Archive for January, 2013


Important post

Originally posted on Climate Etc.:

by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li

It’s official: our controversial paper has been published. After a burst of intense attention (some of you may remember discussions at Climate Etc., the Air Vent and the Blackboard), followed by nearly two years of waiting, our paper describing a new mechanism driving atmospheric motion has been published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

View original 2,725 more words

University of Montreal physicist Paul Charbonneau has written a short review of the Abreu et al paper published by ‘Astronomy and Astrophysics’, and featured on the talkshop last October. This is a good step forward for the hypothesis we have been working on here for the last three years, with important contributions from published scientists including Ian Wilson, Nicola Scafetta P.A. Semi and many other contributors. Although Abreu et al were not the first in modern times to publish in this area, the prominence they have achieved through publication of a review piece by Paul Charbonneau in Nature is helping to turn the spotlight onto an idea whose time has come. Hopefully the authors with prior publications in this exciting  area of investigation will now receive more of the recognition they deserve for their pioneering work in the field, bravely withstanding the unscientific criticism and ridicule of certain members of the mainstream solar physics community. As Charbonneau observes at the end of his article:

To sum up, what we have here is a fit to observations unmatched by any other exploratory framework, buttressed by a conjectural explanatory scenario that is testable at least at some level. It may all turn out to be wrong in the end, but this is definitely not Astrology. This is science.



Letter to the Climate Shrinks
Posted by Ben Pile on January 25, 2013

bbc_logo1BBC Radio 4 show, Thinking Allowed had a feature on the psychoanalysts perspective on climate change this week. Bishop Hill picked up the story. Thinking Allowed is one of my favourite programmes, so I was a tad disappointed to hear that thinking isn’t allowed if it’s thinking that contradicts climate orthodoxy. Here’s my letter to the programme.

Dear Laurie,

I refer to your section on climate change and psychoanalysis in your most recent programme.

Your feature frames the problem as a failure to recognise what one of your guests called ‘the reality of climate change’, which moved on to a discussion about ‘types of denial’. However, if psychoanalysis has anything to say in the climate debate, it must speak to climate sceptics as much as their counterparts.

Sally Weintrobe lets the cat out of the bag when she claims that we are ‘increasingly aware’ of ‘weird weather’, citing hurricane Sandy and the UK’s recent wet weather. Yet there was nothing remarkable about the weather last year. The IPCC’s recent special report on extreme weather found that there is no evidence of increased frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, or losses caused by them attributable to anthropogenic climate change.

So psychoanalysis must have something to say about Sally Weintrobe’s misconception of the ‘reality’ of climate change represented by the IPCC. Her views on climate seem to be as far out of kilter with the scientific consensus as any “denier’s”.


This Map tells us pretty clearly where economies are going to be expanding:



Posted: January 30, 2013 by Rog Tallbloke in solar system dynamics


I think it’s worth putting this up for discussion. It probably makes access to what Makarieva et al’s work is all about easier for some.

Originally posted on Stormy Science:

Full text with editorial summary:
Jeremy Hance (February 01, 2012).
New meteorological theory argues that the world’s forests are rainmakers. 

1.>> Will you tell us how the biotic pump works?
2.>> Why do you associate the biotic pump with natural forests rather than with individual tree species? Cannot a tree plantation act as biotic pump?
3.>> Have there been any significant changes to your biotic pump theory over the last couple of years?
4.>> Have you seen wider acceptance in the scientific community for your theory?
5.>> Can you give an example of why the current understanding of condensation and precipitation is wrong?
6.>> Recent evidence has linked the decline and fall of the Maya civilization to deforestation leading to less precipitation. How could the biotic pump theory connect to this?
7.>> How do you see deforestation in the Amazon as impacting regional precipitation?
8.>> How do…

View original 4,569 more words

From the Grauniad:

rain_forest_clearing_cameroonWorld Bank spending on forests fails to curb poverty, auditors claim

Report by World Bank’s own evaluators say its investments support logging and do little to help rural poor people

The World Bank‘s $4.1bn (£2.6bn) investments in forestry over the past 10 years have done little to reduce poverty, improve conservation, tackle climate change or benefit local communities in developing countries, a study by its own inspectors has found.

The 202-page report – a copy of which has been seen by the Guardian – was compiled by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), which consists of senior bank staff and outside consultants. The document says the bank’s financial support helped to protect 24m hectares (59m acres) of forest around the world and to classify 45m ha of forest as being on indigenous people’s land. But it says the bank mostly failed to address critical social and environmental issues.


met office logoIt looks like a shake up to me:

  1. Job Vacancy: Head of Digital Communications 

  2. Job Vacancy: Observations Network Coordinator 

  3. Job Vacancy: UM Collaboration Scientist 

  4. Job Vacancy: UK Operations Key Account Manager



Worth another airing I think. Use this link to the Lean and Rind paper as is a link farm these days.

Originally posted on Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.:

On July 22 2009 I posted on the new paper on solar forcing by Lean and Rind 2009 (see). In that post, I also referred to the Benestad and Schmidt 2009 paper on solar forcing which has a conclusion at variance to that in the Lean and Rind paper.

After the publication of my post, Nicole Scafetta asked if he could present a comment (as a guest weblog) on the Benestad and Schmidt paper on my website, since it will take several months for his comment  to make it through the review process. In the interests of presenting the perspectives on the issue of solar climate forcing, Nicola’s post appears below. I also invite Benestad and Schmidt to write responses to the Scaftta contribution which I would be glad to post on my website.


Benestad and Schmidt have recently published a paper in JGR. (Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt…

View original 1,756 more words


Talkshop readers might have noticed a link to Luboš Motl’s blog, a physicist writing from Pilsen in English making it easy for Anglophones.

27th Jan he wrote an excellent personal view about the election of a new Czech president the successor to Klaus. According to Luboš the media pushed hard and the people obliged by voting the opposite. Notionally Zeman is communist yet… he sounds human and won’t stand for enviro nonsense. I note this was yet another city/outside fight; what is it with so many countries being divided?

Up front warning, sunglasses might be needed for Luboš’s site.

Blog item is here klaus-successor-milos-zeman-elected


Reblogged from the ever wakeful TomNelson’s site:
Delightfully stupid Daily Kos piece from warmist Greg Laden: He suggests that James Hansen is “a moron” for admitting that global temperature has been flat for the last decade; also “there is more money going into climate science denial than any political counter movement that has ever existed”

Daily Kos: Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism

To state, with a straight face, that the jury is still out, or that we can’t separate natural variation from human caused changes, or that the earth has stopped warming for the last decade, or any of the other things we constantly hear from climate change denialists isexactly the same thing as standing there with a big sign that reads “I am a moron.”