowledge and expertise, rather than your posts, which so far, have not included any compelling arguments, only accusations.


----------



## Macfury

You would likely have agreed with the "vast majority of scientists" that the Sun revolved around the Earth, if you had been born at a different time. Science is either wrong or right, even if 51% of scientists with "vast "expertise say they agree with one theory or another.



groovetube said:


> So to be clear, you are disagreeing with the vast majority of the world’s scientists who all have said there IS. I’m inclined to agree with that vast amount of knowledge and expertise, rather than your posts, which so far, have not included any compelling arguments, only accusations.


----------



## groovetube

So you decided to refer to a time when they thought that cutting a square hole in your head to let out ‘bad blood’ would cure you?

always entertaining macfury!


----------



## Macfury

I'm guessing that if you were born at that time, you would agree with the majority of doctors with "vast" knowledge of bodily humours.



groovetube said:


> So you decided to refer to a time when they thought that cutting a square hole in your head to let out ‘bad blood’ would cure you?
> 
> always entertaining macfury!


----------



## groovetube

Keep guessing macfury  enjoy the evening.


----------



## Freddie_Biff

groovetube said:


> So you decided to refer to a time when they thought that cutting a square hole in your head to let out ‘bad blood’ would cure you?
> 
> always entertaining macfury!


Nothing that a good bleeding can’t fix!


----------



## Macfury

Maybe a nice application of leeches and then a pleasant afternoon of watching the sun go round the Earth.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Nothing that a good bleeding can’t fix!


----------



## Freddie_Biff

At about the 3:00 mark.


----------



## Macfury

And 5:45!



Freddie_Biff said:


> At about the 3:00 mark.


----------



## groovetube

So, I guess we can see the silliness of comparing to a time where we once thought holding ‘witches’ under water to see if they would drown (if they didn’t they were indeed witches!) and all the rest of it.


----------



## Macfury

The groupthink that today holds that small increases in atmospheric CO2 content are destabilizing the climate will one day be seen on the same level as holding witches underwater to see if they would drown.



groovetube said:


> So, I guess we can see the silliness of comparing to a time where we once thought holding ‘witches’ under water to see if they would drown (if they didn’t they were indeed witches!) and all the rest of it.


----------



## groovetube

Is this the same group that endorses trepanation or, I’m unsure where we are in this.


----------



## MacDoc

one voice 








‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans


Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Macfury

The Guardian has long ago given up on any objectivity regarding the climate. That's been part of its published mission statement for years.

I also remember that 2013 "study". When someone actually bothered to check, it turned out that they limited their "survey" only to publications that were likely to support their hypothesis, then did a "key word search" to imagine what these papers might say. Of the 3,000 papers they found offering an opinion on the cause of warming, actually reading those papers demonstrated that only 64 said it was mostly human. I checked the new paper and they made the same error. Any study that did not contain certain key words was assumed to support a "climate emergency".

So what we have here is a "study" by a journalist who ran a key word search on some carefully curated papers using carefully selected criteria and determined that a certain number of them agreed. 

However, it did not ascertain that they were correct.

As Mark Twain observed, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”


----------



## groovetube

I recall the last time when it was reported that 99% of the worlds climate scientists supported the climate change theories, there was circulating, a counter report showing all the scientists who disagreed. The attempt was to blow a hole through the report of 99%. It took a little while but it came out that pretty much none save a for a couple of the scientists used in their counter report had agreed to be used in their report much less having said what they reported.

At the end of the day, there was still a consensus among the overwhelming majority of scientists that humans were contributing to climate change. What is interesting, is you will often find the same ones on those blogs railing about this inconsistency or some other instance where scientists have changed their findings and numbers etc., are often the same ones who were very upset with dr fauci when he first said masks weren’t required, but then after more studies and data became available (since this virus was so new…) he changed his recommendations to wearing masks. Often findings and data change as studies are finished. Some scientists find somewhat different but possibly similar finding s as another. I have found many of these anti-science blogs will seize upon these differences as absolute proof that climate change is a scam! And often these online entities, are raking in the cash. But incredibly, this is how science works. As more findings are revealed, so are recommendations, and that’s what we are now seeing.


----------



## Macfury

Yes, but what about the examination of their data that blew a giant hole in their statistical analysis?



groovetube said:


> I recall the last time when it was reported that 99% of the worlds climate scientists supported the climate change theories, there was circulating, a counter report showing all the scientists who disagreed. The attempt was to blow a hole through the report of 99%. It took a little while but it came out that pretty much none save a for a couple of the scientists used in their counter report had agreed to be used in their report much less having said what they reported.


----------



## groovetube

I think if a credible scientist was able to ‘blow a hole’ through findings that over 99% of the world’s scientists agree on, it would warrant far more than blog status. Unless this new fantastic revelation was peer reviewed science, it’s worthless I’m afraid.


----------



## Macfury

LOL! This Cornell "study" was based on one performed by a journalist doing key word searches — not a scientist!



groovetube said:


> I think if a credible scientist was able to ‘blow a hole’ through findings that over 99% of the world’s scientists agree on, it would warrant far more than blog status. Unless this new fantastic revelation was peer reviewed science, it’s worthless I’m afraid.


----------



## groovetube

So, he is the only person to have suggested the majority of the worlds scientists agree on climate change. No one has ever even hinted at this.


----------



## MacDoc

Really good explanation of the role of increased water vapour on the impact of AGW.



> *Vapor Storms Are Threatening People and Property*
> More moisture in a warmer atmosphere is fueling intense hurricanes and flooding rains
> By Jennifer A. Francis | Scientific American November 2021 Issue











Vapor Storms Are Threatening People and Property


More moisture in a warmer atmosphere is fueling intense hurricanes and flooding rains




www.scientificamerican.com


----------

