Suggestions-4

Please post ideas for new threads, tips on relevant and interesting threads elsewhere, and notes about pretty much anything you like here.

The scissors will be wielded to commercial spam, lewd suggestions, and anything else I don’t like. 8)

Comments
  1. Scute says:

    The BBC’s David Shukman finally pulls the plug on his AGW scientist allies- but still says global warming is on at the last minute.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

  2. Scute says:

    Rog may be interested in this regarding the recent Scafetta paper and its discussion here on the Talkshop.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/congenital-cyclomania-redux/

  3. Tenuk says:

    COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

    This paper kick another big hole in the CO2 catastrophic climate change conjecture. Seems to add to the Henrik Svensmark work on GCRs and Erl Happ’s ideas about ozone driving climate change.

    Abstract
    “This study is focused on the effects of cosmic rays (solar activity) and halogen-containing molecules (mainly chlorofluorocarbons — CFCs) on atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Brief reviews are first given on the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) theory for O3 depletion and the warming theory of halogenated molecules for climate change.

    Then natural and anthropogenic contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs), CO2, total O3, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures. For O3 depletion, it is shown that an analytical equation derived from the CRE theory reproduces well 11-year cyclic variations of both polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients ≥ 0.92. After the removal of the CR effect, a pronounced recovery by 20 ~ 25 % of the Antarctic O3 hole is found, while no recovery of O3 loss in mid-latitudes has been observed.

    These results show both the correctness and dominance of the CRE mechanism and the success of the Montreal Protocol. For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth’s climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R = -0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850–1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96–0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970–2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002.

    These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5 ~ 7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1 ~ 2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.”

    Full paper available free here…
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf

  4. RKS says:

    I’ve been trying to contact Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller regarding the progress of their revised paper with no reply so far.

    The last I heard from them was that their new 25 page ‘bomb proof’ paper was undergoing peer review prior to publication in a journal.

    Has Roger, or anyone else, heard anything regarding the progress of N&Z’s paper so far?
    [mod: No –Tim]

  5. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Hi Rog,

    I had a surprising (to me at least!) thought last night whilst watching Prof Brian Cox on TV demonstrate a stream of water coming from a hole in a bucket being attracted to an electrostatically charged plastic rod (because water is a polar molecule!) – why doesn’t this seem to get talked about much in regard to climatology? After all, the earth has a LOT of water, and the atmosphere and exosphere (?) etc. have a LOT of electrical charges bouncing around them, but I never seem to notice anyone in the climatology literature talking about all these electrical charges causing attraction / repulsion effects on the sea like Prof Cox’s wee experiment did. Is seawater different from fresh water in this regard, or am I missing something?

    regards, and keep up the good work,

    John G from Oz

  6. tchannon says:

    Cox? Hate him. (anything conductive will react)
    Try very very pure water without dissolved gas.

    Electrostatics, sure, it’s around. There are even radiosonde which deal in this stuff, although not popular these days. How much more we need to know is something I don’t know.
    Research is current. Usage is current.

    If you start doing specialist search a mountain of usage will appear.

    http://iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/TELKOMNIKA/article/view/1871

    Lets give readers some fun. I have more to say about some of this eventually.
    http://www.sil.si.edu/SmithsonianContributions/HistoryTechnology/pdf_lo/SSHT-0053.pdf

  7. @ Tim

    More info :

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213007549

    “……This is the first reliable evidence that a lunar rhythm can modulate sleep structure in humans when measured under the highly controlled conditions of a circadian laboratory study protocol without time cues…..”

    http://news.yahoo.com/good-night-moon-now-away-sleep-160500522.html

    See figure n°1

    Time to Fall Asleep and Lunar PhaseEach data point (total of 64 nights double plotted) represents EEG-defined sleep-onset time (i.e., sleep latency: time between lights off and the first EEG occurrence of stage 2 sleep in minutes). The different color-coded symbols depict the different gender and age groups: pink for young women, blue for young men, white for older women, and gray for older men. Note: a lunar-phase (pictures upper abscissa)-dependent distribution could be fitted with a sinusoid function [f = y0 + a ⋅ sin(2 ⋅ pi ⋅ x / b + c); goodness of fit, r = 0.46]. The colored boxes delineate the moon classes 1, 2, and 3, with moon class 1 comprising nights that occurred −4 and + 4 days around full moon, moon class 2 comprising nights that occurred 5 to 9 days before and after full moon, and moon class 2 comprising nights that occurred 10 to 14 days before and after full moon.

    The big question…..
    What is the source of connection ?

  8. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog,

    It is critically important that we get in contact by email or phone. I have found something that may possibly go a long way to vindicating all of your work in relation to phi and the solar system.
    Please email me as soon as possible as you do not appear to be responding to your emails.

    Ian Wilson

  9. J Martin says:

    @ Ian Wilson.

    Obliquities ?

  10. J Martin says:

    @ Ian Wilson.

    Perhaps the quickest way to contact Rog is via Twitter, so perhaps you get to grips with the whatever is involved with sending a tweet !

    Not something I have any idea how to do.

  11. Ian Wilson says:

    J Martin,

    I’m afraid that I know twaddle about twitter.

  12. J Martin says:

    @ Ian Wilson.

    Having said I didn’t know how to use Twitter, I remembered that I had used it before, about 18 months ago.. Miraculously found my password and clicked on things aimlessly until I managed to send Rog a tweet, I think.

    I look forward to an interesting post.

  13. Scute says:

    Here’s a new paper on our closest hot Jupiter exoplanet, with a 2.2 day orbital period and viewed in x rays (links at bottom of comment). I read the NASA feed about it. What drew me in was this:

    “This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation,” said Poppenhaeger. “It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”

    I know that one or two of our number are observing stars in the near vicinity in order to see if there is an exaggerated tidal effect giving rise to heightened magnetic activity or possibly cycles. I don’t know if this exoplanet is well-known, but a star with a hot Jupiter orbiting at 3 million miles every two days seems like a very good candidate for observations of tidally induced magnetic activity.

    Paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2311v1.pdf

    NASA page: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/exoplanet-hd-189733b.html#.UfbfmLa9K0c

    [Reply] Excellent timing Scute! Thank you! Post up today.

  14. philincalifornia says:

    Hi Rog,

    Check this out:

    http://www.mapfodder.com/sculpturetrail.html

    I hope this is the best place to send it. It’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read, and is not totally off-topic, as I’m sure to which, most readers (UK taxpayers) here will attest.

    Cheers, Phil

  15. tchannon says:

    Nice clean presentation with lovely hues through to the pithy prose.

  16. Roger Andrews says:

    A 2011 paper by Hempelmann and Weber:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/HempelmannWeber12.pdf

    contains the following figure, based on a comparison of SSN counts and ACRIM data. It shows TSI tending to flatten out and decrease as the number of sunspots rises above 100:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/acrim-tsi-vs-sunspot-number.jpg?w=640&h=453

    The points are fitted with the quadratic TSI = 1365.59 + 0.0134 x SSN – 0.0000521 x SSN^2. Applying this quadratic to the NASA-Marshall monthly SSN data to derive TSI gives the following:

    According to this plot TSI varies over a range of only 0.9 watts/sq m and most of the solar cycles since 1740, including cycles 17 through 23, topped out at 1366.5 watts/sq m.

    Maybe worth some discussion.

  17. Roger Andrews says:

    Maybe the most catastrophic AGW scenario yet, courtesy of Jim Hansen:

    “Will Earth’s Ocean Boil Away?

    “The key to the argument is a well-documented positive feedback loop. As carbon dioxide warms the planet through the greenhouse effect, more water evaporates from the ocean—which amplifies the warming, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas too. That positive feedback is happening now. Hansen argues that fossil-fuel burning could cause the process to run out of control, vaporizing the entire ocean and sterilizing the planet.”

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

    [Reply] Maybe the break from work routine has made him forget his meds.

  18. Roger Andrews says:

    I looked out over Lake Chapala during a thunderstorm this morning and saw this waterspout heading right towards me. Luckily it broke up when it hit land.

  19. oldbrew says:

    More from Ian Wilson and co. re the VEJ theory and climate/planetary cycles, discussing various aspects and questioning some of the findings of another paper.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-vej-tidal-torquing-model-naturally.html

  20. oldbrew says:

    The ‘leg-pulls’ against the likes of the Guardian and so forth over so-called AGW are getting better and better…

    ‘A new paper published in _____________ suggests that ______________ might/could _____________ and result in costly problem / Armageddon / apocalypse / certain death by 2015 / 2020 / 2030 / 2050

    Scientists say ____________ the size of Manhattan / 4 Hiroshima bombs / time bomb

    [insert image] e.g. iceberg / polar bear / dark steam / chimney / melting ice’

    http://climatefraudwatcher.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/the-wacky-world-of-agw-promotion/

  21. tchannon says:

    If permissions can be gained on that photo oldbrew a spot of mirth is ready.

  22. tony thomas says:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/thomas/2013/08/vienna-s-rootin-teuton-travesty-of-science

    Vienna’s rootin’ Teuton travesty of science

    by Tony Thomas

    August 9, 2013

    Austria is justly proud of its scientists – Schroedinger, Mach, Doppler, and Pauli, to name a few. Hence I was excited to be visiting the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, or Vienna Museum of Natural History. It’s a stately pile in the city’s famed museum district.

    The science there was great. But the global warming exhibits weren’t science, they were alarmist rubbish.

    OK, I’m biased, but let me explain: One display is headed, “Climate models show the expected global warming for the next decades.” The illustration, headed “The world 4degC warmer”, is a color-coded map of the continents.

    I paused. Four degrees warmer within decades? Like, 2030, 2040, 2050? Considering there’s been no warming for 17 years, the forecast seems a stretch. I wondered if the English translation had gone awry, but the label alongside said the same thing in German.

    What’s more, the display seemed already a decade old, judging by references I noticed to incidents in 2002. Museums canbe pretty slack about updating their displays. So that might bring the heat apocalypse forward to, say, 2029, when I’m just settling into my high-care retirement home.

    Was this display the work of some rogue activist curator? Nah. All around were fantastically alarmist efforts such as “The climate bomb in the oceans” (“Global warming could destabilise these deposits [of frozen methane]. Subsequently, the emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases would heat up the atmosphere even more”). Sure, maybe 20,000 or 200,000 years from now. And the Arctic? “The Arctic could be ice-free in summer from 2060 on.” Whatev’, as our PM likes to say.

    In this imminent oh-so-hot world, the illustrated continents are shaded green for habitable areas, fawn for “Uninhabitable – Deserts”, grey for “Uninhabitable – flood, droughts and extreme weather”, and red for “Land loss, 2m sea level rise.”

    What? Two metres? Within decades? Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only rabbits on about a 0.6 metre rise by 2100, and latest data in fact shows sea rises slowing, not accelerating.

    Anyway, I took a camera snap of the hypothesised Australian continent, but doltishly managed to catch only the western half (left). Even so, poor Perth! The whole fertile south-west is shown as fawn, “Uninhabitable – Deserts”. That’s a shame because my daughter just bought a house in Claremont. Maybe I should buy her a camel for Christmas. continued at web adress

  23. Doug Proctor says:

    Roger,

    I had a bit of dialogue with Leif about this. He explained but I remain confused. It was about the magnetic pole flip, but it is most pertinent to a possible cooling trend a la Abraham and Hathaway.

    This is what I understand:

    1. During period of “quiet sun”, i.e. when there are few or no sunspots, the solar magnetic field weakens.

    2. During periods of weak solar magnetic fields, the system-wide protective shield against galactic cosmic rays contracts, weakening at any given radius relative to what it was.

    3. When the Earth comes to be within a weakened magnetic shield, the GCR the Earth receives increases to the level that formerly existed further out in the solar system where a comparable magnetic field strength used to be, as penetration by GCF is proportional to the strength of the prevailing solar magnetic field.

    4. As demonstrated by the CERN CLOUD experiments and hypothesized on the basis of fundamental principles, increased GCR leads to increased cloud cover by increasing ionized particles in the atmosphere that can act as nucleation points for water vapour (ignoring the unknown mechanism for increasing the size of the nucleation points so that they can combine to form airborne droplets that are the building blocks of clouds).

    5. Increased cloud cover causes a higher albedo to Earth, less solar insolation reaches the lower atmosphere and “ground” (water, earth, rock and plant cover). As less passes through the lower, clear atmosphere through, the clear-atmosphere portion that is absorbed decreases, and as less reaches the ground, less of the ground-Earth portion is absorbed. The Earth as a whole system cools.

    6. The cold periods known as the Dalton and Maunder Minima were caused by the above five steps.

    7. Cycle 24, which are are now in, is very weak, and could lead to a weaker Cycle 25 which could be even a zero-sunspot cycle similar to that of the Maunder Minimum.

    Now here is my problem:

    1. The magnetic field of the sun is not constant.
    2. At times the magnetic poles of the sun flip. This does not mean that the magnetic field is non-existent, but it does occur when the field is weaker than when the poles are well developed.
    3. The number of sunspots even during the Maxima is not consistent and may even, if briefly drop to zero.
    4. There is no reference to increased GCR of significant proportions during magnetic field weakening within the standard 2X 11 year cycles.
    5. There is no reference to increased cloudiness during magnetic field weakening or during the periods of low to zero sunspot activity.

    So it seems to me this:

    1. When solar magnetic fields fail, sunspot activity stops but

    2. When sunspot activity stops, solar magnetism doesn’t necessarily fail.

    3. When solar magnetic poles flip, there isn’t a significant diminution of the global magnetic field, i.e. the global magnetic field is independent of the polar state, suggesting that the polar states may be a byproduct of the general activity rather than representative of a global process that spawns the superficial magnetic fields and, hence, the sunspots.

    All this being as above, I have to ask whether low sunspot activity is a necessary but not sufficient situation that leads to increased GCR Earth penetration and (if the model is correct) more cloudiness and global cooling.

    If a quiet sun sunspot-wise is a necessary but not sufficient condition, what else is there going on that would support the notion that Cycle 25 could induce a significant cooling to counter the recent warming?

    I hope my line of reasoning is sufficiently clear to identify where I have made a mistake if there is one, and what my problem with attribution is.

  24. tchannon says:

    Doug, we ain’t a clue on the whole thing.

    The magnetic polarity changes every optical sunspot cycle. (sunspots have reversed magnetic polarity too, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15aug_backwards/). An interaction with the terrestrial magnetic field and terrestrial dynamic magnetic field is involved.

    The poster here if you can read it (poor legibility) might give some clues
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/met-office-hadcrut-4-solar-linkage/
    I’m positing the ~22 year undulation in earth temperature is literally about the magnetic field.

    An area with which I am very wary is the cloud effect / albedo. I think this is misunderstood and misrepresented anyway.

    When I get the energy there is more to do.

  25. AR 1818 and Ar 1817, Sunspots Growing Fast, earth facing.

    Animation, http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=26456

  26. Doug Proctor says:

    I was just thinking about the “death of the biosphere”. It struck me that the talk is all about the megafauna, not the biological life. Just as the British countryside no longer has bears or wolves but is not “dead”, so is the Earth “countryside” not dead even if large fisheries and hunting have collapsed. The biosphere is doing just fine.

    There is no developing large area devoid of life. Phytoplancton is on the rise, as is land-based photosynthetic activity. Satellites can see the growth – and it would not just be CO2 based, if the death of predators is considered. Whatever the herbivores were will now be greater, reproducing to fill the niche available to it by nutrients. If whales aren’t eating krill, there is more krill, if birds aren’t eating bugs, there are more bugs.

    An ecological niche does not stay empty. Any eco-green environmentalist knows this. The mid-West used to be a grassland until the plows came and stopped grassfires. Now – personal experience here – the prairies are covered with brush and trees like never before in recorded human history AND that of the Plains Indians. We did not kill the biosphere, we changed it.

    If we see the range/amplitude of CO2 increasing, it is because more photosynthesis is going on. The greater the new range, the more activity in higher altitudes and higher latitudes where the growing seasons are most constrained.

    I’ve been in Calgary 34 years. Since I’ve arrived the city has doubled in population and more than that in area. I see birds I’ve never seen before. We have a thriving population of hares, the big wild rabbits and a large, thriving urban population of coyotes. Not back when I arrived. Lots of bugs, butterflies, moths: the former dry, grassy prairies are a semi-desert when it comes to a variety of lifeforms. Yards and gardens in a forested area such as a city like Calgary are a metropolis for variety.

    The “death” of the biosphere: another local problem uniquely defined.

  27. Geoff Sharp says:

    Interesting new research on the HCS showing how it has diverged from the sunspot number since about 2003. Yet another metric that changed around 2003-2005.

    http://www.universetoday.com/104023/is-the-sun-more-active-than-it-looks-an-innovative-method-to-characterize-the-solar-cycle/

  28. oldbrew says:

    New paper on ice age theory, introduction from Doug Hoffmann.

    ‘Ayako Abe-Ouchi and her colleagues indirectly linked a full-blown global climate model (GCM) with a fairly complex model of the northern ice sheets. They drove the climate model with data on the changing distribution of sunlight driven by orbital variations and the swings in atmospheric CO2 as recorded in ice cores. Then they used the output of the GCM to drive the ice sheet model. When compared with the historical behavior of real ice sheets, the combined models performed well.’

    http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/forget-global-warming-ice-age-coming

    “Our model realistically simulates the sawtooth characteristic of glacial cycles, the timing of the terminations and the amplitude of the Northern Hemisphere ice-volume variations as well as their geographical patterns at the Last Glacial Maximum and the subsequent deglaciation,” the researchers state. “In the frequency domain, our model produces the largest spectral peak at a periodicity of ~100 kyr, as observed in the data, even without the ocean feedback or dust feedback.”

  29. Roger Andrews says:

    Another study just out has found that redwoods and sequoias in California have been growing at record rates since 1970:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-20130814,0,3829911.story

    According to the study team this could be a result of rising temperatures lengthening the growing season, the trees getting more sun as a result of reduced fog related to climate change, a reduction in North Coast air pollution from wood processing plants increasing the available light or reduced wildfire damage enabling the trees to devote more energy to trunk growth.

    And not a word about the impacts of increased atmospheric CO2

    Sometimes I despair.

  30. Chaeremon says:

    In light of the actual VEJ torque discussion there are interesting orbit segments swept by V,E,J during 2013/11/28 – 2014/01/08 – 2014/01/11.

    Are there already any predictions for this soon to come date range?

  31. oldbrew says:

    Expanding universe theory questioned.

    ‘Cosmologist Christof Wetterich of the University of Heidelberg has uploaded a paper to the arXiv server in which he claims it’s possible that the theory of expansion of the universe might be incorrect. He suggests instead that the redshift observed by researchers here on Earth might be caused by an increase in the mass in the universe.’

    Read more a’Unfortunately, Wetterich’s theory can’t be tested because of the relative nature of mass. Everything we are able to see has a mass that is relative in size to everything else. Thus if it’s all growing, we wouldn’t have anything to measure it against to see that it’s happening.’

    Always a snag – ‘theory can’t be tested’ sounds familiar too 😉

  32. oldbrew says:

    Sea level drop in 2010-11 was due to Australian rain, says NASA study.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-255

  33. tallbloke says:

    Lord B: Thanks, commented.

  34. Doug Proctor says:

    I’m on a course that involves geostatistical analyses. I asked the instructor – a professor at University of Calgary – about error estimation using quadrature on data that is NOT repeated observations of a fixed subject, specifically the ARGO floats, and he got all anxious, said he would discuss it with me “at lunch” and then avoided the subject. I’ll try again tomorrow, just ’cause I hate it when someone avoids the issue.

    Anyway, the statistical analyses we were doing, when applied to the floats, looks like quadrature is not appropriate FOR THE INSTRUMENTAL error. The standard deviation for the average/mode/mean/median goes down as the number of elements goes up but the absolute error on non-repetitive observations doesn’t seem to.

    Following up on this, I’ve been trying to figure out the actual instrumental-observational-measurement errors of the ARGO system. I think it is telling that the errors we see are in Watts/m2, not in the original units. As far as I can tell the ARGO floats actually measure three elements of interest: depth, salinity and temperature. The power number is a calculation, and the error measurement is probably more to do with variation of salinities and depth than anything. But I have been unable to find papers that say what the actual SENSITIVITY limits are.

    Does anyone know what they are? Salinity +/- and temperature +/- are key. Depth is probably fine, determined by pressure itself a product of density,not likely to change much at all.

    The three areas of non-mega-reducible error I see as follows:

    1. Sensitivity: minimum values, i.e precision, fixed or variable with specific value,
    2. Accuracy: +/- representation of reality, determined by comparison with other instruments, fixed or variable, random variation or biased systemically, and
    3. Reproducibility, +/- variation of consistent parameter whether accurate or not, fixed or variable, random within group or biased as group.

    As I see it, only a repeated measurement around the same parameter in reality can, by multiple readings, “zero in” on the actual number. Even if it is the wrong number. And by sensitivity never closer to the actual number than how sensitive the instrument is. It is the problem of shooting at a moving target: previous shots do no count in the grouping around the bullseyes as they would for a stationary target. With a moving target, each shot is independent and has the same chance of hitting the target as the first; there is no information in subsequent shots that can (like the Battleship game) lead to to narrow down the location of the bullsye.

    So: 3200 or 3500 ARGO floats taking millions of temperature readings, each one independent of each other, moving through the oceans slower than the carrier fluid (sea water), sampling different waters in different places at different times. The values of temperature and salinity (and mass) give you joules-in-place-at-a-given-moment; changes in joules etc. give you equivalent power, i.e. watts/m2 per surface area, top-of-ocean. But the error in power is based in +/- temperature and salinity in each independent reading.

    IF you determine that reproducibility and accuracy are both random – and you would need data for this – then can use the volume of data to reduce the +/- of these two, but you are still left with sensitivity. Since we are not dealing with repeated observations of the same element by the same equipment, I don’t see how the sensitivity can be reduced. And since the temperature changes we are dealing with – 0.01C in the >700m and 0.15C in the <700m, I suspect the total +/- for changes in temperature (and similarly for salinity) HAVE to be almost equal to the anomaly.

    My spidey sense says that this is why we do not see anomalies in temperature and salinity identified, only the computation: the numbers are too small and the error bars, too large.

    If anyone has a reference to what the ARGO floats are for these three error qualities (sensitivity, accuracy and reproducibility), I'll pursue the statistican on the subject. Though I think he wants to stay clear of this subject.

    The worst politicians are the academics: they are their image, authorities only as long as they are thought of as authorities, for they do not do anything that can be assessed for accuracy by actions in the actual world.

  35. Doug Proctor says:

    In addition, the power equivalent calculations require an estimation of surface area of the oceans, which has some +/-.

    The is another case of climate change claims that are calculations, not observations. The public thinks that the process of observing or measuring to concluding has no uncertainty. It does not understand that “data” is adjusted, filtered and then massaged with different levels of uncertainty and accuracy beyond the data’s intrisnic uncerrtainty and acccuracy. The transformation of data has a number of cleaning and simplifying stages that remove evidence of uncertainty rather than remove uncertainty.

    Use of anomalies is good for a failure of individual stations to record reality well relative to each other, but it leaves us with the belief that the centre of the error bar is without signficant probable error. We end up with a computational certainty that is then confused and conflated with representatiional certainty, i.e. thinking that what has been computed matches what is in the world.

    Up to Climategate, I had a naive view that our governments misruled and misinformed through ignorance or zeal rather than malice or intent. Lies seemed more susited for a non-transparent age. It would seem that my recent education proves otherwise.

  36. Roger Andrews says:

    Bob Tisdale, January 10, 2009: “Can El Niño events explain all of the global warming since 1976? Absolutely.”

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/

    Me, March 16, 2012: “I don’t think these results leave much doubt that the post-1976 warming was caused by ENSO events and not by man-made greenhouse gases.”

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/roger-andrews-how-the-sun-caused-all-the-recent-global-warming/

    Kosaka & Xie, August 28, 2013: “ …. our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 …… Our results show that the current (warming) hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

    Judith Curry, August 28, 2013: “My mind has been blown by (the Kasaka & Xie) paper … natural internal variability (primarily PDO) … is … a major and likely dominant cause … of the warming in the last quarter of the 20th century.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/#more-12751

    Vindication is nice, but a little recognition wouldn’t go amiss either.

  37. crikey says:

    Some weather gossip..
    Couldn’t find a suitable topic thread as the predictions link was closed for comments
    but thought you might be interested

    There are 2 large an 1 small upper 200hPa low pressure cells on the global upper air synoptic in the NH synoptic.
    https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/STRATOSPHERE#5918225681962981810

    It Will be interesting to watch for snow/cold reports coming in
    The first report looks to have arrived

    “Northern Iceland under evacuation alert as snowstorm approaches”

    The report from this link suggests possible early snow records here. A great weather news video presentation here

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/200-300-meters-of-snow-above-sea-level-expected-in-northern-iceland/11854/

    Also
    Brazil in the SH has snow storm likely from the SWW events associated with stratospheric waves orbiting around the south pole currently

    A great forum thread for following snow build up pixel by pixel is here
    http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/77585-snow-and-ice-in-the-northern-hemisphere-201314/page-4

  38. tchannon says:

    crikey I am trying to put together a perhaps related article but copyright is the usual nightmare., takes forever putting real work together. Met Office post was easier if still takes hours (such as hand html)

  39. http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ Best $500 I have spent in the war for truth. it is now up on line since last night US time.

  40. Doug Proctor says:

    Roger –

    I am a dowser, you know, the type who can locate water pipes, underground streams etc. with a rod or something. It actually has some scientific merit, the human body being sensitive to movement through weak electrical fields. There is an unconscious, but programmable muscle sensitivity to the change in electrical field: by focusing on it, somehow you can cause an unconscious, unnoticeable muscle movement. What you do with a pendulum is concentrate on making the pendulum rotate clock-wise or otherwide, and, lo and behold, it will. Then you focus on “asking” this response when a certain feature is noted, i.e. you are crossing the electric field of a MOVING water body or standing metal pipe.

    Once you have got the response down, you find a personally useful magnifier, i.e. the pendulum or a rod etc. that extends your hand or arm and by extension, increase the physcial response to a noticeable level. (The rod “pulling” the user down is bogus: it is all self-induced at an unconscious level.) About 85% of people have some sensitivity to it. Research was done at the University of Calgary back in the ’80s, double-blind experiments in the back of a closed van, looking for the water-bearing major thrust faults of the Rocky Mountains near Banff. The effect was noted real, though the kinesiology behind it was not understood. Such as it has been in the field of science: first the observation, later the explanation.

    Perhaps you accept dowsing as real, perhaps you don’t: but my story here brings us to the Chemtrail story on WUWT the other day:

    As a result of my learning through farmers in Southern Saskakatchwan that I had the “skill”, I became involved with the Calgary Dowsing Society for a number of years, during which I served as President for four years. To say it was an interesting time is no great stretch.

    Although dowsing was the common factor, the society supported a lot of side-beliefs in things that were perceived as real but not recognized by the mainstream as real – physically, but also socially. I investigated “orbs”, the strange circular objects that CCDs pick up on that some adherents claim to be free-floating lifeforms (real, 3D-spinning, electrical dust phenomena, to the best of my study), a crop circle in Saskatchewan (product of a university-level educated fraternity of some sort), and disabused as best as I could the “Butterfly Effect” when it came to one person’s thoughts changing the course of the universe. Chemtrails was one phase of our review.

    The part about chemtrails – injected chemicals into the combustion byproducts of jet aircraft, with the connivance or ignorance of aviation authorities – part was strong in some members. What the chemical is, is never said, but whatever it is, it drifts down, we breath it, and it is supposed to make us anxious, feeling under mild threat. By our induced feelings of threat, we are thereby open to government assurances that, if we only give them the power, they can make us feel safe. This means governmental control of our behaviour and a strong support for the police and military, essentially any totalitarian action that makes Us safe against Them.

    Chemtrails are supposed to show themselves by the ability of one small contrail being able to cover the entire sky. Relative humidity and dew-point factors are not considerations: whatever the chemicals used has a special ability to produce high altitude clouds. The other key to chemtrails is the 90* crossing (or near 90*) of contrails. Different routes and E-W vs N-S patterns of incoming and outgoing flights are not considerations. The believers are always looking to the sky for unusual contrails, but also to unusual cloud formations, sunset or sunrise colours. All of these things are considered a part of or result from chemtrail production.

    Who are these people?

    Chemtrail believers are, from my experience, non-technologically conversant and threatened by organizational capabilities of any group, especially those of a high technology. I would not even say they are neo-Luddites. Luddites understood the machines they destroyed: their was an attempt to keep social structures from degenerating into the inhuman world of factories and the assembly lines. The chemtrail followers, however, have a view of modern technology more akin to the witchcraft believers of old. They don’t understand how things happen, but they “know” evil intentions when they see them.

    Some of their feelings of distrust are really those of the economic outsider. Economically they are not successful, partly because they do not work well within mainstream companies. They see mind-control everywhere. They distrust “the man” everywhere. They run small businesses, massage, “reiki”, “energy work” and the like: using the power of their life energies, which they believe extends beyond their bodies with enough power to modify ongoing physio-chemical processes (including those of their fellows who are ill, but who, oddly enough, seem to be ALWAYS ill, requiring clearing of noxious energies on a regular basis). They strike me as 17th century individuals trapped in the 21st.

    It is not just the technology of organic chemistry or neurochemistry (through the contaminated air they make us breathe) that bothers them. Radiowaves of all sorts, but in particular, those of cellphones. They go beyond the general use of cellphones to say that there is another government conspiracy in the distribution of cellphone towers. All of us have noted the proliferation of radio/cellphone towers, and their multiple, bristling antennae: it does seem a wonder that one building would have so many on them. This is part of the “proof” that something underhanded is going on. And what that is, is, again, about mind-control: the radio waves again stir us up so we support police and military action, are more aggressive with each other, and in general are anxious and fidgety. The idea is that a mildly anxious population displaces its anxiety (Displacement Theory) through extra consumption, and supports more control. The capitalist-military-industrial complex thrives. (HAARP, in their view, was a global attempt to exert mind control, not weather control, on the planet: once more, make us aggressive and twitchy, and we’ll do what they want us to.)

    Now here, though, is a telling thing: the cellphone/chemtrails people believe they can make simple devices out of aluminum shavings, a copper coil and epoxy. These things are called “cellphone tower busters”. I went to a workshop and built a couple (never say I won’t go the extra mile to understand something).

    What you get is a paper cone, the type you make an ice-and-syrup drink in. Turn it upside down, put in some aluminum shavings. Then a copper coil that is skinny at the top and wide at the bottom. The handedness doesn’t matter. Put that on top of the aluminum shaving, pointy end down. The coil comes up about 3/4 of the way to the top (bottom) of the inverted cone. Fill the cone etc to the top of the coil with epoxy. Then put a layer, about 1 cm thick, of aluminum shavings on top (it will “float” on the epoxy). Finally, fill the remaining space with epoxy, with a smooth top. Tap gently to get the air bubbles out. Let harden,

    Some first wax the inside of the cone so that the epoxy won’t stick, others simply wet the paper, scrape it off and then sand the outside to glossy smoothness. If polished enough, you can see the two layers of aluminum shaving sandwiching the copper coil.

    Yep, they have created a primitive culture “transistor”. With these scattered around the city on a 1/sq mile basis, they are said to destroy the neurotranmission negative effects of cellphone towers.

    I kid you not: the group(s) organized the distribution of these things, thrown onto the ground, semi-hidden so they wouldn’t be found and destroyed. They considered themselves groundswell, anti-government operatives viewed as eco-terrorists by Them, i.e. the distributors felt that if they were caught, the “government” would punish those who sought to negate the powers of cellphones. Distribution was to be done at night and from a moving vehicle, or at least into a place with bushes etc. to hide your actions from view.

    Margaret Mead, where are you on this subject?

    Last century societies from Africa made crude wooden airplanes or boats or what are really “fetishes” of the white-man’s culture. These all are attempts to capture the power or magic of technology and harness it to protect or project the power of, essentially, a powerless people. This cellphone buster is no different from the voodoo doll you use to thwart the actions of your enemy.

    (Strangely, very large ‘busters were supposed to negate the power of chemtrails. I think the concept was that groups of people of one mind could channel their common thoughts through these things, now transmitters, not just modulators of background energy, to disrupt the chemistry of the polluted atmosphere.).

    We live in the most primitive of times along with the most sophisticated of times. It is no wonder that we are having such trouble getting reasonable climate science to the table: several of those I dealt with argued vehemently that the US government had built a 6-lane, blacktop superhighway across the ice shelves of Antarctica for rapid access to and from a secret, beneath the ice base that housed ……. a recovered alien spaceship. This was a belief like the belief an apple falls down from a tree not subject to a tornado-strength up-welling of wind.

    It was an interesting time. The group were, as individuals, very nice, very considerate and very accepting. They were far more pleasant company than a bunch of stockbrokers, engineers or varsity football players. Ultimately, though, the inability to understand rules of logical thought – if A, then B etc. – lead me to end the association. When your ability to connect the dots doesn’t exist, there is no disconnect when the dots end. When your lack of understanding how a computer works – but you accept that it works – is equaled to accepting that chemtrails put up by someone to somehow control you, there is no more common ground for discussion.

    (If I knew how or where to send photos of the cellphone/mini-chem trail buster, I would. Same for the crop circle and orbs. As I said, I’m always prepared to go the extra mile to figure it out for myself.)

    There is a whole world of speculative thinking, magical thinking, that exists just below the surface of even our “educated” society that Watts et al clearly have never noticed. The science is certainly not “settled” for a large part of our population, but of course that is why we still have priests, Doctor Phil, Al Gore, David Suzuki and Paul Ehrlich, to explain the unexplainable to the uncomprehending and nervous.

    As for a paper on chemtrails on WUWT: now that is spooky. As Watts once rudely considered Talkbloke’s Talkshop to be a website devoted to “Transcendental Rant and Way Out There Theory”, I find it off that he posted such a thing. But, as we know, several western states are going legal with the wacky ta-baccy, so it is possible that AW is spending a bit more time find interesting things to discuss through trips that don’t involve going on the road.

  41. tallbloke says:

    Doug: A classic. I’ll post this for discussion.

  42. oldbrew says:

    Scientists studying the universe say: ‘can we have some new physics please’?

    ‘…the Standard Model is starting to fall short, so it is now necessary to look for new physics in the universe. One of the Standard Model’s major problems is that it cannot explain gravity, and another is that it cannot explain the existence of dark matter, believed to make up app. 25 percent of all matter in the universe. In addition, the properties of the newly discovered Higgs particle, as described in the standard model, is incompatible with a stable universe.’

    Tragic 😉

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904094106.htm

  43. Roger Andrews says:

    Following on from Oldbrew above, a short article on the limits of scientific understanding:

    http://tinyurl.com/llyfpne

    I think the last paragraph sums it up:

    “To me, that’s the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to, that when you learn something, for a second you feel crazy smart, and then stupid all over again as new questions come tumbling in. It’s an urge that never dies, a game that never ends. Science is a rough trade, played, I hope, forever …. not limited, not unlimited, just an itch that always needs scratching.”

  44. RoswellJohn says:

    A new paper is out in Astronomy & Astrophysics refuting the idea that planets affect the sun: No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity, R. H. Cameron and M. Schüssler

    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2013/09/aa21713-13/aa21713-13.html

    The original paper is here: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2012/12/aa19997-12/aa19997-12.html

    Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?
    J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, A. Ferriz-Mas, K. G. McCracken and F. Steinhilber

    I’ve read both and it looks like Cameron and Schüssier must have communicated with the first authors because I don’t find their points in the original paper about padding the data with zeros and they type of random numbers used.

    A comment on this paper by Charbonneau, which is VERY supportive, appeared in Nature and is copied on Leif’s site as a PDF:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/493613-Charbonneau-Planets.pdf

    Maybe you/someone could communicate with Abreu and see what he says?

    Regards,

    John

  45. Skeptikal says:

    Australia has elected a new government. The Liberal/National Coalition led by Tony Abbott has swept to power. One of their key election policies was the scrapping of Australia’s much hated Carbon Tax.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/427496/Abbot-ready-to-scrap-carbon-tax

    Hopefully the U.K.’s elected officials will take some notice of what’s happening down-under.

  46. oldbrew says:

    Was soot from coal burning the main reason for glacier melt before temperatures started rising?

    ‘Between 1860 and 1930, large valley glaciers in the Alps abruptly retreated an average of nearly 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) while temperatures in Europe dropped nearly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius).’

    http://www.futurity.org/coal-blamed-retreat-europes-glaciers-1860s/

    If so, how big a factor is it in global ice behaviour now?

  47. J Martin says:

    A post on WUWT applying digital signal processing to hadcrut 3 has produced a projection of cooling of 1 degree C to 2040. Thus agreeing with much recent work at Tallblokes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/digital-signal-processing-analysis-of-global-temperature-data-suggests-global-cooling-ahead/#more-93594

  48. [Reply] Thanks Michele, posted. Video removed from here to make page load quicker

  49. J Martin says:

    According to a government report the UK can frack without breaking its carbon limits.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_Stone_shale_study_report_09092013.pdf

    Got the above from the co2 pious New Scientist.

    [Reply] Thanks!

  50. Tenuk says:

    Once again mainstream science has got it wrong – by a whopping 40%

    Gravity Variations Over Earth Much Bigger Than Previously Thought
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904105345.htm

    No info in the article about why gravity should vary so much more than expected. Shows what happens with an incomplete understanding of how gravity actually operates. We really need to go back to basics and start again without the use of heuristic formulas and magical invocations to imaginary dark matter.

  51. Lance Wallace says:

    Here is an amusing (and perhaps deep) observation of the Fibonacci sequence entering in to the mathematically interesting (and perhaps practically important) question of how power laws and lognormal distributions come into being.

    Internet Mathematics Vol. 1, No. 2: 226-251
    A Brief History of
    Generative Models for
    Power Law and Lognormal
    Distributions
    Michael Mitzenmacher
    Consider an alphabet with two letters: “a” occurs with probability q, “b”
    occurs with probability q2, and a space occurs with probability 1 − q − q2. The
    value q must be chosen so that 1 − q − q2 > 0. In this case, every valid word the
    monkey can type occurs with probability qj(1 − q − q2) for some integer j. Let
    us say a word has pseudorank j if it occurs with probability qj(1 −q −q2). There
    is 1 word with pseudorank 0 (the empty word), 1 with pseudorank 1 (“a”), 2
    with pseudorank 2 (“aa” and “b”), and so on. A simple induction yields that
    the number of words with pseudorank k is in fact the (k+1)st Fibonacci number
    Fk+1 (where here we start with F0 = 0 and F1 = 1). This follows obviously from
    the fact that to obtain the words with pseudorank k we append an “a” to a word
    with pseudorank k − 1, or a “b” to a word with pseudorank k − 2.
    Recall that Fk ≈ Φk/√5 for large k, where Φ = (1+√5)/2. Also
    􀀟k
    i=1 Fk =
    Fk+2 − 1. Now the argument is entirely similar to the case where all items have
    the same probability. If we ask for the frequency of the rj = Fjth most frequent
    item, it has pseudorank j − 2, and hence its frequency is
    qj−2(1 − q − q2) ≈ qlogΦ √5rj−2(1 − q − q2) = rlogΦ q
    j qlogΦ √5−2(1 − q − q2),
    and again we have power law behavior.

    [Reply] Lance: Wonderful! Please repost it in the Why Phi? Pi slice thread.

  52. Oooogh, someone is just trying so hard to make my weekend memorable:
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/14/nic-lewis-on-the-uk-met-office-on-the-pause/

    [Reply] I waded through that and concluded that all the atmos scientists are Titanic deck-chair arrangers.

  53. craigm350 says:

    Came across this during a google search for ‘1810 amo positive?’ Direct link came up after the obligatory sks/wiki entry not sure if it’s paywalled elsewhere? Ruiz-Barradas has older papers for AMO
    http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~alfredo/papers.html
    Recent paper links not working.
    Warmo (position clearly stated in earlier paper), but could be of use to others?
    The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in twentieth century climate simulations: uneven progress from CMIP3 to CMIP5

    From abstract
    The structure and evolution of the SST anomalies of the AMO have not progressed consistently from the CMIP3 to the CMIP5 models. While the characteristic period of the AMO (smoothed with a binomial filter applied fifty times) is underestimated by the three of the models, the e-folding time of the autocorrelations shows that all models underestimate the 44-year value from observations by almost 50 %. Variability of the AMO in the 10–20/70–80 year ranges is overestimated/underestimated in the models and the variability in the 10–20 year range increases in three of the models from the CMIP3 to the CMIP5 versions. Spatial variability and correlation of the AMO regressed precipitation and SST anomalies in summer and fall indicate that models are not up to the task of simulating the AMO impact on the hydroclimate over the neighboring continents.

  54. Sparks says:

    Thought you might like this Rog, Progression of the first 10,000 digits of pi. http://dscienceblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/aen0z3q_700b.jpg

  55. tallbloke says:

    Nice. Doesn’t tell us much about the internal structure of the number though. If you used base 8 you’d get squares instead of pentads.

  56. J Martin says:

    Apparently the IPCC are blaming the change in the AMO on global warming and co2 !!

    The report will say that the warming of the oceans will interfere with the currents in the Atlantic, also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). It will state: “It is very likely that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation will weaken over the 21st century. It is likely that there will be some decline in the AMOC by 2050, but there will be some decades when the AMOC increases.”

    Insanity from;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html

  57. J Martin says:

    More from that Telegraph article above.

    For the first time, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to give a clear prediction of how global warming will affect currents in the Atlantic Ocean.
    It will say that the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic, which includes the Gulf Stream, will weaken by 20 to 44 per cent by the end of the century.

    Re the IPCC blaming forthcoming cooling on co2. It’s quite a clever move. The reality must be that given that the next solar cycle may well go missing with some cooling an inevitable result, added to the PDO having gone negative and the AMO about to, cooling, especially in the UK must be the most likely future for perhaps tens of years.

    If the IPCC had completely ignored the likelihood of cooling and cooling then arrived, they would completely lose all credibility in every sector of society.

    Will they get away with blaming mankind’s output of co2 for the natural cycles of the oceans. ?

  58. oldbrew says:

    How the Earth was made: latest version.

    ‘Research duo suggest early Earth had heat-pipe channels similar to Jupiter’s moon Io’
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-duo-early-earth-heat-pipe-channels.html

    Quote: ‘The heat-pipe Earth model therefore offers a coherent geodynamic framework in which to explore the evolution of our planet before the onset of plate tectonics.’

  59. Guy Leech says:

    Are any of the Talkshop contributors going to Brian Hoskins’ Royal Society “Next steps in climate science” conference on 2nd & 3rd October in London? “This event is intended for researchers in relevant fields and is free to attend.” – plenty of the contributors to the Talkshop count as researchers in relevant fields to me. The named speakers include some key CAGW policy advocates – Slingo, Solomon, Haigh, Schmidt.

  60. oldbrew says:

    New IPCC report launch…

    ‘At the IPCC press conference today, Professor Thomas Stocker, co-chair of WG1, told press that “we’re confident because we’re confident”.’

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/27/ipcc_ar5_wg1_teaser/

    Good thinking Prof 😉

    No mention of ‘the pause’ of course – must have disappeared under a carpet somehow.

  61. Scute says:

    Mann has stuck his head above the parapet in an article for the Guardian.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers

  62. Scute says:

    Today’s Guardian seems to be supporting its argument regarding the carbon budget by using an old IPCC projection from AR4. Am I right? The graph is half way down and the temperature line/ projection transition is at 2005 with the projection going past 2013. (This is a different Guardian article from my last suggestions comment):

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change

  63. Scute says:

    Here is a graph from page 36 of the Summary for policy makers.

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    It includes an unabashed cherry-picking of temperature data points (2000, low and 2010, high) so as to fit the linear relationship they are promulgating between CO2 and temperature. It is true they can say they were just plotting in tens of years, to show a long term trend from 1850 but the 15-year halt is now turned into a soaring rise. They, of course, know this is a complete misrepresentation of the truth but are hiding behind the fig leaf argument that the decimal system dictates that you choose years with a ‘0’ on the end.

    This is made worse by the fact that the graph was touted in the live streaming of the SPM press presentation but is languishing on the last page of the 36-page SPM document. And you had to be quick to see the problem in the few seconds that they zoomed in on it at the conference.

    Here is a clip from the BBC where they parade the offending graph (at 1:30):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

    Notice he says it was finalised “after much deliberation and preparation”.

    It doesn’t end there. The CO2 ppm for 2010 is plotted at 420ppm which we haven’t even reached in 2013.

    There is so much wrong with this graph. For a start, there are in fact two versions, one touted at the conference and the other on page 36 of the SPM. You can tell because the 2010 temperature plot is just below 1C (above 1850) in the press conference graph and just above in the printed summary. Also, the 420ppm CO2 figure for 2010 cited above was arrived at by meticulously zooming and measuring the SPM page 36 data point versus the axis units (0.84 of 500). The video version looks as if it’s more like 430ppm. The 2000 temperature may have crept up a tad between the video and the print version too. Finally, according to the 3 main temperature sets, there is a roughly 0.3 C difference between 2000 and 2010 (from the mid .2’s to the mid .5’s). The offending graph shows this to be about 0.23 C (carefully measured from the print version). This is enough to show a steep upward kick but 0.3 C would make it kink too much for the linear trend they are pushing.

    This all smacks of massaging the plot data to fit a dubious narrative (the linear trend emphasised in the video) and soaring temperatures (plus ca change). And I think they should be called on it.

    It would certainly explain the fact they were up all night, why they’ve inadvertently let two graphs slip through and why it was included after much ‘deliberation’ and ‘preparation’. Those two words sound like euphemisms to me.

    Scute

    P.S. One small caveat on the 0.23 vs 0.3 fudge: I went to the Hadley Centre Global Temperature page and roughly calculated the average of Hadcrut 4, NCDC and GISS for 2000 and 2010. Their baselines are different so an average is a little skewed and there doesn’t appear to be a table of averages, only the graph. However, I don’t think it’s affected by 0.07 and so I believe it’s nearer 0.3 C than 0.23 C.

  64. Scute says:

    Correction to above:

    My carbon data point issue was wrong because it’s cumulative emissions, not ppm. Mea culpa- they have always been fixated with ppm and I saw the ‘500’ on the x axis. But that is pgC, petagrams of carbon. However, that raises the question as to why they are suddenly focusing on cumulative emissions. Perhaps it’s because they know they can’t plot a linear relationship for ppm versus temperature and despite their temperature fudge (which still stands) they know that temperatures will show a tail-off horizontally to an asymptote as ppm rise. Also, cumulative emissions bear little relationship to ppm as emissions rise and CO2 uptake varies accordingly.

    I’ve been toggling between those two graphs. They really are quite different in the way they shunt around what should be rock-solid historical data.

  65. 8:30-12:00 minutes into the mp3 file a description of how the climate models are now being used to look at 1-3 decade periods and how natural variability caused the hiatus and also the rapid warming in the 1970’s-1980’s. All to be revealed in chapter 11, – Gerald Meehl, NCAR Senior Scientist.
    http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10327/ipcc-report-teleconference-wg1-2013

    Might prove to be an interesting chapter.

  66. J Martin says:

    from the new scientist; they now know that clouds warm the planet.

    Another key issue is the effect of clouds. “IPCC hasn’t done a good job on clouds before,” says clouds lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds, UK. “They were a big unknown in modelling warming.”

    In 2007, it was uncertain even whether clouds cooled or warmed the planet overall. “But we now believe that they are a positive feedback on temperature,” he says. “Their warming effect will intensify with global warming.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24295-climate-report-how-the-science-has-moved-on.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkmxJn9r0pU

  67. Chaper 11 page 29

    As a result, there is considerable model uncertainty in the response of the northern hemisphere storm track position (Ulbrich et al., 2008), stationary waves (Brandefelt and Kornich, 2008) and the jet streams (Miller et al., 2006; Ihara and Kushnir, 2009; Woollings and Blackburn, 2012).
    Further, CMIP5 models show that the response of NH extra-tropical circulation to even strong greenhouse forcing remains weak compared to recent multidecadal variability and a recent detection and attribution study suggests that tropospheric ozone and aerosol changes may have been a key driver to NH extra-tropical circulation changes (Gillett et al., 2013). Some AOGCMs simulate multi-decadal NAO variability as large as that recently observed with no external forcing (Selten et al., 2004; Semenov et al., 2008). This suggests that internal variability could dominate the anthropogenically forced response in the near term (Deser et al., 2012)

  68. Doug Proctor says:

    David Suzuki, our Canadian mean-person of eco-green activism, finds the IPCC newest report a compelling, final clarion call to action. I say not:

    AR5 shows that consensus even with the IPCC is increasingly difficult to find. The range of outcomes of 0.3 – 4.7C by 2100 is a meaningless range, and the footnoted reason that no “best estimate” was given because no agreement could be reached says that the models have little objective basis: after 25 years there should be enough observational evidence to narrow the range of reasonable options.

    There is nothing new in the new IPCC report except a recognition of and attempt to diminish the non-clarification of important climatic parameters. Noting that the current hiatus is part of natural variability is a worrisome admission for those who think things through, because it suggests that the 1975 – 2001 warming period may have a significant but unaccounted-for portion warming that comes also from natural variability. You can have it both ways only in fantasy and abusive relationships.

    CO2 from fossil fuels could be leading us to large scale warming, yes. But it may not be. That is what the IPCC newest document really says: we have worked another 5 years and yet nothing is clearer than that the last 15 years of temperature (and global energy and sea level) data is a) not up to expectations but, b) may be nothing but background noise.

    It is a sad position to be in when you want to radically rejig the world’s economy, legal and social structures, and put the world’s energy-poor on the slow road to improved lives.

  69. tchannon says:

    Michele, The item you link looks interesting.
    Unfortunately the PDF has been pulled, paywalled AMS.

  70. tchannon says:

    Michele, any ideas which might show a mechanism able to trip chaotic modal regime change is important. As a pure maths study based on very dubious data I don’t take it particularly seriously, are other candidate processes which are not mentioned.
    Recently I pointed to a 1999 paper involving a veteran where modal change was suggested and possibly another modal change sometime then or soon after. That is probably what we are experiencing. Won’t affect you in Italy as much but once again there is blocking over northern Europe, so south and east England will have quiet weather for some time.

    This whole thing in the north fits two different ways of looking at weather, classic Lamb etc. and Laroux (which also fits even older ideas).

    The paper you cite does amuse me over the reframing of language, doesn’t want to mention MWP so a recently invented term is used.

    Make an article out of the paper? Thinking about it, I do though have other things in preparation.

  71. oldbrew says:

    Send in the clouds…or lose them…

    ‘What Does All This Mean?
    I think it is additional evidence that natural cloud variations cause multi-decadal time scale climate change.’ – RS

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/oceanic-cloud-decrease-since-1987-explains-13-of-ocean-heating/

  72. wayne says:

    Rog, seen this one?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238550/the-climate-alarmists-have-lost-the-debate-its-time-we-stopped-indulging-their-poisonous-fantasy/

    Everyone here and at (well, you know) deserve to have this posted, and in bold. 🙂
    It’s been a long haul but we can nearly start concentrated on some real science instead of fighting the pseudo flavor from the IPCC.

  73. wayne says:

    I can see that yes, in fact you have. Get ’em for I can’t seem to get disqus to accept me.

  74. tallbloke says:

    If Dellers had given scute’s post a mention, I would.

  75. oldbrew says:

    New paper from Nicola Scafetta calls IPCC climate models into question and proposes an alternative approach.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/nicola-scafetta-climate-models-ipcc-fail-reproduce-decadal-multidecadal-patterns-1850/
    (contains a link to the full paper)

  76. craigm350 says:

    New paper published in Environmental Research Letters (h/t omnologos)

    The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure

    We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves. Our results show that a mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes. We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001

  77. tchannon says:

    I’ll put a post together Craig, if this holds up as real it opens some doors.
    Amusingly BAS are writing about northern regions too. (B Antarctic S)

  78. Tenuk says:

    This Reuters piece could make a good post, as the very dangerous process of removing spent fuel rods from Fukushima nuclear plant, reactor 4 in November 2013 has had little coverage by the mainstream.

    Insight: After disaster, the deadliest part of Japan’s nuclear clean-up
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-fukushima-insight-idUSBRE97D00M20130814

    “They are going to have difficulty in removing a significant number of the rods,” said Arnie Gundersen, a veteran U.S. nuclear engineer and director of Fairewinds Energy Education, who used to build fuel assemblies.

    The operation, beginning this November at the plant’s Reactor No. 4, is fraught with danger, including the possibility of a large release of radiation if a fuel assembly breaks, gets stuck or gets too close to an adjacent bundle, said Gundersen and other nuclear experts.

    That could lead to a worse disaster than the March 2011 nuclear crisis at the Fukushima plant, the world’s most serious since Chernobyl in 1986…

  79. oldbrew says:

    Research unearths The Milky Way Wobble.

    ‘The velocities going upwards and downwards show that there is a wave-like behaviour, with stars sloshing in and out.’

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-galactic-mosh-pit.html

  80. Bill McIntyre says:

    oldbrew 23/10/2013

    Fits our central location in an area of an arm that is currently activated by the galaxy.

    I did not believe it – but most people subscribe to the notion that when in an activated area

    things slow down.

    Might have to change my belief.

  81. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole asks why the BBC has such a poor attitude in climate change matters.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9063201/why-cant-the-bbc-be-impartial-in-the-climate-change-debate/

    He points out one of the Beeb’s main go-to climate pundits is a professor whose expertise is in garden snails.

  82. A solar activity bit…
    🙂

  83. Scute says:

    Here’s a link to an FT interview with Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Climate isn’t mentioned once but models are dragged over the coals in a spectacular bout of navel-gazing. I think it is salutary to see this happening in a completely unrelated field.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/25ebae9e-3c3a-11e3-b85f-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2ijTco6YO

    FT ask not to copy and paste the actual article but I think one quote under fair use is OK:

    “And yet in September 2008, this pride was shattered when those venerated models suddenly stopped working. “The whole period upset my view of how the world worked – the models failed at a time when we needed them most … and the failure was uniform,” he recalls, shaking his head. “JPMorgan had the American economy accelerating three days before [the collapse of Lehman Brothers] – their model failed. The Fed model failed. The IMF model failed. I am sure the Goldman model also missed it too.”

    The Fed is the IPCC of the financial world, clinging to theory as ‘validated’ by models. The allegory is perfect, with Alan Greenspan cast as the High Priest who could do no wrong (“they made me a rock star”) and his 280 PhD- equipped economists producing models in the back offices of the Fed to fit the theory. Even as he spoke to the FT, the latest round of Federal Reserve quantitative easing was and is depressing interest rates worldwide, propelling hundreds of millions of pensioners into deeper poverty as they enter another bitter winter forecasted by Michele Casati and further confirmed today on the Talkshop.

    Scute

  84. J Martin says:

    Looking at the Steven Goddard graph on http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/27/2013-second-fewest-severe-tornadoes-on-record/

    I noticed that the UK had its strongest storm in recent times in 1987 (The Michael Fish hurricane) when the US had its lowest recorded number of severe tornadoes, now the UK is about to get its second strongest storm in recent years, the same year that the US had its second lowest number of severe tornadoes.

    Probably just a coincidence.

  85. Roger Andrews says:

    You chaps on the other side of the Pond might like to know what AGW has in store for you 🙂

    http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=58783

  86. Chaeremon says:

    Billionaire(s) invest in the Truth of existing climate models developed for the recent International Panel for Climate Science (ICPP) report. Their “knowledge” appears to concentrate on the american way of success: make money fast while the believers are kept unfit and incompetent.

  87. Tim Churchill says:

    BBC are at it again, turning steam into smoke.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

  88. oldbrew says:

    Unravelling the mysteries of the mesosphere with a new technique that analyses sodium:

    ‘because of its relative abundance, sodium provides higher-resolution data that reveals more information about the small-scale dynamics occurring in the upper atmosphere. From this, scientists can learn more about the influence of the Sun’s energy, helping to differentiate its effects from that of humans.’

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031111600.htm

    So we can’t already differentiate the Sun’s effects from that of humans. Meanwhile the IPCC crew is content to just assume all varieties of solar power are near-constant.

  89. J Martin says:

    I’m assuming that after Rog’s visit to the Committee rooms at the House of Commons today that we might expect a Murry Salby post. I believe that lecture was being videoed so hopefully will appear on You Tube.

  90. Scute says:

    Here we go again. More smoke-belching cooling towers from the BBC science dept. This time it’s Harrabin:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24834697

  91. oldbrew says:

    Piers Corbyn says: ‘Termites alone produce 10 times the CO2 of all Man’s activity. Will Obama start a war on ants?’

    http://bit.ly/19QbrvY
    [links to a pdf file]

  92. Roger Andrews says:

    Corbyn’s claim rehashes – for the umpteenth time – the old, tired 1982 Zimmerman et al. study which concluded that “global annual emissions (from termites) calculated from laboratory measurements could reach … (50 gigatons) of carbon dioxide”. He also gets the numbers wrong (50 gigatons is 1.5 times higher than current man-made CO2 emissions, not ten times higher).

    A more plausible estimate based on actual field studies is that of Sanderson (1996), according to which man-made CO2 emissions are ten thousand times higher than termite CO2 emissions. Why didn’t Corbyn cite that? And no, that’s not a rhetorical question.

  93. J Martin says:

    Rog,

    now that Salby’s lecture tour of the UK has concluded, perhaps you it might be fun if you were to make a post of the exam question he asked the audience to answer at the end of his talk, or at least he did in Hemingford Abotts, I assume he also did at the House of Commons which you attended ?. Sadly my guestimate was a factor of 10 out, but that did put me in second place rather surprisingly given that I was an order of magnitude out.

    Hopefully his presentation at the House of Commons was videoed as I would like to see it again.

  94. tchannon says:

    I enjoyed Dr Salby’s presentation and I reflected that it would have been hard to imagine such a talk being given in the House of Commons a couple of years back.

    Except for his closing remarks, where he talked about the value of science, I think it’s fair to say that he did not cover anything that was not presented in his April Hamburg lecture (which is available on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0 and which goes into greater detail than yesterday’s presentation).
    Nov 7, 2013 at 7:58 AM | Martin A

    — From Bishop Hill

  95. Scute says:

    Scientific American just sent me a breathless email peddling what appears to be their hot-off-the-press Weird Weather blockbuster, starting with:

    “Hurricanes. Blizzards. Flooding. Drought. If extreme events like these seem to be on the rise…”

    This, at the tail end of the second quietest hurricane season in history.

    Bottom of the page it says “on sale 12th November 2012″. So they know they’ve only got one month to shift out-of-date dogma before the season ends and the cat’s out of the bag.”

    http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/storm-warnings-climate-change-extreme-weather/

    http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/storm-warnings-climate-change-extreme-weather/

  96. Sparks says:

    Hi Rog,
    I have found an interesting trend in the difference of change between the two orbital ellipses of Uranus and Jupiter.


    The red trend-line is the difference of change between the two orbital ellipses of Uranus and Jupiter. The blue line is the trend of sunspot area numbers.

    I actually posted a version of this graph in July, here: http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/sunspot-area-1875-2012-with-polynomial-trend-of-jupiter-and-uranus-distance/

    but I realized that it could be mistaken for a sunspot number trend after viewing similar sunspot number trends.

  97. Chaeremon says:

    Climate tax, aid and fees off table, Australian cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

  98. tchannon says:

    Michele, nice find.
    As a subject the storm is emotionally hot for many people so covering this is risky, would need great care.

  99. A C Osborn says:

    Roger, you may be interested in this
    There is an interesting Report by Euan Mearns’ on his forum “Energy Matters and re-posted at Clive Best’s Forum, on the “The link between sunshine and temperature based on UK climate records since 1933″.
    It looks at Cloud Cover compared to Temperatures. See it here
    http://euanmearns.com/the-link-between-sunshine-and-temperature-based-on-uk-climate-records-since-1933/
    and here
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5349#comments

  100. What is the current state of scientific knowledge with regard to seasonal and decadal forecasting?
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/015602

    Figure 7 in the paper:

    ‘Climate has already changed, and will continue to do so,under human influences (IPCC2007). A first order estimate of the likely effects is provided by the trend since 1900 (figure7). This is over-simplified because not all of this trend is attributable to human activities, the response to greenhouse gases is non-linear so that future human-induced changes could be different, and other anthropogenic forcings such as aerosols and ozone could produce responses very different to the trend.
    Nevertheless, in many regions the trend is comparable to the variability associated with AMV and PDV, suggesting that anthropogenic climate change is a potentially important source of decadal prediction skill. Future recovery of stratospheric ozone may also provide some predictability, particularly of southern hemisphere winds (Son et al 2008).’

    To me Fig 7 looks like the data adjustment protocol!

  101. Doug Proctor says:

    Roger,

    In a moment of cogitational meandering, I wrote this essay as a “comment” to a post today in WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/games-people-play/#comments). It is somewhat OT, but I was thinking about why we (the world) have such different takes on the same data, and how we come to selectively discuss what benefits our cause and ignore what does not (the point behind “Games People Play” by Tisdale). So I wrote what I wrote. You might find it interesting or useful to your audience.

    Doug

    I’ve been thinking about what makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on. What I have noted is the constant difference in how each side places its emphasis, and that this shows up in its speech. Specifically, the skeptics use declarative, as in “this will”, “this shall” or “this does”, and, of course, its negative equals. The warmists use conditionals, i.e. words like “could” or “should” or “may” or “might” that indicate undefined probabilities and, in truth, possibilities, things that are determinable only after the fact.

    The use of conditionals after 25 years is remarkable (here I make a declarative statement). Despite all the models and claims of correlation/matching of observation, we still have no “does”, “shall” or “will” in the IPCC or other CAGW programme. The dangers and fears are in the distant future, discussed only as emerging from the present, but still only becoming obvious in some, never-close-to-today,tomorrow.

    This is not an academic situation. The human world acts on what it thinks, and it thinks through words. If the words are confusing, its thoughts are confused and its actions are not necessarily the best. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is particularly prone to confusion from the way they are instructed, and prone to confusing the readership by the way they combine emotional response with a misunderstanding of what the use of conditionals in a discussion means. The MSM think conditionals represent scientific caution, but what they represent is scientific uncertainty. The extent to which they are used represents the consideration of the likelihood that what they think “will” come, actually comes.

    From what I see, there are four different types of (Un)Certainty involved in the CAGW narrative: 1) Computational, 2) Emotional and 3) Representational and 4) Ideological. (There may be more, or more subtle versions of these, but these 4 are probably close to the general breakdown.)

    The IPCC 95% type is Computational Certainty, that is the outcome as proposed by models is consistent with input data and mathematical relationships between identified factors. McKibben’s certainty is based in Computational Certainty, as in “Do The Math”. It could also be labelled “Intellectual” Certainty, as it is based on the idea that nature is deterministic enough, and we are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to figure out what is going on in a usefully predictive way. The application of the argument by ignorance is applicable to this form of certainty: if we can’t think there is another way, then it must be the way we say. While naively reasonable, and a reflection of the arguments Sherlock Holmes was claimed to use in solving crimes, how it is used by the IPCC adherents is actually a perverse misuse of what Holmes did: Holmes used the concept to bring to the table non-current, usually non-obvious solutions, which would be then investigated closely. The IPCC cabal use it to dismiss the non-current and non-obvious).

    The second type, the Emotional Certainty, is what roots Gore, the IPCC Summary and the 97% Consensus concept. With Emotional Certainty, the statements say that we are personally comfortable with the work done and where it ended – with the understanding that not everything could be done, but we believe to be the most important parts were covered. Outside the workers themselves, this comfort derives from authority, the trust in credibility of certain socially recognized individuals or groups. The MSM in particular seizes on this particular form of Certainty (regardless of how they, themselves, perceive it). Anyone connected with the IPCC is credible, therefore I am comfortable with what they say. Personal investigation in this regard is unnecessary, and indeed is a “skeptical” activity for those still not convinced, as it suggests a “better” understanding can exist outside what one gleans from just the Summary remarks. The notable history of a President misleading America about the reasons for going to war, or a Bernie Madoff misleading investors as to what was happening to their money makes no impact on the credibility of other parties: that was then, this is now (and these ones).

    Ideological Certainty is what drives the eco-green. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki, Friends of the Earth, the Waterkeepers, opponents of the XL Keystone pipeline: the arguments for CAGW are mere backups for other, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, pro-nature beliefs. This is not to say that those other beliefs are not valid, only that the principle position is not CO2-based warming per se. With Ideological Certainty, the certainty is that continuing the path we are on, the status quo, will cause socio- and environmental damage that is unacceptable (and may be catastrophic). The devil is in the general, not the detail: if we continue to consume and destroy – and fossil fuels are a fundamental part in this activity – the bad things will happen. Arguments about actual temperature sensitivity are not relevant. Whether we will experience 4 degrees or 1 degree warming by 2100, our societies are still on the road to ruin. It is this movement that must be stopped.

    The fourth type of Certainty is Representational, in which what is projected is compared to what, at an initial state, is observed. This is where the skeptical position focuses. The skeptic wants to know the detail of what IS to happen and so looks to what HAS happened as a true indication (by pattern or observation) of how closely a predicted outcome has been matched by actual outcome. He does this so that he may respond – as he would say – “appropriately”.

    The skeptic recognizes that responses are, and should be, proportional to the triggering event: a minor problem should not have elicited a large preventative measure if a small one would have sufficed. Energy – emotional, physical, social – is liimited and should be used wisely and sparingly if possible. To determine the details and hence the level of action that is appropriate, of course, one needs facts. And facts are not determined in policy summaries but in the field and the laboratory. Facts are not nailed down by consensus, i.e. group opinion, but by falsifiable testing. The skeptic, in his hunt for facts, is forced to read and question. Arguably having this desire for Representational Certainty is where the various skeptics or luke-warmers like Pielke, Lindzen, Watts and ourselves come in.

    It should be noted that not all anti-CAGW narrative is driven simply by a desire for Representational Certainty before we act. Ideology, emotion and a narrow but intense trust in intellectual work also drive some skeptics. Certainly CFACT, Morano, the GWPF are seen in the eyes of warmists to be not just attacking the facts of the CAGW story, but the spirit: the obstructionism against CO2 reduction is perceived as anti-regulatory, pro-free market, pro-energy industry sentiments. Which, to some extent, is true. But all of us determine the course of our lives and support on the basis of multiple pulls and pushes, motivating factors that shift through time.

    What makes the CAGW fight persist, IMHO, is that we argue about “Certainty” as if we are dealing with the same thing and each side is either foolish, perverse, or a paid shill not to recognize what each side holds. What I am saying in the above essay, is that we are not dealing with the same thing. I have listed four different aspects that lead to the decisions we make on supporting or not supporting CO2-related initiatives. The technical, dictionary-defined words are the same, but we argue because we are not using the same mental vocabulary.

  102. tchannon says:

    An excellent essay Doug. Watts elevated first where you will get more exposure but less engagement. I have reblogged elsewhere.
    Rog will decide what he wants.

  103. Tim Churchill says:

    Now clams are the new trees; David Shukman shows how they prove global warming. See the graph on this video:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24946983

  104. Tim Churchill says:

    Yes, but that is the so called acidification scare. This new one plots the growth rings of 500 year old Clams who apparently grow faster in a warmer world – just like the Mannian tree rings. It couldn’t be the extra CO2 in the water now, could it?

  105. oldbrew says:

    Three low-flying satellites are launching next week to investigate the behaviour of Earth’s magnetic field in greater detail than ever before.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-11-satellites-probe-earth-strange-shield_1.html

    “The magnetic pole is changing, and the magnetic field is changing too. Why?”

    http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2013/swarmmeasuri.jpgMagnetic field satellites

  106. Doug Proctor says:

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21589870-capitalists-not-just-greens-are-now-questioning-how-significant-benefits-shale-gas-and?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/from_sunset_to_new_dawn

    Regarding shale gas: paragraph by Grafton, full-cycle economics are $6US/BTU for gas. In the US.

    Bowland/Brit gas is dry. If America needs $6, Britain needs more. Then push in distribution, etc.

    Future not dark, but future expensive.

  107. Chaeremon says:

    A classic (Mar 4, 2008) and worth the read: Anthropogenic Global Warming – Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden. Warning: contains science, yes: physics. Reading and comprehension at your own risk.

  108. oldbrew says:

    ‘Comet of the century’ on view on December 3rd – if the Sun doesn’t break it up on November 28th.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25052236

  109. Tim Churchill says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25065870

    “Icy motorway in South Lanarkshire closed after accidents

    The main motorway between Scotland and England has been closed after a spate of minor accidents.

    Police closed the M74 in South Lanarkshire in both directions on a stretch around Abington.

    Officers said the closure was the result of the weather conditions.

    It is believed that ice formed when temperatures fell below freezing. Police said the road was being gritted to allow it to re-open.”

    One wonders what other reasons there can be for ice forming.

  110. J Martin says:

    Greg said on http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=647

    “It may be coincidental but the first triplet has a modulating frequency that matches the orbital period of Jupiter to 4 significant figures.
    pJ = 11.8624 years”

    Unfortunately I don’t really understand what Greg means by triplet or modulating frequency, but it sounds intriguing given that it so closely matches Jupiter’s orbital period.

  111. oldbrew says:

    BBC asks: ‘why is everyone so angry about generating energy?’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24985531

    Whichever way big energy is produced, somebody doesn’t like it. It’s likely to ruin your health, your neighbourhood or your planet – they say.

  112. Scute says:

    This is a video of an IPCC press conference held on 25th October (not the main one that was on the news). It involves three AR5 chapter authors. There is an astonishingly frank admission on the pause and the poor model performance from 17:55 to 26:00.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w4n_9sGX1No

    It’s almost as if he is saying, ‘yes everything the sceptics say is actually true’.

  113. A C Osborn says:

    I am trying to get this more visibility
    A very interesting article on No TrickZone, about the Austrian Weather Service admtting that Models are not reflecting reality.
    see
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/27/staggering-concessions-by-austrias-national-weather-service-natural-factors-substantial-models-inadequate/

  114. oldbrew says:

    ‘the Austrian Weather Service admitting that Models are not reflecting reality’

    Is it any wonder?

    ‘There is now ample evidence that an inadequate representation of clouds and moist convection, or more generally the coupling between atmospheric water and circulation, is the main limitation in current representations of the climate system.’

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/16/what-are-climate-models-missing/

  115. Doug Proctor says:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/11/cultists-communists-too-close-to-us-for-comfort/

    This is a very interesting article on the nature of cults – by which the writer means all strong associations with a political or socio-ideological basis. There are several paragraphs that don’t even need the words Climate Change to be relevant to the CAGW dispute. The term skeptic is even used correctly!

    An interesting cut-and-paste, especially in Britain, where the War is much more out in the open than in Canada (David Suzuki is appalled that some feel we are the worst country in the world for our climate change position).

  116. TobyG says:

    I can’t find any analysis of this company’s claim to be totally green and how they manage their fuel mix.

    http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/switch/where-our-energy-comes-from/our-fuel-mix

    Its probably a simple question, but how do they do it, surly there’s only so much ‘green’ energy being supplied by the UK.

  117. oldbrew says:

    Exposing long-standing problems with noise from wind turbines.

    ‘Acoustic engineers who advised or wrote the government wind turbine noise pollution guidelines subsequent to the Kelley research, ensured that the very sound frequencies below 200 Hz known in 1985 to cause adverse health effects and symptoms known as “annoyance” were not included, and were never measured.’

    http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/

  118. oldbrew says:

    This probably qualifies as ‘cutting edge science’ 😉

    ‘delivering packages to your doorstep by “octocopter” mini-drones with a mere 30-minute delivery time’
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-unveils-futuristic-plan-delivery-by-drone/

  119. tchannon says:

    Suggestions-5 is the new active thread. This one at 142 comments is long enough, demoted to archived.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s