Last time we looked at how you could show a document’s icon within a Data View, but have the icon’s hyperlink point to the document itself. This time we are going to look at displaying a document’s name, but without the file extension.

Data Views can be a very powerful tool when using SharePoint Designer 2007 in designing pages in your WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007 environments (the same is true for SharePoint Designer 2010 and SharePoint 2010).

One of the requirements for my project is to display documents from two different SharePoint Document Libraries in one view and have the documents displayed in a specific way. The content is to be displayed in the table view as follows:

To show the name without the file extension, I added the Name field to the table, then converted the value to a Hyperlink. I then made the hyperlink value point to the file using @FileRef.

To remove the extension from the display, I built the display value using two different expressions, as shown below:
substring-before(string(@FileLeafRef), ‘.’)

Working from the inside out, ‘string’ converts the filename variable into a string so the next expression can work with the value. ‘Substring-before’ accepts two variables: the data value and what character to look at for stopping (which is the period ‘.’).

So, the full URL looks like: <a href=”{@FileRef}”><xsl:value-of select=”substring-before(string(@FileLeafRef), ‘.’)” /></a>

Daniel Glenn

Recent Articles by Daniel Glenn

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; Site Manager/Power User; SharePoint Designer; Data View Web Part; Using a Data View Web Part

Page Rating

Comments

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

The power of metadata added to MOSS 2010 really finds its way through Content Types. The taxonomy/folksonomy features in SharePoint can be piggybacked to a Syndicated Content type and thus be available through all the web applications/site collection in the entire organizations IT footprints. The icing on the cake is the multilingual supports for this content which can be done without a single piece of custom code….

Multi Lingual Metadata support along with Fast Search were the ‘WOW’ when I saw the first demo of SharePoint 2010 last year. Since then I've always wanted to write this blog but the sheer length of it got the best of me. Come Christmas, three days of absolutel holiday and what better than a blog to talk about Metadata? But before you read this, I suggest taking the beer of your choice and fire up the SharePoint machine to practically do what the article says…otherwise you would get bogged down with all the information written here…

The backbone of Multilingual Metadata is the Content Type syndication feature introduced in the new version. I won’t go into details about it but simply put, content types can now be stored in a centralized location and then shared across multiple farms /web application all across the organization. Earlier content types were limited to site collection boundaries, which seriously limited the usage on a pan organizational level.

In this example we will create a content type called ‘DaysOfWeek’ consisting of a Metadata column, having predefined values such as. Monday, Tuesday etc. You create the metadata term store, add a metadata column to content type and then use it in a site collection… Simple isn’t it? Yes, pretty much, but only until your manager chimes in and wants all the names of the days in Dutch (in my case…). There you are ….how to support the multilingual feature for all the metadata?

Huhn...good question. But enough theory… lets get to the meat of how to not only create these metadata columns but also to localize them in any language you want.

Ask your IT Pro to install the language packs on your farm. The language packs can be downloaded from here. The language of your choice can be selected before downloading the pack. Once the installer is over, it would automatically open the SharePoint configuration wizard again. The config wizard should run in its default settings.

For demo purposes I am using the Dutch language pack on Server 2008 OS. Unlike Server 2008, on Windows 7 you need to individually download the OS language files (Grr…? Check Google on how to download these for win 7. Otherwise I strongly suggest using Server OS, see my article for this.)

In Central Admin > Application Management> Manage Service Applications

Note that while creating this service instance, you can configure a centralized location where all the content types will be syndicated. Go ahead and mention the full path of that site collection where you would like to store all the content types of your organization. For ease of demo I suggest using the same path as in the image above.

In the Working languages box select Dutch. This will enable us to specify different language texts for every metadata terms ( i.e. Dutch names for Monday, Tuesday…etc)

For Term group you can specify the Group Managers as well as the contributors for terms in this group. This is called Taxonomy. Only selected people can contribute to the terms in the group. The cousin of Taxonomy is Folksonomy wherein every user can contribute ( i.e. something like ‘Like’ and ‘Dislike’ on YouTube). Folksonomy can be enabled by selecting ‘Submission Policy’ to open while creating the term set as shown in the figure below.

Ok now comes the interesting part. To satisfy the manger’s requirement for being able to create a Content type which was created in theU.S. to be used in the Brussels office, we need to provide the Dutch equivalent of days …

Go back to the Terms on the left panel and select one. Notice that the right hand side of the window has a language drop down. Select Dutch and provide the Dutch for Monday in the Label field as shown in the figure below

Go ahead and provide the labels for each day. For demo I am using two days in a week.. Monday and Tuesday as terms ( yes I know…I am lazy )

Let’s now go to our Content type hub and create a content type in which one of the columns will contain the information about the day of the week. Unlike the previous version of SharePoint, there is a metadata column now available which will pull the information from the instance of the Metadata service we created in step 2.

Open the browser and go to the site collection specified as hub in figure 2.

Create a new content type ‘Day Of Weak ContentType’

For the possible value of this column, select the Term Group

Go to the Content Type settings and click on ‘Manage Publishing for this content type’.

This will take you to another screen as shown below. Select Publish and press enter.

Note: If you do not see this link in the setting, please activate the ‘Content Type Syndication Hub’ feature in the site collection feature gallery

With the meat of the work past us, now is the time to satiate ourselves with this splendid feature.

Create a new site collection from the Central Admin. In the site collection screen select “Dutch” as the language (so that day names should appear in Dutch and not English)

Go to the site content type gallery and you will find the Days Of Week content type listed. You can modify the content type if you wish, but the changes won’t be reflected back to the hub.

Note: There are two scheduled jobs which a) published the content type from hub and b) pushed these published content types to the consuming site collection. In case you do not find the new content type in the consuming site collection, go to Central Admin > Monitoring > Review Job Status and run the Content Type hub and Content Type subscriber jobs. You may need to wait for half an hour before the jobs are executed and the content type appears in the consuming site collection

Create a new list and add the content type to the list. (Make sure you have enabled Allow content Type checkbox in the Advanced Settings link of the page for add content type to be enabled in the content settings page.)

Now the real thing…go ahead create a new item in the list and you can see the metadata column showing the predefined days name in Dutch…

Caveat

Although the content type and metadata are available in a centralized location that does not mean each and every site content type/metadata should be defined there. The rule of thumb is to create only those items in the centralized hub which are to be used all across the organization’s IT footprint or at least which shall be used in more than one site collection.

For example, for a marketing site of an organization to syndicate a marketing content type and corresponding metadata is not really a good choice since it won’t be used anywhere... Just create the metadata/content type inside the site collection itself….

Akshay Koul

Recent Articles by Akshay Koul

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; Site Manager/Power User; Content Types; Metadata

Page Rating

Comments

Multiple languages?

Hi Akshay, Great article! Having multi-lingual meta tags is such a no brainer in this global village. Can you create meta data for multiple languages at once? Or do you have to do them one at a time?

Multiple languages?

Hi Claire

thanks for the appreciation.  You can probably use the Object Model to create the metadata automatically. This way you wont have to use the web page time and again...

Let me know in case you need to code for that...

thanks

akshay

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

One slide, one idea

No slide longer than 2 minutes

Limit your takeaways to three major items

Use screenshots instead of demos

Breath

Conclusion

Mark Miller

Recent Articles by Mark Miller

Categories: SharePoint Saturday

Page Rating

Comments

Great points!

This rang very true to me--especially the "death to bullet points" bit. The best online presentation I ever saw had maybe 20 slides, 1-2 sentences or phrases per slide, and scattered screenshots. Doing more with less is (almost) always better! I also think humor, and goofy over-the-top pop-culture references help win the average tech audience over :)

It's a floor wax. No! It's a dessert topping. No! It's both!

Claire - So can I take it you understood the "Floor Wax", "Dessert Topping" reference? -- Mark

Question on new site

Mark,

has anyone mentioned your pages take forever to load - the 16 or so gravatars make the site unenjoyable and close to unusable.

please advise if it is only us...

Page load issue

Dave - Yes, we have noticed it and have talked to Jeremy and Kyle about it. It seems that 2010 doesn't allow scrolling until all items on a page are completely load. I agree this is a major pain.

As a workaround, I've found that hitting Refresh after about 10 seconds will, for some reason, load the page. I know this sounds like Steve Jobs telling you "Don't hold the phone that way.", but that's all we've got for now.

Mark

Another online presentation resource

Great Tips! You might also want to review this video by Brent Ozar about giving Live Meetings: http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2010/01/livemeeting-presentation-tutorial/

Good recommendation

Thomas - Thanks for the recommendation to Brent's tips. Very nicely done. I'll pass it on to the presenters. -- Mark

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Another tidbit I wanted to share regarding SharePoint Designer 2010 that may be of interest to a lot of developers, site administrators, designers, and power users alike. If you have the permissions, you now have options directly in the interface of SharePoint Designer, to save your web parts out to a local file, or, push it into the Site Gallery!

In SharePoint Designer, let’s add a Data View Web Part to our page, by going to the Insert ribbon tab, selecting Data View, and choosing the list which we want to create an XSLT Data View for…

Then configure your web part as you’d like to… and from there in SharePoint Designer 2007, we were stuck with going back to the page where we placed this, using the chevron on the web part in Edit mode on the page, and then choosing Export from the menu. This is no longer with SharePoint Designer 2010!

If you look at the ribbon while you are working on the Data View Web Part, click into the Web Part ribbon tab under List View Tools

Once you have done that, if you look all the way over to the right of that ribbon tab, you will see a section called Save Web Part.

which presents two options, To Site Gallery, and To File. This is just another one of the many timesavers built into the overhauled SharePoint Designer 2010. If we select To Site Gallery, we are presented with a pop-up that will allow you to set the title and description for your web part

As well as a Set Properties… button, which will allow you to set web part properties on the saved version of the web part before putting it into the gallery.

Once you click OK, you are presented with another pop-up.

This asks you if you want to always just show data from the current site list, tied to the List ID GUID, or, if you want to make it relative, which will tie it down to the list name itself, relative to the site in which it is displayed.

Now, if we meander on over to the web part gallery for this site collection, Site Actions > Site Settings

and select Web Parts under Galleries

we will see that our web part which we created in SPD 2010, is now deployed out to the Site Collection Web Part Gallery!

If we choose the alternate option, To File from the Save Web Part section of the ribbon, you will be prompted to save it locally as expected.

There is a lot of new functionality in SharePoint Designer 2010. As I get around to it, I’ll keep more of these posts coming.

Cross-posted from http://gvaro.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/working-with-web-parts-in-sharepoint-designer-2010/

Geoff Varosky

Recent Articles by Geoff Varosky

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; Site Manager/Power User; SharePoint Designer; Data View Web Part; XSLT

Page Rating

Comments

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Laura Rogers is back with a new series of data view web part screencasts, this time around SharePoint 2010. In SharePoint 2010, all views in lists and libraries are XSLT list view web parts. This means that you can edit views from the browser or from SharePoint Designer 2010. The following is the first in the upcoming set of screencasts, and is an introduction to the difference between data view (data form) and XSLT list view web parts in SharePoint 2010. You can take a look at her blog for a complete list of screencasts.

NEW: SharePoint 2010 Data View and XSLT List View

Laura Rogers

Recent Articles by Laura Rogers

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; SharePoint Designer; Data View Web Part; Site Manager/Power User; SharePoint 2010 Data View Web Part; XSLT

Page Rating

Comments

Very Useful

Laura, Thank you so much for this video. I was lead to believe the DataViewWebPart was no longer available and so I had been using the ListViewWebPart and found myself fighting with it in major ways. I am so glad to see that the DataViewWebPart is still there and can be used for the features I need to create!

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Office 365 Believe the Hype!??

TechNet Radio's Bill Baer Interviews Joel Oleson on the upcoming Office 365 and digs into the impact to IT Professional

Joel Oleson

Recent Articles by Joel Oleson

Categories:

Page Rating

Comments

My reasons...

Not really the organization will re-arrange their IT, my reason: -As human aspect, what's happen if CIO decide to implemented Cloud..Result as unemployed...and job-reject any IT staff within organization? -As information protection, sensitive data can be leaked. This does not ensure anymore. A secret are not secret if there are many people that control. Cloud computing is good solution for cost-deploy, cost-implement, any cost, but some aspects, cloud isn't still protection, trusted with business when the Economic is very complex, nowaday. Thuan

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Veronique Palmer has just been made SharePoint MVP for the first time and is currently the only one in Southern Africa.  She’s been busy putting together a comprehensive contact list of the 215 SharePoint MVP's from around the world.

Veronique is hoping to compile a master list which includes the MVP's countries, blog addresses, Twitter names, LinkedIn and Facebook links. If you can help, please post a comment here or on Veronique's site.

-Natasha

Natasha Felshman

Recent Articles by Natasha Felshman

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; General Knowledge

Page Rating

Comments

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

I just came back from SharePoint Saturday Virginia Beach where Mark Miller exhorted us to write down our takeaways. Well, here are mine from the Business Connectivity Services sessions.

The limitations of SharePoint Designer are a good thing and updating business systems with Visual Studio is not risk free. In fact, updating business systems with BCS raises a big red flag for me.

The first reason is the integrity of your business information. Large business systems tend to have complex business and security rules built into them; and creating, updating and deleting records risks violating these constraints. Do you really want SharePoint developers writing directly to the systems you use to manage your business? Is it worth risking management’s trust in your business information?

The second is maintenance. What happens to the code when they upgrade the business system, a new version of SharePoint arrives or the developer wins the lottery? Are you prevented from upgrading because the integration code will break? The less code you have to maintain, the more flexible and maintainable your application becomes.

Why is SharePoint Designer a better solution? Actually, views are a better solution than table access. Relational databases tend to spread information across many tables. Views are used to combine, filter and sort information securely from multiple tables. While records can be created, updated and deleted in a table, views are read only and therefore protect the integrity of your business information.

Michael Pickus

Recent Articles by Michael Pickus

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; SharePoint Saturday; General Knowledge; SharePoint Designer; Views

Page Rating

Comments

Disagree

Visual Studio can map to views too. Views have limitations as they cannot use Updates/Deletes in SPD, VS2010 can code to handle this. If a business system changes it'll break SPD too & if your SPD guy wins lotto you're in the same scenario. BCS and Developers (and SPD) are very powerful and, yes sometimes you don't want it to have direct access to the data without going through the domain or model. This is why you can use Web Services also. There is a place for both scenarios and lots of factors to influence the decision. if a company has a full time development team who prefer VS2010 to configuration in SPD then VS2010. If you don't have that luxury then maybe leverage some Power Users, get them trained, speak nicely to your DBA's for access in a Sandbox environment and run a proof of concept then promote it through Staging and Production.

Also Disagree

Many enterprises and business make use of external data stores for a wide variety of purposes. Some clients that I have worked with have home-grown solutions where tons of development time has been saved by using BCS to provide views of the information stored in these home-grown solutions. There are some great integration points as well into enterprise class applications (SAP, Business Objects, Crystal Reports, etc.) where responsible use of BCS provides some huge wins. Each of these platforms also provide API's on how to use the data -- and updates/additions should be safe as long as they adhere to the API's. As with anything in SharePoint, lack of planning is your worst enemy. If the solution has been developed properly and according to a plan, you will have documentation so the new developer/designer can fix or upgrade the code.

Still Hesitant...

What I understood Michael to be saying is more around the writing of data back to the business systems, and to be honest I am still hesitant about this - Especially where I currently am as no one really knows what systems touch other systems. Reading from backend systems I don’t have so much of a problem with, this can be done through SPD or VS, doesn’t really bother me as long as it’s done correctly. Where possible I try to pull from views as the data can be pre massaged. This has been the case in the past when tieing a finance system to Project Server. I believe that either way (reading and/or writing), yes it needs to be planned and implemented properly.

Custom code should be a business system

I think that writing custom, full-trust code should be a conscious business decision based on an analysis of business needs and requirements. Sometimes business needs justify the use of a fully customized SharePoint environment. I think what we need to avoid is defaulting to the Visual Studio solution when SharePoint Designer or another tool can do the trick. There is some extra risk when writing custom code in Visual Studio. Why take on that risk if a different tool will do the job just fine?

Response

I come from a world where businesses keep their 1,500 table business systems for 7 to 10 years. When they first get the system, they customize it to meet the current perceived business needs. It only takes a few years to discover they find that the customization and integration code has become so complex that not only is it difficult to meet changing business requirements, but upgrading to the current commercial version is put on hold. Eventually the old system becomes is as much a hindrance as an enabler, but they are stuck. When it becomes too painful, they hire expensive consultants to help them select and convert to a new system. Of course, they immediately begin customizing it and the process starts all over again. This is why I said, “The less code you have to maintain, the more flexible and maintainable your application becomes.” Organizations should view customization as a buy vs. build decision. If you want to continue to leverage the commercial developers, minimize the customization. Ultimately, it comes down to whose programmers do you trust - the commercial or the after-market developers?

Yes, but that isn't really a question about BCS...

I mean, that question of customisation vs buy applies to all sorts of software - SAP, Siebel, and, yes, SharePoint too - and it isn't just about integration either. The 'configuration' you can do within these systems is just as complex as 'development' - and with the complexity of upgrade issues that implies.

Regarding BCS - it isn't some magic that does away with questions like "Do I want to couple these two systems?" Rather, it is a tool to make creating and updating that coupling easier.

If you do decide to couple them, then yes, you need to consider how that integration will obey the business rules in the other system. This will often imply using an API to interact with the other system - in other words, using the public face it presents and letting it deal with its own rules. Note: you don't have to attach BCS directly to the database. You can also use Web Services, or a programmed 'shim'.

However, sometimes it really is just a database table, and this is a nice simple scenario to demonstrate - which I'm guessing might be what you saw.

So, to conclude, still ask if you really want to integrate two systems, and then ask how that integration should happen - and plan this to be in a way that obeys business logic.

And upgrades will always be tough on systems of sufficient scale.

Finally, I've never seen a piece of commerical software that fits a major organisation without some pain points that need addressed by additional development. I doubt that it's possible to build a solution that does exactly what everyone wants "off the shelf"

These Are All Just Tools

Doesn't it just boil down to the fact that all of these are just tools to get a job done. You shouldn't always go to Visual Studio and you shouldn't never go to Visual Studio. Each project should be evaluated in order to determine which solution is best. If it can be done in Designer, do it in Designer. If you need custom code, go to Visual Studio. Both have pros and cons and all of that needs to be weighed before choosing where to build a solution.

Some Feedback On BCS and Integration with SharePoint

I am not sure if you attended my session on Integration and Interoperability at SharePoint Saturday Virginia Beach but after the session was over we actually discussed the complexities of leveraging BCS and SharePoint Designer for an integration project and when it should be used/shouldn't be used for a couple specific scenarios. The primary thing I mentioned again and again is that SharePoint is primarily an interface when it comes to Integration work. The reality is that the actual meat and potatoes of integration work goes on behind the scenes an often uses other tools (and often custom code). What I mean is that whether we use visual studio with the BCS or SPD or some other tool it all results in the same general purpose (to present the information in different ways) when talking about SharePoint. In terms of the write back, while it is capable of this the reality is that we have to understand the implications of heavy transactional load and the challenges of such a simplified model for updating back end data (SPD w/ InfoPath). I would sincerely doubt that most businesses wouldn't build a layer to handle business logic, transactional processing and more (like say some custom webservices, or leveraging biz talk etc) and would just connect SharePoint with write back to key data and hope everything works out okay. Even with infopath forms validating the data fields/input there are many other risks in terms of complicating the source system data or more importantly tracking the updates for appropriate rollback etc. So in these scenarios SharePoint Designer in my mind does not make sense unless it is connecting to pre-configured/coded web services, .net connections or something else that is handling the level of processing and logic needed on most write back scenarios. I am rushing through this comment but hopefully this adds a bit of clarity around when we should use one tool or another beyond your salient points in this article. Would love to have a longer discussion about this sometime too! If anyone wants to do a panel online about it I have no problem with helping coordinate one. :) It would be great to have multiple perspectives and view points based on experience implementing the BCS and leveraging SharePoint for integration.

Definitely Disagree

Tracking customizations in SharePoint Designer is impossible.  There's no one place to go see which pages are customized (unghosted) and which aren't. Custom code from Visual Studio can be easily tracked in the Solution Store of Central Admin, assuming your developer is deploying custom code as a Solution (WSP) and packaging as a Feature. It's easy to see what's been deployed and where.

As far as BCS connectivity to external data sources I agree it's dangerous to write back to them. I haven't seen a BDC (or BCS) connection that modified external data. It's best to read only since this external data is likely used by other systems. I'd argue that Sotred Procs are the best way to access the data. They are already compiled and very secure - although Views are a good alternative if stored procs aren't a possibility for you. Direct table access is a no-go.

If your developer wins the lottery it doesn't really matter if he's using Visual Studio, SharePoint Designer or Notepad. A newly departed developer is always a difficult situation. This situation is best resolved by having good technical design documentation and peer reviews. That way you have a design that another developer can follow and more than one developer should be familiar with the code and the design decisions behind it.

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

I had a pretty "simple" requirement from the client where:

Permission Groups

You can use Active Directory groups here as well. Here are my four security groups matching each department.

Figure 1: 4 different security groups

Department Lookup List

I plan to use re-usable workflows later to configure the list item permissions. So I need to create a few site columns, here's the first one DepartmentGroup. This is basically a People or Groups field.

Figure 2: Site Column for people and groups

I create a list for the department, thus:

Figure 3: Departments Lookup list

Request List

Here's the second site column. This is a lookup column to the Department list. I'm bringing over the ID field as an additional field. This is using SharePoint 2010’s additional fields capability.

Figure 4: ID as Additional field

Add a few records:

Figure 5: Creating a new item in my request list

Figure 6: See the Department:ID

Remove List Permissions

By default, at this point my Request list would be inheriting permissions from parent site. So first stop inheriting permissions from parent, and do a bit of house cleaning and remove the unnecessary groups to keep it simple.

Remember if you are not the site administrator, don’t remove your own permissions otherwise you lose ability to modify the list!

Let's Work on that Workflow

The idea of the workflow is that:

Let’s get started. First create a re-usable workflow. Target any content type.

We'll need the lookup site column, so associate that. This uses SharePoint 2010’s reusable workflows.

Figure 7: Associate just a site column in SP2010 reusable workflow

The permissions steps need to be run as impersonated steps. The impersonated steps can not be mixed with the normal steps (such as Step 1). This is a new workflow capability in SharePoint 2010.

Figure 8: Create an impersonation step

Remove (unused) Step 1, and add "Replace permission" action. This workflow action is only available within an impersonation step.

Figure 9: Add replace permission workflow

Start with the second parameter which is the easier one. Click on "this list" and select Current Item

Figure 10: Select current list item

Figure 11: Replace permissions on the current list item

Click on "these permissions" and we want Contribute and Read permissions

Figure 12: Add permissions

Click on "Choose" and set who we'll be granting Contribute/Read to

Figure 13: Select the user - use workflow lookup

Select "Workflow Lookup for a User…" and click Add

We want to do a look up on the Department list.

Figure 14: Lookup from the departments list

The field we want is DepartmentGroup (our Person and Group site column). Return the field as Login Name

Set the filter Field below to ID

Figure 15: lookup permission group

Set the filter Value field to Current Item.Department:ID

(You can also use the DepartmentLookup field here, just return it as Integer)

Figure 16: Select department:ID from current item

Final result:

Figure 17: Check everything

OK everything. Remember to save and publish

Figure 18: Save and publish

Go back to SharePoint list

Configure the workflow and make sure it runs when a list item is created or modified

Figure 19: Workflow settings

Verify Results

Check the permission of our first request (before we build the workflow)

Figure 20: Old item before workflow

It is inheriting from list. This is really nothing special.

Figure 21: inheriting from list

Create a new request for our Network department - see the workflow has completed

Figure 22: Create a new request and check workflow completed

Check its permissions

"NetworkHeroes" has been assigned "Contribute" and "Read" permissions to the list item - everyone else has been stripped out.

The List Item has also stopped inheriting permissions from the parent list.

Summary

So the solution works and is relatively elegant.

The following features in SharePoint 2010 make this example a little bit cleaner (or possible) than with SharePoint 2007:

John Liu

Recent Articles by John Liu

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; Site Manager/Power User; Security; Workflow

Page Rating

Comments

Very useful!

Great post--it's something we definitely needed and I wasn't quite sure how to do! Screenshots were helpful too :)

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

As stated by Nick Hadlee in the feedback on a previous EUSP article: “once you start getting involved in the community then it becomes a little addictive.”

There is tremendous value in being part of the SharePoint community: as an End User working with the platform, you’ll learn more hints and tips on how to better take advantage of this powerful platform to better meet your daily business tasks. As an IT Pro that helps shape how SharePoint is deployed, configured, and used within the enterprise, you’ll learn more about how to manage and control your environment, getting more value out of your team’s investment and, potentially, making you look like a genius to your less SharePoint-savvy counterparts. As a Developer that helps extend the platform through customizations and integrations, the community may provide critical insights into next-gen tools and solutions to help you meet your business requirements.

And in the reverse, all of these roles can add value to the community by sharing experiences, including successes and failures, and bringing your unique industry perspective to the forefront. All of these voices need to be heard, as your experiences may help others – and likewise, you may learn a lot from the experiences of your peers, industry experts, and others who are creating business solutions on SharePoint.

Unfortunately, there’s a downside to participating in the SharePoint community: it’s addictive. Once you get involved in the energy and camaraderie, you’ll be hooked. What we need (tongue solidly in cheek) is a support mechanism for those who have become “ensnared” by the SharePoint community and need to address these individual and shared experiences with people who have lived through it.

My proposal is that we go with what works. I have taken the liberty of modifying the original Twelve Steps, as published by Alcoholics Anonymous, to fit the unique needs of the SharePoint community:

If I can help but one person, it will have been worthwhile.

Christian Buckley

Recent Articles by Christian Buckley

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; General Knowledge; OpEd

Page Rating

Comments

Number 2

Christian, what exactly do you mean with "a power greater than ourselves, through the certification process, can restore us to sanity"?

Um

Well, in the actual 12 step program, it refers to God. In this spoof, I was thinking it was the people who wrote the certification exams.

Thinking

Maybe I was just trying too hard to figure out what you meant here exactly that I dismissed this simple answer early onwards...

but thanks anyway!

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

I am not a techie, I’ve had to work hard to get to this level of Geekiness. Coming from the business side of the playing field means I’m not always surrounded by all the tech-savvy workers like those that comprise the IT hub. In the past I have been in awe of the insider tricks that those in the hub possess, and rarely seem to share (probably seems like a no-brainer that everyone should know?) Here is one such tip that I just happened upon while reading the Help section for Internet Explorer on the Microsoft website. I recently shared it with my staff and they were so thankful that I wanted to put it out here for all of you so that you might share and get the same ‘Kudos’ back from those you support.

In the past we have mandated that all employees must use their Sharepoint Team site as their IE Home page. That one step has been a real boon to our Sharepoint adoption. Once staff realized they didn’t need to fuss with navigating to the site just to use the resources there, we saw a significant increase in site usage. But there are always those that grumble that they want to see the MSN news feeds, or start the day with some other Home page. Honestly you can only force the issue so far, eventually they will figure out how to reset their Home page to what they like – well, some will…. No problem with multi-tab browsing!

With one click it is possible to open up to eight different web sites with the launch of the Home page, so start the day right! Teach your end user to open all your favorite Sharepoint sites to get the latest and greatest Sharepoint news. OR send out the link to the video below and suggest that they open all the sites they use most frequently throughout their work day. I’ll leave that decision up to you. Just don’t forget to mention how easy this makes it for them to quickly get to their Team sites and/or corporate Home page!

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=100226

Thank you Andy Sweet, Writer at Microsoft, for putting together this most informative and helpful video.

Multitab browsing also works in Firefox, so even though the video is for IE, the concepts probably work in other browsers too. So go ahead, take this tip and share it as your own with all your unGeeky friends. End-users no longer have an excuse as to why they don’t open their Sharepoint site everyday with this IT insider trick!

Kerri Abraham

Recent Articles by Kerri Abraham

Categories: MOSS; WSS; 2007; 2010; General Knowledge

Page Rating

Comments

End-User Adoption: Multi-tab Browsing

Thanks, that was easy and this will useful for hospital staff.

Welcome Frank!

The thing I liked about the video was that it shares a great number of tips on how to browse using multiple tabs, a concept that many staff still find intimidating.  I can't be there to show the same lesson to every employee, but this video is easy enough to follow that most staff not only master the lesson, but learn a great deal about browsing as well.  Sharing these kinds of resources with staff enhance their basic knowledge but also builds trust so that when I tell them that this new 'Sharepoint list/library/project/thing' is going to be easy.... they believe me!

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

How to Setup Mail Enabled Document Libraries in SharePoint 2010 Part 3

How to Setup Mail Enabled Document Libraries in SharePoint 2010 Part 3

You will notice there is a tick box under the name field this is titled “Protect container from accidental deletion” this is because I am running Windows Server 2008 R2 so if you do not see this do not worry. After creating the OU we will now move onto permissions and delegation of control.

Click next; and click add to and choose the application pool account

Click next; on this screen we will choose “Create a custom task to delegate”

On this screen choose “This folder existing objects in this folder and creation of new objects in this folder” click next

On the next screen place a tick In “Creation/deletion of specific child objects” also in the main window choose “Create All Child Objects” and also “Delete All Child Objects”

Click next and then finish. We can now move onto the final part of configuring email enabled document libraries.

Dave Coleman

Recent Articles by Dave Coleman

Categories: Development; Blog

Page Rating

Comments

Thank you very much!

Great article! Thank you very much: it's really useful, specially because configuring correctly incoming email even in SharePoint 2007 or WSS 3.0 was very painful! Please, keep your good work! Best regards,

Thank You

Why thanks for the comment the final part will be next week.

Dave

Anticipated thanks...

Hi... I know the article is not complete yet, but I wish to say thank you for share your knowledge with us, mere mortals, and the time to write the articles! :) Best regards,

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Life on the Farm: SP2010 Configuration - Prep Work Part 4

In this series I write about my experiences with SharePoint 2010 as an IT Admin at a small-to-midsized-company. In this article: the second part to configuring Kerberos authentication.

If you follow the MSFT guide (as of version published 11/3/2010) you will notice that the SQL OLTP and SSAS scenarios instruct to register an FQDN SPN but not a Host name SPN. However, both FQDN and Host name SPNs are required. In addition, computer account delegation is not configured but pre-MSFT guide I had set full delegation on the SharePoint and SQL computer accounts following instructions in Microsoft and community content for SSAS (see Scenario 3 below). As an experiment, to exactly match the MSFT guide’s instructions I removed the Host name SPNs for the SQL and SSAS service accounts. I also removed delegation on the computer accounts. Kerberos authentication stopped working, NTLM was used, and an Event 3 Security-Kerberos with error code “0x7 KDC_ERR_S_PRINICPAL_UNKNOWN” appeared in the Security Log: [SSAS error is shown]

When I reversed the changes Kerberos started working again. I later noticed that the subsequent service application scenarios in the guide include a step to verify the SQL service and (where applicable) SSAS service SPN configuration, and the displayed output in these scenarios shows both Host name and FQDN SPNs. I did end up removing computer delegation later on and Kerberos kept working. Whether computer delegation is required for SQL, SSAS, and SSRS for applications other than SharePoint 2010 is another question.

I ran into trouble running the scenario-provided SQL script, because for whatever reason “s.session_id” was not recognized and Intellisense (auto completion) could not find it. (I really like Intellisense. Maybe that could be worked into PowerShell somehow.) I found a similar script at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/james_world/archive/2007/08/20/essential-guide-to-kerberos-in-sharepoint.aspx which did work and I ended up combining both scripts into this script which provided great information:

SELECT S.session_id, S.login_name, S.program_name, S.host_name, auth_scheme

FROM sys.dm_exec_connections C INNER JOIN sys.dm_exec_sessions S

ON C.session_id = S.session_id

The script includes both login name and program name so the output looks like the following:

The actual output was much longer. The selected pieces are a sampling. Notice the different service accounts, and that NTLM is being used for local sessions on the SQL server (as is also the case in the MSFT guide output).

Sidetrack: I used OneNote for the screenshots. The OneNote screenshots, categorized and organized into sections, have become my historical record, and, with OneNote 2010 being an Office Web App, can be saved to SharePoint and viewed/edited in the browser. The entire IT team will be able to reference the screenshots and my accompanying scribbles and add their own.

Creating the test database was easy until I had to add data. I know T-SQL well enough to interpret but not write it beyond rudimentary SELECT statements, so that was out. The only way I could find in SQL Management Studio 2008 R2 to add data was to right click the database and select “Edit Top 200 rows.” Apparently, Microsoft removed the “Open Table” command from the right-click menu beginning in SQL Server 2008. Once I got into the table I was able to add data.

Scenario 3: Kerberos and SQL Analysis Services (SSAS)

Background: Post-Beta and pre-MSFT guide I discovered that using Kerberos with SSAS and SharePoint 2010 requires configuration beyond registering SPNs. Delegation comes into play. When I configured Kerberos during the Beta for the SQL service and SharePoint web applications I did not set delegation because TechNet documentation did not contain instructions to do so and I was mindful of Spencer Harbar’s article TechNet Misinformation: How NOT to use Kerberos for SharePoint authentication. As a test, I connected to SSAS from my test laptop using SQL Management Studio and found that with the SPN alone authentication was falling back to NTLM. So I began to bone up on the additional requirements. I did not come across definitive documentation for Kerberos with SSAS 2008 R2 and SharePoint 2010 and the MSFT guide had not yet been published, but I found a lot for Kerberos, SSAS 2005/2008 and MOSS, particularly with regard to Excel Services.

As it turns out, the instructions for 2010 are different, but not knowing that at the time I started with KB 917409: How to configure SQL Server 2008 Analysis Services and SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services to use Kerberos authentication and SharePoint MVP Ton Stegeman’s post on MOSS Excel Services: Using Analysis Services data in Excel Services part 1 - Preparing the AD for Kerberos (good screenshots). The KB instructions called for full delegation enabled on the accounts of all services and computers involved and so I did. When I reached the point in the KB of configuring for COM+ the instructions confused me; which COM+ components and packages, specifically? Mr. Stegeman’s post makes no mention of COM+. An initial search did nothing to further shed light and so I posted to the Microsoft SSAS forum. In the meantime I again tested the SSAS connection from my laptop and this time, with full delegation set, Kerberos authentication was used. Additional searching on COM+ led to Configuring Kerberos Authentication for SharePoint (MOSS, great screenshots) by SharePoint consultant and MSCSD Ulysses Ludwig. In turn, a posted comment led to Windows Server 2008 Default Impersonation Level Must Be Identify, by SharePoint MVP Gary LaPointe, which led to KB 953130: How to configure SharePoint Server 2007 and Excel Services for Kerberos authentication (MOSS again). So I did not touch COM+ at that point. I subsequently received an answer to my SSAS forum post from moderator Jin Chen (MSFT) who said that I don’t need to do anything else.

When I later stepped through the MSFT guide, I saw that for SSAS R2 and SharePoint 2010 all that needs to be done is to register SPNs for the SSAS service account. There are no instructions to set delegation on the SSAS service account and so I undid that. The final step was to verify the configuration, which involved installing the AdventureWorks R2 sample database on the SQL server, opening Excel 2010, accessing the database, and verifying in the SQL server’s Security Log that my logon used Kerberos, which it did.

Scenario 4: Kerberos and SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS)

With SSRS already installed and configured and the SSRS SPNs registered, the next step was to configure constrained delegation. This involved two parts: (1) adding the SSRS SPNs to the constrained delegation services list on the Intranet web application service account, and (2) setting constrained delegation on the SSRS service account and adding the SQL service and SSAS SPNs to the services list. SSRS is not involved with the c2wts, therefore full delegation can be used but constrained delegation is more secure. And I assumed I needed to add the SSAS SPNs in order to report against SSAS data sources, which we will want to do.

The next step was to add a <machineKey> entry in the SSRS web.config file. Admittedly I skipped this, clueless, thinking it had to do with load balanced scenarios because it followed the step to install SSRS in load balanced scaled out mode and mentioned multiple servers. Taking a second look (ahem, now) and a half hour+ of searching for “what is a machineKey and why is it needed” in language I could understand (non-developer speak) I came across this: asp101.com: Quick Tips: ASP.NET's MachineKey Element and Web Farms . And http://sharemypoint.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/machinekey-in-webconfig/ which links to MSDN: How To: Configure MachineKey in ASP.NET 2.0 (Retired Content) and MSDN: machineKey Element (ASP.NET Settings Schema) (.Net 4.0 reference). If I interpret correctly, a machineKey is normally (?) typically (?) auto-generated but in a multi-server environment you need the same key on all servers, which means you need to generate a static key. (Hence, machineKey generator tools). And, it seems, a machineKey is needed in Forms Based authentication environments (?) But do we need a machineKey given that our environment is one SSRS server and classic mode authentication? (Help wanted.)

Next, the RSReportserver.config file needed to be edited to include <RSWindowsNegotiate/> as an Authentication Type under the Authentication section. This is explained in KB 2145506: Recommendations for configuring Kerberos with Reporting Services, a recent “Fast Publish” article. See also MSDN: Authentication Types in Reporting Services and MSDN: How to: Configure Windows Authentication in Reporting Services and TechNet: Security Overview for Reporting Services in SharePoint Integrated Mode. [Note: the MSFT guide references a “ReportingServer.config” file but that does not exist on my SQL 2008 R2 server. Perhaps a mistype or an earlier SQL version reference?]

Following that, I modified the URL Root in the RSReportServer.config file to add the RS URL. Aha! One Event Log warning eliminated. In the Beta whenever the SQL server was rebooted an error occurred reporting that the URL was missing and the default value would be used. As the default value was indeed being used I had ignored the error.

I bypassed configuring BackConnectionHostNames, which is needed if the RS URL is not the server name or you receive an HTTP 401.1 error using SSRS. The next step was to grant the SSRS service account permissions to the web application(s) content database(s), which in our case is the Intranet web application content database. The PowerShell commands provided in the scenario add the service account to SQL as a new user and assign the db_owner role. And finally, verifying configuration: creating a document library (I used the existing Company Documents library), creating and publishing a test report using SQL Server Business Intelligence Development Studio, and viewing the report in the browser, which went well.

Configuring Kerberos authentication for Excel Services, Visio Services, PerformancePoint Services, and Business Connectivity Services

The MSFT guide scenarios use Windows Authentication with the credentials of the logged on user (in our case, me) for the test exercises. Unattended Service Accounts are not used.

Scenario 5: Kerberos and Excel Services 2010

Background: A few months back I came across a great blog post on configuring Excel Services 2010 for Kerberos. Unfortunately the post is no longer available. The post led back to TechNet: Configure Kerberos authentication for the claims to Windows token service (SharePoint Server 2010) and prompted more searching, which led to this forum post: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepoint2010setup/thread/91588961-582f-4da1-a2c1-be73195237d1 which leads to http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/Geneva/thread/e66157d9-669d-42eb-ad41-095ebd61f988. Using these, I had already set an SPN for the Excel Services account in order to get the Delegation tab to show in the account properties in ADUC. I used HTTP/nourl which uses a valid service class but non-valid host name. I set delegation to constrained delegation and added the SSAS SPNs to the services list. I then started the c2wts service in Central Admin and made sure the service was set to Automatic startup. The service is by default configured to run under the Local System account and I left this as is. The going recommendation at the time was to do so, I did not come across any information on how to configure it otherwise, and I saw that others in the community were not having success using a domain account. Of course, the only constant is change and practices are evolving. The current recommendation is not to run the c2wts under the Local System account, and the requirements for running under a domain account are readily available. The final step was to verify and if necessary add the required <add value=“WSS_WPG” /> entry in the c2wtshost.exe.config file as described in the TechNet documentation. The entry already existed so I left the file as is. Afterwards I rebooted the SharePoint server.

Stepping through the MSFT guide, I changed the SPN to SP/exceldelegation, which does not use a valid service class, following the suggestion to avoid potentially duplicating an SPN down the road. I tacked on “delegation” solely as a memory jogger. I also added the SQL service SPNs to the constrained delegation services list which already included the SSAS service SPNs from my pre-guide configuration. The MSFT guide omits adding the SSAS SPNs but in our environment Excel Services will use SSAS data sources.

Kerberos and the Claims to Windows Token Service (c2wts)

Next up within Scenario 5: completing the requirements for the c2wts to run under a domain account and changing the c2wts service account from Local System to the domain account. The MSFT guide notes the following: The c2wts is a local service. It does not open any ports and cannot be accessed by a remote caller. It must run on each server that hosts an Excel Services Application and, accordingly, the permissions requirements must be completed on each of these servers.

We have only one Excel Services Application and it runs on the SharePoint server, so I configured that server individually. If we had Excel Services Applications on more than one or two servers I would likely apply the required settings in a domain GPO (group policy object), which is managed centrally from the Group Policy Management MMC snap-in.

Note: If the c2wts is not configured to run under a domain account but is left to run under Local System, constrained delegation must be set on the computer(s) hosting the Excel Services application. Otherwise, computer account delegation is not set. This holds true for Visio and PerformancePoint Services as well.

At this point, the MSFT guide called for adding the c2wts domain account to the same section in the c2wtshost.exe.config file as the WSS_WPG group. Because the WSS_WPG group is already included I chose to add the c2wts domain account to the group instead. This group has Read access to SharePoint resources and almost every other SharePoint 2010 service account is in it already. The next steps were to register the c2wts domain account as a managed account, start the c2wts service (already completed as previously noted), change the c2wts service to run under the domain account, and if the c2wts service was already running (as in our case), restart it from Services.msc. Then if issues ensued, which did happen, reset the IIS application pools of the service applications that interact with the c2wts. As that is a lot of application pools, I simply reset IIS. Which did not work. So I rebooted; that worked. Finally, I configured a startup dependency so that the c2wts depends on the Cryptographic Services service. As I noted in my “Prep Work Part 2” article, this is a workaround to a well-known issue where the c2wts takes a long time or does not start automatically on reboot; an issue we experienced on each reboot.

Note: The c2wts configuration section is included in all of the service application scenarios so that each scenario can be used on a stand-alone basis.

Back to Excel Services: The next step was to grant the Excel Services account access to the Intranet content database, but I had already done this pre-guide in order to access the sample workbook provided in the BI Center site I had created. The same PowerShell commands cited in the SSRS scenario are used. I also bypassed configuring Excel Services Trusted File Locations without adding the Intranet URL as directed, because I thought the default location “http://” covered all SharePoint locations. Wrong. I did have to explicitly add the Intranet URL to the Trusted File Locations. As directed, I selected “Children trusted” and “Trusted data connection libraries and embedded”; these settings are fine for our environment. I then followed the exercise of creating and publishing a test workbook using data from the SQL database created in Scenario 2, which went well until attempting to publish using the File, Save and Send command and browsing to the Intranet site. I encountered this error:

The fix was to select “Allow user-defined functions” which is the last option on the Trusted Location settings page. This selection was not specified in the MSFT guide but it is checked in the default location http:// settings, which I used to compare when troubleshooting the error.

Once that was corrected, however, I ran into a login prompt when attempting to “Save and Send”. The fix, as I mentioned in my previous article (Prep Work Part 3), was to place the Intranet and My Site URLs into Internet Explorer’s Trusted Sites zone and selected “Automatic logon with user name and password” for the zone settings. This eliminated the logon prompt.

Scenario 6: Kerberos and PowerPivot

Although I skipped over this scenario, here are a few basic notes about PowerPivot:

PowerPivot is an SQL Server product. It is SSAS 2008 R2 in SharePoint Integrated Mode (as opposed to traditional SSAS which is referred to simply as SSAS). SQL 2008 R2 service packs and hotfixes apply. PowerPivot is already claims aware. There is a client-side add-in for Excel and the server-side that integrates with SharePoint 2010. There is a just-released MSFT Technical Article Everything You Always Wanted to Know About PowerPivot Data Refresh but Were Afraid to Ask I came across while initially editing this article. To start with, some excellent sources of information for PowerPivot are the PowerPivot Product Team Blog (MSDN) and the product team members’ individual blogs. In most cases there is no Kerberos configuration needed for PowerPivot. The exception would be if there is a remote SQL server (e.g. a third server) with data that is involved in a data refresh. In that case, special configuration is needed for PowerPivot data refresh to function properly. My interpretation of the MSFT guide, which provides only an overview, is that the c2wts must run using a domain account and the SQL service account needs constrained delegation set with the SPNs of the third SQL Server service account added to the services list. But do the research to find out the exact details.

You do, however, need to get Kerberos authentication working for the web applications, SQL service, Excel Services, and optionally SSAS. [I interpret “optionally” to mean if you are going to use SSAS.]

Scenario 7: Kerberos and Visio Services

Most of the work had already been done pre-MSFT guide or in the previous scenarios, including the c2wts configuration. The only steps remaining were to (1) set the SPNs for the Visio service account, (2) set constrained delegation on the account, adding the SQL service account and (for our environment though not specified in the guide) SSAS service account SPNs to the services list, and (3) grant the Visio Services account permissions to the Intranet content database using the same PowerShell commands provided in the preceding scenarios. Finally, test Kerberos authentication: create a test Visio web drawing with shapes connected to data from the SQL test database created in Scenario 2 and publish to SharePoint as a web drawing. [Make sure the Save as Type is “Web Drawing” and not “Drawing” when saving the drawing or the drawing will not open in the browser.] That went well, and I was also able to successfully refresh the data in the browser after I changed it using SQL Management Studio.

Scenario 8: Kerberos and PerformancePoint Services

Background: I had set up PerformancePoint in the Beta using Deploying PerformancePoint 2010 Soup to Nuts by PerformancePoint Services Product Team member Jason Burns, and it still works well for the RTM. The c2wts had been configured in Scenario 5 Excel Services. All I had left to do was register the SPNs for the PerformancePoint service account and set constrained delegation, adding the SPNs for the Intranet web application pool, SQL service, and SSAS service accounts to the services list. I took a look at configuring Trusted Data Source Locations and decided to leave the default of “All SharePoint Locations” instead of limiting to specific locations. For more information, start with Plan for PerformancePoint Services security (SharePoint Server 2010) and Enable trusted locations for PerformancePoint Services in TechNet, and on the PerformancePoint Services Team Blog, Securing PerformancePoint Content in SharePoint by SharePoint BI Program Manager Kevin Donovan. The final step was to create a PerformancePoint dashboard using SSAS data. I used the AdventureWorksR2 data and had no problems.

Scenario 9: Kerberos and Business Connectivity Services

The first step I needed to complete was to configure delegation. Full delegation can be used because the BCS does not require the c2wts, but constrained delegation is more secure. I opted for constrained delegation. Constrained delegation is set on the service account(s) of the web application(s) hosting the site(s) running external content types (ECT), which in our case is the Intranet web application. The SQL service SPNs are added to the services list. I then moved on to creating a BCS external content type (ECT) using SharePoint Designer 2010 and the test database created in Scenario 2, which went well. After this, BCS permissions needed to be configured so that users can access the ECT. For the purpose of the exercise the MSFT guide set Metadata Store permissions within the BCS service application settings, granting Enterprise Admins all permissions and All Authenticated Users all permissions except “manage permissions”. I opted for Domain Admins with all permissions and omitted the All Authenticated Users group, preferring to set more granular permissions later. The final step was to create a BCS external list in SharePoint Designer 2010, open the list in the browser, and change and refresh the data, to test Kerberos authentication, which I completed successfully. This was my first hands-on experience with BCS and it went smoother than I thought.

Summary

After completing all scenarios I ended up with the following configured for constrained delegation:

Service Account

Services in Constrained Delegation List (SPNs listed)

wssportalpool

wssmysitepool

sqlrservice

wssc2wts

wssperfpointservices

Spot checking the Security Event Log now and then shows Kerberos authentication is sticking. If you see any blaring mistakes, please do leave a comment.

I am sure the MIT folks chose the name Kerberos to provoke an image of vicious security. But images of “tangled webs” dance in my head.

[Update 12/15/2010: I have since created a Project Web Access site in a second content database within the Intranet web application, therefore, the account of any service application that will access Project Server content will also need permissions to that content database.]

Next up: Installing SharePoint.

HTTP/intranet

HTTP/intranet.testnet.com

HTTP/mysite

HTTP/mysite.testnet.com

HTTP/qlt

HTTP/qlt.testnet.com

MSSQLSvc/qlt

MSSQLSvc/qlt.testnet.com

HTTP/intranet

HTTP/intranet.testnet.com

HTTP/mysite

HTTP/mysite.testnet.com

MSSQLSvc/qlt

MSSQLSvc/qlt.testnet.com

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt.testnet.com

HTTP/intranet

HTTP/intranet.testnet.com

MSSQLSvc/qlt

MSSQLSvc/qlt.testnet.com

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt.testnet.com

wssexcelservices - and -

wssvisiographics

MSSQLSvc/qlt

MSSQLSvc/qlt.testnet.com

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt.testnet.com

HTTP/intranet

HTTP/intranet.testnet.com

MSSQLSvc/qlt

MSSQLSvc/qlt.testnet.com

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt

MSOLAPSvc.3/qlt.testnet.com

Joan Resnick Ehrlich

Recent Articles by Joan Resnick Ehrlich

Categories: Deployment

Page Rating

Comments

Thank you very much!

Great article! Thank you very much: it's really useful, specially because configuring correctly incoming email even in SharePoint 2007 or WSS 3.0 was very painful! Please, keep your good work! Best regards,

Sorry, wrong comment above... but great article indeed

Sorry for the wrong comment! I really want to say that this article is very useful, because SharePoint 2010 must be configured correctly, specially the Kerberos authentication, that even in SharePoint 2007 or WSS 3.0 was very painful, because would must be set carefully! Please, keep your good work! Best regards, P.D. Sorry for my bad english!

thanks for the c2wts overview

we have been having issues with getting the service going all week. i was ready to tear my eyes out and leave them as a warning for any other sharepoint admins. now we have some decent solutions to try. Thanks so much for the great articles, keep it up

Add Comment

Top Contributors

Become a Contributor

This site is made by the community, for the community. To become a contributor, Click the button below.

Join the Community

Dueling Hypotheses

The Trenberth article contains so many glaring errors and biased assumptions, it’s hard to know where to start.

First of all, the difference between theory and hypothesis:

The problem is not with dueling hypotheses, it is with dueling theories regarding the processes resulting in observed global warming. One theory states: Observed global warming is the result of human greenhouse gas emissions. Another theory states: Observed global warming is not caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, but is a result of natural geophysical processes.

The statement, “Global warming is the result of human greenhouse gas emissions” is not an hypothesis, it is a proposition, or at best, a simple theory. A theory is an explanation of process based on a body of observation.

Hypotheses, on the other hand, are predictive “if…then” statements used to test a small subset of a theory as an adequate explanation of observations, thus either strengthening or weakening the theory. The results of an individual hypothesis never disprove a theory. A theory can only be weakened and eventually replaced by the accumulation of a body of evidence that contradicts the theories explanation of observations, and the formulation of a new theory that provides a more adequate explanation.

We can test the theory of anthropogenic global warming with the hypothesis: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should find a positive correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise. This is weak test of the theory, since, if we find such a positive correlation, we merely confirm the existing theory. No new information is gained. If we fail to find the positive causal correlation, it may be because we just have not looked hard enough yet, or haven’t looked in the right places. The truth is still out there!

The null hypothesis would be stated as: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should not find a negative correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise. This is a much stronger test of the hypothesis, since it only takes one instance of negative correlation to negate the hypothesis and weaken the theory as an explanation of observations.

This is the process of Science, the Hypothetico-deductive Method of Theory Confirmation.

Secondly, Trenberth repeatedly fails to make a distinction between Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is no question that the average global surface temperature of the Earth has been increasing steadily over the past 20,000 years or so, else, we would still be skirting glaciers on our daily commute. The question is: What is the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to this warming, and, what effect will reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have on this on-going global warming, if any?

Since we do not yet fully understand the natural geophysical processes that result in observed climate variations over geologic time periods, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to fully understand the contribution to global climate variation resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Wild predictions of future catastrophic weather events are simply science fiction prognostications with as much scientific validity as a Star Wars movie.

The periodic reports by the IPCC are not scientific documents, they are produced to give policy-makers estimations of the relevant probabilities of various climate scenarios, as an aid in preparation of national and international policies dealing with climate variation. These statements of probability have been inflated by the world press and by politicians anxious to make a name (and fortune) for themselves. Probability has been turned on its head into certainty and is being used by all manner of organizations and individuals to forward their individual agendae. Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.

At some point, increasing evidence of negative correlations between global average atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperature will falsify the null hypothesis and greatly reduce the adequacy of the anthropogenic global warming theory as an explanation of observed global average surface temperature increase. Environmental organizations, politicians and science policy organizations will find they’ve hitched their wagons to a black hole. Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

About Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D.

27 Responses to Dueling Hypotheses

That about sums it up!

‘… then we should not find a negative correlation..’. I don’t see why this is a stronger prediction as it only says that we should find a zero or positive correlation (or regression). The point is that correlation results from a compound of millions of factors including perhaps a CO2 forcing. A more fruitful question would be how strong the CO2 forcing is, compared with all the others (natural variability). Call it the strength of a signal. Consider the following answer. Non-zero strength implies that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false. Since the latter is true, CO2 forcing must be zero. This is quite simplistic of course, but you may understand what I mean.

“At some point, increasing evidence of negative correlations between global average atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperature will falsify the null hypothesis and greatly reduce the adequacy of the anthropogenic global warming theory as an explanation of observed global average surface temperature increase”.

There have been negative correlations of increasing CO2 with average annual global temperatures within recent decades but this has not convinced the AGW believers nor the policy makers. How many years of negative correlations will be needed to make them see sense?

“The null hypothesis would be stated as: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should not find a negative correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise.”

This is obviously wrong. A strong negative correlation tends to favor causation just as much as a strong positive correlation. (Neither proves, but both would lead us to favor the causation.)

In this case the fact that disproves the attempted hypothesis is not a correlation as such, but a time-shift. Over the millenia, CO2 and temperature have some correlations, but in the periods where we can see the correlation, CO2 is the lagging variable.

Phase and frequency are relevant here, correlation is not.

‘Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth.’

And that is the reason that some people are so concerned about the miss-handling and miss-use of AGW, and oddly why some will defend the theory until death. As all eco-issue have become linked to AGW in the public mind , through the deliberate actions of WWF Greenpeace etc, should AGW fall the real danger is it takes everything else with it. After all why would you trust the same people and organisation on anything after they were caught out massively lying over AGW?

Most people experiences of this issues has been the hectoring they been getting, the diet of doom they been feed and increases prices they had to pay, in its name.
And they will not forget that in a hurry.

Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.

For some reason, I got the impression that the scare stories were being used to justify de-industrialization and de-development, not continued human growth and development. And while I won’t argue that air, water and soil pollution occur, I don’t think adding CO2 (the GHG Villain of the Decade) to the atmosphere counts as increasing air pollution.

Sounds to me that Dr. Trenberth is trying to cover his own back without actually acknowledging his crass errors in his theories. Theories they will remain.

This comment may be off target here but I’m asking WUWT contributors to help me clarify my thoughts.
I’m sure this has been debated before but I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so please correct me where necessary.
What’s been occupying my mind, lately, is human contribution to global warming. I’m a CAGW sceptic. I do accept a human contribution, but, on balance, I don’t believe it’s significant.
When I first started to seriously investigate something that seemed counter-intuitive to me, I came across the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policy Makers. It showed a number of very impressive ‘hockey stick’ graphs (at that stage I hadn’t yet learned the significance of the term ‘hockey stick’!), showing CO2 and temperature growth.
One day, in my Internet perambulations, I noticed another ‘hockey stick’ graph. This was one graph that I believed. It showed human population growth, and looked remarkably like the IPCC graphs – indeed you could superimpose it seamlessly. What it showed is that, in 1950, world population was 1.5 billion people. Today, we are nearly 7 billion – more than FOUR times in ONLY SIXTY years.
We sceptics talk a lot about Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) – primarily as an artefact that is used to correct a highly artificial metric called ‘Annual Global Average Temperature’ (an artefact in itself). We talk about the reflective effect of tarmac and so on.
But it seems to me that UHI is more than that. UHI has a reflective component and a generative component.
If we talk about the temperature at the surface of the Earth, we needed to consider four things:
Heat incoming from the Sun,
Heat reflected from the Earth’s surface and associated feedbacks,
Heat emanating from the Earth’s core, and
Heat being generated at the surface.
Accepting that all animals (human and otherwise) are in a closed CO2 atmospheric loop, and ignoring the ‘greenhouse effect’, we need to consider that what sets us apart as humans – indeed the essence of our humanity – is that, as opposed to animals that adapt to their environment, we change our environment to suit ourselves. This means, at the most basic level, that we do things to keep ourselves warm – we burn stuff and generate heat. As we advance we burn more stuff to make our food more palatable. Then we generate more heat to make things, like musical instruments, that we don’t really need for basic survival. Now we have automobiles and aircraft and TV to make our lives even more enjoyable. They all generate heat.
THAT’S A LOT OF HEAT!
Is it being considered in the IPCC models?

Michael Lewis

“We can test the theory of anthropogenic global warming with the hypothesis: If observed global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, then we should find a positive correlation between the amount and rate of greenhouse gas production and global average temperature rise.”

Let us do that!

As shown in the following data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre:

http://bit.ly/gIkojx

1) Average consumption of fossil fuel per year from 1910 to 1940 was about 1 Billion metric tones

2) Average consumption of fossil fuel per year from 1970 to 2000 was about 5 Billion metric tones (an increase by 5-times compared to the period from 1910 to 1940)

b) As shown in the following data from the Climate Research Unit:

http://bit.ly/bUZsBe

1) Increase in global mean temperature from 1910 to 1940 was about 0.45 deg C

2) Increase in global mean temperature from 1970 to 2000 was about 0.45 deg C (no increase compared to the period from 1910 to 1940)

From the results above, the increase in human use of fossil fuels by 5-times has resulted in no change in the global mean temperature.

As a result, the data contradicts the theory of man-made global warming.

IF if if if . The question is , would it be so bad for our Earth to be warmer than today when we know that in the past Earth nearly always has been warmer than today. I can´t imagine cooler would be better.

Robert

“After all why would you trust the same people and organisation on anything after they were caught out massively lying over AGW? ”

KnR
January 16, 2011 at 3:26 am

Because they are in power. Look at the economic crisis .The people that didn´t see it coming now tell us what to do to get out of it. You trust them? But don´t protest because then YOU get arrested not the real criminals.

Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.

I think there should be some kind of negative in there. Something like “… have been used to justify halting human growth …”

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, though.

First I think your distinction between theory and hypothesis (whilst in common use) is a bit like that between climate and weather — there is no real difference other than one or others tends to be used to cover phenomena in one or other area in a continuous range. Likewise theory and hypothesis really mean the same thing, but theory is used in a broader way than hypothesis.

Still, this is an interesting article, because I’m right this moment struggling with the same lack of rigour in the area of “experimental” archaeology. The problems I have are:

- many use “experiment” interchangeably with “try out” as in “experiment with a recipe”. The idea of controls, testability etc. are not even considered.
- many archaeological “experiments” are neither intended to be scientific nor would they provide the same useful information if they were conducted that way. A good example is the way an archaeologist learnt to form glass vases and by learning the process they could determine that some features suggested as being an artistic choice by the ancients, were actually a natural limit to what could be achieved practically.
- if archaeologists did use the “beyond all reasonable doubt” test of science, then most of history would consist of statements of this or that artefact having been discovered and no concept of how they were actually used less what society looked like.
- finally, how can you apply the “scientific method” to history? History isn’t repeatable, and therefore is not testable – and often there is a very limited number of artefacts which cannot simply be destroyed for “science”.

So, I have some sympathy with the climate “scientists” because in many ways they suffer from the same problems of archaeologists, (although archaeologists are honest and don’t call themselves “scientists”)

- How do you conduct an “experiment” on the atmosphere to test whether CO2 leads to warming.
-How do you have a control?
-How do you make use of historic data from the past in “experiments” which cannot be repeated and where there is huge doubt about the validity of the measurements.

The two share a very common theme, both archaeology and climate science struggle to be more rigorous in their approach and desperately wish to be “scientific” whilst simultaneously dealing with data/experiments which cannot be conducted in a scientific way due to the historic nature of data and the limited scope for meaningful testing of their hypothesis.

There other common theme is that neither climate scientists nor “experimental” archaeologists seem to have a clue about even the basics of the scientific method.

Sorry — should have added that both archaeologists and climate scientists are being pushed to provide information “beyond the facts”. They both have a public pushing them to go further than the scientific method allows. It’s quite understandable why, but in both cases scientific rigour is sacrificed to allow some kind of answer (aka speculation) … except of course climate “scientists” claim their speculation is science!

Katherine says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:35 am

I concur with Katherine’s question and comment.

Politicians (and scientists?) should be careful what they classify as pollutants, especially if they intend to take action. Already the path to global warming mitigation is strewn with unintended consequences. Forcing inappropriate applications of natural gas, ethanol, CO2 sequestration, windmills, solar panels are producing negative consequences which overshadow any measureable positive result.

JER0ME says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:51 am
“‘.. used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources ‘
I think there should be some kind of negative in there. Something like “… have been used to justify halting human growth …””

Yes, it does read as if there’s a word missing here, especially since the whole scam is designed to reduce growth and development, vilifying it rather than justifying it.

This is so extreme that it may finally be seen as such by other scientists, they may finally see that the Emperor has no clothes…time will tell.

A negative correlation between temperature and C02 concentration would not definitely rule out AGW. It could mean that the onset of natural cooling mechanisms masked the AGW effect. The corollary is that in periods of natural warming any greenhouse effect would amplify the effect.

The stumbling block with determing the temperature effect attibutable to AGW is we do not know what the temperatures would have been had we not produced CO2 or hadn’t decimated the world’s forests. Model’s are not proof as they can be tweeked to represent the known historical conditions.

“…Their unceasing drum-beat for Anthropogenic Global Warming will ultimately discredit their otherwise worthwhile and necessary programs to reduce human pollution as a result of unrestricted human population and economic growth. “

I hate to pick at your last sentence Professor Lewis. Your post is most helpful explaining the difference between hypothesis and theory. But…

World population has grown at an unprecedented rate for the last 400 years. During that time pollution has been declining not increasing; in both absolute and per capita terms. Human control of natural destructive forces, such as fire and erosion, combined with an unceasing improvements in efficiencies of controlled combustion and in the handling and discharge of human generated waste streams – its really hard to argue that the world is “more” polluted today than 50 or 100 or 200 yeas ago. Yes, I know, only anthropogenic pollution counts. Uncontrolled wild fires don’t pollute and are not destructive.

But look at just the anthropic-environment. Our urban and rural environments are dramatically cleaner and continually cleaner, worldwide. The long correlation between our cleaner environment and growth is unmistakable. If these “necessary and worthwhile programs” you advocate are aimed at reducing population/economic growth. I hope they are discredited. The sooner the better.

If you mean the simple rules that have been in place for a long, long time; that you can’t dump your refuse in the commons. Don’t you worry – there is vigorous support for that type of regulation worldwide – and support and enforcement will only increase if population expands and more of us are showing up to use the commons.

We already have a negative correlation, about 15 years so far of no statistically significant rise in global temperatures while CO2 concentrations continue to climb. If the next three decades resemble the predictions of Joe Bastardi & Piers Corbyn, temperatures will decline (Bastardi says to 1970s levels), while CO2 continues its relentless climb. We shall then have quite a window of negative correlation!

Will it be enough?

Katherine, JERoME, and Bob Barker offer a correction.

With that correction, I agree with this useful critique.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.

I there a typo somwhere?

Hyperinflated scare stories of sea level rise, catastrophic flooding, heat waves and droughts have been used to justify continued human growth and development in the face of dwindling natural resources and increasing air, water and soil pollution, all in the name of environmental justice.

Specifically, what resources are dwindling?

============
We Must Preserve The Earth’s Dwindling Resources For My Five Children
By Brenda Melford
June 28, 2006

As we move into the 21st century, it is our responsibility to think of the future of the earth—not for ourselves, but for those who will inherit what my husband and I leave behind when we’re gone.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-must-preserve-the-earths-dwindling-resources-fo,11239/
============
:-)

The growing abundance of natural resources (Paul Ehrlich loses $1000 on a famous bet.)

While technically true, I think calling AGW a ‘theory’ gives it way too much credibility. And in fact, the previous theories surrounding the existence of Roman and Medieval Warming periods that IPCC ‘scientists’ attempted to debunk with shoddy tree ring data. In fact the recent divergence from the reality of modern temperature records proves the tree ring analysis was shoddy and ripe with uncertainty, therefore the IPCC hypothesis that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods were lesser than today’s warm period were weak and proven wrong.

Moreover, the IPCC and others did hypothesize that CO2 increases would lead to a myriad of results. One of which was a .3°C increase in global warming per decade – a hypothesis which has never come to pass. The others were sea level rises, increased hurricanes, droughts and the loss of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

The fact is as you stated it – the Earth has been warming for many millennium, and recently for centuries since the Little Ice Age. What has the IPCC proven?

Nothing except they don’t have the data and mathematical analysis to make any claims whatsoever. What we have learned since Climategate is the uncertainty in their past, current and future temperature records and analysis results dwarfs the claimed decadal and century rises. We know there is no way to determine a global average temperature index within a fraction of a degree even today, with the world surrounded by temperature sensors of various types and quality. The idea that the record of global temperature in 1850 is .15°C less accurate than today is mind boggling naive. I would suggest that kind of claim would require a person to return their PhD due to credibility abuse.

If the current definitions of theory, hypothesis and simply wild eyed concept allow what the IPCC passes off as being tested and credible, then science needs to take back science and begin raising the bar back up again. The entire domain of global warming ‘science’ as applied by the IPCC and Al Gore is an affront to real scientific investigation and methods. Hiding a divergence in the data that proves a key proxy is incapable of accurately reflecting even local temps, let alone global ones seems to be a clear case of fraud in my book – and NASA’s.

If that hidden data was engineering data predicting the strength of Shuttle tile or foam to hits by ice chunks, and it was later found out that someone covered up the portion of the data that showed in certain flight regimes there could be catastrophic damage, they would be fired and up on criminal charges.

Since the data hidden by Mann, CRU, Jones, Briffa, et al was about the dangers of CO2 to humanity, it seems the potential impact on the world’s entire population verses a crew of 7 people would make the fraud even worse. But no – no one is looking at the cover up which created the Hockey Stick, which was supposedly proof there has NEVER been warming like this ever before.

We now know all those claims to be false, since Mann, CRU and the IPCC have all had to walk them back in the face of real analysis and the discovery of the cover up of diverging tree ring data. Yet here we have the desperate AGW Klingons still peddling false and misleading claims. When will society hold them to the same standard as a TV commercial? When will society investigate these charlatans – after another 30 years of disproved hypotheses?

The US Congress has an opportunity to correct this mess through fair and balanced and educational hearings. A lot of them. To bring the populace up to speed on the complexity of climate and the falsifying of data will take a long time.

But it will be time well spent.

@ Mike Haseler says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:04 am

Perhaps you would find this useful. This is a on-line preprint, the full book is available thru Amazon ( where else :) ):

PROBABILITY THEORY:
THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE
by
E. T. Jaynes (deceased )
Wayman Crow Professor of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130, U.S.A.

http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html

Some are looking at the precession of the earth’s rotational axis and how it results in changes in the earth’s climate. That of course along with the sun and moon would be difficult to tax and a poor reason to turn corn into fuel and drive electric cars.

If you ask me and no one has, it seems instead of predicting global disaster from climate which they can’t prove we should be thankful that we live in a time of relative good weather and take advantage of it. Of course you could not tax good weather to save the planet. Then at some time if and when there is proof of impending climate disaster the problem can be look at with calm deliberation rather than hysterical fanaticism.

By hysterical fanaticism I am referring to politicians who are willing to destroy our economy and way of life based on claims not proven. Don’t get me wrong, research in climate is important and should continue but with the wheat separated from the chaff.

As complex as weather and climate are nailing it to one thing such as CO2 resulting from man and the modern world seems to be a bit too convenient and too easy to tax.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?

Guest post by Alexandre Aguiar, METSUL Communications Director, Brazil

(note there’s much more here at METSUL’s blog)

Corpses are still under tons of rocks and mud in the hills of Rio de Janeiro, but some experts are already rushing to the microphones here in Brazil and abroad to declare the worst natural disaster in the Brazilian history as a clear and unequivocal evidence of global warming (a.k.a. global climate disruption).

The Brazilian media is not immune to the frenzy on global warming and extreme weather events. The Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, one of the most important media outlets in the country, published a report connecting the Rio de Janeiro disaster to the Queensland flooding in Australia and the recent snowstorms in the United States and Western Europe.

To establish the ongoing catastrophe in Brazil as a global warming product is a bogus claim in the view of the staff of MetSul Meteorologia. The same can be said to the events of cold snaps and snow in the Northern Hemisphere – strong negative Arctic Oscillation related – and the massive flooding in Australia, a direct result of the strong and natural derived La Niña event.

Rio de Janeiro is subject to heavy or extreme rainfall every year, but this time the amount of precipitation was very heavy and in a short period of time, creating an inland tsunami-like torrent. The risk of major extreme rain episodes this summer was widely anticipated by MetSul meteorologists as analog years strongly pointed to a summer similar to the ones with disastrous events in the past. Rain gauges in Nova Friburgo measured 300 millimeters (12 inches) of rain in just 24 hours from January 11th to 12th. The tragedy happened in the Sierras of Rio de Janeiro (Região Serrana) where major topographical forcing is usually present in extreme rainfall. Moisture flow from the ocean (SSTs are above average in the South Atlantic) find a natural physical barrier in the mountains of Rio de Janeiro, making the region prone to extreme rainfall during summer months and early autumn.

The most affected cities (Petrópolis, Teresópolis and Nova Fribrugo) are located between mountains as high as 5 to 6 thousand feet and besides rivers cross these towns. The only way the water can take are the valleys and the regional rivers. Due to the regional terrain, the major menace to the population is landslide. For many decades Brazilian authorities allowed construction of homes and buildings in the slopes, so every single year landslides with numerous deaths are recorded in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais.

The front page of the Extra newspaper from Rio de Janeiro (click over the picture for a wider view) published on January 13th 2010 showed that every single year in the last decade witnessed tragedies caused by rain in the state of Rio. The newspaper headline is “Até quando?” (When will it end?). The paper argues: “The government excuse is always the same…it rained an equivalent to…”. The dominant opinion in the Brazilian media and public arena is that these repeated tragedies must be above all attributed to poor risk management and ridiculous urban planning instead of only blaming nature. Despite recognizing the ferocity of the rain, many are calling this week tragedy a manmade disaster.

In the state of Rio de Janeiro, there is massive occupation of the slopes and the hills, so landslides tend to be much more devastating and tragedies much more frequent. If this week’s rainfall have happened in the same region 35 years ago, the consequences would have been incredibly less dramatic. Satellite pictures released by the Brazilian Global TV Network show clearly some of the risky areas that concentrate most of the victims (Caleme, Posse and Meudon) as heavily populated nowadays in contrast to low or no land occupation 35 years ago.

There are anecdotal and historic accounts of extreme rainfall in the state of Rio de Janeiro since Brazil was a Portuguese colony in the 1600’s and 1700’s, but meteorological records are not available for that period. Great tragedies caused by rain and landslides in Rio de Janeiro began mainly in the second half of the 20th century coinciding with the demographic explosion and the massive and unorganized occupation of the hills. The risky areas of today, where the tragedies of the modern times use to happen almost every year, were not occupied 100 years ago, and for that reason the vast majority of the tragic events concentrate in the last 50 years.

Tragic events will happen again in the future, but can be less dramatic if some steps are taken urgently and seriously: improvement of risk management, urban reorganizing, investments in weather forecast and monitoring equipments and staff, a new media approach to weather warnings’ importance and a good public governance. History proves these areas will be hit again, but we as society have the power to mitigate the consequences. It is a matter of serious and urgent public priority for our authorities and the population’s will.

Author: Alexandre Amaral de Aguiar

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

31 Responses to Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?

This is so classic. These floods in the tropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere are symptoms of global COOLING after a decade of warmth. Get used to it. This is how the Amazon came about.

Yes, but do you have any proof this wasn’t because of global warming? Because if you can’t prove it wasn’t the cause, then it must have been the cause. I can give you a small list of other things caused by global warming that have been proved under this rule:

1) Green Bay Packers 48; Atlanta Falcons 21. I know, you must be wondering how a football score can be caused by global warming. Well, the Packers, a predominantly northern climate mammal, had to travel to play the Falcons in the Falcons natural habitat, which is usually much warmer than Greenbay. Because of global warming, the difference in temperature is now far smaller, resulting in the Packers not suffering from ‘climate shock’ in Atlanta. Go ahead, prove that it wasn’t.

2) Recently, I watched a pot, and it boiled. We all know that never happened before global warming came about.

3) Winter changed its seasonal name to ۩, but since no one can pronounce it, we now have to refer to it as ‘The Season Formerly Known as Winter’. Go ahead, ask winter. But to prove it, you’ll have to record the response, and we are the only people with the access to the right technology, but you can’t have it.

4) Chuck Norris turned on the air conditioner. What more proof do you need?

Thanks for the post. This is all so saddening. The miss-direction of the UN-IPPC, newspapers, and others is delaying action that could be lessening some of this. When the historical record of severe flooding begins in 1756, then 1811, and continues to the current time, it is tragic that the UN and NGOs are so clueless.

People no longer read news papers because everything they tell you is your fault. They are mandated to do this for the benefit of their owners. There is a sick twisted reason for doing this.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/thai-rain-making-comes-to-qld-20100808-11q5f.html
Story from Ron Corben August 8, 2010

A rain-making method developed by Thai king Bhumipol Adulyadej is set to aid Queensland in battles with drought after an agreement between the state government and the Thai royal household.

The Queensland government’s access to the rain-making technology, developed by King Bhumipol over the past 30 years, came a year after the state approached the royal household last year.

As a result, Queensland is set to be the first major region outside Thailand where the rain-making technology will be put into full effect.
_____________________________________
I personally have no understanding of whether or not this can work, however the witchdoctor was called, and they had rain. Lots of it.
Anyone else find the timing and content highly suspicious?

Here is a very interesting website with lots of information of past weather – mostly from the UK. Most of the stories are from before global warming was ever heard of so who knows what caused all the storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves, coldwaves, etc., etc…

http://forum.netweather.tv/

What’s all this “Inland Tsunami” bulgacar? It was a flash flood. Let’s leave the imaginary science terms to the Warmistas and Associated Press propagandists.

Here you go, send the clean up bill to the Aussie coal miners !

Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown

GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

Don’t believe me, here is the link.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6frfku0-1225988806619

Sorry for the short post, I have to clean my keyboard and screen !!

This is more of the same biased reporting that is now the norm for many news outlets.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/examples-of-biased-and-unbiased-climate-news/

SkS is spouting that winter is now caused for global warming. Meanwhile 2010 was a statistically normal year for snow extent in the northern hemisphere.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/snow-extent-for-2010/

The only thing we can do is understand what is going on. There is plenty of craziness out there on both sides of the debate, but getting the science correct is the key.

@Chris in Hervey Bay

As a Taswegian, I appologies for my state helping to encourage this type of Watermelon through, initially the flooding of Lake Pedder, and then the Gordon-Below-Franklin dam protests.

Beneficial hydro-electric schemes both, one successful, the other thwarted by the larval-stage of today’s Labor government. Unfortunately I think we brought the Watermelon in Australia into the mainstream, sorry.

Some obviously care more about their funding than getting the science correct.

I think governments love to attribute tragedies to AGW. That way they can shift the blame for their poor governance and lack of foresight onto the shoulders of capitalism, coal miners and oil companies, all very convenient scapegoats.

This and all similar events appear to be anthropogenic climate catastrophes. But in this case anthropogenic refers to man’s propensity to build in what are frankly, stupid locations and that old enemy, unexpected climate extreme, is going to get them in the end.

Thanks for the elaborate discussion. Warmers suffer tremendous and deliberate memory lapses when it comes to current weather, flooding and cooling compared to similar events in the past. My brief discussion on “Climate dementia and flooding”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/01/climate-dementia-and-flooding.html

With reference to the Queensland floods, which I have followed in detail, this is the first time in my experience, that people may have died as a result of policy makers listening to AGW proponents.

At the moment it is not possible proving this beyond reasonable doubt but I suspect a lot more people will die in other incidents before policies change.

In Queensland they were totally unprepared for catastrophic flooding despite knowing that it was normal, periodically, since people had lived there.

In the UK our worst hydrological disaster was back in 1966, and this was definitely the fault of “dirty evil coal.” The Aberfan disaster which killed 116 schoolchildren and 28 others was caused when a coal spoil tip built over natural springs on the side of the valley, became mobilised after days of heavy rain and slid down the side of the valley onto the village and its primary school.

How would Trenberth, Hansen et al have viewed this disaster had it happened in January 2011?

BBC News had a local planning officer from Rio discussing the floods as they were happening a couple of days ago, and he was very clear in that this was fully expected, that building on the mud-slopes was not sanctioned but that the authorities did nothing to prevent it, and that he was sure it would all happen again in years to come.

No mention at all of the rains being particularly heavy.

Puplished in the Italian WPSMeteo website:-

Abnormal weather conditions in the tropical western Atlantic (weaker trade winds south-east, just outside of Brazil), can cause the displacement of the front of the Angola-Benguela Current further south, causing the intrusion of warm waters. Because of the similarity to the phenomenon of El Niño in the Pacific (ENSO), this hot event in the South Atlantic has been dubbed “Benguela Niños.” These events have abolished the phenomenon of lift (upwelling) and have caused the high rainfall over Namibia, but are less intense and less frequent than the ENSO.

Benguela Current, an Atlantic Niño?

See also this article by SAND-RIO in Sol e Mudanças Climáticas , 2011 January 14, 2011
Catastrophe in Rio de Janeiro

(Thanks to a previous poster for this information).

This tragedy has no connection with AGW only evidence that serious problems occur if planning regulations are relaxed and building standards fall. The flood area is enstable and has always been prone to land slides after heavy rain. People should not have been allowed to house themselves in that problem area.

Crank in

http://www.couriermail.com.au/property/creeping-tide-set-to-drown-our-coast/story-e6frequ6-1225987111823

Too many fence straddlers are not convinced either way.

Sometimes it is impolite, or takes too much energy, to argue.

On this one, I simply say, OK, what causes precipiation (rain)?

The answer is, of course, cold. Weather is not climate, but rain is, in fact, a sign of local cooling.

Michael says 10:52 pm
The sick twisted reason is as always–money!

For comparison, the short-term rainfall record in the US is 30.5″ (775 mm) in 4.5 hrs. This occurred July, 1942 in Smethport, PA (north-central PA). A town in northern WV near the Ohio River got 19″ in 2 hrs (can’t remember the details).

Fear of Global Warming makes people do really, really dumb stuff . . .

http://tinyurl.com/GlobalFrikinWarmingConJob

Now you can see the true Genius of “Talking Heads” singer David Byrne in the song “Once in a Lifetime” (reflection of how people perceive the floods and heat waves at this time being “once in a lifetime” events). In the song the words are repeated “Same as it ever was”.

In my own research I am finding out that current events are no more dangerous than past, the big difference are people are now living in flood plains that used to be avoided.

Increased population & property = more deaths and destruction.

It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the worst flood that Brazil has ever experienced. See the Brisbane cafuffle.

These are not memory lapses by journalists – in many cases it may not even be ‘agenda driven’ journalism – it is sheer scientific ignorance and poor reporting. What science these reporters have picked up has been spoon fed them by films like Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” followed by a few disaster movies – that they believe. This worrying lack of scientific understanding is reinforced by a need for a quick headline that will sell more papers, magazines advertising time on TV. This has a self-generating effect in the media as each outlet tries to outdo the other in reporting a particular subject. Stories that blame the victims for being foolish building in landslide prone areas or flood plains do not get anywhere near the traction of parents crying over a child’s death and an editorial blaming greedy bankers, developers and ‘big oil’.

Unfortunately, this lax reporting and lack of scientific knowledge is also widespread in popular science publications and documentaries.

From the news archives: Brazil floods between 1800 and 1969:
http://tinyurl.com/4pbrn6x

Example:

LA Times Aug 26, 1965
“100,000 Left Homeless in Brazil Floods”
http://tinyurl.com/49blcu9

The Sydney Morning Herald – Jan 25, 1967
“500 feared dead in Brazil floods”
http://tinyurl.com/6zozcpp

This reminds me where where the mass of the press when we had snow in Brazil last year? Where were they when Argentina’s beaches got whitened? Where were they when millions of tropical fish died due to cold in Bolivia?

References:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100827/full/news.2010.437.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/07/21/brazil.dead.penguins/index.html#fbid=IIUufT-MKyq&wom=false
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/08/05/snow-in-brazil-below-zero-celsius-in-the-river-plate-and-tropical-fish-frozen
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in/blog-381855/
http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/santa-catarina-brazil-cold-air?xg_source=activity
http://arcticsnap.com/index.php?id=74
http://www.brazzilmag.com/component/content/article/89-august-2010/12321-brazil-hasnt-seen-so-much-snow-in-a-decade.html
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/chilly-in-chile-south-america-hit-by-freak-cold-snap/19583528
http://sify.com/news/cold-wave-kills-six-million-fish-in-bolivia-news-international-kielkdaieea.html

Typo:
This reminds me where were

Obrigado por um artigo muinto interessante!

“if some steps are taken urgently and seriously: improvement of risk management, urban reorganising, investments in weather forecast and monitoring equipments and staff, a new media approach to weather warnings’ importance and a good public governance.”

Unfortunately, the vast bulk of funding for these things has been most effectively snatched away by religious zealots, and there simply isn’t any money left for actually dealing with anything real. If you want to save lives and accurately predict the weather, you must do so with private funding or none at all. And be prepared to be ignored and ridiculed for not following the rigid dogma set out by the high priests of the orthodoxy. Names like John Harrison, Alfred Wegener, Edwin Howard Armstrong or Nicola Tesla come to mind as some who persevered at great personal expense.

Mais uma vez, obrigado. E não deixe os bastardos desgastá-lo para baixo!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Send me site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Saturday Silliness – Josh on Keven Trenberth’s AMS speech

Inspired by Willis, and adapted from DJ Meredith’s comment on WUWT, a cartoon on Kevin Trenberth, who seems determined to  explode any credibility Climate Science has left.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Hide the Decline

- Pseudoscience

- Where’s the Heat???

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

19 Responses to Saturday Silliness – Josh on Keven Trenberth’s AMS speech

That was quick. And very nicely made. Cudos, Josh!

Brilliant!!

I think you made the shoulders too broad. Afterall, anyone who uses possibly and might as much as MR T is ducking all responsibility.

I pity the fool.

Josh,
You missed the mark… Dr. T obviously needs more bling! Perhaps a set of gold handcuffs?

He’s just Joshing you, he’s really a skeptic and he has nice rosy cheeks. you just got to love the man.

I love it.

I ain’t taking any of de bait from you, sucker!
And the rest of the A-team iz, behind me
to a Mann!
With apologies but loads of respect to B A Baracus.
It’s a travesty that you became the Face but needs must when the Devil drives. Mr T, you are still the real man!

The team is still being paid by taxpayers. Doesn’t that stick in your craw? I know it sticks in mine. A business run by these guys would be shut down and they would be in jail. If they are half as smart as they want us to believe they know they are wrong. Knowing they are wrong and still persisting to give false advice to governments they are guilty of any number of very serious crimes.

It’s easy to state anything,
when the Gubment buys you Da’ Bling!

That would make Michael Mann Hannibal, Alan Jones Faceman and Joe Romm Murdoch.

“Ah pity tha fuel!” (that creates CO2)

Watch out if he is like Mann he’ll sue you.

REPLY: Satirical works of public figures are one of the most protected forms of free speech. If they weren’t we’d never see a single editorial cartoon in a newspaper. – Anthony

Very nice, Josh!

If you don’t understand the joke, here’s Global Warming Panic explained :

Josh’s colour works are much better.

The cartoon is funny, but off the mark a little.

Forgot to doff my hat (hat tip) to Climate Depot on January 15, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Might resemble BA, and have a bad attitude, but certainly not from the A Team.

John,
Who’s to say that a hockey team can’t be called the “A’s” (short for anthropogenic)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

TV weathercaster re-education proposed by NSF and GMU

This is really something. The job opening listed below advertises for an NSF funded  program at George Mason University for education of TV weathercasters on how “unusual weather events” are connected to “climate change”. Apparently the “weather is not climate” maxim has been thrown out the window in a desperate attempt to salvage sinking public opinion on the issue.

“This project will focus on establishing a national network of on-air broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, university research programs, and key climate and weather science organizations, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate.”

I suppose this relates to Dr. Kenneth Trenberth’s statement about TV weathercasters in his recent speech preprint to be delivered at the upcoming AMS convention in Seattle.

Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).

From personal experience, I imagine they’ll be more even more hostile when their TV news director gets a call from the climate re-educators asking why they didn’t link the hailstorm yesterday to global warming.

Get a load of this statement:

It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue.

Here is the PDF hosted at NCAR/UCAR, and here is that PDF put to plain text below.

George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication Postdoctoral Research Fellow

The George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication invites applications for a full-time Postdoctoral Research Fellow to support an NSF-funded planning grant titled Making the Global Local: Unusual Weather Events as Climate Change Education Opportunities. The goal of this project is to establish a national network of climate and weather science organizations, and university research and teaching programs, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate change. The project will integrate informal learning, mass communication, and experiential learning theories to develop and test new pedagogical approaches to informal science education through frequent mass media exposure, linked to realworld experience (i.e., the local weather). It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue. Collaborating institutions include National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, American Meteorological Society, National Weather Association, American Association of State Climatologists, American Geophysical Union, Climate Central, National Environmental Education Foundation, and Yale and Cornell universities.

Candidates must have a PhD in a relevant social or learning science discipline, and a track record of published journal articles and/or conference papers on relevant topics of inquiry including climate change communication, science communication and/or formal or informal science education. Experience in survey research, qualitative data collection, strategic (program) planning, professional development, and climate science is preferred. Additional skills required include competence in planning and multitasking, attention to detail, excellent organizational skills, ability to communicate verbally and in writing, and the ability to adapt to the changing demands of a dynamic research environment.

For full consideration, interested and qualified applicants must submit the online faculty application for position #F9401z. Applications should include (a) cover letter including a statement of research interests and career goals, and names and contact information of two professional references, and (b) a vita.

h/t to Samuel Patterson at www.climatequotes.com

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Why TV weathermen are on the frontline of the climate change debate

- AMS TV weathercaster survey on climate raises eyebrows

- The day TV weather grew up

- Whether the weather be cold, or whether the weather be hot…

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

109 Responses to TV weathercaster re-education proposed by NSF and GMU

Here’s my take on it:

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/15/taxpayers-funding-nsf-program-to-teach-meteorologists-about-climate-change/

Leftists have a thing with re-education, don’t they?

Get your weather and propaganda at the one stop shop.

I wonder, will the weather people go for it? Our local tv guy won’t touch the hoax with a 10 foot pole … he steers completely away.

If you have a local skeptical TV weatherman or woman, please send this along to them. Remind them that “climate scientists” think of them as dimwitted talking heads who should not even be allowed to have opinions on “climate change.”

This is disgusting and foolish. Disgusting because it is propaganda for AGW. Foolish because associating local weather events with global warming will only show that the theories held by the pro-AGW crowd are nonsense.

I hope that meteorologists push back powerfully and thoroughly. I will be talking to Eric Cantor about Leftist propaganda and federal granting agencies.

“Empower…” The word pegs my BS meter every time, without fail.

Don’t forget this part of the job posting:

It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue.

Teaching them how to attack meteorologists who don’t tow the line.

How is it that any unusual weather event is automatically a result of climate “change”.

It’s tantamount to the claim that there would be no unusual weather events if climate were not changing. There’s “unusual” weather events all the time, always have been, always will be.

Anthony – I was pleased to see on CNN a few days ago, when the weather girl was asked by the anchor if the Aussie floods were caused by global warming, she explained that they were linked to La Nina, explained what that was, how it influenced weather, and did not mention global warming once.

So once the newly brainwashed weather boys and girls are ready, the networks may have to do a lot of hiring and firing to put them in place.

All the best.

It might be worth noting that the AMS annual meeting is scheduled for January 23-27 in Seattle.

The theme of the 2011 AMS Annual Meeting is “Communicating Weather and Climate.” http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual/index.html

A tour of the Meeting’s web site suggests that the move to re-educate meteorologists is well under way. Trenberth, Somerville, Pope, Cicerone, Emanuael, Karoly…. they’ll all be presenting.

“Apparently the “weather is not climate” maxim has been thrown out the window in a desperate attempt to salvage sinking public opinion on the issue.”

The difference is that coming out of colleges and universities we now have a crop of meteorologists who have been indoctrinated in AGW since kindergarten so to them it is “fact”. They know nothing different and only “kooks” question it. It has been driven into them as “known fact” literally since nursery school. So “unusual weather events” are connected to “climate change” would seem quite natural to them.

This is actually doubleplusgood! The developing analogy to the Dalton Minimum (~1790 to ~1830) might cause some difficulty in the doublethink department. Without adequate re-education, TV people might commit both thoughtcrime and facecrime!

Next stop Gulag.

I think the funniest (aka disturbing) of all this is that the Warmies HATE GMU. From the Wegman report to the Koch Brothers, nothing but vitriol for GMU.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center

Why would the they get a grant from the NSF?

Sounds like recruiting new clergy for a church. Only those willing to follow established theology need apply.

Ian

Thanks, Anthony!

Cultural Revolution anyone?

I’m all for it….
If anyone thinks climate scientists can screw up a forecast….
…just wait until they have TV weathermen doing it

By the end of the first month, there won’t be anyone that believes………

Seems to be a theme of late. The more the data doesn’t co-operate, the more reliance on PR and blatant lies. As we have seen in Australia and even the freezing north this winter activists have been desperately throwing anything at the wall, in the hope that something will stick.

Weather is not climate – except when we think it may promote the cause. I think the desperate act of breaking all their own rules for short term gain might well come back to bite them in the ass before very long.

Here…I’ve reworded the posting for George Mason University to better reflect the intent…

–

George Mason University Climate Club: Climate Change Communication Postdoctoral Research Fellow

The George Mason University Climate Club invites applications for a full-time Postdoctoral Research Fellow to support an NSF-funded planning grant titled “Stoking the Global Warming Mania: Unusual Weather Events as Climate Change Hysteria Opportunities.” The goal of this project is to establish a national network of climate and weather group-think organizations, and university research and indoctrination programs, to “persuade” local broadcast meteorologists (if they know what’s good for them…) to fool and misdirect the American public about catastrophic climate change. The project will integrate informal learning (no tests!), mass hypnosis, and experiential learning theories (from ex-KGB officers) to develop and test new approaches to informal science education (no tests!) through frequent mass media propaganda, linked to realworld experience (e.g. protesting at coal-fired power plants during a blizzard). It will also adapt and test conflicting theory resolution (i.e. what to say when GCM predictions become epic failures) and practice to “engage” meteorologists who (unwisely) reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue in a dark back ally with several heavy-set climate “friends” (where persuasion becomes much easier). Collaborating groups and individuals include the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, Climate Central, the Weather Channel, Greenpeace, Earth First, George Soros, Friends of Kevin Trenberth, and the Communist Party of America.

Candidates must have a PhD in a relevant social or learning science discipline from one of those fancy, new online universities, and a track record of published articles in Mother Jones and Rolling Stone Magazines on relevant topics of inquiry including climate conference party planning (Bali! Cancun!), and science communication using puppets. Experience in social networking, money collection, and beer drinking is preferred. No experience in climate science is required (will train on the job). Additional skills required include…awww, don’t worry about that – just apply!!

You will be assimilated….

Being told what to think is so much easier than thinking for yourself.

I got my degree in atmospheric physics from ITT Tech. I can’t tell you what a difference it has made in my life!

sleeper says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:51 am

“Empower…” The word pegs my BS meter every time, without fail.

Me too, just like “wellness” and “end times”.

latitude says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm

I’m all for it….
If anyone thinks climate scientists can screw up a forecast….
…just wait until they have TV weathermen doing it

By the end of the first month, there won’t be anyone that believes………

Hate to break it to you, but TV weather folks are no better at predicting the weather 3 days out than climate scientists are at predicting 100 years out.

Time to defund a few things in the new budget.

It’s bad enough for the CAGW crowd when weathermen point out that rural temperatures are often lower than urban ones. Weather forecasters not blaming extreme weather on man made climate change must be doubly irritating.

I think the people who think this might work need to go through some of the pop psychology fads of the last 30 years and see how they turned out. These fads even were embraced briefly by major corporations. My favorite was one where a long questionaire had to be filled out and everyone’s answers and scores were reviewed in front of their co-workers to see who was trying to achieve the best goals and were the best people. The conclusion we were lead to was that we all should want to be like the boss. It ended up angering the lowest level people and the mid-level folks simply refered to is as “suck-up psycology” and wondered aloud (to their bosses) how anyone could fall for this c__p. I suspect GMU will be equally as effective.

I love researching a bad conspiracy.

The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!

We live in the age of conspiracies while at the same time being socially engineered to ignore them through the use of crafty language. Words like “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are designed to make you feel bad about exploring deeper into the subject presented. You now instinctively turn away from the topic whenever you here these words out of someones mouth, as if you’ve been hypnotized to do so. No words will set your mind at ease and allow you to delve into the issue further. Through constant repetition of the feel bad words, you are very controlled. Not even when the words are corrected to indicate the true nature of the exercise with such words as “Conspiracy Researcher”, will your mind be put at ease. Continue reading at your own risk.

Senator Barbara Boxer adds this hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax(trade) bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow cause us more war;
“I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way.” National security experts? What do they know that we don’t? Ridiculous? Maybe not, if some people don’t get what they want.

The awakening has arrived. Renaissance 2.0 has begun. The covers have been blown off one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the world. The entire planet had been sucked into the greatest scientific hoax of all time. The man-made global warming conspiracy theory was proven with help from the release of Climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia in England on November 20th 2009. To todays date, no one knows who the hackers are, but that’s beside the point. The blogosphere and alternative media crowd sourced the information at a rapid pace. It is one of the most researched conspiracies known to man.

Most of the actors in the conspiracy were unwitting participants due to the compartmental nature of their duties, as most complex conspiracies are designed to work. They are eager participants and accessories to the conspiracy. The man-made global warming theory, also known as CAGW, was devised as a social engineering experiment to create the backbone of the one world government. It was to be a major component of the financing for the new world order.

Accepters of the unproven CAGW theory blindly accepted the notion well before many of the facts were in. They call me a denier. I am an accepter of the CAGW conspiracy theory now that it has been proven, while at the same time I deny the theory of man-made global warming due to the flawed science behind it.

The mainstream media is complicit in covering up the conspiracy for refusing to discuss the Climategate emails on prime time TV and promoting the man-made global warming theory as fact to the masses for their corporate overlords pocketbooks. They are the social engineers mouth pieces and co-conspirators with the upper echelon of players in this case.

The funny thing about most conspiracies are, you don’t know it is an actual conspiracy till it’s exposed.

[]

(This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?

[A start worthy of reading, but …. The original was recovered from the “spam” filter.

Editorial note. You’ve duplicated two entire sections. Rerun through your spell-checker and grammar checker – which is probably easiest to do that by copying everything to a separate MsWord document or the like, edit and check your work there, print the results and re-read it off of paper if you wish, then re-paste to the WUWT submittal box.

Frank K. says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Here…I’ve reworded the posting for George Mason University to better reflect the intent…

Now if only you could hack the GMU site and put your version up instead…!

“Resistance is futile”

The Borg.

Ve have un dossier on you.

Be on the lookout for them using the The Diamond Technique on you.

HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO
SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM
by G. Edward Griffin
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/diamond_tactic.pdf

Moderator, Please check the filter for my previous post.
Thanks.

[You have made many posts. On what thread and for which specific post are you searching? Robt]

They just keep on getting creepier and more desperate.

Is it because they subconsciously sense the death of their religion or is some group like the Real Climate team pushing this crap behind the scenes?

Lysenkoism! Ye must BELIEVE! What a crock!

http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html

NSF* = Not Safe For *Anything!

There should be a law when they us the words “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, or “Climate Disruption”, they must pre-qualify it if they they are referring to it as Man-Made, so every one knows what they are really talking about.

Re-education, weren’t the Stalanists, Maoists and Nazis big into that?
Little good it did them…

crosspatch says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“Apparently the “weather is not climate” maxim has been thrown out the window in a desperate attempt to salvage sinking public opinion on the issue.”

“The difference is that coming out of colleges and universities we now have a crop of meteorologists who have been indoctrinated in AGW since kindergarten so to them it is “fact”. They know nothing different and only “kooks” question it. It has been driven into them as “known fact” literally since nursery school. So “unusual weather events” are connected to “climate change” would seem quite natural to them.”

They call this Cognitive Dissonance.

“Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[1] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer’s remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[1] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression “sour grapes”) is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one’s dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern “adaptive preference formation.”[2] When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all, an example of adaptive preference formation designed to reduce cognitive dissonance.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Anthony

Have you been re-educated that Kevin Trenberth’s first name is really Kenneth?

Inquiring minds would like to know

This is a joke, right? Surely nobody could propose this with a straight face.

Next it will be degree courses in Climate Change.

This seems more like a spoof. Are you sure it isn’t?

If it’s legit, and indeed seems to be asking that only biased Ph.D.’s need apply, I can’t imagine anything worse than putting into place in our Ivory Towers biased researchers and scientists, who not only do the research, submit the articles, form the peer review club, AND serve as professional journal editors.

Our only hope is that “We the people” have not become “We the sheeple”.

Robert E. Phelan says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm

“It might be worth noting that the AMS annual meeting is scheduled for January 23-27 in Seattle.”
Just in time for nice arctic cold front dipping down the West Coast in the form of
a “Queen Charlotte Clipper.” with attendant wind down the Frazier River canyon
where there is nothing between you and the Yukon but a few Sitka Spruce and
Moose antlers…
-snicker-

Jeff Alberts says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm
===========================================================
latitude says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I’m all for it….
If anyone thinks climate scientists can screw up a forecast….
…just wait until they have TV weathermen doing it
By the end of the first month, there won’t be anyone that believes………
======================================================
Hate to break it to you, but TV weather folks are no better at predicting the weather 3 days out than climate scientists are at predicting 100 years out.

===========================================================
amd Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but that was my point

As Anthony might say, “KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!”

I say, let ‘em go ahead & try….every attempt they make to tie local weather events to CAGW blows up in their faces & loses them even further credibility with the voting public!

Ridiculous claims such as the recent NTY article blaming ongoing snowstorms on climate change are a good example….more recently, I see that the Arctic ice mass just isn’t cooperating, nor are hurricane forecasts. The harder these folks try to push their case, the worse it looks.

What does John Coleman have to say about all this “meteorologist re-education,” I wonder?

First a University program… Next a boot camp…

What happens to those who won’t follow the Party Line? Reform through labor??

G.

Pity it is so hard for US citizens to get visas to North Korea. The Grand Peoples Study House in Pyongyang would be the idea venue.

latitude says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm

amd Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but that was my point

Ah, ok. You made it sound like weather forecasts are currently accurate in any meaningful way.

intrepid_wanders says: “From the Wegman report to the Koch Brothers, nothing but vitriol for GMU. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center

Why would the they get a grant from the NSF?”

Because the NSF has found that universities can be bought if you write a large enough check?

Michael says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm
crosspatch says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm

“A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression “sour grapes”) is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE).”

An older and more learned example is the story of King David and Bathsheba. After his prophet Nathan explained to him “You are that man,” David ripped his garments, dressed in rags and covered himself in ashes. Hansen, Jones, Mann and the whole lot should be fortunate enough to go through the same experience.

Re-education camps. Haven’t we been this route?

First they came for the weathercasters . . .

The reason weathermen don’t believe climate “scientists” is because weathermen have real experience about the vagaries of weather and instrumentation and climate “scientists” only have theoretical models.

I doubt whether weathermen will change their view just because some academic tells them that their model predicts the world temperature to a fraction of a degree in 100 years time, when those same models can’t predict the local temperature in a few days.

But I’m sure it will do the climate “scientist” good to get a solid grounding in practical climate/weather instrumentation/science!

Joseph D’Aleo, Joe Bastardi, John Coleman and Anthony Watts have been put first on the list.

Just in case anyone was wondering WHO controls the media here is an interesting tidbit:

JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations.
JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010)

This is interesting because the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: shows J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. Looks like the bankers are still keeping tight control.

The world’s No. 1 investment bank in 2009 was JPMorgan Chase & Co…. JPMorgan Tops Goldman in Investment Banking as Fees Swell 13%

Do not forget the leaked Danish text at Copenhagen that would have handed effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank. Chase was owned by the Rockefeller’s. Not only have three Chase bankers become the head of the World Bank, Rockefeller has also hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF.

The money trail is always fun to follow.

Pamela Gray says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“This seems more like a spoof. Are you sure it isn’t?
Our only hope is that “We the people” have not become “We the sheeple”.”

We the sheeple it is because this nonsense is paid for with tax payers money without any protest.

Jeff Alberts says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Ah, ok. You made it sound like weather forecasts are currently accurate in any meaningful way.
=====================================

LOL, noooooooooo

Mike Haseler says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:01 pm
The reason weathermen don’t believe climate “scientists” is because weathermen have real experience about the vagaries of weather and instrumentation and climate “scientists” only have theoretical models
=====================================================
Mike weathermen get slapped down on a weekly basis….
..but, believe it or not, they actually try to give accurate predictions

…Climate scientists move the goal posts, stay under their fluorescent lights, and claim the science is settled. They don’t even try to give accurate predictions, and don’t care.

Again, these same climate scientists think it’s all in explaining it. Just haven’t explained it right yet.
Like they really expect anyone to believe that there is one person alive, much less a weatherman, that doesn’t know all about it.

thegoodlocust says: “They just keep on getting creepier and more desperate.

Is it because they subconsciously sense the death of their religion or is some group like the Real Climate team pushing this crap behind the scenes?”

There a natural law that the number of workers who can contribute to a project is usually strictly limited, whilst the rate at which of hangers on** that join a “fad” is proportional to its apparent success.

The result is that there comes a point in any project whereby the quantity of “hangers on” begin to exceed those with a real interest and the project aims and objectives begin to be modified to satisfy the requirements of the hoard of hangers on with a detriment to the original objectives

Global warming has got way past that state! It is now there for the hangers on, it is there because it has to be there because they are there! The truth no longer matters: the only thing that matters is that everyone works to perpetuate the jobs of the hangers on!

**(i.e. consultants, PR executives etc.).

Sometime I like to repost some of my writings from time to time, not overdoing it, in order to re-re-educate people with as close to the truth as possible. Repeating the same thing over and over again so sheeple believe it, in order to spread the lie, seems to be the modus operandi of our overlords. So maybe I’m taking a page out of their book.

Thanks for reposting my essay Anthony that was a “work in progress”. I ran it through a grammar checker grader at a 12th grade level and I got a B(80) on it. I intentionally used the word Accepter(misspelled), in order to counter the word “denier” that is so prolifically used and to perhaps coin a new word. I used this to check it.
http://www.paperrater.com/free_paper_grader

I sent this to Marc Morano of Climate Depot so maybe he would use it in an article, and he Loved it. I was dabbling with it on WUWT on a previous thread.

Americans are not designed to be socially engineered like Europeans are.
Americans were designed to be Free and Independent.
The Internet and the blogosphere are responsible for undoing decades and decades of social engineering within a matter of a few short years, and it’s something they never envisioned or foresaw in all of their planning/strategy/thinktank sessions, ever. This is why the control freaks and our corporate overlords hate the Internet so much. We are too good at crowd sourcing the the truth within a very short period of time. I am enjoying watching the social engineering and brainwashing efforts self destruct in real time, making the control freaks and corporate mainstream media overlords heads explode with rage.

Lew Skannen says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 2:58 pm
“Pity it is so hard for US citizens to get visas to North Korea. The Grand Peoples Study House in Pyongyang would be the idea venue.”

You almost made me wreck my computer by spewing my drink on it.
+1000

It’s evil, evil, evil in more than one way. It’s also an ineffable shame George Mason University hosts a plainly political organization like 4C (Center for Climate Change Communication).

Recognized as the Soros, Media Matters, Josef Goebbels brain-wash model. It will fail. Unless a majority of weathermen are mindless drones – 0h-oh, on second thought …

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

I say this is a good use of our tax dollars. I have yet to meet a skeptic turned warmist, I have turned many warmists to skeptics, so to me this is obviously a great opportunity to educate some airheaded activists.

If this advertisement for the vacancy as described is real, my heart sinks, it really does.
Have we as a Western society descended to such depths of academic depravity? Does ‘proper’ education no longer occur?
I regret having to say this, and please snip me if necessary, but the only phrase that this solicitation for employment brings to mind is “Arbeit Macht Frei”.

A long time ago, when I was at University as a undergraduate, I sometimes ran into people who I thought, to put it bluntly; must’ve been educated to become that stupid. They had been educated beyond reason, usually having spent almost their entire “career” cocooned in an artificial universe.

What does not fit their theories and ideals of how things should be as they have been told, is beyond their perception. Everything that contradicts, must be wrong.

http://oilprice.com/Environment/Global-Warming/The-Big-Winners-in-the-Climate-Change-Money-Game.html

has anyone seen this ?? ‘follow the money’ has never had more cred.

regards

Did you notice that the instructor has to have a PhD in a “relevant social or learning science discipline”? In other words, the theory is for an educator to explain to skeptical atmospheric scientists what is wrong with the atmospheric scientists’ understanding of atmospheric science!

It gets more surreal by the week!

kwik says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm
“Resistance is futile”
The Borg.

/sarc off

From the ad: “Candidates must have a PhD in a relevant social or learning science discipline, and a track record of published journal articles and/or conference papers on relevant topics of inquiry including climate change communication, science communication and/or formal or informal science education.”

So a PhD in science would not be qualified. A person with conference papers (so at least two; say, one at Copenhagen, one at Cancun) on informal science education would be qualified as long as they have a non-science PhD.

Oh no they going to “empower” again! Baylor wants to empower the poor people of Belize. This Neo Marxist terminology has caught on in scientific organizations. Gee I’m a little worried about those more individualistic weathermen that refuse to be “empowered”. The indoctrinators may have them removed from their jobs. This oft-repeated notion of late of re-education sounds like something from the apparatchiks of a totalitarian regime. This is serious and worrisome stuff.

Since they are losing the argument they need something to keep the ball rolling. SkS has a foolish article claiming that the unusually high snow is further proof of global warming.

That crappy part is they are ignoring the perfectly normal snow extent for the year of 2010. Doesn’t mean they won’t try to tie every weather event to global warming.

The good news is the more BS like this that they pull, the less the average person will believe the increasingly outlandish claims.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/snow-extent-for-2010/

“In Orwell’s novel, all citizens of Oceania are monitored by cameras, are fed fabricated news stories by the government, are forced to worship a mythical government leader called Big Brother, are indoctrinated to believe nonsense statements (the mantra “WAR IS PEACE, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”), and are subject to torture and execution if they question the order of things.”

I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime. We need to add “WARM IS AGW”; “COLD IS AGW”;”EXTREME IS AGW”;”DROUGHT IS AGW”;”FLOOD IS AGW”; “STRESS IS AGW”;

With a list of qualifications like that, why would the ideal candidate want to be TV Weatherman instead?
Maybe they are looking for an answer to the complex hot foot that Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi have given them.

The HR Office at the university where I work is offering Influencer Workshops under its Professional Development Opportunities. Here’s a bit from the blurb:

“The ideas and techniques for the Influencer Workshops are based upon the books Crucial Conversations & Influencer. The ideas are that major problems can be changed by adjusting to a few behaviours. That to change behaviour requires helping to change the minds of people. Techniques are then used to show how personal motivation can be engaged to result the overcoming of reluctance & resistance. This is by connection to personal values. In essence, showing that the following techniques can effect change: create new experiences, create new motives, connect to a person’s sense of self, engage & connect to moral values.”

When they continually cry poor why are universities funding this crap for their staff? Why do they need to change people’s minds and overcome resistance?

kwik says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 1:31 pm
“Resistance is futile”
“The Borg.”
All Your Base are Belong To Us. I heard that before. Too Funny. I think it was from a Chinese translation error in a video game.

The English translation of the word al-Qaeda is, The Base.

I went and posted a link to this article at my local TV weather station, ABC7Chicago.

Sam says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm
..
Teaching them how to attack meteorologists who don’t tow the line.

Or toe the line, either. :D

Dare one hope that this evokes a full-bore push-back complete with flamethrowers from the Meteorologists of the world? It would be a very educational battle!

I suppose the conclusion of The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.! essay is; The climate changing is not your fault.

davidc says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm

“So a PhD in science would not be qualified. A person with conference papers (so at least two; say, one at Copenhagen, one at Cancun) on informal science education would be qualified as long as they have a non-science PhD.”

Chances are the hire was made before the ad was written. The ad is just cya.

^Bernd

This is how a psychiatrist has put it:

The little children who make up the left side of the political spectrum have never learned that reality exists separate from their own wants or desires. They still want what they want when they want it no matter what. And they are prepared to stage a temper tantrum if Mommy or Daddy–or Reality, in this case–say, “No!”

You can ignore reality, but reality will not ignore you.

I suppose the conclusion of The Man-Made Global Warming ??????????.! essay is; The climate changing is not your fault.

Around the time this was happening: http://www.thorntonweather.com/blog/climate-change/climate-scientist-knockdown-william-gray-versus-james-hansen/ , the AMS had a page in its education section which debunked CO2 being responsible for global warming – it quickly disappeared.

Re-education is already in place because as every dictator knows, the educated are the first threat to any dictator’s survival. Destroying the credibility of the educated is resorted to here because impossible to organise enough firing squads, yet, together with introduction of AGW dogma into school curriculums to create an ignorant generation is par for this course. Well tried and tested methods.

On this page are links to various articles: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050.

Under “Scientist Polls/Surveys:” it has one survey saying, “85% of AMS Certified Weathercasters do not agree that most of the warming since 1959 is very likely human-induced”.

The link takes this to an AMS page which can no longer be found by AMS: http://journals.ametsoc.org/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-1457.pdf

So I don’t know which year this was done. In 2010 the picture had changed somewhat: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/29/ams-sponsored-survey-of-tv-weathercasters-63-of-tv-weathercasters-believe-global-warming-is-mostly-natural/

An effort was made to specifically attack the weathermen in the US in 2007 by a “Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics” on the http://epw.senate.gov/public/ Put Decertification into search and its the last three listed about this story.

Re-education might take longer, but if they have the clout, and clearly they do, it’s a lot easier than a show down with those who still know the science. Those who continue objecting will probably be marginalised or quietly replaced. With MSM in their MSControl, we’ll probably only get to hear snippets.

“will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue. ”
Wasn’t it Stalin who would encourage his advisors, ministers, and generals to have individual audiences with him to confide their concerns, opinions, and suggestions, so together they could improve the condition of the workers and the motherland.
Stalin would nod approval and acceptance of what they confided.
As the advisor left, Stalin would nod again to another “advisor”, who would quietly treat those visitors perceived as threats to a muffled gunshots to the temple.
Of course, I don’t expect them to execute those who disagree with them (if their aim is as good as their models, there’s nothing to worry about), but they’re already composing a blacklist (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/a-new-blacklist/ )
I don’t trust these people.

Weather is not Climate,
Never forget.
Unless it is, then change your bet.
Weather kills but climate enriches,
We pay your bills so mind your pitches.
You’ll get it wrong, from time to time,
but never mind,
You’ll never have to defend a crime!
We’ll make sure you’ll never lose
‘cos if you do our goose is cooked!

And that will never happen. Ever!

Good grief a center for climate change communication. So now the problem isn’t the science, its the communication. Sorry if the message is a lie it doesn’t matter how you package that lie, people will still know it is a lie.

Wow, so now that want to churn out others to preach their propaganda. This is becoming less and less about science and more and more about mind control.

I think this series of video documentaries by the BBC are appropriate for this thread. Archive it in your favorites for good weekend viewing.

The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), “Baby it’s Cold Outside“
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory – by Adam Curtis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#docid=4602171665328041876

The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#docid=2081592330319789254

“The project will integrate informal learning, mass communication, and experiential learning theories to develop and test new pedagogical approaches to informal science education through frequent mass media exposure, linked to realworld experience (i.e., the local weather).” PEDAGOGICAL? Babble on. Love the realworld weather reference. In previous years we have been lectured that weather is not climate and snow is a thing of the past, and this winter every event of weather is proof of AGW.

Just follow the Chicago Way, vote early and often.

Notice that they’re not asking for a candidate with a PhD in a relevant SCIENCE field, but in a “social science” field , the bastion of leftist propaganda.

“Candidates must have a PhD in a relevant social or learning science discipline”

Here’s a link to their site: As I said, this can be written off as leftist propaganda.

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/team.cfm

“The goal of this project is to establish a national network of climate and weather science organizations, and university research and teaching programs, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate change.”

Sorry. You’re a day late and a dollar short. The American public takes its information directly from the weather itself, so unless you can control the weather outside of a computer model, you can’t fool the American public.

Just remember, every major movement on one side or the other, is being manipulated and financed by and for the benefit of one group of people, The International Banking Cartel. They always seem to win, no matter what the outcome.

“If ignorance is bliss, then wipe the smile from my face”- RATM . I’m all for a world government, I just do not believe we, as a species, are ready. We have much poop to put in a group.

I am pretty certain that my favorite local weather guy David Spense is a skeptic, but he has a family and the network that he works for is firmly about the warming. I still like his manner though, and he seems like a nice fellow. He might be able to side-step the re-Neducation. One of us, one of us, …….

From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog, a professor at Univ of Washington in Seattle.

“Virtually all of these atmospheric rivers are connected with the jet stream (as shown above). Nearly all climate models indicate the jet stream will move north due to man-caused global warming. Does that mean the we will get less atmospheric rivers and LESS extreme precipitation as the jet moves north? That should be true for someone along the coast. This is why the simple arguments often provided by the media (global warming means more extreme precipitation and floods!!) may not be quite true for everyone. And here is an interesting tidbit…the number of extreme flooding events have DECLINED in northern CA and southern Oregon during the past fifty years. Is it already happening? Are we next for a dry out? My profession really has to get a better understanding of all this. ”

Interesting comment.
Terry

Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall” comes to mind.
The AGW promotion industry is, thanks to modern tech rapidly becoming more pernicious than eugenics in its day.

A Climate Change Communication Program?

Yup, CCCP seems appropriate…

In Climate Science, the carbon dioxide drives the temperature!

“The goal of this project is to establish a national network of climate and weather science organizations, and university research and teaching programs, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate change.”

A few problems already:

1. Local broadcast meteorologists work for organizations, that above all else, make money. Hope they can talk their LOCAL advertisers into putting money into a AGW biased production.

2. Local forecasts mention LOCAL conditions and forecasts. If there were floods in Tasmania, and they try to tie that to AGW, viewers might just find another station.

3. Most local broadcasts have very little time to get into anything more than local conditions, and maybe the 5 day forecast. The directors are going to find it hard to free up more time to allow the AGW talks.

The market is going to have the final say as to whether or not the forecasters get on board. When the advertisers and viewers state their displeasure, the directors will change it.

BTW, the best broadcast forecasting I’ve ever seen was on a network called the RAT (Rural Alaskan Television), now renamed the ARCS (Alaska Rural Communication Service: a system of satellite fed low power television transmitters providing free over the air service to 235 communities spread through all regions of the State of Alaska).

This system is owned and funded by the State.

What made their weather forecast so great was the fact that this one hour forecast doubled as a full flight (aviation) weather forecast. Trying to tie in a global warming aspect to those should go over real well…

Well spotted, Anthony. Ugly doublespeak. They must be de-funded!

The Rise of the thought police, how predictable, how terrible too.

in australia the forcasters could not tell you what yesterdays weather was shame shame shame thay will start the forcast with a right hand salute

“This project will focus on establishing a national network of on-air broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, university research programs, and key climate and weather science organizations, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate.”

Pheww! Some days it just doesn’t pay to keep up with the news.

So yet another institution named after a great person turns around and sullies their namesake’s reputation. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin. Mason. Nothing is sacred. (Sigh).

Things like this make me wonder if was born into The Matrix or Carpenter’s They Live. Some days I feel like I was just released from cryo-prison in Demolition Man or just awoken into an Idiocracy. And as others mentioned above, this could almost be a ST:TNG Borg episode. Elements from each seem to apply in every direction! And there are probably a few I missed.

Anyway, the totalitarians have not surrendered yet, we have more work to do. So let’s continue passing out red pills and sunglasses. Be well. Resistance is NOT futile.

‘to develop and test new pedagogical approaches to informal science education’

I do wish they’d use more precise language because using terms like pedagogical sounds like they are teaching children, I think they really meant andragogical approaches. But then, maybe they are that condescending!

Frank K, loved your spoof! Just a respectful suggestion though, you seem to have overlooked the importance of mime and interpretative dance in the communication strategies.

I do wonder how graduates of this course will fare in the marketplace. Will an audience (and its sponsors) in the so called flyover States welcome this approach? I suspect not. Hence, Frank’s suggestion of incorporating event management, and mine of mime and interpretative dance, should be considered as constructive in terms of enhancing the employability of these graduates.

‘Robert E. Phelan says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
It might be worth noting that the AMS annual meeting is scheduled for January 23-27 in Seattle.
The theme of the 2011 AMS Annual Meeting is “Communicating Weather and Climate.” http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual/index.html
A tour of the Meeting’s web site suggests that the move to re-educate meteorologists is well under way. Trenberth, Somerville, Pope, Cicerone, Emanuael, Karoly…. they’ll all be presenting.’

Maybe the AMS Members should boycott the meeting and set up a protest in the lobby. Just a thought.

@Michael says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm

You left out the most worrying personal part for most people, there children and CAGW education in schools. I have never seen a survey of people by age that believe in AGW but i’d put money on a high belisf in AGW in the younger generation as it was taught to them at a young age.

I will admit i’m not an expert on AGW curriculum but i’d be interested if they gave the whole picture of the uncertainty in the theory.

Just a couple of ideas for the NSF.

I remember that during the Korean War allied prisoners were subjected to re-education by their Chinese captors. Dissent was punished by several days locked up in a blacked out shed. Most just demonstrated whole hearted agreement with their captors until they were released and free to curse them.
In Morocco there was a Muslim zealot who had a 100% success in converting non-believers to Islam. They were bound and gradually lowered into a vat of boiling oil. If, or should I say when, they recanted the lowering stopped. History does not record whether this was classified as re-education.

As if my donations boycott of my alma matter needed further reinforcement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

NASA: La Niña has remained strong

The La Niña is evident by the large pool cooler than normal (blue and purple) water stretching from the eastern to the central Pacific Ocean, reflecting lower than normal sea surface heights. "This La Niña has strengthened for the past seven months, and is one of the most intense events of the past half century," said Climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA JPL. Credit: NASA JPL/Bill Patzert

New NASA satellite data indicate the current La Niña event in the eastern Pacific has remained strong during November and December 2010.

A new Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean that averaged 10 days of data was just released from NASA. The image, centered on Dec. 26, 2010, was created at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.

“The solid record of La Niña strength only goes back about 50 years and this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this time period,” said Climatologist Bill Patzert of JPL. “It is already impacting weather and climate all around the planet.”

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña’s effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year.”

The new image depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is near-normal, higher (warmer) than normal and lower (cooler) than normal. The cooler-than normal pool of water that stretches from the eastern to the central Pacific Ocean is a hallmark of a La Niña event.

Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate. Only from space can we observe our vast ocean on a global scale and monitor critical changes in ocean currents and heat storage. Continuous data from satellites like OSTM/Jason-2 help us understand and foresee the effects of ocean changes on our climate and on climate events such as La Niña and El Niño.

The latest report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) noted that “A moderate-to-strong La Niña continued during December 2010 as reflected by well below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean.” The CPC report said that La Niña is expected to continue well into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2011.

Read the latest ENSO forecast here (PDF)

This Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean is based on the average of 10 days of data centered on Dec. 26, 2010. The new image depicts places where the Pacific sea surface height is higher (warmer) than normal as yellow and red, with places where the sea surface height is lower (cooler) than normal as blue and purple. Green indicates near-normal conditions. Sea surface height is an indicator of how much of the sun's heat is stored in the upper ocean. Credit: NASA JPL/Bill Patzert

94 Responses to NASA: La Niña has remained strong

A strong La Nina would explain flooding in Sri Lanka and Australia and Brazil, due to coupling with the PDO/ADO which are both in a negative phase lowering temperatures in other parts of the globe.

para 5 ¨ height¨
Should that be ´temp?´

The maps provide excellent illustration of the La Nina phenomenon, but are purely qualitative.
So it is very difficult to relate the current La Nina to prior such without additional measurements.
What are these measures and how are they summed over an ocean basin to determine the scope of the event?
Given the spotty quality control seen in other relevant data collections, how is this segment handled?

Presumably the lower surface elevation measured in the above charts reflects the greater density of colder water, so that the water column has similar pressure as at spots where the surface water is warmer.

“levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century” ?????
Suggest a look at Roger Pielke Jnr.:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/brisbane-floods-in-historical-context.html

….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm

The ENSO index reading from Nov/Dec is -1.519.

Next update is Feb. 5th.

“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed.

This must be caused by AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling) caused by aerosols from dirty coal power plants in China. LOL

According to the monitoring graph on WUWTs ENSO page, this La Nina isn’t even as strong as the 2008 one (at least, yet. . .it could take another leg down).

Are they hyperventilating over there, or is there something about “strength” not reflected in the monitoring graph?

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,”

I suppose 1974 was the last century, in his defence

The following Sea Surface animations, especially the longer timescale temperature ones, do a good job at demonstrating the large changes that have occurred due to the La Nina event:

Global Tropical Sea Surface Temperature – 3 Months
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.shtml
Global Sea Surface Temperature – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/sst30d.gif
Global Sea Surface Temperature – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/sst12m.gif
Global Surface Currents over Temperature – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/ctemp30d.gif
Global Surface Currents over Temperature – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/ctemp12m.gif
Global Surface Currents over Height – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/cssh30d.gif
Global Surface Currents over Height – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/cssh12m.gif
Global Surface Currents over Speed – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/cspd30d.gif
Global Surface Currents over Speed – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/cspd12m.gif
Global Sea Surface Height – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/ssh30d.gif
Global Sea Surface Height – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/ssh12m.gif
Global Sea Surface Salinity – 30 Days
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/sss30d.gif
Global Sea Surface Salinity – 12 Months
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/glb/sss12m.gif

Sources:

Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) at Stennis Space Center (SSC):
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Services (NWS), Climate Prediction Center:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

Anthony

Is it possible to include some of the global sea surface animations on the WUWT “ENSO/Sea Level/Sea Surface Temperature Page”? I think it should become a more encompassing WUWT Ocean Reference Page.

Am I right to think water from La Nina’s primary pool is being drawn into the Gulf of Mexico and, from there, is being drawn into the Gulf Stream, which then sends it by express delivery straight to Great Britain? Is the Gulf Stream currently (pun intended!) impacting NW Europe in a way that is the inverse of the impact for which it is famous?

rushmike

Severe weather and La Nina? Who’d a thunk?

http://www.mapsofworld.com/referrals/weather/severe-weather-conditions/la-nina.html

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,”
=========================================================
Before global warming, there were twice as many floods….
….global warming has cut the amount of floods in half

Between 1840 and 1900, 60 years, there were five floods much higher.

Have led to levels of flooding usually only seen 8 times in a century.

All levity aside, is there a claimed relationship between man-made CO2 and a La Niña event that can be gleaned from climate models?

How do the models, which by my (limited) understanding predict warming due to the excess of CO2 put into the atmosphere by man account, for cycles like the current La Niña?

rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am
….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm

and global temps have already lost ALL of those high temps and are still dropping. Global sea ice is flat although the arctic has become the dumping ground for the NH’s heat and the thickness has grown from last year in spite of this. The Australian flooding, as bad as it is, still isn’t the worst on record and AGW touted us getting hotter and drier. It is not hotter than ten years ago and we have seen this year that it certainly isn’t drier.

Sorry you are so wrong, but, I guess someone has to be.

What new do we learn from these data? All this is known from terrestric data and from other satellite data which measure SST. Now NASA measures sea surface temperatures by sea surface heights. And by a very complicated, time consuming analysis which gives nothing new, but that is achieved with much bigger error bars.
The other day we had the solar constant minimum baseline newly adjusted, it differs considerably from the previous satellite result. And the new value approaches the sixty year old terrestric value of Abbot.
How many satellites are in space measuring climate data? 20 or 50 or 100?
Each 100 megabucks or how much more?
And terrestric data taking is shut down (or not even started) because of lack of funds.

It may be allowed to ask: who benefits most from all the climate change excitement?

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer

In Adamec’s defense, there was only one really big flood during the last century, if you count the century as 1909-2009. And he probably just missed the five major floods that occured between 1840 and 1900, at levels higher than the current flooding. After all, only two of those floods registered as almost double the level of today’s. Another half-dozen or so floods during this same 60 year time period were merely almost to the level of today’s.

Matt Schilling says: January 15, 2011 at 7:38 am

“Am I right to think water from La Nina’s primary pool is being drawn into the Gulf of Mexico and, from there, is being drawn into the Gulf Stream, which then sends it by express delivery straight to Great Britain? Is the Gulf Stream currently (pun intended!) impacting NW Europe in a way that is the inverse of the impact for which it is famous?”

No. Mexico, Central America and South America’s contiguous land mass prevents La Nina’s cold waters in the Pacific Ocean from entering the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Stream:
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/wind-driven-surface.htm

The atmospheric effects of the La Nina can certainly impact the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf Stream and Great Britain, but there is no direct interchange between the bodies of water.

Suffering under La Nina? Did you suffer under El Nino? Did you suffer under a negative AO? The fault is ours.

Wherever the winds pile up warm water during La Nina’s worst PMS days, is exactly where much of civilization has extended their city boundaries out into the ocean (kinda reminds me of trailer houses parked in Tornado Ally areas). Isn’t there a biblical reference directed at this folly? We flood because we have purposely sunk our cities into the ocean just for the ocean view. We freeze because we build in freeze and glacier prone areas just so we can see framed valleys below through our front window. We sweat because we desire to build in deserts. The river gnaws away at our front door because we wanted river-front property. Our houses fall into the sea because the sand beneath us falls away. Why? Developer and buyer visionary, yet still stoooopid, greed. Many of the houses under water in Aussie land look new to me. Sorry, but I have no sympathy. Reminds me of the houses built on sand spits along the Oregon coastline.

Some good advice from your past: You should not build a house where your ancestors refused to build a house. Just because you are modern doesn’t mean you are smarter.

Don’t listen to “Just The Facts”, he is forgetting about the Panama Canal , where [undocumented] climate workers furiously shuttle the cooler water through to cool the planet.

Matt Schilling says: “Am I right to think water from La Nina’s primary pool is being drawn into the Gulf of Mexico and, from there, is being drawn into the Gulf Stream, which then sends it by express delivery straight to Great Britain?”

Nope. The Atlantic responds to ENSO events through teleconnections. That is, the La Nina is changing the “normal” atmopheric circulation patterns, rearranging the “normal” wind patterns, etc., which in turn alter the “normal” SST anomalies.

As Sam Glasser says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed

I think that the AGW theory fails at almost every level but the heating of the oceans is one of the most fundamental stumbling blocks. Given that 70% of the surface area of the earth is ocean and given the heat capacity of the oceans (bear in mind the heated volume in comparison to the depth to which the ground/soil can be heated) means that you cannot get global warming unless the oceans are being heated. However, a slightly warmer atmosphere (whatever be its cause) cannot heat the oceans. You cannot heat a cup of water by blowing a hair dryer over and parallel with the surface of the water.

We know that CO2 does not in itself heat, and at best can only slow down heat loss but in practice in the real world, it is not very effective at slowing down heat loss, witness how cold a desert is at night. The CO2 in the atmosphere does not act an effective blanket keeping in the heat which has been generated during the day and the sand in the desert does not possess sufficient latent heat to continuously at night heat the air above it. Contrast this with the air over an ocean which remains warm at night due to the heat capacity of the ocean which continuously heats the air above it and due to the moisture of ocean air.

Oceans, if they are getting warmer (which they do not appear to be doing) can only be heated by energy from the sun or thermal energy from the mantle/crust. CO2 cannot drive the energy budget of the oceans and that is a death knell to the AGW theory.

NB. I am ignoring currents which are merely distributing or redistributing heat that is already in the system and which may change where the heat is to be observed but which do not in themselves actually heat the ocean.

rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am

….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm
*******************
So many mistakes in a single post.

1) Temperatures haven’t gone up since 1998.
.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
.
2) Ice in the Arctic has increased the last 3 years and the Antarctic is well above average.
.
3) Temperature was very slightly warmer because of an El Nino in the spring which GISS’s saw and a La Nina in the fall which GISS missed. Other temperature records didn’t. The real news was the lack of warming since 1998.
.
4) The extreme weather events can’t be caused by global warming if it hasn’t warmed since 1998. The alarmists are so embarrassed by the failure to warm that they are grasping at straws with the climate disruption nonsense. There is no proof that calamities have increased.

Werner Weber says: “Now NASA measures sea surface temperatures by sea surface heights.”

Hi Werner. I didn’t understand that from this post. NASA has been monitoring ocean topography with satellites since the early 1990s.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo/latestdata/

I have never seen NASA attempt to convert SSH data into SST data.

As regards La Nina, it will be interesting to see how tempwratures in 2011 compare with those of 1999. Specifically, will the 2011 global temperature drop below 1999 levels? If they do, what will the warmists say?

Obviously the isthmus of Panama is a barrier for the free flow of water, yet it does at seem at first glance that there is (nearly) one long streak of blue stretching the width of the Pacific and on up to Great Britain.
Does a seemingly matching blue tongue often appear in the Gulf/Atlantic during a La Nina? I am guessing not, after looking at a La Nina page on NOAA’s site (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/la-nina-story.html). They show images of 3 recent La Nina’s near the top of the page; none of them display blue to the west of Panama.

John R T says: “Should that be ´temp?´”

Nope. These satellites are montoring Sea Surface Height. The sea surface temperature patterns are similar.

James H says: January 15, 2011 at 8:48 am

“Don’t listen to “Just The Facts”, he is forgetting about the Panama Canal , where [undocumented] climate workers furiously shuttle the cooler water through to cool the planet.”

Funny. I actually checked on the Panama Canal before I wrote it, and almost wrote “essentially” contiguous, but didn’t want to confuse the situation. For the record, the Panama Canal is 48 miles long, and climbs over “the mountainous spine of Central America” that “rises to a height of 110 meters (360.9 ft) above sea level at the lowest crossing point.”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Panama_Canal

thus no direct interchange of water occurs between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the Panama Canal. However, one could argue whether the existence of locks along the canal sufficiently meets ones criteria for contiguousness…

geo says: “Are they hyperventilating over there, or is there something about ‘strength’ not reflected in the monitoring graph?”

Based on NINO3.4 SST anomalies, it’s still a relatively strong La Nina:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2ivn3n8.jpg
The graph is from the December 2010 SST update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2011/01/december-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html

But I’ll agree that this statement doesn’t ring true: “…this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this [50 year] time period…”

Besides the the Austrailian floodings, 1974 brought on one of the worst severe thunderstorm outbreaks in North America. The infamous Day of the Killer Tornado occured during a modertate to strong La Nina episode. Tornados broke out from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in one event. Xenia Ohio was totally flattened.

netdr2,
shame you’ve fallen for the usual misinformation:
“Temperatures haven’t gone up since 1998″- OK, what about 1999…or 1997? The particularly strong and long lasting El Nino was the main factor there. Now come back and tell me how much the temperature has risen since 1999 (you can cherry pick, so will I). To take out the ENSO effect lets plot a graph of global temperatures using a 5 year mean and see what happens. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1930/to:2010/mean:60/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1930/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1930/to:2010/mean:60/offset:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1930/to:2010/scale:0.0005
Notice the correlation of global temperatures to an annualised PDO mean until 1980…then pow….No warming, yeah right.
“2) Ice in the Arctic has increased the last 3 years and the Antarctic is well above average.”
You obviously haven’t checked out Anthony’s sea ice charts, very handy source so I suggest you look quick quick. Notice GLOBAL (sorry to emphasize but I think you missed it first time round) sea ice area…hmmmm. Oh, and also note the Antarctic ice area, I think you’re statement “it’s well above average” would be, how you say, false? Looks below average to me!
“3) Temperature was very slightly warmer because of an El Nino in the spring which GISS’s saw and a La Nina in the fall which GISS missed.”
???? GISS missed? I’m hoping you’re not suggesting some kind of conspiracy here……http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
“4) …..There is no proof that calamities have increased.” Just overwhelming evidence.

To Bob Tisdale: Bob, you are right. I was not aware of that series.
I was fooled by this sentence: “A new Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 satellite image of the Pacific Ocean that averaged 10 days of data was just released from NASA. The image, centered on Dec. 26, 2010, was created at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.”
and thought, this a a new satellite (Jason-2), delivering first data. And I was also fooled by the solemn language of the announcement.
So what is presented is a spin-off of the Jason project and they show that there is a signature of La Nina in the data. Fine. Congratulations, USA. So U.S. knows much better the heights of global oceans than it knows the heights of their ground water levels, which are pumped through irrigation into the oceans and contribute how much with all other arid countries to global sea level rise?

geo says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:21 am
According to the monitoring graph on WUWTs ENSO page, this La Nina isn’t even as strong as the 2008 one (at least, yet. . .it could take another leg down).

Are they hyperventilating over there, or is there something about “strength” not reflected in the monitoring graph?

The metrics are based on a nice tidy little box NINO 3.4
http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/map-pac-EquCylproj.jpg

But the La Nina this year has spread considerably and is well outside the Nino 3.4 box see
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-110109.gif
Is this a La Nina modoki ?

Perhaps the metric used for the strength of El Nino and La Nina need to be reassessed to take in the large ocean area and potentially depth affected by the anomalies.

It is also interesting from the SST maps the cold anomalies in the eastern Atlantic and Indian ocean. The North Atlantic Drift won’t be warming Europe much for a while.

I completely disagree with the statement:
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”.

I would possible agree with: Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global WEATHER.

The CLIMATE of the Earth is 100% controlled by the Sun.

The time-frame between weather and climate must be defined!

I would suggest Climate is over 100 years and Weather is over 5 years.

Lest anyone have a fit: were the innumerable ice ages caused by AGW or by a low level of Solar energy reaching the Earth.

Just an aside: How does one equate radiative forcing due to the Sun to heat trapping due to CO2??? Other than geothermal heat from the Earth’s core, there is no other heat input to the Earth’s surface other than the Sun
(Cosmic Rays < .00000000001%).

According to NIWA’s (New Zealand ) State of the Climate report for 2010, in 2000 the IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation) went negative and should remain that way for 10 to twenty more years. This means La Ninas should dominate over El Ninos in strength and duration similar to the period from 1947 to 1977 when SST’s were either flat or declined. They point out that climate modelers predicted the opposite to occur.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/104762/State-of-the-Climate-2010-.pdf
This is similar to the failed predictions for the NAO to remain positive due to GHG forcing. The models are failing.

@- richard verney says: -
“Oceans, if they are getting warmer (which they do not appear to be doing) can only be heated by energy from the sun or thermal energy from the mantle/crust. CO2 cannot drive the energy budget of the oceans and that is a death knell to the AGW theory.”

The last man on Earth is incorrect on two counts.
1) Oceans certainly appear to be getting warmer, direct and satellite measurements of surface temperature indicate this as does the rise in sea level which is at least in part from thermal expansion.
2) Oceans are heated by absorption of visible light from the sun, thermal energy from the mantle AND down-welling long-wave radiation from the atmosphere. The back-radiation from the atmosphere is measured to increase with rising CO2. The photons in this radiation are predominately absorbed and thermalized min the top few nanometers of the ocean surface.
How far that heating mixes with the bulk ocean, or how it affects evaporation rates is a matter for discussion, but that it heats the ocean is not in dispute.

Matt Schilling says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:38 am

Am I right to think water from La Nina’s primary pool is being drawn into the Gulf of Mexico and, from there, is being drawn into the Gulf Stream, which then sends it by express delivery straight to Great Britain? Is the Gulf Stream currently (pun intended!) impacting NW Europe in a way that is the inverse of the impact for which it is famous?

The cool (well, low sea level) water you see in the Gulf Stream may be from the recent cold weather in the American southeast and mid-Atlantic coast. A large fish kill in the Chesapeake Bay occurred to a temperature sensitive species.

The negative Arctic Oscillation has been forcing coastal storm systems into Canada. That’s the source of their warm temperatures. Since that weather isn’t flowing northeast, arctic winds bring cold air into Europe.

rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am

….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm

I suggest you visit North America soon. La Nina traditionally makes the eastern US warmer and drier than normal. Yet, this has been the second year in a row we have experienced a brutally cold winter. According to the latest accuweather.com long-range predictions, the cold ain’t going anywhere anytime soon.

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/44401/year-of-extremes-strongest-la.asp

Sure, summer was La Nina like. That, coupled with the lingering effects of El Nino, made 2010 “the hottest year on record”. Yet why is this winter not La Nina like? If we know the climate so well that we can make 100 year forecasts, why is it that a well-known phenomena isn’t causing the effects traditionally observed? I was afraid that this summer will also be extremely hot because of La Nina, but now I have to rethink that. I was afraid this winter would be mild, and it has been anything but. Now when temperatures are normal, I call those days warm.

I grow tired of this winter already. Usually the winters in North Carolina where I live have some very mild spring-like days, warm enough to not need a jacket all day. This winter and last winter, I’ve needed to wear a jacket every single day.

We know so little. Tell me again why I should trust 100 year forecasts? AGW is like trying to decide how a movie will end when we only have 10 scenes of the entire movie and then of those 10 scenes, 8 were thrown away because we didn’t like what they were saying. How can you possibly know the ending when you know so little?

Hi Wade,
La Nina isn’t the only driver of your weather, when jet streams stop doing their usual west to east and start to take more detours south and north then more extreme weather is to be expected. Whether the jet stream changes are due to arctic ice melt I don’t know but certainly interesting times.

Does anybody believe as I do that the 2010 super El Nino may be the result of the twenty year lag in solar forcing that began with the decline in SSN that started in 1990 and continues today? If so we may have a moderate El Nino in ten years but then see progressively weaker ones after that.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:12 am

If LWR heated the ocean down to 100m and SWR heated just the top few nanometers, would you say this caused the ocean warming?

Put your hand in a swimming pool in Winter and you will warm few nanometers of the water in conact with them. Do you think you can warm the entire swimming pool if you left them long enough?

The correct term is the LWR warms the few nanometers of the ocean, stating this warms the ocean is misleading at best and technically not true. There is no evidence that LWR actually warms the ocean below this depth.

richard verney says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:09 am
As regards La Nina, it will be interesting to see how tempwratures in 2011 compare with those of 1999. Specifically, will the 2011 global temperature drop below 1999 levels? If they do, what will the warmists say?

The temps will continue to drop this year, and the warmists will churn out another version of AGW causes global cooling.
Why are temps dropping (and people chattering thier teeth)?
1. ) because there is nothing going on that propels the temps any higher, and they have to return from whence they came.
2. ) The ride up bears little to no resemblance to the climate patterns now being observed on the drop side. That is why the current La Nina does not fit the pattern as depicted on the ENSO/SST WUWT page. It is more like a La Nino or El Nina, or better yet, a climate marriage made in hell.
3.) TSI is in defecit mode as the last century was in surplus mode. However slight and seemingly inconsequential, a defecit is a defecit is a deficit. A function of time as to how long before equilibrium is reached.
4.) Jet Streams have moved equatorwards and fattened thier traveled ranges. Storm fronts now operate on 1.5 to 2 times thier latitudinal breadth. Should result in much wider band of cloud activity.

izen says: January 15, 2011 at 10:12 am
quote
1) Oceans certainly appear to be getting warmer, direct and satellite measurements of surface temperature indicate this as does the rise in sea level which is at least in part from thermal expansion.
unquote

And the warming of the land seems to depend on the oceans’ warming if
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
is to be believed.

Does anyone have a theory of why the oceans have warmed first? Apart from me, obviously?

JF

I think warming of the ocean’s surface via longwave radiation may be both ever-so-slightly warming and mostly cooling, depending on oceanic conditions. It is known that choppy seas throw salt water spray into the air, leaving not much chance of LW warming. Quiet seas are another matter. What are the temperatures of quiet seas? Depends on their address. I think that LW radiative addition to sea surface warming would be extremely hard to determine and very hard to model holistically. The best you could do would be to input oceanic surface condition, oceanic temperatures, air temperatures, cloud parameters, and ozone parameters. Not to mention just how much CO2 is above.

The Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) has reached recently -1.4, which was the same level it reached back in 2008. Last years El Nino reached 1.8, so it was a stronger event then this La Nina so far. The El Nino in 2002 reached 1.5 and was considered a moderate event not a strong one. Although Nina3.4 only reflects a little strip of the region and fails to demonstrate much bigger or smaller events by surface area. The length of the events also have a significant bearing with the strongest two recorded since 1950 lasting between 3 and 4 years.

Stronger La Ninas (ONI)
1998-2000 -1.6
1988-1889 -1.9
1973-1976 -2.1
1954-1957 -2.0
1950?-1951 -1.7

I think it’s fair to say that this has not yet reached strong event compared with others since the 1950′s. A ONI of -1.4 is around the middle value of the La Nina events since 1950, so I thinks it’s fair to call it so far a moderate La Nina. The lack of La Ninas over more recent years has discoloured a little how there were compared in the past.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Dr. Lurtz says: January 15, 2011 at 9:58 am

“The CLIMATE of the Earth is 100% controlled by the Sun.”

No. The sun is the largest contributor of energy into Earth’s Climate System, however there are an array of other factors that help control earth’s climate including:

1. Earth’s rotation that;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

results in day and night,
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night

influences Oceanic Gyres;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre

through the Coriolis Effect;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_Effect

and causes Earth’s Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.cfm.brown.edu/people/sean/Vortex/

Here’s an animation of the currently broken up Antarctic Polar Vortex;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml

and here’s an animation of the currently broken up Arctic Polar Vortex:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml

A key measure of the vortices appears to be when they breakdown each year. According to this paper on the Final Warming Date of the Antarctic Polar Vortex and Influences on its Interannual Variability;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/

“several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”

This is a good paper exploring the Polar Vortices;
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

and the chart on page 10 shows the vortex break-up dates for the Northern Hemisphere since 1960 and Southern Hemisphere since 1979.

2. Earth Tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun (same reference as above);
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

create seasons and significant climatic variability;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

as well as over longer time frames changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages);
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of Earth’s climatic record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

3. Lunar forces have various impacts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf

including tides;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

as well potentially influencing Earth’s Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

i.e. “Satellite measurements of sea levels suggest the moon’s tidal pull plays a once-unrecognized role in lifting cold water from the ocean depths and influencing Earth’s climate.

Data from the U.S.-French TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite, which bounces radar off the oceans to measure sea levels precisely, also may solve the mystery of what happens to all the energy that the moon transfers to Earth by creating ocean tides.
Scientists once thought most of the energy was dissipated by friction as waves and tidal currents drag along shallow coastal sea floors. The new study indicates about three-fourths of the energy indeed is dispersed in that manner.
But the measurements also imply 25 percent to 30 percent of the energy in tides dissipates when deep-ocean tidal currents hit seamounts and mid-ocean ridges, creating turbulent “internal waves” that stir and lift cold bottom water so it mixes with warmer, shallower water. That effectively moves heat away from the sea surface, influencing climate in the overlying atmosphere.

“In the past, people thought wind was the primary agent to mix warm water down into the deep, cold part of the oceans,” said Richard Ray, a geophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. “Our work suggests tides are equally important.”"
http://wwww.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/tide_energy_000627.html

If that link doesn’t work, as it didn’t for me, try this cached version:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XE2pBOHIwu4J:www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/tide_energy_000627.html+lunar+climate+impacts&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

4. Geothermal Energy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

especially when released by volcanoes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
which have been shown to influence Earth’s climate;

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

including in the infamous Year Without a Summer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

There are several more influences of note, Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields come to mind, but I need to jump in the shower so I’ll leave you with these summaries of the known variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf

and a notation that it is impossible to assign primary driver status to any variable in Earth’s climate when we have a rudimentary understanding of such an astoundingly complex system…

@- Matt G says: -
“Put your hand in a swimming pool in Winter and you will warm few nanometers of the water in conact with them. Do you think you can warm the entire swimming pool if you left them long enough?”

Yes.
2LoT.
Not much of course. Swimming in an olympic pool would warm it by 1 degC in around 3000 years at a rough calculation. -grin-

“The correct term is the LWR warms the few nanometers of the ocean, stating this warms the ocean is misleading at best and technically not true. There is no evidence that LWR actually warms the ocean below this depth.”

Actually there is evidence of turbulent mixing from wave effects. But the real problem with the assertion that the surface effect from LWR is not capable of warming the bulk ocean is then the source of the energy for the observed warming of the oceans. Surface temperatures have increased and thermal expansion is the only credible explanation for part of the sea level rise.
If as has been claimed the only other sources are solar and geothermal, and both show no rising trend to match SST then you have a problem with explaining the observed data unless you are willing to accept the purely descriptive, but scientifically uninformative, ‘Natural variation’.

Dr Lurtz said: ‘I would suggest Climate is over 100 years and Weather is over 5 years.’

Very amusing, but it won’t work. How would climate scientists make any money? At the same time the whole idea that a 30 year trend is essential for the recognition of climate change is utterly flawed.

There must be long-wave warming of the oceans otherwise they would be frozen solid. The question is what does 324 + 2.63Watts/m**2 do that 324 Watts/m**2 doesn’t.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:12 am
I got a feeling that you are wrong on all counts. Go to NASA, Agos. The data from these bouys suggests that the oceans are cooling. Sea level has begun to level off from the century long 3mm rise. The Maldives are not sinking and the UK is tilting so the sea level is falling in the north and rising in the south.
Back radiation is a negligable effect because CO² absorps a little IR radiation and reradiates in all directions which means under half goes ground ward and that is probably absorbed by N and O kinectically.

richcar 1225 says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:48 am
Does anybody believe as I do that the 2010 super El Nino……
The 2009-2010 El Nino was not exceptionally strong and quite short lived…hardly a ‘super’ El Nino.

Dr Lurtz said: ‘I would suggest Climate is over 100 years and Weather is over 5 years.’
I think it was Mark Twain that provided the best definitions. “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”

GregO says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:47 am
All levity aside, is there a claimed relationship between man-made CO2 and a La Niña event that can be gleaned from climate models?

How do the models, which by my (limited) understanding predict warming due to the excess of CO2 put into the atmosphere by man account, for cycles like the current La Niña?

_____

In general, the acceleration (which would necessarily mean intensification) of the hydrological cycle is predicted by GCM’s when looking at increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. From a geological perspective, as part of the basic carbon-rock cycle, when CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so does the hydrological cycle, as a natural negative feeback mechanism to remove the CO2, through rock weathering. In this way, the level of CO2 is kept in a range. It is entirely possible that increased CO2 amounts could change the nature/character/severity etc. of the natural ENSO and PDO ocean cycles, and this would be one way the acceleration of the hydrological cycle would be manifested.

If instead of buying computers for the bad guys we would just work our shifts and learn!
Just saying …..
ENSO is one of the principal keys to weather/climate, I have no doubts.

To rushmike: I may have sounded like I was coming down on you; that was not my intention. I was just highlighting what you said to transition to what I wanted to say. You are absolutely right, there are many drivers to the climate, some known and some unknown. Of those that are known, none are fully understood. To prove the point, why is this winter different than previous La Nina winters?

The SOI is higher right now than it has been in a long, long time. I perused the monthly historical readings the other day, and I think you have to go back to 1917 to find higher values.

Here’s to a long, strong La Nina…

rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am

….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm

Rushmike, if global temperatures still keep climbing, why did even Phil Jones of Climategate fame conclude no significant warming for over a decade? 2010 wasn’t warmer than 1998 in Spencer’s UAH record. Yes, 1998 was an El Nino, so was much of 2010. Now we’re getting La Nina and cooling, plus plenty rain here in Australia, though not record amounts – we had worse in 1974 and there were earlier ones that were worse still. And where are the PDO and the Medieval Warm Period in your analysis?

Re Arctic icecap check out the effect of the Arctic Oscillation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220010410.htm

Re Antarctic ice see:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/30/antarctica-again/

I don’t trust anything NASA and co. put out while Hansen has any power there. Continual high outlier data, mysterious adjustments, and his recent revelation that democracy doesn’t work and we should adopt China’s way of doing things:

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hansen-us-democracy-not-competent-to-deal-with-global-warming-calls-on-communist-china-to-save-humanity/

Hmmm indeed. Conspiracy I doubt, but craziness fits the bill.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I do agree with some of your post, thank you.

Yes it is possible in the swimming pool only in a enclosed system (if we could live a lot longer, lol), but this is not the case including the oceans. (ie there are much bigger other factors) This was my point regarding the oceans, where this tiny amount would take many centuries to warm the oceans a little if everything remained the same and was in a enclosed system. (persuming the enclosed system didn’t warm or cool it from SWR) BUT, the energy ratio between warming the water by SWR and LWR is absolutely huge, so the percentage change in LWR must have to be many (orders) times bigger then any change in SWR to cause this rise in such a short period. (eg 30 years)

“If as has been claimed the only other sources are solar and geothermal, and both show no rising trend to match SST then you have a problem with explaining the observed data unless you are willing to accept the purely descriptive, but scientifically uninformative, ‘Natural variation’.”

I agree the only other two sources are these, but don’t agree there is no trend to match SST’s. Mid and low levels clouds generally have been declining during this period with albedo decreasing. This enabled more SWR to reach the surface of the ocean warming it down to 100m depth. A few percent change in global albedo is easily enougth to increase ocean temperatures 1c over a lengthy period.

While the solar ouput has been steady until recently with high levels over recent decades there is only a tiny change needed with such a huge energy source (many orders over anything else) can have a little affect. This is demonstrated above and below.

The step up in solar output during the mid 20th-century was hidden by numerous La Ninas which cooled the atmosphere, but warmed the oceans below the surface. During the late 1970′s this energy content from the ocean started to move towards the surface and release it’s energy into the atmopshere with increasing and stronger El Nino’s from the earlier solar step up. That is why we had a delay in the planet warming from this increased activity. This energy realised from the ENSO events was transferred towards the pole which in turn helped melt sea ice. This has a knock on affect where this leads to more ocean exposed to SWR, therefore this increased the SST’s further.

MattN says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm
The SOI is higher right now than it has been in a long, long time. I perused the monthly historical readings the other day, and I think you have to go back to 1917 to find higher values.

Here’s to a long, strong La Nina…
_____

Matt,

It is interesting that you’d hope for a long and strong La Nina as it is causing untold misery to the people of Australia. You might also be interested to know that during La Nina events, there is a general accumulation of heat in the Pacific to be released during the inevitable El Nino cycle…so a “long and strong” La Nina, with the misery it brings to Australia and other areas, might also mean a lot more heat released during the next El Nino cycle to inevitably come.

This la Nina is by far the strongest since 1954. The 3.4 ocean index is worthless when it comes to comparing Nina because it does not examine the driving force, the temp difference between the cold area and the warm area. This generates pressure fields (SOI)and trade winds, both of which are the highest seen in the last 50 years. The cold water in the central pacific is not that cold but the warm water around northern australia is the hottest on record. Thats where the power is coming from.
The best metric for measuring ENSO strength has to be Klaus Wolter’s Multivariate ENSO index (MEI) which assigns ENSO strength based on 6 different metrics!

Moderators

There is a misattributed quote/wrong link my prior post;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/nasa-la-nina-has-remained-strong/#comment-574922

i.e. “which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.cfm.brown.edu/people/sean/Vortex/”

That quote cited can be found here;
http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=122

whereas if you select the “Physical Overview” link at the top left of this page;
http://www.cfm.brown.edu/people/sean/Vortex/

you’ll see a good animation of a fully formed polar vortex.

Can you please change/fix the link in my post above so the quote is correctly attributed? Sorry for the confusion.

[Corrections noted. Thank you for catching them. Robt]

MR. Gates, if you have not visited B. Tisdales sight, I recommend heartily that you do. Perusing this site, you will come across a graph that sets out the ENSO oscillation patterns. It appears from this graph, that if the world is on a cooling trend, La Nina’s dominate the time sequence. If warming, well then yeah, La Nino’s. If we are going into a La Nina dominated time period, then the heat that is being “stored” by the oceans right now, may not be dominate for another 15-30 years.

And yes I agree with you, warmer is generaly better, at least where I live.

:)

Thank you for the response Matt G, the alternative explanation you propose for recent warming in the effect of solar changes decades ago on albedo and ocean cycles is probably the most credible alternative hypothesis I have encountered on the skeptic side. I am not sure would survive the level of review applied to AGW over the last few decades! -grin-

@- Matt G says: -(re warming a pool by body heat).
“Yes it is possible in the swimming pool only in a enclosed system ….., but this is not the case including the oceans. … This was my point regarding the oceans, where this tiny amount would take many centuries to warm the oceans a little if everything remained the same and was in a enclosed system.”

I agree that there are other factors, but on a rough calculation the extra DLR from the extra CO2 is a bit over 2 W/m2. that is enough energy to raise the temperature of an olympic pool by 1degC in about a month and a half.
Obviously the ocean is not an enclosed pool system…

“BUT, the energy ratio between warming the water by SWR and LWR is absolutely huge, so the percentage change in LWR must have to be many (orders) times bigger then any change in SWR to cause this rise in such a short period. (eg 30 years)”

The problem I have with this argument is that the 1LOT means that extra energy is doing something… somewhere…
In physics (and biology and chemistry) the rule is follow the energy – rather like follow the money in politics.
Where the energy goes always points to the underlying causation.

Unlike possible effects from solar variation on cloud albedo the DLR from the extra CO2 has both a well established physical mechanism and direct measurement of the anthropogenic change.
That seems to require any alternative to AGW the explanation to also provide a mechanism that negates the CO2-energy effect while amplifying the cloud/albedo energy effect.

If the rule of thumb is what is happening in ENSO + 9 months till it effects global mean temperature, then there’s a while to go till global mean hits bottom. It will be in negative anomaly.

Global warmers, get your long underwear out and keep them handy. Next winter could be worse than this one.

The MEI is found here – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

It is by no means obvious that this La Nina is bigger than anything since the 1950′s.

The results show a Pacific decadal pattern – more intense and frequent La Nina to the mid 1970′s and frequent and intense El Nino to 1998 – with a shift back since. Check the article at posted at the link above.

OK – try this link – http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

izen says: January 15, 2011 at 10:12 am
quote
“1) Oceans certainly appear to be getting warmer, direct and satellite measurements of surface temperature indicate this as does the rise in sea level which is at least in part from thermal expansion.
unquote”

The Argo data suggests that ocean heat content is on a downward trend. Is there a credible data source that suggests otherwise?
Also there doesn’t appear to be any change in the ongoing sea level rise that started long before AGW could have been a contributing factor. We can continue to live with 1 – 2 mm per year.

@- edbhoy says:
“The Argo data suggests that ocean heat content is on a downward trend. Is there a credible data source that suggests otherwise?
Also there doesn’t appear to be any change in the ongoing sea level rise that started long before AGW could have been a contributing factor. We can continue to live with 1 – 2 mm per year.”

While the ocean heat content is certainly a key parameter to measure in assesing the climate systems, along with the radiative energy balance, unfortunately the ARGO bouy system is not capable of providing definitive data.
First; it is a new system that has not operated for long enough to reveal a significant trend over the interannual variation and has a history of systemic errors. More time is required before it can be certain that errors have been eliminated and a trend is measurable to a significant level.
Second the maximum depth of measurement of the AGRO system, measured at a lower rate than shallower data is only half the average depth of the oceans. ARGO is incapable of measurement of half the ocean volume.

There is credible evidence that the recent sea level rise is not typical of past rates. A rate of ~2mm per decade over the last century still implies a increasing ocean heat content we are unable to measure directly.

Unless you know of an undiscovered source of water (from the Deeps?) to raise the oceans….

If the La Nina develops into a long term cold PDO then there will be global cooling. I am not sure we are there yet, but soon it will happen. Once it does it will be fun to watch the AGW crowd start crying about the unfairness of the PDO and how we need to ignore it because the Earth would be warming without it.

John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic

If the argo buoys suggest a decreasing heat content and sea level measurements indicate an increasing level, one may well question the argo buoy data. OTOH one may also question the sea level measurements.

“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate.”

Enough said.

Just making an early call here but I’m putting the odds on a strong El Nino developing in 2011 at about 80%.

The patterns are really setting up for year-by-year switch between La Nina then El Nino with no neutral years.

If the argo buoys suggest a decreasing heat content and sea level measurements indicate an increasing level, one may well question the argo buoy data. OTOH one may also question the sea level measurements.

It doesn’t look to me like there has been any sea level rise since late 2005:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg

R. Gates,

Thanks for the answer to my question – that is food for thought.

“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate.”

But only to mask any CO2 driven warming, it never causes warming of it’s own accord (that would be completely unnatural). But yet, Global Warming causes Global Cooling…which came first…the Global Warming or the Cooling?

I like to try to stay one step ahead of Alarmists by inventing cooling-is-caused-by-warming theories before they can. I was a bit annoyed I didn’t come up with the delayed-freezing-in-Hudson-Bay-is-causing-Europe’s-cold before they did. However I did come up with a La-Nina’s-are-caused-by-warming theory, and have always been surprised no Alarmist has ever drempt it up (and used it with a voice of severe authority in a newscast.)

I suppose the problem with my audacious theory is that it cuts both ways; it would also mean El Nino’s were caused by cooling. In other words, recent warming may have occurred because the ENSO was jarred by cooling. I postulate it may actually be cooling which sets off oversized El Ninos, with their world-wide warming.

I don’t like cold, and the idea of the recent El Nino being a sign of cooling makes me uneasy, and therefore I would like someone to shoot my audacious theory down in flames.

I know cooling-causing-warming sounds backwards, but I keep reading that a delayed reaction to big, tropical volcanic eruptions is an El Nino. In other words, the initial cooling of ash in the atmosphere, after a lag, triggers a warming El Nino.

Of course, there hasn’t been that sort of eruption recently. So why am I uneasy? I guess it is because there HAS been a quiet sun. Perhaps a quiet sun has the same effect as ash in the atmosphere: A cooling that, after a lag-time, triggers an El Nino.

In case you wonder how cooling can trigger a warm El Nino, consider how much energy is used up hauling cold water from the depths, in a La Nina. Imagine you had to pay the electric bill to pump all that heavy, dense, cold water up, and spread it out over the top of the Pacific. Then imagine something pulled the plug on all your pumps. You wouldn’t have to pay that energy bill any more, and the ocean would warm.

I theorize that in essence a La Nina is an air-conditioner. More energy is used running that tropical air-conditioner than in shutting it off. More energy is involved in a La Nina than an El Nino. Cut off the “power,” (whether it be with volcanic ash or a quiet sun, ) and the tropical ocean isn’t “air-conditioned,” and warms.

OK. I have expressed my audacious idea. Now give me a few moments to put on a helmet and get into my bomb shelter, before you respond.

The problem with this debate is the quality of data. Generally, the required data is either not available or there are reasons to suspect that the quality of data is poor so that it is difficult to make trustworthy extrapolations.

In my post of 15th Jan 09:00 hrs when I made the comment is parenthesis that the oceans do not apear to be warming, I had in mind the ARGO data. I accpet that that data is open to question in that it is over a very short span and that temperatures to the entire depths of the ocean are not recorded.

The sea level data is also questionable (on a number of grounds) but even if correct, it is not clear precisely what is being measured given plate techtonics. For example Southern England is rising whereas Scotland is falling. As the earth has come out of the ice age, some of the land which was covered by glaciers that have since receded is still moving upwards as a result of the reduction in weight. I have never seen a proper calculation of displacement caused by land mass/plate movements. Sea water levels are also displaced in other ways such as rock/soil erosion (I haven’t checked but believe that the delta area in Bangladesh has grown significantly in area), new atols (admittedly miniscule) and water is being added by ice melts.

If anyone considers that sea level rise is due to CO2, I would like to see their calculation as to the amount of energy required given the volume of the ocean to raise sea levels by say 2mm and compare that to the energy that they claim CO2 imparts to the ocean by back radiation.

Materially, during the last 150 years, the rate of sea level rise has remained fairly constant and there is eveidence to suggest that the rate of rise has been slowing for the past 30 or so years. If the rate of rise since 1940 has either not altered or more significantly has even slowed, it demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere is not actually warming the oceans (to any measurable extent). It has not added one measurable iota to the rate of change that was occuring between 1850 to 1940 due to natural variation.

When in my post, I suggested that only solar (or geothermal) energy could (effectively) heat the oceans, I had in mind not simply the total energy being emitted by the sun (in whatever forms that energy may take) but also how much of that energy is received by the earth (ie., I include changes in albedo due to cloud changes and also changes in the transparency of the atmoshere due to reduction in aerosols and any effect that changes in the magnetic field may have).

PS. I am not sure that the hand in a swimming pool is a good analogy. A better an analogy would be if you were to place your hand fractions of a mm above the water would this effectively heat the swimming pool?

R.Gates,
while the La Nina-related flooding has sadly in this instance caused tragedy and damage for humans in the short term in Australia, it is part of the cycles that make up for hardships caused by El Nino droughts. I sincerely hope we are heading for another period similar to what took place between the 1940s to late 1970s. It is essential for recharging the water tables that supply watercourses and underground supplies… supplies that have become depleted in the last 30 years. Instead of sparse ground cover, leading to more topsoil loss and dirty flows, we will have better ground cover and cleaner flows that will end up removing decades of accumulated silt from rivers and streams. While at times it causes pain for humans, the improved conditions only benefit them in the long term through improving the “health” of the country.

I’ve downloaded ENSO weekly data from http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards. I got the same graph as Bob Tisdale at http://i51.tinypic.com/2ivn3n8.jpg I’ve noticed a 12-year cycle. Let’s start from late 1994 to get past the effects of the Pinatubo explosion…

peak late 1994
peak late 2006 – check

minimum late 1995 / early 1996
minimum late 2007 / early 2008 – check

minor peak mid 1996
minor peak mid 2008 – check

minor minimum late 1996 / early 1997
minor minimum late 2008 / early 2009 – check

peak late 1997
peak late 2009 – check

minimum late 1998 / early 1999
It looks like a minimum in late 2010 / early 2011

So much for “predicting the past”; predicting the future provides more fun and profit. After dropping into negative territory in the 2nd quarter of 1998, Nino3.4 didn’t go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2001. Assuming the 12 year pattern holds, Nino3.4 shouldn’t go positive until the 2nd quarter of 2013. That’s my prediction for what it’s worth.

The sea level data is also questionable (on a number of grounds) but even if correct, it is not clear precisely what is being measured given plate techtonics.

It is apparently measured by satellite these days so wouldn’t be influenced by changes in ground movement.

@- crosspatch says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm

If the argo buoys suggest a decreasing heat content and sea level measurements indicate an increasing level, one may well question the argo buoy data. OTOH one may also question the sea level measurements.

It doesn’t look to me like there has been any sea level rise since late 2005: -LINK-

———

The ARGO system is new, has known error problems and covers a very short time. It is also uncorroborated by any independent source of measurement of the OHC.
Sea level rise is derived from two independent sources – at least since satellite measurement began.
The link you provided was to the satellite record that included a large amount of short-term variation from seasonal temperature changes and air pressure changes. It is possible to exclude these effects and the CU does that here :-

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg

Sam Glasser says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed.
———
But since the oceans are being heated both by the sun directly and by IR radiation from the atmosphere and not by conduction from the air it appears your understanding of the process is poor.

rushmike says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:54 am
….and global temperatures still keep climbing, global ice area is reaching the lowest level recorded…..and yet AGW is still being , 2010 was the equal warmest, and wettest year recorded, we are only two weeks into 2011 and extreme weather events have affected Brazil, Sri Lanka and Queensland….hmmmmmm
——–
The primary driver for these weather events is la Nina, but exactly how much worse they are due to AGW is hard to fathom at this stage.

I am waiting for some decent state-wide rainfall figures to pop up so some proper historical comparisons can be done. Also the rain may not be finished yet.

Pamela Gray says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:44 am

Right on Pamela. All over the world you see people building and farming on flood plains.
Why are they called flood plains for Heavens sake? And then they bitch and say
“Give us money.” And other stoopid people do give them money. You can’t win!

Walter Dnes says: “I’ve downloaded ENSO weekly data from http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for and plotted the Nino3.4 anomaly, from 1990 onwards. I got the same graph as Bob Tisdale at http://i51.tinypic.com/2ivn3n8.jpg I’ve noticed a 12-year cycle.”

What appears to be agreement between ENSO and the Solar Cycles looks better when one uses NINO3.4 SST (not anomalies). But the apparent relationship falls apart when one goes back further in time.

Izen

The Argo data set may be short in duration and have some problems but it is still the best data we have and suggests no increase in OHC since 2003. WHy did you claim that OHC is increasing? Can you refer me to a contradictory reliable data set? If so please provide a link, I am genuinely interested. Sea level is a proxy for heat content and we know how unreliable proxy measurements can be!

Was this claim based on the continuing slow rise in sea level which apparently started hundreds of years before AGW and hence cannot be used to support the AGW hypothesis? Again, providing data that suggests the rate of change is increasing would be helpful.

The Argo floats do not drop down to the deepest parts of the ocean but the top layer is where we would expect to see increases since the mass and thermal transfer to the Abyss is so low. Presumably that is why they were designed to only sink to 2000m in the first place. Are you suggesting that the top water OHC is going down only because cold water is circulating upwards from the deep?

In my opinion OHC is the critical parameter in attempting to prove that the planet is warming. If you could demonstrate that OHC is increasing you would have strong support for the AGW meme.

LazyTeenager says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Sam Glasser says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Earth’s ocean is the greatest influence on global climate”. And how does the ocean get its heat? From the CO2 driven atmospheric warming? But water has ~3,000 times the heat capacity (per unit mass) of air. I think the pseudo-scientists have their independent and dependent variables reversed.
———
But since the oceans are being heated both by the sun directly and by IR radiation from the atmosphere and not by conduction from the air it appears your understanding of the process is poor.

Hi Lazy, What is the ocean residence time of any LWIR energy which manages to enter the oceans instead of being converted to latent heat, verses the residence time of SWR entering the oceans, and how much does this residence time differnce in energy spectrum affect the ability of a flux change in energy to accumalate over time?

crosspatch says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The sea level data is also questionable (on a number of grounds) but even if correct, it is not clear precisely what is being measured given plate techtonics.

It is apparently measured by satellite these days so wouldn’t be influenced by changes in ground movement.

Crosspatch, this raises a curious question. the earth surface is slowly changing everywhere. I would think these changes average out with very minor exceptions. Is the mean altitude of all land , and or all ocean floor known, and is it changing?

edbhoy says:
Sea level is a proxy for heat content and we know how unreliable proxy measurements can be!
Mercury in thermometers is a proxy measurement, seems quite reliable to me…..and virtually everyone else…..unless you disagree?

Audacious Idea #2

The excellent observations of Bob Tisdale and others has increased our understanding of what goes into El Ninos and La Ninas. I think these observations will eventually make people aware things simply are not adding up, and that a missing component is involved.

A La Nina in some ways is a chicken-or-the-egg dynamic, for La Ninas influence trade winds, and trade winds influence La Ninas. Which comes first?

Another way to look at it is that trade winds cause upwelling off the coast of Peru, but the upwelling also causes the trade winds. At certain times there is more upwelling than should occur, if we measure the effect of the trade winds alone. This suggests a missing component, and my audacious idea begins by suggesting the missing component involves the thermohaline circulation actually speeding up, like the rate of flow through a hose when the spigot is turned up. Something other than trade winds is causing the upwelling.

At this point I look back to the origins of thermohaline circulation, which is the formation of ice at the poles. We have heard much about how melting ice creates fresh water which “floats” atop the salt water, and reduces the thermohaline flow, however the formation of ice increases the salinity of adjacent water, and must increase the flow. In other words the flow isn’t even, but occurs in pulses, as ice forms. Water is injected into the thermohaline flow off Greenland, (and likely also off Antarctica,) in a pulse, as ice increases in the autumn and early winter. How does this pulse translate downstream?

Thermohaline circulation is often discounted because the flow itself is very slow, and it takes centuries for the actual water to move from place to place. However water, unlike air, cannot be compressed, and the moment water is injected into the thermohaline flow a reflection of that compression must occur elsewhere.

In a sense it is like squeezing the bottom of a toothpaste tube. Much of the pressure will push out the dents at the side of the tube, but a small amount of the pneumatic pressure will force toothpaste out the opening of the tube. The sides of the tube, in this analogy, represent the thermocline, which likely is deformed by the injection of an abrupt pulse of water into the thermohaline flow. Perhaps waves form in the thermocline. However the opening of the toothpaste tube, in this analogy, represents the upwelling off the coast of Peru.

Pneumatics means that the moment you press your brake pedal, the brakes grab in a far part of your car. In the same manner, the moment water is injected into the thermohaline flow, the rate of upwelling changes in far parts of the globe.

It is an outrageous, audacious idea, I admit. So I now will return to my bomb shelter and await replies.

This one’s a keeper for me.
Thanks

Just The Facts says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
#comment-574922

“Mercury in thermometers is a proxy measurement”

No, its relation, via thermal expansion, is direct.

Take a few, slow breaths.

Caleb says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:46 am
WUWT regular M.Vukcevic has found the cause behind the effects we see in La Niña/El Niño:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC19.htm

The Nino 3.4 Index or Klaus Wolters MEI aren’t breaking any records in this La Nina event.

A comment above about the high differential between sea surface temperatures in the Nino regions in the Central Pacific versus the Pacific Warm Pool north of Australia are something to take note of but this is common when a La Nina follows an El Nino.

The Pacific Trade Winds, however, were the highest on record in December (going back to 1979) and Outgoing Longwave Radiation in the equatorial Pacific were the highest on record (going back to 1974).

What is also unusual about the past month is that temperatures are falling at the fastest rate we will see in this event. Water Vapour is falling at its fastest rate that we will see in this event. These high rates will continue for a few months yet. There is falling temperatures and then there is the rate at which those temperatures are falling and that is peaking now.

The atmosphere is cooling at a fast rate and it is dumping water vapour at a fast rate (hence all the snow and rain in the areas usually affected by this scenario – a strong La Nina following El Nino. For most places on the planet, there is not much difference – it is just the specific areas which are the most affected by the scenario).

This has been seen before in this scenario so it is not unusual. Its just that this scenario only happens two or three times in a decade and it only lasts for several months at a time in those rare periods.

And then, the impact patterns can shift several hundred kilometres from scenario to scenario. Twice or three times a decade, Australia really gets dumped on for a few months. But it is only every second decade that Brisbane gets hit this hard. The other times it is Darwin or Cairns or some less inhabited region. Hope that all makes sense to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth

New articles appear below this one, which is top posted for a few days.

This essay from Willis appeared on WUWT overnight Saturday while I slept. After reading it this morning, I decided to make it a sticky at the top of WUWT (I also added the open letter reference) because it says everything that needs to be said about the current state of affairs in climate science and the skeptic position. I ask readers not only to read it, but to disseminate it widely at other websites and forums. Hopefully, the right people will read this. Thanks for your consideration, and thank you, Willis. UPDATE: I’ve made this essay available as a PDF here: Willis_Trenberth_WUWT_Essay suitable for printing and emailing.- Anthony

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here) by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].

Figure 1. The game of Monopoly’s “Community Chest” card that was randomly drawn by Dr. Kevin Trenberth. Some guys are just lucky, I guess.

The “null hypothesis” in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is not true. For example, if your hypothesis is that air pressure affects plant growth rates, the null hypothesis is that air pressure has no effect on plant growth rates. Once you have both hypotheses, then you can see which hypothesis is supported by the evidence.

In climate science, the AGW hypothesis states that human GHG emissions significantly affect the climate. As such, the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what Doctor T wants to reverse.

As Steve McIntyre has often commented, with these folks you really have to keep your eye on the pea under the walnut shell. These folks seem to have sub-specialties in the “three-card monte” sub-species of science. Did you notice when the pea went from under one walnut shell to another in Dr. T’s quotation above? Take another look at it.

The first part of Dr. T’s statement is true. There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been warming, in fits and starts of course, for the last three centuries or so. And since it has been thusly warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.

But that’s not what Dr. Trenberth is doing here. Keep your eye on the pea. He has smoothly segued from the IPCC saying “global warming is ‘unequivocal’”, which is true, and stitched that idea so cleverly onto another idea, ‘and thus humans affect the climate’, that you can’t even see the seam.

The pea is already under the other walnut shell. He is implying that the IPCC says that scientists have “unequivocally” shown that humans are the cause of weather ills, and if I don’t take that as an article of faith, it’s my job to prove that we are not the cause of floods in Brisbane.

Now, lest you think that the IPCC actually did mean that ‘humans are the cause’ when they said (in his words) that ‘global warming was “unequivocal”‘, here’s their full statement from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers (2007)  (PDF, 3.7 MB):

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level (see Figure SPM-3).

Despite the vagueness of a lack of a timeframe, that is generally true, but it says nothing about humans being the cause. So he is totally misrepresenting the IPCC findings (which he helped write, remember, so it’s not a misunderstanding) to advance his argument. The IPCC said nothing like what he is implying.

Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered “evidence” for this claim? It is the unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. T’s justification for reversing the null hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy …

And the IPCC not only says it’s true, it’s “unequivocal”. Just plain truth wouldn’t be scientific enough for those guys, I guess. Instead, it is “unequivocal” truth. Here’s what “unequivocal” means (emphasis mine):

unequivocal: adjective:  admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion (“Unequivocal evidence”)

Notice how well crafted Dr. T’s sentence is. After bringing in “global warming”, he introduces the word “unequivocal”, meaning we can only draw one conclusion. Then in the second half of the sentence, he falsely attaches that “unequivocal” certainty of conclusion to his own curious conclusion, that the normal rules of science should be reversed for the benefit of … … well, not to put too fine a point on it, he’s claiming that normal scientific rules should be reversed for the benefit of Dr. Kevin Trenberth and the IPCC and those he supports. Probably just a coincidence, though.

For Dr. Trenberth to call for the usual null hypothesis (which is that what we observe in nature is, you know, natural) to be reversed, citing as his evidence the IPCC statement that the earth is actually warming, is nonsense. However, it is not meaningless nonsense. It is pernicious, insidious, and dangerous nonsense. He wants us to spend billions of dollars based on this level of thinking, and he has cleverly conflated two ideas to push his agenda.

I understand that Dr. T has a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs)  go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?

Which is an interesting hypothesis, but it is woefully short of either theoretical or observational support. In part, of course, this is because the AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a statement or a prediction which can be falsified. This difficulty in falsification of the hypothesis, while perhaps attractive to the proponents of the hypothesis, inevitably implies a corresponding difficulty in verification or support of the hypothesis.

In addition, a number of arguably cogent and certainly feasible scientific objections have been raised against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms.

Finally, to that we have to add the general failure of what few predictions have come from the teraflops of model churning in support of the AGW hypothesis. We haven’t seen any acceleration in sea level rise. We haven’t seen any climate refugees. The climate model Pinatubo prediction was way off the mark. The number and power of hurricanes hasn’t increased as predicted. And you remember the coral atolls and Bangladesh that you and the IPCC warned us about, Dr. T, the ones that were going to get washed away by the oncoming Thermageddon? Bangladesh and the atoll islands are both getting bigger, not smaller. We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per decade this century if we didn’t mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we haven’t mended one thing, and we have seen … well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.

So to date, the evidentiary scorecard looks real bad for the AGW hypothesis. Might change tomorrow, I’m not saying the game’s over, that’s AGW nonsense that I’ll leave to Dr. T. I’m just saying that after a quarter century of having unlimited funding and teraflops of computer horsepower and hundreds of thousands of hours of grad students’ and scientists’ time and the full-throated support of the media and university departments dedicated to establishing the hypothesis, AGW supporters have not yet come up with much observational evidence to show for the time and money invested. Which should give you a clue as to why Dr. T is focused on the rules of the game. As the hoary lawyer’s axiom has it, if you can’t argue facts argue the law [the rules of the game], and if you can’t argue the law pound the table and loudly proclaim your innocence …

So now, taking both tacks at once in his paper, Dr. T. is both re-asserting his innocence and proposing that we re-write the rules of the whole game … I find myself cracking up laughing over my keyboard at the raw nerve of the man. If he and his ideas weren’t so dangerous, it would be truly funny.

Look, I’m sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you, Dr. T, but you can’t change the rules of scientific inquiry this late in the game. Here are the 2011 rules, which curiously are just like the 1811 rules.

First, you have to show that some aspect of the climate is historically anomalous or unusual. As far as I know, no one has done that, including you. So the game is in serious danger before it is even begun. If you can’t show me where the climate has gone off its natural rails, if you can’t point to where the climate is acting unusually or anomalously, then what good are your explanations as to why it supposedly went off the rails at some mystery location you can’t identify?

(And of course, this is exactly what Dr. T would gain by changing the rules, and may relate to his desire to change them. With so few examples to give to support his position, after a quarter century of searching for such evidence, it would certainly be tempting to try to change the rules … but I digress.)

But perhaps, Dr. T., perhaps you have found some such climate anomaly which cannot be explained as natural variation and you just haven’t made it public yet.

If you have evidence that the climate is acting anomalously, then Second, you have to show that the anomaly can be explained by human actions. And no, Dr. T., you can’t just wave your hands and say something like “Willis, the IPCC sez you have to prove that what generations of people called ‘natural’, actually is natural”. There’s an arcane technical scientific name for that, too. It’s called “cheating”, Dr. T., and is frowned on in the better circles of scientific inquiry …

(N.B. – pulling variables out of a tuned computer model and then proudly announcing that the model doesn’t work without the missing variables doesn’t mean you have established that humans affect the climate. It simply means that you tuned your computer model to reproduce the historical record using all the variables, and as an inevitable result, when using only part of those variables your model doesn’t do as well at reproducing the historical record. No points for that claim.)

Third, you have to defend your work, and not just from the softball questions of your specially selected peer reviewers who “know what to say” to get you published in scientific journals. In 2011, curiously, we’ve gone back to the customs of the 1800s, the public marketplace of ideas — except this time it’s an electronic marketplace of ideas, rather than people speaking from the dais and in the halls of the Royal Society in London. If you won’t stand up and publicly defend your work, it’s simple – you won’t be believed. And not just by me. Other scientists are watching, and considering, and evaluating.

This doesn’t mean you have to reply to every idiot with a half-baked objection and a tin-foil hat. It does mean that if you refuse to answer serious scientific questions, people will take note of that refusal. You must have noticed how such refusal to answer scientific questions totally destroyed the scientific credibility of the website RealClimate. Well, they’re your friends, so perhaps you didn’t notice, but if not, you should notice, here’s an example. (PDF, 147K) Running from serious scientific questions, as they make a practice of doing at RealClimate, makes you look weak whether you are or not.

And Always, you have to show your work. You have to archive your data. You have to reveal your computer algorithms. You have to expose everything that supports and sustains your claims to the brutal light of public inquiry, warts and all.

Dr. T., I fear you’ll have to get used to the sea change, this is not your father’s climate science. The bottom line is we’re no longer willing to trust you. You could publish in the Akashic Records and I wouldn’t believe what you said until I checked the figures myself. I’m sorry to say it, but by the actions of you and your colleagues, you have forfeited the public’s trust. You blew your credibility, Dr. T, and you have not yet rebuilt it.

And further actions like your current attempt to re-write the rules of science aren’t helping at all. Nor is trying to convince us that you look good with a coat of the finest English whitewash from the “investigations” into Climategate. Didn’t you guys notice the lesson of Watergate, that the coverup is more damaging than the original malfeasance?

Dr. T, you had a good run, you were feted and honored, but the day of reckoning up the cost has come and gone. Like some book said, you and the other un-indicted co-conspirators have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting. At this point, you have two choices — accept it and move on, or bitch about it. I strongly advise the former, but so far all I see is the latter.

You want to regain the trust of the public, for yourself and for climate science? It won’t be easy, but it can be done. Here’s my shortlist of recommendations for you and other mainstream climate scientists:

•  Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled. Climate science is a new science, we don’t even have agreement on whether clouds warm or cool the planet, we don’t know if there are thermostatic interactions that tend to maintain some temperature in preference to others. Or as you wrote to Tom Wigley, Dr. T,

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.  We are not close to balancing the energy budget.  The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!  It is a travesty!

SOURCE: email 1255550975

Curious. You state strongly to your friend that we’re not close to knowing where the energy is going or to balancing the energy budget, yet you say in public that we know enough to take the most extraordinary step of reversing the null hypothesis … how does that work again?

At this point, there’s not much about climate science that is “unequivocal” except that the climate is always changing.

•  Don’t try to change the rules of the game in mid-stream. It makes you look desperate, whether you are or not.

•  Stop calling people “deniers”, my goodness, after multiple requests that’s just common courtesy and decency, where are your manners? It makes you look surly and uncivilized, whether you are or not.

•  Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work. You are asking us to spend billions of dollars based on your conclusions. If you won’t bother to defend those conclusions, don’t bother us with them. Refusing to publicly defend your billion dollar claims make it look like you can’t defend them, whether you can or not.

•  Stop secretly moving the pea under the walnut shells. You obviously think we are blind, you also clearly believe we wouldn’t remember that you said we have a poor understanding of the climate system. Disabuse yourself of the idea that you are dealing with fools or idiots, and do it immediately. As I have found to my cost, exposing my scientific claims to the cruel basilisk gaze of the internet is like playing chess with Deep Blue … individual processors have different abilities, but overall any faults in my ideas will certainly be exposed. Too many people looking at my ideas from too many sides for much to slip through. Trying anything but absolute honesty on the collective memory and wisdom of the internet makes you look like both a fool and con man, whether you are one or not.

•  Write scientific papers that don’t center around words like “possibly” or “conceivably” or “might”. Yes, possibly all of the water molecules in my glass of water might be heading upwards at the same instant, and I could conceivably win the Mega-Ball lottery, and I might still play third base for the New York Yankees, but that is idle speculation that has no place in scientific inquiry. Give us facts, give us uncertainties, but spare us the stuff like “This raises the possibility that by 2050, this could lead to the total dissolution of all inter-atomic bonds …”. Yeah, I suppose it could. So what, should I buy a lottery ticket?

• Stop lauding the pathetic purveyors of failed prophecies. Perhaps you climate guys haven’t noticed, but Paul Ehrlich was not a visionary genius. He was a failure whose only exceptional talent is the making of apocalyptic forecasts that didn’t come true. In any business he would not have lasted one minute past the cratering collapse of his first ridiculous forecast of widespread food riots and worldwide deaths from global famine in the 1980s … but in academia, despite repeating his initial “We’re all gonna crash and burn, end of the world coming up soon, you betcha” prognostication method several more times with no corresponding crashing burning or ending, he’s still a professor at Stanford. Now that’s understandable under tenure rules, you can’t fire him for being a serially unsuccessful doomcaster. But he also appears to be one of your senior AGW thinkers and public representatives, which is totally incomprehensible to me.

His string of predicted global catastrophes that never came anywhere near true was only matched by the inimitable collapses of the prophecies of his wife Anne, and of his cohorts John Holdren and the late Stephen Schneider. I fear we’ll never see their like again, a fearsome foursome who between them never made one single prediction that actually came to pass. Stop using them as your spokesmodels, it doesn’t increase confidence in your claims.

•  Enough with the scary scenarios, already. You’ve done the Chicken Little thing to death, give it a rest, it is sooo last century. It makes you look both out-of-date and hysterical whether you are or not.

•  Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it. This is critical to the restoration of trust. I’m sick of watching climate scientists doing backflips to avoid saying to Lonnie Thompson “Hey, idiot, archive all of your data, you’re ruining all of our reputations!”. The overwhelming silence of mainstream AGW scientists on these matters is one of the (unfortunately numerous) reasons that the public doesn’t trust climate scientists, and justifiably so. You absolutely must clean up your own house to restore public trust, no one else can do it. Speak up. We can’t hear you.

•  Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends. It makes you all look guilty, whether you are or not … and since the CRU emails unequivocally favor the “guilty” possibility, it makes you look unapologetic as well as guilty. Whether you are or not.

•  STOP HIDING THINGS!!! Give your most private data and your most top-secret computer codes directly to your worst enemies and see if they can poke holes in your ideas. If they can’t, then you’re home free. That is true science, not hiding your data and gaming the IPCC rules to your advantage.

•  Admit the true uncertainties. The mis-treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC reports, and the underestimation of true uncertainty in climate science in general, is a scandal.

•  Scrap the IPCC. It has run its race. Do you truly think that whatever comes out of the next IPCC report will make the slightest difference to the debate? You’ve had four IPCC reports in a row, each one more alarmist than the previous one. You’ve had every environmental organization shilling for you. You’ve had billions of dollars in support, Al Gore alone spent $300 million on advertising and advocacy. You’ve had 25 years to make your case, with huge resources and supercomputers and entire governments on your side, and you are still losing the public debate … after all of that, do you really think another IPCC report will change anything?

If it is another politically driven error-fest like the last one, I don’t think so. And what are the odds of it being an honest assessment of the science? Either way the next IPCC report won’t settle a single discussion, even if it is honest science. Again, Dr. T, you have only yourself and your friends to blame. You used the IPCC to flog bad science like the Hokeyschtick, your friends abused the IPCC to sneak in papers y’all favored and keep out papers you didn’t like, you didn’t check your references so stupid errors were proclaimed as gospel truth, it’s all a matter of record.

Do you truly think that after Climategate, and after the revelations of things like IPCC citations of WWF propaganda pieces as if they were solid science, and after Pachauri’s ludicrous claim that it was “voodoo science” to point out the Himalayan glacier errors, after all that do you think anyone with half a brain still believes the IPCC is some neutral arbiter of climate science whose ex-cathedra pronouncements can be relied upon?

Because if you do think people still believe that, you really should get out more. At this point people don’t trust the IPCC any more than they trust you and your friends. Another IPCC report will be roundly ignored by one side, and cited as inerrant gospel by the other side. How will that help anyone? Forget about the IPCC, it is a meaningless distraction, and get back to the science.

That’s my free advice, Dr. T., and I’m sure it’s worth every penny you paid for it. Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy. Sadly for you, but fortunately for us, you got caught hanging out with the bad boys who had their hands in the cookie jar. And tragically for everyone, all of you were seduced by “noble cause corruption”. Hey, it’s nothing to be ashamed of, it’s happened to me too, you’re not the first guy to think that the nobility of your cause justified improper actions.

But as far as subsequently proclaiming your innocence and saying that you and your friends did nothing wrong? Sorry, Dr. T, the jury has already come in on that one, and they weren’t distracted by either the nobility of your cause, nor by the unequivocal fact that you and your friends were whitewashed as pure as the driven snow in the investigation done by your other friends … instead, they noted your emails saying things like:

In that regard I don’t think you can ignore it all, as Mike [Mann] suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys a[s] lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database.

Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved.  So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric.  Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.

SOURCE: email 1177158252

Yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s how a real scientist defends his scientific claims …

w.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Let the truth be told..

- Open Letter to Online Swipers

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

387 Responses to Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth

unequivocal: adjective: admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding

It would seem that he used the correct word… climate scientists admit no doubt or misunderstanding.

(whether what they admit is fact is a different matter)

Willis: My suggestion is that we NOT refer to “climate”. That is another pea. Refer to “global warming”, which is their underlying claim. And then poke holes in the “anthropogenic” part. Language has subtle effects.

Jim B

“Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy.”

I am not so sure. He is doing everything he can to push AGW, trash our economy and cause millions of deaths. There is a name for people like that and it isn’t a nice one.

Hmmmm I think there’s somebody cringing right now. (or kicking his cat)

I agree with almost everything in this essay Willis except…

Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy.

Lay with dogs, get up with fleas. A years supply of Advantix won’t fix his problem.

What a fine piece of writing. Congratulations.

Just one word: Excellent

Yes, I have often seen the conflation of 2 ideas-global warming real, humans the cause mixed together-in surveys, in papers etc etc. If you say the global warming threat in future has been exagerated you are, of course, denying the world has warmed. Politicians are the worst at this. Talk about lumping things together.

Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Thank you Willis for such a clear exposure of the failure of Trenberth to abide by neither logic nor scientific principles.

He referred to sceptics as charlatans, let me quote a definition: “A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.”

I’ll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions as to which side of the fence the charlatans sit.

Willis,

Once it is published, then it is a reference that needs no defending as it is absolute.

Would you like to use that as a defence for garbage science?
Climate science has. Any mistakes shown mean nothing as it was published by their peers of the same like minded.
Arrogance now reins and no defence is required.

I feel so sorry for the kids being taught this as 100% accurate. Been done now for generations.

I agree with everything above. The problem is that Trenberth’s paper on atmospheric heat exchange is the one the IPCC values and he claims is the truth and real science. He can’t even make his energy flow picture balance and assumed that heat will flow from cold to hot which the 2nd law of thermodynamics states is impossible. Sorry Kevin you talk c**p

Fantastic post Willis. You got it right.

Message to the 91 Norwegian representants in Cancun;

Read and weep. Find something else to do. Your carbon footprint is “unequivocally” too large.

Best summation I’ve seen to date. Inspired writing. Well done, Willis!

Mister Trenberth lost it and it, is still missing.

Dr.T- denier of science.

This reminds me of “cold fusion”. Two guys claimed they demonstrated it. The theory seemed right. However nobody could reproduce the results. So where is “cold fusion” today? It’s dead. The AGW crowd claims they demonstrated their theory of CO2 connection to climate, and the theory seems right, but nobody can reproduce the results. However after all these decades and millions spent, it won’t die. It’s kept alive by shady dealings of the primary authors to the story (as found in their own emails) and public fear mongering (as found on the nightly news and elsewhere). It’s certainly not kept alive by increased scientific substantiation nor vindication of accurate predictions.

When Einstein came up with an outlandish theory of gravity, that mass warped the space around it, there was nor universal acceptance until they predicted such warping would manifest itself in the image of stars behind a solar eclipse. Decades later astronomers observed exactly what was predicted. What do we have with the AGW meme? “Snows are just now a thing of the past” in the UK….then three years in a row and snow: record snow: guess what Einstein? FAIL!

And how many times have they failed yet the old story won’t die?

A stunning, excellent piece of writing.

Well done.

That Monopoly card does say Community Cheat, doesn’t it? What an appropriate card for him to draw!

I , truly, have no idea whether the globe is warming or not, let alone in an unprecedented way. I do know that here in Harare things feel and change like they have over the last 60 years of my life.

What I do know for certain is that our generated CO2 has not been proved to be consequential in any way for any change that might be happening.

That’s the fundamental thing here in my mind. If the climate is changing is man made CO2 responsible in any significant or worrisome way? It would be good for unequivocal evidence for this and so far it has not been presented. Our little spirals off into betting on Sea Ice areas or forest fire frequencies are just interesting in a time filling kind of a way. All too debatable and easily modified by statistics used by whichever team you are rooting for.

Is there unequivocal evidence of a global temperature increase at all rather than just “needle hover” ?

Is their equally unequivocal evidence that CO2 is doing things that will bring excessive stress to earth and all that lives on her?

Every time you see a move like Trenberth’s little arabesque you know that the core to his argument is non-existent. It’s like being asked by a Christian to prove there is no God, failing which there must be one. It might be religion but it most certainly isn’t science.

Well done Willis for once again re-centering the debate. We all need to know if the “global temperature” is actual an item, likewise if it is going up or not, and what is causing it not what Trenberth , without any convincing evidence, blames on Man Made CO2.

Nicely and roundly roasted. Well done.

Yeah, what Willis said. All of it.

And one more thing. If CAGW is correct, future generations will put the blame for inaction onto climate scientists who don’t take Willis’s words to heart. They won’t be blinded by tribalism into blaming the sceptics who asked reasonable questions or demanded decent standards in the science. They’ll condemn those people who should have met those challenges.

Great essay, Willis! Thanks.

This episode reminds me that to nineteenth century physicists, it was “unequivocal” that light must have a medium within which to propagate, leading them to develop the idea of the luminiferous aether. After all, Maxwell’s equations required such a medium, as explained in the Wikipedia article:

“In addition, Maxwell’s equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean-Newtonian relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell’s equations hold. That is, the aether must be “still” universally, otherwise c would vary along with any variations that might occur in its supportive medium. Maxwell himself proposed several mechanical models of aether based on wheels and gears, and George FitzGerald even constructed a working model of one of them. These models had to agree with the fact that the electromagnetic waves are transverse but never longitudinal.”

Even as problems were found with the theory, scientists at the Royal Institution in England still defended its existence as late as 1908:

“Contemporary scientists were aware of the problems, but aether theory was so entrenched in physical law by this point that it was simply assumed to exist. In 1908 Oliver Lodge gave a speech in behalf of Lord Rayleigh to the Royal Institution on this topic, in which he outlined its physical properties, and then attempted to offer reasons why they were not impossible. Nevertheless he was also aware of the criticisms, and quoted Lord Salisbury as saying that “aether is little more than a nominative case of the verb to undulate”. Others criticized it as an “English invention”, although Rayleigh jokingly corrected them to state it was actually an invention of the Royal Institution.”

So, to paraphrase Lord Rayleigh’s quote above, one can suggest that CAGW theory is “actually an invention of the IPCC.”

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].”

I like that a lot, Dr. Trenberth. It is my belief that the core of Saturn is made of vanilla ice cream, and, as I believe my own hypothesis, then that surely is so and it is unequivocal. So far as I am aware no one has ever denied it to be the case: unequivocal. Supporters for my position? I have little doubt that with some application of effort I could drum up several thousand from the internet. They would, of course, lack something in the way of letters, but, so what? According to your own rules the onus would be upon the more learned to prove the nul hypothesis. Difficult that. Some of the most brilliant minds ever to be gifted to this planet have said, unequivocally, that the nul hypothesis can never be proved.

So there you are, Dr. Trenberth, for all practical purposes the supply of vanilla ice cream is without limit.

Brilliant article, long as it was, i wanted more.
I think that the hockey stick team have made a fundamental mistake by putting all their eggs into one basket. Everybody knows that this is a bad idea.
Looking forward to your next posting.
Pesadia

Trenberth wants proof there is no God, sorry.. I mean, AGW.
Im sure I have seen this kind of inductive reasoning in ancient debates on Gods existense. I never took them serious though, maybe I should.

As ever, Willis, your communication skills allied with your ability to unpick a statement and lay out all the costituent parts for us all to see so clearly are combined in an object lesson in critical analysis of language.
Like other posters, the only thing I disagree with you about, is your very generous assessment that Trenberth is ‘not a bad guy’. A person that has the education, training, intelligence, opportunities and privelege that Trenberth has, must surely have knowingly selected his strategies to make his way through the post-Climategate era; those strategies suggest to me that ‘he IS a bad guy’.

Dr T just got pwned!

I’m sorry, but this is too far. What is Mr. Trenberth’s email? And his bosses? We need to directly tell him how foolish he is. He has now completely overstepped the scientific method. What a fool.

Brilliant piece of writing, Willis – thank you. I particularly appreciate your positive comments, such as “I don’t think you are a bad man”, and I happen to agree. I don’t think that Phil Jones is a bad man either, nor even Bill McKibben – they have been seduced by a noble cause, and their life’s work is at stake.

“Seduction by a noble cause” has happened for centuries, and once seduced, it is exceedingly difficult to break free despite the evidence there may be against your beliefs. Escaping from an abusive cult, even an abusive marriage, can be the hardest thing in the world, once you have committed your life to it.

We have the same thing in medicine – the noble cause of preventing heart attacks has seduced the majority of mainstream medicine to worship at the feet of cholesterol-lowering statin medication. Many billions of dollars have been spent already in putting the fear of death into people and vastly enriching the inner circle of big pharma. The mainstream medics who go along with it, research for it and promote it are not part of a big conspiracy, but have been seduced by the noble cause. Once their academic lives have been committed, it takes a very big, magnanimous person to be able to stop and consider that they may have been barking up the wrong tree.

I greatly appreciate your gentle, conciliatory approach to Dr T. I hope very much that he reads, listens and deeply ponders your excellent advice.

Malcolm

“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was.”
Hasn’t the good doktor just erected a classic straw man argument there? No one has ever argued that humans have no influence on climate, and that was never the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was, and still is that natural climate variation driven by various factors, primarily changes in the sun and oceans have always been the major drivers of climate. But his strawman is even more insidious – a double strawman, if you will, because the argument isn’t even about “human influence”, but rather specifically about human-produced C02, and its effect on climate. Now, I have to wonder why would Trenberth want to talk about “human influence” instead of manmade C02? His dishonesty knows no bounds.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yes, and I pretty much understood every word of it. What’s up Robb? To heavy and complex for you?

Very thorough. Says it all.
Very nice article.

“We haven’s seen any acceleration in sea level rise. We haven’t seen any climate refugees. ” <– "haven't seen".

" Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends. It makes you all look guilty, whether you are or not … and since the CRU emails “unequivocally” favor the latter possibility, it makes you look unapologetic as well as guilty. Whether you are or not."

"favor the latter possibility," shouldn't this be "favor the former possibility"
or "whether you are or not" should be in parentheses, "(whether you are or not)"

Excellent article!
A+

How sad the ecofascists must be to know that no matter how much they agree on their schemes to defraud us, Congress is never going to buy their bull. Their last best chance was voted out in November.

Excellent post.

There’s another point I don’t think we make nearly enough of. Before the alarmist camp can claim that GW (or anything else climatic) is not just a natural phenomenon but mankind’s doing, they really have to show that they are including – and accounting for – every factor with any significant effect on weather/climate in their models.

Not only do they not do that, but it only takes, say, a week’s reading of WUWT to show why they don’t – can’t yet – get close. Climate science is still at the infant stage of collecting evidence and making preliminary hypotheses, never mind trying to scare us all with half-cocked “predictions” inferred from “trends” which are down in the statistical noise.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

Pretty much everyone with an attention span longer than a gnat’s

Great summary. Well written.

Another side point:
I am really getting tired of certain words and phrases such as:

robust
unequivocal
“Back in the day…” – a reference to a time when things were better, people did their job right, etc. Why not say something like: “back in the mid-sixties…”
“At the end of the day…” – People used to say “In the final analysis…”. That was wrong too, because there is no final analysis on anything. Why not say something like “My conclusion is…” or “The evidence suggests…”
awesome – used when someone accomplishes anything such as remembering to pull up their zipper.
perfect – used as awesome.

These latter two words are sprinkled liberally in the speech and writings of people under thirty. My theory is we are seeing the results of a generation taught to have high self esteem. Teachers encouraged their students not by challenging them to do better, but by telling them spelling the word CAT correctly was ‘awesome’. Not punching Sally out at lunch time was ‘perfect’. My teachers encouraged me by refraining from drawing red check marks all over my papers. This happened when I got the correct answers. No one was awesome or perfect; language of that nature was reserved for truly awesome things like landing on the moon or a politician telling the truth.

Of course robust and unequivocal are terms used by people trying to add credence to their theories; as regular readers of this blog site can attest.

Its too bad. All of these are nice words, overused by a generation losing its ability to talk and write with precision and accuracy. When a people loses its language, they lose the verbal symbols of ideas and their world is diminished.

How is it that the IPCC can link ‘unequivocal’to ‘melting of snow and ice’..?
Where is this happening..?
Every year, with relentless reliability, the Arctic ice melts in the summer, and with the same relentless reliability, freezes up again in the winter.
I would say THAT was unequivocal….

C’mon you gotta love these guys, they’re now allowed to reverse the null hypothesis at will. Can’t wait for their next ‘trick’.

Steve McIntyre has shown below that Trenberth has lifted a lot of the text verbatim from a Nature Geoscience article.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/14/12736/#more-12736

So in addition to being a shameless peddler of false information, he’s also a cheap plagiarist. It’s a shame on climate science and everyday they find new lows to sink to.

That is a thorough, well written, well articulated and brilliant stomping.

I thank you dearly, my good man Willis!

I have the negation. Sea level rise. It will reverse shortly.

JE

Great post Willis thanks.

Verity Jones said at CA that Trenberth forgets that for every finger he points away from himself, there are three fingers pointing back. Now here are three fingers I would like to keep in view.
One – Steve Mosher’s comparison of Trenberth’s IPCC AR4 words with what they should say. Note the pea under thimble again.
Two – Ross McKitrick showing how crucial this sleight-of-hand removing UHI is for the whole IPCC position.
Three - (look under link 2) Trenberth has now added to the phrases people will quote and remember him by.

Track back from my posts linked here to the originals who deserve the credit and follow-up, Steve and Ross.

What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming. And the point is that — with the strong la Nina of the last half of 2010, the end of a prolonged solar minimum, the negative PDO and AO, and even the Milankovich cycles tranding towards more NH ice formation and cooler temps, all combined with the fact that 2010 tied for the warmest year on record and we are seeing a record number of AGW-related extreme weather events — we’ve reached the point where the IPCC “very likely” conclusion has become even stronger. At some point, when all the variables line up to anthropogenic warming causing catastophic events, the burden does shift to the skeptics to provide an alternative explanation. Spencer has tried with the PDO, and Lindzen has tried with the iris theory, but neither is supported by observed events of the past few years.

Another strawman — No one says natural forcings have ‘no effect.’ They have taken a back seat to human emissions as the dominant forcing, but natural cycles and other natural variables continue to influence, even significantly, our weather and global temps on short-term, even decadal, timeframes.

The point that we haven’t warmed the past decade and that the past 30 years are consistent with natural variability …. kind of shameless. You have to do some serious manipulations with starting years or peak years to come to those conclusions. Nine of the 10 warmest on record within the past decade (1998 being the other). The rolling 5-year or 13-month averages on a steady upward trend. In fact, including the last two years, we are well within the 0.2-0.3 degrees C per decade. And the last 30 years show a marked departure from the previous 300 in terms of the rate of temp increase and the temp levels reached.

This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.

That was a great essay, Willis. How amazing that a supposed scientist would seek to reverse scientific process. I’m a financial person, and nothing changes the laws of money, just as nothing changes the laws of science, no matter how much people fiddle about with them.

One more thing, Willis, please stop letting them get away with saying that all of the investigations exonerated the ClimateGate Fools. The one serious violation was the FOI, and they got away with that due to the statute of limitations. That is not the same as exoneration at all! The other white washes were just that, but they narrowly escaped a real problem on a technicality.

Other that that quibble – dead on!

I am going to throw this ball at your face. But don’t duck unless you can prove it isn’t made of soft cotton. It is after all most likely a hoax perpetuated by elitist scientific journals that it is made of rock. And even if it is a rock, it could just be a natural cycle. Rocks happen, they have always been around. Many people have been killed by rocks in the past, in fact whole species have been wiped out by them. Hence there is no need to duck. Quack!

Robb876 says:

“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I thoroughly enjoyed it. But if someone who has bought into the notion that a harmless and beneficial trace gas is going to cause thermogeddon, then, as they say, “the truth hurts,” and turning one’s eyes away is a relief.

CO2 has risen about 40%. That is significant. If increased CO2 caused global harm, we would surely have seen evidence of it by now. But there is no verifiable evidence that anything unusual is occurring, except for the substantial increase in agricultural production.

In a world where a billion people subsist on less than $1 a day, more CO2 means life for many of them. But I think Dr Trenberth cares more about keeping the grant gravy train rolling than he cares about starvation.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove something *didn’t* occur. That, of course, is what they are counting on…

Slash all federal taxpayer support to agencies, institutions, universities performing so-called climate research. We have wasted enough resources over the last 30 years supporting apocalyptic climate fraud. The only real man-made apocalyptic catastrophe we face is the threat of nuclear war. Unlike the brinkmanship rules played during the Cold War the rules today are different.

Willis, all the adjectives lauding your work are all used above so all I can add is “Thank You” for writing this.
Now a layman’s question for the education authorities; How can cool carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorb a portion of the warmer radiation from the surface and, without ever getting anywhere near the temperature of the surface, re-radiate some half of that absorbed radiation back to the surface and so warming it some more?

So in other words, since they can’t prove their hypothesis the burden now is to disprove the hypothesis?

Wow. Think about it. I almost hope they can reverse the null hypothesis, and fire everyone! It would make my job in big Pharma so much easier! I could then say ” the drug is safe and efficacious because I said so, and so did all my colleagues. Now it’s the responsibility of the FDA and other agencies to prove it’s not”. Then i could take the afternoon off golfing.

Can I sign up for the “null hypothesis reversal” petition? I see great advantages with it, overall.
/sarc

Magnificent Willis! Many thanks.

If I might add one more thought: Regardless of all the errors you have pointed out in Trenberth’s howler, it is also the case that the null hypothesis is defined by the question, not by the accepted answer. The null hypothesis is the absence of a connection.

Consider: “Traffic collisions increase the accidental death rate.”

It is so obvious we all believe it. And it is certainly true, unless we are all going mad. But regardless, the null hypothesis is “There is no correlation between traffic collisions and the accidental death rate.” Of course no one believes that null hypothesis, and any number of traffic statistics can easily be produced proving beyond doubt that this particular null hypothesis is wrong. We go further, we do not even bother looking for that evidence because we are so convinced by the most elementary observations of the world, that people sometimes die in traffic collisions.

Nonetheless the null hypothesis (clearly and comprehensively disproved though it may be) remains forever “There is no correlation between traffic collisions and the accidental death rate.”

Likewise the null hypothesis in the climate case remains “There is no human effect upon the climate.” Some divergences from that null hypothesis will surely exist, but each and every one of them needs to be established by evidence, utterly without regard for people’s opinions (or the amount of trees used in publishing refereed papers or IPCC reports on the topic).

Willis

It would be really great to see a collection of your pieces published as a book.

Go on – it would be a very useful reference work and make a great present!

Robb876 asks “could anybody actually make it through that entire post”
I know that Robb 876 has already moved on to “boobs aplenty com.” but his retort highlights one of the problems we face today. The public will not or can not engage for more than 183 seconds without becoming bored and changing the channel. I think that Robb876 should read the whole post. My neighbor should read the whole post. After I told my neighbor that AGW was overblown he told me I should get out more.

MalcolmR says: January 15, 2011 at 4:54 am

Brilliant piece of writing, Willis – thank you. I particularly appreciate your positive comments, such as “I don’t think you are a bad man”…

I agree, and thanks for that post Malcolm. It reminds me that there seems to be a positive correlation between those who are generous in their assessments of people, those who are willing to say “I was wrong” over both science and attitudes, and those who are scientists right through to the core, who are most staunchly helping the very sick Climate Science undergo medical treatment and attain good prognosis for the future.

Rather than supposing Dr. Trenberth’s illogical statements are possibly evil in intent, perhaps Willis and we should perceive them as the sincere best effort from an inferior talent that is quite humanly fearful of facing up to his intellectual lacking. I know I do.

Mike says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:54 am
I am going to throw this ball at your face. But don’t duck unless you can prove it isn’t made of soft cotton. It is after all most likely a hoax perpetuated by elitist scientific journals that it is made of rock. And even if it is a rock, it could just be a natural cycle. Rocks happen, they have always been around. Many people have been killed by rocks in the past, in fact whole species have been wiped out by them. Hence there is no need to duck. Quack!”

Here’s how the null hypothesis works in science, using your analogy. The null hypothesis is that the ball thrown at my face will not harm me. I do the experiment. I get harmed. Now I know, for all future reference, that a ball can harm my face. (I did get hit in the face in High school so I do know this to be true). Now I can act on this knowledge because it’s not a hypothesis but a good theory. Will some ball be soft and not hurt my face? Yes, but that’s called an interaction term and more experiments would be needed to fully describe all the ways a thrown ball could hurt your face.

Now in the case of CO2 causing thermagedon, what proof (experiments) do we have to prove this? I’ll spare you the response: none. It’s all speculation. And Dr. T. now wants to argue the experiment doesn’t need to be done. But go ahead and spend trillions and change the entire world economy merely on the precautionary principle. That’s not science, that’s politics based on fear.

Anthony, thanks for having Willis write.

Willis, thanks!

Warmista Theology is reaching new heights of desperation. They can’t even deceive well any more, let alone tell outright whoppers & lies.

Their gods have abandoned them, their High Priests no longer can interpret instructions from Gaia and they have lost their ability to predict, or at least convince the people they could predict, the future.

The skies didn’t and aren’t falling. The People now realize we don’t need the Warmista High Priests to tell us what to do and how to live.

Another pseudo religion bites the dust and joins the legions of other useless and failed causes on the garbage heap of history. Each generation throws up its own causes and each, in turn, runs its course and fades away.

The sad part about AGW is the $trillions of dollars of pathetic and useless Public Policy decisions that have been made to appease that theology’s demands.

Truly sad when you think about what that treasure could have done for humanity.

A fabulous read Willis. Excellent work.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am

So good I read it twice, which is why my comment is allll the way down here and yours is… froth. I have bookmarked it so as to stuff down the throats of globalists and priests at every opportunity in the future. I have emailed it to myself so that I may produce it, instantly, on any computer at any location I find myself in need of a concise, coherent, nay elegant exposition on the climatologists fairytale “position”.

I have a question for Willis.

Are you now or have you ever been called to the bar?

:-)

In your essay, you state the following:

“I understand that Dr. T has a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?”

More precisely, the AGW hypothesis of Dr. T., asserts that if carbon dioxide gas goes up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. They usually ignore water vapor, clouds, ice crystals, aerosols, and other GHGs. They also ignore any question of the source of the increase in carbon dioxide assuming it must be from human activities rather than from the natural heating of the oceans and other obvious possibilities.

Over most of our planet, carbon dioxide plays a relatively insignificant role in thermal regulation. It’s absorption of IR is only important in cold, dry, and dark places. GHGs are an important thermostat, but the influence of the trace gas carbon dioxide is quite variable and relatively minor.

This was a wonderful essay. That we share your exasperation is unequivocal—a word that has no place in scientific inquiry.

I like to re-visit posts I have enjoyed to catch up on the comments, but Buzz Belleville, your contribution left me with my jaw dropped for a while. Your ‘sustainable energy law class’ sounds like something that would have been taught during the 1960s in a commune not far from Haight-Ashbury.

Snip away. I am probably not the only one thinking;

[snip]

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yes…

The guy is a clown. Once we thought he was just a somewhat deluded professional scientist. Now we know he is a purveyor of charlatanism. Charlatans try to reverse the null hypothesis – just look at the empty rhetoric and fallacious argument of any snake oil salesman.

But the bottom line is this: Trenberth is on record several times in saying that he can’t find his ‘missing heat’, and that it’s a travesty that he can’t. What that means is that he can’t get his calculations to add up, which means that some or all of his assumptions, his understanding, his observations, his models, his physics and his mathematics are false. Some or all. Now what real and honest scientist would seek to reverse the burden of proof and the null hypothesis when we all agree that AT LEAST ONE of those essential parts of his science (assumptions, understanding, observations, models, physics and mathematics) are FALSE? Now THAT would be a travesty.

Buzz Belleville says: ….
“Oh dear. Another who eschews the facts to suit themselves. “Energy law class”? where ever do you come from!

I happen to agree with the content ( so may be a little biased), but would like to praise the clear, concise and gentlemanly way that Willis has phrased his arguement. Well done and thanks!

thingadonta talked about lumping as a tactic. It could also be sloppiness. The easiest way to tell who are true scientists on either side are if they define and use words correctly. Those who say GW but mean AGW are being political or sloppy. Those who say GW but mean CAGW are hopelessly politicized.

Great post Willis.
So now that CAGW is the null hypothesis (according to Dr. T), then we don’t need to spend billions more proving it, right?
All government funding from here on should go to the scientists trying to prove the scientific hypothesis that natural effects are causing the change in climate that we are seeing. Think that might change the results? … remember, only results confirming the hypothesis will get further funding.

Great piece Willis, love your writing style and allusions, e.g. “Akashic record”, brilliant.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

When I started reading your comment, I thought it must be irony or satire or some sort of tongue-in-cheek affair, but when I got to the end was left thinking that you might really be as deluded as you write.

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.”

I’m still not sure whether you are having a joke, and this is the punchline, because it sure sounds like it. If not, I suggest you do a bit of reading. You’ve obviously be given or selected a propagandized reading list.

Seconding Mr. Cobb, Trenberth isn’t just reversing the burden of proof, but is lowering it all the way to the ground:

…placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].

Nobody has ever denied that increasing CO2 must have SOME warming effect. So that means the alarmists win? When that was never the debate?

Parallels the perversion of the interstate commerce clause, where post FDR the Supreme Court no longer required that regulated activities had to be a “direct” matter of interstate commerce, but that anything that affected interstate commerce no matter how indirectly could now be regulated by the feds, annihilating our system of limited enumerated powers of government. Just lower the bar on those limitations to zero and they no longer exist.

Superior work, Willis. Everyone should print a copy of your essay in large print and attach it to the wall just behind the monitor. Trenberth’s essay and your essay provide a perfect snapshot of the state of the debate about climate science at this time. In brief, Trenberth and his crowd avoid debate at all costs and push the “science is settled” meme. As you show so very well, Trenberth does it by moving the pea. By contrast, your analysis says exactly what must be shown, what has not been shown, and how to show it. We owe you a great debt of gratitude.

@David L.

“This reminds me of “cold fusion”. Two guys claimed they demonstrated it. The theory seemed right. However nobody could reproduce the results. So where is “cold fusion” today? It’s dead.”

It’s dead in the U.S. by DOE decree. I’m not sure I trust US gov’t agencies to give the unwashed masses the unvarnished truth. If I did I wouldn’t be an CAGW skeptic as according to NASA it’s settled science. Japan is still officially engaged although they’ve abandoned the original electrolysis rig used by Fleischmann & Pons and are now using solid substrates with nano-engineered surfaces to bring the deuterium atoms close enough together for spontaneous fusion. They call it “solid fusion” now.

Don’t be too quick to discount unexpected results in physics. We still don’t know how high temperature super-conductors work. Theory only predicts low temperature superconductivity. High temperature superconductors are as unexpected as cold fusion. There’s a lot of [snip] happening in this universe that our theories can’t explain.

@ Buzz Belleville says: January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming.

C’mon, guy. You’re trying to move the pea under the walnut shell yourself! The post is about the unscientific and ultimately self-condemning behavior of scientists, not IPCC conclusions.

Whether you believe it or not.

“We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per decade this century if we didn’t mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we haven’t mended one thing, and we have seen … well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.”

Here is what the data says regarding this issue:

http://bit.ly/dQ8S9i

Global mean temperature flat at 0.4 deg C for 13 years!

Where is their 2.4 to 6.4 deg C warming going to come from?

Only from their models.

WOW!!! BRAVO!!! STANDING OVATION for Willis!!!

This gets my nomination for “Best Rant” ever. Best is that it’s all true.

David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:17 am

This reminds me of “cold fusion”. Two guys claimed they demonstrated it. The theory seemed right. However nobody could reproduce the results. So where is “cold fusion” today? It’s dead.

Would you please do some research and stop making a fool of yourself by denigrating “cold fusion”? Start by looking up “LENR”, an acronym for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, which is the term that has replaced “cold fusion”. The current centers of research for this exciting (and real) phenomenon happen to be Israel and Japan–multiple patents have been awarded and there is currently a second-generation medical device that works on the principle of LENR. Recently, the US Navy looked into it and provided detailed proof that it exists. But don’t despair–you’re not alone: The theoretical physicists are looking pretty silly now with their complete reliance on equations they’ve worshiped for over 100 years. However, the chemists that went into the lab and ran the experiments and found new reasons to adjust past unassailable dogma are looking pretty good.

Funding for hot fusion in the US has gobbled up all the research dollars in this field, which is unfortunate–they’ve spent unimaginable amounts of money and have not much to show for it. Indeed, honest experts conclude that hot fusion isn’t viable.

I’d much rather have a half-fridge-sized unit in my basement generating all the electricity I need for the next 50 years (just add 3 liters of heavy water), than some monstrosity trying to replicate the interior of the sun outside of my city; the comparison is staggering. Besides, researchers expect the delivery date for the basement-positioned LENR unit to be around 3 – 5 years in the future. I predict you’ll be using energy from a LENR unit before you’re ever going to get it from a miniature sun.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am

Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??
—————
I did and I thought it was excellent. Very glad to read it. Grateful to WUWT for hosting such excellent minds and conscientious writers.

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class,”

Now if “sustainable energy law” is a Law of Nature and unequivocal, please feel free to fill this gaping hole in my knowledge. If, as I suspect, it is a mickey mouse subject that makes media studies look like rocket science, then please forgive me for rolling about in lachrymose hilarity.

“…serially unsuccessful doomcaster” Wonderful! The history of AGW in a nutshell.

Truly brilliant post, kept me breathless down to the last line.

As far as whether or not Trenberth is a “bad” or even “evil” man, that is not up to us to decide. He will need to search his own conscience and/or visit his local clergyman for those answers. Suffice it to say, however, that deceitfulness is not generally the mark of someone who is a good person, and Trenberth’s rant positively oozes both deceit and self-delusion. Perhaps he can be forgiven the delusional aspects.

Perhaps I misread, but isn’t “not” the latter possibility?

• Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends. It makes you all look guilty, whether you are or not … and since the CRU emails “unequivocally” favor the latter possibility, it makes you look unapologetic as well as guilty. Whether you are or not.

That will leave a mark.

It is a tough thing for a man to admit his life’s work was all a sham. Unfortunately, I think this is going to have an ugly ending when Trenberth finally realizes the game is over.

I read it all.. I did not read all of the the references.. but I will.

I think it is the best work I have read on climate science to date.

It is SO good, in fact, that it scares me.

How come this site is still up and running?

These people murder people for less than this.

I cannot get my local newspaper to print my ‘letters to the editor’ about ‘climategate’ for goodness sake.

Its not about science.. its about public perception.

And that is a very very serious business.

Is it possible that The Powers That Be are controlling the weather?

Geoengineering is mentioned by Dr T in an email referenced in this article.

If they are controlling the weather.. it might explain why this page on the internet still exists.

Start talking about the science of 911, Anthony, and then see how long this site stays online.

Venter says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:34 am
Steve McIntyre has shown below that Trenberth has lifted a lot of the text verbatim from a Nature Geoscience article.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/14/12736/#more-12736
“So in addition to being a shameless peddler of false information, he’s also a cheap plagiarist. It’s a shame on climate science and everyday they find new lows to sink to.”

You have to worry that all these guys are using the same boilerplate passed down from the Kommissar. People who use this boilerplate are either stupid, crooks, or terrified that their careers hang in the balance. Whatever the case, they are hellbent to destroy whatever moral authority Galileo and his successors had earned.

Congratulations to Willis for reversing the sense of the science discovering a low molecular weight gas which reduces radiative forcing by watts/m2 at 100 ppm concentrations.

Now will could you please tell us what it is ?

We’ll all feel better when you do.

Robb876 said:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I sure could! And I’d do it again. There is something about reading such elegant prose, especially when constructed in such well-delivered argument. I shall probably read it again before the day is out.

As for you Robb876 (My! You really are way down the scale of Robbs, aren’t you? Couldn’t think of something a little lower in the order of names? – Just gentle joshing ;-) ), I can only urge you to really take the trouble to read all the way to the bottom – comments an’ all. It will open your mind, and maybe blow in the fresh winds of truth with which to fumigate it. Who knows, your lethargic comprehension might improve with use.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am
“… all combined with the fact that 2010 tied for the warmest year on record and we are seeing a record number of AGW-related extreme weather events — we’ve reached the point where the IPCC “very likely” conclusion has become even stronger.”

I could have selected any one of your points for refutation of your position, but I favor empirical matters and selected those points. Sir, the weather that we are experiencing is totally normal, totally within normal variation in less than one human lifetime. I have documented this many times on WUWT. Just search on my name. You will learn the story of the three “thousand year floods” that I survived in one midwestern city over a period of twenty years. Think Brisbane has flooding. I saw the Missouri River rise sixty feet. You use one of Trenberth’s techniques, assuming what you should be proving or at least substantiating.

Excellent! For anyone unfamiliar with the whole AGW issue (now better known as scam), this cogent piece is where they should start. It gets them familiar with some AGW player’s names, it shows there is pushback to the AGW scam, and it educates on what constitutes good science; that science is not the pursuit of declaring a winner to a hypothesis by whomever achieves critical mass of public opinion first.

Mr T is beyond the pale. His words are repulsive. Truly, deeply repulsive.

What he is saying should not be under-estimated.

“At the end of the sencond world war, the Nazis didn’t lose – they just had to move” – former CIA agent involved in the MKULTRA program.

See also Project Paperclip.

The last time I was hearing “unequivocal” was when Tony Blair was saying that the evidence that WMD in Iraq existed was unequivocal and that is why we had to go to war. And I quote:

Iraq-gate

(1) In Iraq, the overwhelming consensus amongst the experts was: that there were WMD, the threat was “real & imminent” and, the public was told the evidence was “unequivocal”. We were being told one thing in public by a campaign using the fear of WMD to sway public opinion, whereas in private experts like David Kelly were far from convinced.

“SIR WILLIAM EHRMAN:In terms of chemical and biological, particularly through the spring and summer of 2002, we were getting intelligence, much of which was subsequently withdrawn as invalid, but at the time it was seen as valid, that gave us cause for concern,

… March 2002: the intelligence on Iraqi WMD and ballistic missiles is sporadic and patchy.” 1

(2) How did Parliament and the public come to be so misled as to the certainty of WMD? Why did those against the Iraq war have to disprove the negative: to provide proof that every location in Iraq, where facilities for WMD might have been installed, had been searched?“

Lots of interesting stuff here but I really think you nailed it when you focussed on KT’s refusal to defend his work with any kind of public debate. It seems to me that this is the ultimate Achilles heel: to avoid debate, given the ever increasing volume of informed citizens via the blogosphere, is an anachronism.

Trenberth at times seems genuinely nonplussed that his agenda lacks the traction he feels it deserves amongst the “great unwashed”. Until he wakes up to the reality of the new paradigm ie the internet, and engages with his critics in a truly interactive medium, he will remain something of an embarrassment IMO.

Mark Twang says: January 15, 2011 at 5:13 am”How sad the ecofascists must be to know that no matter how much they agree on their schemes to defraud us, Congress is never going to buy their bull. Their last best chance was voted out in November.”

Unfortunately, the left wing activists in the EPA and a variety of other departments in Washington are going forward with their schemes to kill coal and oil without the cooperation of congress. They will use anything they can invent from endangered species to environmental protection to accomplish their goals. Plus the well funded “green” organizations will file legal actions if they do not get their way and they can always find a liberal judge to file injuctions.

We need to spend more time pointing out the negative results their policies will most certainly produce in every case visa vi any POTENTIAL benefits. Major examples are the economic and social costs of carbon elimination from our energy supplies. Good minor example is that it has been found that wind farms make excellent eagle killers. This when many coal bed methane production activities are curtailed by the mere presence of an eagle roost near those activities.

I think throughout the T. paper (and also to some extent in Willis’s response) there is a conflation between two different concepts: “burden of proof” and “null hypothesis”.
The burden of proof, in a court of law, lays with the claimant (in criminal cases, with the prosecutor). In science, there is no “presumption of innocence”: ALL claims have the burden of proof. You have to prove everything you claim.
On the other hand, null hypotheses refer to the STATISTICAL significance of claims, in the framework of random variations (e.g. sample means relative to the true mean). When you find a statistical relationship (say, a correlation coefficient, or a difference in percentages or propensities or whatever), there is always the possibility that it is a fluke, coming from the peculiarities of your measurement method, sample, or other sources of random variation. The most common situation is one where errors (of your observations compared to the “true” value) are normally distributed, with a mean that tends to coincide with the true mean. Then you establish a “level of confidence” (say 95%), and deduce a “confidence interval”, i.e. an interval around your observation where there is a 95% probability that the true value is. The “null hypothesis” in that context is usually what would happen by mere chance if there is no relationship or non-random effect at play. Statistical tests allow you to “reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence”. Suppose you claim that the size of a temperature anomaly is 0.5° C. You claim that your anomaly of 0.5° is outside the normal variability range. You know temperature is affected by random variation about a historical mean. The historical mean has a standard error of, say, 0.2°. About 95% of cases, actual temperatures in that case will be within about 2 standard errors, i.e. +/- 0.4°. The 95% confidence interval of the historical average would be from -0.4° to +0.4°. Therefore, the chances of the anomaly to be outside that normal range would be less than 5%. The null hypothesis would be that your observation is within normal variability. Given such numbers, you can “reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence” because an anomaly of +0.5° is outside the range from -0.4° to +0.4°. There is always a small (2.5%) probability that normal variability goes upwards of 0.4°, as there is also a small (2.5%) probability that it may produce temperature anomalies below -0.4°, but 95% probability is enough for you (and your opponent).
Notice that null hypotheses do not refer to the substantive issue at hand, but to the statistical properties of your data.
Scientists cannot avoid the null hypothesis either. Whenever they are dealing with variables affected by random effects, the hypothesis that whatever you observe is just a fluke should be considered. That is the role of the null hypothesis.
Once the statistical validity of your claim is established within a given confidence level (say 95%), then you can address the substantive question: what is going on, what is the cause of the observed phenomenon, what are the mechanisms at play. The burden of proof remains with whoever makes a claim in those regards.

I think I stand with a majority of the readers of this site in being not merely skeptical of the claims of AGW, but actually cynical because of the seemingly obvious motives and agenda of the AGW crowd, as well as their past record of playing fast with the truth.
Yet, I bet I am nearly alone on this site in thinking the entire episode of AGW has been merely a miniaturized replica of the macroevolution gambit. Just as the author points out the sly attempt of a prominent AGWer to conflate unsupported ideas with others that are strongly supported, so, too, evolutionists have glommed their religious myth of macroevolution onto the patently obvious truth of microevolution. While it is certainly true that cats and dogs and goldfish and canaries can adapt to the pressures of their environment, it does not therefore follow that dogs can become cats or goldfish become canaries.
Do not doubt it: The AGW tribe wants to arrive at the same happy state as their macroevolution forebears: So entrenched that it simply no longer matters that their ideas are laughably absurd. And, they are employing the same heavy handed game plan to arrive there: Inbred Pal Review, relentless smear campaigns, complete control over funding, willing partners in politics and print, etc.
I ask you to resist the knee jerk reaction toward willful obtuseness and apply the same critical, skeptical thinking to macroevolution that you rightly apply to AGW.

Willis said (to Trenberth): “Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy.”

Perhaps not, but replace the word “guy” with the word “scientist” and I’m inclined to disagree.

Agree wholeheartedly with the rest of Willis’ post however.

Great article, but I have a couple of issues:

1. As mentioned earlier, under the ‘re-asserting your innocence’ section you should use ‘former’ not ‘latter’.

2. More substantively, you define the AGW hypothesis as saying

“if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply.”

You then state that the “[AGW hypothesis] is woefully short of either theoretical or observational support. In part, of course, this is because the AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a statement or a prediction which can be falsified.”

I submit that this is not correct. There is substantial observational evidence which pretty conclusively proves that the hypothesis is FALSE. They claim that CO2 drives temperature, yet the evidence is mind-bogglingly clear that in fact temperature has driven CO2 for ages. If this data doesn’t prove the hypothesis wrong, then what does?

“Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming.”

Would you accept astronomical physics as unequivocal if a scientific body came out with a report saying that it is “very likely (defined as > 90%)” that the reason the earth orbits the sun is because of gravity? Or would you just laugh? That 90% number is just made up hokum. As you say, it’s a conclusion, but not a conclusion from data, it’s a conclusion from feelings. It’s not to be taken seriously.

There is another pea-thimble thing going on here by Trenberth and by others. They argue that “everyone agrees” that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that therefore you should sit down and shut up. But that is not the question. The question is “how much” will it warm, which is not explicitly known, and what would be the impacts (with a mild answer given in the IPCC and a hysterical answer given in press interviews and such) and how much would it cost to fix it (the last being a question that one is forbidden to ask). So by getting you to agree to the first point, you are supposed to not ask the latter 3 questions. This tactic came up constantly on the radiative physics threads over at Judith Curry’s, where some climate scientists kept saying that “it is just physics” when they should know better.

There seems to be a good deal of opportunistic re-framing of the issue from all sides.

First of all, the ‘Null Hypothesis’ is NOT, “which is that what we observe in nature is, you know, natural”.
That is a deep epistemological claim of science which opens a whole other can of worms…

The initial prediction from the AGW hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 from human sources would cause a global warming trend.
The Null hypothesis was that it would cause no trend in global temperatures.

The UNEQUIVOCAL data is that there IS a trend in global temperature. That overturned the initial null hypothesis which was replaced by the null that explicitly addresses the ‘anthropogenic’ aspect of the theory.
The new synthesis/antithesis became –
AGW is causing the unequivocal warming trend and predicts that there will be greater effects in higher latitudes, in the winter and at night.
The new null hypothesis becomes that any observed trend or regional changes are part of physical processes that are intrinsic to the climate system without any measurable influence from anthropogenic CO2.

As Eschenbach writes there are various lines of evidence that are required to refute the null hypothesis that claims the present climate changes are independent of the present anthropogenic CO2 level. First, that present conditions are anomalous, that they lie outside the envelope of chaotic, quasi-periodic behavior observed in the climate before the rise in CO2 and since the present Holocene stable interglacial period was established ~8000 years ago.
The problem here is that proxy indicators of surface temperature over that period are ambiguous. The LIA and the MWP may show up in some records, and appear comparable to present conditions, but may be absent from other records indicating the conditions may not have been global in the way that the present warming is. Himalayan glacier ice-core records show no LIA and a small MWP that is not synchronous with the peak in N Europe.

Perhaps the best evidence that present conditions are anomalous is the sea level data and ice mass measurements. Eclipse records indicate that the recent rate of sea level rise exceeds the rate for the last 6000 years. The last time sea level rose at comparable rates was during the collapse and melting of the last glacial ice-caps. Ice extent is falling globally and glaciers are melting back to positions they last occupied during the Holocene maximum 8 thousand years ago.

It is less than scientifically helpful if the null hypothesis is defined in a manner that prevents its refutation, just as the AGW hypothesis would be weaker if it was not open to refutation by a number of climate indicators.

…the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class…

Here’s the deal: if the know-it-all elitists can convince enough people that we’ll all die unless we let them regulate everything, they will then be the masters and we, the unwashed masses, will be their slaves. The whole point of an “energy law class” is to teach the avaricious how to game the system for power and profit.

Do the world a favor, Buzz, and switch to a useful discipline such as physics, medicine, or engineering. Seek truth, not power.

Anyone going to the AMS? Let’s come up with a list of pointed questions for Dr. T. Post them here (so Dr. T and other members of the climate science cult) can read them before hand, ask him after his talk, and see what type of responses he will give.

Note to BUZZ

You are easily convinced. I suggest you extend your reading and look at the ARGO data on ocean heat content. Ask your teachers to explain why despite being heat sinks for 90% of global heat there has been no increase over the last few years. Even Dr Trenberth is confused.

Mark Twang says: January 15, 2011 at 5:13 am “How sad the ecofascists must be to know that no matter how much they agree on their schemes to defraud us, Congress is never going to buy their bull. Their last best chance was voted out in November.”

Since the EPA and a variety of other govt agencies are populated by a host of left wing activists the assault on coal and oil continues without congressional authorization. They will invent whatever reason they desire to reach their goal. They also have liberal judges at the ready to support injunctions when “green” groups file legal actions. We must emphasize the socioeconomic costs of their folly more regularly. If more folks realized that 50% of the electricity in the US is generated from coal and that their lights and heating and cooling will either cost much more or perhaps cease to function at all under some of these new policies they would change their attitude.

Also some of the various left wingers might turn against some of these policies if they knew the unintended consequences such as wind farms making excellent eagle choppers. This while coal bed methane production is curtailed by the mere presence of an eagle roost in the area.

Good post Willis, hopefully Dr. Trenberth will read this with thought.

To clarify my comment about Cold Fusion: that theory has been around for a very long time. It has not been demonstrated reproducibly. Some version of it may yet be demonstrated in the future: I don’t argue that.

What I will state is that the results of Pons and Fleischmann have not been replicated, true or false? Also it’s dead as research (at least in the US)? True or false? Again: true. Sure there are people still researching it, but people are also research Bigfoot, UFOs and Orgone energy. So does that mean it’s all true? Come on guys…

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.”

Boy, they saw you coming. As they say – one born every minute. But don’t despair – permit me to take you through the points one by one:

“What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming.”

Did you ‘energy law class’ teach you that 90% is the same as unequivocal? But let’s not quibble over a mere 10%. Go to the AR4 report and find the calculations from which the canoncial 90% is derived. Oh wait – it doesn’t exist.

“And the point is that — with the strong la Nina of the last half of 2010″

No – the La Nina began in the last quarter of 2010, not the last half. The effects of Enso events on global temperatures have a delay of a few months – and January to May of 2010 was actually an El Nino event, which is the one that would dominate temperatures, not the much more recent La Nina.

“the negative PDO and AO . . . Milankovich cycles tranding [sic] towards more NH ice, ”

The PDO has only just entered a negative phase that takes 30 years to bottom out – AO is still positive. Are you suggesting that the Milankovich cycle will produce a measurable temperature trend over a couple of years when the shortest cycle is 23,500 years and the longest 100,000?

“seeing a record number of AGW-related extreme weather events”

‘Fraid not. Just seeing old fashioned weather patterns. Even the Russian heat wave was acknowledge by Nasa to be caused by Rosby waves.

“At some point, when all the variables line up to anthropogenic warming causing catastophic events,”

Unlikely – these variables are diverging, not lining up.

“And the last 30 years show a marked departure from the previous 300 in terms of the rate of temp increase and the temp levels reached.”

Absolutely wrong. Even Phil Jones admitted that the rate of warming in the last 30 years was no different from the rate from 1910 – 1945.

None of Hansen’s predictions from 1988 have come true, so if that fits your definition of ‘nailing it’, then good luck in your exams.

Back in 1947, when Britain experienced a devastating Winter and came close to being bankrupt (we were bailed out by the US). The then Socialist Govt. put bread on ration. (It had never had been during WWII). I do not speak as an eye witness – I was less than one year old. The reason was that Germany, which lay in ruins, was desperately short of wheat and so the British Govt. ordered that supplies would be diverted to our recent enemy.
You put up a great post, Willis and I feel sorry for those who found it too much. I do not advocate ad hominen attacks on Dr. T. but the the time to be nice to your enemies is when you have them well and truly beaten. Please don’t give credit where it is not due. I’m sure readers of this site can spot a charlatan when he appears.

Gary Taubes has identified a similar situation in the nutrition field in his book – “Why We Are Fat”. (he calls it an “insidious problem” on page 185 of his book) I paraphrase some of his observations below and relate to the current “Trenberth affair”.
The situation with Trenberth and all the AGW “researchers, organizations, and public policy institutes committing to a belief early in the evolution of “climate science” at the stage when they know least about it also has happened in other areas of science.
In nutrition, we were advised (in the late 1970s)that a high carb low fat diet was the healthiest. When study after study showed this to be false authorities didn’t respond by acknowledging that they had made an error all along. “Doing so might make us question their credibility, as it should.” Instead, they tell us that the studies (and any contrary information) must be flawed and the results should be ignored.”
The AGW researchers, organizations, and public policy institutes have created a house of cards. They then used an Orwellian method and tried to label all those observers of how inaccurate their early proclamations in climate science have been as “deniers”.
“Castles made of sand wash into the sea eventually.” (with apologies to Gary Taubes and Jimmy Hendrix)

I’m amazed at the amount of people that have bought into the “extreme weather event” line…

…but even more amazed at the amount of people that have bought into a science based on elevated CO2 levels

….when CO2 levels are at an all time low

OOhhh that’s gotta sting, great post Willis.

Trenberth must be crazy coming out with his rant. How can something be ‘unequivocal’ when he does not undestand/know the heat budget of the earth?

Science settled…in a computer model and his mind yes… in the real world, NO. It is a travesty that this guy was ever given a Phd and is called a scientist!!

izen says:

“The initial prediction from the AGW hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 from human sources would cause a global warming trend. The Null hypothesis was that it would cause no trend in global temperatures.”

You misstate the null hypothesis, which does not refer specifically to trends. It compares the current climate to the climate’s past natural variability parameters. As Dr Roy Spencer explains it, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Natural variability is the null hypothesis.

An alternate hypothesis is tested against the null hypothesis. For example, if current temperatures exceeded the past parameters of the Holocene, that would be evidence supporting the alternate hypothesis. The extremes during the Holocene can be seen here.

If you wish to include trends as part of your argument, and claim that the current trend is outside past parameters, I refer you to Phil Jones’ data going back to 1850, which shows that the current trend has occurred repeatedly in the past.

Excellent use of logic-based counter arguments. 4 marks!

REPLY: No, the 4 marks are Hansen, Mann, Jones, and Trenberth ;-) Anthony

I see fodder for Josh here….

Dr. T, resplendent with mohawk and a 1/2 ton of gold necklace bling…caption:
It’s HOT, fool!

REPLY: LOL! I’ve sent the idea along. – Anthony

sad

Jack Simmons says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:25 am
These latter two words are sprinkled liberally…
Should be “These last two words are sprinkled liberally…” (when choosing between last and latter, the latter is used only where there are two options).

Sorry to be pedantic, but your post demanded it.

Excellent, clear and enjoyable post Willis – thank you.

It s a fine essay. I would have emphasised that Trenberth suffers from *projection*, or transference, as caused by advocating a cause – the cause of AGW theory. Thus accusing others of what he practices (null theory, denialism – which in his case is a denial of the pertinent facts in question that should be comparitive over time. At least 2000 years)

Craig, the entire diatribe is rife with peas and shells:

First, we establish an unsubstantiated spurious connection:

So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events!

Then, we make it the most important feature of the game (again, by mere assertion with NO scientific substantiation needed):

It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.

Now comes the shell hiding the pea under it. Since it has been unequivocally established that ALL weather events of any type are the result of global warming, their very existence becomes new independent evidence that we are heading for catastrophe. This technique has already been used in the “melting glaciers” meme reasonably successfully in the past.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

I did. Easily.
And I applaud it!

Another home run Willis. Thanks.

Ok… I finally made it through the post … It was tough getting away from boobs.com for that long but I finally trudged threw it… Anyway.. This really is a good site with loads of good skeptical info, based on fully tested and well thought out hypothesisiss… And you guy have done a lot to change my mind, especially now that the conspiracy is trying to throw “hottest year” crap at us again even though it’s cold where I live…. Anyway… Willis just convinced me the other day that the earth was cooling… I even plotted a best fit trend over the last 12 years to prove it to myself… But now… It seems be be back to warming…. I just cant keep up… Boobie pics don’t treat me like this….

gt says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:10 am

Anyone going to the AMS? Let’s come up with a list of pointed questions for Dr. T. Post them here (so Dr. T and other members of the climate science cult) can read them before hand, ask him after his talk, and see what type of responses he will give.
—————
He’ll just do an Al Gore and refuse to take questions from the media. These guys have learned well. Too well.

You’ll probably find yourself in a ‘free speech zone’, anyway.

Hi Willis
I think I proved already here in this report that an increase in GHG’s did not cause ahttp://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africany global warming

If you have some time to look at it, I would love to hear your opinion on this report?

Sorry the report is here:]
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa

Excellent article and very well written.

Somehow though, I don’t see Dr.T having the
conviction/knowledge/honesty/integrity*
to furnish a reply.
* – delete whichever is not applicable.

Every scientist should read this article. Every introductory science course in college should have the students read this as their first assignment. Every graduate student of science should read this before they begin their research. Everyone at NSF should read this before giving out any grant money for any subject. This may be as important a piece of science as any I’ve ever read. Thanks Willis.

“the core of Saturn is made of vanilla ice cream”

What are you talking about Ken? The core of Saturn is made up of chocolate ice cream!!! Have you no sense man?

Looks like at the moment of this post with 124 comments that the “Read it all” is 123 with one outlier.

Excellent commentary, Willis, on ridiculous “Mr. T.” AGW propaganda. Sad the funds supporting the warmista machinery are not going to real education.

Willis,

Thanks for this excellent post. That took a lot of effort. I also took the time to read your example from June 2006. That, on your part, also took a lot of work and effort. To finish with the lazy and incompetent e-mail quotes is outstanding wordsmithing. Bravo!

I think it is time for Josh to do a cartoon of “Lazy Willis” with sharpened pencil and abacus, maybe a spreadsheet held down at the corners by walnut shells, and – off in the back – the worried face of Dr. T. showing in a port hole.

Excellent article Willis. Keep the fire of the scientific method and the spirit of the philosophy of science alive!!!

Those who make the positive claims, e.g. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, must fork over the evidence. Stand and deliver Dr. Kevin Trenberth, and while you’re at it please stop making doomsday claims that are not published “word for word” in a peer reviewed journal with all the evidence and the means of verification of that evidence to back it up!

Oh, and Dr. Kevin Trenberth you get a fail in the philosophy of science.

Willis you get a gold star!

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:05 am

The initial prediction from the AGW hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 from human sources would cause a global warming trend.
The Null hypothesis was that it would cause no trend in global temperatures.

The UNEQUIVOCAL data is that there IS a trend in global temperature. That overturned the initial null hypothesis…. [my bold]

No, the null hypothesis that Willis is referring to is not that there would be no trend in global temperatures. That’s only what the CO2AGW hypothesis said! It’s that hypothesis itself – no trend without CO2 – which is the actual “denial”, of the effect of non-CO2 agents, “natural” agents, and of the actual null hypothesis; and it’s that hypothesis which “begs the question” as to the cause of the increase in temperature claim. According to CO2CAGW as you stated it, the increase in temperature has to be due to CO2….by definition! Not by science.

izen, you just did the same thing Trenberth did: ~”there is warming, therefore it has to be AGW.”

Great piece. Superb work. Thank you Willis.
Isn’t the AGW hypothesis already dead by showing the graphs when temperatures during the last century went up and down, no matther that CO2 level was constantly rising? For me, that’s enough to disprove it.

Anthony, have this piece at the top for a long time is a good idea.

And last but not least, a truescientist here was calling Mr. T a clown. I tended to agree but there is a more accurate description. He and the other (hockey)stickers are “useful idiots” for a more important purpose. That makes them more dangerous than just clowns.
And they know it, but trade in their reputation for a good life at taxpayers’ money … so far.
As one of them has exprssed it in the climategate mails: “who can resist to visit these congesses in Bora Bora” … and Bali … and Cancun etc.

Since the science is settled and the proof is unequivocal and the other side must now prove they are right, then all funding should cease going into something we no longer need to study and flow the natural cycle side and figure out what the natural cycle is. Of course we cannot spend trillions to stop the natural cycle only adapt to it.

Unequivocal agreement with the points – but equivocating about whether it is succinct and focused enough to have any large effect. It helps hold the dam in place though.

Scientifically, I’m not one of you, but tried to lay out my thoughts and analyses 4 years ago and noticed that the burden of proof was being shifted via illogical claims that we must now prove that AGW is not true, that the AGW hypotheses were not falsifiable or provable with any actual observed warming or cooling, and that the catastrophic (C)AGW theory consisted of the joint probability of a number of these unprovable hypotheses all being true (that warming is caused by anthropogenically generated CO2, will only increase, will be “catastrophic,” and can actually be stopped using methods more advantageous than adaptation).

That hasn’t stopped very human scientists from engaging in the antithesis of science for a variety of reasons – some of those being forms of moralistic self indulgence Trenberth is far from the first and far from the last.

Buzz:
I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it.

Hmm. Buzz, why don’t you go to New York and drive up the West Side Highway? You can leave your boat at home. (But don’t tell Jim Hansen)

Great post Willis. Make them accountable. Full stop.

Green Gangsters such as Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. ain’t ever gonna change either their bullying, thuggish attitudes or their malfeasant ways. What’ll anyone bet that a year from now, in mid-January 2012, communo-fascist hysterics of Ehrlich’s, Holdren’s, lately Keith Farnish’s ilk will be declaiming Maoist China as the cure for democracy’s ills in neglecting to genuflect before Climate Cultists’ divine attributes? Nothing will change unless and until certain AGW Goebbelites appear in orange jump-suits, an overdue circumstance devoutly to be wished.
l

Thanks for the great article. That was such a pleasure, I read it twice.

Willis,

I’d like to reaffirm the call for you to publish your writings in book form. I’d be on the waiting list….

However, as one other reader here has noted, there is a rather puzzling ‘command’ you make near the end, viz.:

“Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends. It makes you all look guilty, whether you are or not … and since the CRU emails “unequivocally” favor the latter possibility, it makes you look unapologetic as well as guilty. Whether you are or not.”

Perhaps I don’t understand the meaning of unequivocal, but my reading of the “CRUtape Letters” led me to the opposite conclusion, as does the quotation with which you end this otherwise wonderful dissertation.

Willis says “We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per decade this century if we didn’t mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we haven’t mended one thing, and we have seen … well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.”

Perhaps you could expound on this statement. All five main temp reporting bodies (UAH, RSS, HadCru, NASA and NOAA) show broad agreement that the decade of the 2000′s was .16c to 1.8c warmer that the 1990s. How do you get zero tenths out of that?

Excellent writing. A great website. Thank you!

The current null hypothesis is that no warming is occurring that isn’t natural. How can this hypothesis explain that the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian and Arctic Oceans all now have a warm anomaly? Where is the cold water hiding? How do AMO and PDO explain that? The current null hypothesis is inadequate to even explain current observations. Something else is clearly needed to replace the null hypothesis, unless you want to persist with a null hypothesis that has already been disproved by observations.

Great post Willis.
I had no trouble reading or digesting it.

Buzz Belleville, man you are what we are scared of.
Propagandized robots, getting ready to practice “sustainable energy law”.
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
Your school, parents, and professors should be ashamed for propagating these myths, wasting your time, and threatening the pubic with unrealistic legislation and, I guess, litigation.
I do not see how anyone who can read three sentences in row and understand what they mean, can delude themselves into thinking that there is a macro-crisis, which perversely refuses to reveal itself on a micro-level.
It simply isn’t true.

Buzz,

“What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming.”

What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting that what the IPCC actually said was that human activities are “very likely” the cause of “much” of the observed warming.

And completely glossing over the fact that the “90%” definition of “very likely” is a number pulled from the distal end of the IPCC’s alimentary canal.

And completely ignoring the fact that, unlike the assertive “very likely” the weaseling “much” is not defined.

This is the Trenberth/IPCC way. Make wild assertions, but be sure to throw in enough weasel words like ‘much’ that you can diminish and distance yourself from, and/or further exaggerate and cry wolf, with those wild assertions, depending on your future needs.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.
———-

Funny, I just started teaching another iteration of my environmental history class. I was a science student in the late 1970s and early 1980s, then thoroughly sold on the environmental alarmism of the era. Currently I am thoroughly unimpressed by the accuracy of those self-same predictions.

Willis said, re Trenbeth’s pea-shuffling Monte trick:

>That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy …

Well said. And a nicely-done riposte. Good job!

Trenbeth is one of the least admirable of the “Hockey Team,” in my view. Though there’s some stiff competition there, in the race for the bottom….

Cheers — Pete Tillman
–
“Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed yet so rarely decided
by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time.”
— Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

Trenberth’s energy flows diagram miraculously generates 396 watts m2 out of a mere 64 watts of solar radiation. Energy from thin air (literally). The man who believes in this fantasy obviously has an unshakeable conviction that is religious in nature rather than scientific. That is why the burden of proof is upon us poor unbelievers.

Mark Twang says: January 15, 2011 at 5:13 am
How sad the ecofascists must be to know that no matter how much they agree on their schemes to defraud us, Congress is never going to buy their bull. Their last best chance was voted out in November.
——————————————————————————–
Mark I sincerely hope that you are right. The U.S. is the only hope of turning this crap around – Europe and the U.K. are toast just now – finished – kaput.

And Willis – your article was, as always, spot on. I imagined that if that missive was directed at me I would have disappeared up my ‘fundamental’ in abject shame!!

Douglas

Kudos for a much-needed unequivocal statement of truth. The only thing now left uncertain is Willis playing third base for the Yankees.

Like virtually every Willis writes, this was a truly excellent article. Looking around the blogosphere this morning I noticed that just the comment thread for this article is more interesting and entertaining than the lead articles at other sites.

To help put the gravity of Willis’ essay in perspective I suggest reading Art Horn’s article on PJM today about how much taxpayer money is squandered on climate research. It can be found here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-much-of-your-money-wasted-on-climate-change-try-10-6-million-a-day/

Mcs? Another Mc from Canada.

We know the names McIntyre and McIttrick and their stellar work(s).

Now we can add another Mc to the above; now we have 3 Mcs.

Dr. Bob McMurtry.

Dr. Bob McMurtry may have brought down a Liberal-socialist government. Stay tuned.

More:

“How [Liberal-socialist] McGuinty’s windmill dreams became a nightmare”

“When Dalton McGuinty embraced wind power four years ago, it seemed he couldn’t lose.

Politically, his support for this infinitely renewable form of energy put the Ontario premier firmly on the side of the environmental angels.

Even more important, McGuinty’s Liberals pitched their commitment to wind as part of a comprehensive, green industrial strategy.

The government would not merely use wind turbines to generate electricity. It would also subsidize firms to build the giant machines for export.

In effect, windmills would be to the new Ontario what autos were to the old — the province’s economic driver.

Critics of the premier’s ambitious schemes were dismissed as cranks and nutters infected with a not-in-my-backyard syndrome.

To ensure that these self-seekers and know-nothings didn’t interfere with the government’s bold plans, Queen’s Park stripped municipal councils of their power to regulate wind turbines.

On paper, the plan seemed a sure winner.

But that was before Dr. Bob McMurtry.

McMurtry is neither a crank nor a nutter. An orthopedic surgeon and former dean of medicine at London’s University of Western Ontario, he is part of the country’s medical and political establishment.

He’s acted as a health advisor to the former federal Liberal government. In the early 2000s, he was a key advisor to Roy Romanow’s royal commission into Medicare.

McMurtry’s brother, Roy — a Red Tory and former attorney general — was Ontario’s chief justice for 11 years.

Bob McMurtry began as a strong advocate of wind power, keen to have a turbine built on the 16-hectare Eastern Ontario farm he bought four years ago for retirement.

As he explained in a telephone interview this week, he hoped to generate his own power and sell the rest to Ontario’s electricity network.

But being a scientific sort of chap, McMurtry began by researching the issue.

What he discovered alarmed him.”

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/922197–walkom-how-mcguinty-s-windmill-dreams-became-a-nightmare

@Robb876

Good on ya mate. It was well worth the effort wasn’t it?

I just wish more of my mates would take the effort to digest a bit of the content posted on WUWT. But it seems that most of them are still blinded by the light of the CAGW religion. I have tried to point them in the right direction but “Boobie” sites are just so much less mentally taxing. :-)

Willis said :

• Stop calling people “deniers”, my goodness, after multiple requests that’s just common courtesy and decency, where are your manners? It makes you look surly and uncivilized, whether you are or not.

_____________________________________________________________

Name me one great scientific advance or discovery that was achieved by a scientist blindly following the conventional wisdom of his day. All the great men and women who achieved these breakthroughs did so by proving that conventional wisdom to be incorrect. They were, by definition, “deniers”.

Instead of whining when warmists use this description, I suggest that it should be thrown back in their faces by reminding them of this “inconvenient truth”.

Matt Schilling says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:48 am

I couldn’t agree more.

I came late to this game (2005) because the “weather” was not following the “science” in my anecdotal, non-climate-scientist, frightened-to-face-up-to-facts, out-of-my-field, tobacco-smoking, SUV-addicted, oil baron, flat-Earther opinion. Oh, the insults.

I though, then, that studying the nuances of this black art while it self destructed would help when it came to showing that many other pre-conceived, bottle-fed, media induced “scientific beliefs” were also.. ahem… questionable. Until climategate I was pretty confident, most days, that eventually this whole snake-ball would unravel and the truth would out and the madness would stop some time.

Post climategate? I believe that the inertia of this legend (in the strict MI5/MI6 sense of the word) will be very hard, if not impossible, to turn. I believe that even if someone/anyone should find the golden bullet, even tomorrow, that kills this sick and twisted zombie hypothesis stone cold dead forever that we will all be paying for the lie for the rest of our lives, the truth will never be made available to the masses and the perpe-traitors will never be brought to justice and they will, in fact, be rewarded handsomely.

Now we see what confidence in the powers that be being on your side can make men do. Now we see that funding corrupts and absolute funding produces junk science that is leapt upon by those holding the purse-strings. Now we see that no matter how daft/stupid/counter-intuitive some “peer-reviewed science” actually is there is no platform for dissent. Sad to say even Anthony’s most even handed and egalitarian conference/debating room, probably the greatest hope we have, will not be enough to remove the pork from the eyes of the politicians and/or expose the manipulative, psychopathic scum that feed on the very fear that drives the population we are attempting to enlighten.

Never mind all the other “settled” scientific claims, from “fluoridated water saves teeth” to “The Big Bang” via the war on (fill in the blank) from government and big pharma/war/food/etc.

The ills of this world can be solved. It is not going to happen with the current set up running the show.

“They just takes care of number one and number one ain’t you. You ain’t even number two.” – Frank Zappa.

Trenberth fears that the flakey state of AGW science will never allow them to prove their “theory” (i put that in quotation marks because i have never seen a closed description of what the AGW theory exactly is, only post-normal ramblings, and will never see one). That’s the reason he wants to change the rules of the game.

He *is* desperate.

It would be great if this could be made into a PDF, or if the raw text (with HTML links and such) can be made available so others can post it verbatim (with links intact) on their own sites.

REPLY: Done, here it is: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/willis_trenberth_wuwt_essay.pdf

Anthony

Yet another outstanding article, and a joy to read: thank you, Willis!

Anthony – you actually sleep???
Who knew!
:-))

SionedL says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:23 am

Since the science is settled and the proof is unequivocal and the other side must now prove they are right, then all funding should cease going into something we no longer need to study and flow the natural cycle side and figure out what the natural cycle is. Of course we cannot spend trillions to stop the natural cycle only adapt to it.

Better yet, all that funding should now go into trying to disprove it. If the theory is strong, they have nothing to fear.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation/#comment-574638

Folks, some of you seem to be assuming that Buzz is taking the sustainable energy law class; the truth is he is an Assistant Professor of Law and is teaching it.

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class,”

That is actually rather worrying.

It implies that someone somewhere has set up or is setting up a worldwide regime for ‘controlling’ or attempting to control climate.

Furthermore that a system of laws is being set up to that end. With suitable enforcement methods no doubt.

Did anyone ever vote for that ?

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:48 am
“Ok… I finally made it through the post … It was tough getting away from
[...]
seems be be back to warming…. I just cant keep up…[...] pics don’t treat me like this….”

No more quality trolling. Last troll standing.

“All five main temp reporting bodies (UAH, RSS, HadCru, NASA and NOAA) show broad agreement that the decade of the 2000′s was .16c to 1.8c warmer that the 1990s. How do you get zero tenths out of that?”

Easy. No further increase since 2000.

The pre 2000 figures having been skewed down slightly by lower figures in the early part of the period.

Do you understand the meaning of ‘plateau’?

*****
Peter Plail says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:03 am

Thank you Willis for such a clear exposure of the failure of Trenberth to abide by neither logic nor scientific principles.

He referred to sceptics as charlatans
*****

Psychologists would call it an example of “projection”. That’s the habit of accusing others of something the accuser practices themselves.

When a politician (or post-modern “scientist”) accuses someone of “X”, you can be sure he or she is an expert executing or participating in “X”. Hence all the accusations of being under the pay of “Big Oil”, while themselves being funded by “Big” taxpayer funds.

This should be the unequivocal death nell of Trenberth’s career as a climate alarmist. It would be a travesty if it is not.

the day will come when one of these so called climate scientist will end up facing a long spell in jail the quicker it happens the better we will all be

GARY KRAUSE says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:05 am
“Excellent commentary, Willis, on ridiculous “Mr. T.” AGW propaganda. Sad the funds supporting the warmista machinery are not going to real education.”

Sadder still is the fact that the funds going to education in this country support ideologues who preach AGW and similar theories. What my 16 year old brings home from an elite high school is no better than a party line written by a Kommissar. Thanks, teachers’ unions. The poor kid would not know that the word ‘criticism’ exists if he had to depend on the educational establishment only.

@- smokey -
“You misstate the null hypothesis, which does not refer specifically to trends. … Natural variability is the null hypothesis.”

I take you point that the null hypothesis does not refer to trends. But the problem with ‘Natural variability’ is that if it remains a purely descriptive term it is impossible to refute.

A common method in science is to try and refute the null hypothesis, if ‘Natural variability’ has no defined parameters, points beyond which measured change CANNOT be ascribed to physical processes uninfluenced by the anthropogenic CO2 rise, then it is impossible to refute and becomes an impediment to research in this area.

The link you give for extremes during the Holocene unfortunately only shows temperature derived from the vostok ice-core. This is a proxy measure from O18 ratios of the temperature during ice formation at the pole, rather less indicative of global temperature. The north-south reversal effects where the northern hemisphere is cold while the south is hot and visa versa are measurable in comparisons of both poles. The temperature record from the core samples also stops around a century ago. How does the present temperature on the same scale compare with the record, I suspect it is comparable with the 8000yrBPE levels.

The link you give for similar past trends uses some unrealistically short periods. but is also entirely within the period when AGW is an active hypothesis for observed changes.
But the graph also poses problems for those wanting to ascribe the variability on the changes in solar output. Temperatures appear to have fallen, or at least stabilized for a time in the 1940-1960s when solar output was increasing. But then has been rising recently when solar output has reached historic lows….

“As I have found to my cost, exposing my scientific claims to the cruel basilisk gaze of the internet is like playing chess with Deep Blue … individual processors have different abilities, but overall any faults in my ideas will certainly be exposed.”

This, has to go into the 21st Century Dictionary of Quotations

I first started to read up on the subject of global warming at Realclimate. After a few months I got a feeling of “is this really all there is to their argument”. I began to read other blogs and when a guy called Tim Lambert (if I remember that correctly) confused a model for reality, and all his audience agreed and heaped praise upon him, I started to check the basics. They were not in place.

It is embarrassing to see dr Trenberth extend the logic and reasoning of juvenile blogs to science. One cannot help to understand why the french make such big difference between intelligence and wisdom. The AGW crowd displays an emphatic lack of wisdom.

Robb876, well done.

Just remember, you have to make up your own mind. Bu tin general, the side trying to convince you with trickery, or trying to scare the living daylights out of you, is the side that is mistaken.

“well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.”

Come on dude, show your work? Lets see where this number comes from? Willis, you make a few good arguments and then you lose me by making a blatantly wrong remark. You are being hypocritical by throwing in that dig which isn’t supported by the data. It may win you points with your base but the people in the middle recognize the irresponsibleness of making such a statement that has not evidence supporting it.

Another truly superb piece, in a long tradition of them.

I certainly shall repost this every chance I get.

However, it might be more accurate to call Trenberth ‘Mr. T’ – as in the 1980s B-grade TV ‘star’ – as that would seem to fit better.

David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:17 am

To clarify my comment about Cold Fusion: that theory has been around for a very long time. It has not been demonstrated reproducibly. Some version of it may yet be demonstrated in the future: I don’t argue that.

What I will state is that the results of Pons and Fleischmann have not been replicated, true or false? Also it’s dead as research (at least in the US)? True or false? Again: true. Sure there are people still researching it, but people are also research Bigfoot, UFOs and Orgone energy. So does that mean it’s all true? Come on guys…

Sorry, David L, you’re wrong on the first count.

And sorry, David L, you’re wrong on the second count, too, unless you’re saying the US Navy’s research (which is reproducible) was performed someplace other than in the US.

You must think the only science/engineering/manufacturing is happening in the US. Unfortunately, that’s becoming a less tenable position all the time. Take, for example, the fact that since 2001, the US has lost 42,000 factories, which had roughly 500 employees each. The jobs didn’t disappear–they headed overseas, where much of what we now use on a daily basis is manufactured.

Science is the same way, especially when people in critical decision-making positions here in the US are lobbied by special interests that don’t have your best interests at heart but have only their own.

Your clarification fell flat. Any attempt to drag Bigfoot and other such nonsense was a mistake.

dp says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:32 am

“This should be the unequivocal death nell of Trenberth’s career as a climate alarmist. It would be a travesty if it is not.”

Yes, where is the missing ‘heat’ that should be applied to this pseudoscientist?

Al Gored says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:41 am

However, it might be more accurate to call Trenberth ‘Mr. T’ – as in the 1980s B-grade TV ‘star’ – as that would seem to fit better.

Please don’t elevate Trenberth to Mr. T’s level in the A Team; it’s an unwarranted promotion.

This is a very interesting post Willis, and I applaud your efforts. There are many things here I could quibble with, but out of the gate it would be this statement of yours:

“This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?”

_____
Truly, that is not what the AGW “hypothesis” states, for GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models, and hardly stipulate that “nothing else matters”. Your simple definition of the AGW hypothesis makes it sound as though climate scientists are blind to the other forcings and simply discount solar changes, ocean cycles, and the rest. This is simply not true and you know it.

Much to the dismay of many AGW skeptics, the scientists who create the various GCM’s actually are dedicated scientists, and really do want to get the science right and understand what is actually happening with the climate. Not one of them would purposely ignore any known and proven climate forcing and simply focus on the primary and secondary effects of the build-up in anthropogenic GHG’s. Hence, as new information about climate dynamics are brought to light, they are, one by one, included in the GCM’s and, in that way, the science advances and the models get better and better. For example, the much talked about urban heat island effect was recently incorporated into a most current global climate model:

http://www2.ucar.edu/staffnotes/research/2563/capturing-heat-islands-climate-models

So, even in this simple example, climate scientists are hardly ignoring other forcings and only focusing on anthropogenic GHG’s. The bottom line is, as much as certain AGW skeptics may think otherwise, the vast majority (99.9% or greater) of climate scientists really do want to understand and advance the science, and are constantly looking for any new way (as in the example above) to make the models better. The insinuation that they are merely concerned with the forcings of GHG’s to the exclusion of all others would be laughable if it wasn’t so sadly mistaken.

Willis and Lucy S

I think you are being too generous to Dr T and here’s why.

In France we have Murder, Attempted murder, Murder Involontaire and the fameuse Crime de Passion.
Now We can and forgive the Crime de la passion but the rest NON.
So what is DrT’s crime. Well, he has realised by his own admission that there are problems in his theory of AGW (the email of missing heat). He has read (I assume because he constantly critisizes them) many articles or papers, even peer reviewed ones, which indicate points of failures in his theory and yet he is about to stand up in public and denegrate all who disagree with him and to reinforce the rightness of his theory.
In my book that is pre-meditated. It is not a crime de la passion, crime involontaire it is as you americans would say, 1st degree murder. I for one am not prepared to believe that he is not a bad man. Sorry!!

robert says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:40 am

PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.!!! Troll

Prof Jones quote. NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995

Thanks, Willis,

A most excellent article!
I’d go easy on the “I don’t think you’re a bad guy” part. Unless proof to the contrary.

Most/many, lay/professional people, think the debate is about whether the world is warming or not. They assume that we live in the ideal climate. I have seen virtually no debate or science paper addressing the question “What is the ideal climate for the bio-mass and more specifically for Man (and his food supply)?”

If we cannot answer this basic question… then how do we know if the climate changing (as it always has) is away from ideal (hence requiring prophylactic action) or not??

I would truly like to see a lot more research into this question, than all the rest.

Our currently partly frozen earth and it’s reoccurring ice ages do not intuitively (nor logically) seem ideal, to me, personally. GK

No matter how great the growing numbers of scientists who are skeptical of AGW theory, it is the politicians who need to be convinced. Unfortunately at the present time there seem to be precious few decision makers who are prepared to question let alone refute the idea that CO2 controls climate.

If only Willis could lead an assault, with his excellent logic, on those who are spending billions of tax payers money on fruitless projects to control climate.

“Rather than supposing Dr. Trenberth’s illogical statements are possibly evil in intent, perhaps Willis and we should perceive them as the sincere best effort”

Questioning someone’s motives never works and is typically wrong. All human beings generally believe they are acting for the best of motives. Hitler acted to save Germany. Al Capone provided jobs during the Depression.

I have no doubt that “The Team” fully believe that they are acting in our best interests to save us from ourselves. As such, they fully believe the ends justify the means, no matter what means are employed. They fully believe that the problem lies not with the science, but rather with the ignorance of the common person.

Well worth a read is Willis’ paper here, which exposes RC censorship of scientific debate:
https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

My experience on RC is that it exists for the purpose of indoctrination. If you wish to learn the party line, you will be welcomed. If you try and engage in debate on the merits of the science, you will be heavily censored.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am

Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

If you already or immediately understood that the opening words of Willis’ article quoting Trenberth demonstrates Trenberth’s [apparent] complete lack of scientific and logical thinking, which Willis later explained so lucidly, you didn’t really have to read very far! Right?

Redundant, lumbering and meandering. Less would have been more.

“Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

My reply:
Which post did you mean??
The post of Dr T’s draft presentation? Where he knowingly and deliberately makes multiple uses of the offensive (and ultimately, meaningless) term “denier”? I struggled but, no, I couldn’t make it through to the end. I did try but I skipped the last quarter, or so.

The post by Willis? YES. Right through in 2 sittings – I was called for dinner part way through and, sorry Willis, nothing beats “she who must be obeyed”* – not if I want a good meal! Rivetting stuff. All I need now is to recap and read the statistics Appendix Willis referred to.

* For “She who must be obeyed” see Rumpole of the Bailey (UK TV comedy and books).

In politics it is called spin, scientists are not suppose to use spin just present the evidence. We will agree that spin has been used because failed to present the evidence.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am
This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class,
=========================================================
Good Lord
Is there no one left, in any field, that isn’t trying to squeeze more money out of this crap……………..

I guess, a long as the government is giving away billions of our money for it………..

This is what education has come down to, a sustainable energy law class

There is pretty massive intense cold anomaly over Asia just one map here
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp6.html
The rest of the world is “normal”. Usually, from previous experience in my view, this drop in ASIAN land temps tends to bring down the global average to below 0C, which is the case now. Check AMSU satellite. My prediction is for a cooling 2011, so once again the trend will be downas in 2008, but this time I do not expect a recovery to +0.2-0.6C which occurred 2010, for quite a few years if it occurs at all, as the AGW crowd would like. Basically, datawise, global warming, even non-AGW, has finished, we are going into a cool phase LOL (BTW J Bastardi wins hands down see bets at Lucia’s)

Willis Eschenbach

In climate science, the AGW hypothesis states that human GHG emissions significantly affect the climate. As such, the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what Doctor T wants to reverse. . . .
since it has been thusly warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.

The IPCC’s mission was determining

“dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC”

The null hypothesis is therefore more generic:

Nature and mankind are robust and will tolerate a continuation of previous climate variations will continue.

These climate variations include ocean and atmospheric oscillations in temperature, pressure, clouds, atmospheric H2O and CO2, sea level, and weather extremes.
These natural variations have been quantified since the Little Ice Age in:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Natural Science, Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010), doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149
Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/

The IPCC’s AR4 summary states:

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2}
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling.

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. {3.4}

In Box TS.1: Treatment of Uncertainties in the Working Group I Assessment The IPCC defines:
“Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance”,
“very likely > 90% probability”, and
“Likely > 66% probability”

Far from just inverting the burden of proof, with IPCC’s statements, Trenberth has to show far beyond just “statistical evidence” of “anthropogenic global warming” AGW. He has to statistically show a 90% probability that “Most of” (> 50%) the warming during the 2nd half of the 20th century is due to anthropogenic causes. He also has to show that these will cause “dangerous anthropogenic interference”.
I.e., “Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. (CAGW).

Trenberth’s challenge is not just to show statistical evidence that recent climate changes are anomalous from the null hypothesis, but
1) that warming rather than cooling is due to anthropogenic causes
2) that these are “very likely (>90%) due to the increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, and
3) that these will likely (>66%) cause catastrophic effects.

Also note above:
Bruce Cobb

The null hypothesis was, and still is that natural climate variation driven by various factors, primarily changes in the sun and oceans have always been the major drivers of climate.

Hector M.

null hypotheses refer to the STATISTICAL significance of claims, in the framework of random variations (e.g. sample means relative to the true mean).
The null hypothesis would be that your observation is within normal variability.

Smokey

As Dr Roy Spencer explains it, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Natural variability is the null hypothesis.

izen,

The null hypothesis does not explain the mechanism of warming, cooling, or trends. No one has all the answers to those questions. What the null shows are the parameters of past variability. Any alternate hypothesis must show at least some changes to those parameters. Othewrwise, Occam’s Razor must be invoked: natural variability is the simplest explanation for the current climate.

And regarding your question about the example of one ice core location, here is another from the Northern Hemisphere. Note that it has been considerably warmer during the Holocene. In fact, warm periods are much rarer than cold periods. And the fact that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises makes it hard to pin the blame on that tiny trace gas.

JPeden says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:12 am:

“izen, you just did the same thing Trenberth did: ~’there is warming, therefore it has to be AGW.’ ”

JPeden points out the fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium: “Since I can’t think of any other cause for global warming, then it must be due to CO2.” The null hypothesis says that natural variability has been going on for many thousands of years, and today’s climate is no different. There is no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 causes that climate variability.

Jim D says:

“How can this hypothesis explain that the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian and Arctic Oceans all now have a warm anomaly? Where is the cold water hiding? How do AMO and PDO explain that? The current null hypothesis is inadequate to even explain current observations. Something else is clearly needed to replace the null hypothesis, unless you want to persist with a null hypothesis that has already been disproved by observations.”

Again, a misunderstanding of the climate null hypothesis, which does not attempt to explain the mechanism, but only points out that there is no discernable difference between past climate parameters and the current climate. If you cannot measure any difference between a planet with high CO2 versus a planet with low CO2, then the claim that CO2 is causing today’s ordinary climate is a logical fallacy based on an assumption.

The fact that there are no observations showing that past climate parameters have been exceeded supports the null hypothesis. What we see now has happened many times in the past. In fact, we are currently in the “sweet spot” — not too warm, not too cold, but just right.

Now Kevin Trenberth wants to turn the scientific method on its head; to put the cart before the horse, and make his CO2=CAGW hypothesis the null hypothesis. He wants to ignore real world observations showing that nothing unusual is occurring. But that approach is no more scientific than astrology or Scientology. It is non-science.

Well, this was your best post Willis.
Each paragraph drew you to the next.

An applicable aside. Here in California the fish stocking program was shut down for a while so Fish and Game could prove that a frog did not exist.
You’ve got to love it!

*****
Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am
This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class,
*****

Well, isn’t that special! Wonderful! That’s exactly what’s needed, a whole new generation of fresh, young, rosy-cheeked rent-seekers and manipulators, ready to save the world. We don’t need those brutish engineers….

‘Given that worship is “unequivocal”, to quote the cardinals/ imans/ priests, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there are no gods.’

I do not have a problem with belief, I do have a problem when a righteous few are able to destroy lives by imposing wasteful regulations thus lining their pockets and retarding our collective understanding.

Great article.

Edit point for you to consider. First sentence below, choose “is” or “has” not both.

Dr. T, you had a good run, you were feted and honored, but the day of reckoning up the cost is has come and gone. Like some book said, you and the other un-indicted co-conspirators have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting. At this point, you have two choices — accept it and move on, or bitch about it. I strongly advise the former, but so far all I see is the latter.

[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs, mod.]

@- JPeden says:
“No, the null hypothesis that Willis is referring to is not that there would be no trend in global temperatures. …
izen, you just did the same thing Trenberth did: ~”there is warming, therefore it has to be AGW.”

Not intentionally, I am sorry if I failed to explain the point I was making so that you got the impression that I would claim that a trend would confirm CO2 as a cause.

The null hypothesis that there is NO trend was a historical position. I believe some still hold it, claiming measurements taken near cities etc have distorted the entire global record…
The detection of a trend means that observations failed to refute the AGW hypothesis, not that it was confirmed. They do however support it… to what degree depends on the parameters of the ‘Natural variation’ that is posited to be the cause of the observed trend.

That is the problem with the null hypothesis as presently defined – or not defined – which I was trying to point out.
If it is purely descriptive then it fails in comparison with an explanatory hypothesis that invokes physical process to account for the causation of the observed parameters.

‘Natural variation’ as a null hypothesis is nothing more than mystical handwaving by comparison with AGW unless it adopts the same engagement with explanations at the level of the underlying physics and thermodynamics.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

What a dishonest posting.

What an unpleasant start, Buzz [snip]. Come back when you have learned to use your indoor voice and play nicely with the other children, there’s a good boy … I may be an idiot, and I certainly may be mistaken, but by god I’m an honest man. For you to start your posting by insulting the honesty of someone you never met is a really, really dumb thing to do, Buzzbrain. You’ve poisoned your own well.

….

The point that we haven’t warmed the past decade and that the past 30 years are consistent with natural variability …. kind of shameless. You have to do some serious manipulations with starting years or peak years to come to those conclusions.

Actually, it’s no warming for the past 15 years, and even Phil Jones has said that the past 30 years are statistically indistinguishable from the last rise in temperature. You sure you stayed awake during the intermission? Because what you are saying is not just unbelievably stupid, it is also 100% wrong. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST, you are embarrassing yourself.

And “shameless”??? Are you unable to open your mouth without insulting someone, is that a requirement for your writing?

Nine of the 10 warmest on record within the past decade (1998 being the other). The rolling 5-year or 13-month averages on a steady upward trend. In fact, including the last two years, we are well within the 0.2-0.3 degrees C per decade. And the last 30 years show a marked departure from the previous 300 in terms of the rate of temp increase and the temp levels reached.

Well, Buzz Lightweight, as they say … duh.

In a time of general warming, it sounds like you expect the warmest decade to be at the start of the record. Here in the real world, we know that when the earth has been warming for three centuries, the warmest decade (whether in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s) will likely be the most recent one. We expect that, y’know, so we’re not surprised when it happens as you seem to be.

Since you seem to be surprised by this predictable outcome, perhaps you could explain to the class why this is likely to be true in a time of centuries of general warming, and why it MEANS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER HUMANS AFFECT THE CLIMATE.

This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.

Well, that makes your nastiness understandable, you are training to be a lawyer, which ups the odds that “Buzz” is really short for Buzzard.

OK, Buzzard, If you think the 1980s predictions were accurate, perhaps you could also share with the class what the warnings of AGW in the 1980s were … for example, James Hansen predicted sea rise would cover parts of New York by 1998, and the prognostication dream team of Ehrlich and his pals predicted widespread deaths from climate induced famine before the year 2000 … since there weren’t many prognostications of AGW in the 1980s, perhaps you could start with letting us know just how fantastically accurate those predictions were.

Then you could move on to Hansen’s Pinatubo forecast of 1991 (failed), and Hansen’s original computer forecast of 1988, the first forecast … you know, the one that looked real accurate for the first ten years when things were warming, but has failed miserably ever since things stopped warming and his model didn’t stop warming … yeah, that one.

Buzz, you’ve wandered into a buzz-saw here. You obviously haven’t been following the story at all. If you try again, you’ll only get hurt. You are fighting outside your weight class, against men who participated in the original battles around the time of your birth.

My advice in that case? Shut up and learn something.

However, of course, YMMV …

robert says: January 15, 2011 at 11:40 am

“well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.”

Read beng: January 15, 2011 at 11:28 am, and think about it. Willis is one of the best producers of graphs that show good information around here. You clearly haven’t researched this man’s work. What you can do is Google Images for a global temperature graph of the last 30 years where you will see that you are correct and so is Will. But Will’s observation is more useful in what it suggests or doesn’t suggest for future trends. Global Warming heat appears to be spent. Think October in the Northern Hemisphere: you can have days as warm as July but sure as hell that’s not the coming pattern.

Fantastic post W., as usual!!

And, equally thoughtful responses (well, most)

What is certainly clear is that the content of Trenberth’s character is seriously lacking. (w/ thanks to MLK Jr.)

Smokey, if the null hypothesis doesn’t explain why the whole ocean is warmer than average (using the last decade’s average, as I meant to mention in my previous post), it has been proved false. A hypothesis that is already proved false is no good as a null hypothesis. Also a hypothesis that has no explanation of a mechanism is not a useful hypothesis in the scientific sense. A valid hypothesis would at least list the mechanisms it allows for and have some measure of how much effect each mechanism would have, and how it could be verified or falsified. It can’t just say temperatures go up and down and we don’t know the reasons why, but we do know they are natural, because such a statement can’t be falsified by specific measurements like global ocean temperatures. If you look up any definition of a hypothesis, it has to be testable. I say again, the null hypothesis is testable, and has already failed to explain current observations. Either you throw out the hypothesis or the observations.

I’ve another thought and any and all may quote me.

“Any scientist that is not also a skeptic is also not a scientist”

Trenberth is not a skeptic. He has evidenced as much.

Lockean says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:12 am

Rather than supposing Dr. Trenberth’s illogical statements are possibly evil in intent, perhaps Willis and we should perceive them as the sincere best effort from an inferior talent that is quite humanly fearful of facing up to his intellectual lacking. I know I do.

Thanks, Lockean. I didn’t say Dr. T was evil, nor do I think he was, and I tried to stay away from his intent. I think he was seduced by “noble cause corruption”, and I sympathized with him as a fellow sufferer.

However, were I in his shoes, I’d much prefer that people assumed I was Dr. Evil than have them think I was Dr. Stupid Who Tries Really Hard. So I’m not sure that what you said is being any kinder or gentler to the man …

Sunspot number: 0
Updated 14 Jan 2011

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 1 day
2011 total: 1 day (7%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 820 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 14 Jan 2011

“Admit the true uncertainties. The mis-treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC reports, and the underestimation of true uncertainty in climate science in general, is a scandal.”

“Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled. Climate science is a new science, we don’t even have agreement on whether clouds warm or cool the planet, we don’t know if there are thermostatic interactions that tend to maintain some temperature in preference to others. ”

I agree. I think that the underestimation and misrepresentation of the degree of uncertainty about the trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s climate system is one of the largest scientific overreaches/failures in human history. As I pointed out in the El Nino thread there are dizzying array of variables involved in Earth’s astoundingly complex climate system;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/nasa-la-nina-has-remained-strong/#comment-574922

and our understanding of Earth’s climate system, and its continually evolving behavior, is currently rudimentary at best.

Based on our limited understanding of Earth’s climate system, any predictions about Earth’s climate system and the long term trajectory of its average temperature are, at best, educated guesses. We are still learning how to accurately measure Earth’s temperature, much less predict it 50 – 100 years into the future. Those who claim to be able to accurately predict the long term trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s climate and average temperature, are either deluding themselves, or lying.

Owie!

According to the 180 year CO2 record published by Beck 2007, CO2 measured 425 ppm in 1825 when temperatures were lower than today. And, we all know Berner and Scotese documented CO2 and temperature for 6E8 years and these histories show no correlation between CO2 and Temp.

So how does Dr. Trenberth or any other member of the Church of AGW reconcile the disparity of higher CO2 levels coming with lower temperatures? Or for that matter, increasing about 800 years after the temperature increases as indicated by GISP2 ice core data? Are these facts dialed into all the computer climate models? I think not.

R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
This is a very interesting post Willis, and I applaud your efforts. There are many things here I could quibble with, but out of the gate it would be this statement of yours:

“This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?”

_____
Truly, that is not what the AGW “hypothesis” states, for GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models, and hardly stipulate that “nothing else matters”. Your simple definition of the AGW hypothesis makes it sound as though climate scientists are blind to the other forcings and simply discount solar changes, ocean cycles, and the rest. This is simply not true and you know it.

_____________________________________________________________

At our current level of understanding, sloar changes, ocean cycles and virtually every other forcing you care to mention remain inherently unpredictable. Who saw the protracted solar minimum coming 5 years ago, for example? Do you know how many major volcanic eruptions will occur in the next 5 years? Will there be a La Nina or El Nino in the Pacific in 2015. What will the NAO index be doing? When will the AMO next change into a cooling mode? Has the PDO flipped into a cooling mode and, if so, how long will it remain thus? – 5,10,20 100 years? How is the Arctic Oscillation going to play out in future years?

Neither you, I or, more importantly, the people programming GCM’s, can do any better than make an educated guess as to the answer to any of these questions and, no matter how well-educated, a guess is still a guess. Indeed, the only sensible assumption is that things will continue as they are today, until observational evidence tells us otherwise. Sensible, but almost certainly incorrect.

Just about the only thing that can be projected into the future with any degree of accuracy is anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Little wonder that the GHG tail winds up wagging the GCM dog………….

Henry Galt says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:25 am

… Are you now or have you ever been called to the bar?

:-)

The only bar I ever had much to do with was the sand bar at the mouth of the harbour, which is supposed to moan when a man passes it on his way to his death:

“Sunset, and evening star,
And one clear call for me.
And may there be no moaning of the bar
when I put out to sea.”

Oh, yeah, the sand bar at the harbor, and also the bar at the Royal Suva Yacht Club in Fiji. I have to confess that I have had a little to do with that bar … and the “Sea Inn” in Dillingham, on the Bering Sea. After fishing we’d go to the Sea Inn and stay until we couldn’t sea out, so I guess I have to count that bar as well. Actually, now that I think about it …

w.

I wrote agin to Dr trenbath asking him Steve Moshers question. ere is his reply in full.

From: “Kevin Trenberth”
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:26 PM
To: “Helen Armstrong”
Subject: Re: Your address to AMS

> Hi Helen
> In AR4 that section was overseen by Phil Jones and the lead author was
> David Parker. I am on travel and can’t check it in any detail. I recall
> that both Parker and also Tom Peterson, and maybe Jones, have done
> relevant work. This may also be detailed in the responses to reviewers,
> which is publically available.
> Kevin Trenberth
>
>> Dear Dr Trenberth
>> It was kind of you to reply to my letter yesterday, thank you.
>> While I am not confident that denigrating sceptics is a good strategy
> for
>> winning their hearts and minds i am somewhat comforted by your statement
> that one should only deal in facts. To that end, would you be so kind
> once
>> again as to answer the following:
>> In AR4 you and Dr. Jones wrote :
>> “However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also
> those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes
> (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence.
> Hence,
>> the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development
> ceases to be statistically significant.”
>> can you please cite the paper or show the math you did to determine that
> the relation found in Mckittrick 2004 ceased to be statistically
> significant?
>> I look forward to your response.
>> Regards
>> Helen Armstrong

Mike says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Redundant, lumbering and meandering. Less would have been more.

Mike, if you already or immediately understood that the opening words of Willis’ article quoting Trenberth demonstrates Trenberth’s [apparent] complete lack of scientific and logical thinking, which Willis later explained so lucidly, you didn’t really have to read very far! Right?

In addition, Mike, why do you think your contentless “grading the paper” tactic works, when it’s actually even worse than a FAIL? It’s old, tired, and irrelevant to the subject of Willis’ post – aha, except that it’s perhaps another example of someone trying to evade thinking about and doing real science as a substitute for real science, which pretty much sums up Trenberth’s and Climate Science’s Post Normal Science CAGW Propaganda Op..

Look, I’m a Civil Engineer with no climate knowledge, and I have to apologise, but …

Can I take you up on your ?nineteenth paragraph:
“First you have to show that some aspect of the climate is historically anomalous …”
Well if you look at the Vostock plot, and if you think the last peak of the interglacial was 10,000 to 8,000 years ago, you’ll see that atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise despite the temperature decreasing (starting at a time when the anthropogenic effect was surely tiny, for sheer lack of humans) whereas after all previous interglacial peaks CO2 has followed the temperature down – and I think that’s historically anomalous. And if we can’t explain it, it worries me …

stephen richards says: January 15, 2011 at 11:57 am

Willis and Lucy S – I think you are being too generous to Dr T

I take grumpy old man’s point about being generous to your enemy after defeat. And I see it’s easy to mistake my full intent, from those words. I want this man nailed for what he has done. Read that and my next posts following. See exactly where Trenberth and Jones perverted truth in the AR4 paragraph re McKitrick’s UHI study. Grasp that this single action avoids (1) facing the proper UHI reckoning, (2) the c**p styles hereto of UHI reckoning and (3) data collection and (4) processing, and also (5) keeps hidden the solar correlation. What Steve Mosher and Ross flagged up here is central to legally nailing the whole AGW as fraud. I emailed Marc Morano because I think exposing this is a better alternative than Cuccinelli but it needs to be a Watergate-level legal investigation. IMHO.

It’s in that context that I don’t want to forget that Trenberth could, just could, be driven by noble-cause corruption.

[(Robt takes off mod hat briefly.) But is he (Trenbert) actually "defeated" yet? Has he earned any generosity, or forgiveness, or has he even asked for forgiveness yet for errors and deliberate actions he has taken in the past? Thus, is it time (yet) for "being generous"? Robt]

Dacron Mather says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:34 am

Congratulations to Willis for reversing the sense of the science discovering a low molecular weight gas which reduces radiative forcing by watts/m2 at 100 ppm concentrations.

Now will could you please tell us what it is ?

We’ll all feel better when you do.

Glad to be of assistance. The low molecular weight gas you refer to is H2O (mw = 18). When it forms clouds, it reduces radiative forcing by not just watts, but hundreds of watts per square metre.

Thanks for asking,

w.

DJ Meredith, thanks for the suggestion.

cartoon of Mr T here

http://Www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

Hope you approve,
Josh

Great article Willis — I need to come back to it and read in detail but something occurred to me as I was skimming it.

The “null hypothesis” in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is not true.

Is it possible that this is much simpler to explain. The IPCC was created to study human contribution (AGW) to climate warming with the assumption that Science already had an understanding of the Climate System.

Using the null hypothesis, is it reasonable to propose, IPCC doesn’t understand climate nor its related science.

What evidence do we have that any of the IPCC AR versions are anything more than poorly understood Science Fiction?

I guess its a question of degree (pun intended) of understanding?

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:05 am

There seems to be a good deal of opportunistic re-framing of the issue from all sides.

First of all, the ‘Null Hypothesis’ is NOT, “which is that what we observe in nature is, you know, natural”.
That is a deep epistemological claim of science which opens a whole other can of worms…

The initial prediction from the AGW hypothesis was that the rise in CO2 from human sources would cause a global warming trend.
The Null hypothesis was that it would cause no trend in global temperatures.

Thanks, izen. Perhaps on your planet “no trend” is the null hypothesis. On the Earth, which has been warming for some three centuries, the null hypothesis has to be that we will see a slight [] warming. Anything else stacks the deck and leads you badly astray, as the rest of your post clearly shows.

If the null hypothesis is “no trend” as you say, then any trend will be interpreted under your null hypothesis as supporting the CO2 theory. Sorry, you can’t do that, you can’t say “what has been happening for centuries is now shown to be caused by CO2, because the temperature is in fact rising”. Doesn’t work that way.

w.

Mods – should my post infact have gone to the previous trenberth thread – the one with over 300 comments? I have written again asking if he could attend when he returns, but I am not confident of a repy of any substance. If, as Steve Mosher suggests the evidence is not there, then Dr Trenberth will not be able to produce it.

@- Smokey says:
“The null hypothesis does not explain the mechanism of warming, cooling, or trends. No one has all the answers to those questions. What the null shows are the parameters of past variability.”

That failure to explain is the aspect of the null hypothesis that I am criticizing. No one has ALL the answers to warming cooling and trends but since Tyndall and Milankovitch some people have been using the scientific method to develop credible explanations.

If you are content to exclude mechanism when comparing the AGW hypothesis with the null hypothesis, the issue becomes the uncertainty in the paleoclimate record. But that is a double-edged sword. Given the error ranges for such proxy reconstruction of past conditions it is often impossible to unambiguously define past warming, cooling and trends as equivalent to the present. That is why explanations based in physical processes rather than just data pattern-matching is invoked as an important means of discriminating the AGW and null hypothesis.

“Any alternate hypothesis must show at least some changes to those parameters. … And the fact that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises makes it hard to pin the blame on that tiny trace gas.”

There is one parameter which has changed beyond past Holocene values, the CO2 level. It may be a trace, but it is a trace responsible for ~15% of the warming we derive from LWR absorption in the atmosphere and has now risen to levels unseen in human evolution.
In past records its rise has followed temperature with an initial lag that indicates that temperature rise was the initial cause. But the subsequent correlation shows how the influence is known to be bi-directional.
The physics of LWR absorption within the atmosphere has been studied intensively for over a century. Recently as part of weapons research into heat-seeking sensors.
Co2 and temperature are part of a dynamic interaction.
The extra energy from the extra CO2 has been directly measured by ground-based LWR sensors.

Given the known thermodynamics of CO2 as a part of the atmosphere and the evidence of a very complex interdependent system it strains credibility that you could change one factor, and everything else would continue unaffected. As is often said about biological ecologies, you can never chang3e just ONE thing….

“David L said:
January 15, 2011 at 9:17 am

To clarify my comment about Cold Fusion: that theory has been around for a very long time. It has not been demonstrated reproducibly. Some version of it may yet be demonstrated in the future: I don’t argue that.

What I will state is that …..”

Apparently you are not up to date w/ LENR, (however, it is probably(=66%?? ;<)) NOT a nuclear reaction). visit; lenr.org for a quick update.

P&F's work has been duplicated, and some are able to replicate it consistently, since most of the requirements for the Palladium electrode are now known. Whether or not this or similar technology develops into something useful is still up in the air because the excess energy output is still small.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:33 am

…

A common method in science is to try and refute the null hypothesis, if ‘Natural variability’ has no defined parameters, points beyond which measured change CANNOT be ascribed to physical processes uninfluenced by the anthropogenic CO2 rise, then it is impossible to refute and becomes an impediment to research in this area.

Say what? You’re giving up far, far to easily. “Natural variability” has very clearly defined parameters.

For example, did you ever see the entire globe change its anomaly temperature by more than a degree in a month? Neither have I, and I don’t think I ever will.

Why? Because that kind of rise is outside the parameters of natural variability.

Or take the latest post – 1980 rise in temperatures. It was no steeper, and no faster, and no larger, and no longer than the 1920-1940 rise in temperatures. The conclusion can only be that it is very possible that the post 1980 rise in temperatures could easily be natural variations.

See how easy it is? Now you can do it yourself …

w.

Willis, great work as always. You have a gift for sure. When I finish one of your pieces, I feel as though I shouldn’t bother to try to write another sentence in my life, but nonetheless here I am again. I echo the calls for a book. And I thoroughly enjoyed your mop-up of Buzzard. You routinely offer many memorable quotes, but I love this one:

“You are fighting outside your weight class, against men who participated in the original battles around the time of your birth.”

Keep up the good fight. It is a battle larger than most people realize and there’s a ways to go before it is won.

On the battlefront front, please excuse my pseudonym. I’m not sure what your station in life is, but I have no choice but to go by one. As the only income for my family, I simply can’t afford the inevitable firing and blacklisting I would suffer were I to “go public” (what I do and where I live and work offers little tolerance of skeptic ideology). Not sure what Buzzard’s excuse is considering he is on the good side of the pod people.

Perhaps this makes me a coward in your eyes, though I hope it doesn’t. It’s a simple decision for me: I look into my 4-year-old son’s eyes and realize economic suicide is not an option. I know to choose my battles wisely, and the outcome of “coming out” here fists swinging is utterly predictable: immediate annihilation. That said, I don’t plan on sequestering myself from my sniper nest anytime soon. The view from here is simply too good to give up or expose.

R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am

“GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models”

Can you provide any support for this statement?

How do GCM’s account for the Thermohalin Circulation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

“While the bulk of it upwells in the Southern Ocean, the oldest waters (with a transit time of around 1600 years) upwell in the North Pacific (Primeau, 2005).”

How are the GCMs estimating the future state of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and El Nino (La Nina) Southern Osccilation (ENSO) given “a transit time of around 1600 years”?

PDO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm

AMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm

ENSO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ENSO.htm

The best way we have to measure the Thermohalin Circulation is Argo;
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

but “Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. ” so the data we have is negligible on a process that takes around 1600 years to run through one cycle.

Can you show us a Global Climate Model (GCM) that rigorously accounts for changes in the Thermohalin Circulation?

Excellent!!

“Here’s my shortlist of recommendations for you and other mainstream climate scientists:”

Who knows if Dr. Trenberth has not done some of these things in his private emails since climategate. Is there any way we can find out?

@Robb876

You said: ‘OK…it was tough getting away from boobs.com for that long but I finally trudged threw(sic) it… Anyway.. This really is a good site with loads of good skeptical info, based on fully tested and well thought out hypothesisiss (sic)… ‘

(I guess trolls don’t get an English education. That, or they don’t understand those squiggly red lines under their misspellings!)

But I’m glad you read it through, Rob. When you get your homework done I’m sure you’ll be able to post something based on your improved comprehension of the piece. Go for it! You know that you have the arguments already assembled that will make us (deniers!) want to spend the BILLIONS per year to change (hah!) the climate.

Seriously though, (and I mean this most sincerely, no kidding), can YOU tell US what the ideal climate ought to be and, furthermore, how you will maintain it at that level of constancy?

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.”

Ummmmmm, Buzz – I was there. In the 1980s they were still warning us we were headed for the Big Deepfreeze if we didn’t change our ways. Will you people PULEEEZE make up your minds! From the “law class” you describe, perhaps you were/are in an alternative universe?? …

If you believe in Cold Fusion, but don’t believe in radiative forcing, where do you stand on the so called ‘conservation of matter ‘ ?

robert says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:40 am

Come on dude, show your work? Lets see where this number comes from? Willis, you make a few good arguments and then you lose me by making a blatantly wrong remark. You are being hypocritical by throwing in that dig which isn’t supported by the data. It may win you points with your base but the people in the middle recognize the irresponsibleness of making such a statement that has not evidence supporting it.

You have two polite choices when you see an un-cited statement like that. You can ask for a citation, or you can find the numbers and check for yourself. I far prefer the latter option, as then I can be sure that the person hasn’t done something foolish with the numbers.

Or on the other hand, you could insult the writer and call him “hypocritical” and “wrong” and “irresponsible”.

You have chosen that path. As a result, your prize is to go find the numbers for yourself. You could start here, if you wish. Bear in mind, however, that Phil Jones himself said that there has been no statistically significant temperature rise for the last 15 years …

Sometimes, robert, I don’t cite things simply because they are so well known in the field that they do not need citation. This particular fact has been widely discussed, there was even an article in Science Magazine entitled “What Happened to Global Warming”. I forget that there are people like yourself who do not know the field well enough to realize that it doesn’t need a citation.

The right way to deal with that situation (of yours, not mine) is to say “Hey, Willis, I didn’t realize there was no warming in the last 15 years, do you have a citation for that?” When that happens, I give the citation and we go on.

The wrong way is to start by calling me names, saying I’m … what was it … oh, yeah, “hypocritical” and “wrong” and “irresponsible”.

When that happens, I tell you to go find the freakin’ citation yourself, and I remind you that it might be good tactics to be more cordial in the future, particularly when you are asking someone to make up for the fact that you haven’t done your homework …

w.

Jim D says:

“…if the null hypothesis doesn’t explain why the whole ocean is warmer than average (using the last decade’s average, as I meant to mention in my previous post), it has been proved false.”

Jim, you still do not understand the null hypothesis. It is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. The Arctic has been ice-free in the recent past, so a warmer ocean is normal and natural [and the ARGO data shows a cooling ocean].

According to the alternate CO2=CAGW hypothesis, a 40% rise in CO2 was expected to significantly raise the planet’s temperature and trigger runaway global warming. It has not. That is not to say that CO2 has no effect, but the effect is so insignificant that it cannot be discerned from a pre-industrial time when there was no change in the trace gas.

Real world observations show that there are no measurable temperature differences between the past climate with very low CO2, and the current climate. The charts I posted show that today’s climate is no different than the climate over the past ten millennia.

In fact, the current climate is exceptionally benign. As Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote:

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

The fraction of a degree variability in temperature over the past century is low compared with numerous times during the Holocene. There is no evidence that the 0.7° rise in temperature is anything but coincidental with the rise in CO2. If CO2 had a significant effect, global temperature would track its rise closely. But it doesn’t.

Thus, the climate null hypothesis remains valid; it has never been falsified. To do so would require empirical, testable evidence showing that the climate was behaving outside of its natural historical parameters. It is not, as has been repeatedly shown.

Again, I refer you to climatologist Roy Spencer: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

The current climate is well within Holocene norms, by every metric except the increase in CO2. Since it cannot be shown that CO2 has caused any unusual warming, the logical conclusion is that the effect of CO2 is too minuscule to measure. Instead, computer models are used as “evidence” to try and show that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

But models are not evidence; they are only tools. And they are not accurate tools when used to try and predict the climate. The MET Office uses immensely expensive computers to run its models, and they can’t do nearly as well as one person with a laptop.

Kevin Trenberth is attacking the null hypothesis for one reason: it refutes his CAGW hypothesis. But the null hypothesis is a function of the scientific method, and attempting to replace the null with his own CAGW hypothesis shows the bankruptcy of the catastrophic AGW industry, which either ignores or subverts the scientific method.

Once again: the null hypothesis states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. The alternate CAGW hypothesis states that there will be observed differences [actually, observed harm to the planet] as a direct result of the increase in CO2.

Since there is no indication of runaway global warming after 150 years of rising CO2, Trenberth’s job security is affected, as well as his status as a scientist. That is why he is attempting to turn the scientific method upside down. He can not admit the obvious: CO2 is a non-problem.

The Good Book has it right concerning prophets of any kind:
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”
Deuteronomy ch.18:21-22

Buzz Belleville says:

“This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.”

You’d do well with a history class first. The Global “Cooling” theory was still in play then.

Akashic Records

I haven’t heard that term in decades. I got a very wry smile from it.

Ain, Ain Sof. Ain Sof Or. (which is kind of a transliteration of the Hebrew)

An excellent piece Willis – if at times you do appear to be sitting on the fence whether you are or not.

Please tell us what you really think. ;)

Just The Facts says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm
R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am

“GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models”

Can you provide any support for this statement?

Can you show us a Global Climate Model (GCM) that rigorously accounts for changes in the Thermohalin Circulation?

_______
The best GCM’s are extremely complicated affairs that take into account tens of thousands of different variables and require massive supercomputers to run. They certainly take into account many aspects of thermohalin circulation on a global basis. One of the most comprehensive models (IMO) is the CESM 1.0. I would suggest you begin here:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/

And explore all the facets for yourself. You’ll see that not only is something as relatively simple as thermohaline circulation included, but more far more variables than you’d guess. The steady accumulation of CO2 is only one of thousands. And as I said before, the best thing is these models are always being refined as the science advances.

Poor Trenberth finally put his foot in it up to his knee. Will he be remembered for pointing out the travesty? Or for becoming a bigger and bigger part of it?

23 errors in Trenberth’s opinions

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23errors.html

Willis willis willis,

To sum it up:

Dr. Trenberth, when on a journey, if you do nothing but circle the wagons, you won’t make any forward progress.

Just want to add my own -hell yes.

Excellent, Willis. Disseminated, even before Anthony’s suggestion. Thanks to both.

A measurable proportion of the rest of my life has been spent in reading and then re-reading Willis’s posting and just about all of the comments to date.
BRAVO Sir!

R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
“GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models”

But they are still models. Models are good for analytical work and nothing else. In other words, models are worthless for synthetic work; that is, they cannot be used to make predictions. To make predictions you must have hypotheses. There is not so much as a set of hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict even the familiar La Nina phenomenon. If there are no hypotheses, there is no science. If you had hypotheses, you would have trotted them out long ago and you would have no interest in models, except as they make it easier to see the consequences of your hypotheses.

Smokey, on what basis do you think AGW predicts runaway global warming, let alone that it has already started? No one expects that. Three more degrees by 2100 is hardly runaway global warming, and the amount so far is no less than AGW suggests.
You say the null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis. How can statistics explain the global ocean being warmer than average everywhere? Is this just a random fluctuation? No, it is so unlikely to happen that it disproves even a statistical hypothesis.

AW: have you seen this probably major major story apologies if already done here
http://www.suite101.com/content/court-orders-university-to-surrender-global-warming-records-a328888
Seems Mann will be nailed

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Nice reply to robert, Willis. :) The demand for “citations”, as if they were the word of God, has always irritated me. The questioner, it seems to me, assumes that past work is somehow more relevant than innovative and current analysis. Clinging to the past so to speak, or appealing to some authority he/she happens to agree with.

I posted this comment on the earlier Trenberth thread.

Trenberth writes:

…it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate”

He says this has to now be abandoned because:

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, [to quote the 2007 IPCC report]

This is such a fundamental error it is embarrasing to even point out.

That the ‘globe is warming’ cannot become ‘proof’ that humans are doing it!

:)

Thank you for sharing this brilliant piece of work with us Willis. As I went through the various points, one by one I could only nod, smile and utter; “yes of course!”
However the paragraph that started; “Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled.” was the one that interested me the most. That could, of course be because I see Dr. T’s “Global Energy Budget Plan” as “The No. 1 Icon for the AGW priesthood” (Chief of all their false Gods)
However be that as it may, but why is the producer of, the by now famous “Energy Budget Plan” (numerous clones have been born), which shows that ‘energy in’ equals ‘energy out’ (almost down to the last W/m²) asking: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or —?”
-And then goes on to state; “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

Is he not here admitting that “The Global Energy Flow Plan” is a “piece of fraud”, whether he realizes it or not?
By the way (positive = negative) your statement “Climate science is a new science” may not be very well researched but “we don’t even have agreement on whether clouds warm or cool the planet” may be spot on.
OHD.

R. Gates says:

“Truly, that is not what the AGW “hypothesis” states, for GCM’s include every known forcing”

So how accurate are they at predicting something simple and observable, like Hadley Cell Expansion?

http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~jchiang/Class/Spr07/Geog257/Week10/Lu_Hadley06.pdf
Fu et al. [2006] estimated the amount of latitudinal widening of the HC over the period 1979-2005 as ~2°latitude. Over the same period the increase in global temperature was about 0.5°C, so that the widening of the HC amounts to ~4° latitude per degree warming. This is much greater than what we find in the simulations of the AR4 A2 scenario (~0.6° latitude /K).

The models are tuned so they are sort of capable of hind casting temperature trend, but in the process they end up getting important components of climate, such as Hadley Cell width wrong.

R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am

This is a very interesting post Willis, and I applaud your efforts. There are many things here I could quibble with, but out of the gate it would be this statement of yours:

“This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?”

_____
Truly, that is not what the AGW “hypothesis” states, for GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models, and hardly stipulate that “nothing else matters”. Your simple definition of the AGW hypothesis makes it sound as though climate scientists are blind to the other forcings and simply discount solar changes, ocean cycles, and the rest. This is simply not true and you know it.

R. Gates, you always raise interesting issues. But egads, sir, take a deep breath, your attempts to flog that straw man must be tiring. Read what I said again. I did not say they did not consider a host of forcings. I am saying that they believe all of the other forcings average out, and thus that the future state of the climate can be considered by solely considering the GHGs. See Kiehl or Andreae Box 1 as two of many examples.

Much to the dismay of many AGW skeptics, the scientists who create the various GCM’s actually are dedicated scientists, and really do want to get the science right and understand what is actually happening with the climate. Not one of them would purposely ignore any known and proven climate forcing and simply focus on the primary and secondary effects of the build-up in anthropogenic GHG’s. Hence, as new information about climate dynamics are brought to light, they are, one by one, included in the GCM’s and, in that way, the science advances and the models get better and better. For example, the much talked about urban heat island effect was recently incorporated into a most current global climate model: …

I’m sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. The models are getting more and more detailed. Whether that makes them “better and better” is not known. However, the small advances in things like the range of climate sensitivities despite 25 years of amazing advances in the details and the speed of the models argues that the performance improvements are small at best.

And my recent demonstration that the GISSE model results can be duplicated within a few percent by a one-line linear equation indicates to me that adding more details to the models is not resulting in true complexity or deeper understanding.

Finally, yes, most climate modelers are just like me, fools whose intentions are good. However, like me, they are susceptible to “noble cause corruption”, and nowhere is this more lethal than in climate modeling. The problem is that we are not really modeling the climate. We are twisting the dials on the various parameters until the output matches the historical record. The models are NOT based on physical principles. Or as Gavin Schmidt et al. of the NASA GISS modeling team put it in 2006:

3. Model physics

The model physics are predominantly based on the physics of the GISS Model II (SI2000 version) described in previous publications (Hansen et al. 2002, and references therein). However, many details have changed, and some physics has been completely reworked. We therefore provide a brief description of the current physics along with a summary of the major changes over the last few years. In all the subsequent text we are referring to the February 2004, ModelE1 public release version of the code.

In common with most other models, we make some basic assumptions at the outset, which though minor, have consequences throughout the model: namely, that

• water vapor does not add to atmospheric mass (i.e., globally integrated surface pressure is constant)

• the latent heat of atmospheric water vapor does not depend on temperature (i.e., all atmosphere–surface freshwater fluxes are assumed to be at 0°C)

• the potential energy of water vapor/condensate is neglected

• condensate is not advected

• the pressure gradient calculation does not include humidity effects.

We hope to be able to relax these constraints in future versions.

So since they are missing they adjust the dials on the mockup until (given the forcings they are using) the outcome matches the historical record. Of course, different models use different forcings … and yet they all get the same answer, they can all hindcast the historical record. Amazing coincidence, huh? How do they do that? Lots of dials to twist, here’s another one from Gavin Schmidt, op. cit. You know how they go on about how their model shows a radiative imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 ± 0.15 W/m2 and the like? Here’s the solidity of their “physics based” model regarding the radiation balance (emphasis mine):

The model is tuned (using the threshold relative humidity U00 for the initiation of ice and water clouds) to be in global radiative balance (i.e., net radiation at TOA within 0.5 W m 2 of zero) and a reasonable planetary albedo (between 29% and 31%)

They twist the knob that sets the threshold at which clouds form until they get the radiation to kinda balance? That’s their “physics based” approach?

R. Gates, do you truly think that adding more and more forcings and UHI calcs to a model in which “the potential energy of water vapor/condensate is neglected”, a model that doesn’t stay in balance by itself but has to be “tuned” to stay in balance, will give us better and better answers?

Because I’ve been programming computers for forty-eight years now, I’m very fluent in half a dozen computer languages and literate in another half dozen. In my experience, until the basics of the climate (or any other) model are right, adding more forcings and UHI effects is just like nickel-plating a squirt-gun. It looks solid and real, and you can certainly use it to terrorize the citizenry … but that doesn’t make it into a real pistol.

Regarding Sustainable Energy Law Courses: yes, these things exist. And yes, the law schools are teaching law students what the current state of the law is on regulating energy, with a view toward curbing or capping CO2. It is a “given” that CO2 causes the Earth to warm.

As just a couple of examples, from Fordham University School of Law (New York City):

“Sustainable Energy Law and Policy

Carbon Dioxide emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels for energy (electricity and fuel) are the leading cause of global warming. This course will focus on new policies being developed and implemented at the state and federal level to enable the transition towards a less carbon intensive economy and the legal issues associated with them. In particular, we will examine developments in utility regulation, renewable electricity and fuels, energy efficiency and policies to cap carbon emissions from power generation and vehicles. As part of the final grade, students will develop a paper that will examine a particular sustainable energy topic, analyze policies and legal issues associated with it and recommend measures to enable the transition.

Credits: 2

Type: SEM (meaning a seminar class – lots of lectures, then write a paper at the end of the semester.) ”

Willamette University College of Law offers a Certificate Program in Sustainability Law.

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/programs/certificates/sustainability.php

UCLA Law, that bastion of straight-thinking (sarc off now), has totally swallowed the hook, line, and sinker of CAGW. If there were a more frightening word than “Catastrophic” they would likely prefer it. Perhaps “Apocalyptic” or “Doomsday” would do. Their website shows the law school has these offerings: a Center on Climate Change and the Environment, also an Environmental Law and Policy Program.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=841

There are others, of course. The law schools are turning out minds filled with the knowledge to make policies and laws to push “evil” CO2 back into the ground.

I have attended some of the lectures and seminars at UCLA. I am loudly derided for asking pertinent questions. I enjoy every minute of it!

Fortunately, some of us are already in the fight. For every lawyer on the CAGW side in a courtroom or legislative policy-shaping session, there is one on the climate realism side. I am one of the latter.

Buzz Belleville says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:43 am
What a dishonest posting. Completely omitting the IPCC conclusion that human activities are “very likely” (defined as >90%) the cause of observed warming. And the energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.
Etc etc etc
========================================================
Buzz,

You should read these first before next fronting the class:

file:///C:/Climate%20Change%20Docs/23errors%20by%20Trenberth.htm

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/noaa_and_nasa_proclamations.html

Best wishes to infinity and beyond! Just be sure you have replacement batteries.

Great letter Willis from dry/wet Aust or should that be wet/dry
in respect to the null hypothesis
Warwick Hughes http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780#more-780 has a Guest article by Pat Frank
Dr Frank says
We’ve all read the diagnosis, for example here, that the global climate has suffered “unprecedented warming,” since about 1900. The accepted increase across the 20th century is 0.7 (+/-)0.2 C. As an experimental chemist, I always wondered at that “(+/-)0.2 C.” In my experience, it seemed an awfully narrow uncertainty, given the exigencies of instruments and outdoor measurements. I did a study which led to the paper that is just out in Energy and Environment [5]. Here’s the title and the abstract:

Title: “Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit”
(abstract follows and conclusion)
This lower limit of instrumental uncertainty implies that Earth’s fever is indistinguishable from zero Celsius, at the 1σ level, across the entire 20th century.

There’s a link in a comment to the above article by Geoff Sherrington
to http://www.geoffstuff.com/Jane%20Warne%20thermometry%20Broadmeadows.pdf
A Preliminary Investigation of Temperature Screen Design and Their
Impacts on Temperature Measurements

and as for me I’m still running in circles screaming and shouting; I can’t believe we’re getting so heated over such an infinitesmal temperature rise (if it exists at all)

Willis, tremendous piece, therefore details need attention IMHO.

I understand that Dr. T has a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters.

The AGW hypothesis is that if MANMADE greenhouse gases go up, the temperature must follow…

I know a lot of AGW skeptics believe that we are serious contributors to the rise of CO2 but I’m not one of those, and quite apart from that, the hypothesis should be stated correctly here. I could explain just why I think our contribution to CO2 is virtually zilch and just how the MLO CO2 record could still be a steadily climbing staircase to heaven… but that would be a whole topic for a separate post here…

*****
David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:17 am

This reminds me of “cold fusion”. Two guys claimed they demonstrated it. The theory seemed right. However nobody could reproduce the results. So where is “cold fusion” today? It’s dead.
******
I’m still waiting for my basement ‘cold fusion’ water heater, but it isn’t exactly dead either.

“Friday, January 14, 2011
Bologna, 14/1/11 – cronaca test fusione fredda del reattore Nichel-Idrogeno Focardi-Rossi Bologna, 14/1/11 – record cold fusion test reactor Nickel-Hydrogen Focardi, Rossi ”

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-fusione_14.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522focardi%2522%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Dqdr:w%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1

“January 2011

On January 14, 2011, Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi held a press conference at the University of Bologna. They demonstrated a 10 kilowatt nickel-light water cold fusion reactor. On January 15, the press conference will be web-cast starting at 10:00 a.m. on Rossi’s web site:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

The press release, in Italian, is here. It is translated into English with translate.google.com here.

Focari and Piantelli have published many papers claiming excess heat from nickel. Here is an example from 1998. No attempts to replicate this by other groups have been reported, although Mills and others have claimed excess heat from nickel using somewhat different methods. Rossi received a patent.”

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
This is a very interesting post Willis, and I applaud your efforts. There are many things here I could quibble with, but out of the gate it would be this statement of yours:

“This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters.”

Willis did not USE the phrase “AGW hypothesis,” but put it in SCARE QUOTES to indicate that it has a non-standard meaning. Actually, it has no meaning, unless you are willing to substitute the word ‘hunch’ for the word ‘hypothesis’. Notice that single quotes are used to refer to the word itself and are not scare quotes. Proponents of AGW have no reasonably confirmed hypotheses aside from the 19th century hypothesis about the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere. All they have is a collection of no doubt brilliant hunches that might become a science someday. For now, they should stop whining that Mommy should treat their hunches as science.

Back to R. Gates:
“Truly, that is not what the AGW “hypothesis” states, for GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models, and hardly stipulate that “nothing else matters”.

You, like all pro-AGW people, are totally incapable of talking about hypotheses. In one breath, you switch from hypothesis to model. Do you really not know the differences between them. Hypotheses are necessary for explanation and prediction in science but models can do neither.

Back to R. Gates:
“Much to the dismay of many AGW skeptics, the scientists who create the various GCM’s actually are dedicated scientists, and really do want to get the science right and understand what is actually happening with the climate.:

Maybe, but we will not know until we can wean them from their obsessive-compulsive fascination with models. They need to dump the models and get to work on hypotheses. So do you.

In reference to the various recent comments on the thread about the null hypothesis I do think Dr T’s suggestion is worth unpicking a bit, even if I rather suspect the Dr T’s interest here was more about rhetoric than advancing the science

If we take the IPCC statement (paraphrased) the null looks like: man made GHGs produce >50% of the recent warming (@ some confidence level).

To be a well formed null hypothesis we need to know what it means to assume it, and we need to know how to falsify it statistically with the data.

I’d make two points:

First to meet the above criteria the above null needs to be tightened up.

This null asserts causality (“produce”). Without opening up the rich philosophical writings on this subject, I think it is pretty clear that for the null to be falsified at least the nature of the process of causality needs to be asserted as part of the null. At a minimum the null should include an empirical process that show the links from prior GHG changes to temperature increases, and assert the nature and direction of the relationships. Without that we don’t have the basis to assert and hence test causality. (And of course we need the causality model specified prior to testing).

I’d also note in passing that for causality to be demonstrated if any step in the chain (or any cumulatively) can be falsified then so is causality. The null mightn’t be such an easy ride even putting aside my second point.

Which is: to be a useful null it needs to be falsifiable using available empirical tools. If you only have a stick a meter long having a null about the thickness of your toenail is dare I say it, academic.

If the evidence for the causality of GHGs is all swamped in the noise of the observations, you clearly haven’t disproved it, but then you haven’t proved or disproved anything.

To summarise the proponents of the AGW null hypothesis need to give a tight specification that includes the process of causality, and demonstrate that the hypothesis is able to be falsified using the quality of the data we have available (and GCMs output doesn’t count).

Otherwise they are saying nothing.

Thank you for sharing this brilliant piece of work with us Willis. As I went through the various points, one by one I could only nod, smile and utter; “yes of course!”

However the paragraph that started; “Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled.” was the one that interested me the most.
That could, of course be because I see Dr. T’s “Global Energy Budget Plan” as “The No. 1 Icon for the AGW priesthood” (Chief of all their false Gods)

However be that as it may, but why should the producer of, the by now famous “Earth’s Energy Budget Plan” (numerous clones have been born), which shows that ‘energy in’ equals ‘energy out’ (almost down to the last W/m²) be asking: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going —–?”
-And then go on to state; “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

Has he not just admitted that “The Global Energy Flow Plan” = a “piece of fraud”, whether he realizes it or not?

OHD.

robert says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:40 am
“well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.”
“Come on dude, show your work? Lets see where this number comes from?”

That number is from Phil Jones, greatest Poobah of all. It is all over the internet. In an interview after the Copenhagen disaster, he said that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years.

@- Willis Eschenbach says:
“Or take the latest post – 1980 rise in temperatures. It was no steeper, and no faster, and no larger, and no longer than the 1920-1940 rise in temperatures. The conclusion can only be that it is very possible that the post 1980 rise in temperatures could easily be natural variations.”

That makes the assumption that the 1920-1940 rise was ‘natural’ variation…
But that is the point I am making. If there is no way of distinguishing the cause of a rise in temperature just from an observational, or proxy, record of disputable accuracy, then such a null hypothesis fails to provide a means of differentiating it from the AGW hypothesis.
The quality of the physical explanation of the rise then becomes a means of judging the credibility of the two hypothesis.

If the null hypothesis is unfalsifiable because the climate record is too variable or uncertain to be statistically applicable then resorting to thermodynamic explanations of the rise either in terms of CO2 or solar variation or some other mechanism becomes the only means of making the distinction between AGW and ‘Natural variation’.

AGW has always been a marketing ploy. They bend the truth as far they can get away with it. A little bit of truth amongst a whole lot of fluff because it confuses the public. Computer modeling is ideal fluff. The Forecasting Society(?) has exposed this years ago but it has been kept out of the mainstream because fluff sells papers. Imagine how quickly they could hqve succeeded if they could have linked bigger boobs and sexy models with it.
This time Trenberth has gone too far.
Thanks for exposing it so clearly and simply

Alan Bates says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm

…
* For “She who must be obeyed” see Rumpole of the Bailey (UK TV comedy and books).

Which is in turn a take on the original, the swashbuckling novel of an immortal queen in an inaccessible part of Africa, “SHE” by H. Rider Haggard …

Thanks,

w.

JohnH says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:36 pm

Look, I’m a Civil Engineer with no climate knowledge, and I have to apologise, but …

Can I take you up on your ?nineteenth paragraph:

“First you have to show that some aspect of the climate is historically anomalous …”

Well if you look at the Vostock plot, and if you think the last peak of the interglacial was 10,000 to 8,000 years ago, you’ll see that atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise despite the temperature decreasing (starting at a time when the anthropogenic effect was surely tiny, for sheer lack of humans) whereas after all previous interglacial peaks CO2 has followed the temperature down – and I think that’s historically anomalous. And if we can’t explain it, it worries me …

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. I have noted before that at the start of the Holocene, the CO2 continued to rise for several thousand years while temperatures were falling. That always seemed to cast doubt on the “Milankovich started deglaciation, CO2 drove it higher” theory to me. But I’m not sure that’s what you mean.

If so, how does this apply to Trenberth?

w.

Curiousgeorge says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm

Nice reply to robert, Willis. :) The demand for “citations”, as if they were the word of God, has always irritated me. The questioner, it seems to me, assumes that past work is somehow more relevant than innovative and current analysis. Clinging to the past so to speak, or appealing to some authority he/she happens to agree with.

I don’t mind requests for citations in the slightest, that is an integral and important part of science. I do mind people insulting me first and then asking for citations …

Inspired.

Is it really 25 years? I felt every one of them in this post.

You’re right, of course, in science the null hypothesis is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as it were. The burden is always on the proposer of the hypothesis to provide proof that specifically supports that hypothesis.

The bottom line is that despite all this time, they have not delivered the level of proof needed for a hypothesis of this nature, and so the null hypothesis must stand.

So no more threats, no more warnings, no more computer induced fantasies about this or that apocalypse. I have been on this planet for 45 years and I too have heard far too many of those.

Nothing that they have done convinces me that what has happened was not going to happen anyway. I agree that reversing the burden of proof is the ultimate conceit, but nobody seems able to stop them.

And they have done so much damage..

I’ve seen lots of conflict and error in the history of science, but this one really bothers me, and for all the reasons that you have laid out with such clarity.

Please accept my thanks and sincerest respect for all your work.

Trenberth : “Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based.”

Facts : “It stems from a paper I published bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability.”

Or put another way, the data doesn’t show warming.
This is spin of the highest order.

Smokey says:
“The fraction of a degree variability in temperature over the past century is low compared with numerous times during the Holocene. There is no evidence that the 0.7° rise in temperature is anything but coincidental with the rise in CO2.”

I am not aware of any paleoclimate proxy reconstruction of past temperature that would enable you to identify periods during the Holocene when temperature trends equaled or exceeded those seen over the last century. Perhaps if you have a link to such data with sufficient accuracy to show this you could link it?

“Once again: the null hypothesis states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. The alternate CAGW hypothesis states that there will be observed differences [actually, observed harm to the planet] as a direct result of the increase in CO2.”

Again the problem is that expected data from paleoclimate reconstructions is not sufficiently unambiguous to differentiate between present observations and statistical expectations from the Holocene record. That is why explanations of causative processes are invoked, and if the null hypothesis comes up short with explanatory detail by comparison with the AGW hypothesis then no amount of handwaving over uncertain statistical reconstructions is going to hold much sway.

It is entirely possible that the effects of AGW would be within the range of ‘Natural variation’ during the Holocene – and therefore ‘expected data’ as far as we know descriptively. Because the description we have is to uncertain to distinguish between the two. But that does not falsify the AGW hypothesis, it simply makes the null hypothesis irrelevant as a comparison unless it can be more closely defined statistically or provides explanatory detail at the level of physical processes to account for the observations.

Roger Sowell says: January 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

Thank you, Roger. While I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the Buzz-Bashing on this thread, including Willis’s monumental put-down, it would seem that most have missed a very important point which only the nice lady from Ryerson and myself picked up on…. Buzz is not an aspiring lawyer… he is an Assistant Professor of Law who is teaching the Sustainable Energy Law course (he actually calls himself “Buzz” in public) and despite his ludicrous interpretation of science, he and people like him infest academia and government and have their hands firmly on the levers of power. It’s nice to imagine that CAGW is in its death throes but the ugly truth is that the warmists are still in control and pressing forward with their agenda. The AMS meeting in Seattle from the 23-27 is dedicated to better communicating climate alarmism… Trenberth’s address, which has been highlighted here at WUWT, is just one of many presentations at that venue hoping to co-opt meteorologists to the cause. Anthony’s most recent posting on TV weather re-education here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/tv-weathercaster-re-education-proposed-by-nsf-and-gmu/#comments
another example that this battle is not nearly won. Buzz is not educatable nor can he be shamed. He needs to be defeated.

O H Dahlsveen says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:25 pm

Thank you for sharing this brilliant piece of work with us Willis. As I went through the various points, one by one I could only nod, smile and utter; “yes of course!”
However the paragraph that started; “Stop trying to sell the idea that the science is settled.” was the one that interested me the most. That could, of course be because I see Dr. T’s “Global Energy Budget Plan” as “The No. 1 Icon for the AGW priesthood” (Chief of all their false Gods)
However be that as it may, but why is the producer of, the by now famous “Energy Budget Plan” (numerous clones have been born), which shows that ‘energy in’ equals ‘energy out’ (almost down to the last W/m²) asking: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or —?”
…

Is he not here admitting that “The Global Energy Flow Plan” is a “piece of fraud”, whether he realizes it or not?

No, no, and no. Dr. Trenberth is many things, but it has never even crossed my mind that he might be a fraud. He obviously believes in what he is saying, and his global energy budget is another among many attempts by us poor humans to understand this great and mysterious planet.

Great article! For me, I’m amazed at how many people, climate scientists included, that don’t know the difference between climate change, global warming and anthropogenic global warming. These are three different things.

This is an extension of what Professor Ian Lowe has been advocating for some time. He calls it sustainability science and says we must embrace it, and reject the traditional scientific approach, because time is running out to save the planet.
More here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/on-abandoning-the-scientific-method-continued/

REPLY: Hi Jen, nice to see you blogging again, I thought you gave it up. I’ll put you back on the active blogroll. – Anthony

This will never get read, but thank you Willis, an unequivocally good article, yet again.

REPLY: Actually it will, “vee have ways….” – Anthony

Smokey says on January 15, 2011 at 5:54 am:

CO2 has risen about 40%. That is significant.
==========================================================
That number is only valid for purified dry air (PDA) which does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases, which are called the fixed gases, and CO2. In real air there much less CO2 than is indicated by analytical data. For example, tropical air at 90 deg F and 100% humidity has 80% of the mass of PDA at STP.

In the real atmosphere, the absolute mass of the the gases is always unknown and it is constantly fluctuating due exchange into and out of surface water, clouds and porous soil.

There is no uniform distribution of mass in space and time as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have higher local mass and drier air than due low pressure cells and these are constantly moving. Low pressure cells bring the weather events such a rain and snow which affect local humidity. Weather maps show there is no unifom distribution of humidity.

Tidal effects of the moon and sun also change the mass distribution of atmosphere in space and time.

Do GCM’s take any of the above into account? Probably not.

Willis Eschenbach says January 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm:
“No, no, and no. Dr. Trenberth is many things, but it has never even crossed my mind that he might be a fraud.”

The question is Willis: How does he/we equate what he writes to Tom Wigley, if he believes in what he says, with his “Global Energy Budget Plan”?

Vorlath says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:21 pm

a good point – but to be fair, the warmists and alarmists have created the confusion (deliberately?) over the years. To all intent and purpose, they have used all three in the same discussion context and the vast majority of ordinary folk would have no option but to consider them ‘undifferentiated’ given the MSM coverage.
Also, how many folk here, during an evenings’ conversation, would constantly use the full term ‘anthropogenic global warming’ all night?
As for the scientists, I agree, they should be more specific, but I reckon in the current reporting and MSM climate (excuse the pun) the term climate change covers everything (again, deliberately so?) and so those terms are considered synonymous within the general public.

And, sorry for repeating myself. but I thought the 3:25 comment had somehow got lost.
If Dr. T believes it to be true when he writes: ”We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!”

Then he cannot possibly also believe that his “well balanced energy budget” is genuine

Willis:

Thankyou! Brilliant! And entertaining, too!

I was going to answer Smokey but you did it first (and better than I could).

Now we have Izen (I think he intended Izal) who claims that if the null hypothesis cannot be disproved then it should be ignored. That claim is another attack on the scientific method.

The null hypothesis is the governing hypothesis in any scientific investigation. It says that if no change is observed then nothing has changed. Therefore, if an alternative to “no change” is suggested then evidence of a change has to be produced. Importantly, “no change” has to be assumed unless and until that evidence exists.

So, an inability to disprove the null hypothesis says that the ONLY scientific assumption is that “no change” has happened.

It does not matter what the reasons are for suggesting that a change may have happened or is likely to have happened. The null hypothesis HAS to be accepted unless and until evidence of the suggested change exists.

In the case of AGW the change to be discerned is a change to climate behaviour which differs from climate behaviour prior to the postulated anthropogenic effect. If it is not possible to discern such a change then the ONLY scientific hypothesis is that AGW has not changed climate behaviour.

So, according to a fundamental principle of the scientific method, when Izen says,

“I am not aware of any paleoclimate proxy reconstruction of past temperature that would enable you to identify periods during the Holocene when temperature trends equaled or exceeded those seen over the last century”,

he is asserting that – according to his knowledge – it has to be assumed that AGW is not happening.

Richard

Lucy Skywalker says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:40 pm

“I know a lot of AGW skeptics believe that we are serious contributors to the rise of CO2 but I’m not one of those, and quite apart from that, the hypothesis should be stated correctly here. I could explain just why I think our contribution to CO2 is virtually zilch and just how the MLO CO2 record could still be a steadily climbing staircase to heaven… but that would be a whole topic for a separate post here…”

I’m with you on this Lucy.

R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm

“The best GCM’s are extremely complicated affairs that take into account tens of thousands of different variables and require massive supercomputers to run.”

No doubt, very complex and very expensive, but the models are reliant on input data. Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. We’ve been reasonably accuratly measuring the Thermohalin Circulation with Argo since 2007. How statistically significant do you think our sample of historical data is?

“They certainly take into account many aspects of thermohalin circulation on a global basis. ”

Well let’s see. Based on my review of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) site;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/

There appear to be two Ocean Models. The Parallel Ocean Program (POP2) model;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/pop2/

and the Climatological/Slab-Ocean Data (DOCN) model:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/data8/

Looking on the POP2 model page, there are three user guides provided. The first, the Parallel Ocean Program (POP) User Guide does not include any references to the Thermohaline Circulation. It does have a section on Temperature and salinity distribution;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/pop2/doc/users/node36.html

but it seems that to make it work you need to input “initial ocean conditions from a file OR create conditions from an input mean ocean profile OR create initial conditions based on 1992 Levitus mean ocean profile computed internally”. This seems to indicate that initial ocean conditions are based on user input or the Levitus profile that doesn’t have historical data before 1992.

The second is the CESM Ocean Ecosystem Model User’s Guide:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/pop2/doc/users/POPecosys_main.html
There is no mention of the Thermohaline Circulation, and interestingly the word “temperature” only appears once in the guide, and that instance is a reference.

The third is the Parallel Ocean Program (POP) Reference Manual;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/pop2/doc/sci/POPRefManual.pdf

that does have two to references to Thermohaline Circulation in its Bibliography:
“Ferrari, R. and D. L. Rudnick, 2000: Thermohaline variability in the upper
ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 105, 16 857–16 883.
Ferrari, R. and W. R. Young, 1997: On the development of thermohaline
correlations as a result of nonlinear diffusive parameterizations. Journal
of Marine Research, 55, 1069–1101.”

However, both are old references, i.e. Ferrari, R. and D. L. Rudnick, 2000 leverages “temperature and salinity were measured on a range of scales from 4 m to 1000 km, towing a SeaSoar along isobars and isopycnals in the subtropical gyre of the North Pacific, during the winter of 1997towing a SeaSoar along isobars and isopycnals in the subtropical gyre of the North Pacific, during the winter of 1997″, well before Argo deployments began in 2000.

Furthermore, there is plenty of new and relevant literature Thermohaline Circulation;
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0179%3ALPOTFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/15124
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7ln6156g3v82655/

but no indication that “these models are always being refined as the science advances”.

In terms of the second CCSM Ocean Models, Climatological/Slab-Ocean Data (DOCN) model, looking at the homepage;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/data8/

there is one Data Model v8 User’s Guide:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/data8/data8_doc/ug.pdf

There is no mention of Thermohaline Circulation in the User Guide, but Chapter 7 is about the Data Ocean Model. It is states that;

“SOM (“slab ocean model”) mode is a prognostic mode. … Note that while this mode runs out of the box, the default SOM forcing file is not scientifically appropriate and is provided for testing and development purposes only. Users must create scientifically appropriate data for their particular application. A tool is available to derive valid SOM forcing. More information on creating the SOM forcing is available
at: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/data8/SOM.pdf”

So the Climatological/Slab-Ocean Data (DOCN) model “is not scientifically appropriate” and is reliant on the user to “create of scientifically appropriate data”.

So to create “create of scientifically appropriate data”, we look back to our historical datasets. “The first automated technique for determining SST was accomplished by measuring the temperature of water in the intake port of large ships, which was underway by 1963. These observations have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine room.[1] Fixed buoys measure the water temperature at a depth of 3 metres (9.8 ft). Many different drifting buoys exist around the world that vary in design and the location of reliable temperature sensors varies. These measurements are beamed to satellites for automated and immediate data distribution.[2] A large network of coastal buoys in U.S. waters is maintained by the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC).[3] Between 1985 and 1994, an extensive array of moored and drifting buoys was deployed across the equatorial Pacific Ocean”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

and as stated in my prior post that “Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. ”
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

Given the tremendous complexity of accurately measuring the Thermohaline Circulation, the brevity of the historical record and the long cycle time of the Thermohaline Circulation, it seems safe to assume that the garbage in garbage out maxim applies to CCSM’s ocean models. Do you have more confidence in the historical ocean temperature and salinity data going into these models?

How can we accurately predict the behavior of the Thermohaline Circulation a century in the future when we can barely measure and understand its current behavior?

It has been argued above that a proper null for climate must EXPLAIN the natural pattern of climate. Sorry, wrong. We have data of varying quality, over various time spans, in different media (ice, sea floor sediments, tree rings) which do not always agree. Figuring out the pattern in this past data is difficult (I have published on this question) but the characterization of this pattern is KEY to the global warming question. Mann’s hockey stick claimed to solve the problem by showing a very flat (featureless) past 1000 years thereby proving that recent warming was anomalous. This is why the fight to defend Mann has been so vociferous. In the absence of the hockey stick, the past looks so confusingly variable that it is hard indeed to see any obvious anomalous behavior post-1950 in the global temperature data. But it is up to the advocates for catastrophe to demonstrate that THEY have characterized this pattern properly and that recent changes do not fit it. Handwaving is not so scientific. In addition, attempts to test climate models against the past are also thwarted by the noise and incoherence of paleorecords of climate. Some teams were very happy to fit their climate model against the Team model (Mann’s hockey stick) because the models do fine against a flat null climate, but if this hockey stick is broken, what about those model results?

I suspect that Dr. Trenberth is suffering from the Dr Percival Lowell syndrome.
Mr Lowell spent his career mapping the martian canals from an observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona and laid the ground work for the discovery of Pluto. Unfortunately Pluto has now been discredited as a planet and the Martian canals are believed by many to be a map of the veins in Lowell’s eyeballs.

Lengthy but very readable. Thank you, Willis.

Minor typo alert: people speaking from the dias and in the halls of the Royal Society in London. That should be “dais”.

[fixed thanks ~moderator]

Willis, excellent isn’t a good enough word, it’s better than that.
=================================================
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm
No, no, and no. Dr. Trenberth is many things, but it has never even crossed my mind that he might be a fraud.
==================================================
Willis, It has crossed mine.

I don’t think these guys are saying things out of ignorance, or just totally crackers like some people think.

Let’s give them some credit. They are climate scientists after all.

They know their time is running out. They do know enough about the PDO (why they don’t mention it), etc. to know it’s over.
Either pull out all the stops, try anything at the last minute, to seal the deal…..
We can only expect to hear things even more outrageous from them in the next few months, their time really is running out.

Joe Bastardi calls them on it in his latest blog.
Also says to watch out, we haven’t seen anything yet – from the weather or the climate scientists.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7037

stephan says: “AW: have you seen this probably major major story apologies if already done here
http://www.suite101.com/content/court-orders-university-to-surrender-global-warming-records-a328888
Seems Mann will be nailed”

This is apparently misinformation. That link leads to week-old links that do not say anything like “court orders university to surrender…”

Trenberth is a master at misdirection.

His energy balance is perhaps the greatest misdirection in all of science. He carefully showed each energy transfer in the Earth system except one. For the radiative exchange between the surface and the atmosphere he didn’t show the net energy change he switched to the fluxes.

That third walnut shell there created the appearance that radiative heat transfer was dominant in the system. Truly Trenberth is a magician at misdirection and deceit.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/the-energy-balance-and-the-greenhouse-effect-1-of-3/

Another year, another four billion.

According to this link that is what is being requested for climate change studies this year in the US.

Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.

Future postmortems on AGW will take many quotes and ideas from this post by Willis Eschenbach.

Harold Pierce Jr says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm

Now, that’s science. Keep it up.

I read this twice before even thinking about posting a response and usually don’t bother when there are already this many that basically say what I feel, but this article is so good I felt the need. As a former debater I must say that was a truly crushing rebuttal. I dream of responding to trolls/disagreeable people with that kind of weight and eloquence. I have forwarded this along to as many people as I think will read it and hope it goes viral.

Bravo sir

Jennifer Marohasy says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm
“This is an extension of what Professor Ian Lowe has been advocating for some time. He calls it sustainability science and says we must embrace it, and reject the traditional scientific approach, because time is running out to save the planet.”

Why does he use the word ‘science’? Why not just call it sustainability studies? It has nothing to do with science. Science pursues truth and interests those who pursue truth. If you are out to save the world, I can recommend a religion.

Smokey says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:54 am
CO2 has risen about 40%. That is significant. If increased CO2 caused global harm, we would surely have seen evidence of it by now. But there is no verifiable evidence that anything unusual is occurring, except for the substantial increase in agricultural production.
=========================================================
What we should be asking is why were CO2 levels that low to begin with.

Every time CO2 levels have been high, in the thousands ppm, CO2 levels have crashed.
This planet seems to want to do everything in it’s power to lower CO2, and we need it. Without it, we die.
From the looks of things, this planet is very good at sequestering CO2 on its own. Even lowering CO2 to the point where it threatens plant growth.

We should be taking care of plants, without them we all die………

“Look, I don’t think you’re a bad guy.”…..

Wrong Willis. I really do think he is a bad guy.

There has never been any good come of a man who’ll deceive unto destruction, all who believe in him.

izen,

You still don’t grasp the concept of a null hypothesis. I’ve given you a straightforward definition of it: ‘it is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.’

You should do a web search for “null hypothesis,” and try to get up to speed. Most everyone else here seems to understand it, and how it relates to an alternate hypothesis. So let me change tack, and try to explain in simple terms what’s going on:

Kevin Trenberth would not have made a major issue of the long-accepted null hypothesis if it were not a serious stumbling block for his catastrophic AGW hypothesis. It shows that the effect of CO2 is minuscule. [Let me quantify that by saying that anything less than 1°C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels will result in substantially more benefits than costs.]

Trenberth made a center-piece in his article his intention to replace the long-held null hypothesis of natural climate variability with his alternate hypothesis, putting skeptical scientists in the position of having to prove a negative.

The rationale is that with a planet to save, ignoring the scientific method is excusable – a noble cause. But it is non-science, which is why the rest of us are not going to let him get away with changing the rules, just so he doesn’t have to put up with that irksome null hypothesis. He wants to replace it with his alternate hypothesis, and Voilà! That pesky scientific method is no longer in the way.

The null hypothesis does not need to provide an explanation of all the mechanisms that make the climate tick. If we knew that, there would be no need for a debate.

All the null does is show that the current climate is no different than it was before the industrial revolution and the rise of CO2; the cycles are the same, current temperatures are very mild, and the planet is nowhere near its extreme warmest or coldest parameters.

It has been much warmer, and much colder, in the past – when CO2 remained steady at 300 ppmv or less for centuries. Therefore, CO2 is not a major driver of temperature. QED.

CO2 probably has an effect, but that effect is so minor it is inconsequential. That’s what the null hypothesis tells us, and that is why Trenberth has his feet to the fire with no wiggle room. So he proposes to put the cart before the horse, and claim that his alternate hypothesis [and there can be many different alternate hypotheses] should now be labeled the null hypothesis.

His shenanigans make “post-normal science” look rational.

Izen said
“I am not aware of any paleoclimate proxy reconstruction of past temperature that would enable you to identify periods during the Holocene when temperature trends equaled or exceeded those seen over the last century. Perhaps if you have a link to such data with sufficient accuracy to show this you could link it?”

Instead of climate proxies maybe you could study a little archaeology. The history of Greenland was well documented before the hockey stick debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grtemp.png

Willis: “The mis-treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC reports, and the underestimation of true uncertainty in climate science in general, is a scandal.”

Right on, Willis. That’s what brought me into the game.

I read this paper(pdf, 373 kb) , W. Soon, S. Baliunas, S. B. Idso, K. Y. Kondratyev and E. S. Posmentier (2001) “Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties” Climate Research 18, 259-275, and, being shocked, looked further. And the further I looked, the worse it got. As you wrote, it’s a scandal. IMO, the worst scientific scandal, ever. Ever.

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??
————————————————————————–

Well I did…. and made two posts as well. What’s wrong with you Robb876? Did you fail at reading and comprehension while at school, did you?…..;-)

Doesn’t it follow that if AGW is now a matter of fact, unequivicolly so as we are repeatedly told, that we can stop funding research on it with taxpayer money? What’s the point of continuing to prove it?

The biggest harm done to science, with the global warming theory, is that everything that is unexplainable, is now due to global warming – no matter the field we select to study. It’s a cheap, dirty way to explain the unexplainable for scientists of all sects and all they need to justify their conclusions is? Global Warming. Makes for lazy science and scientists. Switch up the rules and it will be even more so.

Hmm, this is rather cool – I’ve replied to the “cold fusion is dead” claims a few times, it’s nice to see some other people are chiming now too.

I kept up with cold fusion for a few years through the beginning, and occasionally check in to see what’s happening. It’s an observation that refuses to go away. Too many experiments yield very interesting results. It’s also a complex field, there is a lot to be learned, a theory hasn’t provide much guidance.

David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:17 am

What I will state is that the results of Pons and Fleischmann have not been replicated, true or false? Also it’s dead as research (at least in the US)? True or false? Again: true. Sure there are people still researching it, but people are also research Bigfoot, UFOs and Orgone energy. So does that mean it’s all true? Come on guys…

On P&F – I think the answer is that it’s been replicated, but not very reliably. There are other test setups that are more interesting. Focusing on P&F’s experiment is akin to focusing on CO2 in climate changes – there’s more going on!

Dead as research? Well, one person is dead of natural causes, Les Case. He had some interesting experiments with gaseous deuterium and without energy input (making it a lot easier to measure the anomalous heat). We both live(d) in New Hampshire. He was past MIT professor, I believe, and rather weird guy. (The founder of “Infinite Energy” magazine, Eugene Mallove, was also from NH, he was murdered by ex-renters of his parents’ property in Connecticut.) There is other other research in the US, that Navy work mentioned above is one.

People doing cold fusion research don’t do research on Bigfoot, UFOs, or even think the Earth is flat. Just because people study UFOs doesn’t mean cold fusion doesn’t exist. Oh come on yourself, quit sounding like Al Gore.

One thing that has changed is the term “cold fusion,” which isn’t always cold, is being supplanted by abbreviations LENR and CANR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions). See http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm for a description of several experimental setups.

One thing we missed today was a press conference in Italy about a 10 kW nickel/hydrogen reactor, see http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ see also http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/2011/01/extraordinarily-important-announcement.html (Full title “Extraordinarily important announcement or not?”) BTW, Nick Palmer is a climate warmist, fan of Climate Crock of the Week, and has Anthony’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/ in his rightside bar. I hope he comes across this post!

There’s also interesting work done with sonofusion. That relies on sound energy to generate small bubbles that then collapse generating huge pressure in the uncompressable liquid.

So no it’s not dead Dave, cold fusion research is doing quite well! It’s probably good that it’s not getting the attention it did in its early days. In fact, climate research could do better if it didn’t get the current attention and let scientists be scientists instead of personalities.

Richard S Courtney @ January 15, 2011 at 5:27 pm

“…. if the null hypothesis cannot be disproved then it should be ignored. That claim is another attack on the scientific method.”

I’m not sure I agree. If the null is not falsifiable then the scientific method can’t proceed so it’s hardly an attack on it. I used a slightly different characterisation a bit earlier in this thread – I suggested such a null is useless.

The null hypothesis is the governing hypothesis in any scientific investigation. It says that if no change is observed then nothing has changed. Therefore, if an alternative to “no change” is suggested then evidence of a change has to be produced. Importantly, “no change” has to be assumed unless and until that evidence exists.

I think this is a narrow view of a null. The null can be about the fit between any statistical model and observations. It’s perfectly acceptable to have a null that man made GHGs cause >50% of recent observed temperature increases, and seek to falsify that. My point would be that the interesting conversations happen as one sets this up properly as a null; evaluates the capacity of the data to falsify it; and discusses the meaning (if anything) of the results.

Rational and reasonable. A noteworthy piece of writing that should be passed far and wide.

For some perspective on law professor Belleville’s viewpoint, this link is to his paper CARBON REGULATION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE APPALACHIAN BASIN: WHY THE COAL-FIRED ENERGY INDUSTRY IN APPALACHIA SHOULD EMBRACE, PREPARE FOR AND HELP SHAPE A COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME THAT LIMITS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, apparently from May of 2009 or thereabouts.

http://www.asl.edu/uploads/files/NRJClegg.pdf

From Professor Belleville’s published biography on his law school’s website, he holds an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and a JD. It is doubtful, then, that he has the education or training to discern between valid scientific conclusions, and complete nonsense. Like most of the attorneys and legislators in the U.S., many of whom are also attorneys, he has no scientific nor technical background and must rely on “information received.” Therein lies one of the big problems: what information is received, and of that which is received, what is to be accepted as true.

Lobbying groups are employed in an attempt to educate or inform lawmakers, and to shape legislation so that ridiculous outcomes do not result. It would be rare for an attorney, or a law professor, to also have such knowledge as that obtained from a lobbying group. The lobbying field also has great problems, as many times the full truth of an issue is not presented.

The premise for Belleville’s paper cited above is that regulations on GHG emission limits are inevitable. This may have seemed true in early 2009, before the Climategate emails and other files were released, before the Copenhagen and Cancun climate summits, before the U.S. Senate refused to pass a bill on climate change, before the long, cold winters of 2010 and now 2011, and before the November 2010 election results in the USA in which control of the U.S. House of Representatives reverted to Republicans.

Belleville states on page 13, ” There is also little basis, in light of the IPCC’s work and the scientific consensus, for arguing that GHG emissions from vehicles cannot “be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” “ – which also shows that he has, indeed, swallowed the hook, line, and sinker of CAGW.

Belleville is not unique, certainly. There are many, many law professors across the country who hold views similar to his, and woe to the student who challenges a law professor. Few students are that bold, given the stakes involved.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:51 pm

@- Willis Eschenbach says:

“Or take the latest post – 1980 rise in temperatures. It was no steeper, and no faster, and no larger, and no longer than the 1920-1940 rise in temperatures. The conclusion can only be that it is very possible that the post 1980 rise in temperatures could easily be natural variations.”

That makes the assumption that the 1920-1940 rise was ‘natural’ variation…
But that is the point I am making. If there is no way of distinguishing the cause of a rise in temperature just from an observational, or proxy, record of disputable accuracy, then such a null hypothesis fails to provide a means of differentiating it from the AGW hypothesis.
The quality of the physical explanation of the rise then becomes a means of judging the credibility of the two hypothesis.

If the null hypothesis is unfalsifiable because the climate record is too variable or uncertain to be statistically applicable then resorting to thermodynamic explanations of the rise either in terms of CO2 or solar variation or some other mechanism becomes the only means of making the distinction between AGW and ‘Natural variation’.

izod, I have no problem with using sophisticated methods to determine if the null hypothesis has been falsified. However, I am unaware of anyone who has been able to falsify the null hypothesis using any methods. Do you have citations to the use of “thermodynamic explanations” to falsify the null hypothesis?

w.

Robert E. Phelan says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Roger Sowell says: January 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

“Buzz is not an aspiring lawyer… he is an Assistant Professor of Law who is teaching the Sustainable Energy Law course (he actually calls himself “Buzz” in public) and despite his ludicrous interpretation of science, he and people like him infest academia and government and have their hands firmly on the levers of power. It’s nice to imagine that CAGW is in its death throes but the ugly truth is that the warmists are still in control and pressing forward with their agenda…Buzz is not educatable nor can he be shamed. He needs to be defeated.”

My youth is passing before my eyes. I have been down this road before, first with Feminist Studies Departments. Yes, such people have gained power in academia and steadily so. We do not know how to defeat them. On the other hand, the pro-AGW people have so squandered the good name of science, some opportunities might open. As for the practical problem of pro-AGW power grabs, right now the ball is in Congress and the battle must be fought there. We must appeal to our Representatives in the House to stop the EPA and to stop all similar activities by the administration and its many minions, aka “Departments” and such. Congressman Eric Cantor, VA, has on his website a suggestion box for cutting government spending. Start there, at least to learn. Support Sensenbrenner and Issa in their investigations. Ask them to nail the pro-AGW people.

Oh, by the way, sustainability science is an oxymoron, unless you want to return to Aristotle. Modern science, Galilean science, science informed by the scientific method admits no end points specified by human values. Aristotle finds values in all of nature. Our science of the Oak must include the claim that the Acorn has a purpose, namely, the mature Oak. Some people bought into Aristotle’s science, most notably the Inquisition. That’s why they wanted to spank Galileo. They did put him under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Other notable outcomes from Aristotle’s views include the claims that masturbation, sex for pleasure only, sodomy, homosexual sex, and all similar matters are morally wrong because in those acts the sex organs do not serve their NATURAL END of procreation. That is where sustainability science inevitably leads.

Great article Willis, and thanks Anthony for making it so available.

Brilliant, as usual, Willis! I await, without holding my breath, some reasonable reply from the “climate science elitists,” who are now in a very, very deep hole, yet they keep digging!! It gets funnier day by day!

chuckarama says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Doesn’t it follow that if AGW is now a matter of fact, unequivicolly so as we are repeatedly told, that we can stop funding research on it with taxpayer money? What’s the point of continuing to prove it?

======================================================

Chuck, with the amount of money our government is pumping into this….
….I’m afraid the economy would really crash

Look at all the spin-off sciences that have been created just to get some of that money.
Biologists are blaming global warming for frogs dying, that they killed.
Psychologists are scheduling groups to deal with the mental pressure of global warming.
Doctors are claiming increased pandemics, to get some of that money.
Fire departments are claiming that they need to build stronger facilities because there will be more and stronger hurricanes.
and on and on

Everyone here seems to have forgotten that four independent, unbiased investigations have completely exonerated all of the scientists involved in the so-called “climate gate” emails, including Dr. Kevin Trenbwer…. Trenbwaa …. Trenbwaawk…. bwaak…. bwaak… Polly wants a cracker….. bwaak…

It would be a good idea to forward this post to your congressman and senators (or better yet, paraphrase it to stress your key points briefly in your own words). Take the time to communicate with your congressman and senators, they are usually great at responding to constituents. Let them know what you think, especially about climate science funding (cuts for the alarmists, increases for the skeptics) and transparency.

HAS says:

[@Richard S Courtney]:

“I’m not sure I agree. If the null is not falsifiable then the scientific method…” &etc.

The null hypothesis is completely falsifiable. Simply show a current parameter that has changed as a result of the increase in CO2. Presto! Null falsified.

That’s the purpose of the null hypothesis; to act as a foil to any alternative hypothesis that comes along. If the alternate hypothesis can knock off the big dog by explaining reality better, the alternate becomes the new paradigm.

But Trenberth wants his particular alternate hypothesis to become the null hypothesis by decree. Sorry, the scientific method doesn’t work that way.

@- Willis Eschenbach says:
“I have no problem with using sophisticated methods to determine if the null hypothesis has been falsified. However, I am unaware of anyone who has been able to falsify the null hypothesis using any methods. Do you have citations to the use of “thermodynamic explanations” to falsify the null hypothesis?”

No.
Which rather supports my point.
Without a means of differentiating between ‘Natural variation’ and any alternative hypothesis for climate events the descriptive term is of little use.

‘Fingerprinting’ in attribution studies usually relies on details of the physical process because the past natural variation has many causes.
For instance the hypothesis that the Milankovitch cycles are the initial cause of the ice-age – interglacial transitions is not refuted, negated or helped by having a null hypothesis that the variations are present in the past paleoclimate record and are therefore consistent with a null hypothesis of ‘Natural variation’.

Although the argument in this post appears seductive, I doubt that arid debate on whether the null hypothesis (or burden of proof – call it what you will) is reversed will have any impact on Dr Trenberth at all.

He made up his mind long ago. Nothing will shake it; he believes implicitly in his own theories and has the support of activist colleagues. Each time events seem to counter his theories he can somehow justify it as weather not climate, another quirk of a chaotic climate system or some such.

It’s a lost cause. The issue is now out of the hands of the scientists and with their paymasters – the politicians and the public, as taxpayers. The public have a surprisingly good “nose” for arguments that run counter to their life experience, and when they are collectively being fed a line.

The message is getting through. Activists are bemoaning the lack of interest in the latest hyped-up scare. Slowly but inevitably the funding will dry up; this just has to run its course. The scientists are so polarised that for once, surprisingly, the public must have the final say at the ballot box.

Smokey @ January 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm

“But Trenberth wants his particular alternate hypothesis to become the null hypothesis by decree. Sorry, the scientific method doesn’t work that way.”

Science is a pretty broad church so Dr T is quite free have whatever he likes as a null hypothesis. The science would then debate the utility of it and the consequences of its testing.

This is a very interesting comment thread. I am watching hourly with fascination at the posts. The tone is amicable (mostly, despite Buzz Aldrin’s flyby) and is good debate. Keep it happening guys’n'gals!

Particularly enjoyed Theo Goodwin’s post and have added his endquote “Aristotle’s views include the claims that masturbation, sex for pleasure only, sodomy, homosexual sex, and all similar matters are morally wrong because in those acts the sex organs do not serve their NATURAL END of procreation. That is where sustainability science inevitably leads.” to my Facebook profile of quotes.

Trenberth and his ilk are hitting the lecture circuit trying to ride the 2010 El Nino that was a disappointment but represents a last gasp for the AGW movement. They realize they face an increasingly sceptical public and congress. With the NAO and record positive SOI working against them they know that this is their last best chance to convince their fellow scientists. NPR, in a radio segment today pitted a ‘climate scientist’ against a kid in the global warming debate. The kid suggested she would like to hear the other side of the debate.

Excellent post Willis, but realise that’s a belief system we’re dealing with, not science, and I suspect that KT might not understand that.

@- Richard S Courtney says:
“In the case of AGW the change to be discerned is a change to climate behaviour which differs from climate behaviour prior to the postulated anthropogenic effect. If it is not possible to discern such a change then the ONLY scientific hypothesis is that AGW has not changed climate behaviour.”

This makes an a priori assumption that the knowledge we have of past climate behaviour is sufficiently extensive and accurate to discern such a change and make that judgment.

The change in climate behaviour may NOT be discernible from climate change prior to the postulated anthropogenic effect. Past climate behaviour that can be derived from the paleoclimate reconstructions covers a wide range of possibilities.
When the Holocene temperature record is too uncertain and inherently uninformative to determine the explanation for any observed behaviour, attribution of the physical cause of climate variations becomes the criteria.

TimC says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:03 pm
The scientists are so polarised that for once, surprisingly, the public must have the final say at the ballot box.
Nah, mate – the machinery is already set in motion. The politicians have already set the course based on IPCC. The underlying agenda of the CAGW camp is there for all to see in the ‘wealth redistribution’ paradigm, cloaked in the guise of planet-saving, but in reality a power-grab by powers such as The Club of Rome. If you think for one minute that the public (silent majority) will have the final say, what’s the weather like on your planet?

Buzz Belleville:
“….I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s….”

One of the most influential of those predictions was Hansen’s scenarios A, B & C as presented to a joint Congressional hearing in 1988 (during a US heat wave and drought)
“Scenario A” was business as usual, “scenario B” was some restrictions on CO2 emissions and “scenario C” stopped the growth of carbon dioxide emissions altogether in 2000.
The observed data (GISS) is roughly following “scenario C”:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WtnYwFZtgHI/SztsiM4C-iI/AAAAAAAAAiA/hcWope5eGpE/s800/Hansen1988_fig3a.JPG

The CAGW hysterics are never satisfied, because “stopping global warming” is the last thing they want.

Seem to be one of the last to notice these new posts but, it’s late, grandkids wonder why I spend a hour reading of this Dr. Trenberth so I told them a little fairytale, went something like this:

After researching this Scienceville mystery thoroughly it has become apparent that Dr. Trenberth did not, I repeat did not shoot his pet named Agwhypothesis, pronounced Ag’why’po-the-sis, in the foot as many have heard. Trenberth, it seems being drunk with power and hubris at that very moment of rage erred and instead shot it in the head. Immediate death followed. Being so huge for hypothesis beasts rarely found that a small group call good, someone apparently mistaken it’s ears for it’s feet in initial rumors. He continues to claim he did not mean to shoot his pet but was instead aiming for something on the other side. The authorities, finding no law against shooting a hypothesis on the books, had no alternative but to release him forthwith with no charges being filed.

His local community, wailing in shock for they all claim Agwhypothesis as their own, will have a huge loss of the regular income from shows around the world and that will cause a sizable economic blow to this tight collegiate community Grantville that claim Washington D.C, for one, as their supporting suburbs. Some say it is actually a blessing for it’s size was doubling regularly and it was taking literally billions yearly just to feed and get from one show to the next.

Personally, good riddance! I and millions of others could see that the wild beast was draining this world literally dry of life. Some even claim that was that communities hidden intention all along.

R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm

“One of the most comprehensive models (IMO) is the CESM 1.0.”

So in reviewing one CESM’s two Atmosphere Models the Climatological Data Model (DATM), and I must say that I find the interface incomprehensible:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cesm/cesmAbrowser/

Why would they name all of the menus and variables gibberish? And the user interface is awful. So I looked in the user guide, Chapter 5. Data Atmosphere Model;
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/data8/data8_doc/ug.pdf

and there is no mention of the variables in the model and the data sets that they are based upon. I’d like to figure out how the DATM atmosphere model accounts for Earth’s Polar Vorticies. For those of you who aren’t familiar, Polar Vortices;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

“are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”
http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/

Can you direct us to where CESM’s Atmosphere Model DATM accounts for Earth’s Polar Vorticies?

“several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/

Surely “one of the most comprehensive models” in existence must take into account changes in the size, strength and persistence of Earth’s Polar Vorticies. More than just the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) index:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.shtml
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-oscillation-aao
Right?

Willis,why misrepresent Trenberth when you offer a link to what he actually says?
He never states that human activity is ‘causing’ our weather ills,simply that we are influencing events.
As usual you get up a head of rhetorical steam-e.g. climate science has had ‘unlimited funding’,and the ‘full-throated support of the media’…. and on and on.
Objecting to the use of the ‘denier’ tag is a bit rich when you call Trenberth a cheat and a conspirator.
All this because he expects you guys to do some real work by following the scientific process.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:16 pm

… It is entirely possible that the effects of AGW would be within the range of ‘Natural variation’ during the Holocene – and therefore ‘expected data’ as far as we know descriptively. Because the description we have is to uncertain to distinguish between the two. But that does not falsify the AGW hypothesis, it simply makes the null hypothesis irrelevant as a comparison unless it can be more closely defined statistically or provides explanatory detail at the level of physical processes to account for the observations.

So Trenberth wants to reverse the null hypothesis, and you want to tell us it is “irrelevant” … what is it with you guys? You can’t prove your case so you want to change the rules.

Look, izod, if the signal of global warming is so small that twenty five years of poring over a century and a half of records can’t find it, you know what my conclusion is? It is that you are looking for a really, really tiny signal. Not a signal that is the greatest danger on the face of the earth, to listen to the alarmists, but a really, really small signal.

Back when the earth was warming, from say 1975 to 1998, it looked like you were going to get your evidence. But then the warming stopped, and hasn’t restarted.

As I said, I have no problem with using sophisticated methods to look for a signal. However, when you take that tack, you are venturing on dangerous ground. Everything from data snooping to autocorrelation and the natural distribution of Zipf functions begin to mess with your conclusions.

So, if you have a good way to establish that recent climate variations are outside of the natural variation, bring it on … don’t be surprised if you find some kickback against the plan, however, because the well has been poisoned many times. To take you back, in 2005 we had Jim Hansen claim exactly what you are claiming in the famous “smoking gun” paper, which made us all wonder what Jim was smoking because he was saying that his whiz-bang model could measure the radiation balance to within ±0.15 W/m2.

But I wish you the best, report back what you find.

w.

O H Dahlsveen says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:52 pm

Willis Eschenbach says January 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm:

“No, no, and no. Dr. Trenberth is many things, but it has never even crossed my mind that he might be a fraud.”

The question is Willis: How does he/we equate what he writes to Tom Wigley, if he believes in what he says, with his “Global Energy Budget Plan”?

I lay it to the awesome power of self-delusion, which among other things makes me think I can write clearly …

Excellent critique of the unfortunate Dr. Trenberth’s propaganda piece from the indefatigable Mr. Eschenbach. I have not had the time to read all the comments, but wonder: Will Dr. Trenberth have the guts to respond?

I won’t hold my breath.

/Mr Lynn

“The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and the the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is a need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, …. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a confession of weakness. …Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.”

http://www.panarchy.org/orwell/ignorance.1949.html

England the testing ground for much of this, as a search on surveillance cameras shows. Example:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-government-to-install-surveillance-cameras-in-private-homes.html

The people they are experimenting on don’t have the ability to object. Not these in the link above, nor the whole population of the country who have allowed the cameras to proliferate.

‘If you haven’t done anything wrong, why would you object?’

Is the argument constantly used by all promoting this; from police, journos, the man in the street asked his opinion..

15 out of 10, Willis

Robb876 says: (January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am)
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yes, Robb,

Nick says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm

Willis,why misrepresent Trenberth when you offer a link to what he actually says?
He never states that human activity is ‘causing’ our weather ills, simply that we are influencing events.

Nor did I say that he states that human activity is causing our weather, you need to improve your reading skills. I said he implies it, which he certainly does … Nick, I’ll say to you what I say to many people. If you disagree with something I said, QUOTE IT.

As usual you get up a head of rhetorical steam-e.g. climate science has had ‘unlimited funding’,and the ‘full-throated support of the media’…. and on and on.

My friend, if you think that the unproven AGW hypothesis has not had the “full throated support of a media” over the last quarter century, you need real professional help, not the paltry assistance we can offer.

Regarding funding, the US is currently spending a million dollars a day, not per month or per week but per day, on climate science research. Yes, that’s not “unlimited funding”, you are correct … but in this time when you guys are always squealing about Exxon funding someone to the tune of ten million dollars total, once, five years ago, compared to that, ten million bucks per day is near enough to unlimited for all practical purposes … and that’s not counting the $300 million bucks that Al Gore threw into the pot.

Objecting to the use of the ‘denier’ tag is a bit rich when you call Trenberth a cheat and a conspirator.

I didn’t have to call Trenberth a cheat and a conspirator, he is condemned by his own words. You really, really should read the underlying documents before making foolish claims, it makes people snort coffee up their nose when you make nonsensical statements like that. Read the emails, then go back and read them again. As someone who is mentioned in the Climategate emails because I was a participant, I can assure you that you don’t have a clue what you are on about.

And if you don’t see the difference between accusing someone of a specific act, and referring to a whole class of varied and interesting people by a name which Trenberth has been repeatedly told is perceived as an insult, again you need professional help. As I told Trenberth, that’s just common courtesy. For example, I used to call AGW supporters “warmers”, but a couple of people objected. So being courteous, I changed it to the more neutral “AGW supporters”.

But Trenberth, and I guess you as well, are too tone-deaf to dozen’s of people’s oft-repeated and clear requests to exhibit the most common form of politeness. If you tell me you don’t want to be called “Little Nicky”, I don’t argue about how you really are little or some such nonsense. I just call you something else because you asked me to. You and Trenberth obviously missed the kindergarten class about playing well with others …

All this because he expects you guys to do some real work by following the scientific process.

Oh, Nick, that’s so funny. I know it’s not polite to laugh at someone for being naive, but in your case, it’s so over-the-top I can’t help it. Kevin doesn’t expect us to do some real work, that’s a Pangloss fantasy. He is terrified of the real work that’s already been done, and he knows that he can’t find the evidence to make his case. Occam told me that’s the most probable reason that he’s trying to change the rules in midstream.

And you think he wants to change the rules to make us do some real work? Oh, that’s precious, Nick, I almost spilled my coffee, your mom must be so proud of you.

w.

Willis, great post. I’m afraid the Team and their retinue don’t merely neglect the null hypothesis – a lot of them, like Tobis and Verheggen, genuinely misunderstand it.

Here’s post I made at Judith’s:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-31725

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm

@- Willis Eschenbach says:

“I have no problem with using sophisticated methods to determine if the null hypothesis has been falsified. However, I am unaware of anyone who has been able to falsify the null hypothesis using any methods. Do you have citations to the use of “thermodynamic explanations” to falsify the null hypothesis?”

No.
Which rather supports my point.
Without a means of differentiating between ‘Natural variation’ and any alternative hypothesis for climate events the descriptive term is of little use.

You miss the point. We have a host of means, statistical and otherwise, to differentiate between natural variation and something anomalous. You seem to think because you can’t prove your case using those means, you get to change the rules.

‘Fingerprinting’ in attribution studies usually relies on details of the physical process because the past natural variation has many causes.
For instance the hypothesis that the Milankovitch cycles are the initial cause of the ice-age – interglacial transitions is not refuted, negated or helped by having a null hypothesis that the variations are present in the past paleoclimate record and are therefore consistent with a null hypothesis of ‘Natural variation’.

You mean that natural variations can’t be found with a null hypothesis of “it’s natural variation”? Now there’s some shocking news, Izen, thanks for enlightening us. I suppose your revolutionary news would be of use to us if we were looking to identify specific natural variations … but we’re not trying to find Milankovich or other natural variations, are we?

Instead, we’re looking to see if man is affecting the climate, or if variations in the climate are natural. In such a quest, “it’s natural variation” is the logical and inescapable null hypothesis. We can attack the problem of showing man’s influence in many ways, as you point out, from the simplistic to the highly refined.

However, all of this is far from the point. The point is that Trenberth is not looking for any of the subtleties that you so rightly point out. Instead, he is trying to turn the whole system on its head, not to refine the null hypothesis as you discuss, but to reverse the null hypothesis.

So you may be right or not … but Trenberth is definitely wrong, he’s way off the scientific reservation with his desire to reverse the null hypothesis.

izen says:
January 15, 2011 at 11:33 am
@- smokey -
…The link you give for similar past trends uses some unrealistically short periods. but is also entirely within the period when AGW is an active hypothesis for observed changes…
…presumably referring to this:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Not so.
The IPCC AR4 states that most of the observed warming after the mid-twentieth century is most likely due to human GHG emissions.
Clearly human emissions, by comparison, were insignificant before then:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global_ff_1751_2006.jpg
A fact which reinforces Smokey’s point.

G. Karst says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Most/many, lay/professional people, think the debate is about whether the world is warming or not. They assume that we live in the ideal climate. I have seen virtually no debate or science paper addressing the question “What is the ideal climate for the bio-mass and more specifically for Man (and his food supply)?”
_________________________________________________________
Absolutely spot on, G. Karst!

It’s damned hard to grow an abundance of food when temperatures are too cool or too hot.

Your question should be the first one asked with regard to climate, not an afterthought that no one bothers to address….

As a lawyer myself, I am always amused by law professors like Buzz Belleville who confidently proclaim what the policy should be and what they “know” about the subject of AGW. Because they know precious little other than what they have been fed by others. For myself, I’ve read a bunch of different stuff (most of which I don’t understand; I suspect Belleville understands even less), but I am most educated by WUWT because of the variety of viewpoints I receive here. It would be best for Belleville to do the same.

Law professors like him give our profession a bad name. I oppose them where I can.

R Gates, you keep saying you are not an alarmist or AGW cheerleader, that you are 75% one way and 25% the other and that you want the science, the real science, to win. Then you start in on Willis with the claim that ” GCM’s include every known forcing (long and short term) in the models”

Several others have already produced specific examples, but may I possibly direct you to the IPCC AR4 Chapter 8, pages 597 and 598, where the various models used in the report are listed. as you can see from reading just that high level chart, many of the models have ZERO adjustment for TSI at all. On that one variable alone your statement is falsified, but don’t worry, the land factors column, the sea ice column, in fact ALL the columns in the table falsify your statement.

So… did you not bother to check the facts at all? Or did you just decide to adjust them? The 75% of you that claims to support the AGW theory seems to have adopted the AGW scientific method. Refinement = Adjustment = If the facts do not support your theory, the facts must be wrong.

izen:

Without a means of differentiating between ‘Natural variation’ and any alternative hypothesis for climate events the descriptive term is of little use.

izen, we’ve got nearly the whole climate-weather history of the Earth as “natural variation”. We’ve got a significant amount of time since the end of the last glaciation, with “natural variation” but without any ACO2. You are obviously the one who has to “differentiate” CO2AGW from that natural variation, because you are the one who wants to say that now CO2CAGW is at work instead of natural variation.

But, izen, if you are claiming that you can’t define or describe “natural variation” on the basis of its limits – what is expected from it, and what is not – then, according to you, you likewise can’t differentiate CO2AGW from it! So, according to you, you can’t prove anything at all about CO2AGW!

For example, you can’t possibly make any predictions that would support or falsify either “natural variation” or CO2AGW, one more than the other, since you can’t distinguish between them in the first place. In fact, you can have no idea, either, if some completely seperate force would have also entered into the mix at some time. You simply don’t know what the [say, Earth's Holocene] natural climate is or has been, so you can’t really even worry about something like fossil fuel CO2 changing it, because you wouldn’t be able to recognize/differentiate it from natural variation.

R Gates
… and while you are at it, why don’t read read through this gem from page 608 of the same report. Basically what they say is the NONE of the models can actually reproduce the climate of the last 140 years properly, so they are ALL wrong, but when you average them together, the average is closer than any of the models. In other words, “we have no clue which parts are right and which parts are wrong, but since they average out, our strategy is to keep creating a whole bunch of different ones even though we know they are wrong.”

While reading this little gem, keep in mind also that these are just the model results that they used for for the average. There were results from lots of other models submitted, but they were discarded for one deficiency or another so that just the models that happen to average to a better result were left. Hmmm. I wonder whose idea that was? Some guy with tree ring expertise maybe?

————————

The multi-model averaging serves to filter out biases
of individual models and only retains errors that are generally
pervasive. There is some evidence that the multi-model mean
fi eld is often in better agreement with observations than any of the
fi elds simulated by the individual models (see Section 8.3.1.1.2),
which supports continued reliance on a diversity of modelling
approaches in projecting future climate change

HAS:

Sorry, but No! your post at January 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm makes the same mistake as Trenberth.

As scientist has to work within the scientific method. He/she does not have the luxury of changing the method because of any personal desire. And part of the scientific method is an acceptance of the nature and importance of the null hypothesis in any investigation.

The null hypothesis is that in the absence of evidence of a change then it has to be assumed there has been no change.

So, in the case of AGW, it has to be assumed that climate behaviour has not changed from previous climate behaviour unless and until there is evidence that climate behaviour has changed.

There can be no compromise with this.

Your suggestion that the null hypothesis should be that climate behaviour may have to change by a specified amount (you suggest 5%) redefines the null hypothesis. And an attempt to redefine the null hypothesis is the same mistake that Trenberth makes.

The null hypothesis in AGW is that climate behaviour has not changed as a result of the anthropoigenic emission of GHGs (i.e. following the industrial revolution) and it is the ONLY scientific assumption because there is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – evidence of such a change. If such evidence were produced then the null hypothesis would be disproved and there could be investigation of what caused the change. But unless and until such evidence exists there is not – and there cannot be – any scientific purpose in investigating the cause (perhaps AGW or something else) of a change which is not known to exist.

Investigating if AGW is the cause of a change to climate behaviour when there is no evidence that the change exists exists is like investing the behaviour of a specific ghost in a house that is said to be haunted.

Richard

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

“…R. Gates, do you truly think that adding more and more forcings and UHI calcs to a model in which “the potential energy of water vapor/condensate is neglected”, a model that doesn’t stay in balance by itself but has to be “tuned” to stay in balance, will give us better and better answers?

Because I’ve been programming computers for forty-eight years now, I’m very fluent in half a dozen computer languages and literate in another half dozen. In my experience, until the basics of the climate (or any other) model are right, adding more forcings and UHI effects is just like nickel-plating a squirt-gun. It looks solid and real, and you can certainly use it to terrorize the citizenry … but that doesn’t make it into a real pistol.”

Can you define for us what the potential energy of vapor condensate is, and explain why its effect is important enough to warrant consideration by climate models?
Can you do the same for the other assumptions that were made to simplify the execution of the climate model which you referenced?

You ridicule the modelers who wrote the paper you referenced for having made these simplifying assumptions it, but you haven’t shown that they are causing significant errors in the models.

The people who did the modeling clearly have the background to understand the physics and why they can make these assumptions. I see that they didn’t explain in detail why this made sense.

I suspect that climate model researchers who understand the physics would attack these assumptions if they were incorrect. Can you cite any refutations of this particular set of assumptions in the climate modeling literature?

If you can’t explain the physics that causes the phenomena neglected in the reference, and you can’t cite objections to these assumptions in the literature, why should anyone accept your comments on this particular point as valid? You don’t claim to have any background in physics, only in programming.

I want to postulate a new H1 hypothesis.
It is that an increase in Carbon dioxide might be cooling the atmosphere.
At least that is what my results from my own method & report could be suggesting.
The method is simple.
We can all do this. If you know the weather pattern at your weather station.
We want to compare days & times where it was always dry and cloudless.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa

Let me know what you think…..

Dr. Trenberth also pretends he was ‘exonerated’ irt climatgate.
He knows he was not, if he is capable of reasoned thinking on the topic.
He got away with it, so far. He received a whitewash from phony non-investigtions.
He may think he did nothing wrong.
but he was not exonerated.

Willis

Very nice post.

chuckarama says:
“January 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Doesn’t it follow that if AGW is now a matter of fact, unequivicolly so as we are repeatedly told, that we can stop funding research on it with taxpayer money? What’s the point of continuing to prove it?”

I think its time we sceptics had a change in tactics, so lets lobby our governments too say that as the science is so settled no further research of any kind is needed, and we can cut all funding to the climate industry completely.

After the stunned silence there will be howls of protest and requests for further research funding for various lines of investigation into ‘uncertain areas’ which will show us EXACTLY where the warmists believe the main weaknesses in their arguments lie…

Tonyb

Willis, HAS and others – I’m not a scientist, so correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you courting unnecessary epistemological difficulty by entertaining talk of the null hypothesis being, or not being, “proven” or “falsified”? Surely the whole point of the null hypothesis is that it admits of neither, but but just sits there, waiting to be found if the alternative hypothesis fails? CAGW Believers like izen, but many others with greater claims to eminence, misunderstand the null hypothesis, appearing to believe that it is a separate logical construct, to be tested by separate experiment, on a separate occasion, from the alternative hypothesis. They thus talk about “proving” or “falsifying” it, deepening their confusion. Surely we should be pointing out this source of confusion?

By the way, KT’s wish to switch N0 indicates to me that he DOES understand it, unlike those defending him.

Richard S Courtney says January 16, 2011 at 12:07 am

The null hypothesis is simply what you testing to see if the data will falsify it. The consequence of falsifying it gives support for the alternate hypothesis.

The fact that the null often reflects the default or commonly held view is simply because typically it isn’t usually very interesting to prove what is already common belief. But when there’s real argument or difference of views the experimenter is free to choose what they are trying to do in their experiment.

So Dr T is perfectly at liberty to say I’m testing to falsify that CO2 has no/limited impact on temperatures. In fact he should have been doing this all along given what he clearly believes.

I note that initially Willis Eschenbach objected in his post to the reversal because “it is woefully short of either theoretical or observational support.” But I see that when he is responding to izen at January 15, 2011 at 10:25 pm he does seem to make the same mistake when he says “Trenberth is definitely wrong, he’s way off the scientific reservation with his desire to reverse the null hypothesis.”

For my part I have always felt there is a lack of rigour in climate science when it comes to experimental design etc. Dr T for example assumes the output of climate models as if they are empirical data to achieve closure on radiation balances.

I therefore think it would be a very good discipline to get him to formulate his null and his alternate (as I’ve noted earlier). Only good will come of it, and I don’t think it’ll skew the debate one way or the other.

No one else need change their null, although I predict that quite a few skeptics will start doing it when they see the opportunities presented by more tightly defining causality and demonstrating the limitations in the data.

And remember one persons null can be another’s alternate.

The part of Dr Trenberth’s emails that never seems to get much attention is the following.

The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Now I might be missing what he is saying but it seems to me he is saying.
We have not got a clue what is going on so if we try to take steps to try and fix it(CO2 reduction)we will not know if it is working or not.
So before the World spends trillions of dollars does he still think that the geoengineering will be quite hopeless.

Willis Eschenbach [January 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm] says:

“… until the basics of the climate (or any other) model are right, adding more forcings and UHI effects is just like nickel-plating a squirt-gun. It looks solid and real, and you can certainly use it to terrorize the citizenry … but that doesn’t make it into a real pistol.”

He shoots, he scores. Nuthin’ but net.

In australia we have Bob Brown leader of the greens he made a statment that the coal mines have caused the queenslands floods . every body should feel sorry for us having to put up with this goose . the x and y generation love the greens it is very sad for all normal people

@- smokey
“The null hypothesis is completely falsifiable. Simply show a current parameter that has changed as a result of the increase in CO2. Presto! Null falsified.”

I would nominate the satellite measured fall in OLR and the measured rise in DLR.

Somehow I suspect you will find a reason NOT to accept that this falsifies the null hypothesis.

@- JPeden says:
“But, izen, if you are claiming that you can’t define or describe “natural variation” on the basis of its limits – what is expected from it, and what is not – then, according to you, you likewise can’t differentiate CO2AGW from it! So, according to you, you can’t prove anything at all about CO2AGW!”

Actually I got rather sidetracked into the issue of how useful a null hypothesis based purely on comparisons with past patterns was compared to an explanatory hypothesis invoking physical causation.

As I stated in my first post on this thread, there ARE aspects of the current climate which I think are anomalous in comparison with natural variation. The changes in OLR and DLR I mention above would be one. The evidence that the recent rate of sea level rise is not typical of the last 6000 years would be another.
Whether climate change is ‘Natural’ or manmade the attribution of a cause relies on a hypothesis that invokes physical processes. Looking only at the change in temperature is incapable of providing an explanation for that data.

@izen

“how useful a null hypothesis based purely on comparisons with past patterns was compared to an explanatory hypothesis invoking physical causation”

Again you treat N0 as if it were separable from its alternative, instead of the essential complement to any properly-framed hypothesis which it is.

And what on earth is an “explanatory hypothesis”? If you mean the Alternative Hypothesis (N1) , then again, to be properly framed, it must have a properly framed N0.

This is the point where the AGW cause either jumps the shark or elevates itself to true religion, right now canonical models and journals are being selected much like the heretical gospels the rest will be dropped IPCC report 5 will become a new bible.

“That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy …”
Can it be a coincidence that the loopiest scientific craze of all time is provoking some of the finest comic prose ever?

tango @ 1:27

In nature, the only prize for stupidity is extinction! The stupidity was voting for Greens.

@- TomFP says:
“Again you treat N0 as if it were separable from its alternative, instead of the essential complement to any properly-framed hypothesis which it is.”

I remain unpersuaded that the dialectical method of thesis/antithesis-synthesis is the only way that epistemologically sound science can be practiced.

I would favor less asymmetry in the falsifiability of AGW -v- ‘Natural variation’.

The bottom line is that after 25 years of promoting a theory, they know that they are unable to prove it (by way of science and/or scientific observation) and in a last desperate gasp, they seek to argue that those not accepting the theory should disprove it.

It is akin to in a 6 month long complex fraud case, the prosecution holding up their hands and saying OK we cannot prove the fraud but during the last 6 months we have slung plenty of mud and the Defendants should disprove that they committed fraud.

The burden of proof is clearly upon those promoting the AGW theory and they must prove it, failing which, it remains just a matter of conjecture. I certainly do not accept that my tax dollars should be spend on some unproven assertion.

Come on Trenberth, show us all where your missing heat is.

ʇɥbıɹ buıןǝǝɟ ʇou ןןıʇs puɐ ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ ɯoɹɟ ʞɔɐq ʇob

Just woke up and jumped back in. Delicious. Got popcorn.

Willis, if ever I should have the good fortune I will call you and it wont cost you a penny. Until neither of us can sea ;-)

And thanks for reminding me of Ursulla Andress. Lovely.

Willis Eschenbach says January 15, 2011 at 9:19 pm:
“I lay it to the awesome power of self-delusion, which among other things makes me think I can write clearly …”

You are definitely, in my opinion, not deluding yourself. – Your writing is always very clear and concise. – [Mine, unfortunately on (most?) occasions, is probably not.]

You may however know the old saying; “A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.” – Many people including myself may, sometimes unwittingly, take on the disguise of that horse. Very unfortunately it sometimes happens that the “horse-cloak” is both blind and deaf.
This, as far as I know, is not a Cliff Claven theory. It is one that just came to me as I was reading through some (a few) of the comments above.
OHD.

Give it a rest Izal.

Great comment W, you’re the man!

Trouble with this lot, the science went out of the window, when the conjecture was first mooted- MMCO2e = GW was a non starter……. it was a political fiction, bouyed by some extremely doubtful ‘post normal’ legerdemain/sorcery – Aka climatology.

These dorks like Trenberth cannot admit it is [AGW] all just guff, because their paydays will be finished – mind you that would hardly be before time – too long supping at the government teat – Ken, me old luv.

Integrity, honest endeavour and real Science has found ‘em out [AGW scammers], big problem though………politicians still believe in faeries at the foot of the garden and so do the IPCC and many massive financial institutions [DB, GS] who all have fingers in the pie – so to speak. This is where the battle is still being lost, even today, Clinton is calling for this: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_can-t-afford-delay-on-climate-change-hillary-clinton_1494874 for action on climate change, will they never give it up?? [H/T Tom Nelson]

So the AGW showboat is holed, no sinking!!……… the Merrimac still bristles and shouts defiance, whilst the realists aim yet another fussilade of state of the art lasar guided missiles.
Admit it Ken, you’re out-gunned, out-classed and [to boot] an anachronism.

Now lower your colours.

björn summarised it superbly above; AGW for Trenberth and his colleagues now has the status of a god. It has long been apparent that the AGW crowd will behave like the Spanish Inquisition towards those who disagree. They have just taken their fantasy a step further.

@izen,
Given how much easier it would make your task, I can see how you would “favor less asymmetry”. Well, tough, ’cause you’re not going to get it.

This post must be Unequivocally and robustly irritating to the Warmistas.

Can you imagine….

First Al Gore HIMSELF says the science is SETTLED.
And Arrhenius! Dont forget Arrhenius!!

Then there is 2500 scientists saying there is concensus!

And now….. The science isnt even science.

And there wasnt a concensus after all.

And convection and water wapour kills Arrhenius….

Good grief…..its a Travesty!!!

Hi Willis!

Another great essay – its excellent quality is reflected in the most interesting and stimulating debate which has followed it.

A point I would have thought that the legal people posting here might have picked up is the parallel legal principle to the null hypothesis – that of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

This analogy seems to me to be particularly useful in resolving the point made by Izen at several posts – the need for the null hypothesis to be defined (or at least that is what I think he is requiring). In legal terms this means that the accused has to define their innocence when in fact it is incumbent upon the prosecution to define their guilt. Any other approach turns the whole principle upside down. In science It would seem that the same principle applies. The null hypothesis is simple – there is no abnormal variation in the present climate and it is incumbent upon anyone falsifying this hypothesis to demonstrate that there is abnormal variation.

As others have noted this is the underlying cause of so much heat being generated over the Hockey Stick; why its debunkers – M&M, Wegman and Montford spring to mind – are so reviled and why the UVa has so far spent $500,000 on defending it progenitor…

I am in Suva at the moment Willis – anything I can order for you at the RSYC???

You cannot win with these guys because you are fighting a religion.

To realize how demented this religion is read the Guardian or Independent. They are serious loonies. I am also noticing how the Guardian is trying to expand the issue by using bio-diversity and ocean acidification. You see these guys are after the big fish, capitalism. AGW is just another stick to hit capitalism with. No science just a religious with capitalism as the Great Satin. The term Watermelon is apt, Green on the outside, red on the inside. For years I use to wonder why did the Germans follow Hitler. I see these loonies and totally understand it. Totally convinced in their own opinion and beliefs and a hatred of anyone or thing that dares questions them. Sadly the MSM is packed out with these loons. I really do think we need a new name for this religion, Melonists.

R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm

The best GCM’s are extremely complicated affairs that take into account tens of thousands of different variables and require massive supercomputers to run. They certainly take into account many aspects of thermohalin circulation on a global basis. One of the most comprehensive models (IMO) is the CESM 1.0. I would suggest you begin here:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/

Yeah, and they still fail miserably to match the predictive ability of Piers Corbyn’s laptop.

And explore all the facets for yourself. You’ll see that not only is something as relatively simple as thermohaline circulation included, but more far more variables than you’d guess. The steady accumulation of CO2 is only one of thousands. And as I said before, the best thing is these models are always being refined as the science advances.

Hahaha! The thing that really gets me is: this guy is actually convinced by this stuff. It’s like he refuses to acknowledge the myriad elephants in the room. “Always being refined” – what a wonderful phrase! Like those yearly TV ads “New improved Daz Automatic, gets whites even whiter than before!” Daz in 1988 must have been really [/snip]. “Far more variables than you’d guess” – yeah, and each one with massive error bars, not to mention all the unknowns that by definition cannot be incorporated, and not to mention the biased feedback assumptions built in. Anyone who believes we can anywhere remotely near accurately model a planet’s atmosphere to make any kind of meaningful prediction (sorry, ahem – projection) is deluded. If R Gates has any real examples of these things being evidence of AGW, I hope he shares them. And he might tell Kevin Trenberth too, because privately (at least he wishes it was private) even he admits we don’t know enough to predict anything, so I’m sure he’d be all eyes and ears.

[Lets leave the vulgarity in your head... not in the text OK?..... bl57~mod]

jeez says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Willis willis willis,

To sum it up:

Dr. Trenberth, when on a journey, if you do nothing but circle the wagons, you won’t make any forward progress.

That one made me chuckle. Glad to see you back and blogging

is possible that climate change is real? I dont know. I suppose. I think its called Global Disruptive Climate now (or something like that.) Its all in the marketing. I see it all the time, just tonight I watched one an infomercial for a bracelet that helps people keep their balance.. because normal people can’t stand up straight without help. If that sort of garbage sells to millions of people then why not tell people the world is warming to catastrophic levels and their demise is right around the corner?

Pretty good pitch if you ask me.

Lucy Skywalker says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm
stephen richards says: January 15, 2011 at 11:57 am

Willis and Lucy S – I think you are being too generous to Dr T

I take grumpy old man’s point about being generous to your enemy after defeat. And I see it’s easy to mistake my full intent, from those words. I want this man nailed for what he has done
Lucy

I respect your opinions always and I can’t say that about many bloggers. My point is that we not be ‘generous’ but that we be respectful. One can be respectful at the same time as we remove his tongue for lieing (mentir). not sure about that spelling for lying.

OUCH. Great work, Thanks Willis.
I don’t mind paying (as a tax payer/consumer) for climate research. But, if just half of funds went to real research instead of some unprovable notion, then UK and Australia might have been better prepared. That’s the real travesty of the AGW scam.

I will be sending a copy Willis’s Essay to the Honorable Senator Sharron Brown of Ohio.

All Congress has to do is to declare CO2 a non pollutant. Put the pressure on them.

Mike says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Redundant, lumbering and meandering. Less would have been more.

Mike

Don’t be so hard on yourself, you can’t help it:)

I take it then that Trenberth’s current working hypothesis and indeed the working title of his next peer reviewed journal article would be “Overriding Anthropogenic Vengeful Disruption of Natural Cyclic Disruption of Anthropogenic Climate Disruption”.

Meant to say “…his working NULL hypothesis would be…?

Izen

“The change in climate behaviour may NOT be discernible from climate change prior to the postulated anthropogenic effect.”

Your point seems to be that if we don’t know what the historical climate (pre industrial) was, then how can you have a null hypothesis that uses that historical climate as its benchmark? How can you falsify the null hypothesis if you don’t have the data to compare against?

These are valid points, but the argument cuts both ways. Firstly, this is EXACTLY what the AGW came are doing – they are taking so-called proxy data (which you say is meaningless) and comparing that to modern data to point to unusual trends. Yet they were only able to do that successfully using the Mannian type hockey sticks. But as you yourself point out, we just don’t know historical data accurately enough to make such a comparison.

The second point is that we do actually have historical facts to make a reasonable assertion that present climate is not unusual. We have the Viking Greenland settlements; Vineyards in the North of England; glacier retreats which have uncovered archeological artifacts; admiralty reports of drastic arctic ice loss in recent history.

I feel comfortable believing that today’s climate is no different from past episodes.

TonyB and chuckarama were concerned about continued funding of climate if “the science is settled.”

I would have guessed that funding for NASA Goddard, NOAA, NSF, and the new Dept of Energy AND Climate change soaked up all the government funding, but no.
I just found this:

How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day

January 15, 2011 – by Art Horn

Seems everyone is talking about the massive United States federal deficit and how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion. Is there any way to comprehend such a bloated number? Try this: the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. At that speed a photon of light starts at the surface of the Sun and reaches the Earth in 8 minutes. On Star Trek, the speed of light is warp one — at that speed the Enterprise would travel about 6 trillion miles in one year. If each dollar of the deficit is represented by one mile, it would take the Enterprise more than two years traveling the speed of light to go 14 trillion miles.

So what can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money? We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.

This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.

The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.

Here is what the federal government thinks is happening with the Earth’s climate due to the burning of fossil fuels — the following quote is from chapter 15 of the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request:

Past scientific research demonstrates that the Earth’s climate is changing, that humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption. This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.
The first sentence is obvious: of course the Earth’s climate is changing; it always has and always will no matter what we do.

The next statement — “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” — is speculation. The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate. Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years, stopped 50 years ago, and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy, not science.

Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption — there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.” Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next? My money’s on “climate disintegration” — that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.

The statement then reads: “This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.” And that is the key to all of this: the fear factor. Pitching rising sea levels and other catastrophic consequences to keep the research money coming.

If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change — and that’s just for this year!

Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.
Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.
The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.

Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?

Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.

Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped. How much of the requested money these government agencies actually get is not yet known. The way they spend money in Washington, you can rest assured they’ll get most of it.

If you’re looking to cut the budget, climate change is a good place to start. If we don’t get a handle on Washington’s spending soon, and I mean very soon, climate change will be the least of our problems.

Art Horn spent 25 years working in television as a meteorologist. He now is an independent meteorologist and speaker who lives in Connecticut. He can be contacted at [/snip].

[I have removed the email address. It is not fair or wise to post it in the open for the spam bots to absorb and use .... without expressed permission and request from the owner. bl57~mod]

HAS, very good point. It is true that your null hypothesis can either be the consensus of a new paradigm, an old one, or your particular belief. Once stated, whatever it is, it is up to you, and in this case Trenberth, to find fault with it. Trenberth must therefore retract his charge for us to disprove his preferred null hypothesis. Indeed, his next grant must be about finding non-anthropogenic sources of variation. And he must search hard and long for it. The rest of his career, in fact, must be dedicated to that task. I wait…………………………………

HAS,

“So Dr T is perfectly at liberty to say I’m testing to falsify that CO2 has no/limited impact on temperatures.”

But that’s NOT what he’s saying at all. He is saying that since he has changed the null hypothesis to be that co2 has caused modern warming, then until such time that somebody falsifies it, this will remain an axiomatic truth. And if nobody is able to falsify it, then what is the world supposed to believe?

Well, I’ve checked about 100 comments and it’s running at about 99 to 1 in favour of Willis’s comment.

Resistance is thus futile.

richcar 1225 says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Trenberth and his ilk are hitting the lecture circuit trying to ride the 2010 El Nino that was a disappointment but represents a last gasp for the AGW movement. They realize they face an increasingly sceptical public and congress. With the NAO and record positive SOI working against them they know that this is their last best chance to convince their fellow scientists. NPR, in a radio segment today pitted a ‘climate scientist’ against a kid in the global warming debate. The kid suggested she would like to hear the other side of the debate.

[Oops - I may have just posted the snippet - clicked "Post Comment" instead of "edit" (the ItsAllText Firefox addon). Sorry].

richcar 1225 says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:13 pm

NPR, in a radio segment today pitted a ‘climate scientist’ against a kid in the global warming debate. The kid suggested she would like to hear the other side of the debate.

That’s at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics , act two as they like to say:

Act Two. Climate Changes. People Don’t.

Climate expert Dr. Roberta Johnson presents the best evidence there is that climate change is real, in hopes of convincing a very skeptical audience: a 14 year old named Erin Gustafson. (14 minutes)

I heard a bit of the beginning and end. “Free mp3 available Sunday 7PM” – from Chicago, so likely Monday 0100 UT.

old construction worker says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:00 am

“[...] I will be sending a copy Willis’s Essay to the Honorable Senator Sharron Brown of Ohio. [...]“

Better send it to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. ;o)

Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am

> Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yep! Now, making through all of the comments, I can’t keep up. And Saturday is the slow day on the web. Had Willis posted this Thursday, the moderators would have collapsed within 24 hours.

1. Willis Eschenbach says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm

Mr. Eschenbach – I’m sorry you find my comments so distasteful.

My comment: What a dishonest posting.

Your response: “What an unpleasant start, Buzz [snip]. Come back when you have learned to use your indoor voice and play nicely with the other children, there’s a good boy … I may be an idiot, and I certainly may be mistaken, but by god I’m an honest man. For you to start your posting by insulting the honesty of someone you never met is a really, really dumb thing to do, Buzzbrain. You’ve poisoned your own well.”

First, I’ll defend my statement. The original posting is intellectually dishonest. You accuse Trenberth of implying – through a single cherry-picked sentence – that the IPCC found human causation of weather ills (rather than just warming generally) to be “unequivocal.” It did not, obviously. But then you quote the IPCC a few times to show that “the IPCC said nothing like what he is implying.” You fail to mention the IPCC’s “highly likely” finding, implying that the IPCC reached no conclusions as to human causation. In other words, you’re engaged in the exact same fallacy you’ve accused Trenberth of committing. So I stand by my contention that the original post is dishonest.
Second, you accuse me of a lack of civility for questioning the posting’s intellectual honesty. In your post, you patronize me like a child (“use your indoor voice and play nicely with the other children, there’s a good boy”), called what I said “dumb,” name-call (“Buzzbrain,” “Buzz Lightyear,” “Buzzard”), and accused me of ignorance (“do your homework,” “stay awake,” “try to keep up,” etc.). I may be substantively incorrect, sir (most posters on this board agree with you, while other boards would mock your “analysis” mercilessly), but any objective analysis of our two comments would grade yours much lower on the civility scale.

My post: The point that we haven’t warmed the past decade and that the past 30 years are consistent with natural variability …. kind of shameless. You have to do some serious manipulations with starting years or peak years to come to those conclusions.

Your response: “Actually, it’s no warming for the past 15 years, and even Phil Jones has said that the past 30 years are statistically indistinguishable from the last rise in temperature. You sure you stayed awake during the intermission? Because what you are saying is not just unbelievably stupid, it is also 100% wrong. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST, you are embarrassing yourself.
And “shameless”??? Are you unable to open your mouth without insulting someone, is that a requirement for your writing?”

Quite apart from your screaming and continuing patronizing, I am quite sure you know the true story. All of the temp keepers (NCDC, GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH) show broad agreement that this past decade averaged between 0.16-0.18 degrees C warmer than past decade. It is a false statement of fact to say that the planet hasn’t warmed in the past decade, and it is shameless to claim otherwise. You can pick an isolated year (1998, 2005) and say that a particular later year (2008) is cooler, but that’s not what you did.
And here’s the part of the Phil Jones interview you’re referring to:
Question: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Jones: “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
In other words, it has gotten warmer, even in a cherry-picked timeframe. If you add in 2010, we’re at the statistically significant level. And if you go back further than 1995, we’re above 0.2C degrees per decade.
And for good measure, here’s another question and answer, verbatim:
“How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?”
Jones: “I’m 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

My comment: Nine of the 10 warmest on record within the past decade (1998 being the other). The rolling 5-year or 13-month averages on a steady upward trend. In fact, including the last two years, we are well within the 0.2-0.3 degrees C per decade. And the last 30 years show a marked departure from the previous 300 in terms of the rate of temp increase and the temp levels reached.

Your response: “Well, Buzz Lightweight, as they say … duh.
In a time of general warming, it sounds like you expect the warmest decade to be at the start of the record. Here in the real world, we know that when the earth has been warming for three centuries, the warmest decade (whether in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s) will likely be the most recent one. We expect that, y’know, so we’re not surprised when it happens as you seem to be.
Since you seem to be surprised by this predictable outcome, perhaps you could explain to the class why this is likely to be true in a time of centuries of general warming, and why it MEANS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER HUMANS AFFECT THE CLIMATE.”

I understand, but disagree with, your premise. We’re not in a period of “general (aka natural) warming.” Regardless of your belief in the cause of the LIA (the Maunder minimum or the more recent hypothesis of a prolonged NAO), those causative conditions ceased to exist in the mid- to late-1800s, at the latest. No “lag time” suggestion could say that the cessation of these phenomena are still causing current warming. Moreover, my comment was in response to your claim that we haven’t warmed the past decade (which is demonstrably false).

My comment: This past week, I started into the “international climate regime” part of my sustainable energy law class, and I’m always amazed by how accurate those warning of AGW in the 1980s were. They nailed it. We should have listened to them long ago.

Your response: “Well, that makes your nastiness understandable, you are training to be a lawyer, which ups the odds that “Buzz” is really short for Buzzard.
OK, Buzzard, If you think the 1980s predictions were accurate, perhaps you could also share with the class what the warnings of AGW in the 1980s were … ”

Actually, I teach the class, at a law school in coal country. Students that plan to head into the field need to understand where the law is heading, whether its the reach of Mass v EPA, the new EPA stationary source regs, the financial incentives for energy projects, etc. I’m just fixing the misperception my comment must have caused, not claiming that gives me any particular expertise. Every year, as I start to get into teaching the UNFCCC and Kyoto, I need to review things like the First Climate Conference, the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, the various declarations and agreements around the globe, the Second Climate Conference – all things that happened in the run-up to the Framework Convention. The broad identification of the problem, projected temp increases made during these events, and identification of effects of climate change proved extremely accurate. That was my point.
(As an aside, and in response to mostly other posters, it’s not true that scientists in the 80’s or even in the 70’s were predicting “cooling” rather than “warming.” Yes, there were a couple mainstream magazine covers that talked of cooling in the 1970s. But, by a ratio of 6-to-1, peer reviewed scientists who ventured an opinion in the 1970s were in fact predicting warming, not cooling. There was no doubt in the 1970’s that CO2 caused warming by trapping reflective heat, or that aerosols and particulate matter caused cooling. Natural solar cycles and NAO cycles were also understood in the 1970s. What wasn’t understood was what forcing agent would be dominant in subsequent years. As noted above, the great majority (44 of 51) who ventured an opinion that passed peer review sniff tests were predicting warming, Time and Newsweek magazine covers notwithstanding.)
I don’t know about the individual predictions about some specific quantifiable change in isolated effects you cite. If I spent the time, I could give you a litany of incorrect predictions on fundamental AGW premises by skeptics (not just those of non-scientists saying we’re heading into a cooling period, but Spencer’s changing cause-and-effect theories and Lindzen’s iris projections), but that’s beyond the scope of this exchange.

Your comment: “Buzz, you’ve wandered into a buzz-saw here. You obviously haven’t been following the story at all. If you try again, you’ll only get hurt. You are fighting outside your weight class, against men who participated in the original battles around the time of your birth.
My advice in that case? Shut up and learn something.”

Thanks for the advice. I’ve spent years trying to understand the nuances on both sides of this debate. I think I’ll keep engaging the skeptics anyway, despite your advice. I learn more that way than just engaging relatively like-minded folks on HuffPo or the NYT.
As to your ad hominem attacks and tone — “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”

@izen – do you have a link describing the DLR “anomaly” you are taking about?

Stuart Huggett says: January 16, 2011 at 4:22 am

A point I would have thought that the legal people posting here might have picked up is the parallel legal principle to the null hypothesis – that of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

YES

It’s not exactly the same, but it is a way to help people understand rather than shut off.

Moreover the fourfold principle of a court of law comes into its own in a way I think is very important for us. This is as follows:
1. Case for the Prosecution
Climate alarmists describe their version of IPCC – “MAN IS GUILTY”
2. Case for the Defence
True climate scientists state the true science – “There is no conclusive evidence of this, and a lot of evidence against it”
3. Prosecution attacks the case for Defence
The pseudoskeptic alarmists “debunk” all the skeptics’ issues a la John Cook.
4. Defence answers Prosecution’s attacks
For instance, Monckton showed (stage 2) that by IPCC’s own science, the warming effect from increasing CO2 was incorrect – far too high. Gavin Schmidt answered (stage 3) but then coyly declined to reveal the fact that Monckton actually answered all Gavin’s points (this stage, 4)

IMHO we will not win this war until we can band together to carry out Stage Four regarding all the major statements of Stage Three ie Royal Society, NAS, BBC, RealClimate, Gristmill, and John Cook – and produce a joint statement to all the alarmists’ issues that is agreed or at least accepted by all skeptics. Monckton is sadly still a lone voice in doing this. And meanwhile Prosecution still runs rings round us. Those rings may be weakening but they are still there, as is evidenced by those like Buzz.

HAS sez:

“The fact that the null often reflects the default or commonly held view is simply because typically it isn’t usually very interesting to prove what is already common belief. But when there’s real argument or difference of views the experimenter is free to choose what they are trying to do in their experiment.

So Dr T is perfectly at liberty to say I’m testing to falsify that CO2 has no/limited impact on temperatures. In fact he should have been doing this all along given what he clearly believes.”

No. By switching the null hypothesis in this manner, scientists are forced to try to prove a negative. This is logically impossible, and Trenberth probably knows that. What a perfect hypothesis for them! Society would then have to cave in to the CAGW nonsense because they cannot prove there’s nothing to it (and it looks like there is not)!

Stuart Huggett says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:22 am
“This analogy seems to me to be particularly useful in resolving the point made by Izen at several posts – the need for the null hypothesis to be defined (or at least that is what I think he is requiring)…The null hypothesis is simple – there is no abnormal variation in the present climate and it is incumbent upon anyone falsifying this hypothesis to demonstrate that there is abnormal variation.”

Very well said. Some people have a gift for plain speaking and others attain the ability after a lot of self-criticism. I cannot trust a so-called scientist who cannot state his hypotheses in his own humble words and without resort to complicated machinery that presents risks of its own. The number one rule for any analyst is that the tools of analysis cannot be more complicated than the problem to be analyzed.

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

A new commentary by lindzen. Opinions?

I think the comments scare the Leftists of the AGW Climate-Man True Believer Cult more than establishment skeptics. The forum that hosted the debate between Trenberth and Gray (Gray the clear winner) was taken summarily taken down: the debate lives but the comments were killed. These AGW humanitarians of the Left need their Governor Palins like Nazis needed Jews.

eadler writes:

“I suspect that climate model researchers who understand the physics would attack these assumptions if they were incorrect. Can you cite any refutations of this particular set of assumptions in the climate modeling literature?”

This is a brazen appeal to authority. You do not understand what the modelers are doing. You cannot explain what they are doing in your own words. You should say that you are clueless about the modelers’ claims. Instead, you bow to them and ask us to join you. These facts alone should set you free from the delusion that has you worshiping the modelers.

Climate science is not rocket science. It is a branch of natural history. It is not physics. There will be no conceptual breakthroughs in high-level theory of the sort that took us from Newton’s physics to Einstein’s physics. There will be a lot of hard work creating and confirming hypotheses about the actual behavior of our atmosphere. Models are not hypotheses and cannot replace them. If you want to make claims for climate science, present the hypotheses that enable them to predict climate phenomena. By the way, at this time there are none.

This is why I visit this site almost every day. Bravo! I cannot wait for new data!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Send me site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Worrisome engineering patches

Space Shuttle Discovery being transported to the launch pad. Photo credit: Larry Tanner, USA

From Slashdot: BJ_Covert_Action writes:

“NASA engineers have finally discovered the root cause of the cracks that have been found on space shuttle Discovery’s main external tank. The main tank, one of the ‘Super Lightweight Tank’ models developed by Lockheed-Martin, employs an aluminum-lithium alloy developed by Lockheed-Martin specifically for this application.

The new alloy is used in various structural stringers throughout the SLWT design. Unfortunately, the batch of this alloy used in the tank that is currently mated with the Discovery shuttle appears to be of low quality. The alloy used in the stringers has a ‘mottled’ appearance, compared to the nominal appearance typically used in the main tank stringers (see picture in article).

This appearance is indicative of a fracture threshold that is significantly lower than typical. NASA has determined, through testing, that this low grade alloy has only 65% of the fracture strength of the nominal alloy typically used.

NASA engineers have devised a potential fix to the problem that they are currently testing to ensure the repair will cause no unintended consequences. NASA plans to have the Discovery shuttle ready to launch again by February 24th, 2011.”

===========================================================

I’m reminded of another ship with low grade metal. Let’s all hope the solution they devise is sound, otherwise it may be a terrible ending for the shuttle program.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- NASA Geek – Last Shuttle External Tank

- Get Your Questions Answered About the Last Shuttle External Tank Rolling Out

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

64 Responses to Worrisome engineering patches

Heads should roll, cajones should be removed and pickled. Outrageous.

I am hoping that this wasn’t a cost saving, outsourcing issue. The understanding of contamination wasn’t understood as well for a previous ship with brittle metal. There is no excuse today for this.

It is interesting that such parts made it into the system in a program that has been running for as long as the shuttle program.

John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic

If quality control and basic batch testing are out the window, why not just make it out of pot metal? I could mention other issues with and uses for lithium, but I am SO not going there.

That we’re still using the outdated shuttle system instead of being able to take scheduled recreational flights to Mars is the true scandal here. Pathetic.

for a second there i thought the “root cause” was gonna be global warming…

Anthony:

The problems with the NASA space shuttle are a tragedy. Despite that, some may be amused by the following pertinent facts.

The Roman military set standards for sizes of things: standard nails, boots, etc.. One standard was the axle length of carts, and it derived from the separation distance of the rods or ropes that connected a cart to each side of a horse.

Throughout the following millennia this standard axle length continued in use for horse-drawn carts. And railroads existed for frequently used tracks mostly associated with mines and quarries, so the railroad tracks had a standard separation determined by the axle length.

The standard rail separation continued in use when the steam age arrived (although Brunel attempted to get it increased). Railroad bridges and tunnels were constructed with according size.

The parts of NASA space shuttle were commissioned from organisations around the US. These parts had to be transported to Florida for assembly, and the larger ones were transported by rail.

So, each major component of the space shuttle was designed such that it could be carried on a railroad truck and could pass through railroad bridges and tunnels.

Is it any wonder that the space shuttle has had problems when all its major parts are defined by the size of a horse’s rear end?

Richard

REPLY: While that story seems plausible, it has been shown to be false.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

-Anthony

Anthony if we add metal fracture to the use of weak rivets it would probably explain a lot more;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html

Considering previous Shuttle history perhaps a complete rebuild would be better.

I think this is very serious. A structural failure in the tank would almost certainly bring the vehicle down, resulting in the loss of the crew (as happened with Challenger, but for a different reason). Also, I understand that Lockheed have stopped building the tanks in the factory New Orleans.

Far better, in my opinion, to end the shuttle program now rather than take any undue risks. I think that the shuttle is a magnificent work of engineering, but it has already killed 14 people. There are other ways to finish the space station build.

Anyone know why the SOHO sun images are not being updated? The last was Jan 11, about 22.30.

Engineering design usually has a fairly large safety factor built into material specifications. On such a weight-critical application, this may have been pared to the minimum. Material not up to spec in those circumstances is a big issue. If the designers and test engineers have accurately determined the strength reduction, they should be able to compensate with additional stringers, at the expense of payload.

A nervous time for the mission astronauts, who don’t need their stress compounding with press speculation.

The entire premise of the Shuttle was flawed.

Why try to make a boxcar both reusable and safe enough for passengers?

Why not make a smaller, reusable glider for passengers and a separate launch vehicle for cargo? That way, you could focus all the safety issues on a much smaller vehicle. Costs would have been much lower and it would have been safer for the passengers.

Fantastic and they found this problem just in time for the very last (maybe) space shuttle flight ever. After that, what are we left with? An incredibly expensive orbiting piece of space junk that the US can’t even get to on its own any more. It would be cheaper just to fly it into the ocean and use the budget savings to do some real work on climate science – but no, all that friction on re-entry would contribute to global warming and some piece of it might hit a penguin who wasn’t able swim fast enough to get out of the way because of the tag on his wing.

NASA does politics, not engineering. They wouldn’t have changed the insulation on the tank for greenie reasons and lost a shuttle if they did engineering.

Mine are updating on my widget. ( Mac . . . sorry )

This reminds me of the USS Schenectady that broke in half at the dock. Another event where bad materials and practices bit us on our collective a$$.

OK, so I had a cup of coffee (with sarcchrin) and looked at the article again. The REALLY distressing thing is that the difference between the good stuff and the bad stuff is about as obvious as looking at your feet to see if you have shoes on.

So the manufacturer made the alloy, but nobody tested it or even looked at it, the fabricator made the parts, but again nobody QC’d it or even looked at it and asked why it looked funny; then the NASA fuel tank contractor received it and did not QC it or even look at it and the assemblers built the tank (not their first one) without noticing that it looked a little strange. Millions of dollars later, somebody finally got down to LOOKING AT IT and guess what? It looked funny and didn’t work as specified.

Sort of makes you wonder about the other zillions of parts that make up the Shuttle. Maybe it is a very good thing that it is being retired.

This really is a scandal.

All engineers, everywhere and of whatever persuasion, should call for a thorough and detailed public inquiry into what went wrong.

If we don’t it will happen again and again.

This is reminiscent of the awful tragedy of the beautiful but fatally flawed British commercial airliner, the De Haviland ‘Comet’, that was designed and built before much was known about the long-term structural integrity of various lightweight metals.

I once worked with a former US Navy flyer who had gone into the military directly from college. His recounting of the safety speech his first Navy flight instructor made to the new trainees has stuck in my mind for over forty years;
“Never forget that anything you fly that was commissioned for the US Armed Forces was built by the lowest tenderer and is maintained by high school dropouts!”

Ground it, and end the Shuttle Program. 2 disasters too many, no need to roll the dice for a 3rd.
The last Shuttle crew will be disappointed, but very much alive. They can be the museum curators for the exhibit that NASA should open…. feauturing a real live surviving Shuttle.

No worries here. All those Shuttle folks have jobs as long as that bird is sitting on the ground. No need to hurry. None at all. In fact, if this gets fixed, we can probably find something else that’s a problem.

This is better than the Post Office, huh?

Is has been a long time since I’ve used my Material Science degree, but I can assure you this falls into the “not good” catagory.

But, this thing *should* have been so overengineered, 65% should still get it done comfortably.

Was it here that I read (or perhaps a book on the subject) that the Apollo system had over 6 million parts and that NASA safety requirements allowed it to fly as long as they were confident that there would be less than a 1% failure rate. That would still leave about 60,000 parts that could fail. Pretty brave those astronauts!

Anyone who is into aircraft development might remember that lithium-aluminum alloys were in the initial design of the Boeing 777. Boeing suffered major delays when cracking issues emerged in the lithium-aluminum structures. I am sure NASA was aware of this issue and I am also sure that metals companies made improvments in both the alloys and their processing methods. I am sure that the parts that NASA sourced were well quality controlled but is their an aging issue with this material. Metals with small atomic numbers and low melting points might see atoms quickly migrate which changes the microstructure of the metal and makes them age faster than expected.

Vendor QC for the loss. Those stringers weren’t QC’d at Michoud Assembly Facility. And they were sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before being assembled on the stringer panels about 2-3 years ago. Your toes would curl if you knew some of the covered up quality defects and union worker sabotage that went on at that Lockheed run facility.

Months of delay w/this launch — but I agree w/this considering there’s an engineering problem. Then why didn’t they consider delaying the launch of Challenger in 1982 in freezing weather (& after warning of danger from engineers) for just a few days?

I recall an issue with the foam on the shuttle some time ago that had to do with some kind of change due to an environmental regulation. I wonder if this could be the result of a similar thing?

Many years ago in a materials class, the professor mentioned about “Liberty Ships”, and how a few broke up in the N. Atlantic. Seems they also had a problem with the North Atlantic cold, causing the steel to change from ductile to brittle.

There is hardly anything that comes out of NASA that I accept without thinking about potential political angles.

I think you are rather unfair to the Titanic. It was actually an outstandingly safe ship.
Remember that it was:
- run at full speed (>20 knots) through a known iceberg area
- when a collision was inevitable, maneuvred in a way that was guaranteed to maximise damage

Even then it floated for four hours after the collision, allowing ample time for evacuation. However this, in line what had happened before, was handled with outstanding incompetence, causing many lifeboats to be launched not even half-full. Moreover most of these boats deliberately refrained from picking up survivors after the ship had sunk.

The Titanic disaster was caused by a combination of regulatory failure (specifying much smaller lifeboat capacity than needed) and an almost incredible lack of professionalism by the captain and crew.

I saw some Titanic show on the History Channel or something where they investigated the hull remains and concluded that manually formed cast-iron rivets in the lower bow of the ship (where the riveting machine couldn’t fit) failed, allowing the metal plates that run horizontally along the hull to buckle. The rest of the rivets were steel and machine-formed, and much stronger.

This subject of failure analysis of aluminum alloys is one that I once could claim some expertise. Base on what they have found and reported, I think this is a classic case of intergranular stress-corrosion cracking resulting from improper heat treatment. Ordinary tensile testing for quality control won’t show this. I doubt the metal orginally had the mottled appearance because that would have been a sign that there was something wrong with the heat treatment. They seem to have found a solution and didn’t blame CO2.

“Richard S Courtney says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:09 am”

Good one!

Appears to be possible surface corrosion which high strength aluminum alloys tend to do unless surface treated.
There was also some dissension on the Challenger disaster:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1990-08-22/news/bent-out-of-shape/

In addition, NASA management had predicted a mission failure rate of about 1:100,000, their engineers about 1:100 and empirical experience being about 1:35. The mishap appeared to fit the empirical data the best since the mishap occurred on the 31st flight (counting test flights) for this general design (not specific vehicle). The Columbia fared somewhat better, lasting until the 113th mission. How many would decline to fly knowing the actual odds?
Because of the predicted low failure rates, there also was never any rescue systems developed in case of problems while in orbit. I suspect that this is the real reason that NASA declined offered telescope examination of the Columbia tiles, as there was nothing they could do anyway except let everyone know in advance how doomed they were.

NASA management had also ignored engineering warnings about the use of 100% oxygen atmospheres in the Apollo, resulting in the Apollo-1 loss of crew.

Can’t wait to see if the space vehicles being developed for public use do any better.

Burma shave signs from a fighter pilots lounge: If you taxi without a care you may be buying a one way fare. Best they caught the problem before shuttle takeoff.

The Space Shuttle Program has turned into a “patching” project a long time ago.
Fortunately technology evolves, new materials have been developed and the time has come for these technologies to replace the old and they will.
NASA will make use of the new technologies and so will the new private space industry.
http://www.xcor.com/products/cryo_compatable_composites.html

Obama is yanking money from space programs and we go back 100 years to rail. Railroads don’t have this problem. Trains don’t go where we want to go. So it means they want us not to have cars but save energy.

Back in my flight instructor days, I had the dubious opportunity to use a new type of basic trainer. This aircraft made by a major manufacturer, was a two seat 112 hp
putt-putt that was supposed to give a “high performance” feeling to the flight training experience. It did. truly nasty stall/spin characteristics that rivaled that of a jet
fighter (notably the F-104) AND it required a level of skill to recognize the immediate
need to keep the heck out of a spin! On top of this, they were having ah, quality control
issues at the factory. Little things, like the rudder would jam hard over as the airplane
entered the spin and -stay there- enhancing the spin experience.Then, the wing spar
carry through it had several joints and bolts holding the wing on, except when they weren’t all put on at the factory. I had a demo flight with the dealer that consisted
of spins, (no locking rudder-found that out later) and wingovers, chandelles , etc.
then several hard landings (as part of the demo ) to show how rugged the aircaft
was for light training. We taxi up to the hangar, and the chief mechanic walked and said:”Heard from the factory gotta pull the inspection panel.” Three of the four bolts
that held the wing on were missing. We’d already paid for this airplane. Which would’ve been a great wind tee (direction pointer) and darn little else. took about
10 years to engineer that thing to where it is safe. The shuttle I feel is not safe..
I want to ride my atomic airliner to the Space Port-to go to the Moon then Mars!

I’m at a loss here to understand how this could happen without gross corruption in the process.

I’ve manufactured flight grade parts, both for aircraft and space vehicles. The pedigree for the metals (“Certs”, as they’re commonly called), the manufacturing processes themselves, almost to the chain of custody, it all is tracked and documented. Inspectors will come on site and check your documentation, and they’ll check your inspection tools for calibration. You guys think science is rigorous??

The quality of the parts should never be in question. The ONLY questions that remain are:
1. The inherent design, and
2. The integrity of the manufacturing chain.

#1…Well, we get what we get. But #2? A failure there points to corruption, either for political or financial gain. In the case of the former, it’s usually tied to the latter.

So I’m puzzled here because I know the process, and I don’t understand how such an obvious flaw could slip by the cadre of inspectors. There’s got to be that faint scent of cover-up at Canaveral.

Now that they have discovered the problem. They must inspect all critical components for any sign of cracks. The probability of fatigue cracking failure at launch (from high vibrational stress at the bottom of the crack) is too high. Pilots and mechanics inspect for cracks. I know because I was a navy pilot and did research at the Naval Air Materials Center specifically with aluminum alloys. http://www.stormingmedia.us/68/6848/0684884.html

“Then why didn’t they consider delaying the launch of Challenger in 1982 in freezing weather (& after warning of danger from engineers) for just a few days?”

There’s no schedule pressure anymore. NASA knows there’s only a few missions left and no-one really cares about them other than NASA workers and astronauts… delaying the launch just means they have jobs for longer.

And that’s probably the root cause of this problem. When people discover they’ll be losing their jobs, the usual reaction is for the better ones to leave so the project is left in the hands of the few, if any, who are totally dedicated and the ones who can’t get a job elsewhere.

In the Challenger case I seem to remember they did look at a graph of O-ring leaks vs temperatures, but it only showed the temperature range where there were problems so there was no obvious correlation. Combine that with the pressure to launch ASAP and ‘go fever’ pushing people to allow a flight in conditions where things had gone wrong before but no-one had died yet and that explains pretty much everything.

>>The Titanic disaster was caused by …. an almost incredible
>>lack of professionalism by the captain and crew.

You mean that they did as they were told by management. A bit like the Challenger disaster, where management said ‘launch no matter how cold it is’. So were the Challenger crew culpable, or NASA management? Were the Titanic crew culpable, or the shipping-line management?

.

I wonder how much of the fact that once they engineers who built the tank are done they are out of a job. How much effort goes into work when you have been given your two week notice. I hope not but it could be there. Why go over the pieces without the the normal microscopic check when it worked before and it is the last one to make.

Jack Simmons says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:04 am

The entire premise of the Shuttle was flawed.

Amen.

Richard S Courtney, re railroad gauges.
New Zealand railroads have an exceptionally narrow guage, designed to facilitate getting trains around bends in mountainous terrain. It tends to limit speed somewhat, as locos will ‘rock’ themselves right off the rails if speeds are too high. If you are interested, look up NZ’s ‘Raurimu Spiral’, which winds up something like 3000 feet from it’s start and is an interesting daylight journey. This solved a huge construction problem – the originator was an engineering apprentice!

Now they find it? Good timing NASA

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section2/pmc231.htm
http://www.samplingplans.com/aqlprimer.htm
http://www.siliconfareast.com/ltpd_aql2.htm
Re: NASA and allowing 1% defective – never happened – see above.
At least for semiconductor components consumer product manufacturers required an AQL of .065% for eg transistors, way back in the 1960s. MIL specs were tighter. By 1995 Bosch required AQL less than 3 ppm for complex integrated circuits for use in ABS assemblies. I have no NASA experience, but would expect inferred AQLs in the few ppm range. However for the shuttle program no one made more than a few thousand of anything for them, so for sure 100 % testing and inspection was employed with large guard bands and zero defect requirements. The issue then becomes MTBF. Its conceivable but unlikely, that they never expected the shuttles to fly this long so clould have been light on MTBF requirements.

Douglas DC, that’s either the Grumman AA1A Yankee or the Piper Tomahawk.
My wife and I had the misfortune to do our power flight training in a Tomahawk. Both of us survived. I had the advantage of over 2000 hours in gliders.

But, this thing *should* have been so overengineered, 65% should still get it done comfortably.

Safety margins for flight capable vehicles are in the 10% range. Safety is maintained by continual inspection and appropriate repairs. So if the max rated G load is 3 Gs the aircraft will be designed to about 3.3 Gs. Now some of the safety margin is in the G load. But still.

For aircraft everything structural is tested to destruction. To make sure it meets the design criteria. Everything is weighed. And documented.

We have a rule in aerospace that “no aircraft flies until the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the aircraft.”

A lot of someones didn’t do their job on this one.

Nothing like strapping yourself onto four million pounds of explosives built by the LOW BIDDER…

There is no engineering patch for inferior material.

Gerry says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Nothing like strapping yourself onto four million pounds of explosives built by the LOW BIDDER…

Kinda like using the Met Office’s supercomputers to predict climate change, eh…

Those stringers were formed and then painted with a green zinc chromate at an outside vendor to prevent corrosion. No one would know the aluminum was aging or defective visually. I don’t recall that area of the tank having any sort of x-ray inspection either. The intertank, where these stringers are used, is a completely riveted structure. Lockheed had a lot of trouble with the aluminum-lithium alloy when I was there. Its very hard to weld without defect, and the super lightweight tank is what it is because of its extensive use of aluminum-lithium alloy.

Anthony:

Thankyou for your link to
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

However, I fail to see where it “disproves” the story. In fact, it seems to confirm it, although it does say that if the Confederacy had won the Americam civil war then a different railroad gauge would have been adopted in the US.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the how the story “has been shown to be false”. I have no real interest in the matter, but I would like to know as a matter of curiosity.

With thanks in anticipation.

Richard

George Steiner says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“There is no engineering patch for inferior material.”

I agree 100%, but they will go ahead anyway.

I had to think about the “patch work” performed on Concord that eventually caused the Paris crash when a chunk of tire separated and penetrated the left wing section puncturing the fuel tank.
Fixation to a specific problem resulted in the application of heavier reinforced tires.
No engineer had thought about the effect of heavier chunks of rubber hitting the wing surface if such a tire blows.

The risks of patchwork performed on aircraft (or spacecraft) in this case often have consequences that effect the entire design.

In the case of the main tank there could be an increase in weight resulting in a reduction of the payload. Patchwork performed on the structural parts of the tank could effect the way stress is transfered to the outer skin.
The worst scenario is a crack resulting in fuel loss during take off.
The entire project is under pressure and that is another factor that slipped into Murphy’s Law in more than one occasion.
This is still an old school space project where relative high risk factors are standard
and accepted.

In the case of Concord however the 9/11 attack and the following slump in air travel grounded the supersonic flyers for good.

New aerodynamic developments however have solved the problem of the sonic boom and when the current surge of green madness no longer obstructs progress a new generation of supersonic airliners will emerge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

***
tty says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:53 am
I think you are rather unfair to the Titanic. It was actually an outstandingly safe ship.

Even then it floated for four hours after the collision, allowing ample time for evacuation. However this, in line what had happened before, was handled with outstanding incompetence, causing many lifeboats to be launched not even half-full. Moreover most of these boats deliberately refrained from picking up survivors after the ship had sunk.

The Titanic disaster was caused by a combination of regulatory failure (specifying much smaller lifeboat capacity than needed) and an almost incredible lack of professionalism by the captain and crew.
****

I think you are insulting the professionalism of the ships officers and crew who were doing their job while knowing they were going to die.

The lifeboats were launched on a timetable, by a small crew, one after the other. The problem was that few passengers were willing to get in the initial boats, they knew the sea was going to be cold and rough in a small boat while the Titanic seemed safe. They even launched a set of (unauthorized by UK Board of Trade) canvas fold up lifeboats that people were supposed to get in while in the water (dumb design for winter North Atlantic).

There is a very good reason the lifeboats moved away from the ship (falsely explained to passengers that they thought there was another ship over there). A lifeboat is easily swamped by people trying to get aboard from freezing waters. There had been a spectacular foulup on another sinking with lifeboats sunk by passengers trying to get aboard). So the safe proceedure was to move away and let the people who jumped into the water freeze to death. When most were dead it would be safe to return to rescue a few hearty survivors. The time it took to die was very short, and most were not functional within just a couple minutes of water exposure.

Lifeboat rules can be very cruel and inhumane, but they are designed for the preservation of the maximum number of lives in a very dangerous situation. There is a reason the lifeboat captain is armed and has authority to use his weapon.

Mike Borgelt says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm

“Douglas DC, that’s either the Grumman AA1A Yankee or the Piper Tomahawk.
My wife and I had the misfortune to do our power flight training in a Tomahawk. Both of us survived. I had the advantage of over 2000 hours in gliders.”
Sorry to hear that-I had instruction time in both and they both were marginal as basic trainers. This is an example of poorly thought out design and perpetrated on the
general public. I am a fan of the old school-Piper Cub, Taylorcraft, Aeronca/Champion
Cessna 150/152,etc. Do like the Diamonds, however and some of the light sport aircraft that are now coming out. Designs whether spacecraft or light planes,
should not worry the occupants whether or not that the craft is actively trying to
kill them.
“Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

Fred H. Haynie says: “…Base(d) on what they have found and reported, I think this is a classic case of intergranular stress-corrosion cracking resulting from improper heat treatment….”

I’m wondering what the tank was exposed to, internally and externally. I’m reminded of the hydrostatic testing of a 6Al-4V titanium alloy space vehicle tank. After the test had been conducted with methanol as the test fluid, it was discovered that methanol was corrosive to that alloy. Who’da thunk?

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0649187

beng says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:03 am

… Then why didn’t they consider delaying the launch of Challenger in 1982 in freezing weather (& after warning of danger from engineers) for just a few days?

Because the engineer’s concerns didn’t make it to Cape Canaveral. See http://www.awesomestories.com/disasters/challenger/last-minute-pleas

“real work on climate science “

How absurd. Dump huge amounts more money to closer study random movements of huge winds in the atmosphere? Looking for a gubmint grant, are you? The Earth rotates on its axis, air has mass, inerta and viscosity. Mountains/mountain chains bull their way through the atmosphere, and the result is huge vortices of air, creating high velocity east to west or west to east moving winds, randomly varying northward and southward.

With knowledge in the fundamentals of both chemistry AND physics, statics/dynamics, thermodynamics and electrical and hydro/aero dynamics, not all that difficult to comprehend the processes, but completely impossible to model, high speed computors or nay.

Best spend money to figure out how to survive the awesome powers of natural forces . . . or find a gullible multiple billionaire to sponser you. The US taxpayer has plumb run out of money.

So how many men and women have died in the far simpler task of learning how to get relatively safe airplanes to ply the skies? The airplane didn’t go quickly from the Wright Brothers contraption to SST, and many experimental airplanes crashed and burned in the process.

Also, this is done by government contract, with schedules and spending budgets. And a fickle public and politicians to please.

It takes men and women of great courage to pilot and crew these no more than huge possible bombs, and the crews know their lives are at great risk.

I consider it to be a near miracle that the space program has worked out so well, and salute the engineers and technicians who made it happen, and the courageous men and women who knowingly risked their lives in a quest for knowledge.

But then, I am a mere civil engineer, who has managed large highway projects, both as a government-paid engineer, and a contract-to-government engineering project manager. Long since retired now.

This is what happens with “lowest bidder” contracting where no weight is given to quality of work.

George Steiner,
There is no engineering patch for inferior material.

Quite so!

There is no engineering patch for inferior thinking either. A hodge is a hodge. I have never made an engineerig change without unintended side effects. Do the job right and get the right material.

jorgekafkazar said on Worrisome engineering patches
January 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm

My guess is that it is the atmosphere at the launch pad. They are near the ocean and salt spray travels inland further than we realize. It doesn’t take much salt to increase the conductivity of condensed moisture and stimulate corrosion (especially if the rivets are cathodic to the stringers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Bogus claims on Australian and Brazilian floods from ABC and Dr. Richard Sommerville

This ridiculous video story below from ABC news cites über alarmist Richard Somerville of Scripps in San Diego, and is backed up with this print story.

click to watch video

Here’s what the print story headline said:

Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming

Quoting Somerville:

“Because the whole water cycle speeds up in a warming world, there’s more water in the atmosphere today than there was a few years ago on average, and you’re seeing a lot of that in the heavy rains and floods for example in Australia,” Sommervile [sic] said.

he adds:

“This is no longer something that’s theory or conjecture or something that comes out of computer models,” Sommerville [sic] said. “We’re observing the climate changing — it’s happening, it’s real, it’s a fact.”

Well perfessor, while a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor content, I call BS on your statement. The climate has always changed. The same argument is being used to hype increased hurricane threats, and as we’ve seen from Dr. Ryan Maue, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) says the linkage just isn’t there.

The headline of course is sensational, they really didn’t put any thought or research into the Brisbane, QLD flooding, they simply drew a conclusion and found somebody to support it with a soundbite. I’ve seen plenty of examples of this style of crappy TV news journalism in my career. Professor Somerville apparently couldn’t be bothered to do a little historical research before claiming the floods in Queensland were connected to “global warming”, neither could ABC News.

What did ABC news and professor miss? This graph from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on Brisbane flooding history. When you add the 2010 flood levels to the graph (as Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. bothered to do, shown in red below) all of the sudden, the historical context for the flood being driven by global warming disappears:

And this is backed up from the BoM web page narrative.

Explain then perfesser, how the 1974 flood, which was worse, links to “global warming”. Or how about the biggest flood, in 1893? How does that figure with “global warming”, especially when it was cooler in 1974 and in 1893 there was no appreciable rise in CO2 globally?

Some people will say, “well that’s just Queensland”, so here is the Australian continent. The same questions apply:

The historical narrative for 1893 from BoM:

In my opinion, professor Somerville is spouting nonsense about Australia.

As for Brazil, they don’t have as easily accessible climatology, but I did find this newspaper front page from the 1967 Brazil flood, on the website of my friend and fellow skeptic, Alexandre Aguilar in Brazil who works for the weather forecasting firm METSUL. This event which mainly hit Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, with floods and landslides/mudslides, was the worst ever then. The headline cites 400 dead.

The final death toll was 437 people.

METSUL writes on their blog: (more photos there)

The disaster in the mountainous region of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil is the largest since the disaster Caraguatatuba in 1967 (photos). On March 18 of that year, a flood came down the hills like a tsunami of water, mud and rocks, causing a landslide. Hundreds of homes were submerged and rivers have won strong currents, trailing not only houses, but trees, bridges and other structures. The exact number of dead is unknown until today, having been speculation over 500, but officially are considered 300 fatalities. The rain gauge installed at São Sebastão in March 1967 indicated a [monthly?] precipitation of 851.0 mm, with 115.0 mm and on day 17 and 420 mm the next day. The accumulated [rainfall total] may have been higher due to saturation of the rain gauge.

Again, how did this massive flood happen without the help of CO2 back then?

The Australian rains are being driven by La Nina says NASA in this press release

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña’s effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year.”

UPDATE: Here’s yet another expert with a similar opinion, from CNN, where they quote a Columbia (where NASA GISS is located) lead forecaster:

The catastrophic weather events taking place across the globe – from Brazil’s and Australia’s flooding to the Eastern United States’ heavy snowfall – have two likely explanations.

Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena – La Niña and the North Atlantic Oscillation – are likely responsible for the patterns we’re seeing.

UPDATE2: T Gough in comments points out this discussion on the Met Office website:

For the Australian state of Queensland, there is strong evidence to suggest that La Niña is the main reason for the ongoing widespread flooding. The current floods are also the worst since 1974 – which coincided with the strongest La Niña on record.

They offer this chart:

And this Q&A discussion which is a transcript of a video interview (PDF)

La Nina and severe weather around the world
Adam Scaife – Senior Climate Scientist
What is La Nina?
La Nina is part of a natural climate oscillation in the tropical Pacific. It oscillates between the warm El Nino phase, El Nino is Spanish for ‘the boy’, and the cold La Nina phase. So La Nina is like the cold little sister phase of this oscillation and it’s a purely natural event, occurs every few years as part of this natural oscillation.

Is the flooding in Australia linked to La Nina?
So during La Nina the rainfall that normally falls out over the Pacific shifts west over Indonesia and indeed northern and eastern parts of Australia. So the fact that there’s been lots of flooding in Queensland recently is very consistent with the occurrence of near record La Nina this year.

Is the flooding in Sri Lanka and Brazil linked to La Nina?
So La Nina affects weather patterns throughout the globe but of course the further away you are from the La Nina the more difficult it is to pinpoint the affects, it’s a bit like waving a long stick, the uncertainty grows the further away you are from the source. And so when we look at remoter regions, like Brazil or Sri Lanka, it’s more difficult to attribute the recent flooding events to La Nina. If we take the Brazil case, then when we look in historical records and in our climate models, then southern parts of Brazil are actually dry during La Nina so it would be difficult to attribute the recent flooding near Rio to the La Nina that is going on at the moment. If you go to Sri Lanka that is a little bit more complicated, a little bit less clear because it’s right on the edge of the wet influence from La Nina, but again historically it looks like La Nina tends to drive drier conditions in Sri Lanka so the previous biggest event, or the biggest on record in fact in 1974, Sri Lanka was actually dry.

Is La Nina linked to climate change?
La Nina, El Nino cycles have been going on for a very long time, they’re natural cycles, they’re part of a natural oscillation in the Pacific and indeed when we run our climate models into the future with increasing levels of greenhouse gases then there are no consistent changes in the El Nino, La Nina cycle.

Here’s the video:

While the Met Office may have trouble forecasting winter, they are right about this basic understandign of La Nina. It seem’s there’s a consensus forming that contradicts Somerville’s view of the world.

UPDATE3: My Oz friend Dr. Jennifer Marohasy has this discussion of Eastern Australian rainfall from 2008 and offers this graph, not the 1974 peak. When this graph is updated with the latest rainfall data, it may show a spike similar to 1974.

What the graph demonstrates is that heavy rainfall spikes have occurred in the past, and they are not exclusive to our present with m ore CO2. h/t to reader Crosspatch for this link.

UPDATE4: Crosspatch also points out that BoM now has the most recent rainfall totals online, here is the rainfall for QLD:

Weather history apparently can repeat itself, and the precedent was set before CO2 became a worry.

UPDATE5: See this report about Brazil -

Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?

I think Dr. Richard Somerville needs a swift kick in the butt style reality-check, or perhaps he needs a course in weather history, or both.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Climate Craziness of the Week

- Follow up on the solar-neutrinos-radioactive decay story

- And the hits just keep on coming: ‘The Book the IPCC Plagiarized’

- a look at tv news sites

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

159 Responses to Bogus claims on Australian and Brazilian floods from ABC and Dr. Richard Sommerville

Looks like someone saw my post on The Punch – good to see you’ve fleshed it out though

It’s the usual conflation.

“Climate change is happening.” No doubt.

“The extreme weather events we saw in 2010 were caused by climate change.” OK. If you say so, and depending on what you mean by “caused by climate change.” Agreed if you simply mean that the ever-changing climate causes all weather phenomena, by definition.

“It’s all our fault.” Fill in your favorite screaming-at-your-TV-set verbiage here.

I don’t Noah about these people. Are they dishonest or just stupid, or both?

ShrNfr: both

Please man-made global warming accepters, for your own and your children’s well being, step outside for five minutes, especially if you live in Summit, Greenland, and take notice of the temperature. Then go back in your heated home quickly. I really don’t want to see harm come your way, and this is getting really serious. Please open up just a little and have an open mind for a moment on what we are all about. We really want you to be well.

Weather Underground Forecasting All Time Record Cold For The Northern Hemisphere Tonight
“The coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere is -90F.”
-92F is forecast for tonight.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/weather-underground-forecasting-all-time-record-cold-for-the-northern-hemisphere-tonight/

You can show these graphs time and again, with no effect whatever on people like Sommerville or Australia’s equivalent David Karoly.

These are people who have never learned that reality exists separate from their own wants or desires. They still want what they want when they want it no matter what. And what they want is to be heroes of Saving the Planet, a prerequisite for that being that the planet must be proved to be in terminal trouble.

Good article at the Guardian UK by Germaine Greer:

“Australian floods: Why were we so surprised?”

Meteorologists warned Australians six months ago to prepare for a soaking. And nobody did a thing …

…In Brisbane the benchmark was the flood of 1974; most Queenslanders are unaware that the worst flood in Brisbane’s history happened in 1893. Six months ago the meteorologists thought it was worthwhile to warn people to “get ready for a wet, late winter and a soaked spring and summer”. So what did the people do? Nothing.

….The phenomenon is anything but momentary; the not-so-exceptional rainfall will continue, probably until the end of March. Professor Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, believes that “the Queensland floods are caused by what is one of the strongest (if not the strongest) La Niña events since our records began in the late 19th century”.

He was asked if the intensification was a consequence of global warming, and declined to comment.

Other people have been rather too quick to claim the extreme weather as a direct consequence of global warming. (It will surprise many readers of the Guardian to learn that in Australia there is still a bad-tempered debate about whether global warming is happening or not.) …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/15/australian-floods-queensland-germaine-greer

I guess that the droughts that they also blame on global warming are also caused by more moisture content.

I knew that was coming. Peg any disaster with Global warming. Like astrology – you cannot fail. Its all due to the star configuration / global warming.

The leftist ideology wants more money for their pet projects.
The rightist ideology wants more money for their pet projects.
What ends up happening is the lions share of the money goes to your overlords at the to of the pyramid food chain of our society, ie the people that rule over you either inside or outside government.
I try to transcend both ideologies. I don’t want any of your money coming to me from anyone else’s pockets that I didn’t honestly earn.
Please step away from the overlords.

My dad used to tell me,”A liar is worse than a thief”. I have known for a long time exactly what he was talking about. The liars are capable of doing more damage.

OK … I accept … it’s probably not global warming that’s the cause of these floods.

Maybe it’s Sarah Palin’s “inflammatory rhetoric”… ???

ShrNfr says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
I don’t Noah about these people.

I see what you did there :)

I’m just sick to death of so-called scientists talking out of their poo hole. This needs to be a punishable offense where the offender is required to post a video on YouTube wearing extremely embarrassing attire and singing “No, I won’t, I won’t make sh*t up! (repeat to fade).

Tom T,

this is correct. There are essentially 3 points contradicting this ad hoc “science”

1. If increased mositure is used to explain these floods, draughts should become less frequent/severe and not the opposite.

2. La Nina is on a global scale a cool weather event, which should become less frequent/severe in a warming world and not the opposite.

3. There have been worse floods in history all occuring in typically cold episodes of temperature history, the worst in the 18oos.

Status of the CLOUD experiment – November 2009
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088

Give him a break!
It’s not easy to predict change, with everything changing all the time.
This guy gets it right 100% of the time after the fact.
Could you do any better?
I think we all know the answer to that question!

D. King says: wrote
January 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm
‘Give him a break!
It’s not easy to predict change, with everything changing all the time.
This guy gets it right 100% of the time after the fact.
Could you do any better?
I think we all know the answer to that question!”

Piers Corbyn gets it right 85% of the time, before the fact.

My Business is in the thick of the mop up. Not as victims, but I own bobcats and excavators, and they are working hard helping the victims of this entirely cyclical, happened before but worse event.

Those who read this site but support AGW should at the very least be appalled by the politicisation of this event by blow hard AGW Alarmists.

It is enough of a tragedy without these rat bags politicising what is a tragic event. They will stoop to anything to push their agenda. Filthy Bastards. It is NOT OK.

Tim

Thanks for posting this. The charts you’ve posted clearly support the statements by Dr Somerville and other renowned scientists that anthropogenic global warming is already exacerbating the weather around the world, with disastrous consequences. More frequent and intense precipitation (rain, floods and snow), more extensive and hotter drought, more frequent and worse fires as the global temperature rises.

I realise that some people here aren’t yet ready to accept the reality that is confirmed by observation, and neither is the original poster. But the evidence is in and available to anyone with an open mind.

Hugh says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm
OK … I accept … it’s probably not global warming that’s the cause of these floods.

Maybe it’s Sarah Palin’s “inflammatory rhetoric”… ???

Typical warmist thinking! Her rhetoric has a chilling effect.

Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Status of the CLOUD experiment – November 2009
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088
=========
Thanks for the link, but I’m afraid to click it, lest my already slow computer
gives up the ghost. :)

I agree to abandon the right wing establishment.
Will you agree to abandon the left wing establishment?
Lets restart with the premise, “the government lies to you a lot”, like they lie about the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is actually double what they tell you, if you go back to the old formula for calculating unemployment pre 1994.

Hugh says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:17 pm

OK … I accept … it’s probably not global warming that’s the cause of these floods.

Maybe it’s Sarah Palin’s “inflammatory rhetoric”… ???
—————————————————————————-
Well, her rhetoric is no less likely to be the cause than is global warming.

The real solution to GLOBAL WARMING is to reduce and eliminate our consumption of fossil fuels and energy use.

Let me help those who feel oppressed and helpless in the face of climate change, floods and drought, by offering to take your car and house off your hands.

You will feel unburdened, that you have more than contributed to environmental cause.

Conditions:
Note this is a limited time offer. Newer homes and cars only please.
PS. No electric cars will be considered.

This ridiculous video story below from ABC news cites über alarmist Richard Sommerville

Global warming is going off the rails.

Lets restart with the second premise, “the TV people lie to you a lot”.

This makes one wonder if Dr. Somerville is an advisor to Rep. Hank “Tip-Over” Johnson of Georgia. If a climate scientist can twist his own mind into a tangle, for whatever reason, how easy should it be to confound the non-scientist with expert opinion.
You need a laugh; here’s Hank:

Last year we were inundated with how AGW was causing the then Australian drought. Now the story is AGW is causing it to rain too much. Yeah and that bridge, can i buy it?

The average person in Oz must be shaking their head and MUST be wondering why they believed the AGW hype.

It’s particularly absurd to point to flood damage in the “mountainous surroundings of Rio de Janiero” in terms of “houses being swept away” and “loss of life”.

Rio’s hillsides are slums (favelas) consisting of ramshackle ad-hoc constructions of corrugated metal, cardboard, plywood, tarp, etc., all crowded into narrow gullies that regularly run with offal, bilge, and waste — oh! and flood water.

Yes, the rain discharge “swept away homes” much like a good thunderstorm sweeps the crud from the gutter – in the civilized world – but in Rio’s hillside “communities”, far too many people happen to live in those gutters. This ain’t exactly on par with Laguna Beach mansions sliding into the local gully (which also happens).

Just because people (worldwide) happen to live in areas subject to natural extremes doesn’t mean we have to reorganize our entire economies to chase after a microscopic margin of “safety”.

People die every day under perfectly mundane circumstances. That’s life. Not global warming.

“Because the whole water cycle speeds up in a warming world, there’s more water in the atmosphere today than there was a few years ago on average, and you’re seeing a lot of that in the heavy rains and floods for example in Australia,” Sommervile said.

Then it follows that, with more water in the atmosphere and on land, sea level must be falling. No? But that’s not what these snake-oil salesmen are pitching – along with the above tripe.

Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

You forgot the sarcasms tags.

The extra GHG heating, excluding water vapor, is 2.63W/m**2 according to NOAA.
Evaporation/Convection, which causes weather, removes about 100 W/m**2 from the earths surface.

If this GHG heating causes an increase in surface temperature, both radiation and evaporation/convection will increase. Surely the maximum increase in evaporation/convection is 2.63/100.

So how can the GHG heating increase convection by more than a couple of percent? This effect would always be too small to be statistically detectable, surely.

“This is no longer something that’s theory or conjecture or something that comes out of computer models,” Sommerville said. “We’re observing the climate changing — it’s happening, it’s real, it’s a fact.”

Sommerville then turned his head toward the vast sky and proclaimed, “Yea, my brethren, but behold, there shall also come a time when Anthropogenic Climate Disruption doth maketh even a passing cloudless shadow of the Sun itself!”

Sommerville is just one of those elite scientists – um – I mean elitist scientist, that’s what I mean.

For the benefit of readers who mistakenly think that Brisbane (as shown above) represents the entirety of Queensland (or Australia), the records show that the number of major floods in Queensland has been increasing since the 1970s and 1980s, and particularly since 2000. Records also show that rainfall in many parts of Australia is breaking records in regard to precipitation intensity much more often than before. And that droughts are longer and more pervasive.

In other words, many parts of Australia are getting hotter and drier and when it does rain, it buckets down more intensely. All this is in line with what is expected with human-induced global warming as far as Australia is concerned.

As for the rest of the world – well, everyone knows the arctic ice continues to disappear, glaciers are melting, snowfalls and rain are more intense etc etc. And that warming-related extreme events far outweigh cold extreme events.

Unfortunately, not wanting all this to happen is not sufficient to prevent it. Nor is protesting that it’s not happening. We need to do more to shift away from using the atmosphere as a rubbish dump.

REPLY:We can’t tell the difference between Brisbane and QLD? That’s just stupidly insulting. And what records of floods? Cite them. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Are you actually capable of reading? Because it sure seems that you have not read nor understood a single thing about this article. Have a look at what the other experts says, and then comment on that, and we’ll see if you have cognizance of the facts. Or you can not read the article, and remain ignorant like you are now. – Anthony

Conservation Council of Western Australia appear to believe Somerville and Karoly’s tripe, just like any good ideologue …from their facebook page…
Neville Numbat
Floods, Climate change and what the scientist are saying. | Conservation Council of Western Australia
ccwa.org.au
In Queenland, large areas of the east coast, and of course our own Gascoyne region, are bearing the brunt of floods that are resetting the record books. There have been well informed voices been prepared to talk about the obvious link these massive and extreme floodign (sic) events have to climate change.”

Well, I looked at the Smithsonian eruptive history of volcanoes by date for the years on or just prior to 1893, 1974 and 1967. There are a number of eruptions reasonably close to the lattitudes of the flood subjects. Vesuvius was active all throughout the latter 1800′s as well. I still think Merapi in Indonesia added massive amounts of steam and aerosols to the La Niña weather pattern. Volcanoes inject a lot of steam into the atmosphere, especially near subduction zones, that will eventually come down. Sometimes a lot in one area. What say the rest of you?

100% admit to skimming the article, so apologies if it was addressed.

Couldn’t the lack of cyclone energy be a result of increased thunderstorms elsewhere, causing more precipitation? Of course, all this work changing phase of water uses the energy that is supposed to be changing the temperature, so perhaps that is Trenberth’s missing energy. It’s gone out to space in a puff of thunderstorm. Water condensing released it’s latent heat and poof.

Of course, what does this mean for their climate equation?

And I guess we’ll have to play wait and see with the flood predictions.

The heavy rains in Rio de Janeiro were caused by the Benguela current that borders the west African coast and start a journey of warm waters towards Brazil. It reaches Brazil and split in two branches, one towards the north and another to the south. This branch stops the Malvinas cold current coming from Antarctica and diverts it towards South Africa.

It is also known as the “Atlantic El Niño-Benguela” -an event less frequent and less poweful than the regular Niños, but it was the cause of these heavy rains as it did in 1967.

Although the article is in Spanish, you can see maps and graphs in my website about it:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/calen12/catastrofe_rio.html

you’ll see there an animation of satellite pics just before the rains in Rio, then a map of the Benguela current off west of Capetown; a graph of merged sea levels indicating the warming of the current, a map of how the current flows and its path north and south, and finally a graph of sea level anomalies 1992-2007 in a square between 36ºE/15ºE and 10ºS/15ºS.

The Brazilian met service was unable to predict the storm with 24 hours in advance –but they purport to predict the weather by year 2050.

Anthony, I was in no way suggesting that most readers could not tell the difference between Brisbane and Queensland. Nor is that what I said. As the expert you posted about clearly states, the evidence is accumulating more and more that the effects of AGW are occurring already – even though the warming has only just begun.

I’m pleased that you do not disagree with the rest of my post because I know that you generally promote the notion that the world is not warming, even though a lot of articles you provide on this site demonstrate the fact of human-induced global warming.

REPLY: For the record, I disagree with everything you say, and you are cherry picking your facts because of your beliefs.

Read this below, then comment on them, no diversions about ice or other things allowed. – Anthony

The Australian rains are being driven by La Nina says NASA in this press release

“Although exacerbated by precipitation from a tropical cyclone, rainfalls of historic proportion in eastern Queensland, Australia have led to levels of flooding usually only seen once in a century,” said David Adamec, Oceanographer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “The copious rainfall is a direct result of La Niña’s effect on the Pacific trade winds and has made tropical Australia particularly rainy this year.”

UPDATE: Here’s yet another expert with a similar opinion, from CNN, where they quote a Columbia (where NASA GISS is located) lead forecaster:

The catastrophic weather events taking place across the globe – from Brazil’s and Australia’s flooding to the Eastern United States’ heavy snowfall – have two likely explanations.

Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena – La Niña and the North Atlantic Oscillation – are likely responsible for the patterns we’re seeing.

I think the tide gauge is not a good metric, you need to factor in the effect of the Somerset Dam (1959) and the Wivenhoe Dam (1974). I’ve lived in Brisbane but feel free to call me stupid.

Why is the media reporting on global warming so biased in favor of those supporting it? Shouldn’t there be two sides to every story? Why are all the western governments pushing for global warming taxes when the science remains unproven? Why do people still believe that hypocrite and snake-oil salesman Al Gore?

Al Gore has no friends and is just using global warming to get attention. His own wife divorced him and his children are on drugs and booze because of him. I’m super cereal.

By the way, there’s no possible way for America to pay back its debts. Even if Americans passed a carbon tax, they still couldn’t overcome their budget deficit. They can’t print money forever. I look forward to the day when China buys America and turns it into a sweatshop. Of course, America could always go rogue like North Korea and threaten everyone with nukes.

Excellent article Anthony. In skewering this particular blowhard you have also presented a great summation of this whole story.

No-one that I know of disputes the fact that this season’s La Niña, which scientists posit will turn out to be the strongest or second strongest La Niña ever recorded, is bringing record rains and repeated flooding to eastern Australia – from Queensland to Tasmania.

Nor does any knowledgeable person dispute the fact that the intensity of the rainfall across eastern Australia occurring during this La Niña would be less if not for anthropogenic global warming. AGW is exacerbating the extremes of weather. There’s no doubt about that.

[Reply: You are sure? 1/4 of 1 degree difference in global temperatures since 1980 makes that much difference that you can be that sure that this year's storms are affected by the change in temperature going on since 1750; but not last years', the previous years', nor any of the the previous 29 years of weather are affected? Robt]

“Sommerville said. “We’re observing the climate changing — it’s happening, it’s real, it’s a fact.””

He’s correct. We’re also observing global rotation – it’s happening, it’s real, it’s a fact.

That Orwellian shift to ‘climate change’ sure was handy.

I really hate to be picky but I think his name is Dr. Richard Somerville.
It’s important for people using Google, which already has many negative results under the name Sommerville.

Let’s assume that we have Global Warming and more moisture in the sky due to the increased temperature. OK, come winter the cold causes more snow, more moisture = more snow; it all sounds reasonable, UNTIL you look at the science.

(1) The process of freezing water, causes the water to release heat energy.

(2) According to the laws of thermodynamics, the energy does NOT just disappear.

(3) Air circulation will mix the air from the ground level to the cloud level and back again.

The explanation given could explain more snow, BUT it should be very mild cold temperatures. Sooner or later the heat will make its way to the ground. If it doesn’t, then we would have more snow, followed by more rain. However, we are seeing a very bitter cold. The facts don’t fit the theory.

Given that 10 years ago they told us that, “However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. ”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I’d say they are just making it all up as they go along.

The individuals who claimed that Queensland would not experience floods anymore due to AGW need to be listed in large bold print on the front page of the newspaper.

Anyone now saying that floods are due to AGW need to be likewise listed along with the notation that today’s floods are still less than the flooding that has appeared in the past.

What they attempt to do is take ANY current weather extreme and link it to AGW. If it is dry, it is AGW. If it is wet, it is AGW. If it is hot, it is AGW. If it is cold, it is AGW. What some newspaper there needs to do is contrast these conflicting claims on the front page in large, bold print.

Sommerville, Karoly et al. are simply following Rahm Emanuel’s frank advice:

ABC’s story is a peice of warmist clap trap. You expect this from ABC that has bought the AGW con hook,line and sinker.

But please don’t compare 1893 with what has just happened. There are 2 significant dams in place today that weren’t present in 1893. If these dams were not present it is quite possible the 1893 flood level would have been exceeded for the current event although its hard to be certain.

Some areas in SE QLD saw flood levels 1-2m above the 1893 event bear this in mind when making comparisons. Several recording stations in the Lockyer Valley had their gauges destroyed so we will never know what the true river levels were at these places. Both events were very different in nature. The current event saw wide spread rainfalls up to 600mm whilst 1893 saw more concentrated rainfalls in the northern part of the catchment with one measuring station recording 2000mm+ in a 4 day period.

I’m a big fan of this blog but we need to get our responses correct when people like Dr Richard Sommerville start trying to falsely link AGW to severe weather events.

Re comment to my previous post: Yes, I’m sure that this season’s rainfall has been exacerbated by the warming world. And AGW has not only clearly exacerbated the weather of this year and this summer as a whole, but also that going back at least the last 20 years or more.

Certainly in my part of the world the weather of the last decade or more has included events unprecedented in recorded history. Record drought in extent and duration, record heat in duration and temperature, record rainfall in intensity and extent, record floods in extent.

Many other parts of the world are recording similar patterns of increasing extreme events.

BTW – not sure what units Robt is using, but the global temperature has increased by 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1970s, which is considerably higher than 1/4 of a degree in total using any known temperature scale. And as the charts in the original article above show, the land temperatures in Queensland and the sea surface temperatures around Australia are trending up at an alarming rate (the scales in Celsius as is used around the world except the USA). (If not for humans using the air as a waste dump, global temperatures would probably be falling.)

REPLY: You really need to look at the history of rainfall in your area, reader crosspatch provides this link to Jennifer Marohasy, in Australia. When this graph is updated, it may be close to the 1974 rainfall peak from that La Nina – Anthony

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Eastern%20Oz%20No%20Trend%20Line.jpg

Met Office has a report (14/1/11) on its website ‘Global flooding and La Nina’
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/La-Nina-impacts

They say “For the Australian state of Queensland, there is strong evidence to suggest that La Niña is the main reason for the ongoing widespread flooding. The current floods are also the worst since 1974 – which coincided with the strongest La Niña on record”.

I have put some other examples of Biased and Unbiased Climate News together. This particular topic is part of the coverage as well.

There is good news coverage out there, there is also an equal amount of crap.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/examples-of-biased-and-unbiased-climate-news/

I guess Australia had access to the real story as early as 2008:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/08/interpreting-eastern-australian-rainfall-data/

I do not think anyone in Oz has woken up to this post yet, so may I add a couple of comments.

Brisbane is not the only part of eastern Australia affected by floods. The problem started as a cyclone developed in the Coral Sea, moved south and then inland. This left a trail of townships flooded down the Queensland coast.

Oz is the flattest continent, averaging only 300 m asl. The continental divide runs close to the eastern coastline and is generally less than 1000 m asl. As a result, major waterways starting in the ranges, run inland until they reach the Southern Ocean or Lake Eyre. The gradients on these rivers is thus very low, except near the headwaters and so there are no effective deep channels to guide rainwater in the manner of many northern hemisphere rivers. Instead large downpours in the headwaters of the major rivers readily spread across broad, ill-defined flood plains and readily cause chaos.

A similar pattern has developed in the Gascoyne region of WA and flash flooding is seriously affecting northern Victoria. Much of the Queensland water is about to flood western NSW.

It is like pouring water on a table. Too readily the flow takes ill-defined courses to the sea or lowest point.

Unfortunately many settlements are on or close to the “normal” water courses, and hence they are too readily prone to flooding, because there is little to contain extra waters in existing channels. Brisbane is one such settlement. Water from the eastern side of the Darling Downs escarpment was channeled onto the flood plains of the Brisbane River. Old hands learnt by experience and designed the “Queenslander” style of house on stilts, that generally survives flooding. Unfortunately engineers warnings, particularly after the 1974 floods, were ignored by governments and planners and much of the damage witnessed in the past few days could be blamed on lax planning laws about rapid development and poor house design on flood-prone plains, ie. in much of western Brisbane.

And don’t forget northern Australia is in the tropics, subject to monsoonal conditions. Heavy rains are “normal” in that part of the world. The cyclone was an unwelcome extra.

And after all that, I agree Somerville is an ignorant idiot.

Hi Anthony, thanks for responding to my posts and for posting the articles illustrating what is happening. I realise how difficult that must be given your position on the matter of global warming.

Jennifer Maharosey is not a climate scientist and she is well-known down here in Autralia for frequently writing articles that range from misleading to false. I am not saying this particular article you to which you refer is wrong or right (I don’t bother reading her articles any more). I rely on information from the Bureau of Meteorology and the findings of other experts in the field. I would expect that (except perhaps in matters relating to climate), most people on this site would also look to experts for information about important matters.

REPLY: James Hansen is an astronomer by training, so what? It doesn’t matter if Dr. Marohasy trains goldfish for a living, LOOK AT THE DAMN DATA.

Otherwise you are just wasting our time. And so far it looks like you are incapable of ingesting new information, but travel the safe path of the faithful. Rommulan perhaps, a svarmisk resident maybe?

On second thought I realize now your purpose here is to waste our time, so we won’t be having any more of that until you can comment intelligently on the data and sources presented instead of tossing out diversions. Frankly, I don’t think you are capable. – Anthony

“….I’m sure that this season’s rainfall has been exacerbated by the warming world. And AGW has not only clearly exacerbated the weather of this year and this summer…”

I know this is a stupid question Sou, but I’ll ask it anyway:
How do you know that a “warming world” = AGW*?
*AGW being shorthand for ‘IPCC science’ viz. most of the warming since c. 1950 is most likely due to human CO2 emissions.

Is it because 98% of scientists say so?

Sou,

You have said that the rising sea temperatres around Australia this past 30 years exacerbated the La Nina. Using the same logic warming oceans should moderate the cooling around Australia during an El Nino event and hence reduce drought severity. Yet we have been told AGW will increase drought frequency and severity?

Sou
for you
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/flood7.htm
The year 1973 was one of the wettest known over much of Australia, and in keeping with the strong La Niña event that prevailed, the 1973/74 northern wet season started early. By the end of 1973 large areas of the country were saturated. Then came January 1974, which featured probably the biggest continent-wide drenching since European settlement, inundating vast areas of the country.

New Year celebrations had barely finished when torrential rains on 4 January soaked northeast Victoria and parts of the Riverina, and flooded Albury. Meanwhile, far away in north Queensland, big floods on the 5th marooned cars and coaches across a broad area. The deluge then extended to northwest New South Wales on the 7th and 8th, causing flooding along the Namoi and Castlereagh rivers: railways and roads were cut, necessitating evacuations by helicopter.

Further heavy rain fell in NSW during the second week of January , and many rivers in the north of that State were flooded. On 11 January, creeks in Brisbane burst their banks, flooding roads and streets. Northern Victoria experienced a second burst of heavy rain on the 13th; this time, floodwaters swirled through the streets of Nhill and Dimboola. Rains also extended to the normally arid north of South Australia on the 17th, flooding opal mines at Coober Pedy.

As monsoonal rains poured down, the Gulf Country of Queensland, and extensive areas of the dry centre, were turned into vast inland seas, isolating pastoral stations and causing heavy cattle losses. About 500 people were evacuated from Normanton and Karumba, while 250 stranded passengers on the Townsville-Mt Isa railway were air-lifted to Mt Isa. Some 400-600mm of rain inundated the southern Northern Territory and southwest Queensland in January, more than twice the average ANNUAL total at some locations.

On top of all this came tropical cyclone “Wanda”, which moved ashore north of Brisbane on Thursday 24 January, producing relatively little wind damage, but sending down enormous quantities of rain over the Australia Day weekend. In Brisbane, intensifying rain throughout Friday dumped over 300mm within 24 hours. In three days (ended 9am 27th) the Queensland capital received 580mm, with even heavier falls over river catchments near the city (1,300mm in five days at Mt Glorious). Wanda floodThe first houses were washed away along Enoggera Creek early on the 26th. As rivers continued to rise, many more were lost. The Bremer river peaked at Ipswich on the Sunday, and the Brisbane River peaked early on Tuesday; both at their highest levels since the disastrous floods of 1893. Fourteen people were drowned, some trapped in offices by the rising waters.

By the end of January much of Australia – normally the “dry” continent – was experiencing the problems of too much water. Vast areas of the inland remained submerged for weeks – in some cases, for months. Crops were destroyed, and outbreaks of disease, such as Murray Valley encephalitis, took their toll.

Hi Dave, good question.

El Nino tends to cause hot and dry conditions across much of Australia with more evaporation from the land surface, rather than having a cooling effect. It is during La Nina that the cooling occurs, all the extra water in the atmosphere condenses, rain falls and droughts come to an end. Despite the cooler weather with this La Nina, the temperatures in many places, for example Melbourne, are still above the 30 year averages.

You can explore the BOM site to see what is happening: http://www.bom.gov.au

Anthony:

I think we are seeing a new meme being presented by catastrophists. It is based on this argument:

Weather events are driven by energy flows,
and AGW increases energy in the climate system,
so the severity of each weather event is increased by AGW.

The new meme is
‘AGW increases the severity of weather events and those who dispute it are evil deniers in the pay of Big Oil, or Big Coal, or Big Industry.’

The argument is wrong for several reasons, but the catastrophists need it.

Following the failures of the conferences at Copenhagen and Cancun, it is clear that political support for AGW is fading away. But that political support fuels the AGW ‘gravy train’, so those riding the ‘gravy train’ need a way to maintain the political support. And politicians respond to public concern. Everybody is concerned at weather disasters, and weather disasters happen somewhere around the world most of the time.

Hence, we can expect much more propoganda like
“The severity of these heat waves is AGW”,
“The severity of these cold spells is AGW”,
“The severity of these droughts is AGW”,
“The severity of these floods is AGW”,
“The severity of these snow storms is AGW”,
“The severity of these tropical storms is AGW”,
etc.

Richard

Anthony;
Took you long enough to twig to Sou; classic thread-highjack-with-loud-blather troll. Scroll-by stuff.

As for “warm air holds more moisture”, the converse is also true: cool air holds less moisture. So it falls out and lands on the ground as rain, causing floods. I think you’d find much more statistical support for that observation than the Hot Rain one.

REPLY: I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and offer data for discussion, but it’s clear now he’s just a tweaker. – Anthony

“Again, how did this massive flood happen without the help of CO2 back then?”

That’s easy!

In the past such disasters were due to the weather … these days they are due to the climate!

Whenever, or wherever, engineers construct a major new processing plant or bridge, they are asked to ensure it will continue standing in a 50, 100, 200, or in some extreme cases a 500 year weather ‘event’.

Only the most stupid AGW fanatic would refuse to accept we have occasional extreme weather events in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

A classic case of: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

this goose should be told that he speaks a load of crap, in brisbane it has been flooded countless times 1886 was a bigger flood than 2011 I wounder what they where blaming back then I bet it was not global warming.

Noelene says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:04 am

Good Post Noelene, don’t forget that the ’74 flood in Brisbane was made worse because of the total stuff up of the management of the Somerset dam out flows, as the release of water concided with the extra high king tide at the mouth of the Brisbane river.

See Jo Nova at Brisbane’s Man Made Flood,,, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/brisbane%e2%80%99s-man-made-flood-peak/

It’s been suggested that I haven’t referred sufficiently to the data. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that many posters here would have been familiar with the masses of climate data widely available. I also referred to the information shown in the charts in the original post above. For some more data, here is the latest annual climate statement from our Bureau of Meteorology, which includes some explanation of data on 2010 weather in Australia:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml

The statement concludes with the following: “Increasing global mean temperatures derived from instrumental measurements are consistent with other independent indicators of climate change, such as reductions in ice and snow cover, and rises in global sea levels.”

The BOM site is rather good to delve into for anyone wanting to learn more about weather in Australia and the changing climates in the different parts of this large island continent.

Global warming was supposed to cause drought in Oz, according to CSIRO and WWF:
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/n36/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765929.htm

Just a relative surface dig of Richard Somerville (couldn’t stomach more than that at the moment) yielded some interesting facts about him. He was a coordinating lead author of IPCC AR4 and helped throw together “The Copenhagen Diagnosis” released a few weeks after Climategate broke (Mann, Schneider, Steig, Weaver and others listed as co-authors). A gem among many from the executive summary:

“[T]he average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.”

I wonder if the Luddite brigade will still be flying around the world spreading the good word. I glanced through the report itself, twitched a bit at the Nature cover illustration of Steig’s fiery Antarctica, and then forced myself to stop at the Mann 08 spaghetti schtick. Gotta love this passage:

“The first of these reconstructions has come to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction (Mann et al. 1998, 1999). Some aspects of the hockey stick reconstruction were subsequently questioned, e.g. whether the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale (Soon and Baliunas 2003), and whether the reconstruction is reproducible, or verifiable (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003), or might be sensitive to the method used to extract information from tree ring records (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a,b). Whilst these criticisms have been rejected in subsequent work (e.g. Rutherford et al. 2005; Wahl and Ammann 2006, 2007; Jansen et al. 2007) the US National Research Council convened a committee to examine the state of the science of reconstructing the climate of the past millennium. The NRC report published in 2006 largely supported the original findings of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and recommended a path toward continued progress in this area (NRC, 2006). Mann et al. (2008) addressed the recommendations of the NRC report by reconstructing surface temperature at a hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded data set for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, along with recently updated instrumental data and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with climate model simulations.”

Now I have to go and try to fall asleep with that ripe tripe revisionism fresh on my mind. Why do I do this to myself? If you’re a glutton for punishment, the links are below. And maybe somebody can do the calculations on just how far (in today’s terms) one metric ton of CO2 will get us, perhaps even some top ten lists of ways we can use our alloted energy of “well under 1 metric ton CO2.” For perspective, according to the last link I provide below from Science Daily 2008, the average American’s carbon emissions is 20 metric tons. Better still, that article says that even a homeless American tallies 8.5 metric tons:

“But the ‘floor’ below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person’s energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.”

So perhaps our new goal (based let’s say on 0.85 metric ton CO2 to qualify as “well under” one) should be as follows:

“”[T]he average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink by 2050 to 90% below the per-capita emissions of a homeless person in America in 2008.”

Pleasant dreams.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive_summary.html
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

Since you brought up Tony Barnston, you should know he’s deep into AGW belief – as evidenced here:

http://www.bic.org/statements-and-reports/featured/the-ethical-dimensions-of-climate-change

Taking part in talks about the ETHICAL side of climate change.

“Tony Barnston noted that it takes humans years to adjust to ‘inconvenient discoveries’, citing cigarette smoking and prolonged exposure to the sun as two examples. A more urgent change is needed and a far shorter lag time when it comes to stemming greenhouse gas emissions. We need to move quickly to the action step, as the implications of not acting are severe and wide reaching…”

So, even though he didn’t mention AGW there, he’s spreading it elsewhere.

This is enraging, especially coming from idiots who don’t even seem to know what the “normal” climate is for Queensland.

Queensland floods. Australia floods. Always has always will. Just as it has always suffered severe and extended drought.

One can only attribute such comments to stupidity of dishonesty.

Robw says (above):
January 14, 2011 at 9:27 pm
“Last year we were inundated with how AGW was causing the then Australian drought. Now the story is AGW is causing it to rain too much. Yeah and that bridge, can i buy it?

The average person in Oz must be shaking their head and MUST be wondering why they believed the AGW hype.”

Robw – you can buy the bridge. Try reading the IPCC 2007 Technical Report – Regional climate change projections, in which it is predicted that Australia will become dryer overall, but that when (rarer) extreme rain events do occur, they are likely to be more intense. Not only that, the prediction that more extreme (southern hemisphere) summer rain events will occur mostly in the eastern half of the country while the southwest will be dryer in summer matches the current situation remarkably well. Good science is pretty sceptical, but your scepticism is way over the top.

The priests of voodoo science are still sticking their pins into Mother Nature. If they were fair-dinkum about their belief’s they would lead by example and abandon all their life’s choices and standard of living and return to the cave from whence they yearn to live, and leave the rest of us alone.

However, they are not fair-dinkum because there is no conned taxpayer money in being fair-dinkum.

Global Warming just means “extreme weather of all kinds” – Rachel Maddow

tough to argue with that.

Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:53 pm

“… everyone knows the arctic ice continues to disappear, glaciers are melting, snowfalls and rain are more intense etc etc. And that warming-related extreme events far outweigh cold extreme events.

Unfortunately, not wanting all this to happen is not sufficient to prevent it. Nor is protesting that it’s not happening.”

———————-

You need to catch up on the facts. Globally, almost all glaciers are advancing not melting. The Northwest Passage between Canada and the polar icecap is well and truly frozen over. And the Antarctic ice extent increased by 3,500,000 km^2 in the three years to mid 2010. So Global Warming (via the miniscule amounts of Co2 being returned to the biosphere from previously sequestered deposits in coal and limestone) is making lots of ice in both hemispheres, but you think we need to decimate our economies to avoid boiling to death!

Speaking as a hydrologist in the Australian flood zone – none of the recent events are much outside of limits of variability in even our very limited records. I’d be wary of comparing simple flood heights in a tidal system such as Brisbane however.

Me and mine are fine – thank you – but traumatised by the deaths and made more sad and cynical by those attempting to make political capital.

I think the Pacific Ocean drives climate much more than climate drives the Pacific Ocean – see http://www.earthandocean.robertellison.com.au/index.html

The Australian hydrological consensus is that we get 20 to 40 years of a drought dominated regime (DDR) followed by 20 to 40 years of a flood dominated regime – an analysis replicated endlessly across the country. This, btw, is an example of chaotic bifurcation in the complex and dynamic (as in chaos theory) climate system. The system bifurcated after 1998 to a flood dominated regime. And yes – we should assume 10 to 30 more years of intense and frequent La Nina – something which I and others have repeatedly publicly predicted for years. A case of pearls before swine apparently. I know Stewart Franks had a (draft – but never finalised) policy with the National Committee on this very topic for most of the last decade. Ironically – this was replaced by some nonsense about global warming induced water shortages recently.

Superimposed on DDR and FDR is the idea that ‘global warming’ (a muddle headed idea based on simple causality) intensifies both La Nina and El Nino – an idea for which there is scant and conflicting evidence.

A correction to my last post – that is the National Committee on Water Engineering

Well, at least some headway is being made in the UK.

The Independent, until recently one of the staunchist bastions of global warming hysteria, ran an article this morning with the headline: ‘This isn’t global warming, but it may be the face of the future’.

The article stated clearly that La Nina was the cause of the Queensland floods and that climate change wasn’t. Experts were quoted to add weight to that position.

The situation in Brazil was described as being exacerbated by poor construction practices on steep hillsides, which is factually accurate but probably of little comfort to those who lost relatives.

The issue of inappropriate urban development was highlighted, which for any sane person is the reason behind the more toxic effects of floods when they do happen. Namely that if you are idiotic enough to build houses on flood plains, don’t be surprised when they flood. It might be once every 5 years, once every 35 but it’ll flood. Because nature is pretty predictable on longer time scales…….

The issues to me should focus now about expecting reservoirs to be low most of the time since you need really big ones to catch all the water from floods like these. But given the propensity for long-term drought in some of those areas, that’s precisely what you need to keep things going during the dry periods…….

It should also focus on either not building on flood plains or building houses on stilts if you must build there. No doubt politicians will take due care to ensure that those stilts don’t collapse at times of flood due to cowboy developers who bunged them a few hundred grand to let the development take place in the first place????

bryn says:
January 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm

“And after all that, I agree Somerville is an ignorant idiot.”

So is our new drive by troll, Sou.

Got any training in science, earth science or any other kind , Sou? Lots of posters here have.

Or are you just a Greenpeas patsy?

I’m not impressed by the idea of just using Brisbane records as an indicator of the flood severity. People in other locations report this flood was worse than past ones.

To get an indication that is not misleading, the amount of water fallen over some common baseline area needs to be calculated for all floods past and present.

Timiboy says
——-
It is enough of a tragedy without these rat bags politicising what is a tragic event. They will stoop to anything to push their agenda. Filthy Bastards. It is NOT OK.
——-
You’re right, so why were you silent when climate skeptics did exactly that?

I had a chance to fly over the Lockyer Valley today but didn’t take it. My First Officer (wife) and I decided it would be voyeuristic so went where we were going by an alternate route.
It was good to hear my friends in 161 troop Australian Army Aviation come up on the frequency flying Search and Rescue in the valley. Good kids. It is our pleasure to know them.

I did not like the tone of Jim Cole comment at January 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm.
We are talking about peoples homes (whether these be mansions or wooden shacks) and one cannot pay a higher price than to pay with one’s life and/or the life of family members.
The point is though, if one builds a town high in the mountains where avalanches occur in the Spring, one is always living in the shaddow of an avalanche occuring. The same is so on mountain sides where there is a prospensity for mud slides, or on flood plains, or in the foothills of a volcano. When one builds and lives in these areas, one runs a risk that nature will strike with a vengance and from time to time she does just that.

We should not be surprised by the cruelty of nature (after all this is the driving force behind natural selection) but rather by man’s stupidy in settling in places which do not make good habitats or in failure to manage properly the known risks which are inherent in the habitat chosen (I have in mind that with better management, at least in Brisbane, the worst effects of the flooding could have been controlled and reduced, much like New Orleans and her sea defences). As regards Australia, one suspects that town planners/city engineers were being told that with global warming drought is the problems and floods will become a thing of the past such that they took their eye of the ball. This is what has happened in the UK with winter snowfall. There is a lot of blood on the shoulders of the AGW crowd.

The best available measure is Claus Wolters’ multi-variate ENSO index found here – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/

The big La Nina are all found prior to 1976 – it is associated with the Pacific decadal pattern. More frequent and intense La Nina to 1976, more frequent and intense El Nino to 1998 and a climate shift since to more frequent and intense La Nina. The intensity of the current La Nina is similar to the large events prior to 1976 and I’m betting that it will hang around this year intensifying again into next summer. The cool Pacific decadal pattern brings more intense and frequent La Nina for 20 to 40 years.

‘El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). These observations have been collected and published in COADS for many years.’

Richard S Courtney says
———–
I think we are seeing a new meme being presented by catastrophists. It is based on this argument:

Weather events are driven by energy flows,
and AGW increases energy in the climate system,
so the severity of each weather event is increased by AGW.
——
Richard, it is an old meme. Maybe 20 years old. Glad to see your climate science knowledge is catching up.

Here is a little question for you. How many years of crazy weather would it take to convince you?

My only comment, after the comprehensive smackdown, is that we are constantly being told not to cite cold weather events to counter AGW yet they have cited Russian heatwave, Pakistan floods and now the Amazon and Australian floods as a sign of global warming. They also cited the previous droughts in Amazon and Australia as a sign of global warming.

“So have there been more natural disasters in recent years? In a word, NO.
What we have, rather, is an increase in our ability to detect hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.”
Epicdisasters.com

Let’s look at some natural disasters of the past:

Ten worst floods in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/flooding/tenworst.shtml

Five worst forest fires
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/forestfires/tenworst.shtml

Ten worst hurricanes in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/hurricanes/tenworst.shtml

Ten worst tornadoes in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/tornadoes/tenworst.shtml

Ten worst avalanches in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/avalanches/tenworst.shtml

Ten worst landslides in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/landslides/tenworst.shtml

Worst natural disasters in history
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/worstdisasters.shtml

Dear Dp,

“Poo hole” ??!?!
Ha! ROFL! Lololol ! Whew, caught me off guard with that one. Yes indeedee …. very apt description. Well done! And thank you for the funny-
Carolina

“So how do these scientist explain that the worst floods in Brisbane’s history occurred in 1893. Brisbane has the longest complete record for floods. The Brisbane Flood of 2011 is nowhere near as high as the the floods of the 1890s or the 1840′s. So how did we manage to have more rain in the 1840s and 1890s when there was no Global Warming, and no Climate Change? When CO2 levels were much lower than they are today?”
Source

Brian H says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:20 am

As for “warm air holds more moisture”, the converse is also true: cool air holds less moisture. So it falls out and lands on the ground as rain, causing floods. I think you’d find much more statistical support for that observation than the Hot Rain one.
————–
So you have not heard of monsoons then and don’t believe in tropical rain storms at all then?

And the idea of rain accompanying cold fronts must be totally alien then?

And other popular climate skeptic ideas like: drought is caused by cold must be totally confusing to you then.

The problem is you don’t want to understand how rain fall is related to temperature and moisture content. All you are interested in is simple minded debating points.

1974 would be the 37 year ago, cycle two analog year I use for my forecast method, so it is no surprise to me this rerun of the past is right on time…. I sure would like to get hold of a complete record of the daily raw data back to about 1900, to generate a daily map based forecast for Australia, for the next 10 years or so.

I would need the data in a Lat, Long, parameter value (highs, lows, precipitation,snow, and dew point would be nice) format, for a rapid response forecast generation, in less than 6 months.

Maps of Brisbane’s floods: 1893, 1974, 2011
[Includes a good background article]

Lazy Boy won’t like that.

Or that.

“LazyTeenager says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:59 am”

Yeah, and alot I saw in reports weren’t old enough or weren’t even in the country to recall the 1974 floods, so your comment is rather pointless. Regardless, I have seena shift in poersonal accounts. A few weeks back you’d see reporters talking to “older” people stating “Seen it like this before!” Now, I see very young people, some were NOT teenagers at all, being asked if they’d seen “…anything like this before?”. But I get the impression that if you see and hear “accounts of an event or past events” on TV, and in colour, it must be true right?

Floods are very common in Queensland, early settlers adapted to it by bulding differently, ie, building houses on stilts, which was a departure from building standards known to the early settlers.

Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:22 pm

– even though the warming has only just begun.

Check this out: http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2

Not only has the warming stopped, but global temperatures have not correlated with CO2 concentrations. Hence, CO2 does not drive global temperatures. AGW hypothesis falsified.

Now about those 1893 floods.

There was also a economic panic here in the US in 1893.

My grandmother was born in 1893.

Clearly, my grandmother’s birth was the cause of all those bad events in 1893.

These floods were caused by a government that let their people down. Dams that would have protected people and saved lives weren’t built.

Rhys Jaggar says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:45 am

The situation in Brazil was described as being exacerbated by poor construction practices on steep hillsides, which is factually accurate but probably of little comfort to those who lost relatives.

The issue of inappropriate urban development was highlighted, which for any sane person is the reason behind the more toxic effects of floods when they do happen. Namely that if you are idiotic enough to build houses on flood plains, don’t be surprised when they flood. It might be once every 5 years, once every 35 but it’ll flood. Because nature is pretty predictable on longer time scales…….

Here in Colorado the issue is building homes in firewood stands, also known as forests.

People want to be close to nature, but there is a risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayman_Fire
The irony of the Hayman fire is the source was a government employee whose job was to prevent forest fires.

Every year we have homes burn up. But people still keep building up there.

Imagine being able to truly believe in something like these so called scientists say they do, to actually know beyond doubt that you have the undisputed facts.
It makes me wonder if they know what they don’t know or are total frauds.

The other irony here is that La Nina is defined as colder-than-normal water temperatures in the central Tropical Pacific. So here we have a moderate to strong La Nina event. So much for the warming oceans.

Whoosh. That’s the sound of the point of this article going right over the heads of WUWT posters. It’s not one crappy paper that’s the problem but the whole peer review process. Small wonder that the cargo cult scientists spout it’s wonders to behold. It’s because peer review is eminently corruptible.

You pay for the privilege of headline grabbing “research” but are not allowed to examine the full paper without subscribing to a privately owned and profit oriented media outlet.

Do you as a taxpayer feel this farce should continue?

WUWT had a post on DECREASING atmospheric water vapor

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/

Not that I would expect alarmist dolts like Sommerville and his ilk to actually look at facts before they spout AGW rhetoric.

Look, everyone – you can post graphs showing previous Queensland floods till you’re blue in the face – these AGW-ers are the ones who get the air time – because they have an ‘explanation’.
You and me saying: ‘Its normal; its happened many times before’ – is not a story you can put on tv…
How could the news channels survive on: ‘Nothing much has happened today..’..?

Note the story told Brisbaners (?) are reading at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/more-of-australia-getting-hot-and-wet-extremes-20110115-19rj7.html and the paper in last month’s Journal of Climate http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3791.1 .

Well, Somerville has made a believer out of me!
Just check out this drought index:
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Obviously there is no global warming in the Southeast U.S. because it is cold and dry in that region. Obviously the lack of CO2 there has prevented the air from being warm enough to hold moisture. But this is really a positive feedback because all this cold will make local residents to turn on the heat in their homes which will require more energy which will create more CO2 which will then eventually warm the air again. You will see, just wait a couple of months and see how warm the region gets because to this.

It is all about sunspots and they are right in their observations.

The accumulated global warming since 1934 since the growth of global warming sunspot cycles, the amount of precipitation in the USA rose by one inch on average and low precipitation for a year rose as well as the peaks over the period 1885 to 1933.

As has been proven, lower sunspot activity lowers upper atmosphere humidity, which causes drought, which causes more dust and that seeds the clouds and causes more flooding during drought periods.

“REPLY: James Hansen is an astronomer by training, so what? It doesn’t matter if Dr. Marohasy trains goldfish for a living, LOOK AT THE DAMN DATA. ”

The folks in Australia are swimming in data.

http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2011/2011_01_03_press_release.aspx

This is an insurance company, just looking to protect their money, not to advance any scientific theory or political ideology. They recognize the threat of climate change. Much like the Pentagon and our military do.

Buzz Belleville,

Did you notice the words “PRESS RELEASE” in your link? They are using ‘climate change’ to raise insurance rates. And their rationale is certainly confusing:

The level of overall losses was slightly above the high average of the past ten years.

What is a “high average”?

WUWT is a science based site. In fact, it is the “Best Science” site on the internet. Arguments based on an insurance company’s public relations advertising are not very scientific. Is that the best argument you’ve got?

There were over twice as many floods from 1840 to 1940,
as there were from 1940 to 2010.

Man made global warming has caused the amount of floods to go down by more than half.

Buzz Belleville – you should read:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/signals-of-anthropogenic-climate-change.html

There are other studies that cpme to similar conclusions.

Mike Borgelt says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:56 am
bryn says: January 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm

“So is our new drive by troll, Sou.”

No Bryn, I think he’s been here before. I’m sure that I remarked that a “Sou” is an obsolete and valueless French coin.

As in “Not worth a sou”.

Sou says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“Thanks for posting this. The charts you’ve posted clearly support the statements by Dr Somerville and other renowned scientists that anthropogenic global warming is already exacerbating the weather around the world, with disastrous consequences. More frequent and intense precipitation (rain, floods and snow), more extensive and hotter drought, more frequent and worse fires as the global temperature rises. ”

You forgot the most important aspect of AGW. Rising CO2 levels and increasing global temperatures obviously correlate with the spread of favelas on steep hillsides and the urban sprawl into floodplains. So as long as we go on emitting more and more CO2 we will see more favelas and more construction in floodplains, exacerbating future desasters.

Please tell your masters to have this included in the next IPCC report. It’s an obvious and unprecedented correlation; we need top climatologist researchers to prove it’s also a causal link!

/sarc

LazyTeenager says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:14 am
“Richard, it is an old meme. Maybe 20 years old. Glad to see your climate science knowledge is catching up.

Here is a little question for you. How many years of crazy weather would it take to convince you?”

So let’s change the name from Global Warming to Global Craziness, shall we? It describes the AGW believers quite well.

Just so we are clear Charles W.
They predicted drier conditions for Oz but with wetter rain events. How to go wrong when one covers all bases, eh?

Hmmm how could we have ever doubted them?

I note in the UK that these Oz floods are pointedly blamed on La Nina, as if to divorce them completely from Global Warming – so that Global Warming can continue as soon as they are over.

However, The Times noted that this was a particularly “warm” La Nina. Not only wrong, but an oxymoron, I would have thought.

.

Another one Jeff Masters in his blog is also quoting high SST and Global Warming… yet in his own post demonstrates that the 1967 Brazilian floods could not be due to high SST… but still goes on…

Was global warming the cause of potential devastating floods in Brisbane during 1841 and 1893? A small population a lesser disaster.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

The current flooding has so far fallen short of the crest of 1974, and far short of the crests of 1841 and 1893.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/15/australian-floods-quee...

I’m always late to the party. :-(

Sou, thanks for the chuckles. And an introduction to the BoM! We’d never known it existed were it not for you! Please, do yourself a favor and peruse the archives of this site. I’m certain you’ll see the nearly uncountable references to the BoM. I’m curious, the unprecedented flooding (which isn’t unprecedented) occurring in Australia, is this a global phenomenon or is AGW simply picking upon Australia and a few other places? I find it interesting that you mention Arctic ice but say nothing of the growing mass to your south.

Your argument seems to be a common theme nowadays. Back in the good old days of AGW, it was simply warming we were concerned about. Then, it moved a bit to warming and drought!(climate change?) Australia was used as proof of such concerns. Then, we see that’s its moved again to simultaneous drought and flooding! Not only that, we see the cold in the NH is caused by, you guessed it! Warming! So we moved a tad bit again, to the AGW(now climate disruption?) exacerbates weather events.

Now, I can only come up with descriptive terms for these events to be warmcold- this is defined as cold caused by the warmth of AGW, as opposed to the extinct type of cold that used to be cause by less heat. After reading a story http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/does_climate_change_explain_th.html (thanks to Steve Goddard) we see that even these events aren’t unprecedented as claimed, but serious nonetheless! Were is not for this story, we’d never learn of the AGW phenomenon called drywet! I believe Australia is falling victim to this very phenomenon! While all of the connections haven’t been made, yet, I think its fairly obvious to any casual observer that drywet is a product of warmcold. There is an intermediate undefined process involved, but I think it has something to do with open freezer doors, or some such.

Fortunately, history has a recording of these unprecedented events so we know what not to do in the future when these unprecedented events visit us again.

Sou, you want to see less flood in your country, build some dams. Understand that weather events will still occur in your country, just as they did 1839 http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/From-the-Sydney-Gazette-and-New-South-Wales-Advertiser-Thursday-13-June-1839.jpg

And welcome!

“Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming”

Or maybe a prelude to the next ice age

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Queensland Floods. Climate Scientists 2010: Less Moisture Over Australia. Climate Scientists 2011: More Moisture Over Australia
Posted on January 15, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In what is sure to be yet further embarrassment for advocates of the theory of man-made global warming it has emerged that climate scientists pinning the blame for the Queensland floods on global warming have been contradicting a report published by other climate scientists just weeks earlier.
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/

Also
Queenslander (architecture)
Queenslander architecture is a modern term for the vernacular type of architecture of Queensland, Australia. It is also found in the northern parts of the adjacent state of New South Wales and shares many traits with architecture in other states of Australia but is distinct and unique. The type developed in the 1840s and is still constructed today

Queenslander buildings are primarily of timber construction and can be low or high-set, one to two storeys. They are typically “tripartite” in sectional composition; underfloor (stumps), primary rooms (can be two levels), and roof. All have one or more veranda spaces, a sheltered edge of the building that is typically only part-enclosed and used as another living zone. This consideration for climate is the defining characteristic of the Queenslander type.

The raising of the main living spaces off the ground can be seen as both a stylistic and practical device. The vertical “stumps”, initially of timber, allow the building to “float” above the terrain. Queenslanders all have this underfloor area that is used to cool the building through ventilation and also for protection of the main structure from termite attack and other pests. The stumps also help to overcome any variations in the terrain that would normally require earthworks to flatten for construction and ALLOW FOR THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER across the terrain in the event of EXCESSIVE RAIN and downpours.

They were not stupid in 1840

I’ve been saying for quite some time that a change in the speed of the water cycle is the means whereby the extra energy from more CO2 is negated by shifting it faster to space.

However solar and oceanic variability already makes such huge natural changes to the speed of the water cycle that the influence of CO2 would be miniscule and unmeasurable.

For example in the North Atlantic the jet stream position (directly related to the speed of the global water cycle) can vary by as much as 1000 miles latitudinally in response to natural solar and oceanic influences.

CO2 might shift the jets by a few hundred yards.

This is the first time that I have seen a warmist accept the speed of the water cycle overall as a response to GHG effects.

Usually they just suggest more extreme events due to more water vapour. They don’t seem to realise that the speed of the water cycle dictates the speed of energy ejection from oceans to space and that therefore it offsets the effects of GHGs.

Australian rainfall patterns during La Niña events

“There is a contraction and weakening of the effect in western Queensland, but in the east of that state, the La Niña-induced tendency towards wetter than average conditions continues to be moderate to strong. This is significant as December to February are, on average, three of the four wettest months in this part of the country. In eastern NSW, there is an increased tendency for wet conditions in comparison with the impact during the winter-spring period. As with eastern Queensland, this is significant in northern NSW because the region experiences a natural summer rainfall maximum. ”

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml
Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Bureau of Meteorology

So why were they not prepared?

Actually, there are some updated graphs:

See here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/annual-climate-statement-bureau-of-meteorology/

From here:

http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=0

But the rain doesn’t stop at the end of the year and I wish there were “seasonal” or “water year” graphs someplace to get an accurate picture of the rains over the course of a rainy season and not calendar year. An exceptionally dry spring can mask an exceptionally wet winter in graphs that go by calendar year.

As regards the Australian , Sri Lankan and Brazilian floods the speed of the water cycle is not in fact the cause.

What has occurred is a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems to bring rain bands across areas that were previously under drier zones.

The more equatorward/meridional shift that has occurred is related to a cooling globe and not a warming globe.

When the globe was warming those locations were situated under drier zones because the air circulations had moved more poleward/become more zonal.

Sou (if you are still around)

You like data. Then how does 2010 have all these more extreme weather events when it was less than 0.2C above the ‘norm’. From the BOM website on climate summaries for 2010, it claims;
‘Overall, Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2010 was 22.00 °C, +0.19 °C above the 1961 to 1990 average of 21.81 °C. This ranks as the nation’s 31st-warmest year since standard records began in 1910.’

Yes, these kinds of news reports must really upset AGW skeptics, and I can understand why. But the bottom line is, the acceleration of the hydrological cycle with increased amounts of CO2 is based on solid science, and while we can’t say that any specific flooding event was caused by, or even intensified by AGW, we can say that we will see an increase in the frequency and severity of such events as more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

It is completely true that the current flooding in Australia (which is far from over, as the waters near Australia remain anomalously warm) is related to the current cooler phase of the PDO as well as the current La Nina, it is at least possible that these natural ocean cycles are being intensified by AGW and/or otherwise changed in their natural character. One would expect this to occur through the acceleration of the hydrological cycle brought about by increased atmospheric CO2.

The distiguished professor is right in general theory and very wrong in its specific application–a common failing of academics. Higher temperatures do speed up the hydrological cycle globally. But where, when, and at what rate the increased rains fall is a very much more complex matter. Somerville, no doubt, understands that . As the head cheerleader for IPPC alarmism, however, he simply can’t pass up an opportunity to shout “Go AGW, Go!” It does make an impression on sophomoric minds.

R. Gates, welcome back from your visit to the penalty box. Unfortunately your style of debating hasn’t changed.

Explain the BoM graph is update 4 then. Explain why the rainfall total now is different from an equivalent rainfall total in the 1950′s and how CO2 made that difference. Explain how it could reach the same peak then with less CO2.

Explain why all the other experts saying this is a La Nina event, as seen before in Australia’s history, which is not connected to AGW/global warming/climate change are wrong… and you are right.

Anthony Watts says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:40 pm
R. Gates, welcome back from your visit to the penalty box. Unfortunately your style of debating hasn’t changed.

Explain the BoM graph is update 4 then. Explain why the rainfall total now is different from an equivalent rainfall total in the 1940′s and how CO2 made that difference. Explain how it could reach the same peak then with less CO2.

Explain why all the other experts saying this is a La Nina event, as seen before in Australia’s history, which is not connected to AGW/global warming/climate change are wrong… and you are right
_______

Anthony, thanks for the timeout…it gave me a great opportunity to catch up on some other pressing issues.

In response to your questions:

I think I made it quite clear that one could not specifcally claim that the current flooding in Australia, nor any place recently (i.e. Brazil, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, China, etc.) could be pinned on AGW or the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is true that the increase in frequency of such events is entirely consistent with the general acceleration of the hydrological cycle. We know that the current La Nina pattern combined with the cool phase of the PDO is the immediate culprit, but what we don’t know is if these natural ocean cycles might be changed by the accumulation of CO2. The carbon-rock cycle is well understood as is the long-term hydrological response to increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Could changes in the nature of the ENSO and PDO cycles be one of the ways that the hydrological cycle accelerates?This certainly cannot be dicounted, and certainly is the area of some research. With 2010 as the wettest year on record and atmospheric water vapor levels increasing, this is all very consistent with the accleration of the hydrological cycle and consistent with the trends indicated by GCM’s when considering the effects of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.

Smokey says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:11 am

Buzz Belleville,

Arguments based on an insurance company’s public relations advertising are not very scientific. Is that the best argument you’ve got?

He’s from planet ‘Toy Story’.

Anthony: R Gates should never have been released from the penalty box. His latest post warrants a ban for life for peddleing bullshit. He will never reform.

R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:13 pm

No, you don’t get away with that one, no way.
For the past five years articles have been appearing in the MSM advising that southern England and Kent in particular would experience such droughts and temperatures that gardeners in that area would be well advised to plant succulents and cacti in future seasons.
And for my piece de resistance the Daily Telegraph today reports that some members of the Royal Horticultural Society are objecting most strongly to that body’s politicisation as demonstrated by it’s current promulgation of AGW in advising those same gardeners to plant their gardens this year with mediterranean plants and cacti.
So you see that there are climate researchers that have not caught up with your newly espoused and completely opposite reasoning. Obviously can’t keep up with the convolutions of the new improved brand of climate science where words mean whatever you want them to mean.
Now where have I heard that before?

R Gates
‘With 2010 as the wettest year on record and atmospheric water vapor levels increasing, this is all very consistent with the accleration of the hydrological cycle and consistent with the trends indicated by GCM’s when considering the effects of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.’

No, 2010 was the 3rd wettest year since 1900 (1974 was the wettest). See:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml

Also, how do you explain the extreme wet periods in the 1840s and 1890s (which still show up as some of the wettest periods on record with extreme flooding events) without the CO2 component?

Reponse to “Puzzled”:

The main stream media needs a never-ending series of crises to keep up their ratings, get ad revenue, steal reader/viewer-ship from competitors, etc. This is why the 6-o’clock news is a body bag report and chronicle of mayhem.

As H. L. Mencken said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.

AGW is all about politics, power and wealth redistribution – period.

Paddy says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Anthony: R Gates should never have been released from the penalty box. His latest post warrants a ban for life for peddleing bullshit. He will never reform.

_____
Specifically, what have I said that is “bullshit”?

Would it be that:
Increased CO2 is correlated with an accelerated hyrdologcial cycle?
2010 was the wettest year on record?
Changes in the ENSO and PDO cycles might be one way the acclerated hydrological cycle is reflected?
Atmospheric water vapor levels are increasing as is consistent with an acclerated hydrolgocial cycle?
Increased flooding and other severe hydrological events are consistent with an acclerated hydrological cycle?

Or is it simply that the points I raise upset certain members of the AGW skeptical community?

The warmists in australia have been telling everyone for years that the climate is getting drier. Some, like Tim ‘ghost metropolis’ Flannery, predicted the imminent demise of major cities through lack of water! And as I recall the Murray Darling river was in a death spiral too.
I sincerely hope that somewhere in the Queensland Government archives is a Report/Document containing official ‘expert’ advice that Climate Change would lead to less floods. And that as a consequence: town planning and flood mitigation programmes were altered accordingly.
Other professions can be held to account for such failures why not climatologists?
Let’s try and nail these people down.
Oh and one other thing…has anyone ever seen a tv weatherperson begin a report with the words….’well we sure got that last report wrong’! After all – to err is human.

roger says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:41 pm
R. Gates says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:13 pm

No, you don’t get away with that one, no way.
For the past five years articles have been appearing in the MSM advising that southern England and Kent in particular would experience such droughts and temperatures that gardeners in that area would be well advised to plant succulents and cacti in future seasons.
And for my piece de resistance the Daily Telegraph today reports that some members of the Royal Horticultural Society are objecting most strongly to that body’s politicisation as demonstrated by it’s current promulgation of AGW in advising those same gardeners to plant their gardens this year with mediterranean plants and cacti.
So you see that there are climate researchers that have not caught up with your newly espoused and completely opposite reasoning. Obviously can’t keep up with the convolutions of the new improved brand of climate science where words mean whatever you want them to mean.
Now where have I heard that before?

_____
The acceleration of the hydrologcial cycle has long been seen in the GCM’s when factoring in the 40% rise in CO2, so this is not a “new’ projection, but is based on the historical and geological record from the basic carbon-rock cycle and is a natural negative feedback…(i.e. it is the earths way of keeping CO2 levels in check).

But to your point about the weather in England and any ‘warmist’ predictions for what to expect. I think specific localized predictions based on any GCM is absurd. GCM might be good a predicting global trends (i.e. temps, water vapor, acclerated hydrologcial cycle) but very poor at telling what the weather will be like in any specific area as it is dangerous to do so with a system such as climate that exists on the edge of chaos with too many factors that we don’t know about and possible tipping points yet to be revealed.

Sou says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:11 am

….. Despite the cooler weather with this La Nina, the temperatures in many places, for example Melbourne, are still above the 30 year averages.

It might be instructive to check just what the December 2010 temperature anomaly is for what BOM refers to as the Melbourne Area. True the Melbourne weather station (MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE) did show an anomaly of around +1 °C but as is well known that station has its problems, being located in the middle of a sea of bitumen and motor vehicles.

Anthony – I agree with your analysis.
Belief in AGW is a cult, a pseudo religious belief system.
It is not a scientific paradigm, theory, or hypothesis.
It is at best, an unproven and unprovable conjecture.

La Nina should make the Western Pacific warmer. During a La Nina, the surface temperatures in the equatorial Eastern Pacific go down because of strong trade winds blowing across that surface but the amount of energy going into the ocean increases during La Nina conditions. So temperatures go down over part of the ocean but overall heat content goes UP.

Now this La Nina might be different because there is less energy in the far UV spectrum that heats the ocean at depth. We will have to see. But overall, a La Nina year results in overall more energy going into the oceans even though the surface temperature drops. Temperature does not equal heat. Tisdale has done a lot of posting on that.

Global warmers have a real problem with all this hysteria about these floods being unprecedented. It’s so simple to look up the far worse floods in the past. Then they’ll look bad for claiming these over the past week were unprecedented.

And the ones in the past had a couple over 90 feet high of flood water.

Just page through this article searching for “Australia”:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/

To get a total picture of the disinformation being put out there.

You can convince people of anything. For example: I can predict with what I believe is certainty that if people continue shaving and getting haircuts at the current rate, that California and most of the Great Basin region will suffer a megadrought on the scale never before witnessed in the entire recorded history there.

Now the reason why I can make that claim is that I know that the past 500 years or so is the wettest period that the region has experienced in over 10,000 years and can with reasonable certainty predict that the region will, at some point, return to more “normal” weather patterns. If you go 20 meters deep into most Sierra Nevada lakes, you will find tree stumps. They aren’t small stumps, and they don’t appear in just one lake, either. In order for them to exists there, the levels of those lakes had to be much lower than they are today and had to be that low for a very long time. There is also evidence that Lake Tahoe was below its outlet level for many centuries at a time, perhaps millennia.

What we perceive as “normal” is actually anomalously wet. What we experience as mutli-year drought conditions are probably closer to the long term “normal” condition during this interglacial. So to make a prediction that “if we ….” and you can insert anything after the “we”, that we will face megadroughts in Western North America is probably accurate but not because we did anything in particular.

Of course the “fly in the ointment” is predicting the exact time that it will come to pass. But if one crafts their prediction so that it does not rely on any specific time frame, the prediction will eventually come to pass with as much assurance as my predicting right now that if you continue reading blogs, the sky will become very dark and you will not be able to see the sun and stars will appear in the sky. Note that I didn’t say the setting of the sun was CAUSED by reading blogs, I simply linked the two things in a sentence of words hoping that with the power of subliminal persuasion does its work.

Any attempt to link the massive rainfall, floods and landslides in the Região Serrana of the Rio de Janeiro State (the city itself was not very much affected) to the global warming hysteria is preposterous, to say the least. This region has always suffered from such extreme meteorological phenomena and the problems are indeed aggravated by the massive irregular and precarious occupation of the slopes of the elevations, hills and mountains. And if it is a fact that most of this occupation is done by the poor, this time the tragedy was somewhat “democratic” and fell upon many middle and upper class dwellings in the cities of Petrópolis, Teresópolis and Friburgo (the death toll is already over 600 and rising).
I am a geologist with specialization in Engineering Geology and I spent some years at the university in the 1980s making geological-geotechnical maps of some of those areas. Since that time and even before the professionals of these fields have been warning the authorities against the irregular occupation of the hillslopes (and we have a good deal of highly skilled experts in such areas). Unfortunately, politics (with very small “p”) have always prevented any kind of rational solution for this problem – and the consequences may be seen in the headlines.
But in any case there is nothing new in such phenomena here, as Mr Watt himself showed in the 1967 newspaper clip about the floods of that year. In Rio and its surroundings we had very heavy rainfalls and the corresponding tragedies in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1971, 1982, 1988, 1994, 1996 and 2010. There are records of the same problems going back to the 18th century. Global warming all this time? Please no kid.
By the way, despite its huge toll of human suffering this tragedy does not come even close to being the country’s greatest. This dubious distinction goes to the terribly severe droughts in Brazil’s Northeast in 1877-79 and 1915 (caused in part by very strong El Niños), whose combined death toll reached some hundred thousand lives.

There exists much confusion about the present climate extremes, but what is happening was entirely predictable.
For at least 7 years the oceans have been cooling, with the past 3 years very significantly. As a result, the climate of the surrounding land moves more towards that of a desert, with hot days and cold nights (and heat waves). It happens because the cool sea draws more land wind than producing sea wind. As a result, less moisture reaches the land, accompanied by droughts, bush fires and high day temperatures. Remember that the land temperatures are heavily moderated by moisture, and once that has evaporated, the land climate becomes more like that of a desert.
Very cool land will be snowed for the little bit of moisture that reaches it. Hence early snow. But we’ve had excessive amounts of snow and rain. Why?

This is where ocean circulation comes in. We’ve just sat out a long El Niño during which ocean circulation stagnated, while accumulating warm water over the tropics. Just recently the ocean began circulating again, and large pulses of warm water are finding their way now towards higher latitudes, thereby inverting the above process. With the warm water come more sea winds and more moisture, which is deposited as snow in the north and as deluges of water in other places like Australia. I live in New Zealand, south of Australia and have been watching the water temperature, which jumped suddenly from a very low of 14ºC to 18 and then 20. With it came a deluge of rain. We are now expecting a second La Niña pulse with more torrential rain.

Often the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) is seen as an oscillation, which it is, but due to stagnation, it is also accompanied by a sudden warm water pulse in the transition from Niño to Niña. When one attempts to predict the weather, one must know what the sea is doing, and this is alas missing from view.

“Monroe says:
January 15, 2011 at 9:20 am
Was global warming the cause of potential devastating floods in Brisbane during 1841 and 1893? A small population a lesser disaster.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

The current flooding has so far fallen short of the crest of 1974, and far short of the crests of 1841 and 1893.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/15/australian-floods-quee…”

Sigh. You’ve made a point of saying “The current flooding has so far fallen short of the crest of 1974, and far short of the crests of 1841 and 1893.” but you have failed to point out this is purely due to the flood mitigation capacity of the dams now in place.

I’ll say it again dont compare flood levels from 1841 and 1893 to those for the current event and 1974.

In 1974, Wivenhoe Dam was not yet built and in 1841 and 1893 nor was Somerset Dam.

Had these 2 dams not been in place, flooding for this current event may well have approached 1841 and 1893 levels.

It is better simply to say that the nature of the current event is no different to events that occur once every 50 years on average in SE QLD. These events will continue to occur into the future with or without global warming so until we get frequent events of a severity in excess of those seen previously, blaming the current one on AGW really is something that cannot have any statistical support.

Just a quick, simple question to Sou, lazyteenage, gates, et al, who are convinced of AGW:

Just what evidence would lead you to believe that the global climate models are wrong? If there is none, if there is absolutely no way to falsify A COMPUTER MODEL with real life data, then you are no longer practicing science.

Before you ask, if we began having weather phenomena on a widescale basis THAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD BEFORE, or if record high temperatures were consistantly being made, year-over-year, in the same areas, I would concede GW, and probably AGW if temps were going up faster than anytime since the LIA.

So, what would the climate/weather look like if the models were wrong? So far, all we’ve seen are extreme weather events that are no different than extreme weather events over the past century.

Would any of you concede if, say, a monthly average of global temps came in below the average? Or would you say something like, “despite global warming, natural forces were so strong that we had below average temperatures. Imagine how cold it would be without GW?”

Obviously, there would be no reason to engage in a discussion with you if there is absolutely nothing that would disprove GW to you. You can’t argue with a religious fanatic.

DEREK ARNDT.

I noticed that name when that ABC piece was on TV, wrote it down. The older talking head, Somerville, was ignorable in his spewing of the expected (C)AGW garbage. But something about Arndt seemed notable, might have been the NOAA connection.

Googling lead to a curious reprint site for WUWT-type articles, utahclimate.org (WUWT on the blogroll, and where is the Source link for Josh’s Met Office cartoon?), leading to a nice ICECAP piece by Art Horn mentioning Arndt and NOAA (Claim 2010 tied with warmest year ever lacks historical perspective, good reading) and a Goddard post with a WAPO excerpt:

Derek Arndt, who heads the climate monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said the new data should be viewed in the context of the record retreat of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the melt season and a near-record retreat of Arctic sea ice.

“Together across the board, it was an unusual year, and a year that in many ways was a culmination of what we’ve been seeing for the past several years,” Arndt said.

As the ICECAP piece put it:

Given this twisted logic, last season with all-time record snows in the DC area meant all-time record snowmelt as it disappeared. Reminds me of the ridiculous NOAA spokesman statement last year that global warming helped explain the record DC snow thanks to storm track shifting north and more moisture from the Great Lakes. Clueless.

Derek Arndt, an Important Person at NOAA-NCDC. A younger, hipper, much less discredited face for the (C)AGW movement, now being trotted out for face time with the media as a new Great Climate Expert. A person to watch, if you can’t turn off the TV fast enough.

Part of the summary of a paper in 1949, RGB (Brazilian journal of geography) event in 1948 on River Basin “Paraiba do Sul, with 250 deaths. Cause of death: Landslides caused by heavy rains.

Summary
This article deals with the natural and cultural factors responsible for the violent floods, which, in December 1948, ravaged an extensive area at the “Zona da Mata” in the State of Minas Gerais. Damage was inflicted mainly by the sloughing away of hillsides and the subsequent deposition upon farmlands of resulting detritus, which also buried homes and stores. …….. ……In concluding this interesting and timely paper, the author considers the steps which must be taken if the deleterious effects of unusually rainfall are to be avoided, or at least, mitigated……

In 1949 no one talked of anthropogenic global warming. Save Dr. J. B. Kinco (on March 29, 1939) in Diario de la Marina ” – Havana. He said that in the last 21 years the earth’s temperature increased 11.7 °F. Cause: A large amount of carbonic acid, generated from burning coal. (But that’s other story!!! :))

jtom says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Just a quick, simple question to Sou, lazyteenage, gates, et al, who are convinced of AGW:

Just what evidence would lead you to believe that the global climate models are wrong? If there is none, if there is absolutely no way to falsify A COMPUTER MODEL with real life data, then you are no longer practicing science.

________
I happen to think it very likely that GCM’s are wrong…about the specifics, but not about the trends. If the models were 100% accurate, we would know everything, but as it is, it is very hard to model a system at the edge of chaos. Also, as models, they are never really looked at as “right” or “wrong”, just more or less accurate. Just as it has taken decades of data to see the fingerprints of AGW, it would take decades to see the evidence disappear to totally disprove the GCM’s. This is very very unlikely to occur as the models have it generally right, but specifically:

1) If global atmospheric water vapor levels begin to level and then decline. They been rising steadily for decades as shown to occur by GCM’s and is one of the positive feedback processes specifically modelled to occur as CO2 levels rise. Corresponding to these increases in water vapor levels would be the continued acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Expect to see more frequent and more severe flooding events such as we saw in the past year in China, Pakistan. If this doesn’t happen over the course of decades, GCM’s would be shown to be grossly inaccurate.
2) Arctic year to year sea ice stops falling and returns to historical levels. We’ve not seen a positive anomaly in Arctic sea ice since 2004. Most GCM’s show the Arctic to be ice free in the summer by the end of this century, and some much sooner than that. Some skeptics want to look at one year in rebound and make a big deal of it (though no signficant rebound year has occurred). Expect a spiral down in year to year sea ice over the decades ahead. If this doesn’t occur, GCM’s would be shown to be grossly inaccurate.
3) The decade to decade temperatures stop increasing. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. It is only a statistical exercise to look at any single year like 2010 and compare it to others, as natural variability can affect temperatures year to year, but decade to decade, all GCM’s show a steady rise in temps. Expect to see 2010-2019 warmer than 2000-2009, and then 2020-2029 warmer still. If this doesn’t occur, GCM’s would be shown to be grossly inaccurate.

Wetter and wetter.

“The flooding in the Campaspe threatens Echuca, where it meets the swollen Murray. The peak, expected later today, is likely to reach levels not seen since 1916.”

“The Wimmera River at Horsham is expected to peak between 3.75 and 3.85 metres tomorrow night, higher than floods in September 1988 and possibly mirroring the historic August 1909 floods.”

“In fact, western and central Victoria has already received the region’s highest monthly rainfall on record – in just the first 14 days of January.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/record-flooding-wreaks-havoc-20110115-19s0t.html

“Unprecedented” flooding continuing in Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/16/3113796.htm

Last I checked, unprecedented meant the worst in recorded history. Quite in line with a CO2 induced acceleration of the hydrological cycle on top of a La Nina and cool phase of the PDO. The last time La Nina lined up with the cool phase of the PDO (1974) there was flooding, but atmospheric water vapor levels were lower then, so it is not unreasonable to see how higher water vapor levels now could make the flooding worse now than even 1974.

REPLY:Sorry Gates, citing from my 30 years in the news business, “unprecedented” in a news story is often far different than “unprecedented” data. Simply put, I don’t trust reporters enough to get it right, they all have a penchant for factual inflation. The data is what is important, not the news hype. When the data comes in fully, then we’ll see if that term holds up. – Anthony

@jtom

AGW predicted stratospheric cooling. It this did not happen, AGW would be refuted. It happened. Likewise with winters warming more than summers and nights more than days. Satellites have measured the radiative imbalance. If there wasn’t one, AGW would be falsified. The ocean cycle theory is falsified by these same tests.

What would cause you to stop believing the theory that we can dump all the CO2 we want into the atmosphere and not seriously affect climate? After all it is only a theory, right?

ABC, September 2003
Drought Vortex
… Climatologists are desperately trying to explain the mystery of where southern Australia’s winter rainfall is going. They’ve known the rain is being pulled south by an unexplained force. Now they’ve devised a revolutionary new theory to explain why. It appears that the circulation of the entire Southern Hemisphere is changing to suck our rain away. The reason is the Antarctic Vortex – a natural tornado of 30km high, super-cold, super-fast winds spiraling around Antarctica. The vortex is not new; it’s one of the engines that drive climate in the Southern Hemisphere. But now it appears the vortex is shifting gear, and is spinning faster and faster, and getting tighter. As it does it’s pulling the climate bands further south dragging rain away from the continent out into the southern ocean. Most disturbing of all we might be responsible for shifting the speed of the vortex. Scientists at the US Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research believe the speeding up of the vortex is caused by the combined effect of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica. If their theory is true it will have devastating consequences for our southern cities – the drought may not go away. It takes just a slight shift in rainfall patterns for our capital cities to start running out of water – and the reservoirs in Perth, Adelaide, and Melbourne are all dangerously low right now.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s948858.htm
===

April 2007
Bribie best for desal plant
… THE world’s biggest desalination plant should be built north of Brisbane to drought-proof southeast Queensland
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/features/bribie-best-for-desal-plant/story-e6freoyo-1111113319771
===

October 2007 -
… “The pattern that we’re seeing now in the weather in Australia is very much the pattern was predicted by computer models as much as a decade ago. We will have to get by with less water. The CSIRO’s telling us that. We’re seeing it now, in the evidence before our eyes in our rivers and creeks, and of course the computer models in the global models have been predicting just this now for some years. I think all evidence says that this is our new climate and we have to get by with less water than we’ve ever had before.” – Tim Flannery
http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/2833
===

November 2007
La Nina behind Australia’s drought

… “The drought that’s going on in Australia right now is a very serious drought and it is one of the atypical situations associated with this particular La Niña event,” says WMO climate specialist Dr Leslie Malone.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/2078345.htm
===

October 2010
Desalination plants lose $1m a week
… RESIDENTS are losing at least $1 million a week operating desalination and water recycling plants in Queensland’s flooded southeast.
===

R. Gates says: January 15, 2011 at 9:12 pm

““Unprecedented” flooding continuing in Australia:”

There have been around 40 notable floods in Australia in the last 200 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Australia

In light of land use changes, population growth, encroachment on flood zones, poor urban planning, etc. I haven’t seen anything about the recent floods that seems unprecedented from a climatic perspective.

Stop handwaving about short term weather events and come back to the Willis’ thread so you can explain to us how effective Global Climate Models are at forecasting climatic conditions many decades into the future…

“unprecedented” in the context of the dam upstream. There is a link in the article that goes to a video in that video I believe you can find the source of the use of “unprecedented” . “Largest outflow in the dam’s history”, is I believe what is unprecedented here and that dam didn’t exist during the earlier flooding.

La Nina and El Nino are becoming the catch all names along with global warming for anything we don’t understand about the weather. Last time I checked, La Nina’s act up in cold water, 40 to 60F degrees and El Ninos act up around 70F degrees of cold water.

Hurricanes need 82F degrees of water 100 feet deep.

La Ninas stir up food for the ocean food chain and during the colder 1970s La Ninas were happening yearly rather than after an EL Nino; bi- annually..

It’s time to pull back and before we throw out catch phrases, have some web sites to back up what we are saying.

@ jtom, January 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Just a quick, simple question to Sou, lazyteenage, gates, et al, who are convinced of AGW:

Just what evidence would lead you to believe that the global climate models are wrong? If there is none, if there is absolutely no way to falsify A COMPUTER MODEL with real life data, then you are no longer practicing science.

Sorry, jtom, you’re asking the wrong person about computer models. I have no expertise in the design or interpretation of computer models developed to help analyse climate, so it’s meaningless for me to speculate on the efficacy of any of the myriad climate models. Those who design the models would have developed test parameters and protocols. (And I’m not a practising scientist, I’m just another concerned member of the human species.)

In my case, I don’t need to rely on climate models. Where I live we have been seeing the climate change markedly over the last few years. My 90 year old mother, not known for hyperbole, said to me this week that she’s never seen a summer like this one and I agreed. I am well aware that memories are fallible, so I checked the rainfall and temperature data for our local region. We have this summer the most precipitation ever recorded in a single day, the biggest floods ever recorded simultaneously – all while a strong La Nina, which is supposed to bring cooler weather, is not causing temperatures here to drop below even the latest the 30 year average. We’ve had a longer, hotter drought and more major fires this decade (mostly by lightning strikes) than in the previous 70 years at least, combined, despite a much better fire response capability.

One locality isn’t sufficient to illustrate global climate, so I look at the world as a whole. The number of extreme events is reportedly increasing. The number of heat extremes is far outweighing the number of cold extremes. Each decade is hotter than the one before, though if not for the huge rise in greenhouse gases, the earth would be cooling slightly.

I understand the basic physics of how greenhouse gases keep the earth from freezing, having first learnt it during science lectures more than 30 years ago. The CSIRO models were basic then, computers were primitive compared to those used today, yet what the CSIRO scientists suggested then could happen to Australia’s weather as a result of global warming, is taking place already, before our eyes. I expect the scientists then thought it would take longer before becoming so evident and that we’d have done more to address the problem by now. They underestimated human failings.

I’ve referred to the BOM site in a previous post and been told that regular posters here are familiar with it so I won’t repeat the links. I expect readers here are also familiar with the global climate statements produced by US government agencies.

Wivenhoe has a huge capacity — about 1, 165, 000 ML for water storage, plus an additional 1, 165, 000 ML (and a bit) for flood mitigation.
http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

New Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) baseline value – solar min measured lower in 2008

From a new paper by Dr. Greg Kopp and Dr. Judith Lean, new finding on the solar minimum TSI in 2008:

The most probable value of total solar irradiance representative of solar minimum is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2, lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 recommended a decade ago. This new value, measured by SORCE/TIM, is validated by irradiance comparisons to a NIST‐calibrated cryogenic radiometer in the new TSI Radiometer Facility. Uncorrected scattering and diffraction are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non‐TIM instruments.

That’s lower by 4.6 watts per square meter. This may mean that many climate models will have to be reinitialized if it is decided that this value they derive from SORCE is more accurate than the value established previously.

Figures 1B, 1C and 1D from the paper: The average of three different reported composites (ACRIM, PMOD, and RMIB) adjusted to match the SORCE/TIM absolute scale. The grey shading indicates the standard deviation of the three composites. (c) Irradiance variations estimated from an empirical model that combines the two primary influences of facular brightening and sunspot darkening with their relative proportions determined via regression from direct observations made by SORCE/ TIM. (d) The daily sunspot numbers indicate fluctuating levels of solar activity for the duration of the database.

By way of a forcing comparison to this suggested revision, according to NOAA ESRL:

The total effective climate forcing for all GHGs including CO2 and ozone (O3) from the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 to the year 2000 is 2.63 watts per square meter.

So a change of 4.6 watts per square meter to the old baseline TSI is more than double the total GHG forcings. (Averaged over the earth’s curvature, it works out to about 0.85 watts per meter*) That’s still not chump change. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in models. It is important to note this caveat from their abstract:

TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations.

Improved measurements of sun to advance understanding of climate change

From Eurekalert: WASHINGTON—Scientists have taken a major step toward accurately determining the amount of energy that the sun provides to Earth, and how variations in that energy may contribute to climate change.

In a new study of laboratory and satellite data, researchers report a lower value of that energy, known as total solar irradiance, than previously measured and demonstrate that the satellite instrument that made the measurement—which has a new optical design and was calibrated in a new way—has significantly improved the accuracy and consistency of such measurements.

The new findings give confidence, the researchers say, that other, newer satellites expected to launch starting early this year will measure total solar irradiance with adequate repeatability – and with little enough uncertainty – to help resolve the long-standing question of how significant a contributor solar fluctuations are to the rising average global temperature of the planet.

“Improved accuracies and stabilities in the long-term total solar irradiance record mean improved estimates of the sun’s influence on Earth’s climate,” said Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) of the University of Colorado Boulder.

Kopp, who led the study, and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory, in Washington, D.C., published their findings today in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

The new work will help advance scientists’ ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of climate change, the scientists said. That’s because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth’s climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.

Lean specializes in the effects of the sun on climate and space weather. She said, “Scientists estimating Earth’s climate sensitivities need accurate and stable solar irradiance records to know exactly how much warming to attribute to changes in the sun’s output, versus anthropogenic or other natural forcings.”

The new, lower TSI value was measured by the LASP-built Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument on the NASA Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) spacecraft. Tests at a new calibration facility at LASP verify the lower TSI value. The ground-based calibration facility enables scientists to validate their instruments under on-orbit conditions against a reference standard calibrated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Before the development of the calibration facility, solar irradiance instruments would frequently return different measurements from each other, depending on their calibration. To maintain a long-term record of the sun’s output through time, scientists had to rely on overlapping measurements that allowed them to intercalibrate among instruments.

Kopp said, “The calibration facility indicates that the TIM is producing the most accurate total solar irradiance results to date, providing a baseline value that allows us to make the entire 32-year record more accurate. This baseline value will also help ensure that we can maintain this important climate data record for years into the future, reducing the risks from a potential gap in spacecraft measurements.”

Lean said, “We are eager to see how this lower irradiance value affects global climate models, which use various parameters to reproduce current climate: incoming solar radiation is a decisive factor. An improved and extended solar data record will make it easier for us to understand how fluctuations in the sun’s energy output over time affect temperatures, and how Earth’s climate responds to radiative forcing.”

Lean’s model, which is now adjusted to the new lower absolute TSI values, reproduces with high fidelity the TSI variations that TIM observes and indicates that solar irradiance levels during the recent prolonged solar minimum period were likely comparable to levels in past solar minima. Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L01706, 7 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010GL045777

A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance

Greg Kopp
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Judith L. Lean
Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA

The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m-2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of
1365.4 ± 1.3 W m-2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view-limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its
significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate-relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates.

Received 7 October 2010; accepted 30 November 2010; published 14 January 2011.

Citation: Kopp, G., and J. L. Lean (2011), A new, lower value of total
solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 38, L01706, doi:10.1029/2010GL045777.

See the paper here (PDF)

big h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

* UPDATE: from ClimateWatcher in comments:

The TSI averaged over the earth’s surface area and the amount not reflected to space:

1/4 ( 1 – a ) * S

1/4 – the ratio of circle through which radiation passes to the surface are of sphere.
a – albedo ( let’s use 0.3 even though nobody knows for sure)

So the comparison should be

0.25 * 0.7 * 4.6 W/m^2

or about 0.85 W/m^2

That’s still not negligible but not a doubler.

Interesting to note that 0.85 W/m^2 was the amount the earth was supposedly
out of balance by per Hansen and Trenberth.

Given the uncertainty in Solar constant, albedo and mostly thermal emission,
there’s no way anyone really knows if the earth is out of balance or not.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Examining SORCE data shows the Sun continues its slide toward somnolence

- Sunspot Minimum May Be at Hand

- Ash cloud models – overrated? A word on Post Normal Science by Dr. Jerome…

- RCimate Script: Recent Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Trends

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

61 Responses to New Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) baseline value – solar min measured lower in 2008

Hmmm, lower TSI, yet global temperatures keep increasing…hmmmm

REPLY: Wrong conclusion, see the caveat. This is a baseline recalibration, though TSI was lower during solar minimum as it always is. – Anthony

Hooray! Some real science on a measurement regime that feeds into global warming calculations. This is the first such work in the last thirty years. Now, if only the same could be done for the measurement regimes used on sea, land, and in the atmosphere. Then maybe we could get some trustworthy data. Climate science is hardly more than a newborn and the so-called scientists baying like wolves about the disaster of AGW should weaken their outrageous claims to bring them in line with actual evidence. Climate science as practiced by Hansen and friends is the apotheosis of hubris.

Strange, I have not seen a solar irradiance anomaly graph yet. Those are so trendy these days. But the best part is that you get to choose your average.

Excellent!
Science advances with improved data. This new instrument seems a real step forward.
It would be helpful to place comparable emphasis on the in orbit stability of the instrument, which is not mentioned much in the report.
Given the controversies that have arisen from adjustments to both terrestrial as well as orbital instrument readings relevant to monitoring the earth and the atmosphere, a stable TSI measurement is very much needed.
Separately, the difference from prior measures of TSI is about 4x the stated error range for the prior estimate. It would be useful to do a postmortem to analyze why the error was underestimated so substantially.

This sounds encouraging. Some real empirical science. Once we have another 30 years or so of data then maybe we can draw some real conclusions.

Re: rushmike

Hmmm, lower TSI, yet global temperatures keep increasing…hmmmm

Hmmm, increased CO2 yet global temperatures remain stable…hmmmm

CAGW folks claim that a 3.7 watt/m2 forcing causes a 3-4deg C rise in temp.
The graph above shows that a forcing of about 1W/m2 over a solar cycle causes a temp increase of only 0.1deg C, or a sensitivity 10 times smaller than CAGW.
The main driver is cloud cover, as determined by the ERBE data.

I think it is time to stop taking paper recommendations from Leif,

“Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades.”

So a change of 4.6 watts per square meter to the old baseline TSI is more than double the total GHG forcings.

Not so.

The TSI averaged over the earth’s surface area and the amount not reflected to space:

1/4 ( 1 – a ) * S

1/4 – the ratio of circle through which radiation passes to the surface are of sphere.
a – albedo ( let’s use 0.3 even though nobody knows for sure)

So the comparison should be

0.25 * 0.7 * 4.6 W/m^2

or about 0.85 W/m^2

That’s still not negligible but not a doubler.

Interesting to note that 0.85 W/m^2 was the amount the earth was supposedly
out of balance by per Hansen and Trenberth.

Given the uncertainty in Solar constant, albedo and mostly thermal emission,
there’s no way anyone really knows if the earth is out of balance or not.

REPLY: Ah, excellent point if that calc is accurate. I’ll be happy to add this as a caveat. – Anthony

Does this mean they’ve found the missing heat?

The comparisons of forcing elements are not equal of course.

IPCC likes to throw everything into one pot
solar, CO2, O3, Sulfates, Black Carbon.

But they are not strictly comparable, even though we pretend so.

While we average solar over a sphere, many processes,
snowmelt for example, are more effected by the peak insolation,
not the diurnal or seasonal average.

CO2 emits to space in the stratosphere, while H2O emits from the troposphere.

Not all forcings are created equally in the mythical forcing calculation.

Amazing!! This is really breaking news.

Interesting, but not surprising, that there is a clear correlation between TSI and sunspot activity, which varies in the range of 1-2 W/m2 between minima and maxima.

The next question is whether there is a negative feedback caused by increased cloud formation owing to more Cosmic Gamma Rays interacting with condensation nucleii during periods of low solar activity…..

If, as is beginning to look likely, we are entering a period of prolonged minimum solar activity, then the next 20-30 years promise to be very instructive indeed.

Let’s hope their are enough climate scientists prepared to remove their heads from the sand and attend the “lecture”.

Its been dark so long that when you see a pin prick of light at the end of a tunnel it can be blinding.

Long live the scientific method gone missing these past 10 years. Hopefully the sums add for either side of the debate.

It is in error to only use TSI to evaluate the sun’s influence on earth’s climate.

rushmike says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Hmmm, lower TSI, yet global temperatures keep increasing…hmmmm

No. Wrong. Earth’s temperature does not continue to increase. It is in error to determine what is happening in global temperature trend at this moment. Global mean temperature is now biased by the El Nino that ended in May 2010. One needs to wait until the current La Nina has bottomed out to get a nore accurate guage on trend.

In any case, we can all conclude that there has been no statistically significant warming for 16 years. It was 15 years but you can add 1 year on since nothing statistically significant happened since it was 15 years 1 year ago.

If the new TSI data is correct it now aligns with the EUV values recorded over the past minimum showing a decline in the base level. The plot thickens.

“Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades.”
==========
O.K., but brings a transistor to mind. ??

It is a recalibration that changes the number for the insolation for the models and energy balance equations?

Does this mean that Trenberth’s energy never made it to the earth?

If not, please include a dummies guide for this dummy.

The earth has no energy balance. The sun is the only forcing and obviously the k&t diagram is a load of nonsense since the numbers are meaningless! Science is lost.

Geoff Sharp says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm
If the new TSI data is correct it now aligns with the EUV values recorded over the past minimum showing a decline in the base level. The plot thickens.
The data does not allow this conclusion.

Quote: “Disagreement among overlapping observations, as apparent in Figure 3, indicates undetected drifts that suggest the TSI record is not sufficiently stable to discern solar changes on decadal time scales.“

“So a change of 4.6 watts per square meter to the old baseline TSI is more than double the total GHG forcings”

Good try, but no. 2.63*2=5.26. 5.26 is more than 4.6, not less. You also seem not to know that to calculate the solar forcing, you need to divide the change in TSI by 4, because solar radiation falls on half of a rotating planet, and then multiply by 0.7 to account for the fact that 30% is reflected. So now we have not 4.6 but 0.805W/m&sup2;. That’s quite a lot less than the greenhouse gas forcings. And finally you seem not to have understand that this is not even a forcing, even though you manage to quote the bit about “TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output”.

I think you have to really want to be wrong to get that much wrong in such a short article.

This new baseline value of 1360.8 Watt/m2 solar intensity was seen since long in all SORCE data. The question was, where is the calibration problem, with the old satellite data which give 1365 W/m2 or the new ones, delivered by SORCE. Or are there real shifts in solar intensities from minimum to minimum? Only then this would have consequences for the climate. I guess, Leif would insist that there are no such solar intensity changes from one solar minimum to the next.
It is interesting to note that Old Abbot’s terrestrial data, taken between 1923 and 1954, give the baseline value of 1357 W/m2. Not bad for those guys from Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Maybe Abbot’s data are trustworthy, after all?
See http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html#abbot

Werner Weber says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I guess, Leif would insist that there are no such solar intensity changes from one solar minimum to the next.

What I would say [a bit more conservatively] is that such changes have not been demonstrated. Accepting that SORCE/TIM has the best calibration one can intercalibrate with the other instruments. E.g. with PMOD that was the one showing a decrease this past minimum. Greg Kopp and I looked at this early last year and with this result:
http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf

Climate Watcher’s formula above is correct for the solar forcing in watts/m2.

And then if one calculated the temperature impact using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations, it would only be about a 0.15C difference.

So the Earth’s average surface temperature is 14.35C instead of 14.50C. Noone really knows what this number is anyway so it doesn’t matter particularly.

It will not result in the climate models having to make major adjustments since there is already a very wide margin in what the models simulate the Earth’s average temperature to be. The range is literally from 16.0C to 13.0C according to some data that lucia put together.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/temperatures_absolute.jpg

Now, for all you “electric universe” imbeciles, integrate that 1360 W/m^2 over a sphere with a radius of 93 million miles. All that energy is coming from where?

Regardless of the mechanism of the sun’s influence on climate, the study of the reconstructed temperatures from an ice core taken from the Altai Glacier demonstrate a twenty year lag between sunspot activity and temperature change.
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/siberian_altai_ice_cores_say_sun_drove_preindustrial_temperature_changes
If we take 1990 as the beginning of sunspot decline which is still continuing then we might expect temps to start declining in 2010 and continue for at least twenty years. Tropospheric temps have declined .7 degrees since a year ago. Although the Altai ice core reconstruction can only account for 50% of the recent warming due to sunspots, it turns out that the temperature increase at that location is twice the global average.

First off, second the comment from Climate Watcher; the forcing value is equivalent power density averaged over the whole earth and an entire day, rather than the peak value directly below the sun.

Second, I’m a bit surprised that Dr. Lean expects any change in model responses from the new, lower irradiance value. As far as I can tell, the models are concerned with changes over time; I don’t think they rely on the absolute value. There will be a small change in the sensitivity to albedo, equal to the fractional change in irradiance, but that’s only 4.6 / 1360 which is less than half a percent. Anyone have an idea why she thinks this is a significant change to GCMs? I can understand that more precise measurement of the variations in irradiance will be useful (but again I doubt these are very different from the prior best-estimates).

When I read the following: “TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations.”, I said to myself, “I wonder how long it will take to see a post from a believer that will ignore the statement and claim that TSI is lower but temps are higher seemingly to prove AGW.

Low and behold, it was the very first post!

richcar 1225 says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm

“If we take 1990 as the beginning of sunspot decline which is still continuing then we might expect temps to start declining in 2010 and continue for at least twenty years.”

_____________________________________________________________

Why take 1990? Sunspot numbers remained above their long-term average right up until the solar minimum in 2008-9. The Sun’s failure to come out of that minimum is really the first indication that things are changing.

As I see it, the sunspot decline is very recent phenomenon – 18 months to 2 years, at best.

If your 20-year lag theory is correct, it may be that the real “fun” won’t start until 2030…..

mike g says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Now, for all you “electric universe” imbeciles, integrate that 1360 W/m^2 over a sphere with a radius of 93 million miles. All that energy is coming from where?
=====
Bluetooth or WiFi, even us imbeciles’s know that.
Don’t know about “electric universe”, but I have electric.

I am not a climate researcher, and not a scientist at all though I have a technical background.

What I don’t understand is why the error limits of the ten year old 1365.4 +/-1.3 Watts/m^2 is so exclusive of the mean of the new figure of 1360.8 +/- .5 Watts/m^2. If these error limits given are actually 1sigma limits then the new mean is actually 4.6/1.3 = 3.5sigma outside of the older mean according to the error analysis of the earlier measurement….. And yet the claim is made that the sun’s output is not changed, but the new measurement is merely more accurate?

If this is true, why is the error analysis of the older measurement so innacurate? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume the sun’s radiance is variable and has changed?

rawdog

We’ve already established cloud cover as the primary climate driver. How does TSI and GCR affect cloud cover. We need data!

why would you even trust their data at this point? who reports it, NASA? too many crooks and liars in the mix….

anything is possible said:
“Why take 1990? Sunspot numbers remained above their long-term average right up until the solar minimum in 2008-9. The Sun’s failure to come out of that minimum is really the first indication that things are changing.”
Cycles 21 and 22 were fairly even but cycle 23 (2000-2001) declined from approximately SSN 160 (cycle 22, 1990) to about 110. Cycle 24 maybe about 60. The decline started from cycle 23 and has since accelerated.
Pray for GHG forcing. It might just be a coincidence but but the 1998 and 2010 El Ninos are 20 years from cycle 21 and 22 maximums. At any rate I do not believe we can expect a super El Nino for awhile.

When TSI is mentioned with respect to climate the fairly small changes are described as not enough to give rise to significant climate change. What I have not seen is any reference to spectral changes in solar radiation. Earths albedo should be wavelength dependent. Could it be that even though TSI remains constant spectral changes lead to much higher variations in albedo. This could explain the apparent link between sunspots and climate.

Studies such as this could signal a generational change in climate science.

I wouldn’t expect any of the “Old Dogs” to attempt any “New tricks” by getting involved in using the Sun as a baseline from which to work. The “Old Dogs”, I beleive, maybe too far committed with their existing dogma’s to be able to promote they’ve learnt “New Tricks” for anyone to be able to take them seriously.

I certainly wont.

Through their actions the “Old”Dogs” have already proven to be more leaders of faith based and emotive argument, using circumstantial and missleading information the majority of time which corrupts anything that may of value. :-)

Using the Sun as a baseline for study may introduce some new blood into the field.

From there the science may develop and, hopefully, mature.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Werner Weber says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I guess, Leif would insist that there are no such solar intensity changes from one solar minimum to the next.

What I would say [a bit more conservatively] is that such changes have not been demonstrated.

Leif, Your statement seems subjective. What evidence is there that the minimum has had no variance through time?

richcar 1225 says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:31 pm

“Cycles 21 and 22 were fairly even but cycle 23 (2000-2001) declined from approximately SSN 160 (cycle 22, 1990) to about 110. Cycle 24 maybe about 60. The decline started from cycle 23 and has since accelerated.”

____________________________________________________________

Fair point, but Solar Cycle 23 was still above-average (ranking about 9th. strongest) as compared to all 23 cycles. So the “decline” was really only relative to the strong cycles 21 & 22.

Essentially, just a quibble over data interpretation. I don’t disagree with your conclusions.

Eric Barnes says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Leif, Your statement seems subjective. What evidence is there that the minimum has had no variance through time?
Figure 1b has a grey band of uncertainty. The variation of observed TSI at minima falls within that band, hence as the paper itself states: “Disagreement among overlapping observations, as apparent in Figure 3, indicates undetected drifts that suggest the TSI record is not sufficiently stable to discern solar changes on decadal time scales.”.

I am curious how much the solar cycle has influenced Bastardi at AccuWeather to make the bet for the coming decade. It is brave to bet on a decade, but if the solar cycle truly is a major player and the current cycle is a bust, then he will clean up on the bet. This next decade will be an interesting one.

Personally I think once the cooling starts, it is going to be much greater than 0.2C in a decade.

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/bastardi%E2%80%99s-wager/

John Kehr,
‘Once to cooling starts’- hmmmm well temperatures continue to increase. Lets balance out those ENSO peaks and troughs over a five year period and plot against sunspot numbers, and for fun lets add the PDO………WOW!! Since 1980…Even mor WOW!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1930/to:2010/mean:60/plot/jisao-pdo/from:60/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:60/plot/uah/from:1930/to:2010/mean:60/offset:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1930/to:2010/scale:0.0005
and some people on this site still think temperatures are cooling (wasn’t 2010 tied as warmest despite the sharp La Nina in the 2nd half of the year (from June/July)?) Hmmmm

Stevo says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“So a change of 4.6 watts per square meter to the old baseline TSI is more than double the total GHG forcings”
Good try, but no. 2.63*2=5.26. 5.26 is more than 4.6, not less. You also seem not to know that to calculate the solar forcing, you need to divide the change in TSI by 4, because solar radiation falls on half of a rotating planet,>>>

Wel;, if you are going to lecture others about math, at least get your own right. You divide the TSI by 4 because it falls on 1/2 the planet? LOL. Try you divide by 2 for half the planet and then again to account for curvature of the earth face as presented to the Sun.

and then multiply by 0.7 to account for the fact that 30% is reflected. So now we have not 4.6 but 0.805W/m&sup2;. That’s quite a lot less than the greenhouse gas forcings.>>>

Is it now. Really? The classic number quoted by IPCC et al is 3.7 w/m2 for doubling of CO2 over the base line of 1750 AD. Of course they neglect to mention that after 260 years of fossil fuel use, CO2 has only gone up about 40%. Wait, no, don’t multiply 0.4 x 3.7 you will get too low a number! CO2 is logarithmic so once you figure out how to do that you should be at about 2.5 w/m2. But wait! The IPCC also neglects to spell out the fact that they aren’t modeling based on SURFACE temps, they are modeling based on the “effective black body” temperature of earth. That’s about -20 degrees C while the surface temperature of the earth is more like +15, or so the IPCC says. To get to a surface number you have to use THEIR ratio of 3.7/5.5*forcing at effective black body. So now, at surface, we’re talking in the range of 1.7 w/m2. So, the change in TSI measurement is about 50% of the modeled forcing from CO2.

And finally you seem not to have understand that this is not even a forcing, even though you manage to quote the bit about “TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output”.>>>

It isn’t a forcing? Does the Sun’s radiance heat the planet or doesn’t it? If we’re going to argue about how much “forcing” CO2 causes in w/m2, then it has to be compared to other energy sources that cause changes in the amount of w/m2 that the earth receives from them and the amount that the earth radiates to space. Call it what ever you want, forcing is a lousy term for either. In this case the correction to base line appears to be in the same rough magnitude as change supposedly from CO2.

And don’t even get me started on this mythical “average” temperature of earth or the equally mythical “average” energy flux at earth surface from any source. That calculation is like taking the total number of bikinis being worn at any given time on earth and dividing by the area of the earth surface in order to estimate how many bikini clad women there at any given time, on average, at the North Pole. I suggest it is identical to the average number of bikini clad men at the North Pole. I don’t know for certain, Sports Illustrated always does their bikini shoot someplace not cold. And there aren’t any bikini clad men in those shots either. Odd that.

Will the figures in Trenberth’s famous diagram have to be altered? 1362 seems to be about the new average figure, divide by 4 and we get 340.5 instead of Trenberth’s 342 w/m^2 insolation which is used in nearly all the diagrams.

Ahh, I see SORCE puts in the altered figure and this important caveat:

To determine long-term changes in the Sun’s output, which may have time scales extending much longer than the 11-year solar cycle, the TSI climate record requires either very good absolute accuracy or very good instrument stability and continuous measurements. To date, no TSI instrument has achieved the necessary absolute accuracy, and the TSI record relies on measurement continuity from overlapping spacecraft instruments (see TSI Database Figure below).

I’d like a reminder of Scafetta’s position. I know he was hot under the collar about the splicing used between different satellite datasets and I’d trust him on the whole.

Forgot to add the SORCE url.

Leif, you have a great sense of humor.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Figure 1b has a grey band of uncertainty. The variation of observed TSI at minima falls within that band, hence as the paper itself states: “Disagreement among overlapping observations, as apparent in Figure 3, indicates undetected drifts that suggest the TSI record is not sufficiently stable to discern solar changes on decadal time scales.”.

HaroldW says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm

The GCM’s are not radically altered by the lower TSI baseline, to the extent that they will still spit out the same bad climate forecasts, as long as they are fed with tampered surface station data.
Cities and municipalities will continue to be mal-advised as to weather preparations.

The GHG’s 2.63 watts per square meter versus the 0.85 w/m2 reaching the ocean surface is far more similar when comparing both over land, but miles apart when over ocean. Despite these values quoted as supposed to cause more warming from GHG’s, when the planet doesn’t show this because of this mistake. About 71 percent of the planets surface of the 2.63 w/m2 when going back out to space only contacts the skin layer of the surface.

The 0.85 w/m2 reaches upwards to around 100m ocean depth, so comparing these two as comparable energy values to the planets energy budget is very wrong. This is the main reason why the planet is not complying to the calculations of computer models. That is why SWR has many orders higher influence then LWR with energy exchange compared, with the difference easily 200,000 times greater just to water compared with the atmosphere. This is so important because the ocean controls the temperatures of our atmosphere.

Likely a mistake also which should lead to a future change to the supposed 33c greenhouse effect theory. Why you wonder this is because the ocean in this context should also be treated as by far the biggest greehouse contribution of the planet. The greenhouse effect can’t be calulated just using the atmosphere it also needs the energy content processes involved with the oceans to achieve a correct value. The energy retained in the oceans makes the planet warmer and contributes significantly towards the greenhouse effect. (not only with water vapour, but also energy consistantly supplied like central heating to the atmosphere) Take away the ocean, but maintain the same atmospheric content and the greenhouse effect of 33c would be significantly reduced.

It would be great to have a solar page here, like the Sea Ice page and the sea level rise / SST pages. Including basic astrophysics links too. And though I may query his broad-brush rejection of EU, who better to do a solar page here than Leif.

(I think EU has important material even though I too query some of it. I would love to see nuanced studies and comments, looking at bits of evidence, rather than trench-warfare attitudes. For instance, IMHO it’s worth looking at planetary craters as the results of electrical discharges rather than mechanical impacts. Here’s a video study of Mars – also look at Mercury in this light)

@rushmike
“Hmmm, lower TSI, yet global temperatures keep increasing…hmmmm”

Why is it so hard for you pro AGW people to understand that there is a lag between solar activity, and that you need a prolonged period with lower solar activity for the effect to truly be seen?
During the last decades we have had the strongest solar cycles on average in over 8000 years. Even the weakest cycles in last decades have been pretty high in activity.
It is only in recent years that we have entered a deep grand minimum, so you cannot expect a immediate drop in global temperatures. But either way we already see some changes and global temps have started dropping like a rock since this summer.
Some of us who think sun is driver actually predicted the change in weather patterns seen over last years with jet streams moving more south, which is in exact contradiction to what should happen according to AGW theory.

It will probably take another decade before the full effects start to be seen.

Anthony – I second Lucy’s request for a Solar Page, like your Sea Ice Page (which I think is great). Is there any chance you could make that happen? Thanks for all your excellent work keeping WUWT going!

That does it; after years and years of procrastinating, I am going to buy a snowblower when they go on sale in a couple of months.

The revision of total solar irradiance by 4.5 W/m2 (actually, 1.25 W/m2 on a whole-earth area average) goes to the bogus basis of certainty in the IPCC and CO2 claims of certainty.

Let’s use Trenbeth as an example. Trenbeth worries about a “missing” 0.85 +/- 0.12 W/m2: what IS the actual uncertainty? Annual orbital eccentricity and seasonal variation in albedo of +/- 7.7 W/m2 and 8.9 W/m2 at a planetary scale. Albedo variation at a local or climatic zone basis, considering monsoons, hurricanes and such, must be as great. Absorption due to variations in aerosols (themselves a function of preciptitation or humidit) is another factor. The end result is an annual variation of > 16.6 W/m2.

The calculation of an “average”, mean, median or mode is not time dependent, but as insolation and albedo (and others) are time-dependent, whatever shakes out over time is NOT and CANNOT be a simple, constant number. When Trenbeth and others look for or blame events on such things as a “missing” 0.85 +/- 0.12 W/m2 you must shake your head. The Earth’s climate is dynamic, not static in the moment or linearly changing in time.

The “noise” of the system is far greater than the claimed precision with which the climate scientists measure the parts. There is momentum and feedback going on to give us the stability we see. Anyone who exists outside his ivory condo knows this: at night it is cold, and during the day, warm, and warmer without clouds than with, except (often) at night. Feedback is huge. But is the feedback perfect to < 1 W/m2? And if it is, at what time level?

The averaged insolation now is calculated at 340.2 W/m2. It remains a mathematical construct of planetary variations by place and time. A 1.0 W/m2 amount is 0.29% difference. Measurement error is said to be 0.125 W/m2. Albedo measurements must be no better per measurement, but because the albedo changes often (estimated at 15-20% annually, with no multi-year component known to my understanding) , it cannot be said to be a constant, but a variation within limits (+/- 8.8 W/m2). The error of what is "missing", when viewed as part of a larger calculation, has to be much larger than +/- 0.85 W/m2.

Our desire for accuracy and precision is beyond what the natural world is giving us. We are looking for – and funding, and making legislation for – a signal much smaller than the noise because we assume that all the natural variations average out over short periods of time into a static constant.

Here we have an example of how poor our are: the insolation value changes by 1.15 W/m2, but climate change models have an effect of global proportions at the "missing" 0.85 W/m2 level. A long-term albedo change of 1% is 1.0 W/m2. The annual albedo change is (max-min) 17.7 W/m2 (+/- 4.4 W/m2, a rough estimate of range). What IS the long-term albedo? Unknown, as pointed out in a post above. 0.296 or 0.3 are two common numbers, separated by 1.4 W/m2. Trenbeth (and others) plants his flag in shifting sand.

We are quibbling over, as I wrote in a longer post elsewhere, the type of boots on the feet of gnats on the head of a pin. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle applies at a macro-scale here. We can know what the climate is (a snapshot of weather, really) but not where it is going (except in general sense). Or we can know where it is going today precisely (momentary trends) but not where it is precisely (due to its wide variation). But not, to the level of precision and accuracy portrayed, both at the same time.

The temperature record, as well as that of precipitation, is the same. To those who feel that variations average out, consider why we have weather and not climate: local and time differences matter. There is nothing to say that the differences average out over one year, two years or 60. A dynamic system has its own rythmns: if we want to see evidence of CAGW, what we measure and claim as "the anthropogenic footprint" must be a significant part of the rolling variation not just measurement error.

rusmike check amsu satellite temps way down BELOW anomaly hmmmm plesae stop lying you have been caught out for the record LOL

Latest from Dr. Hathaway
SSN 24 = 60
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

rbatemen.

‘The GCM’s are not radically altered by the lower TSI baseline, to the extent that they will still spit out the same bad climate forecasts, as long as they are fed with tampered surface station data.”

The input files for GCMs do not include surface station data.

This paper is interesting, but there are some points that need to be clarified.

1) What it is done is to recalibrate the TSI satellite composite record on TIM measurements. This gives a 4-5 W/m^2 lower level for the solar constant. If this is correct, it is further evidence that the current climate model are extremely uncertain and that the apparent agreement with the temperature data is due to an ad hoc calibration of the models.

2) The hypothesis made on the paper is that TIM record is accurate. However, there may be the possibility that TIM sensors are less sensitive than the other satellite measurements. For example, even after a correction on ACRIM3 record acknowledged in the paper, ACRIM3 is still above TIM.

3) It is not just the level of TIM that it is lower. TIM record is also smoother than the other records (ACRIM3 and VIRGO). This would suggest that TIM is less sensitive and it has its own sensitivity problems.

The above analysis of TIM is essentially the work of Dr. Greg Kopp, it is very interesting and addresses some major solar activity measure problems people are having. Now, let us see the contribution of Lean to this paper. Here it is where I have some problem.

4) Lean is not an expert in satellite measurement; she has made a TSI proxy model that is plotted in the figure. The TSI proxy model by Lean seriously diverges from all TSI satellite measurements, as evident in Fig 3b of the paper. Lean proxy model does not show any trend at all during the last 30 years, which appears quite unphysical. The reason why this model does not show any trend is that it uses faculae and sunspot assuming that the solar background irradiance is constant. Evidently, in this way all solar minima, when no significant sunspots nor faculae are observed, appear all equally leveled by construction!

5) Lean is very careful in ignoring other papers (including mine) on the solar irradiance records and solar effect on climate. My papers are quite fair in acknowledging the existence of a still unsolved controversy about the trend of TSI. This controversy refers mostly to the NIMBUS7 record during the ACRIM gap (1989-1992) that has been severely altered downward by the VIRGO group to get their composite, which does not show any significant trend during the last 30 years.

6) The reason why people have believed in the VIRGO satellite composite which is made of significant alteration of the published satellite records is because VIRGO composite (once the published TSI records are appropriately altered) appears to better agree with Lean TSI model (Frohlich C. and J. Lean, GRL). This makes a circular reasoning argument.

7) However, Lean model still fails to reproduce even the latest satellite records. In particular, there is a wide agreement among the TSI experimentalist that the minimum in 2008 is significantly lower than the minimum in 1996. This behavior is not seen in Lean’s model, as the figure of above shows.

8) Lean appears to ignore that, as published in my paper (Scafetta and Willson, 2009), the experimental team of Nimbus7 have rejected the Virgo presumed corrections as incompatible with the physics of the instruments and that Nimbus7 is compatible with other TSI proxy models.

9) Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 and decreased afterward. I discuss these issues in my own papers (for example Scafetta 2009, 2010 J. Atm. and Solar.-Terr. Phys) that would imply that the sun contributed significantly to the current warm period between 1970 and 2000.

10) Lean’s climate model is just a regression of the forcings against the temperature. This model in unphysical because the climate system processes the forcings, such as the TSI. Lean’s model simply ignores the heat capacity of the climate system, which would induce a gradual change. In the case of the Sun this would imply a slow response of the climate to solar increase, as seen since the LIA and the 1900. Thus, the solar effect signature on climate may present trends even when it is constant if previously it was rising. These things are elementary physics and are extensively explained in my papers and in all climate model papers.

11) Thus, the conclusion that the sun did not contribute the warming from 1980 to 2000, as concluded in the paper, is questionable. It is based on the assumption that solar activity is constant during the last 30 year and that climate responds with zero heat capacity to radiative forcing.

References about papers are found in
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/

and here at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr-nicolas-scaffeta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/new-scafetta-paper-his-celestial-model-outperforms-giss/

I’m a little confused (nothing new). I keep seeing people trying to manipulate this calculation of things like:

Good try, but no. 2.63*2=5.26. 5.26 is more than 4.6, not less. You also seem not to know that to calculate the solar forcing, you need to divide the change in TSI by 4, because solar radiation falls on half of a rotating planet…

This doesn’t seem correct to me at all. I don’t profess to know much about this particular problem, however, I can say that I do distance calculations for GeoIP addresses problems, and the formula’s that I use for this are nothing so simplistic as they account for the curvature of the earth. One such common (simple) formula is d=sqrt((x2-x1)2 + (y2-y1)2), while other, more accurate get much more complex. I am not understanding this “divide by 4″ approach. Seems to me, that the calculation in question here is even more complex than even my simple distance calculations. I picture a light bulb illuminating a large ball bearing. Just take a look at the reflection. That doesn’t appear to me to be a such a simple calculation.

Perhaps I am missing something important here (wouldn’t be the first time).

Other common calculation formula

Law of Cosines (spherical) | cos(b) = sin(a)*sin(c) + cos(a)*cos(c)*cos(B)
Law of Sines (spherical) | sin (B)/sin(b) = sin(A)/sin(a) = sin(C)/sin(c)

ARCCOS[ SIN(LAT1)*SIN(LAT2) + COS(LAT1)*COS(LAT2)*COS(LONG2-LONG1) ]

Or what I typically use:

distance = ( Earth Radius ) * arccos ( cos (90 – lat2) * cos (90 – lat1) + sin (90 – lat2) * sin (90 – lat1) * cos (lon2 – lon1) )

Am looking for my more fancy dandy earth formula (as earth is not a perfect sphere), but I can’t seem to find it, I don’t profess to be a mathematician by any means, just your typical dingbat programmer (I don’t do GCM’s, but I can tell you a whole lot about GCM’s that the GCM worshipers would rather you didn’t hear). ;-)

Dr. Scafetta, I look forward to seeing you criticism published so we can heed a more balanced conclusion to this paper.

Little question for climate gurus here. I have read everywhere that sun could not be responsible for temperature increase we experienced, because sun irradiance does not change enough. It is between 1360 and 1363 w.m-2

It gives a 0.22% variation. Assuming the temperature of earth is not so far away from a black body law…it is Tearth=constant*radiation^0.25
So if the radiation changes 0.22% then Tearth should change 0.05%

0.05% of 288K is 0.15 degrees. For me it is not negligible as the global warming measured is often around 0.3degrees.

I do not understand why sun radiation change is not at all included in the “models”. How can they remove this input while it could be responsible for half the warming observed?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe by email to this site

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Friday Funny

Josh from cartoonsbyjosh.com writes in with:

Here’s a thought…

The MET Office say they need a new computer to get their predictions right.

Er, why not just buy Pier’s Corbyn’s laptop – it seems to do the stuff, no?

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- [Josh Wilson]

- …….But The Memory Remains

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

35 Responses to Friday Funny

Ah, but once the contents of the lap-top have been homogenised, pasteurised, liquidised, sterilised and regularised all that will be proven is that the Met Office was nearly correct.
Right?
My confidence level in this prediction is robust.
/sarc

Now that’s the truth!!

Nothing funny about this, but when one considers: GI = GO

I’m inclinded to wonder if it really is the computers that need to be replaced.

The Queensland floods have shown once again that the geniuses at our version of the Met are just as fallible even with their computers. It would seem that their models are embued with such a warming bias that they can no longer be relied upon.

Ummm…of course ’tis not the computer which makes the difference…but the touch of a Master’s hand.

To wit:

” ‘Twas battered and scarred and the auctioneer
Thought it scarcely worth his while
To waste much time on the old violin,
But he held it up with a smile.

“What am I bid, good folk?” he cried.
“Who’ll start the bidding for me?
A dollar, a dollar … now two … only two …
Two dollars, and who’ll make it three?

“Three dollars once, three dollars twice,
Going for three” … but no!
From the room far back a gray-haired man
Came forward and picked up the bow.

Then wiping the dust from the old violin
And tightening up the strings,
He played a melody pure and sweet,
As sweet as an angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer,
With a voice that was quiet and low,
Said, “What am I bid for the old violin?”
As he held it up with the bow.

“A thousand dollars … and who’ll make it two?
Two…two thousand, and who’ll make it three?
Three thousand once and three thousand twice …
Three thousand and gone!” said he.

The people cheered, but some exclaimed
“We do not quite understand …
What changed it’s worth?” and the answer came:
” ‘Twas the touch of the master’s hand.” ”

- excerpt from a poem by Myra Brooks Welch

That is funny! hehe!

The MET probably gets their computer IT and tech support from here:

http://www.flixxy.com/my-blackberry-is-not-working.htm

Brilliant, Josh. I like your use of colour too.

I’m sorry, this will never work….
…a laptop just doesn’t have the power to fudge that much temperature data

Modern society at its height of power, an intelligent society would see the MET office employ Mr Corbyn (Don’t worry goverment departments spend billions a year on consultants, funny enough mostly media) to help improve there knowledge of the climate which is there public funded duty.

Instead because he is not on the inside chanting the mantra hes left to show up the 130 million pound funded high temple of cliamte change here in the south of England.

“Er, why not just buy Pier’s Corbyn’s laptop – it seems to do the stuff, no?”

That’s awesome.

A less than stellar calculator known as a an automatic abacus would most likely do a better job ‘an Met Office’s super climate computer. But as always it all depends on who’s driving the apparatus so to speak.

YOUCH! that’s gonna leave a mark.

If Piers Corbyn is unwilling to part with his laptop I’m sure I have an old slide rule lying around somewhere that I could probably part with since I have not touched it for over 30 years. Also, it would be a lot more eco-friendly than their present computer because it does not use electicity and the number of calories used in moving the sliding part must be very small.

It would certainly reduce their carbon footprint.

What an utter waste of UK taxpayer’s money. £1,000 will do nicely instead of the Met Office’s £33 million supercomputer which calculates warming predictions faster in a failed manner. When will the Met Office ever learn about Thermists’ GIGO???

I agree with Roy but I doubt many at the Met know how to use a slide rule. As a filed geologist i still carry one with me for all those times the battery fails or I sit on the dam thing.

Hey! That’s my hair!

I enjoy this. This is funny.

Thank you Josh, sir!

Gee, I don’t know. The Met Office has experts who have been working on their models on mainframes for decades, building up the accumulated wisdom generated by hundreds of thousands of man-hours of intense programming and model runs.

They’d have to figure out where to insert the punched cards.

(With apologies to Postman Pat)

Weather Man Piers,
Weather Man Piers.
He’s the one that the
Met Office Fears.

Piers gets it right,
The Met gets it wrong,
Piers says that’s because
Co2′s not strong.

“So give me an Invite,
I’ll give you the Insight”
But the Met Office stays,
Frozen with Fright.

Weather Man Piers,
Weather Man Piers.
He’s the one that the
Met Office Fears.

I worked in a large manufacturing plant with a great fellow who did the annual production forecasts one year in advance. It took into account all the factors impacting output – maintenance down-times, so many ‘disaster’ down-days, etc, etc. He had the biggest, most expensive computer in the entire plant. On his door he had written up the following: “You are entering the realm of precision guesswork.”

I still feel that more important than TSI is the spectral distribution of the energy. Given the same TSI, a spectrum with more UV will warm the earth more because it will warm the oceans more than a spectrum with more of the energy in the visible spectrum. With more of the energy in the visible, it will heat the land and the very top of the ocean but that heat will be mostly lost to space that very night. UV heats the ocean at greater depth.

So if you combine the fact that TSI is actually lower than what we have always thought it has been combined with the fact that the spectrum has shifted recently more toward the visible from the UV, it changes a LOT.

TSI, in and of itself, doesn’t mean as much to me as does combining that with the energy distribution across the spectrum of output because different wavelengths have different impact on Earth temperatures.

latitude says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:32 pm

I’m sorry, this will never work….
…a laptop just doesn’t have the power to fudge that much temperature data

___________________________________________________________

Nope,

Even someone with paper and pencil can come up with the required forecasts.

BBQ time forever.

Oops, I just responded in the wrong thread!

['Tis life. So, where should it go? Robt ]

Ah but it has been Pier reviewed.

Roy says:

Slide rule etc.

I’m afraid that giving the Met or other climate scientologists a slide rule would leave too much room for manipulation. Slide rules only multiply and give results in significant figures. The order of magnitude needs to be obtained by rough manual calculation and any addition has to be done manually as well.

Can you imagine how easy it would be to “prove” that the average temperature change of this globe is 100 degrees per day. The arithmetic skills exhibited by these computer modellers is so poor that I personally would have absolutely no confidence in their ability to add 1+1 without getting 7+-3. The correct answer should of course be 10.

Lol, I definitely need a laugh today, glad I passed by on this.. haha

A Tradesman never blames his tools

Thanks Anthony. I used this cartoon in my own “eekend fun series, “climate fireball”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/01/weekend-fun-7-climate-fireball.html

It wouldn’t help. Piers’ software is proprietary, and he’d scrub it before passing on the hardware. So they’d have to write their own.

But that probably be an improvement over the ramshackle Frankenstein’s Monster accumulation of kluges that now makes up their model! Or am I thinking of the IPCC’s 23 GCMs? Or is it all of them?

Which brings up a thought. I wonder if Piers could be persuaded to do a 100-yr projection …

Josh: the package should be C.O.D., £1,ooo,ooo or so should do it.

The best thing the Mt Office can do is to get rid of Dr Pope who seems to think that ‘outside view’ is imaginary. She is the one who cannot get her pet computer to give the answer she expects.

I think Piers is too ethical to consider working for the uk govt.
they won’t offer, he tells the truth, they don’t want that, they want CCredit funds for their govvy employees retirements to soar…

Piers Corbyn,
Just tell them your laptop is a super computer and charge them £33 million for it.
What are you waiting for?

In 1980 I began teaching at a c1000 student high school in a small NZ rural town; the head of Phys Ed, who also worked part time for the local liquor shop, did the timetabling for the entire school on a gridded-off chalkboard in two days. The following year, the timetabling was done on the school’s new computer, a TRS80 (wow!) and sorting out the timetable took four days.
And OT, I know, but I have just found out from Richard North’s blog that an electric-powered BMW Mini just this week blazed it’s way from London to Edinborough in 4 days and some hours, twice as long as it took by coach in the early 19th century – there’s progress, and there’s Green progress!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

More Unsubstantiated Global Warming Hype

Guest post by Michael Lewis, Ph.D.

The current issue of the elitist “science” journal, Science, contains an article in its “Perspectives” section (not in the “Research” section):  Earth’s hot past could be prologue to future climate | UCAR. Here’s a video from that page:

Author Jeffrey Kiehl, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), speculates on relationships between CO2 levels and average global surface temperature 30 million to 100 million years ago, and currently observed CO2 levels. To no one ‘s surprise, Kiehl assumes, without evidence, that atmospheric CO2 drives global average surface temperatures, and includes this bias in climate models, projecting an increase of atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 ppm by the end of the 21st Century, with temperatures soaring tens of degrees above the 20th Century average (whatever that means).

Since Science requires membership or hefty fees to access their publications, the average interested person cannot access the original article to verify the conclusions described in the “Perspectives” article.

However, it is clear from the tone of the article on the NCAR web site that this is ideologically driven publication, not scientific research. “If we don’t start seriously working toward a reduction of carbon emissions, we are putting our planet on a trajectory that the human species has never experienced,” says Kiehl. Thus government funded research is used to advance a political agenda.

The research cited in the article was funded by the National Science Foundation, which has a large Climate Change and Paleoclimate program.  Researchers shopping for grant opportunities can go to the NSF web site and browse through the many funding programs, find one that fits and submit an application, or, as usually happens, many of them.

There’s nothing wrong with funding your favorite research with government grants. However, when that funding is used as a basis for political propaganda, such as advocating for political responses to climate change, a significant line has been crossed by the researcher, his or her employers and the funding agency itself. The researcher becomes a pawn in the interplay of government agencies, private research firms and economic interests, the science suffers from distorted interpretation and the public ends up with little or no understanding of the reality of the world around them.

Science must be conducted in the confines of the ivory tower, then released, naked and uninterpreted, into the clear light of day.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Global Warming and “The Early Spring” Part II

- Walking the Plank-ton

- Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming

- CHOOSE YOUR FUTURE

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

About Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D.

65 Responses to More Unsubstantiated Global Warming Hype

The only real comfort from all this, is that the more brazen the claims, the more outlandish the statements, the less the Public appears to belive them.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but ………………

defund all federal science programs and let evolution take its course. the current system is irrevocably corrupted.

Thi8s is as good a place as any to post my thoughts on the puzzling difference between long-term paleontological graphs of CO2 and temperature (which show no relationship) and the antarctic ice graphs, which have been posted on WUWT and which show a gorgeous correlation indeed. That correlation is a partial basis of opinions such as the one in this article.

Many here have commented on the antarctic graphs that the temperatures change around 6-800 years before the CO2 does. The explanation given is that temp changes cause/reduce CO2 outgassing from the oceans.

We have also seen here the annual graph of CO2 from Mauna Loa. This is steadily rising. Most believe that atmospheric CO2 is likewise steadily rising from fossil fuel emissions. The Mauna Loa graph has a very regular annual cycle of about the same magnitude every year. The explanation here is that land plants affect CO2 levels more than ocean flora do, there is much more land in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern, and CO2 drops in the summer while northern plants are growing and rises in the fall and winter when they die.

The antarctic graph has a sawtooth shape that is strikingly similar to that of the annual cycle. It seems likely that we are looking at similar celestial causes, whether mediated by oceans or not. The antarctic period is similarly regular, where the paleontological graphs are not.

The period of the antarctic graphs are said to be about 15 000 years. The cycle through the precession of the equinoxes is 26 000 years, but a half cycle would be about 13 000 years, which is a tolerable fit until the matter can be investigated in detail.

We can’t cool all of the people all of the time either.

But because of cyclical nature of things like summer and winter, we can at least cool all of the people some of the time!

On a contrary note, CNN has a story today about “This bizarre weather”, and didn’t mention the words Climate Change, AGW, or nothin! Color me flabbergasted! http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/forecaster-two-phenomena-responsible-for-worlds-bizarre-weather/?hpt=Sbin

“Science must be conducted in the confines of the ivory tower, then released, naked and uninterpreted, into the clear light of day.”

You left out the climate change “science” exemption. :-)

We can’t even see “naked” (real) data.

“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”

Unbelievable. Surely even the average Warmist can’t take this man seriously? I’ve never heard such a bunch of unsubstantiated crap in all my life. He actually seems to think that we’ve all forgotten that the various proxy records (which he humourously refers to as “observations”) show CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, not vice versa, proving that CO2 is NOT a temperature DRIVER.

And if that’s not enough he disregards the myriad other factors and influences on Earth’s climate, and decides in his wisdom that temperature is absolutely directly connected solely with CO2 levels, so if CO2 levels equal “Y” then temperature must equal “Z” – genius.

Jeez, if this is the best they’ve got…

Can anyone tell me if there is a peer reviewed paper that purports to show humans are causing global warming? What about one that shows carbon dioxide causes global warming? Just asking.

It might seem silly but I’ve never found either one. And you’d think either one would be cited over and over and picked apart over and over. Many peer reviewed papers cite the IPCC as the source of their assumption of both humans and/or carbon dioxide causing global warming but I’ve never found a peer reviewed basis.

Well, myself and many others predicted this. More shill, more extreme wailing of a dying industry/theology/scam, preying upon fears of common people.

I agree with the principle that you can learn a lot from the Earth’s past.

However, even a cursory look back at the past suggests that there is no substantial correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Looking back at the past one sees that there are periods when there were high levels of CO2 and yet the earth was cold, there were periods of low CO2 levels and yet the earth was hot, there are periods when CO2 levels are rising and yet the earth is cooling, and there are periods when CO2 levels are falling and yet temperatures are increasing.

In fact one only has to look at the Holocene optimum, the Roman Warm period and the Medieval warm period and look at CO2 levels at those times to see that the assumed relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is wrong.

Indeed, one does not even need to go that far back. One only has to look at temperatures from 1850 onwards to see that there is no substantial correlation between temperature and CO2 levels: 1850 to 1880 increase in temps, no significant increase in CO2, 1880 to 1910 decrease in temperature but no decrease in CO2, 1910 to 1940 increase in temperature but no significant increase in CO2, 1940 to 1970 drop in temperature yet increase in CO2, 1970 to 1995 increase in temps and increase in CO2, 1996 to 2010 fairly level temperatures possibly increasing slightly yet significant increase in CO2. Thus there is only one period (1970 to 1996) where there is both an increase in temperatures and an increase in CO2, and hence all but no correlation between temperatures and CO2 during the past 150/160 years. Further, the period 1960 to 1970 and the recent period post 1995 runs contrary to the assumption that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in temperatures.

In conclusion, neither on a geological time scale or on a modern time scale is there any substantial correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Whilst correlation does not prove causation, the lack of correlation invariably disproves causation. It would be an understatement to point out that the lack of correlation is not at all promising to the validity of the AGW theory.

The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph of my earlier post should have read:

Further, the period 1940 to 1970 and the recent period post 1995 runs contrary to the assumption that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in temperatures.

Interstingly, yesterday a radio four reporter, here in the UK, pushed a Met Office official to connect the floods in Brazil, Australia etc with Climate Change, he wouldn’t. My flabber was truly gasted!

Interstingly! I meant interestingly of course…

Kiehl’s point is that we are driving CO2 to levels not seen since the time of the dinosaurs and that if global temperature was 16C warmer back then than present then that implies high climate sensitivity and therefore a strong contribution from the CO2 level of that time.

If you don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or have some absurd idea that temperature drives CO2 not the otherway round then never-mind, go find something else to do. Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me who accept the significance of the CO2 rise and it’s interesting to hear that the longterm climate sensitivity might be much greater than the short term sensitivity.

onion says:

“If you… have some absurd idea that temperature drives CO2 not the otherway round then never-mind, go find something else to do.”

And down is up, white is black, war is peace, and global warming causes global cooling.

Anyone who has ever opened a warm beer knows that temperature controls CO2 outgassing. Ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature. Kiehl is just displaying his ignorance, and onion is frightening himself.

Onion never studied the concept of causality. Hint: cause cannot occur after effect in the real world.

Mark

It would be interesting to plot the timeline for these climate “scare” stories/press releases, and observe how well it correlates with the UCAR/NCAR budget cycle.

I think you will see much more of this kind of junk over the next few months as these government research groups try to influence Congress to keep them well funded with (dwindling) Climate Ca$h.

By the way, did you know that UCAR/NCAR (along with our climate buddies at NASA) received stimulus money in 2009-2010??? The NCAR research highlighted here is one of many great “climate products” your stimulus/tax dollars helped to purchase last year…

Lady Life Grows says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“……The period of the antarctic graphs are said to be about 15 000 years. The cycle through the precession of the equinoxes is 26 000 years, but a half cycle would be about 13 000 years, which is a tolerable fit until the matter can be investigated in detail.”

Don’t forget that over geological time frames the actual axis of our planet has shifted as well as our orbital shape and proximity to the sun as well as the precession. This is not to mention all of the multitude of other variables such as varying TSI, impacts, volcanism, plate tectonics and their effects upon ocean currents, lunar orbit, etc., etc. Even the gases trapped in ice cores change over long periods of time making those measurements suspect.

Explaining climate over geological time frames is a fools errand. God is laughing at our hubris.

“”"”" onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:57 pm
“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.” “”"”"

Well doesn’t the data back to the PreCambrian 600 million BC, say that earth has never been hotter than +22 deg C, and never colder than +12 deg C. so it has never gone outside of a 10 deg C spread in that time frame; which makes the above statement nonsense on both counts; pre-Industrial, and ancient.

I’m prepared to believe that CO2 like other GHGs can warm the atmosphere through LWIR absorption from the surface. CO2 and H2O can also cool the earth SURFACE, by intercepting incoming solar energy, to stop it reaching the surface, and then sending about half that energy out into space as LWIR emission (isotropic) from the warmed atmosphere.

I have yet to be convinced that much of the heat added to the atmosphere from GHG LWIR absorption, subsequently warms the surface (very much); or that cloud variation doesn’t pretty much wipe out any such effect.

But that’s just my opinion; I’ll await the data from those who have proof (measured observational proof; not computer simulated, or proxy proof).

“Earth’s hot past could be prologue future climate”

My fist up the science editor’s fart hole could be a wonderful experience even for me, but somehow for some odd and very weird reason I highly doubt it.

onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm
…”Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me who accept the significance of the CO2 rise and it’s interesting to hear that the longterm climate sensitivity might be much greater than the short term sensitivity.”
=============
Darn it, you convinced me.
It is worse than we ever thought.
When you convince China and India, get back to me.
Sarc/

Since Science requires membership or hefty fees to access their publications, the average interested person cannot access the original article to verify the conclusions described in the “Perspectives” article.

Well there are these things called libraries or then again $3/week isn’t really a ‘hefty fee’.

It’s hard to tell anymore….
…are these people stupid?….lying on purpose?..hiding all the facts?
=========================================================
“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”
========================================================

That would also be the levels of the early Carboniferous, about 350 million years ago. When almost everything evolved, because conditions were the best for life.

Of course they don’t ask the obvious questions after that….

….why did the planet suffer a mass extinction
….why did the planet go into an ice age
….why did CO2 levels crash

Knowing that plants and animals evolved when CO2 levels were in the thousands…
..knowing that those CO2 levels were multitudes higher than we are, and still crashed
…knowing that in spite of those thousands ppm CO2, the planet still went into an ice age

…Knowing how low our temps really are right now
….Knowing how low our CO2 levels really are right now
…. Knowing that we are just about 100ppm above where plants stop growing

@onion said January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm:

Onion, CO2 historically followed warming as part of the feedback phase of the carbon cycle, which in turn causes more warming … that was the primary CO2 footprint before man ramped up his intervention in the natural cycles. Now we’re digging up millions of years of sequestered carbon based deposits and combusting their byproducts into the atmosphere. The CO2 man is releasing is now a climate forcing element … which will cause warming and the release a of more CO2 as a feedback … which will cause more warming …

… there are hardcore “skeptics” that still claim man doesn’t have the ability to materially impact Earth’s climate … on religious grounds or otherwise …

onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Kiehl’s point is that we are driving CO2 to levels not seen since the time of the dinosaurs
==================================================
onion, what you should be asking yourself is why not

Why were CO2 levels that high and then crashed.

What is going on that CO2 levels have fallen to levels that preceeded mass extinctions.

What kind of idiots would build a science around record low CO2 levels, and who is stupid enough to believe that.

A thought:
The earth has experienced 1000 ppm of CO2 in the past and has survived!
Earth has done this without human.
What is than the problem?
I guess becuse we humans producing it. Are we not part of nature or what?
I just noticed that my last heating bill this winter (so far) is much higher than before. Where is this warming. It doesn’t look like global.
Guess what, my CO2 footprint has increased because of this abnormal cold winter.

I sincerely with these non geologists would confine themselves to their numeric models and leave us empirical scientists alone. This is no better then the great global cooling that was being predicted (I think by so of the same people) in the 70′s. It was BS then and is BS now. The one constant in all this is the small.

No one is listening anymore. It will soon be over – I hope;>).
Anthropogenic Global Yawning. Brrrrrrr! Zzzzzzz!

The merry-go-round of AGW logic never ceases to amaze. GCMs have great difficulty in reproducing the observed diurnal cycle of surface temperatures and the observed lapse rate on a day to-day-basis. But this doesn’t deter Kiel from “calculating the greenhouse effect”for millions of years in the past and talking about the results as if they were the product of a physical experiment. How long will such mind games be taken seriously?

From Jack Greer on January 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm:

… there are hardcore “skeptics” that still claim man doesn’t have the ability to materially impact Earth’s climate … on religious grounds or otherwise …

I choose temporal grounds.

The Earth has been here billions of years. The “excess” man-made emissions have only been happening about a hundred years. The next glaciation is coming, we cannot stop it, and there will be many more after it.

Chart out the temperature record of Earth a million years from now, down to a resolution of 500 years or so. Any sentient studying it would be hard pressed to determine mankind was here at all, let alone had any material impact on Earth’s climate at any point whatsoever.

We don’t have the ability to materially impact the Earth’s climate. As far as the Earth is concerned, anything we’ve done has been lost in the noise.

Trenberth is also at NCAR…
Yes carbo-revisionnism is another aspect of the cult. Not happy with manipulating todays data, they now rewrite the recorded history archives so they fit the paradigm, in Europe for instance.
Now they push it to paleoclimates and geological records.

Science must be conducted in the confines of the ivory tower, then released, naked and uninterpreted, into the clear light of day.

I couldn’t agree more.

But that is not the approach that the doctrine called Post Normal Science believes in. It is a doctrine which is the corruption of science and the corruption of scientists.

It is apparently common now in UK academia and Prof Hulme of UEA and the founder of the Tyndal Centre on Climate Change is an adherent of this doctrine or discipline. Perhaps that explains a lot about CRU and the climategate emails.

In Hulme’s own words as reported at http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/ :
“…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”

“Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…”

“The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

“We need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us…we open up a way of resituating culture and the human spirit”

That doctrine explains what is wrong and why. It holds that scientists can and should tailor results to suit what is the ‘right thing to do’ for mankind or society and gives them the freedom to decide what that is and to act as advocates for it.

If it permeates throughout science then it will be the death of honesty and truth in science.

“Since Science requires membership or hefty fees to access their publications, the average interested person cannot access the original article to verify the conclusions described in the “Perspectives” article.”

No. You can go to the nearest research university library and buy a courtesy card.

“The current issue of the elitist “science” journal, Science, …”

So is the NBA the elitist basketball association?

@kadaka (KD Knoebel) said January 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm:

You seem to have very serious difficulty with the scale of timelines … the implication of our, perhaps, profound impact on human existence on Earth over the next few hundred years vs. the timeline and impact of Earth’s orbital features. Don’t feel bad, sadly you’re not alone here.

I don’t have access to the actual paper but it is clear every statement in the video and in the press reports made by Kiehl is a completely ridiculous exaggeration.

The paper is not available, but there are two charts available on the Science website and I believe I have the data he is using. Kiehl’s chart below.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/5420/science2011jan331601415.gif

Well, here is the actual CO2 data it seems Kiehl used (there are a few discrepancies but it is close enough) and the temperature data over the same period (Sorry, but Excel does not like doing charts with time going in the same direction as Kiehl’s chart – so mine are in the other direction).

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/2844/tempco2ppm45m.png

And here is the CO2 data at 3.0C per doubling – off by a major amount – 1.5C per doubling seems to be closer.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4869/tempco230cdoubling45m.png

Kiehl is trying to say that the Earth’s temperature was 16.0C above today at some point in the period (or perhaps 100 Mya I don’t know) but it was not even close to that.

Kiehl’s math is really saying that the CO2 sensitivity is 5.5C per doubling. His calculator might not be working right. Does he think that people will not check these ridiculous claims?

I note he is often partners with Trenberth so it seems this might be part of a propaganda campaign where the pro-AGW set just accept every claim made without actually checking how far off of reality they are. Kiehl and Trenberth are really just playing to the believers anyway, not to the people who check claims and numbers.

He says that on longer time scales the effect of CO2 is twice what it is on shorter time scales. I don’t know exactly what the response time of a CO2 moleecule is in exerting its greenhouse effect. But I do know that it doesn’t take a thousand years to do an IR spectrum. So if his “observation” is correct I think that the extended time scale is clear evidence against CO2 as the cause.

Mike asks: January 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm

So is the NBA the elitist basketball association?

As a matter of fact, yes.

Maybe it’s been a good thing that we intervened to arrest the catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide concentrations, which otherwise would eventually have fallen to levels incapable of supporting life.

Bill Illis:

If your graph is correct then over the period 25Mya to 35Mya temperature is falling while CO2 is rising. So CO2 is innocent.

$3 a week, $12 a month, $144 a year is a LOT of money for me: semi-retired, working part-time.

Besides, this research was funded with our tax dollars. We’ve already paid for it! Where does Science magazine get off charging us to read OUR research?

I think I’m going to start making up all sorts of stuff. It’s so much easier than making substantiated or verifiable claims.

Bill Illis says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

“The paper is not available,….” to people who are too lazy to go to a library.

“….I believe I have the data he is using.”

Surely any non-elitist reviewer would accept that claim.

Hey, let’s take a bunch of bloggers and form a basketball team and watch what happens when they try to play any NBA team. Oh, and in NBA games they use real referees.

Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D. says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm

$3 a week, $12 a month, $144 a year is a LOT of money for me: semi-retired, working part-time.

Besides, this research was funded with our tax dollars. We’ve already paid for it! Where does Science magazine get off charging us to read OUR research?
—————————

I love to watch the free enterprise types get all upset when they have to pay for something!

Once more, deluded inversion of cause and effect. This is a new low for ‘Science’. The trend line is ominous.

I think at least one of his assumptions are incorrect. He mentioned that with our current fossil fuel consumption that by 2100 CO2 will be about 1000ppm (0:43 in video). My understanding was current levels are about 390ppm rising approx 2ppm per annum or 180ppm over the next 90 years. He’s implying an increase of 610ppm over the 90 years. 1000ppm or 570ppm?

What a grand example of a opportunistic liar, or idi-t …or both. Please, make revolution or something against giving such people and projects any government money!

The correlation between temperature and CO2 in the ice age cycle (the “Al Gore diagrams”) that poor man knows for sure is the other way around.

Mike January 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm says:

“I love to watch the free enterprise types get all upset when they have to pay for something!”.

You choose to have sarcasm against pro-free market people and to pay for this. (I don’t think everyone against the lie CAGW is pro-free markets.) But this isn’t to pay any bill. It’s to pay government to promote lies, which are used to ultimately transform society to control the economy, which will at least restrain free enterprise! Even you should understand the logic here.

My criticism is just against that any tax payer should pay for this BS. Since you criticism against me as opposing this is criticism against me as a prommoter of free enterprise, I guess you don’t promote free enterprise. It seems as if many CAGW activists are highly critical to, and/or against free markets (capitalism).

Whoosh. That’s the sound of the point of this article going right over the heads of WUWT posters. It’s not one crappy paper that’s the problem but the whole peer review process. Small wonder that the cargo cult scientists spout it’s wonders to behold. It’s because peer review is eminently corruptible.

You pay for the privilege of headline grabbing “research” but are not allowed to examine the full paper without subscribing too a privately owned and profit oriented media outlet.

Do you as a taxpayer feel this farce should continue?

Michael Lewis, Ph.D. [main article] says:

“There’s nothing wrong with funding your favorite research with government grants.”

Oh yes there is, *if* those are taxpayer funded grants (as opposed to grants from some private foundations or maybe private corporations). The taxpayers, which are actually a small percentage of the entire public are writing these checks. It’s about time we get some respect, and we will, eventually.

Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D. [January 14, 2011 at 7:40 pm] says:

“Besides, this research was funded with our tax dollars. We’ve already paid for it! Where does Science magazine get off charging us to read OUR research?”

Now you’re getting the hang of it! It is my opinion that this type of argument with its healthy dose of righteous indignation is the most productive. Political Scientists that waste our money targeting our very way of life and our children’s, represent the ripe low hanging fruit and easiest to pick.

BioBob [January 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm] says:

“defund all federal science programs and let evolution take its course. the current system is irrevocably corrupted.”

I’m with you brother, and believe me the number of people is really growing. It is clear that the warmies are going to make it easy for us now, with their endless obsessive compulsive rants even during a winter of epic proportions. Changes are coming. One might say a sea-level change but not the kind they’re expecting.

Ironically when that sea change is complete, that of a new paradigm of defunded institutions, the warmies will only have themselves to blame. Not only have they made laughingstocks of themselves, but they have made a mockery of the taxpayers that work endless hours to feed their families and pay for a roof over their heads (shelter from the horrific global warming this winter). They have also made a mockery of everything noble that Science as an institution has fought so hard for, for several millennia. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and endless list of pioneers are rolling over in their graves.

Mike says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:58 pm

Bill Illis says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

“The paper is not available,….” to people who are too lazy to go to a library.

You smug arrogant [self SNIP

The nearest university library to me is 20 miles. On public transport that is some journey!

DaveE.

davidc says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Bill Illis:
If your graph is correct then over the period 25Mya to 35Mya temperature is falling while CO2 is rising. So CO2 is innocent.
——————————–

All these contradictions are well known by the researchers working in the area. They try their best to ignore it.

If they write a paper about this period, they will select a single date (like Kiehl did) and try to say “see, CO2 is driving the climate”. If look at 27 Mya to 25 Mya, the declining CO2 line crosses the temperature line. You can say 3.0C per doubling works in that period. You can take one spike estimate at 20 Mya or 5 Mya and say 3.0C per doubling works.

It doesn’t work in the 12,000 other data points over the rest of the period but it works in 20 of them so that is the ones they use. The trends, however, are nearly completely independent of one another and one has to be blind to see 3.0C per doubling in the numbers.

Now if one views the continental alignment and ocean current changes over the period, one has much more complete picture and a better explanation for what happened.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/695/tempgeog45m.png

I note this view more closely matches what used to be known as the drivers of Earth’s climate (before the CO2-domination view took over).

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm34/cruiser_naz/Models/DSCN0727.jpg

onion says: January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm

Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me who accept the significance of the CO2 rise and it’s interesting to hear that the longterm climate sensitivity might be much greater than the short term sensitivity.

Thus proving that you can fool some of the people ALL of the time.

Mike says: January 14, 2011 at 9:58 pm

Hey, let’s take a bunch of bloggers and form a basketball team and watch what happens when they try to play any NBA team. Oh, and in NBA games they use real referees.

Hey, I’ve got a better idea, let’s take a bunch of climate scientists and form a basketball team. Let’s see how well they do against an NBA team.

Don’t you just love the logical capabilities of some people. Of course, scientific types will have no chance against athletic types. You could also take a group of baseball players and pit them against science bloggers playing basketball and the baseball players would win.

The problem with your idiotic attempt at an analogy is the bloggers here are composed of scientific types and many have as good, if not better, scientific training than the climate scientists you believe are infallible.

I think the poor logic used by Mike is just one more example of the lack of critical thinking abilities displayed by most warmists.

Mike says: January 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm

I love to watch the free enterprise types get all upset when they have to pay for something!

Another example of poor thinking. Nowhere did the person state they believed in “free enterprise” yet Mike assumes he does. Now, one question to Mike might be, what do YOU believe in? I can only expect it must be some form of communist govt since he obviously does not like free enterprise.

BTW, I live about 90 miles from the nearest University library. Running back and forth every time I wanted to read a paper is not reasonable. And, of course, many people live much further away than myself.

I am reminded once again of President Eisenhower’s prescient speech. He was describing a trend away from indpendent scientists tinkering in their labs, to a new elite of government funded scientists. He understood that this would lead to advocacy by the scientists, the distortion and manipulation of science and its eventual complete absorption into a government instrument of propaganda.

Lewis, Trenberth and the others are ‘to be gravely regarded.’

onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me…
Yes, we know, because only the most hopelessly misinformed and delusional of CAGW Believers could possibly be taken in by his government-funded drivel. Looks like his aim was swift and sure.

Patrick in Adelaide,

Can’t locate the figures just now but there has been a step change in the amount of fossil fuel burning, particularly coal, over the last 15 years as China and India and other developing countries have ramped up their energy use. But CO2 in the atmosphere continues to grow at roughly 2ppm per annum.

So where is the connection?

From Jack Greer on January 14, 2011 at 6:36 pm:

@kadaka (KD Knoebel) said January 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm:

You seem to have very serious difficulty with the scale of timelines … the implication of our, perhaps, profound impact on human existence on Earth…

Whoa, hold up! Change of subject there, pardner.

You, previously: “…to materially impact Earth’s climate …”

You, now: “…our, perhaps, profound impact on human existence on Earth…”

Looks like you have a problem with self-importance, which is pretty common. Far as the Body Earth is concerned, this big ball orbiting around the Sun, all of mankind’s “impact” is akin to a pimple, perhaps less than that. Such talk may upset the Gaia worshipers, but it’s true. Earth was here long before us, Earth will be here after us, our total “impact” will be a transitory blip, its effects erased over time.

In my previous comment you so maligned, I had carefully chosen a 500 year resolution for the timeline. We human critters are smart enough to keep our own cages clean, once we learn how to. We also can figure out how to manage our available resources. And technology marches on. You think CO2 emissions are a problem? We’re always getting more energy efficient than we used to be, since energy costs money and people don’t like spending money they don’t have to spend. As long as new technology lets us do the same thing for less money, people will adopt it. As to the cage cleaning, we’ve learned the importance of a clean environment, with clean air and water. We’ve gotten pretty good at cleaning up after ourselves, and we’ll get better. The major problem now is getting our fellow human critters to do the same, supplying the knowledge and technology and getting them motivated to do the same. Your changed subject, mankind’s impact on itself, is being taken care of, brought about by “enlightened self-interest” if nothing else.

So cleaner energy sources are coming. We have nuclear, with improved designs like the CANDU reactor. Once we get rid of the subsidy-driven market that’s keeping less-efficient tech profitable, solar may become a worthy supply. Residential and larger users are discovering the benefits of ditching furnaces altogether and going with geothermal heat pumps, there are even homes without any heating system that do just fine in frigid winters. Plus fusion power shall be coming along any day now…

Thus those “excess” CO2 emissions shall be declining in a microscopic bit of geological time. Even if humans don’t manage it, this interglacial shall end soon, and many to most of the potential sources of fossil fuels shall be buried under a mile or so of ice, unreachable, which will tend to greatly restrict their use.

Besides, we’re overdo for a surge in population-destroying plagues, with limited remaining effective antibiotics. Since far less humans means less CO2 emissions, that’ll make some people happy.

Thus in the long view, mankind does not have the ability to materially impact Earth’s climate, and certainly will not by the proposed CO2 -> (C)AGW mechanism. If it upsets you that you might not see a desired noticeable change in Earth’s climate brought about by humans within your own tenth-of-an-eye-blink lifespan, as is common among Green activists and (C)AGW proponents, tough, that’s your problem. The Earth doesn’t even know you are here.

Mike says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Bill Illis says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

“The paper is not available,….” to people who are too lazy to go to a library.

“….I believe I have the data he is using.”

Surely any non-elitist reviewer would accept that claim.

————————–

Same argument applies to those that are too lazy to check the assertions for themselves.

I spent a great deal of time gathering up all the data that is available on the paleoclimate. I do so continuously. So I wouldn’t describe myself as lazy about this.

@kadaka
“Plus fusion power shall be coming along any day now…”!!!
Comrade, you’re even more optimistic than I am :)

@LevelGaze;
Mebbe not: focusfusion.org , LPPhysics.com .
Should be about 5 yrs. or so. Costs about 1/20 (5%) of current best N.A. retail.

@ LevelGaze on January 15, 2011 at 9:34 pm:
After researching the proposed candidates for fusion power, I came to this conclusion:

Commercially-viable fusion power shall always be coming along any day now, starting twenty years from now. ☺

@kadaka (and to a lesser extent Brian H)

We drink from the same fountain. :))

I’m really starting to notice a lot of cyncism in the general public the past 6 months or so with respect to the climate change fraternity. The whole “because of climate change” phrase is now becoming a bit of joke for people to use now….

“My football team lost… must be because of climate change”.
“My son won’t finish his dinner…must be because of climate change”. (etc .)

And here is Oz, especially with the Queensland floods, the general public are seeing right through the shrill garbage spewing out of the mouths of Sackett, Lowe, Williams, Steketee etc.

The ‘history deniers’ are losing their followers and losing them fast. Bit by bit they keep digging the hole, and bit by bit it gets bigger and bigger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Quote of the Week

I somehow missed this in December, but WUWT reader Jimbo thankfully reminds us in comments on the Nature-”global warming isn’t killing penguins” thread

Jimbo says:

January 14, 2011 at 2:56 am

This story reminds me of the environmentalist who, after a bowel movement, burned her used toilet paper (for environmental reasons) and subsequently caused Israel’s worst ever fire. Greenpeace initially blamed global warming.

Frogs: debunked. Lizards: debunked. Penguins: debunked
Each of these is caused by concerned environmentalist researchers or poachers.

References:
http://www.jpost.com/GreenIsrael/PEOPLEANDTHEENVIRONMENT/Article.aspx?id=195702
http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/12/greenpeace-israel-carmel-fire/

UPDATE: To be fair, the original source is even further upstream:

Ray says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Global warming brought to you by Greenpeace…

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/environmentalist-starts-israels-worst-ever-fire-greenpeace-blames-global-warming/

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

42 Responses to Quote of the Week

Hey… I helped with this post… sort of… :-)

Funny thing is, you can write this line “_______________ are dying due to Global Warming”, and no one would bat an eye at it….. Say, aren’t bat populations dying due to Global Warming????

Let’s not embellish the truth, please. The Jerusalem Post article merely says that the environmentalist in question had “used” the toilet paper, not that she had had a bowel movement.

What is even more ironic is that so much effort has been put into stopping perfectly natural forest fires in the last few decades, that there has been a noticeable drop in global particulates in the atmosphere which has undoubtedly led to a net increase in global temperature. And forests need regular burns to sustain their viability otherwise dense undergrowth builds up.

So … if you want to save planet earth … let it burn!

Typo alert: it’s “Greenpeas” not “Greenpeace.” ;o)

There is a lot of this type of insanity going around – for example, below is another example of the EPA running amok. The implications for the US’s extractive industries are huge – very simply, it says the US is like a typical Third World country, where business cannot rely on the rule of law.

Maybe, this is no more than a back door ploy by AGW fanatics in the EPA to get everyone to rely on solar or wind power, because no rational investor can now dare risk investing in oil/coal exploration or drilling in the US after this ruling.

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=118460&sn=Detail&pid=92730

Jimbo might have put this story in a better format, but I put this story first in the Tips & Notes section…

Ray says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Global warming brought to you by Greenpeace…

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/environmentalist-starts-israels-worst-ever-fire-greenpeace-blames-global-warming/

REPLY: Thanks, I’ll add a note for you. Sometimes it is simply a matter of what gets noticed first. – Anthony

Mike Haseler says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:56 am

“What is even more ironic is that so much effort has been put into stopping perfectly natural forest fires in the last few decades, that there has been a noticeable drop in global particulates in the atmosphere which has undoubtedly led to a net increase in global temperature. And forests need regular burns to sustain their viability otherwise dense undergrowth builds up.”

Very interesting, I hadn’t, but should’ve considered that. I had thought that our forest fighting efforts tended to suppress the growth of younger plant life in favor of more mature trees, which would reduce the ability of forests to absorb CO2 since mature trees don’t absorb CO2 at nearly the rate of young growth.

I’m sure there are many other factors related to reducing forest fires:

1) Changes in albedo

2) Changes in transpiration

3) Local fires effect on cloud formation/rain and the effects of those clouds

I highly doubt that the models are taking these things into account adequately (if at all).

Thanks Anthony. It’s appreciated.

I wonder why the toilet paper cause wasn’t better circulated in the media?

Anything printed about Global Warming by Greenpeace, is IMHO, most likely to be a load of green p*ss.
Meanwhile, in the case of this story, presumably the old addage ‘accidents can happen’ stands true? (though maybe it would have been better if the prodigal environmentalist had simply had an accident instead of being a twisted firestarter LOL?)

Cos they are so wrapped up in it they didn’t notice!

“Let’s not embellish the truth, please. The Jerusalem Post article merely says that the environmentalist in question had “used” the toilet paper, not that she had had a bowel movement.”

Lmao, I thought the story was funny enough but here’s the gravy! Thanks for the awesome laugh.

Why-o-why would anyone burn a used toilet paper in a forest for ‘ecological’ reasons? The paper is made of wood. The fertiliser is good for the forest. Couldn’t she just pour a little water or urine on it?

“The cause of this particular fire was, sadly enough, the good intentions of a participant in the Rainbow Festival that was being held at the site.

For ecological reasons, she burned toilet paper she had used so as not to leave it in nature, and in normal circumstances, that would have been the thing to do.

However, due to the strong winds and the unseasonable hot air, the dry grasses caught on fire immediately, and the fire spread in four different directions simultaneously.”
—–
You just can’t make this stuff up!! What do they mean, “for ecological reasons…”?? Just burying it in a trench latrine is fine, it would be gone in a few days due to the bacteria & fungi.

Who is advising these eco-nuts on science?? Boy Scouts had better sense in the 1950′s!

“Use toilet paper sparingly and use only plain, white, nonperfumed brands. Toilet paper must be disposed of properly! It should be either thoroughly buried in a cathole or placed in plastic bags and packed out, which is the best way to practice Leave No Trace. Never burn toilet paper because of the danger of starting a wildfire.”

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/TeachingLeaveNoTrace/033_dispose.aspx

I think that we are missing the point. If it were not for GW then there would be no reason to burn the toilet paper therefore the cause is GW. If it were not for GW then there would be no reason to study the penguins, therefore the cause is GW.

Come on people get with the program.

AGW leads to more funding for studies of the biological effects of climate change.

More funding means more studies.

More studies means more penguins are killed.

Ergo, AGW kills penguins! Climate scientists were right!

Dear MH,

Please stop incinerating my forests. Just because fire is a natural process, it does not mean it is good, or necessary — especially wildfires which are hugely destructive of myriad resources and values.

Tell you what, before you advocate Let It Burn in my watershed and neighborhood, shut down your own fire dept. in your own neighborhood burn that place to the ground. Because your crazy arsonist notions are not wanted where I live.

Aren’t these Rainbow Gatherings more like hippie stuff than climate activism? There was one in Finland last summer and it was on the news mainly because many people were running around naked.

If my piss was green I’d burn the paper too!

Re: The Great Toilet Paper Catastrophe. I wonder what kind of penance she is performing to assuage her guilt?

The cause of this particular fire was, sadly enough, the good intentions of a participant in the Rainbow Festival that was being held at the site. For ecological reasons, she burned toilet paper she had used so as not to leave it in nature, and in normal circumstances, that would have been the thing to do. However, due to the strong winds and the unseasonable hot air, the dry grasses caught on fire immediately, and the fire spread in four different directions simultaneously.

By what reasoning is it not reasonable to leave toilet paper in nature?

Toilet paper is biodegradable and I would imagine that the soiled parts would not burn very well anyway.

Sorry to spoil the story a bit – but the fire they are talking about in mount Carmel (which sadly caused some 43 deaths) was caused by unattended garbage dump fire.
The fire referred to that was caused by that woman (who subsequently disappeared from the area as soon as it became clear the fire is out of control) was on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Galilee.
It took some 2 days to put it out and it burned many hundreds of hectares also.
But of course – both fires were caused by Global Warming – this goes without saying.

Tell me it isn’t true http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html

I say all of these fires are caused by too much oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere. Clearly it is a dangerous gas and needs to be regulated and reduced (pun intended) before the entire planet burns!

Lush conifer forests outgas isoprene and terpenes. (No surprise that there are ignition hazards in the summertime.) Does anyone know if these are “greenhouse gases”? Chances are good, since they are complex hydrocarbon molecules.

The cause of this particular fire was, sadly enough, the good intentions of a participant in the Rainbow Festival that was being held at the site.

Ahh, the road to hell. How long must we suffer from these well-intended, yet very foolish killers?

From Randy Travis.

…”And I hear tell the road to hell is paved with good intentions
And mama my intentions were the best
There’s lotsa things in my life I just as soon not mention
Looks like I’ve turned out like all the rest
But mama my intentions were the best..”

Doesn’t burning bogroll produce CO2? Surely a true green would just have used some grass….

“marc fenton says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Tell me it isn’t true http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html”

This is utterly idiotic, they claim that the lowered icecap has caused the sun to rise early!
However when you first see the Sun again north of the Arctic circle, it rises briefly in the SOUTH. The icecap is 50 km EAST of Illulissat.
So what caused the “early rise”? Simple: unusual atmospheric refraction. When the temperature profile in the atmosphere is right it can “lift” things that are normally below the horizon. I have actually once seen the coast of Finland from the Swedish coast, right across the Bothnian Bay. It is unusual, but it happens.

tty says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm

“marc fenton says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Tell me it isn’t true http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html”

This is utterly idiotic, they claim that the lowered icecap has caused the sun to rise early!
However when you first see the Sun again north of the Arctic circle, it rises briefly in the SOUTH. The icecap is 50 km EAST of Illulissat.
So what caused the “early rise”? Simple: unusual atmospheric refraction.
========================================================

Nope, I’m pretty sure CO2 is making the earth speed through its cycles quicker!! That’s where Kevin’s missing energy went! Sure, it’s only happening up north right now, but just wait until the rest of the earth catches up! Then we’re really gonna see climate chaos!

oh, you guys might love this one too:

California’s electricity billing essentially punishes users of electric cars:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/plug_in_cars_only_worthwhile_with_much_higher_oil_prices/

*chuckle*

Spot on tty.

It sounds like the locals expect to get some benefit from the AGW scam. To say that it has never ever happened before 13th January makes you wonder what happens in a leap year, surely there must be a variation for that reason alone.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Greenland_Ilulissat_Panorama_medium.jpg

In the above image I reckon that due south is probably aligned with the radio tower on top of the hill to the left so at 12:56 on the 11th of January the sun would be somewhere to the right of that point

(I originally posted this about half an hour ago but it seems to have gone astray – Please delete if it results in a double post)

tarpon says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:33 am

I wonder why the toilet paper cause wasn’t better circulated in the media?

Don’t they peddle enough $h1t?

DaveE.

My apologies Anthony. I should have added in the references Haunting The Library. I just tried to slim it down. My bad!

I even made a brief comment.
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/environmentalist-starts-israels-worst-ever-fire-greenpeace-blames-global-warming/#comment-696

sHx says:
January 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
Why-o-why would anyone burn a used toilet paper in a forest for ‘ecological’ reasons? The paper is made of wood. The fertiliser is good for the forest……

I couldn’t agree more.

My mounting worry about this story is that concerned greens are actually doing more harm than good. See the frog and penguin stories.

Oh, for shame, she burned what global warming is made of.

I don’t mean the paper part……

“Green Peace arse wipe incinerates 5000 hectares of forest”

(bet that one won’t be heading up a page in the Guardian any time soon)

“tty says: January 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm

[...] So what caused the “early rise”? Simple: unusual atmospheric refraction. [...]”

Only ever seen the Moon do that (UK) – very memorable. Two full Moons, one with a tell tale redish tinge but otherwise perfect.

tty says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm

“marc fenton says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Tell me it isn’t true http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html”

This is utterly idiotic, they claim that the lowered icecap has caused the sun to rise early!
However when you first see the Sun again north of the Arctic circle, it rises briefly in the SOUTH. The icecap is 50 km EAST of Illulissat.
So what caused the “early rise”? Simple: unusual atmospheric refraction.”

The link is dead, probably because somebody figured out it was all BS.

Atmospheric refraction is something I know a lot about since I use it in my work. I don’t have the refractive numbers for visible light at hand, but they are close to the ones for radio waves which I do know.
The easiest way to think about atmospheric refraction is to use what is called a “K-factor” to adjust the size of the earth. A normal atmosphere has a K-factor of 1.33, meaning the earth appears to be 1.33 times normal size and you can see pass the geometric horizon and the sun appears higher in the sky than it really is.
K-factors can range from about 0.4 (the earth curves more) to infinity (flat earth).

I nearly drove off the road when I saw this bumper sticker; ” Join The Bowel Movement”.

Mike D;
So, ah, you advocate maximum build-up of floor litter and slash? So that the soil is sterilized once a fire does start, and mature trees that routinely survive ordinary more frequent fires succumb to the Big Ones you prefer? And the fire-activated seeds get destroyed instead of released?

Nice!

Oh, I see … you think you can opt for NEVER having a forest fire! Um, sorry to burst your phantasy bobble, but … it ain’t so. And wishing won’t make it so.

A great quote about leftist hypocrisy from Instapundit today: “UPDATE: Reader Vito DiPaola writes: “Has anyone commented on the fact that some of the people criticizing Sarah Palin for using the term ‘blood libel’ are the same people that use the term ‘deniers’ when criticizing global warming skeptics?”

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113206/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Where’s John Mashey and “DeepClimate” when we need them?

From Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit:

Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim

In case readers think that Trenberth’s outburst discussed yesterday represents an isolated and unfortunate climate scientist incident, this is not the case. In fact, some of Trenberth’s most objectionable language was lifted verbatim from an article in Nature Geoscience earlier this year. Trenberth here; Hasselmann here.

Trenberth summarized the UK whitewashes as follows:

Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010)

Trenberth’s entire paragraph is actually word-for-word identical to the corresponding paragraph in Hasselman’s Nature article. (While Hasselmann was cited in this paragraph, the fact that the text was lifted verbatim was not shown – something that John Mashey will no doubt weigh in on.)

Three recent investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee[1,2], a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh[3], and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell[4] — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists, dependent on their credibility for their livelihood, have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues, working independently on similar data sets, can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans.

Trenberth continued:

Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

Hasselmann’s corresponding text was virtually identical:

Scientists can, of course, err. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

Steve has much more here.

========================================================

I just know those two defenders of plagiarism in climate science, John Mashey and the shadowy figure known as “DeepClimate”, will rush to lodge a complaint with NOAA/NCAR as they’d done with Wegman.

Raymond Bradley’s academic misconduct complaint against Wegman at George Mason University was based on this same sort of (partially) unattributed copying behavior for presentation delivered in a public forum, so I’m sure Dr. Bradley will move to file a similar complaint against Dr. Trenberth to maintain the standards and integrity of climate science.

/sarc

Of course, I’ve shown these fellows a way out here. If only they could pile themselves into the clown car and drive themselves there.

WUWT’s discussion of Trenberth’s address to AMS continues here, now approaching 300 comments.

The question is, would he verbally cite that the words he just read in the speech to AMS were written by Hasselman? He will probably do so now.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Lindzen on Climate Hysteria

- Spencer on Earth’s missing energy

- How Sensitive is the Earth’s Climate?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

34 Responses to Where’s John Mashey and “DeepClimate” when we need them?

John Mashey again?

I’m pretty sure that it was the Climate of Hate that made him plagiarize. In These Tough Economic Times I know it does me.

I’m sure Dr. Bradley will move to file a similar complaint against Dr. Trenberth to maintain the standards and integrity of climate science.

oh man…it kinda burns when you blow Dr. Pepper out your nose laughing.

thanks. now i gotta go change shirts.

[Great. Now we have Big Oil and Big Pepper competing to fund the skeptical deniers. When you cash your advertising check from DP for the ad placement? 8<) Robt]

Eh, right, so he’s, what, going on a bender every other week or so?

Lucky bastard. If only I where so lucky to sizzle away all them tax funded grants.

Whas officer? Alschohol, nooo. ’tis the carbon O2 fizzley bubbles made me do it, jus’ like (frontal) lobal warming.

The first paragraphs are not word for word identical as claimed. So few words were changed however that it’s clear someone knew they were copying someone else and changed a few words probably hoping it would escape notice that way.

Now we know how Trenberth managed to get a graduate degree…

Quit being such a denier :)

You know full well they only have one brain between the lot of them! Hence it isn’t plagiarism at all.

Plagiarism. Isn’t that one of the conditions to take back a PhD title?

John Mashey gone mushy?

Ummm… please disregard my previous. Trenberth cited Hasselman thus I don’t see any nefarious actions afoot. So what if he copied it? It was properly cited.

Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:12 am (Edit)

Ummm… please disregard my previous. Trenberth cited Hasselman thus I don’t see any nefarious actions afoot. So what if he copied it? It was properly cited

—

But wasn’t that the ENTIRE “charge” against Wegman by the CAGW conspiracy community? That he (Wegman) had the audacity to not only “copy” words from the article he not actually cited, but was actually REQUIRED to investigate and review?

No, no hypocrisy in the “scientific” CAGW community. Nah, none at all.

Lol, the echo adds nothing to the debate other than noise

…it’s not like this stuff is high prose or anything! Clearly, they got lazy with “cut” and “paste.”

We all probably do some of that, but jeez, couldn’t they have mixed this stuff up a little bit at least?? I could re-write the paragraph in an hour & it would be sufficiently different. Why do these people have any credibility at all?

It may eventually be discovered that his entire “talk” was just a cut-and-paste job from existing material (perhaps even some of his own “original” material). If I were the AMS, I’d want my money back!

Despite the plagiarism, I personally hope Trenberth’s childish rant gets widely circulated so everyone can see how badly perverted (politically speaking) the CAGW climate “science” has become…

Nothing to see here, move along. He was simply recycling as we’re all encouraged to do. Thinking original thoughts generates more heat than a quick copy & paste, so plagiarism helps fight global warming. Now what about those poley bears?

The turer investigations was certainly not for scientific misconduct. They were much more narrow Tham that

Now I have to clean the coffee off the keyboard…

That is a serious instance of plagiarism. As an academic, if I lifted an entire paragraph from someone else’s text I would rightly lose my job. Simply attributing it is not considered sufficient.

If Trenberth had merely paraphrased the earlier text, expressing it in his own words, he could simply cite it. Copying the text requires a clear indication that what he is reproducing is an exact quote.

Imagine a numerical index called the “Mashey Double Standard Scale Of Accurate Climate Science Attribution”. That’s a bit of a mouthful, so go for “Mashey Double Standard” to keep it short.

Mashey Double Standard Scale Of Accurate Climate Attribution = (A/B)

This a ratio of two ratios (hence referred to as a “double” standard scale):

“B” is the total number of words in all of the objections raised against Wegman by Mashey, expressed as a proportion of all words in relevant Wegman documents.

Applying similar standards to the complaints against Wegman, “A” is a comparable ratio for any “pro-CAGW” text for which there is no complaint of plagiarism.

Such a scale might then be categorised as follows:

(A/B) = 0 would be a “non-Mashey Double Standard” climate document

(A/B)<<1 would be a "minor Mashey Double Standard" document,

(A/B)1 would be a “major Mashey Double Standard” document.

I’ve got DeepClimate spinning in circles on this. Check it out:

http://deepclimate.org/2011/01/06/wegman-on-deep-climate/

Absolutely right! Wegman copied from more talented people and did not credit their work. This is not plagiarism but good GMU scholarship.

Trenberth on the other hand quoted a real scientist and gave the gentleman credit for his work. For shame. No tea for Trenberth.

Kev says this AMS address will honor his good friend and colleague, the late Steve Schneider. Wouldn’t be surprised if a few “Schneider-isms” cropped up in Kev’s text.

Hmmmmm. “Schneider” translates from German as “cutter” or “tailor”, so perhaps Steve would posthumously grant the okey-doke.

“Climate Science” is just a branch of “Political Science” anyway

Raising this issue now, gives Trenberth an opportunity ( he has a week after all) to issue an erratum and make it all better.

Poor gotya politics .

7 Years ago, when my Brother finished his D.Sc. through a university via “remote” work, his 300 page thesis was run through a service to look for “lifted quotes”.

In his case, NOTHING was found. (His advisor noted to him that “phrases” and occassionally, sentences would pop out…but that they were more concerned with series of sentences with exact wording and punctuation, to indicate deliberate plagiarism.

Now I do not know Trenberth’s academic standing. If he has, in ANY situation, rejected a graduate student on a “plagiarism” basis, I would now recommend a “legal” remedy on the basis of “equal justice”.

This could get interesting.

Max

CLIMATE OF THE PAST TRASHES COMPUTER CLIMATE MODELS

A paper published today in the journal Climate of the Past illustrates the magnitude of confusion in climate science regarding the “settled” basic physics of the carbon dioxide “greenhouse effect.” The climate model results of this paper are compared to two other recent peer-reviewed papers and show that the three climate models differ by over 18.3ºC (32°F) in explaining the “greenhouse warming” effect of carbon dioxide during the time when the entire Earth was covered by ice (“snowball Earth”).

This huge difference dwarfs the IPCC-claimed computer-modeled 0.6°C of anthropogenic global warming during the industrial age and the IPCC-claimed 3°C global warming prediction for doubled carbon dioxide concentrations derived from the same family of computer models. As this study points out, these are large differences between climate models, resulting from “differing assumptions” of the model physics; in other words, due to whatever fudge factors one chooses to plug in for the “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide.

http://www.clim-past.net/7/17/2011/cp-7-17-2011.pdf

Where is “Maple Leaf” when you don’t need him? LOL

What boggles the mind is – why plagarize bad stuff?

Couple of hints

This isn’t so much plagiarism as repeating a well-rehearsed message

If The Team’s fig-leaf falls any further, they will need a Maple leaf to cover eirarses.

Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:12 am

Ummm… please disregard my previous. Trenberth cited Hasselman thus I don’t see any nefarious actions afoot. So what if he copied it? It was properly cited.

#####
Bradley’s complaint against Wegman was not that Wegman didnt CITE bradley, he clearly did. His complaint was that he did not indicate the MANNER of his borrowing. he cited bradley, but didnt use quote marks to indicate that bradleys words were used.

in every plagarism there are two issues at play.

1. if you borrow ideas you have to cite the source of the idea
2. if you borrow words you have to indicate that you borrowed them.

so, you have to indicate sources and the manner in which they are used.

Bradley, Wegman and Trenberth all fail to do a proper job of this. The situation is remedied by following established style guides.

Everyone knows that in difficult economic times its important to recycle as much as possible.

Kevin is away from his email at the moment!!!

(SarcOn) You’re ALL missing the point here, a tremendous part of the Green Movement (aka “Save The Planet For The Worthy”) is the reuse of carded and discarded materials for the benefit of all mankind. Plagerism is an antiquated, rich world concept that we can no longer afford in the new World Order. But it does matter who is cycling or recycling. Not everyone is entitled. You must first show that you are truly Green before you can cycle or recycle someone else’s material. Otherwise, antiquated Common Law is applicable and you must suffer the consequences and give up all claims and titles to public and private entitlements forevermore. Before anyone can put a shoe on another person’s foot, the foot must fit the shoe. (SarcOff)

As advised below I checked Motl who says the document is a prepublished draft.

If this is correct, editing is ongoing.

Is Motl wrong?

Isn’t he allow to copy him, they are on the same team?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie

While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)

Here’s the graph of USA mean annual temperature from 1895-2010 produced by NCDC’s interactive climate database and graph generator, which you can operate yourself here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added:

Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116.

Climate At A Glance

Year to Date (Jan – Dec) Temperature
Contiguous United States

Year

Temperature
(deg F)

Rank
Based on the
Time Period Selected
(1895-2010)*

Rank
Based on the
Period of Record
(1895-2010)*

*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.

Data used to calculate Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set.

Of course there is no mention of the USA temperature ranking in the recent press release from NOAA. The only mention of the USA in that PR that comes close is this:

In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.

They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010? Apparently not.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- So far, 2010 warmest year on record

- 2010: Warmest year on record

- No Title

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

182 Responses to According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie

US, Asia, Australia, land, pacific, arctic, antarctic, they all have varying weather conditions we can only study and puzzle how it all works. Some years colder some warmer, wetter or dryer and no one still has a clue how it all works. Average temperatures have risen since 1800, so what? As long as you have no solid evidence that there is a real threat for large groups of people stop spreading fear.

Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

There is data from actual measurements and the virtual world of the model which NASA seems to enjoy more than reality.

Anthony, your 2 rightmost columns in the table are identical.

REPLY: That’s the NCDC output as it was generated. – Anthony

And USA warming has what to do with global warming? Looks like clutching at straws to me.

This is nothing less than an attempt to re-write history.

It has long been a thorn in the AGW propagandists’ side to be asked the question why was the warmest year of the 20th century 1934 and not (say) 1995? It seems they have now figured out their answer, or rather two possible answers to this inconvenient quesiton:

1.) Ignore and/or remove any and all references to the 1934 data.

or

2.) Use their massive computing power to “massage” the 1934 temperature downwards while “massaging” the 1998 (or some other year) upwards.

- And Voilà! Now the data fits the theory!

The use of the word “consecutive” in the NOAA press release is a blatant lie.

con·sec·u·tive (k n-s k y -t v). adj. 1. Following one after another without interruption; successive

From the data it is obvious that this is not so unless you twist the meaning to be consecutive in terms of temperature instead of in year order.

HELP EU GETS CRAZY

Cancún –and Beyond: Connie Hedegaard’s 2011 Jean Jacques Rousseau lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5B3FxgqIs

Connie Hedegaard 2010 warmest year

The Lisbon Council’s 2011 Eco-Innovation Summit convened on Thursday 13 January 2011 in Brussels under the timely theme of Cancún –and Beyond: Europe’s Next Steps on the Road to a Low-Carbon Economy and Sustainable Future.

At the occasion of her first major speech after the COP16, Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate action, delivered The 2011 Jean Jacques Rousseau Lecture and made a compelling call to redouble Europe’s efforts to lead the world towards a low-carbon future.

ValoSnah says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:30 am
Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

Yes but knowing what the regional figures are too is interesting, no warming in New Zealand, Australia, cooling in UK and numerous populated areas, warming in Siberia and Artic and other umpopulated areas.

Its like a rubber band, it can only go on so long before it snaps, few more cold winters and non-barbecue summers is all it needs before the truth is out.

….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

This is, of course, all based on the altered adjusted USHCN Version 2 dataset, in which heroic efforts were make to make 1998 warmer than 1994, but not so much warmer that GISS couldn’t adjust the subsequent years to beat it. You can’t have global warming if you aren’t setting records.

Those adjustments are scheduled for 2011. Look again next year, 2010 will be much higher on the liest. (pun intended).

Reminds me of the man who drowned in a lake , the average depth of which was 6 inches

Just as a matter of interest, since 1934 has been mentioned – that year is one of the warmest in the continental USA, but where is it in a list of global temperatures over the last century-and-a-bit?

Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

“They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010?”

That’s not so hard to fathom what with GISS/NASA, now officially due to James Hansen, apparently represents the idea that the one party communist “democracy” state of China is better suited to lead the way to battle geezer Hansen’s own imaginary modeled reality.

According to the 2011 World Almanac:

22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade.

1 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 2000′s and 1 record low during that decade.

6 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1990′s and 6 record lows during that decade.

So Climate disruption was 9 to 22 times more prevelant in the 30′s than the past decade. Consider the outcry if all those records were set this past decade.

I find it funny is most of the hype of global warming come from either:

a) an ability to measure temperature in finer and finer increment from what we could from the initial day of record. (tenths of a degree to now thousandths)

b) an increase of sampling station globally it the past two decades due to improvements in technology making it possible to gather information from once isolated regions. (Africa, parts of South America and Siberia)

c) A lack of sampling station in regions still too isolated for man to get there causing a need to “average” the reading between two stations way too far apart for even the “average” to be accurate. (Antarctica, parts of South America and Siberia)

d) a reduction of samples use from available sampling locations to create higher course averages over lower fine actual. (USA and Europe)

Is my memory playing tricks or is it true that we were told that 2010 was going to be the warmest ever last at the end of 2009, before it had even started, and they have been straining every sinew since to make their prediction come true.

Is it also true that the places which have miraculously warmed in 2010 are where there are no weather stations and so their figures have been estimated based on the nearest airport?

jimmi says:
that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?
—————————

The Arctic region was warm.

@jimmi

2010 won’t be 3rd for long. See @Michael D Smith

when I have seen people tell her before it’s just a waste of time using such a short period of time to get a meaningful result.

Yeah, the bits where there are no thermometers or where people were too busy trying not to get purged to read thermometers in 1934.

ooops. wrong paste from the clipboard!

Comment was meant for jimmi’s “bit” question.

Jimmi
The bits where there are no thermometers. Or rather where they use models to extrapolate rather than use the available thermometers.

It would be interesting to see a global map indicating for every country what its ranking was for 2010. So: for the USA, 94th/116; UK xth/y; and so on. Is there anything like that and would it be meaningful?

You mean press release no relation to facts?

Remember the reporter floating in the canoe during the media’s Katrina float off, then a guy walks by ankle deep …

Whose side do you thunk the media is on?

The trend in the US has been adjusted up by about +0.77F, so maybe about half of the total increase is adjustments.

If you want to see the numbers in a little more detail, this is a 12 month moving average of the monthly anomalies in degrees F – a 12 month moving average is required because there is too much variation. Trend is 0.068C per decade.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4255/usmonthlyanomfdec10.png

Jimmi there are no bits, it was cold in South Africa , Australia, South America, Europe and the US, China got a mention also, regardless of the prophecies of the thermophobics the world is cooling, as it should with a quiet sun. Very natural and normal.

CET data degrees C same period 1895-2010 (HADCET)

1 2006 10.82
2 1990 10.63
3 1999 10.63
4 1949 10.62
5 2002 10.6
6 1997 10.53
7 1995 10.52
8 1989 10.5
9 2003 10.5
10 1959 10.48
11 2004 10.48
12 2007 10.48
13 1921 10.47
14 2005 10.44
15 1998 10.34
16 2000 10.3
17 1945 10.27
18 1994 10.24
19 1938 10.18
20 2009 10.11
21 1976 10.08
22 1898 10.07
23 1911 10.05
24 1943 10.03
25 1983 10.03
26 1957 10.02
27 1948 10.01
28 1975 10
29 1934 9.99
30 2008 9.96
31 1961 9.94
32 2001 9.93
33 1914 9.88
34 1992 9.86
35 1953 9.84
36 1982 9.84
37 1933 9.83
38 1913 9.8
39 1988 9.77
40 1960 9.73
41 1984 9.73
42 1926 9.72
43 1935 9.72
44 1899 9.69
45 1939 9.68
46 1971 9.68
47 1974 9.62
48 1967 9.61
49 1920 9.57
50 1928 9.57
51 1937 9.57
52 1944 9.57
53 1947 9.57
54 1970 9.57
55 1900 9.56
56 1973 9.54
57 1991 9.52
58 1918 9.51
59 1993 9.49
60 1977 9.48
61 1964 9.47
62 1946 9.45
63 1966 9.45
64 1906 9.43
65 1930 9.43
66 1897 9.42
67 1958 9.42
68 1978 9.42
69 1980 9.42
70 1950 9.41
71 1932 9.38
72 1912 9.36
73 1896 9.33
74 1903 9.32
75 1936 9.32
76 1968 9.3
77 1955 9.28
78 1908 9.27
79 1924 9.27
80 1951 9.27
81 1969 9.26
82 1981 9.24
83 1954 9.22
84 1927 9.2
85 1996 9.2
86 1972 9.19
87 1916 9.18
88 1910 9.17
89 1925 9.17
90 1905 9.13
91 1901 9.11
92 1952 9.1
93 1941 9.09
94 1923 9.08
95 1940 9.05
96 1942 9.05
97 1987 9.05
98 1929 9.01
99 1904 9
100 1931 8.99
101 1965 8.95
102 1915 8.93
103 1985 8.86
104 1907 8.84
105 2010 8.83 ——
106 1902 8.83
107 1956 8.83
108 1979 8.81
109 1986 8.74
110 1922 8.67
111 1895 8.65
112 1962 8.59
113 1909 8.55
114 1917 8.51
115 1919 8.48
116 1963 8.47

jimmi says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:28 am
Just as a matter of interest, since 1934 has been mentioned – that year is one of the warmest in the continental USA, but where is it in a list of global temperatures over the last century-and-a-bit?

Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?

A good question
I think that you will find that the area around the poles outside most actual measurements were assessed by interpolation from distant observation sites as several degrees warmer.

But it would be really useful to have a graph say of each degree of latitude and longitude – then their surface area and the atmospheric temperature at the surface in each.

Not of course that temperature is the correct metric for heat content, but it would be useful to see the methodology used to create the ‘global average’.

According to those data, the year in Holland was actually a cold year.
But the world average temperature was highest. There will be regions where the year was far record warm, but there are none where it was record cold. In fact the past decennium was the first for Holland having a coldest year still above +9° C.

Bill Gates and a hobo walk into a bar. What is their average income?

The average warming trend given above for the USA is 0.12 degF/decade (0.75 degC/century), which is in close accord with the IPCC FAR (0.74 degC/century).

NOAA serves the people in the same manner as the aliens in the famous Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man. “It’s a cookbook, it’s a cookbook!”

Dan Maloney says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:52 am
The use of the word “consecutive” in the NOAA press release is a blatant lie.

con·sec·u·tive (k n-s k y -t v). adj. 1. Following one after another without interruption; successive

From the data it is obvious that this is not so unless you twist the meaning to be consecutive in terms of temperature instead of in year order.

Look at the graph at the top of the post. The black line is the long-term average. The black dots are the annual figure. The last 14 black dots, that is 14 following one after another without interruption; successive are all above the black line. Making 2010 the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. So, not a lie, just another contrarian unable to comprehend facts.

This data hasn’t been tortured enough.

Wonder if they have tried water boarding the numbers? It works for Hansen/GISS.

Frequent readers here will recognise a problem with the trend line in the graph – linear fit to a periodic function will more closely reflect the phase of start and end conditions rather than the underlying trend.

Kate says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:50 am
2.) Use their massive computing power to “massage” the 1934 temperature downwards while “massaging” the 1998 (or some other year) upwards.
=========================================================
Kate, that’s obvious. When you follow the trail of the old press releases, 1934 was adjusted down each time.

They are talking about 10th and 100th of a degree.
It’s not possible to get those temperature measurements from 100 years ago,
not even 50 years ago.

It’s all a scam………

They have had over 30 years to prove their “guess”..
.. they haven’t been able to prove it

I just saw something to the effect that 2010 was the 12th coldest in the UK since 1890.

This is probably because the USA uses more Air-Con that any other country, by a large margin, so it’s that much cooler.

I am confident that if their calculations showed the USA temperature to be a record and the global temperature to be 94th out of the 116, then the press release would have been all about the national temperature. They have an agenda to push and will emphasize what supports their agenda.
Speaking of the global temperature, the CAGW movement has frequently referred to the 2010 El Nino as a mild El Nino. This characterization is misleading. Not only was it a significant El Nino, its effect lasted an extraordinary time outside of the NINO 3.4 SST window.
A request to Anthony or posters: when a temperature series is the main point of a post, it would be great to have a little reference on what adjustments are made to that series. For example, GISS has its adjustment for UHI and TOBS. NCDC is adjusted for TOBS, but not for UHI.

Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?
—

Probably the parts that are 250km or more from a thermometer.

jimmi

All of these comparisons are made using wildly adjusted (read fudged or altered or faked) data sets. The entire warmth of 2010 is extremely questionable and largely isolated in the Hudson Bay area. It is not just the USA that is or has been cold.

In addition the constant retroactive adjusting of the historical data makes all of these comparisons completely meaningless propaganda exercises. The last decade is not particularly warm compared to the prefudged data of the 1930s. Your statement that 1934 was only locally warm is unsupportable in light of the known bias and post hoc adjustments in the data sets

rushmikey says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:03 am
….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

about 1.5% of the total earth surface, about 6% of the total land surface

The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!

We live in the age of conspiracies while at the same time being socially engineered to ignore them through the use of crafty language. Words like “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are designed to make you feel bad about exploring deeper into the subject presented. You now instinctively turn away from the topic whenever you here these words out of someones mouth, as if you’ve been hypnotized to do so. No words will set your mind at ease and allow you to delve into the issue further. Through constant repetition of the feel bad words, you are very controlled. Not even when the words are corrected to indicate the true nature of the exercise with such words as “Conspiracy Researcher”, will your mind be put at ease. Continue reading at your own risk.

Senator Barbara Boxer adds this hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax(trade) bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow cause us more war;
“I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way.” National security experts? What do they know that we don’t? Ridiculous? Maybe not, if some people don’t get what they want.

The awakening has arrived. Renaissance 2.0 has begun. The covers have been blown off one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the world. The entire planet had been sucked into the greatest scientific hoax of all time. The man-made global warming conspiracy theory was proven with help from the release of Climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia in England on November 20th 2009. To todays date, no one knows who the hackers are, but that’s beside the point. The blogosphere and alternative media crowd sourced the information at a rapid pace. It is one of the most researched conspiracies known to man.

Most of the actors in the conspiracy were unwitting participants due to the compartmental nature of their duties, as most conspiracies are designed to work. They are eager participants and accessories to the conspiracy. The man-made global warming theory, also known as CAGW, was devised as a social engineering experiment to create the backbone of the one world government. It was to be a major component of the financing for the new world order.

Accepters of the unproven AGW theory blindly accepted the notion well before many of the facts were in. They call me a denier. I am an accepter of the AGW conspiracy theory now that it has been proven, while I deny the theory of man-made global warming due to the flawed science behind it.

The mainstream media is complicit in covering up the conspiracy for refusing to discuss the Climategate emails on prime time TV and promoting the theory as fact to the masses for their corporate overlords pocketbooks. They are the social engineers mouth pieces and co-conspirators with the upper echelon of players in this case.

(This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?

I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116″?

the warmists pushing this pack of lies no longer care if it has any relationship to actual facts. I think they have found it quite liberating not to be tied to any actual numbers, now they are free to make up anything they want whenever they want.

And that is all that comes out of them anymore. It is no longer possible for any honest, decent, person to buy into their idiocy. Which defines who is left.

that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits? says jimmi.

Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.

“it didn’t meet that criteria”

The singular of “criteria” is “criterion”. “those criteria” would be apropriate if there were actually more than one criterion referenced.

“it didn’t meet that criterion”

And to put a significantly important and note-worthy width of a hair’s touch to your article, you should have stated that Trenberth says this rank could have been much worse were it not for global warming. And more immensely globally policy importantly, the rank of 94 instead of 95 is proof of global warming. And even though it is less worse than we thought, it is proof that it is much worse than we thought. Don’cha know.

While it may be that the US is a small part of the global land mass, it is also the portion with the most consistent and documented instrumentation (and even that documentation has problems). Much of the data for the rest of the world (Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand being exceptions) is simulated by statistically smearing the few sensors that exist over the land mass. So while it may be a small part of the globe, combined with the reliable sensors in western Europe and Australia and New Zealand, it gives a pretty reliable snapshot. If it is getting colder in US and western Europe, that gives a good idea of Northern Hemisphere activity. If it is getting cooler or staying fairly constant in New Zealand and Australia, that gives a good idea of the Southern Hemisphere. Now if we can work on getting the instrumentation more robust in the rest of the world, we will be able to make some good projections – and in about 1,000 years there will be enough reliable data to make some good time series statistics.

This is blatant cherry picking, a regional result in the USA need not have been mentioned at all. When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

This is despite the claim that we should be in a cooling cycle and that solar activity is neutral or if anything is cooling at the moment. Obviously on a regional level things are getting more extreme while the extra water in the atmosphere and temp differentials between the land, ocean and atmosphere are increasing.

For those carping about noting that the US wasn’t particularly warm, of course it makes a difference. It’s supposed to be global warming, right? Well, clearly it isn’t global as the US and many other major populated areas were not warm. So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc. What’s the matter, doesn’t the killer CO2 work its evil ways in all parts of the globe? This would all be laughable if it had not advanced so far into the consciousness of so many people.

The funny thing about conspiracies are, you don’t know it is an actual conspiracy till it’s exposed.

>>Louise says: I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116″? <<

Yeah, what she said…

I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute going back to 1872. I plotted the daily minimum and daily maximum temperature (in deg F) as a function of day from 1872 to present (49052 data points) and fit to a line using linear regression. Slope was 0.000062 +/- 0.000011

Next I averaged all data for a given year and plotted the average as a function of year and fit to a line: slope was -0.00085 +/- 0.0070

Then I fit the entire daily temperature going back to 1872 with a sinusoidal wave. I subtrated this sinusoidal wave from the raw data and obtained the residual daily temperature as a function of day. I fit this data to a line an obtained a slope of -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050

Linear Rgression Slope summary:
Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
Residuals: -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050 F

Can I conclude that Philadelphia PA is showing absolutely no warming or cooling over the past 138 years? So if Philly isn’t warming, other places on the earth must be warming that much more to show an overall global average increase.

By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less) One was positive and two were negative as well. This further proves my point that boiling down the entire globe’s temperature to a single yearly average and then fitting trends to this data is really not mathematically accurate

I am the farthest thing from being an AGW proponent, but I’m 100% sure the NCDC’s “hottest year” designation for 2010 was for the entire planet, not the US. This is kind of a red herring. It is not a surprise to anyone who’s paying attention that 2010 was not a record breaker for the US with how cold Jan, Feb and Dec were across the country.

nandheeswaran jothi says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:12 am
rushmikey says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:03 am
….and exactly what percentage of the Earths surface is made up of the USA?

about 1.5% of the total earth surface, about 6% of the total land surface

but about 22% of the land surface at our latitude band AND a significant number (majority?) of the land temp stations, which is what they’re measuring for the global average.

Pamela Gray says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:28 am
Trenberth says this rank could have been much worse were it not for global warming
=====================================================
Is there anyone that didn’t see that one coming?

Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.

If they can’t even get it right a few months in advance……………………

wayne Job says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:17 am

I concur; RSA (where I am) was most definitely cooler in 2010, together with every English speaking country in the world it appears. Perhaps the other (non – English) numbers are “lost in translation” LOL.

jimmi says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:28 am
“Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?”

You have to ask? That would be all the places in the world where no actual temperature measurements are made. The Warmista have been reducing the number of measurement sites for years. Whenever they show a graph of temperature, such as the one above, they should also show a graph of declining measurement stations. If the Warmista used only the warmer areas where actual measurements are made, they could not arrive at the higher global temperature that they have published.

Robert L says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:50 am
“Frequent readers here will recognise a problem with the trend line in the graph – linear fit to a periodic function will more closely reflect the phase of start and end conditions rather than the underlying trend.”

You could use a series of trend lines that fall within the period. Not something that would catch on here though, it shows that the warming is accelerating.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/mean:25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:2010/trend

Green Acres says:

So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc.
__________________________________

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but of course it matters if global temperatures are rapidly rising. A good skeptic should be concerned. What is unclear are issues such as “climate sensitvity” and factors other than man-made CO2 in driving climate. If gobal averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span, then we will of course have a great deal of problems. Skeptics don’t doubt this. What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbacks, naturally occuring variations etc.

Again, I’m kind of hoping you were joking.

Probably correct in stating that at least a mention of the U.S. temps for 2010 would have been in order– however irrelevent that would be to the global perspective. Along with that would be a mention that 37 U.S. states set night time HIGH temperature records during the summer of 2010– and as most of you should know, higher night time temperatures are stated to more indicative of general warming from GHG’s. (greater LW backradiation with greater GHG’s). See:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/hottestsummer/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/09/summer-set-records-for-night-time-temperatures/1

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/09/06/20100906phoenix-weather-summer.html

How come the only places warming are the places that have the fewest thermometers? :-O

Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave? In addition, the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies for the year. The global number is correct. Don’t think that these anomalies will go away or never affect the U.S.

Dr. Spencer says global temps have gone down 0.7 F since this time last year.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/global-temperatures-have-dropped-0-5c-in-the-last-12-months/#comment-30820

Not sure about some of the analysis here. All 14 of the last years have been above the long-term average displayed on the chart. So, yes, this was the 14th consecutive year with an average temperature above the long-term average.

But there were also only 2 years since 1998 with a temperature *lower* than 2010. so it all depends on how you want to spin the numbers.

Can someone explain to me why noted skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer’s global temperature calculation also shows 2010 to be so hot (the red line is the 13 month average)? Is he cooking the books too?

Best be careful how loud you crow, Anthony. Although I believe we are heading for a definite period of global cooling on the decade scale, look again at those tables. 1934 was a hot year in the US, but 1933 ranked 93. 1998 was a hot year in the US, but 1997 ranked 76! So if 2010 ranked as very cool, there is a high probability that 2011 or 2012 will rank very warm! Then the AGW vultures will be eating your flesh for a whole year.

Instead of giving the appearance in our speech that the world is becoming an ice cube, we should be focusing on the non-linear behavior of climate change. The only upward trend is the long-term thawing trend from the last ice age. Ice at the poles is the anomaly, it is not the norm for this planet. Natural thawing will occur because the planet is not meant to be this cold.

In order for global warming theorists to be right, they need to peg CO2 levels to temperatures, which they cannot when the historical records are considered for the past millions of years.

RE: Owen says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:35 am

** Now if we can work on getting the instrumentation more robust in the rest of the world, we will be able to make some good projections – and in about 1,000 years there will be enough reliable data to make some good time series statistics.**
No, they already had observations and closed stations or deleted them from the list. It is easier and cheaper to fill-in, plus you get the desired result.

C3 did an interesting post on recent NCDC temperatures: http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-reports-that-1998-temperature-was-13-degrees-warmer-than-2010-us-cooling-at-94-per-century-rate.html

and also this newer one about “temperature change” for the UK’s CET series:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/are-modern-temp-changes-unprecedented-2010cet.html

The “warmest” year meme pushed by Hansen et al appears to be pretty lame, IMO.

2010 not the warmest year in the USA??? {scratch head smile} So what? Another stellar thread …

REPLY: Jack, thanks for making it clear you don’t care about the climate in the country you live in. – Anthony

**Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.**

Possibly, maybe even probably, true. The big problem with this statement being that we have in recent years seen excellent analyses showing that supposedly anomolously high temperatures in these regions we manufactured or mistaken.
But I’m sure we can trust them all now.

The US and Europe are the areas with the most intensive and presumably reliable temp data while the Arctic and the Middle East had the warmest year while having the least reliable and intensive temp data.

So in effect this measurement of 2010 as a record warm year depends entirely on temp data from the least reliable parts of the planet measured to tenths of a degree and going back a century.

Strange.

Warmest ever? Not remotely in Britain. The temperature in 2010 at 8.83C was identical to the first year of the record in 1659.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

We simply must stop accepting that we know the global temperature to tenths of a degree back to 1880-its complete hubris to believe that.

Combining a SST back to the same date is nothing short of nonsensical, we have no idea whatsoever what the SST’s were, other than in a few shipping lanes, which even then were taken haphazardly in bizarre ways.

Tonyb

Since this is about the climate in the U.S. it should be mentioned that there is a large net migration from the north to the south in the U.S. People desire warmer climates not colder. Actions speak louder than words. While the climate boffins are trying to convince us that warming is bad people are actually relocating from colder regions to warmer ones.

The bottom line for me isn’t whether or not the globe is warming but rather whether or not warming is desireable. All the evidence points to warming being desireable. Cold sucks.

Why no option for a polynomial trend line, I wonder?

A fairly obvious 60-year cycle in evidence there once more, with the most recent cycle at a slightly higher (perhaps 0.5F) level than the last one. I dare say that, between them, higher TSI in the second half of the 20th century and proven UHI contamination of surface readings can easily cover off that 0.5F.

The contribution of anthropogenic (lovely word – so similar to pathogenic and carcinogenic in its imagery) emissions to the upward trend would appear, in the US at least, to be equivalent to that of Bigfoot flatulence…

From the same site:

Annual 1901 – 2000 Average = 52.79 degF
Annual 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.94 degF / Decade

Oh it’s getting warmer in the USA……

RR Kampen says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:25 am
Sure. Canadian Archipel, much of the Arctic; Antarctic Peninsula; region from Red Sea to Caspian Sea. To name but land areas.

So that’s 1% of the surface stations then!

Temperature is not measured to +/- 0.01 deg F. In the early records of the USHCN temperature data are reported to nearest whole degree F with an implied measurement error of +/- 1 deg F. Thus all of the temperature data below 1999 should be 54 deg F.

Since measurement error is +/- 1 deg F, it is not possible to determine which is the hottest year. More importantly, the data show there has been no warming in the US since 1895!

Since these so-called climate scientists do not know how to measure temperature and use the data properly, I have concluded these guys really don’t know what they are doing and can be ignored. No experimentalist would ever make these mistakes.

I going print out the table, make an amended table, and send these with my comments to Premier Stephen Harper.

You yanks should do this for the entire record and send hard copy of the data and your comments to your members of the Congress and to your state and local politticians.

I have always said that temperature measurements are not that accurate and if data are rounded off to nearest whole degree, global warming vanishes.

As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

But as for the last year, it’s interesting how they carbon crowd can say that we’ve had record heating when many worldwide events say otherwise. Granted, a stationary high pressure area in Russia accounted for extremely high temperatures for a time last summer… and undoubtedly these temperatures were then extrapolated 1200km into the Arctic and used to help defend this new record anomaly. But what about the record cold temps in South America last July? How about the snow falling in Australia as summer was starting? Now the US is in a deep freeze as well as Europe for well over a month. Sorry… I don’t by this record or near-record crap.

I won’t say off with their heads! I do say drag them before Issa’s House committee and have them testify under oath. They could probably sell tickets and pay down the debt! I for one would love to see these guys squirm as they are exposed for their charlatan behavior.

ValoSnah

Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.

The topic of this post almost gets to the more important question. It’s not whether the US was not as hot, but which regions last year produced the preponderance of the abnormal warmth. Via this post, we know it wasn’t the US. I don’t recall Europe being overly hot. The Russian heat wave certainly added to the anomaly. The question is – how much of the extra heat is attributed to regions where the equipment is not well maintained, and the extra heat is more a result from one of the many “corrections”?

Remember that the NASA / NOAA claim to be the warmest year is not in line with the other three data sets, which say it’s a pinch lower.

latitude

Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.

And it was, globally.

Thanks to RRKampen and his warmist friends for coming onto these threads and providing comic relief. Your naivite and religious fervor for the AGW nonsense always provokes a hearty laugh. Anthony, is there some way to highlight these posts with a color so they’ll be easier to find? I’m always interested in the actual scientific discussion here, but sometimes you just need a chuckle (or maybe even a guffaw).

The Met Office sorted list for Central England (CET) has 2010 ranked 98th overall when ranked from coldest to warmist

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt

When you look at actual data against the 61-90 WMO recommended anomaly it looks as if the anomaly is designed to deceive…

Remember, 2010 has 76 years of population/cityr/UHI growth over 1934.

Without a doubt 1934 is the wamest year and the 1930s are the warmest decade.

Only through maniuplation and bogus papers setting UHI at .03C or some such stupid value is 1934 not the warmest year.

Michael

When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

It is indeed desperate, but what can you expect from a site such as this? They have to desperately grab hold of what few remaining nuggets of truth can be twisted to appear to back up their increasingly way-out world view.

As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

That could be the strapline of this website, Dave.

[Reply: If you don't like it here you are free to move on. ~dbs, mod.]

Louise says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:19 am
“I can’t understand the table – why is the hottest year (1998) ranked as 116th? Surely it should be ranked 1st and so 2010 would be 23rd of 116 not, as you said, “ranking 94th out of 116″?

This must be a spoof of Louise Gray of the UK Daily Telegraph! Even she could not be this stupid…..anyway – good spoof, keep it up and thanks for making me chuckle.

Regards
Michael

Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:03 am
ValoSnah

“Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?”

“But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.”

“Joint warmest with 1998 with 1998 and 2010 both being El Nina shows that despite 12 years of CO2 increase we have had 12 years of no change temp wise Globally.”

And that’s being generous, as the GISS data is the warmest temp record of them all.

I bet if you drilled into the data you could possibly find a particular station for which 2010 was one of the coldest years on record, this would instantly prove that the idea of global warming is all a big scam!

It’s only by cherry picking the globle as a whole that you can show there’s a warming trend! Don’t they know it’s only the US temperature that matters?!?

Hey guys, as for the greatly under-instrumented Canadian Arctic. I have a serious question regarding the “warmest ever” claims. Does it matter at all that most of the “way above average” temperatures occurred in sub zero conditions?

Here
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png

the DMI shows 2010 arctic temps, and they were pretty much above average for the entire “cold” period, Jan to April, Sept to Dec, but the “warm” period was almost entirely below average.

Does this have any significance in how we can analyze the results?

Thanks for your time.

BillyBob says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:18 am

Remember, 2010 has 76 years of population/cityr/UHI growth over 1934.

Without a doubt 1934 is the wamest year and the 1930s are the warmest decade.

Only through maniuplation and bogus papers setting UHI at .03C or some such stupid value is 1934 not the warmest year.

Exactly, the likes of Roger Otip and Michael crack me up because they “have to desperately grab hold of what few remaining nuggets of truth can be twisted to appear to back up their increasingly way-out world view”.

Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:03 am
ValoSnah
Isn’t the global temperature more interresting than the US segment?

“But the news that last year was the joint warmest ever recorded doesn’t fit comfortably with the political ideology of most who frequent this website.”

Surely by now we all know that the burden of proof is on the Warmista to show that the “average global temperature,” as calculated by James Hansen and his followers, is not a total and complete fiction. We, meaning everybody, have some grip on average temperatures in the USA, though I do not believe for one minute that readings to tenths of a degree are meaningful, but a “global average temperature” is not reasonably tethered to actual measurements that might be used in criticism of the final, calculated result.

It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year.

I broke down temperature means by month across the country. Least cold would be more accurate than hottest. Here’s my results for any curious Canadians.

http://daviditron.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/canadian-monthly-temperature-anomalies-2010/

Is it beyond the wit of man to actually measure temperatures in all the regions that are currently subject to “adjustment” and “extrapolation”? We managed to leave “weather stations” on the moon 40 years ago! Perhaps some of the “save the polar bear expeditions” could do something useful and leave weather stations on their travels that could be cheaply and easily monitored by satellite? And can we please standardise on weather stations that are outside of cities, and not at airports?

I am neither a warmist nor a denier – but a scientist – and therefore a sceptic by definition!

It would be interesting to learn which countries had one of their warmest ever years, which did not and which had one of their coldest.

The UK had the coldest December since records began. January and February were also much colder than average, with unusually heavy snowfalls in the South. Much of the summer failed to materialise but I believe that Hadcrut managed to show that 2010 was a warm year in the UK despite CET records.

According to the Norwegian MET Office, the average temperature for the country as a whole was 1 deg C below normal. This makes it the 10th coldest year on record for a series that goes back to the year 1900. You have to go back to 1941 to find a colder year. The coldest year in the series was 1915.

What is interesting in the comments they give, is that a number of costal stations more or less surrounded by sea records 0.6 deg C below the normal, something that suggest lower sea temperatures. Also the western coastline had an average of 1.2 deg C below normal making it the 3rd coldest for this region. This part of the country is usually rather mild due to the Gulf current.

They also state that the only stations showing higher than normal temperatures for the year were the arctic stations without breaking out the details. I guess the Longyearbyen airport must be one of them.

Mainland Norway runs from about 58 deg North up to about 72.

Details in Norwegian at http://met.no/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=7567

December monthly temperatures since 1928 show no trend.

Also, GISS shows rising temps, contrary to all other metrics.

“Monroe says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
According to the 2011 World Almanac:

22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”

1 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 2000′s and 1 record low during that decade.

6 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1990′s and 6 record lows during that decade.

So Climate disruption was 9 to 22 times more prevelant in the 30′s than the past decade. Consider the outcry if all those records were set this past decade.

Monroe:

Did the “decade of 2000′s” include 2010? Probably not. I remember reading about 12 new US State all time record highs during 2010, mostly in the East. Sorry, I couldn’t find the reference. Also, 19 countries set all time daily highs during 2010. Several of these were in the Middle East. Notable records (in degrees F) included Russia (112.7), Finland (99) and Pakistan (128.3). However, I think that global averages are more important that averages or highs for particular regions, countries or states. Perhaps if Anthony is more patient, NOAA will publish and analysis of the US temperature records for 2010.

Joint warmest with 1998 with 1998 and 2010 both being El Nina shows that despite 12 years of CO2 increase we have had 12 years of no change temp wise Globally.

2010 was joint warmest with 2005 according to NOAA and GISS, joint warmest with 1998 according to UAH, and whilst 1998 had the El Nino of the century, in 2010 a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July.

The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.

NASA GISS

[Since we are now only 1/2 degree C above the mid-1970 baseline, isn't that less than 0.50 degrees C TOTAL over 5 decades (1960 through 2010) or about 0.10 degree per decade. Robt]

I don’t know whether 2011 will be warmer or cooler – I suspect the latter – but I predict that it will be the year of the troll . Thanks for nothing but the hits , guys (pushing 67 mil .)

Harold Pierce brings up an excellent point. What is the statistical significance of these fractional computed temperature anomalies based upon a record with such a large error range?

Dave in Canmore

It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year.

I broke down temperature means by month across the country. Least cold would be more accurate than hottest.

From this map it looks like the major warm anomalies were in the north east of Canada, so perhaps in Canmore 2010 wasn’t particularly warm (or less cold).

Well from 1895-2010 you have about 115 years, or closing rapidly on four complete climate cycles of 30 years; well let’s be generous, and say at least three cycles.

And cyclic behavior is certainly apparent in that 115 year data.

So whose idea is that green “trend” line; and what is their justification for that. Do trend lines continue unbroken or bent all the way back to the PreCambrian of 600 million years ago; or what is the rule; to be used only by fully accredited climate scientists worthy of being colleagures of Dr Kevin Trneberth; rather than Charlatans; maybe they are just charlatans, not even deserving of capitalisation.

I think a cyclic fit to that 115 years of presumably real data, is a far more credible “Trend” that that green line is.

It is not just the U.S. Take a look at what is happening in England.

http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/official-data-from-the-uk-mirrors-the-recent-cooling-trend-for-the-u-s/

“”"”" Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
As an old boss of mine used to say to me quite frequently… “don’t confuse me with facts.”

That could be the strapline of this website, Dave.

[Reply: If you don't like it here you are free to move on. ~dbs, mod.] “”"”"

I usually don’t like to poke my nose in where it doesn’t belong; particularly in somebody else’s play pen like Anthony has here; but Roger Otip seems to be just the latest of the warmista newbies to stumble in here; or maybe tipped off by some friend or “Colleague” to come over here, and set us all straight.

Well Roger, you are; as I said just the latest of a long line. Now we have quite a few truly serious supporters of the AGW thesis, who come here, and engage in debate; and offer data, and other information, along with their opinions; and they generally get their points across, and get seriously listened to and debated.
Purely as an example, I could mention Joel Shore; who participates, as a reasonable person; and one who is knowledgeable of what he discusses here.

So Roger, if you want to just come over, and toss all the furniture around; that goes over like a lead balloon; and a lot better than you have tried.

But if you want to contribute, and add to the science debate; well just present some of YOUR stuff like a rational and civilized person; and you too might find yourself getting listened to.

Yes we resort to comedy, and sarcasm; well we have to to keep our sanity at times; given some of the nutcakes (on both sides of the border); but when we do stick our nose to the grindstone; we can dig up all kinds of stuff, that you won’t find over at the star studded places like CR (did I get that the wrong way round); so you might enjoy yourself here. But I can tell you, as a bull in a China shop; you are a rank amateur.

Since I rigorously censor myself; and if I didn’t Chasmod would kick my arse; you probably don’t know that I can kick up more mud than even Mount Vesuvius knows how to sling; but then that isn’t civilised.

Apparently, a lot of that heat came from Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.html. We didn’t set any records in my region of Canada, but certainly it has been above average in others.

I have been curious about where UK’s 2010 ranked and had to do a lot of digging on the Met’s web site to finally find this story in the archives:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/cold-dec

If you plod through almost to the end of the 2010 stats you find: “In 2010 the UK recorded a provisional mean temperature of 8.0 °C, making it the 12th coldest year in the series, that goes back to 1910.”

I was annoyed to discover that the above was not linked in their 2010 archive section (I mean I REALLY had to dig to find this). In the archive section they are still highlighting this gem: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20101202b.html

Remember this: “The preliminary figure for January to October 2010 is 0.52 °C above the long-term average on the Met Office – Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT3) dataset, placing it equal with the record-breaking 1998.”

The average person looking for 2010 stats will easily find this release, which omits data from rest of 2010, while the complete annual statistics are hidden elsewhere. Seems apparent this is an intentional effort to mislead the public.

BillD says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Monroe says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:39 am
According to the 2011 World Almanac:

“22 State record high temperatures set during the decade of the 1930′s and 9 record lows during that decade. ”

Speaking from personal experience, including careful monitoring of Wunderground for my local area(s), I find that this so-called data is just screamingly worthless. Identify for me the thermometers that were used to “record” the record high and I can identify another thermometer within six blocks of each whose inclusion would have yielded a record low. Isn’t this obvious from Wunderground.com?

Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:12 am

The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!…

(This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?

Imo, there are two kinds of “Conspiracy Theories”: the ones that can be proven or falsified, and the ones that can never be falsified, usually because their adherents won’t let them be falsified – their adherents perhaps never allow themselves to “feel falsified” [Kealey] so they will never admit to any significant doubt; therefore, the second kind of Conspiracy Theories don’t actually say anything at all, while the form of the statement or “theory” makes it look like it says something about objective reality. But since nothing can possibly falsify the apparent statement or theory, and it is therefore “consistent with” whatever exists or happens, it says exactly nothing.

The Climate Science CO2CAGW “theory” is actually the second kind of Conspiracy Theory itself, put into practice by its witting and unwitting Conspiracy type one conspirators: it actually says nothing. It’s purpose is solely propagandistic or “religious”.

George E. Smith says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:26 am

Good call! Let us have no one throwing around the furniture.

Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:36 am (Edit)

This is blatant cherry picking, a regional result in the USA need not have been mentioned at all. When talking about climate change we are talking about GLOBAL not regional conditions. Fact is GISS and HADCRUT3 both put 2010 as equal hottest year, with 2001 to 2010 the hottest decade on record and the previous decade the second hottest. Running away to regional results are not going to change those facts, this is very desperate.

This is despite the claim that we should be in a cooling cycle and that solar activity is neutral or if anything is cooling at the moment. Obviously on a regional level things are getting more extreme while the extra water in the atmosphere and temp differentials between the land, ocean and atmosphere are increasing.

What “peer-reviewed” so-called climate scientists are claiming ” we should be in a cooling cycle”? Why are they making that claim?

The world’s climate has been heating up since 1750. Who is denying that?

Why, then, do you justify ANY flattening/cooling of ANY kind between 2000 and 2030? What “science” are you (any one, of any type, actually!) using to justify a ten year, twenty year, or thirty year “flat spot” in what “should be” according to EVERY global climate model a steady increase in temperature from 1970 through 2300?

OK, so you claim “weather” not “climate” for any short term deviation from your GCM’s heatup. Fine. So, how long need temperatures be “flat-lining” before the models are invalid and proved wrong by actual data?
5 years?
10 years?
15 years?
20 years?
25 years?
30 years?

Since GISS’s “worldwide” temperatures are based on 1200 km extrapolations from isolated Arctic single shore-based stations, what part of “isolated locations” (whole areas of un-instrumented square kilometers) can also be “eliminated” as “un-interesting” or un-important?

Can a skeptic also ignore any arbitrary 1.5% area of the globe that she wishes?

Are you denying that we are in a periodic 66 year short cycle of oscillating temperatures cycling around a 900-year long oscillating cycle?

As others have pointed out, Canada had its ‘warmest year ever’ and this will be incorporated into the GISS record and translated as ‘since their records began in 1880.

The trouble is that Nationwide Canadian records only started in 1948

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/01/12/environment-2010-climate-hottest-warmest-year.htm

Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:08 am
latitude

Just a few months ago, they were all saying for a “fact” that 2010 would be the warmest.

And it was, globally.

No it was not, globally:

Global – Last 20 years

Roger Otip says:
“Isn’t the global temperature more interesting than the US segment?”

To say we have any idea of what global temperatures were 100 or even 50 years ago in places like Africa or Antarctica with a level of accuracy of less then a degree is a bit of a stretch. Together Africa and Antarctica make up 30% of the land mass.

The same is true for oceans temperatures. Ship captains make a point of avoiding bad weather, so whatever we think we know about historical ocean temperature is biased by that fact.

Global warming is supposed to make temperatures increase, right along with CO2 levels.

Since, for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined and gone down a little, when things get back to “global warming normal”, can we expect a huge jump in temperatures?
If not, how will global warming normal make up the difference?

Real data is not allowed for interpreting which years are most hot. The data must be “adjusted” and then “interpreted” only by “Climate Experts”. Real Data has no place in AGW “Science”.

This is where the 2010 mean yearly Central England temp sits from the 1659 to 2010 record using an Excel ranking. The same as 1659, 1676, 1754, 1902, and 1956.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

251 8.86 1836
252 8.86 1985
253 8.85 1864
254 8.84 1808
255 8.84 1907
256 8.83 1659
257 8.83 1676
258 8.83 1754
259 8.83 1902
260 8.83 1956
261 8.83 2010

I forgot to make a comment:

These drongos must be living on a different planet !!

An Inquirer says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:03 am

Yep! It is like the old joke of the 2 nation track meet as reported in Pravda: The Grand and Glorious People’s Republic of the USSR finished second! The dirty capitalistic imperialistic USA finished second to last.

Dave in Canmore says: January 14, 2011 at 8:57 am

It was claimed that 2010 was Canada’s hottest year….

A quick glance show that all of your data comes from withing a few 100 km of the southern edge of Canada. My understanding is that the arctic regions are the sections showing the most warming, so it would not be surprising that your subset shows a different result than a true average for the whole area of Canada. Deliberately choosing a non-representative subset is almost guaranteed to give anomalous results.

Have you tried repeating your analysis using 8 sites that all fall within a few 100 km of the NORTHERN edge?

Magnus says:
“if global averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span…”
“What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbbacks, naturally occuring variations, etc.”

Magnus, you are missing the forest for the trees. Step back from the minutiae of this debate for a minute and look at the big picture. The hypothesis underlying AGW is that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. I emphasize, global warming, not warming in the Arctic, or the Antarctic Peninsula, but warming all over the globe. Is it not clear that this is not happening? Is it not clear that some parts of the globe are warming while some are cooling? And that next year the warming and cooling will be reversed for any given region. Further , is it not clear that the “average” warming the world has experienced say in the last 150 years has been trivial? Global average temperature is not “soaring upwards” in any time frame even if you accept the tortured statistics presented by “climate science”. And what is the real world utility of a global temperature average anyway? It is a totally artificial construct. The fact that it is 18 below zero in Dismal Seepage Alaska, rather than the “normal” 22 bleow, is meaningless to a person in Colorado, where it might be 4 degrees colder. And please, no lectures about the interconnectedness of everything, etc. You can debate feedbacks and the like all you want, but we have learned enough by now to know that the whole notion of CAGW is a non-starter.

94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?

Makes a BIG difference (not as this is USA and not Global)

Nolo Contendere says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
Reasonable debate from both sides are welcome here. Unfortunately your comment wasn’t.

Yes, isnt it strange how “global” warming avoids England and the US. How can it be global, when it avoids large continents?

Oh yes, thats right, “global” warming only hits where nobody lives. And where there are no thermometers.

Even with all the downward adjustments of the 1930s and the upward adjustments of recent years (and completeing ignoring UHI) 5 of the top 24 years are from the 1930s.

1934, 1931, 1939, 1938, 1933

Imagine where they would be if you used unmanipulated data and adjusted modern data downwards for UHI … and moved some of the thermometers away from airports.

BillD says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:32 am

“Did the “decade of 2000′s” include 2010? Probably not. I remember reading about 12 new US State all time record highs during 2010, mostly in the East. Sorry, I couldn’t find the reference. Also, 19 countries set all time daily highs during 2010. Several of these were in the Middle East. Notable records (in degrees F) included Russia (112.7), Finland (99) and Pakistan (128.3). However, I think that global averages are more important that averages or highs for particular regions, countries or states. Perhaps if Anthony is more patient, NOAA will publish and analysis of the US temperature records for 2010.”

Those were all daily records not all time state records.
Try this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13

How many thermometers were in the middle east in the 30′s?
Official World wide temperatures will continue to increase untill the snow and ice elevation at the north pole reaches 100 meters.

Latitude,
Why obviously it would have been much colder if not for the AGW…./sarc

Those who argue about “global” temperatures might consider that current SH temperatures are below the 1940 global peak.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/last:2400

Maybe the SH lagged the USA by a few years, but late 1930s to early 1940s were warmer than almost every year – and modern years are UHI contaminated.

Also, I have heard that global records were somewhat polluted during the Soviet era, the weather station readings in Siberia determined the fuel rations, thus Siberia read out VERY cold then. If these readings are still in use in the global database, there would be a definite warm bias built in since the 1990′s. Of course most of those stations have now been withdrawn, so no worries, we’ll just smear the stations on the edge of the Mongolian desert right up to the Arctic to compensate. What could go wrong…

Magnus says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:11 am
Green Acres says:

So why would the US then spend billions of dollars to combat a problem which doesn’t exist in the US? Or exist in Australia, western Europe, etc.
__________________________________

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but of course it matters if global temperatures are rapidly rising. A good skeptic should be concerned. What is unclear are issues such as “climate sensitvity” and factors other than man-made CO2 in driving climate. If gobal averages keep soaring upwards in a short time span, then we will of course have a great deal of problems. Skeptics don’t doubt this. What is being debated (or should be debated) are feedbacks, naturally occuring variations etc.

Again, I’m kind of hoping you were joking.

I think (at least as far as the UK is concerned) that Green Acres is correct and I have for several years been making posts to that effect. As far as the UK is concerned, an increase in temperatures would be entirely beneficial with no significant downside.
The UK would enjoy longer food growing seasons, more food production, we could increase our wine industry (with many new job opportunities), the warmer and milder climate would benfit the old, people would spend less money on heating, there would be less winter accidents, there would be an increase in tourism (with yet more job opporunities) etc.

Therefore GW is in the UK’s own interest and this suggests that there is a strong argument for the UK government to pursue domestic and foreign policies that would encourage GW. The only argument against pursuing such policies is whether a country should be obliged to act in the best interests of others. A novel concept which to date has not been pursued by any country these past few thousand years.

As regards the moral question, can the UK do anything that would assist other countries? The short answer is No. The UK now has little in the way of industry and if the UK was to stop all its CO2 emissions, it would have all but no effect on the total global CO2 emissions and would therefore not achive any reduction in global temperatures if these temperatures are rising truly as a result of manmade CO2 emissions.

Given the above facts, can any government justify pursuing a harmful policy (ie., one that is not in the interests of its own citizens) in decarbonising the economy which will reek havoc and which force millions in to fuel poverty and will results in many thousands of deaths when that policy will be futile and will do nothing to save the world?

I would say No. Given the futility of the action, the UK government ought really be acting in the best interests of its citizens and should be pursuing policies that promote GW.

I accept that the position as far as the States is concerned may be different since the States is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions and can therefore in theory pursue policies that could achive a significant reduction in global CO2 emissions. However, even from the perspective of the States, this would be accademic unless developing countries such as China, India and Brazil also pursue policies that curb CO2 emissions. There is little point in the States pursuing policies which would be thwarted by an increase in CO2 emissions from developing countries.

Of course, on the top of this is the question as to whether Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having any significant bearing on global temperatures, and whether there is any problem at all if global temperatures were to increase by more than 2 deg C. I think that the answer to the first question is very probably not and the answer to the second question is very probably that a warmer world would benefit the majority of citizens (and other life forms) of the world and that GW would for the majority of life on earth be a good thing. I am of the firm view that the predicted disasters are wrong,

Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:43 am
The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s.
=========================================================
Hi Roger.
Yes if you look at the longest temperature record for Central England the regression is similar but at 0.29 deg C per decade during same period but then flattens out after 1995 and becomes negative if 2010 temp is included.

But here’s the rub: 1695 to 1736 when there was no AGW, has a warming of 1.3 times greater than the “after 1970 period” at 0.39 Deg C per decade!!

Surprisingly an AP story yesterday did mention:

“In the U.S., it was the 23rd warmest year on record and the 14th year in a row with an annual temperature above the long-term average, according to NOAA’s preliminary analysis.”

Of course the story was more focused on all the hell breaking out because of AGW around the globe.

“But as we know, extreme events whether their cause is due to La Nina or El Nino or other factors, will be more intense in the era of climate change,” he added.”

Kevin MacDonald says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:08 am

On the other hand Kevin, Maybe the trend is NOT increasing

DaveE.

Erik Ramberg says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave?

Erik, according to the ipcc Climate Scientists, the Siberian warming and fires is surely “weather not climate”; at least until it conveniently next became anthropogenic “climate disruption”; but in which case the Siberian warming and fires has to involve a new climate, since the old one has been effectively “disrupted” by an allegedly semi-permanent, constant or recurrent force – an allegedly ongoing anthropogenic force, to boot, which we can allegedly see bieng applied.

However, unfortuneately for its CS, now ipcc Climate Science has actually changed its definitions such that “weather” = “climate”! Hence, according to CS there is no longer any such thing as “climate” as distinguished from “weather”, and conversely, and it therefore can’t “change” except perhaps as being good old “weather”; but which then brings the ipcc Climate Science back to its first definition, where “weather is not climate”.

Regardless, the Siberian warming has not been proven by Climate Science to even be “unprecedented” – CS merely made the claim and hopes everyone will trustingly or dutifully repeat it as part of its Propaganda Op..

And the Siberian warming and fires isn’t unprecedented, according to an historic narrative presented right here at WUWT in comments. going back to around 1200. But regardless of the validity of that narrative, it’s still completely CS’s responsibility to prove its claim that the Siberian warming and fires is unprecedented – think MWP – and that it is due to CO2CAGW climate change or disruption!

But, even then, Climate Science’s CO2CAGW “climate change” or “disruption” would still have to face the first problem described above, which renders what it says complete non-sense; again, because now it says “weather” = “climate” when the two words can only have seperate meanings by being contrasted with each other as different! In fact, CS’s use of either word now makes what it says using either word functionally meaningless. But that never stops a Propaganda Op..

If one wanted to know where the supposed heating is occurring, and one doesn’t trust surface temperature data, one could consult the satellite tropospheric data

For 2010 (see the very bottom graph), we see that much of the hottest anomalies were indeed in the polar regions.

It’s an interesting exercise to visually compare the December month-long and year-long maps.

This article is written as a rebuttal, yet no one has claimed that 2010 was the hottest year in the United States… I’m a bit confused.

anomAlies, excuse me

Definitely not the warmest year in Australia

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi

Tim Folkerts says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm

“A quick glance show that all of your data comes from withing a few 100 km of the southern edge of Canada. My understanding is that the arctic regions are the sections showing the most warming…”
—————————————————————————————————-
Hey Tim,
My post was clear that since 99% of Canadians live a few hundered kilometers from the southern edge, this was the area relevant to them A “national average” includes vasts area that have little to no effect on Canada’s poulation. It may be mathematically correct, but at odds with everyone’s experience.
More importantly though was a demonstration of the seasonal and regional variance lost in a large average. Additionally, the post showed that Canada was not “hot” but rather “less cold,” an important distinction that the news release turns on its head.

I wasn’t trying to recalculate their average, just show how meaningless it is when you break it down into times and places.

Louise says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
94th warmest out of 116 or 94th coolest of 116?

Makes a BIG difference
=============================================================
A quick look at the source data indicates that the ranking is coolest to warmest. Therefore the warmest year would be ranked 116. (2010 would rank 22 if warmest was ranked 1.) Incidently, NCDC ranks 1998 at 116 and 1934 at 114.

NASA GISS

[Since we are now only 1/2 degree C above the mid-1970 baseline, isn't that less than 0.50 degrees C TOTAL over 5 decades (1960 through 2010) or about 0.10 degree per decade. Robt]

As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.

latitude

for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

David L. says: January 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute … from 1872 to present (49052 data points)
I only found data through 1999 there(around 46,000 points), which will make some minor differences…

Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
I fit the highs and lows separately
High temp: 0.000067 +/-0.00000655
Low Temp: -0.000011 +/- 0.00000592
Avg Temp: 0.000028 +/-0.00000615

My average is going up more slowly than yours and has a smaller uncertainty (both about 1/2 of what you get).

Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
Yearly avg: +0.009269 +/- 0.003287
Here I get a result of the opposite sign AND 10x bigger AND half the error you got. I get a slope that is the same sign as before. (I did throw out 1872 and 1873 since they have almost no temperature data and hence the yearly average is not accurate at all.)

Frankly this is what made me look at the numbers to begin with. I can’t imagine that the temperature every day would be sloping up, but the annual temps sloping down. Again, slight difference in the time period (skipping the first 2 years; skipping the last decade) will make some difference, but it should not be a huge effect.

Also, the daily slope * 365 should be ~ the annual slope. My results are close to this.

By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less)

p-values for testing significance are 0.000, 0.072, and 0.000 for the daily High, Low, and Average regression fits. The upward slope to High & Average is HIGHLY significant. The downward slope to Low is close to significant.

The p-value for the annual fit was 0.006 — again clearly a significant upward slope.

I didn’t try the since fit, so I can’t comment there.

RECAP:
* I disagree that the annual temp is going down in Philly.
* I disagree that the results are not statistically significant.

FrankK

if you look at the longest temperature record for Central England

Here’s the link if anyone wants to, though of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be much lower over such a small region when compared with the global data, so though one can make out a warming trend, it is far less clear than the global trend.

Here would be a good place to remind everybody that GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS only go back to about 1980; well that is credible GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures; whcih I believe is what GISSTemp purports to be; and maybe HADDrud as well.

Prior to that time frame; thereabouts, GLOBAL Lower Tropospheric Atmospheric Temperatures for about 70% of the Total Global surface area; generally referred to as THE OCEANS was “inferred” not “measured”, and it was inferred by ASSUMING that the air Temperature, and the water Temperature were exactly the same thing. On land, we have these Owl Boxes, that measure the Temperature two metres (or so) above the Weber Grill; whereas out in the ocean where there are very few Weber Grills, they throw a bucket over the side, and gather water from some totally unknown water depth; and measure its Temperature while on the deck evaporating in the wind. Well eventually, they started taking the water from some unknown depth below the surface, via a cooling water intake, and the measured its Temperature probably down in a warm engine room somewhere without the howling wind.

Of course ocean water doesn’t stay in the same place; so you can go back to the exact same GPS co-ordinates in six months, and ocean current meandering will put you in entirely different waters from where you were last time.

So why would the ocean water; which maybe flows at a few knots, be the same Temperature as the air; that might go tens or hundreds of km per hour; so over Hawaii last week, and over the mainland USA this week.

Well John Christy et al, discovered all of this in about 2000 from about 20 years of ocean buoy studies of simultaneous lower Troposphere (+3 metres) and near surface Water (-1 metre) actual thermometric measurements of both at the same time.

They reported on this in Jan 2001, I believe in Geophysical Research Letters; and no; the water and air Temepratures are NOT the same; and also they are NOT correlated (why would they be?), so it is impossible to reconstruct any pre-1980 or so ocean lower Tropospheric Temperature data, prior to about 1980.
As I recall, they reported that the air Temperature change during those 20 years of buoy data collection, was 40% lower than the water Temperature change; or the air Temperature change was about 60% of the water temperature change; well those are near enough to the same thing within the IPCC 3:1 fudge factor.

So not I don’t believe proxy data for the whole globe prior to 1980; or even measured data.

The climate theory models might be spot on; but the data being fed to those models is itself garbage.

I’m not aware of ANY peer reviewed papers that refute what Christy et al reported in Jan 2001. Maybe it is there somewhere; as I said I am not aware of it; but then what do I know. I’m all ears to hear what contrarian data there is.

Roger Otip says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
latitude

For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

So, in other words, you agree with him? You did not even attempt to address his statement that temperatures have flatlined, i.e., that they are no longer increasing so you must agree. There is hope yet.

though of course the signal to noise ratio is going to be much lower over such a small region when compared with the global data

Which is only true for i.i.d. noise and error distributions, particularly ones in which the distributions are stationary. I’d suggest you study up on how the law of large numbers actually works. Certainly not as you suggest. Oh, and sorry, simply pointing out that there are fewer wiggles does not mean what you think, either.

Mark

And it was, globally.

No it was not, globally:

According to NASA GISS it was and according to NOAA it was joint warmest.

By the way, I don’t think any reputable climate scientist was saying for a fact that 2010 would be the warmest. That’s not how scientists talk. They may have said “it was on course to be”, or “it looked likely that it would be”.

Roger Otip says:

As that NASA page says, “the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36°F per decade since the late 1970s”, which makes it just over three decades, not five decades, and gives the warming rate of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. If you look at the graph you’ll see the increase since the late 70s is about 0.6°C and you’ll also see there was no overall warming between 1940 and the late 70s, generally believed to be due to aerosol cooling countering the warming effect of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, though this may not be the whole story.
# (and later)

latitude

for the past decade, temperatures have flat lined

For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

…—…—
OK.

So, ONLY if I throw out the (near-flat lining) early two decades of Hansen-GISS’s records, and throw out the last decade of Hansen’s-GISS temperture record, THEN I can get the 0.36 degrees per decade that Hansen wants to advertise for the “entire” period of 1950 through 2010.

Glad you clarified that. Thank you.

Can I simply things with century long REAL increase that is NOT politically and emotionally driven?

Or can I just use the the “entire” period of the temperature record, recognize that Hansen is a politician propagandizing his zealotry to destroy the energy industry, and scientifically see the actual double cycle of a short-term 60 year cycle imposed on a long-term natural rise from the Little Ice Age through the Modern Warming Period to a mid-2100 century peak and a 450 year decline to a Future Ice Age?

Mark T

For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing. The last decade was the warmest ever recorded, beating the record set by the previous decade, which beat the record set by the decade before that.

So, in other words, you agree with him? You did not even attempt to address his statement that temperatures have flatlined

Temperatures are increasing at a rate of about 0.2 degrees C per decade. That’s not flatlining. However, you cannot reliably measure a trend over just one decade, that’s too short a time span. It only becomes statistically significant when taken over several decades.

MattN says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

I am the farthest thing from being an AGW proponent, but I’m 100% sure the NCDC’s “hottest year” designation for 2010 was for the entire planet, not the US. This is kind of a red herring.

Not really, imo, because it re-emphasizes, by using the still not well known U.S. vs World temperature record disjunction, the fact that what the ipcc style Climate Science does not tell us continues to reflect the same way on what it does tell us.

As I recall it, back when the fact of the failure of the U.S. to conform to Climate Sciences’s AGW was demonstrated about 4-5 yrs.[?] ago by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit, the warmists immediately started saying it didn’t matter, since the U.S. was “only about 2%” of the Earth’s surface, and that was all there was to it! They didn’t even mention that the U.S. comprises about 6% of the Earth’s land surface, which McIntyre’s blog instead quickly noted as part of its consideration of the disparity between the records.

In other words, back then, the warmist scientists already seemed way too unscientifically interested in vigorously ignoring the possible greater problem that the U.S. temp. figures showed everyone else once Steve M. displayed them to the world: that the rest of the world’s [ROW] figures might in fact show the same kind of thing, once people start actually looking at them independently – for example, such as the CET record does show, which I think Tonyb was very instrumental in bringing to everyone’s attention here at WUWT; the second problem Steve’s work possibly implied was that the U.S. should have much more reliable records on average than the ROW.

These considerations could certainly raise a valid question within any objective person as to whether we can we really trust Climate Science’s whole GMT.

By now, imo, knowing even more about how ipcc style Climate Science does its “science” – it’s not – the validity of what the NCDC says is much more in doubt than it was back then. I don’t believe hardly anything official Climate Science says anymore, and certainly not its always hockeysticking “hottest year ever” claims.

And I actually hope the “world” is in fact warming! Whereas, even more bizarrely, ipcc Climate Science desperately wants us to commit suicide, if it is warming, “before it’s too late”!

racookpe1978

a long-term natural rise from the Little Ice Age through the Modern Warming Period to a mid-2100 century peak and a 450 year decline to a Future Ice Age?

If it’s not an enhanced greeenhouse effect, what physical process do you think is driving the current warming?

Anybody can easily tell it was all a lie… The earth has been cooling for 12 years … Just plot a trend line over temp records since 1998.. Then tell me the earth is getting warmer…the slope obviously declines…. Its all government manipulation I yell ya..

Roger Otip: “For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing.”

It increased just as much from 1910 to 1940 … possibly more depending on manipulation/UHI. Yet CO2 is not considered factor in the 1910 to 1940 warming.

Why not?

If the world is not warming much in North America and Europe then how can we get a better understanding of the accuracy of measurements showing warming in Canada and the Antarctic?

“While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA …”

Nationalism run a muck.

Anthony, exactly.

And I can report that in my refrigerator, temperatures have in fact FALLEN dramatically since I installed it. I’d further note that at every moment during its use I’ve been using greenhouse gas-emitting natural gas to generate the electricity to power it.

Take that, Hansen.

This is the kind of clear thinking one gets here with Anthony “I take advantage of stupid people to fund my blog traffic and pay me thousands each month” Watts.

[One hopes sincerely that temperatures did indeed fall dramatically ... then rise and level off equally dramatically each time the door was opened and shut. Otherwise, the fridge would be useless in a short order. Robt]

[Snip. Calling other commentators denialists violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

@kdkd January 14, 2011 at 3:50 am:

And USA warming has what to do with global warming? Looks like clutching at straws to me.

Let’s see, the US was the 13th warmest, while South America had about its coldest winter ever, Australia had one of its coldest winters AND summers, Europe had a very cool summer and a horrible blizzard-filled winter. And the SSTs were not at record levels, but dropping for the last 1/3 of the year, due to the oncoming La Niña.

It SNOWED in Australia the day before their summer solstice, and not just in one place. No place in Australia that day averaged over 40°F – not even Darwin. Where was the snow? Some was almost exactly on the Tropic of Capricorn – the SH equivalent of Havana, Cuba. Can anyone here believe that if it snowed in Havana (or Miami) on June 20th that people wouldn’t be asking WTF about “hottest year” bullcrap? If it snows in Miami on DEC20th, it would be huge news, much less the day before official summer. (Yes, and now, kdkd, you will pull out the “weather isn’t climate” pap, as is done when it suits your purposes. . . )

With all those places weighing in on the not hottest side of the ledger, just WHERE did all the heat come from? These are places mostly with the best coverage anywhere. There must have been SOME huge areas that had record highs. Where were they? And when you find them, then go look for how many places had record lows. THEN tell us they aren’t cooking the books.

Some records were set in Russia and Pakistan – one period of a few weeks of big-time heat – and those are the only non-adjusted data out there that argue for 2010 being so hot. Frankly, I think the fudging is so rampant they think they can just keep adjusting and adjusting and everyone will buy it forever. When the UHI adjustments are done properly, all those climatologists are going to look like the biggest idiots on the planet – and no one will trust them with their data ever again.

No mention of 2010 ranking for US temperature at all? How about in the first paragraph of the press release?

Quote: “According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.”

Note that last sentence. “23rd warmest” seems to imply some sort of ranking system to me. Plenty of room there for 1998, 1934, and whatever else you want to throw in there.

Roger Otip: “For the past three decades temperatures have bee

Roger, please answer me why there has been no warming in Philadelphia PA since 1874. Is it because CO2 avoids the city of brotherly love? If you can give me a rational answer as to how the globe can warm up due to CO2 but avoid Philly then I will believe the AGW meme.

Roger Otip: “Temperatures are increasing at a rate of about 0.2 degrees C per decade. ”

1911 to 1944: an increase of .673C = .22C per decade.

1944 to 1989: an increase of .009C = 0.0C per decade.

Which of the above was caused by rising CO2?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

“Green Acres says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:39 am

For those carping about noting that the US wasn’t particularly warm, of course it makes a difference. It’s supposed to be global warming, right? Well, clearly it isn’t global as the US and many other major populated areas were not warm. ”
————-
Sorry but you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the issue. Climate change is about the effects on the planet as a whole. This does not mean that the warming is the same at every point on the globe, some parts will be hotter, colder, drier, wetter, calmer, stormier etc etc. This is called weather and as climate change increases will get more extreme and more unpredictable. The issue is that on a global scale the long term warming will shift and change the climate in ways that will be damaging for our way of life.

It is a simplistic and unrealistic view of the issue to assume that the planet is so uniform and predictable that it is say 0.16 degree warmer everywhere at the same time.

Tim Folkerts says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
David L. says: January 14, 2011 at 6:53 am

Since the upper and lower confidence limits of my fits contain zero, it means there is no statistical confidence for any slope. I am not claiming a positive or negative slope. The stats suggest zero slope. And if you believe there is a measurable slope, it’s on the order of 6e-6 meaning Philly will increase 6 degrees in 1 million years!

While I’m just beginning to understand the what I’m reading here at WUWT about how greenhouse gases are supposed to work, it seems to me that the US should be warmer than the rest of world, not colder.

My understanding is that CO2 reflects some of the long wave radiation from the surface back to the surface, making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise. It is also my understanding that this is a continuous process.

Also, the US is second, behind China, in the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. Since it takes a finite time and distance for the CO2 to difuse, it stands to reason that CO2 should be higher over the US (although I have not seen CO2 readings for US) than over the ocean or other areas with lower CO2 emissions.

Since CO2 is higher over the US the greenhouse effect should be more pronounced over the US, and the average yearly US temperature should be higher than the global average temperature. Wonder why it is not.

Someone asked about where the hot spots were in 2010.

The NOAA (the group claiming 2010 as tied for warmest on record) has a picture (link below) which shows their data for the parts of the planet that were either colder or warmer than average in 2010. These data show that the Eastern Pacific was colder than normal which I believe is expected during a La Nina event (we’re in one now). It looks like Greenland and parts of Eastern Canada win the “hotter-than-normal” award.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/images/map-blended-mntp-201001-201012.png

Erik Ramberg says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

“Can it possibly be true that no one here recalls that tens of thousands of people died in Russia due to the raging fires and record smashing heat wave? In addition, the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies for the year. The global number is correct. Don’t think that these anomalies will go away or never affect the U.S.”

Yes, the heat wave in western Russia lasted how long – 3 weeks? And the Arctic temperatures are modeled by DHI:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png

As you can see, the Arctic was below average between day 140 and day 240 in 2010. The rest of the year was mostly above average, but nothing at all like the 5K you claim. Annual average according to DMI seems to be more in the order of 0.5-1K, ie about 1/5 to 1/10 of your claim.

Where do you get your information from Erik, do you just make it up as you go along? And based on this nonsense you conclude that “The global number is correct.” ?

Please substantiate your claim that “the Arctic saw 5 degree C anomalies” for the year (2010).

I still believe that these comparisons of warmer or cooler years are not meaningful because of false precision. There is no confidence in tenths or hundredths of a degree F when the foundational data is in whole degrees.

For an extensive discussion of False Precision in climate figures, see this post from E.M. Smith: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/

RE: Ron C., January 15, 2011 at 8:52 am

The tenths and hundredths can be meaningful, but only if the error interval is included in the analysis. NOAA has started making this more of a habit in their monthly climate reports, but GISS has not done so to my knowledge. If GISS started making this standard practice, I would put higher stock in their numbers because then we could have a better sense of how much fudging and estimating really IS going on in their analysis.

“PSU-EMS-Alum says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:08 am

Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?
—

Probably the parts that are 250km or more from a thermometer.”

For a good laugh, the posters here never disappoint!

While EMS’ writeup is correct in general, there are a few minor errors and some other clarifications he should have added. The “Dominic” he debates is wrong for reasons beyond (in addition to) what EMS cites, too. He closed off comments so I cannot add these points.

Mark

Michael says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:58 pm

“Sorry but you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the issue. Climate change is about the effects on the planet as a whole….
…It is a simplistic and unrealistic view of the issue to assume that the planet is so uniform and predictable that it is say 0.16 degree warmer everywhere at the same time.”

I don’t mean to pick on you Michael but this idea seems odd. On the one hand we are to ignore a cold area because Global Warming is well, Global. But on the other hand the globe is not homogenous so it must be treated as parts (when it’s convenient.)

Too often I see people trying to have their cake and eat it too. You can’t explain the hypothesis’s failure on a major land mass by claiming the hypothesis is only applicable at a larger scale. Then turn around and say that the effects at that scale don’t exist, they only exist at smaller scales. Forgive me if that was not your intent.

If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory.

RE: Dave in Canmore, January 15, 2011 at 11:21 am:

Quote: “If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory.”

I don’t think the theory says that CO2 only affects some areas and not others. To my understanding, it says that the effect will be global, but affect different regions in different ways at different times.

Suppose the effect of warmer oceans and a warmer atmosphere was to change the position and amplitude of the jet stream. That would cause some places to be warmer than they were before and some to be cooler simply because the jet stream shifted positions. Similarly, it doesn’t guarantee that the same location will feel the same effect throughout the year. A change in ocean or atmospheric patterns may cause one location to be cooler during the summer but warmer during the winter. It’s this premise which keeps the claim that AGW will cause more droughts and more flooding from being complete nonsense.

I may be wrong, but that’s my understanding of things.

BillyBob

“For the past three decades temperatures have been increasing.”

It increased just as much from 1910 to 1940 … possibly more depending on manipulation/UHI. Yet CO2 is not considered factor in the 1910 to 1940 warming.

Why not?

CO2 is considered to be a factor in the early 20th century warming, but probably not the primary factor which is thought to be an increase in solar irradiance during that period. The differences between that period of warming and the warming over the last three decades are a) greenhouse gas emissions are much higher now, and b) solar irradiance has not been increasing.

BillyBob

If you can give me a rational answer as to how the globe can warm up due to CO2 but avoid Philly then I will believe the AGW meme.

I think the comment above by Travis S. explains this.

David L says: “The stats suggest zero slope. And if you believe there is a measurable slope, it’s on the order of 6e-6 meaning Philly will increase 6 degrees in 1 million years!”

The slope is of order 6E-5, not -6

And that is the fit for DAYS, not YEARS, so the slope is (6e-5 F/day) * (365 day/year) ~ 0.02 F/year.
Or 2 degrees F per century.
Or 6 degrees F in 300 years.

And again, a p-value of 0.000 suggests less than 1/1000 chance that the observed is due to random luck. So the stats definitely do NOT suggest a zero slope as you say. The regression either for individual days or averaged by year shows a statistically significant upward slope of 2 F per century.

Our numbers are clearly different, especially for the yearly averages.
* Did you use the first two years (1873 & 1873)? These years only have a handful of data points, which clearly would not give accurate yearly averages. These years should be dropped.
* Did you use this year (2011)? Since there are only a few days in January so far, this would give a wildly inaccurate values for the 2011 annual average. This year should be dropped.

“Roger, please answer me why there has been no warming in Philadelphia PA since 1874. Is it because CO2 avoids the city of brotherly love? ”

I think it is because you made an error in your annual analysis. Even your first result shows a positive slope 5x larger than the uncertainly, so your numbers there do show a warming.

Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.

But you didn’t. You fail.

“If global warming due to CO2 only affects some areas, but these areas have the same concentrations of CO2 as everywhere else, something is amok in this theory
”

This displays a complete misunderstanding of the theory. The temperature rises gradually over time as an average on a global scale but because this changes the key determinants of weather, short term and regional effects become more unpredictable and extreme. Weather is the movement of air over different pressure areas due to the changing temperature differentials over the ocean, land and atmosphere and amplified by the increasing moisture due to evaporation, this predicts more floods in the model. This causes climates to shift and change. It does not mean that the temperature will change by .16 deg everywhere at once or that the weather will change the same way everywhere at once, it actually means the exact opposite.

Effects of a warming ocean acidification and increasing el ninos are coral bleaching, death of the algae reliant on them as well as disaster for the phytoplankton. Eventually the fish will struggle and so a large proportion of our food supply will be affected. Above ground you will get more drought, more floods from the extra moisture in prone areas, and shifting weather patterns as new jetstreams open etc.

If you are going to argue against the model at least try to understand it.
see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as they know a lot more than I do and only argue on the peer reviewed science.

“BillyBob says:
Roger, you could have tried to answer why CO2 had an effect 1910 to 1944 and then stopped having any effect from 1944 to 1989. And then suddenly started working again after 1989.
But you didn’t. You fail.”

He answered the question. CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, nobody says it is. The solar factor is well known for that period, it is also well known that it is stable or if anything cooling now. The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.

Michael says:

“The models take all those things into account, and looking at everything they are aware off the only explanation for the current warming is CO2.”

Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:

“We can’t imagine anything else that could cause the current [very mild] warming, so CO2 must be the reason.”

Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.

But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.

Worry away, my friend.

“Ah. The classic alarmist logical fallacy, the argumentum ad ignorantium:

Natural variability has been going on for millennia, exactly as it is now. Nothing is any different.

But if you want to be terrified of a harmless and beneficial trace gas, be my guest. There is no convincing true believers that there is nothing to worry about.”

Ah the classic … (cannot say as the reciprocal to alarmist is not allowed) logical fallacy, because change has happened by nature in the past, it cannot be caused by humans now.

Yes CO2 is a harmless trace gas on its own, what has changed is mans pumping of billions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere in a short space of time. In nature the amount of CO2 produced compared to the amount absorbed is fairly balanced, but as can be seen by simple measurements and by checking the isotope of the atoms the CO2 produced by man is not being fully absorbed by the planet so the concentration in the atmosphere is rising. The extra greenhouse gas is causing a slight warming, which through feedback effects is increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere(also a greenhouse gas). Other effects follow, changes in temp effect the movement of air (weather) causing it to be more extreme and unpredictable, the extra water vapour increases flooding in flood prone areas etc etc.

You want to ignore the fact that anything (even harmless) in excess can have a harmful effect. That is not science, that is a belief that cannot be reconciled by logic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Green journalists lament the lack of overwhelming coverage of global warming in the liberal media

Guest post by Ryan Maue

Green journalists and partisan bloggers are baffled about the lack of sufficient coverage of the “2010 hottest year ever” — and utter failure to ram through climate legislation in the 111th Congress.  After scratching your head in amazement at the conundrum these journalists find themselves, something about pots, kettles, and a mirror comes to mind.

Here is a sample of headlines from the green media establishment:

Huffington Post:  2010 Hottest Year on Record:  The graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper

The Hill:  Frustration on global warming deepens for supporters of climate change bill

Guardian UK (warning Bob Ward, palaeopiezometry):  Why have UK Media ignored climate change announcements?

I’ll give you a very easy answer: it’s winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and so far, it’s been historically cold.  And, the media should be more wary about using such vitriolic language like “denier” considering the explosive connotation that the term implies.

They are all constipated about the lack of overwhelming coverage of 2010, and the sizzling planet (we’re talking about hundredths of degrees here):  Read about NASA’s press release below…

Here is NASA’s press release, which apparently wasn’t sufficiently disseminated for certain segments of the climate establishment.   According to Hansen, 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F).  They have to admit an inconvenient truth:

One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

Confusion?

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Wait a minute, wait a minute:  a remarkably inactive sun …

“The three official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they agree extraordinarily well,” said Reto Ruedy, one of Hansen’s colleagues at GISS who helps analyze global surface temperatures.

Subtle differences?  Extraordinary agreement?

Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto.  You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Shades of Fahrenheit 451 – British retirees burning books to stay warm

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

99 Responses to Green journalists lament the lack of overwhelming coverage of global warming in the liberal media

“I’ll give you a very easy answer: it’s winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and so far, it’s been historically cold…”

Well said….Though most of the snow has melted in our back garden, there’s still some left AND they forcast temps. dipping below freezing again next week!! And we live in Scandinavia!!!!! What more proof do I need that global temp. change is a LIE!!!!!!

AND don’t they know that new research shows that the more inactive the sun is, the warmer the planet gets? (or is that the other way round?)

Wait a minute….What’s our take again? Are we supposed to say the Earth is warming but it’s natural variation, or that it’s cooling because the Suns sleeping????

I can attest to this because I submitted NOAA’s press release to fark.com with a funny headline, and got a red light

[ryanm: big Ben Maller from Fox Sports Radio is a prolific headline writer for fark, it's an artform that should have been patented to hold twitter ransom]

“We don’t know yet” typically suffices.

Mark

It is the winter of discontent as far as the common people are concerned.
It is th end of the game
Douglas

Ma and Pa Kettle can read a thermometer. They might drop their news coverage from an agency that told them they were about to burn up and die (if they didn’t drown first) while they’re up to their buns in snow and ice. Telling folks their summer discomfort is evidence of AGW is one thing, but selling them on the idea that colder is evidence of warmer is a really hard sell.

“Green journalists lament the lack of overwhelming coverage of global warming in the liberal media”

It is called Relevance Deprivation Syndrome. Any Aussie politician who has lost power and prestige can tell you more about it.

Maybe it’s just that we all can recognize a Lake Wobegon Moment… where all the years snow is good looking and all the years are above average temperature… and we’re getting just a bit tired of the Garrison Keillor voice droning on about it as we shovel more snow out and put more wood on the fire…

When you see how wrong most of the MSM is about Global Warming, you wonder how wrong they are about everything else. Gossip seems to be more reliable, and the gossip around here is that it’s been a very cold winter, and those windmills aren’t turning, and somebody is telling porkies.

There is always a chance that temperatures will start to go up to meet the rise in co2.
If this happens then we will have to consider that co2 is driving significant temp rise.

The thing is, at the minute temps are virtually flat while co2 shoots up in a total disconnect, there are signs of cooling and gaps in the science.

This will be an interesting decade that will settle the climate wars.

I guess it has stopped selling papers because the customer has seen through the scam. How long before it percolates up to the Prime Ministers and Premiers etc. The backbenchers in Australia have seen through it and deposed Turnbull. Typical of the AGW deceit, Turnbull tried to make a party room decidion to consider an ETS into a cast iron guarantee. He was rolled.

Haven’t we been here before? Yawn…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm

Maybe it’s because we are smart enough to judge a ‘trend’ over the course of millenia, and not a decade or a century on a planet that has been around for over four billion years. What goes up, must come down. It has gone both ways before, and will again. No matter how much you spend, Mother Nature can’t be bribed and now we are slowly proving we can’t be either. Unfortunately, the politicians still can.

They don’t understand because they can’t get it right. If they we’re exposing the truth, they would ask Tim Flannery why he had said in 2007, in New Scientist (http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm)
Ecotretas

Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain.

Given that the long term trend in global temperatures since the last ice age is upward, why should confirmation of this after thousands of years of rising temperatures be newsworthy?

Now if there was any evidence of thermal runaway as predicted by Mann that might be a story worth telling, so how’s that particular prediction doing, Doc?

No need to update my plot of long running thermometer records which show utterly no change in long term warming trend in the modern industrial era. Ho hum twiddle dee doo dee ditty doo. http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

The Guardian has deleted about 40% of posts to Bob Wards article and has now started disappearing them altogther. Damage limitation in full swing :-)

The simple fact is that interest in “global warming” has been on a long term decline since around 2007. Around 2007 there were around 20,000 google current news story hits. These days it is around 7000.

The main drop I see has been a marked absence of the “boring bit of scientific research desperately linked to global warming to sex it up. (Some researches lesser spotted goat frogs, appears to find a decline in numbers and makes it “yet another impact of the (“proven”) global warming). Clearly, global warming has not only become boring for the public to read about, it has lost its kudos with the rest of real science.

And, I think the Newsmedia themselves, did not take kindly to what they saw in the climategate emails and the way the “scientific” elite seemed to back bad practice to the hilt for short term political reasons. I’m sure a lot of journalists were thinking that if they’d seen the same thing happen amongst politicians they’d have been torn to shreds for their dishonesty – so they can’t understand why these people were allowed to get away with it scot free. They don’t know what the bad smell is, but they personally don’t want to be associated with it!

On the BBC couch this morning Susanna Reid pushed the GW barrow to the Oceanographer from Southampton University and he responded quite clearly that the floods in Australia, Brazil & Sri Lanka were NOT due to GW, they were simply natural things that happen from time to time. However, he did relent later and say that due to GW the 1-in-50 year flood would probably happen more often – but did say, when guessing how often, “This is conjecture.”

MSM honesty??

It’s also a good time for the WMO, UNEP, GISS, NOAA, UK Met, and other UN and govt climate agencies to further lose credibility to the public. Why do taxpayers maintain so many bureaucracies with little or zero credibility?

So essentially we could blame the Sahara desert for having had a slight temperature rise during its hotest days last summer.

And what matter the activity of the sun when we’re apparently a tad bit closer to the sun during this planetary space race of “oddly” recurring cycles? If that’s true then OMG but we’re ever so lucky there was a bunch of clouds to keep us cold. :p

“It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

So if we draw a line across the tops of these three years the underlying trend would be flat or slightly down.
NO?.

E.M.Smith says: “Maybe it’s just that we all can recognize a Lake Wobegon Moment…”

Or maybe it’s because AGW, like Lake Wobegon, was based on a real place but never actually existed itself.

By the way, the British media are more concerned with rocketing fuel bills which are provoking some Unions to threaten strikes and protests over the massive amount of fuel taxes we are forced to pay.

Ryan, you’re argument “we’re talking about hundredths of degrees here” is a bit like saying 14, 505ft Mt Whitney isn’t very high because it’s only 55ft taller than Mt Elbert.

[ryanm: what decimal system do you use? -- you do realize that global warming is measured over a century by tenths of a degree C and in the past 3-decades by a dozen or two hundredths?]

but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

What he meant to say was “Far more important is myability to maintain my position of being able to continue manipulating and distorting historical temperature data, so I can manufacture increasingly scary stories to ensure that I get more and more money from gullible politicians and the naive idealistic section of the public”.

Climate change is the norm, has been for many hundreds of millions of years and will continue to be so for many more hundreds of millions of years. There is no such thing as a static climate norm. This is the real problem that alarmists face, the general public is slowly beginning to realise this. Also, they don’t like overpaid government bureaucrats – and that’s what most ‘climate scientists’ are – demanding increased taxes to combat something (climate change) which is almost entirely natural.

Why should anyone advocate returning to the conditions of ‘the Little Ice Age’, when temperatures were 0.7-1.0 degrees C colder than today and mankind’s ability to feed itself was dramatically reduced?

I wonder what the next severe winter will do to the “cagw cause”.

Will it be the final nail ?

From the graphic: “In the end, the 111th Congress adjourned without doing anything – AT ALL – to address the climate crisis.”

What climate crisis? I don’t see no stinkin’ climate crisis. The 111th Congress took exactly the correct action – do nothing. The 112th Congress would do well to follow suit.

Climate Change is real- but driven by totally NATURAL cycles. The planet is entering a cooling cycle now driven by a negative PDO reinforced by the strong La Nina. Ocean surface temperatures are dropping, according to the Argo data so this confirms the cooling trend. On a planet where at any one time the surface temperature can range from +50 to -80C worries about a 0.1C change in any direction seems extreme to say the least. The left wing media should look at reality not model outputs which they seem to think resembles the real world despite proof of the opposite.

Click on the Guardian link in this article and it’s very instructive to see just how many of the comments have been given the “This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.” treatment. This is censorship to me and you. And coming from the Guardian it is deeply hypocritical. It has taken me less than five minutes to track down a Guardian leader article about Julain Assange and Wikileaks which states the following:

“What of the internet itself? … For a powerful argument of the potential of the beneficial power of the web, go no further than Mrs Clinton’s powerful January 2010 speech on internet freedom in which she lauded the “iconic infrastructure of our age”, adding this warning: “As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools.” She meant Iran and China, but there is widespread unease at the tactics her own administration is using to stifle WikiLeaks into silence.

“The academic Clay Shirky has blogged persuasively this week that the US government should openly use the law against WikiLeaks and others rather than muscle. “… If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow.” We agree.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/editorial-wikileaks-julian-assange

To answer the Guardian’s question, “Why have UK Media ignored climate change announcements?” it may be instructive to remind them about the story of the boy who cried “Wolf!”, only I can’t be bothered to register on their wretched website to post this comment.

I confidently predict that The Guardian will be one of the last bastions of warmist orthodoxy even when the international reputation of the IPCC eventually lies in tatters.

Someone needs to capture the juxtaposition at Real Clear Science (at http://www.realclearscience.com/ ).

Thursday Afternoon Update
– 2010 Tied 2005 as Hottest Year on Record – Justin Gillis, New York Times
– Weather Rarity: Snow in 49 States – Stephanie Pappas, Our Amazing Planet

Keep up the good work, Anthony. The extreme warm year 2010 gets some coverage after all!

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Thus proving AGW.

“It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

And what if 2011 turns out to be the hottest year on the record? You would hear no end of it.

The press has ignored “one of the hottest years evaaaah” because their readership will immediately dismiss it as total crap (whether true or not). People are struggling to pay heating bill just to survive and are not prepared to freeze to death to shave a fraction off man’s co2 output. I recall a story about TV audiences – whenever a story about climate change comes up the station looses viewers in droves.

[ryanm: there is a small chance that 2011 will be the warmest on record, unless something unnatural occurs in the tropical pacific]

One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

The hottest year on record in the US was 1934, northern Hemisphere, even with Hansons adjustments, now according to the New Zealand court there has been NO warming since 1960, southern hemisphere.
Hopefully once the US congress get their teeth into Mann, Hanson et al later this year AGW will finally die.

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/nEWzEALAND1900-2008.jpg

The press aren’t interested because their customers aren’t interested. Their customers aren’t interested because they’ve become immune to the barrage of catastrophic scenarios which ‘could’ play out and no longer have any respect for much of the science behind the claims.
The Internet has been the cause of the downfall of AGW as it’s freedom has allowed debate and investigation into the fraud perpetuated by people with a lot of money invested in the scam.
Most people are concerned about the future of the planet but recognise bullshit when they see it.

jason says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:37 am
………………….
The thing is, at the minute temps are virtually flat while co2 shoots up in a total disconnect, there are signs of cooling and gaps in the science.

This will be an interesting decade that will settle the climate wars.

Not necessarily. If temperatures stay relatively flat or decline then AGW will have some serious explaining to do. If temperatures increase then it could simply be exhibiting what it has been doing since the last ice age (which includes sea level rise).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg

mariwarcwm – it’s not just the MSM, but most politicians. I often “straw poll” my friends and acquaintances (who come with a wide range of education, training and careers) on the subject. Almost invariably, when either the MSM or pollies drift into someone’s area of true expertise, they are seen to speak at best partial truths.

But then truth is not the issue for them is it?

Who really takes any notice of those people walking around city streets with placards or sandwich boards proclaiming “The End of the world is Nigh”?

Calamity and apocalypse have only been lifted to another level by more upmarket sandwich boards.

It has taken less than 20 minutes for the Guardian moderators to strike out a comment which was on topic but critical of Bob Ward and his silly article about the UK media not reporting the new ‘Warmest Evah’ as news. Facts are sacred on the Guardian? The Warmist press is obviously desperate to defend their pet polemicists.

“2010 Hottest Year on Record”. Only three words in and we hit the spin. Huffington Post, don’t you think some people reading that headline might deduce that 2010 was the hottest record for centuries at least? After all, the thermometer as we know it was invented in the 17th century and someone must have been writing down temperatures from that date on, at least in England. But no, the weasel words “on record” mean that we’re only going back to the late 19th century, a time when we were emerging from the Little Ice Age. Hardly surprising then, temperatures have since then risen.

Anthony:

Perhaps the media are starting to think what these claims of ‘hottest year on record” mean? They do not mean much, and they certainly do NOT indicate any anthropgenic (i.e. human) influence on global temperature.

People affect local temperatures (e.g. it is warmer in a city than surrounding countryside) but such local effects (even from land use changes) have trivial and indiscernible effect on global temperature.

The average of temperatures everywhere around the surface of the Earth is called ‘mean global temperature’.
Temperature changes everywhere, and the mean global temperature varies, too.

The mean global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. And two of these apparent cycles seem to have dominated recently.

One cycle is indicated by archaeology and it seems to have a cycle length of ~900 years. It provided
the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then
the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then
the Little Ice Age (LIA), then
the present warm period (PWP).

Warming from the LIA to the PWP has been happening for about 300 years.

Thermometers have been measuring temperatures at places around the world since about 1860. And this thermometer temperature record is used to estimate mean global temperature. These estimates are very inaccurate because most places do not have thermometers and both the number and places of the thermometers has varied throughout the time since ~1880. However, these estimates show the global temperature has risen since 1880, and this agrees with the archaeological information.

And the thermometer-derived estimates indicate another temperature cycle with length ~60 years. It provided
cooling or no warming before ~1910, then
warming from ~1910- to ~1940, then
cooling or no warming from ~1940 to ~1970, then
warming from ~1970 to ~2000, then
cooling or no warming since ~2000.

Of course, the recent temperatures are the highest in the thermometer record because there has been a general trend of warming for about 300 years. Hence, it is not surprising that “the decade that just ended included nine of the 10 hottest years on record” as NCDC says in a recent press releas. However, the lack of warming since ~2000 combines with the measurement errors such that there has been no statistically discernible (at 95% confidence) change in the temperature over the most recent 15 years.

If the pattern of these two apparent temperature cycles continues then either

(a) the mean global temperature will continue to show cooling or no warming until ~2030 when it will resume its rise towards the values it had in the RWP and the MWP,

or

(b) the mean global temperature will continue to show cooling or no warming until cooling towards temperatures of the DACP and LIA will initiate before ~2030.

A change to this pattern would indicate a change to the causes of the pattern of changes to global temperature.

But the fact that recent years are the warmest since ~1880 indicates nothing.

Richard

This article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/uk-media-ignore-climate-change lists 177 comments, but about half have already been censored or, as they prefer to call it, “moderated”.

No doubt the Guardian is disappointed at their readers’ responses in the face of their never-ending barrage of lying propaganda on this subject, and the success of what they called in one of their most shameful articles last year “the creeping rehabilitation of climate scepticism”.

WOLF, WOLF, WOLF, WOLF…..oh they’ve stop listening to me.

The answer is simple. Our ruling class has a mental and emotional age of six months. Their sole response to the world is MINE! MINE! ME! ME! ALL MINE! ALL MINE!

It’s no use trying to tell them that they already have all the food ever grown and all the toys ever built.

All is not enough for an ego that expands to fill every known and unknown universe.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind. — Robert A. Heinlein, 1978

Village Idiot, your attempt at misdirection / sarcasm / parody / whatever is a failure. The problem is that the hockey stick team can’t handle any data that isn’t a hockey stick and they are the ones resorting to sheer speculation. Hansen mentions a “remarkably” inactive sun, but remarkably most of the sun’s activity (e.g. geomagnetic, spectral variations) is not in his models. Instead just a ridiculously oversimplified TSI number. Hansen also cannot alleviate your faux confusion about your local weather since he can’t model that either. But go ahead and mock while you can, time is not on your side.

Peter H:
Point spectacularly missed, sir.
If everywhere was within 55 feet of the height of Mount Whitney then Mount Whitney couldn’t be said to be “very high”, could it?
Since the average global temperature has not varied by more than about 1 degree C in the last hundred years hundredths of a degree in any given year is irrelevant. You’ll need to try harder than that.

Focus on decade long trend?

“Warmest decade,” sure. But that’s not a trend, its an absolute value.

Funny how Hansen conveniently left out the fact that there was a very strong El Nino which was responsible for driving the temperatures so high for most of the year. Notice he didn’t leave off the La Nina that we got at the end of the year that only started impacting temperatures in December.

Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Am I missing something here? Since when has “the last decade was the warmest ever” been evidence of the underlying trend? Surely the whole point of a “trend” is it’s concerned with the rate of change over time, not the level things happen to be at?

Sam, don’t dismiss 1C, 5C climate change plunges us in a massive ice age, 1C is meaningful climate change.

[ryanm: you have to be more scientifically rigorous -- meaningful in what way -- and over what time scale. one-c over a century or two may not be noticeable]

The idea that enviro journalists and PR drones should lament the lack of coverage is just laughable. We are fed a daily diet of climate doom conflated with every “green issue” under the sun and they wonder why people have changed the channel.

A quick calculation, using the figures from “Water Aid” (a charity) at face value, suggests that some 58 million people, mostly children, will have died from water based diseases by 2050 (4000 per day). That versus the non-specific numbers of “climate refugees” being spat out of flawed models. What’s wrong Bob? Too specific? Too measurable? Too easily solved? No living to be made from it? Nothing for 58 million real people dead from problems the west solved over a century ago and circa $80 billion for hundredths of a degree with no error bars. What’s wrong with this picture?

Some people talk about the AGW “conspiracy” but I very much doubt that – you just couldn’t make such a mess of the “message” if there were any conspiring going on.

Tried to post a vaguely sceptical comment on the Guardian site -twice! Not abusive, just saying that maybe they had cried “wolf” too often and that is why people are not getting excited about the NASA figures. Both deleted. Extraordinary behaviour.

These lamenting journalists must be getting desperate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html

“One of the problems”
=====================================================
They have been trying to prove global warming for over 30 years, and now
they say they still have problems with the PR.

Give it up, it’s been 30 years, time to move on………….

The whole idea of looking at global temperature as a metric for GW is, at first sight,  highly plausible.
The way in which this seemingly simple task has been performed is highly problematic. Relocation of sites, treatment of UHI, data obfuscation, statistical smearing and a clear fanatical need to demonstrate ever increasing temperatures have led to profound distrust in a large and growing section of the population.
In short, many feel that they can no longer trust the messengers and, rightly or wrongly, the message.

Does anybody know why SOHO has stopped its sun image. It used to be daily, and then (afyet their outtage while they moved office) it became more often, but up to Jan 10th/11th a bit erratic. Now nothing since 22.00 on the 11th.
A bit of a pity, as the sun has gone as good as spotless again.

Wow!

My comment which , pointed out that the greenhouse effect was based on the retention of heat and that 2010 finished with the lowest global average surface temp, despite incoming radiation being relatively constant, in over decade was deleted in about a minute.

I have run a corporate communications dept for 8 years. I am not a PR trained person. I have learnt that the media can be generalised to be interested in the three “C”; Celebrity, Catastrophe or Confrontation (or the variant, victim, villian or hero). If you can’t hit one of these you will either be buried in the pages or not make it at all. It is hard to have a climate warming catastrophe in the Northern Hemisphere in a cold winter. You can have one in Australia with the devastating floods, or Russia last summer etc. Media also get bored, just as the rest of us do. So the more something is pushed, the less it becomes news.
“Good” ideas, like saving the planet are always great as long as someone else has to pay. But in places where consumers are starting to see the cost of the “good” ideas, the less of they are keen on them!

Richard S Courtney says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
Careful Dr Courtney, somebody might infer from your figures that there is a rhythmic cycle going on the climate!!! :-))

Well, well, well. A “remarkably inactive Sun”????? I can hardly believe my ears. Here we are witnessing a most remarkable natrual experiment in the relationship betweeen the Sun & the Earth, & that’s the best they can come up with?

As for those in the MSM of dubiuos parentage, they’re up to something I can tell. TheBBC lunchtime news covered the landslides in Brazil, didn’t mention AGW once at least not when I was watching, although I did have to check on my toast. They kept saying the most ridiculous & pathetically silly things like, “poor construction”, “built without permission”, “poor regulatory control”, “no foundations”, “areas prone to landslip”, & “susceptable to flooding”, etc. etc. etc. I ask you, as if any those pitiful excuses could be legitamite, honestly? We all know it’s AGW. NOT! The Wet Office do at least & always have done when commenting on unusually high rainfall in a given month, point out how some area of the UK had receveid a months worth on rain over night, but also used to point out (in the old days) how over the year of a 12 month period it evened itself out more or less.

The beautiful BBC News reader Sophie Rayworth……………….grrrrr……………….it’s all right I now holding something cold & metallic, mentioned earlier in the week a strange phenomenon, La Nina, allegedly responsible for the strange weather patterns in the Pacific & Eastern Australia in particular. Something’s afoot me thinks! It may be strange to the BBC but it’s not for many people round the world. I recall looking up El Nino/La Nina when the world had that time of blocking where parts of Asia was covered in a smog & low cloud as a result of a holding/blocking pattern, & Eurpoe had stagnant weathe with not much happening either way, as did many areas around the world, forget the year now.

I think you guys are right, people are tired of hearing about global warming, and lefty environmentalists crying wolf.

Of course, if you look at it from my point of view, I’m getting tired of my fellow frogs in the pot telling me not to worry about the water getting warmer…..

Some time soon there will be another weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming, probably something which actually hurts rich people, and then global warming will be all the rage again.

RR Kampen says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:23 am

Keep up the good work, Anthony. The extreme warm year 2010 gets some coverage after all!

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year’s ranking are the decadal trends,” Hansen said.

Thus proving AGW
==============
Thus proving the cognitive bias that has affected climate science. The logic seems to be something like this: Only the sun, Enso and CO2 affect temperature. Therefore it follows that if ‘quiet sun’ plus La Nina equals high temperature, it proves it was CO2 wot done it!

Has climate really science descended to the level of two blokes arguing in a pub? Apparently so!

Warming is not,repeat not a “partisan” issue. Not even close. Using this language completely distorts, and trivializes the very real concerns eminating from the scientific community. The facts are clear. Our planet is warming and, when other forcings are combined with man-made influences, the effects are easily observed. Please open your eyes, and minds, and hearts and help solve our collective challenge.

Green journalists should realize people can only take so much monotonous indecisive repetition coming from their frustrated and debunked supporters. Especially when they claim everything in weather proves global warming. When monkeys all over the place are being neutered by the cold the world burning up is a hard sell. And liberal media’s audience is being siphoned off by conservative media.

I don’t know why but reading the press release the songs Hokey Pokey and Undecided came to mind. Two songs dedicated to repetition and monotony with no purpose butt to entertain.

Mike Haseler says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:11 am

“Clearly, global warming has not only become boring for the public to read about, it has lost its kudos with the rest of real science.”

Excellent point. After beating a dead horse long enough, you find that you are beating bare ground. The Warmista should take this to heart. They have said nothing in response to the very best criticisms of their claims. All they have done is double-down. Who wants to read triple-down and quadruple-down? The Warmista non-response to criticism is not just a matter of public relations but of science. Their science has been totally inflexible. They have been incapable of making some adjustment in the science that might accommodate some valuable criticism. Instead, they have offered an endless run of excuses. Who wants to read quintuple-down and more excuses? The one thing predictable in Warmista science is its lack of adjustment in the face of serious criticism.

“Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun”

Hansen, here, is either totally ignorant or being deliberately disingenuous. He ought to know full well that the La Nina effects have a delayed impact on the temperatures, as does El Nino, and it is the El Nino we had prior to the La Nina in question which primarily lingered influencing most of 2010.

In fact, I am certain he knows that the response to solar activity is also not immediate, and I am convinced he must know ENSO has a delayed effect too. Which leaves only one possibility: He is deliberately misleading the public.

Nonoy Oplas says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:16 am
Nothing will change, no matter how cold the world gets, they just live in a parallel universe:
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/

Richard S Courtney says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:18 am

the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then
the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then
the Little Ice Age (LIA), then
the present warm period (PWP).
Now: the New Dark Age Cool Period.

” ..such vitriolic language like “denier” ….”

If it’s inexcusable of that chump Palin to use “blood libel”, how much more more disgraceful it is for highly educated and intelligent Climate Scientists to use “denier”.

Shevva says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:39 am
….it’s a “Steppenwolf”..and it comes with the cold.

Hansen says: “La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet”

When was it established that sunspot number is a causitive factor in warming or cooling of the planet?

I’ll tell you when it was established. It was established as soon as it became convenient for the CAGW cabal to say it’s so i.e. when they can say “despite record low solar activity the planet has continued to warm” which of course implies that warming would have been hideously higher had the sun been active.

This is one of the most blatantly dishonest utterances I’ve seen come out of Hansen’s ugly mouth. The man doesn’t have an honest bone in his body.

aaron says:

“My comment which , pointed out that the greenhouse effect was based on the retention of heat and that 2010 finished with the lowest global average surface temp, despite incoming radiation being relatively constant, in over decade was deleted in about a minute.”

Maybe William Connolley is now moderating for the Guardian. You might try writing the editor and pointing out the bizarre rate of erasure.

If that doesn’t work, take heart: Karma does.

Please don’t link to the DailyKos/Huffington Post. I go and look at the comments and get depressed that people can be so insulated and delusional. Just reading their comments makes it clear that global warming is simply another religion/doomsday cult.

Richard Lawson says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:09 am
These lamenting journalists must be getting desperate:

The caption under the photo accompanying the article you linked states, “Climate change? The sun rose in Ilulissat, Greenland, two days early on Tuesday, ending a month-and-a-half of winter darkness. One theory is that melting ice caps have lowered the horizon allowing the sun to shine through earlier” (emphasis added)

The article appears on the Science and Tech page, yet the caption incorrectly uses the technical term theory instead of the technically correct term hypothesis. Bob Ward can add imprecision to his list of reasons why more and more people are tuning out his brand of enviro-journalism.

I sort of don’t know what to say. This article is so stupid my jaw drops. In Ryan Maue’s attempt to make nothing of something he just flat out fails. I don’t even get what his main point is??

“stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings?” ???

Yes, Hansen said it’s the long trend that matters, but you think people don’t want to know when we have the hottest year on record? I don’t know what to say?? I am baffled.

“You never know what year is number 1 due to those “subtle differences”, which apparently aren’t that important anyways. ”

You think we can’t see through this? I realize these here devotees can’t, but you are not fooling anybody else. All you are doing is attempting to state the facts (because you can’t deny them) in a way that makes them unimportant. It is word usage, phrasing and rhetoric, but you actually have nothing to say because the truth is staring you in the face, and you don’t know what to do but try and minimize it. Nice try.

[ Moderator note: we have a real winner here, looking at Mr. Heims blog (see his link in his name) we are treated to this:

"I am 56. I have no official background in climatology, which is the subject matter of this paper. I am merely using common sense and logic to draw my conclusions."

And...

"HEY YOU! Get up and start fighting!"

Another angry emotional approach to science against Dr. Ryan Maue. Verdict: FAIL]

My grammar was better in original comment. Alas, no cache. And commenting is tough on a touch-screen phone that thinks it’s smarter than you.

Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am

Nailed him! Hansen is like a child who believes that the number and weight of his claims will prevail. Apparently, it does not occur to him that his claim about the sun’s activity is inconsistent with all his past claims. Apparently, he thinks we do not care about inconsistencies. He has become another Al Gore, yet he remains a chief administrator at NASA.

Andrew ,
I believe you are correct . IIRC , a couple of years ago the AGW crowd completely dismissed the idea that solar activity could influence climate .
So let me ask this – if anthropogenic warming is unequivocal , why do climatologists spend so much time equivocating when pressed on specifics ?

Why does anyone assume that Hansen is sitting in his office doing actual meteorology/climate research? There is little evidence over the past decade that Hansen is contributing/manufacturing anything more than statistical data — I haven’t not seen a hard science / rigorous dynamical explanation for anything. He is busy writing up legal briefs in order to sue his employer.

Posted on the Grauniad at 5:40 – will it survive until 5:45? :P

spinkyminky

14 January 2011 5:40PM

Really, what is the point of having comments available when anything but the party line is censored? Is the Grauniad using the Team’s peer review methods to produce it’s own consensus by any chance?

I know this will be modded but if even one person reads it before that happens and starts to wonder what biased crap is going on here, then goes on to realise that’s how the whole AGW industry works, it’s worth the time to type it!

Hansen says: “La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet”

Dave Springer says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am

What Dave says, plus the chief administrator at NASA should have understand the ENSO by now and study it before coming out with this nonsense.

January to May 2010 were El Nino months, July 2010 onwards were La Nina months, but global temperatures take a few months for the beginning of the change once reached neutral or opposite ENSO phase to start it’s influence. The La Nina didn’t start to affect global temperatures while around November 2010. This is well known science about the delay in ENSO and for Hansen not to know this is astonishing to say the least or is lying about it.

Why should he even be that suprised, he has made up as much warming as possible as likely to get away with. 10 months of 2010 were significantly affected by El Nino, yet tries to blame it on La Nina. Words can’t describe how bad this has become and climate science is the biggest joke in all sciences of the history of the planet with people like this in charge.

Ryan Maue-Depending one what one considers “science” Hansen has done, or has had his name tacked onto, a number of papers involving this subject, besides GISS temp. But the point you raise is interesting in a way, as technically all the climate work associated with Hansen appears to be primarily associated, now, with others working under him at GISS. In particular, the model work is mostly done by Gavin Schmidt. Hansen seems primarily to be an administrator, and the actual “work” whatever the merits, is done under his direction, by other people. I doubt he spends much time actually doing research now, too.

[ryanm: yes, i agree with that reasoning. he is an admin. however, when he makes these "hand-wavy" arse-originating explanations for the climate-year-in-review, invoking el nino, the sun, etc., it is clear he has done absolutely no research to figure this out. I think he simply is 10-20 years out of date when it comes to the academic literature. evidence includes his snapping immediately onto the arctic-seesaw and the grotesque potsdam barrents sea ice paper as evidence of something]

Kate says: January 14, 2011 at 1:37 am

By the way, the British media are more concerned with rocketing fuel bills which are provoking some Unions to threaten strikes and protests over the massive amount of fuel taxes we are forced to pay.
—————————————————————————-
Yes Kate (at last) and this is what FINALLY might concentrate the minds of the politicians about the purpose(s) and economics of the power supply and also THEIR ultimate survival as politicians.

Douglas

[ryanm: note, Hansen wants folks to blow up their coal plants to save the planet, often invoking disturbing, terrorist ideology]

Carl McIntosh quotes an article as part of his critical remarks as follows:
January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am

“One theory is that melting ice caps have lowered the horizon allowing the sun to shine through earlier”

Unbelievable! The Warmista have inadvertently stated a testable hypothesis! Quick, get the helicopters up! (Of course, the supposed melting might effect only that one little town. It is not much of a testable hypothesis, but the best you are going to get from Warmista.)

John Brookes:

At January 14, 2011 at 7:13 am you assert:

“Some time soon there will be another weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming, probably something which actually hurts rich people, and then global warming will be all the rage again.”

You assert “ANOTHER weather disaster which is obviously related to global warming” which can only mean there has been such a disaster “obviously related to global warming”? Please say what and where it was. Many people – notably the IPCC – want to know of it.

Or have you taken James Hansen as your example so you have just made something up?

Richard

Here’s one possible solution to keep people toeing the CAGW line

Several people have made comments about the Daily Mail item on the sun rising two days early in part of Greenland.

The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating
14th January 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html#ixzz1B2U0ShJQ

A few months ago the sun set at the onset of the Arctic winter but apparently it went down in the wrong place!

New documentary recounts bizarre climate changes seen by Inuit elders
GUY DIXON
Globe and Mail, Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/new-documentary-recounts-bizarre-climate-changes-seen-by-inuit-elders/article1763952/

“Even stranger is the fact that the sun now appears to set many kilometres off its usual point on the horizon, and the stars are no longer where they should be. Is the Earth shifting on its axis, causing the very look of the sun and stars to change?”

“These are the drastic conditions Northern Canadians, whose lives depend from childhood on their knowledge of the most minute details of the Arctic land and skies, say they see all around them. These observations by Inuit elders are detailed in a groundbreaking new documentary, Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, by acclaimed Nunavut filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk (The Fast Runner, The Journals of Knud Rasmussen) and environmental scientist Ian Mauro.”

“When the filmmakers presented some of their findings at the Copenhagen conference on climate change last year, the media picked up on these views of the Inuit subjects, film co-director Ian Mauro says, and alarm bells started to ring in the scientific community. “We had a litany of scientists come back to us, responding after seeing this news, saying, ‘This was great to be speaking to indigenous people about their views, but if you continue to perpetuate this fallacy that the Earth had tilted on its axis, [the Inuit] …. would lose all credibility.’ And so there was really this backlash by the scientific community.”

“Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun’s course and the position of the stars in the night sky. “These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather,” Kunuk says. “So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes] alarm.”

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.

http://webkit.dailykos.com/stories/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters..html

The media is too busy worming away on something that’s more likely to pay off. Linking Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly to terrorism, provoking lone wolfs to attack! Heh!

Roy says and quotes:

“Several people have made comments about the Daily Mail item on the sun rising two days early in part of Greenland.”

“‘The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating’”

‘”Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun’s course and the position of the stars in the night sky. “These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather,” Kunuk says. “So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes] alarm.”‘”

“‘A few months ago the sun set at the onset of the Arctic winter but apparently it went down in the wrong place!’”

How do they get “climate change” out of a shift of the Earth’s axis? The notion that the ice was lower so the sun came up earlier is beyond stupid. Tampa International Airport has closed some of its runways this week because the one supposedly running in line with the magnetic North and South Poles, is now way off, and they had to find another runway to designate as a pole-pointer.

I love that phrase “sparking fears.” Everything sparks fears with the AGW bunch.

The Guardian has recently got tough on those who question or discuss the science of AGW within it’s ‘Comment is Free’ (CiF) system – which allows registered users to freely post comments about articles published on the Guardian’s web site.

As of last weekend, the CiF moderation team now retrospectively remove all comments, and/or block any user who attempts to discuss the science of AGW within CiF. You’ll see lots and lots of ‘This comment has been removed by a moderator.’ notices in the comments section of the the Guardian article mentioned in this WUWT guest post.

The Guardian now claims that discussing the science of AGW within CiF is off-topic, unless the published article is specifically about AGW science. It’s now, no longer possible to comment on the assumtions made in any article that concerns Climate Change which is published on the Guardian’s web site.

However, when the Guardian does publish a science article about AGW (as they did last Sunday), they simply switch CiF commenting off, preventing any discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/09/global-warming-glaciers-sea-levels

As Lubos said on his site Reference Frame, the real news is the 0.6 deg C divergence between Hansen’s 1998 temp projections and the 2010 surface temps. If the models are such huge errors (on the warm side), what will they be worth in 2100?

Anton says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

How do they get “climate change” out of a shift of the Earth’s axis?

Put down the Fly Agaric and step away from the igloo!

Global Warming causes Global Cooling has become the butt of many a joke.
Out in the real world, they take time out from shoveling snow and scraping off ice to poke fun at the clowns who came up with the whackiest explanation of the century.
The end result: rip-roaring laughter that warms many a heart.
Yes, the sky really is falling, and it’s piling up. Now get out there and utilize a non-mechanized eco-friendly shovel.

Carl McIntosh says:

“Anton says:

“‘How do they get “climate change” out of a shift of the Earth’s axis?’

“Put down the Fly Agaric and step away from the igloo!”

Ha. But, seriously, how can they attribute an axis shift to CO2? If the Earth is changing positions, I think they much greater things to worry about than whether the temperature here or there has gone up or down one tenth of one degree.

If the Moon crashed into Earth would they blame climate change? Yes, of course, stupid question. I recall seeing a C-Grade sci-fi movie on cable recently with the same “ominous” signs: the sun rising and setting where it didn’t before. Is anyone sure the Eskimos weren’t watching the SyFy Channel shortly before they reported their anomaly?

David Icke has made a living off of terrorizing the gullible with claims of lizard aliens coming to Earth to eat us: a scenario he apparently got from the old television series “V,” which has recently been resurrected in a new body. Is there any reason to think that climate “scientists,” a bunch of nerds and geeks playing with computers and rarely venturing outside, aren’t doing the same thing with their doomsday predictions?

max_b says: January 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm

The Guardian has recently got tough on those who question or discuss the science of AGW within it’s ‘Comment is Free’ (CiF) system – which allows registered users to freely post comments about articles published on the Guardian’s web site.

As of last weekend, the CiF moderation team now retrospectively remove all comments, and/or block any user who attempts to discuss the science of AGW within CiF.

Yep.. it’s all part of the “green democracy”. You are always free to speak out or ask awkward questions. Seems to be a great success (not so much in circulation terms though) - Komment Macht Frei eh? (Zensur Macht “pink slips” (apologies to German readers))

Anton, here is an article on polar movement with a link to a longer article, you might be interested in.

Earth’s magnetic field: still not reversing « Highly Allochthonous

It says… “Tampa runway realignment is not a big, recent jerk –instead, it’s the result of the gradual –and entirely unremarkable –motion of the magnetic pole relative to the geographic pole over the past few decades (what people who study the Earth’s magnetic field call secular variation).”

http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2011/01/earths-magnetic-field-still-not-reversing/

Ryan M, what is your opinion regarding the lowering of temperatures in the early and mid 20th somewhat knowledgeable layman, it is hard for me not to believe that there is a concerted effort being made to keep the AGW train(wreck) on track.

Ed Mertin says:

“Anton, here is an article on polar movement with a link to a longer article, you might be interested in….”

Thanks Ed, I’ve seen it. However the recent reports of Eskimos saying that the Earth has changed its position relative to the sun would suggest something more dramatic. What it doesn’t suggest is something CAUSED by climate change, though a shift in the planet’s position would certainly AFFECT climate.

I want to know who is making these claims about planetary position, and based on how many years of observation. As Michael Mann has shown us, some people actually do believe that the weather conditions they experienced as children are the “correct” ones, and must be reclaimed and preserved for all time. So I imagine someone used to seeing the sun rise over A for twenty years might be shocked to see it rise over B. But, would he be shocked if he’d observed for thirty or fifty years?

Humans in general have very short and narrow perspectives, though geologists seem to be able to think in big numbers.

The Blackfoot Indians living around Glacier National Park have said that the supposed catastrophic retreat of glaciers there is a normal, cyclical occurrence, and that glaciers have completely retreated and reformed in the course of a single lifetime, as recorded by their ancestors.

If observers can only compare new experiences to their own prior experiences, everything might look shockingly different over a period of years. If they could draw on a long historical record, they might not become so hysterical.

Okay, a Unified Theory of Everything Wrong with CLimate: See: A) Sarah Palin exhales CO2, B) CO2 is causing everything bad, Ergo: Sara Palin is causing Manmade (Woman made?) Global Warming Change Catastrophy Disruption. She also cause the axial tilt to change because of her hate speech. Feel free to snip if too bitterly political.

Jeremy Crick says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:19 am
“I confidently predict that The Guardian will be one of the last bastions of warmist orthodoxy even when the international reputation of the IPCC eventually lies in tatters.”

Point taken about the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” (my ass!) deletions but as for the last bastion? Maybe the financial tatters the paper is in will be its true downfall, lets face it, the paper is already intellectually bankrupt

My post yesterday got mangled. The question for Ryan is what is his opinion of GISS’ lowering of global temperatures in the early and mid 20th century, and the raising of global temperatures for the 1980′s and 1990′s.

Thank you.

Regarding Hansen, wasn’t it Feynman who used to tell his students that they should absolutely question everything their professors told them about their own theories?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Tale of the Global Warming Tiger

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.

Once upon a time, long ago and far away, three brave warriors decided to do something about the tiger that was terrorizing their village.

The first approached the tiger’s head and whacked it with a stick. The tiger ate him! The second struck the tiger’s middle with a knife. It clawed him to death. The last brave young man decided to sneak up from behind. He managed to snip a piece out of the tiger’s tail.

Of course, nipping the tiger’s tail did not do much to solve the problem. Nevertheless, the villagers celebrated his pluck and luck and everybody felt quite satisfied – until the next tiger attack.

Like the fictional warriors of my Tiger’s Tale, Global Warming Alarmists and Warmists attack the “Tail” which, in this instance, is a metaphor for human-caused warming (AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming). It makes them feel good to talk about reducing the causes of warming over which we humans may have some control: CO2 from fossil fuels and land use that reduces the Earth’s albedo. But, since AGW, like the Tiger’s Tail, is a minor part of the threat, their solutions, the cap and trade scam for carbon indulgences and painting our roofs white and wearing reflective tinfoil hats for albedo, are all out of proportion. Yes, we should do what we can to improve energy efficiency and use nuclear and clean coal and renewable sources and recycling and much of the rest, but we should not wreck our economies taking actions that can have little effect to solve a problem that is not any kind of crisis.

There seems to be general agreement here at WUWT that the official climate Team has exaggerated the extent and danger of Global Warming by adjusting past temperature data in a manner biased (perhaps by about 0.3ºC) towards supporting their dire projections for the future. We believe the actual net temperature increase (perhaps about 0.5ºC) since 1880 is nearly all due to natural processes, including cycles of the Sun, ocean oscillations, and other causes not under human control. But, we are reasonable skeptics who do not deny that human actions are responsible for some, relatively small amount (perhaps about 0.1ºC) of the rise in temperatures.

When a system engineer is faced with a complex problem, he or she does a divide and conquer to break it down into more manageable subsystems. These are analyzed to determine which are the heavy hitters that deserve the most attention, and which are of limited consequence.

The base chart for the above graphic is from NASA GISS and indicates a rise of a bit over 0.8ºC from 1880 to the present. NASA plots this as an “anomaly” from the average for 1951-1980. NASA’s red line is a five-year running average that indicates a negative (cooler) anomaly from 1880 through the mid-1930′s and a positive (warmer) anomaly from the mid-1970′s through the present. The annotations in green and violet are my initial attempt to sub-divide the anomaly into: 1) Data Bias, 2) Natural Cycles, and 3) AGW (human-caused warming).

The green line represents my estimate of the actual temperature anomaly. Therefore, the distance from the green line down to the lowest part of the red line, near 1880, represents data bias and measurement error, where NASA has adjusted data they previously published to make that part of their curve cooler. That part of their data bias amounts to about 0.1ºC. The distance from the green line up to the highest part of the red line, near 2007, is where NASA has adjusted data they previously published to make that part of their curve warmer. That part of their data bias amounts to about 0.2ºC.

The violet line represents my estimate of the actual anomaly minus the human contribution. Thus the vertical space between the violet and green lines represents AGW, which I estimate to be about 0.1ºC at the present time. The vertical space between the violet line and the lower data bias line represents the remainder, which must be due to natural processes not under human control, which I estimate to be about 0.4ºC.

I do not claim a high level of accuracy for these estimates and freely admit they may be off by 50% or more, which is why I have specified them with only one significant digit of precision. I find it humorous when government-funded climate and sunspot researchers state their estimates to two or even three or more significant digits, and then go back and change their estimates by far more than that precision indicates. (The humor fades when I realize I am paying for their efforts.)

In subsequent postings, I plan to detail how I came up with these estimates. Meanwhile, I will appreciate it if WUWT readers provide their own estimates which I will record and average for everyone’s amazement. Please state the temperature anomaly, in degrees Centigrade, you think is due to: 1) data bias, 2) natural processes, and 3) AGW. You may simply provide the numbers or you may also explain how you arrived at them.

This is what you may look forward to:

1) The Past Is Not What It Used to Be – About Data Bias: How the official climate Team adjusted past temperature data to exaggerate warming, and how the low quality of measurement stations and their encroachment by urban heat island (UHI) developments have distorted the historical record.

2) Normal Seasons of the Sun – How natural processes beyond human control, including Solar Cycles and Ocean Oscillations, are the actual cause of most climate change.

3) Some People Claim There’s a Human to Blame – Yes, human actions, mainly burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, are responsible for some small amount of Global Warming.

4) Is the Global Warming Tiger a Pussy Cat? – If, as many of us expect, natural processes lead to stabilization of global temperatures over the coming decades, and perhaps a bit of cooling, we will realize the whole Global Warming uproar was like the boy who saw a pussy cat and cried tiger.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- The Tiger, the Brahman, and the Jackal

- Tiger and Turtle

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

About Ira Glickstein, PhD

46 Responses to Tale of the Global Warming Tiger

Maybe the Tiger can adjust as quickly as temperatures do. Because the historical temperatures seem to be ‘adjusted’ every week or so. The problem with historical instrumentation (mercury and alcohol thermometers and barometers have been in use since the 1600s) seems to be uniquely a problem with Warmists.
And is the warming enough to make him melt without running around the tree?
There is always one thing that is sure about these Warmists. They are simpletons.

Trying to continue connecting CO2 with global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever, is like searching for a needle in a haystack. It is virtually impossible to to find the needle in that haystack yet, they insist on spending billions of dollars and expending valuable resources looking for it, just so they can pin it on man, and make him pay dearly for it. Even if they found a connection, they probably would not like what they find in that, the connection would probably be of such insignificant consequence as to be considered lunacy, when trying to justify such a large expenditure of time, energy, man power, and cash.

P.S.
Pun intended.

My estimate isn’t of the delta temp so far, but is of the feedback. I reckon that feedback reduces the warming caused by a change to 1/3 of what the change would be without feedback. That compares with the warmists who seem to assume that feedback increases the warming to 3 times what it would be. They then add a few more degrees for effect.

Doubling CO2 would by itself increase temps by 1.2 Centigrade, which would be in my estimate 0.4 after negative feedback.

Dalton Minimum

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/

Hay we got plenty of time, 10-15 years to go on the biggest power plant construction project ever to provide power to keep the indoor areas that humans live in above freezing.
So yea, I’m going negative on the Guesstimate…. -0.5 C

I like this article and the tip of the tail of the tiger analogy which is has a lot of explanatory power in my opinion. I’ll be interested to see the subsequent posts.

My numbers would not be far off yours. I too would put the data bias at 0.3C. The natural cycles would be about 0.25C to 0.30C and the AGW at 0.20C to 0.25C.

Sounds right; about 0.4 or 0.5°C of actual change to be explained. Too bad it’s not more.
Bring Back That Holocene Optimum! Break The CO2 Famine!

As you can perhaps detect, I’m a Contrarian Denialist. Full-bore.

I think the actual warming is more than .1 degree for the time period in the chart. The increasing solar activity/recovery from the LIA seems to steady around 1950-1960 ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/800px-Sunspot_butterfly_with_graph.gif ).

After that I’d say the AMO and PDO explain the later warmth fairly well. That being said, I do think the surface temp. record has been adjusted poorly and affected by UHI to some extent, but that corruption has been limited (a bit) by the existence of the satellite records in the later years.

Yayy, Glick!

Considering temperatures of the past climate optima, there is NO tiger terrorizing the village in the first place.

Heat pump earth has been trying to dump the heat of the last rampant sun cycles and find equilibrium. My best guess is a seven year lag, that has passed and old Sol has been slumbering for some time, unless the sun has a change of heart I would bet my left testicle that the gains for the last century in temperature will be gone by 2013. An anomaly of -0.5 C at that time and – 1C by 2015. Warming is good, what lays ahead may not be so good for those in the Northern hemisphere. The thermophobiaists will go away quietly with their tails between their legs unless old Sol can be awakened.
In the 1970′S science told us of impending doom for the ice age commeth, oddly the same weather patterns manifest themselves at this time, with one major change. Rather than an ambivalent sun we have one that has gone on holidays. Sorry Anthony but we should get accustomed to a few less watts and make decisions for our future well-being
unencumbered by PC AGW nonsense.

The IPCC AR4 summary limits anthropogenic forcing to the period after ~1950, although in other parts it refers to the complete instrumental record.
Human fossil fuel use, if it is a factor, was insignificant before WWII:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section7group6/files/co2_emissions.jpg

But I agree with the thrust of the article, the CAGW hysterics’ ‘solutions’ to a manufactured problem are completely unrealistic at this stage.

The ‘greens’ are the latest in a long line of revolutionaries whose aim is not to stop ‘global warming’, but to remake society; a long line which goes back to the French Revolution and beyond (e.g. medieval religious fanatics, flagellants, Savonarola).
For instance around 1900, French socialist Clemenceau complained that the British labour movement was not interested in “class war” or social revolution, but only in improving the workers’ conditions.
As is now happening to The Greens, political party in Australia, the ‘mensheviks’ (like Patrick Moore exiled from Greenpeace) soon get sent to ‘Siberia’.

The test for the genuineness of those who express passionate concerned about CAGW, is their attitude to the only viable option at this stage, nuclear power.

The alarmists need to realise that that’s not a tiger, it’s a cow.
It’s good to have around the village. It provided more food for us.

Both graphs are very useful and easy to understand, thanks Ira.

I change the base line to 1981-2010. Two reasons really, first things ought to always be in the now so as to reflect our own time and secondly I do not consider the “ice age climate” of 1951-1980 to reflect any kind of normal.

So essentially we’re pretty much just back to normal temperatures. Wow, but I’d say this though, it was a close one, but I wont. :p

This is an exchange correspondence with a leading UK Government advisor and a Fellow of the Royal Society. He certainly believes a problem is induced by Man-made CO2, but when asked to show the flaw in the logic set out below to get to about 0.1 degC he responded as follows:
—————————————————————————————-
“Where is the flaw in this logic ?

Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gasses cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C. Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C So closure of the world carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse Effect by 86 thousandths ⁰C.
The UK contribution to Man-made CO2 is ~2% = 0.00174⁰C.
So closure of the total UK carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse effect by 1740 millionths ⁰C.
——————————————————————————————-
The following response has been made:
flaws are marked (*)
Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gases cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C. Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C
(*) Nope, steady emissions lead to CO2 concentration rising.
So closure of the world carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse Effect by 86 thousandths ⁰C The UK contribution to Man-made CO2 is ~2% = 0.00174⁰C So closure of the total UK carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse effect by 1740 millionths ⁰C

(*) Well, that’s “the tragedy of the commons”. You can always argue that it is fine for you to be antisocial because you are just one person. But there are other views of ethics, leadership, pollution. London doesn’t have smog any more, and that’s thanks to all 7 million people all following the lead of whoever went first.”
—————————————————————————————————–
The author responded in part as follows but has received no further reply:

“Thank you very much for responding to my question.
I had expected you to find some flaw in my apparently trivial sums. However I sense that you view the figures to be in the right ballpark.
I agree that continuing emissions are progressively adding to atmospheric CO2. Nonetheless current CO2 concentrations are still at and will remain close to historical record lows even with the addition of Man-made emissions.
However I do not think that your argument about the Clean Air Act and London Pea Soupers, (I remember them well as a schoolboy), can in any way be analogous to the supposed “pollution” of CO2 and Water Vapour as greenhouse gasses. The SO2 and particulate matter that coal-burning in London produced then were qualitatively different: they were not natural and essential constituents of the biosphere. They truly were pollutants.

When you argue the greater good of the “commons” I sincerely believe that there are many more pressing Green priorities for the common good of mankind than reduction of CO2 emissions. Bjorn Lomborg has made this point very clearly.

This is especially so when one accepts that any actions, however damaging to the economies of individual countries and/or the world and to the well-being of the world population, are unable to influence global temperature to any degree at all. This is because the total elimination of all Man-made carbon dioxide production worldwide could only ever reduce the Greenhouse effect by less than 0.1°C. That is why I do not understand the idea that by drastic action worldwide many politicians think it is possible to limit any temperature rise, if it is occurring, to +2.0°C.

However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle it seems that there is a real prospect of hugely damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.”
—————————————————————————————

This correspondence seems to confirm the AGW effect of CO2 to be in the region of 0.1 degC.

I can’t really put a number to how much warming to aportion out to various sources, but I am awfully glad the mile or so thick glacier is no longer sitting on my property.

The latest research shows that the recent warming was caused by natural previously unknown inputs, like solar magnetism, cosmic rays, solar wind, to name but three, which caused the degree of warming supposedly caused by CO2. The CO2 theory of GHG’s is not true, has never been true and is due to die a deservedly tortuous death.

Excellent post, Ira, and thanks.
So-called primitive societies seem to be as advanced as 21st century Man in the urge to invent mythologies that can frighten us as soon as the sun goes down. Sadly, the rampant Green mythologies in the Western world have our current crop of politicians in thrall, who are spending inordinant chunks of the Revenue on even less effective strategies than snipping the tuft from the end of the tiger’s tail.

I think it is about time to stop using anything Hansenized or Jonesied as a basis for further analyzing. If it is Manngled or Crudified it should also not come under consideration as a basis for scientific exploration. Any numbers coming out of these processes are meaningless. Might as well use Mistress Mathilda’s Cristal Ball Prognostications and Tarot Deliberations for the gullible. Astrology has a firmer grounding in reality. Better entertainment value too.

Ira, repeat after me, over and over, until it gets permanently lodged in your brain: warmer is better, warmer is better, warmer is better, warmer is better…

Write a post about that! Poll the dear readers, have them score the betterment of warming on a ten-point scale, and average those. It will be a useful exercise and will involve math, so it will resemble engineering quite nicely.

Bill Illis says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm
I like this article and the tip of the tail of the tiger analogy which is has a lot of explanatory power in my opinion. I’ll be interested to see the subsequent posts.

My numbers would not be far off yours. I too would put the data bias at 0.3C. The natural cycles would be about 0.25C to 0.30C and the AGW at 0.20C to 0.25C.

Thanks Bill Illis for being the first to take me up on the challenge to come up with your own estimates. Your’s have been entered into my Excel spreadsheet.

. . . It makes them feel good to talk about reducing the causes of warming over which we humans may have some control: CO2 from fossil fuels and land use that reduces the Earth’s albedo. But, since AGW, like the Tiger’s Tail, is a minor part of the threat . . .

“Threat”? What threat? You have fallen for the baseless fear-mongering of the Climatists and Eco-whackos. As others have pointed out:

Katherine says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Considering temperatures of the past climate optima, there is NO tiger terrorizing the village in the first place.

StuartMcL says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:41 am
The alarmists need to realise that that’s not a tiger, it’s a cow.
It’s good to have around the village. It provided more food for us.

We are probably on the cusp of a plunge into another glaciation. Whatever warming we can eke out of this planet in the next few years (centuries? millennia?) will be all to the good for humanity—and my cold feet!

/Mr Lynn

In Feng Shui, its not a good year for tigers, just look at what happened to the tiger with a wood who loves women then crashed his car. That can be compared to global warming.

Mankind’s ability to control natural climate change is equivalent to his meager attempt to stop tectonic plates from floating around on the asthenosphere–NADA!

Only 1 question: why a baseline period of 1950 – 1980? Why not 1920 – 1950 before AGW was supposed to be an issue. Also 1950 – 1980 encompassed most of the hysteria over the global cooling leading to an ICE AGE. If you choose a cool period for the base line then you would expect the rebound anomalies to be positive. Unless someone can give a very, very good explanation for the baseline period other than that is what we chose to use then all the hype is meaningless.

I asked myself this question on my web-page 13 years ago, or in the year 1998.
See http://www.agust.net/sol/
This page is in Icelandic, but scrolling down to the green part about 80% down one can read:

Einföld samantekt á orsakavöldum meintrar hnatthitunar:
Hækkun hita lofthjúpsins frá 1860 er talin vera um 0,6°C, á sama tíma og CO2 hefur aukist frá 0,028 í 0,036%, eða um 29%.
Orsakavaldar eru þessir:
— Náttúrulegar sveiflur í sólinni: u.þ.b. 0,25°C
— Mæliskekkja ýmiskonar: u.þ.b. 0,1°C
— Af völdum aukins CO2 um 29%: u.þ.b. 0,25°C

Samkvæmt þessu ætti tvöföldun CO2 að valda hækkun hitastigs um 0,85°C.

Translated to English:

A simple summary of the cause of the supposed global warming:
Rise in atmospheric temperature from 1860 is considered to be about 0.6 ° C, while CO2 has increased from 0.028 to 0.036%, or about 29%.
Selected causes are:
- Naturally occurring fluctuations in the sun: about 0.25 ° C
- The measurement error of various types: about 0.1 ° C
- Caused by increased CO2 by 29%: about 0.25 ° C

According to this doubling of CO2 should cause the temperature by 0.85 ° C.

—

This was in the year 1998. A long time ago. I think it is still approximately valid. Maybe I underestimate the “errors”, especially because then I did not know of the “adjustments and corrections” that has been done to the data.

By the way, I have a MSc degree in electrical engineering and have been dealing with design of control and measuring systems in geothermal power plants since 1975. I therefore have a good sense for measurement errors etc. This webpage http://www.agust.net/sol/ has not been much updated for a decade. It is actually the first page of nine pages mainly dealing with the sun-climate connection which has interested me for a long time…

Agust

A Tiger named AL

A story of global warming

Once upon a time, thousands of years ago there was clan of cavemen. The whole clan lived together in a cave and spent all their available hours hunting and gathering to keep from starving.
On day, while out hunting and gathering on his own, one of the clan members, Al, came across some strange tracks at the edge of the clan’s hunting area.. He wasn’t sure what they were from but they seamed really BIG. Young Al thought about it for awhile and decided that these tracks could be from the dreaded Saber toothed tiger.
Al had never actually seen a saber toothed tiger nor had he ever seen their tracks. But, thought Al, what else could the tracks be from?
Al rushed back to the clan cave to tell the others of what he had discovered. To young Al’s surprise most of the clan didn’t seem too concerned. Al said “ we need to take precautions to keep the saber toothed tiger from killing us” “ We need to build a high fence around our camp to keep the tiger out.”
To this the clan elders said “ Sorry Al, we don’t have time to stop hunting and gathering to build a fence. We have to hunt and gather every waking hour just to keep alive. We don’t have time to waste on fences to keep out a tiger that probably doesn’t even exist”.
“ But”, Cried Al” I saw the tracks, there may even be lots of saber toothed tigers about . I can’t be sure how many tracks I saw”
The clan elders sat young Al down and tried to explain things to him.
“First”, they said, “ You don’t know what those tracks were from. Could be from a big fluffy dog named Rex. Second, nobody around here has ever even seen a saber toothed tiger. We don’t even know if they still exist. Thirdly, Even if they do exist, we don’t know that they would hurt us. Fourthly, Even if all you said was true, we don’t know that a fence would keep the tiger out.”
“ Tell you what, You go out and get some really good solid information and we will re-visit the issue”

Well, young Al didn’t like that response. He vowed to do whatever he could to save his clan. Al went back and took a second look at the tracks he had found. The tracks had been trampled over by other animals and were hard to distinguish. Now it seemed to him there were many more tracks than he first thought. Maybe the tracks of a HUNDRED tigers. He also saw something that looked like a spot of blood. Probably from an eaten member of a neighboring clan. Also, he was able to calculate that the tiger was at least 10 feet tall. So now he had his proof. There were over a hundred tigers. They were ten feet tall and they loved to eat cave dwellers.
“ Now they will have to believe me and build that fence.” Thought Al.
When young Al went to the clan elders and explained of his very scientific findings he was very surprised that they still refused to stop hunting and gathering and build a fence.

When Al came back the next day and told the elders that he was now sure that there were a THOUSAND tigers and that they were 25 feet tall they still weren’t convinced. In fact they seemed even less convinced.

That’s when he knew what he had to do. He packed his bags and headed to Copenhagen. If those stupid clan elders wouldn’t believe him, He’d talk directly to Obama. That will get some action. Maybe even a few hundred million of those new paper dollars he keeps hearing about. Al wasn’t going to let no tiger cause any GORE in his cave.
Hey, Al thought as he headed for his private jet, He would need a last name when he got to Copenhagen. Maybe that would make a good last name, “Tiger”, He would be: “ Al Tiger” That would be a COOL name.

“…AGW, like the Tiger’s Tail, is a minor part of the threat.”
“…solve a problem that is not any kind of crisis.”

Part of the problem with your essay Dr. Glickstein, is that you assume there is a threat and a problem (but not YET a crisis). Your initial assumption is wrong, so the rest of your essay is also wrong.

Agust,

interesting.

A co2 doubling amounts to an added 3.7w/m^2 of power not leaving the atmosphere to space. The average Earth at T = 288k emits about 391 w/m^2 and for balance, only about 235 W/m^2 average can escape to match the incoming solar power after the albedo reflection. That means the atmosphere, including clouds, has blocked 391-235 = 156 W/m^2 when we were in balance. Since the T is 33 Deg C above a black body, our sensitivity average is 33/156 = 0.21 deg C per W/m^2. That corresponds to 3.7 x 0.21 = 0.78 deg C rise for a doubling.

This is incredibly close to your 0.85 deg C value for a co2 doubling estimated in quite a different way.

Ágúst Bjarnason says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
I asked myself this question on my web-page 13 years ago, or in the year 1998.
See http://www.agust.net/sol/ …

A simple summary of the cause of the supposed global warming:
Rise in atmospheric temperature from 1860 is considered to be about 0.6 ° C, while CO2 has increased from 0.028 to 0.036%, or about 29%.
Selected causes are:
- Naturally occurring fluctuations in the sun: about 0.25 ° C
- The measurement error of various types: about 0.1 ° C
- Caused by increased CO2 by 29%: about 0.25 ° C

… By the way, I have a MSc degree in electrical engineering and have been dealing with design of control and measuring systems in geothermal power plants since 1975. I therefore have a good sense for measurement errors etc. …

Ágúst

Thanks Ágúst, from another electrical engineer (my Bachelors degree, before I defected to become a systems guy). You seem to be a hands-on engineer who knows the difference between the real world of physical systems and actual measurements, and the theoretical world of models and analysis. The latter is also important, so long as the model-makers do not think their products control the real world. As a practical EE, who knew how to use a voltmeter, oscilloscope, and even a soldering iron, I found that helped ground me as a system engineer. My employer, IBM, paid for me to go back, part time, for a Masters and PhD in System Science.

Your 1998 estimates are far closer to the truth than the latest from the official climate Team. I’m pleased you included your original estimates. You could have updated them to account for the additional data bias NASA GISS added after 1999, and I plan to include and discuss a blink graphic that compares their 1999 and 2008 data, showing how the PAST is not what it used to be.

I will proudly add your 1998 estimates to the summary of WUWT readers I am compiling.

woodNfish says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:25 am
“…AGW, like the Tiger’s Tail, is a minor part of the threat.”
“…solve a problem that is not any kind of crisis.”

Part of the problem with your essay Dr. Glickstein, is that you assume there is a threat and a problem (but not YET a crisis). Your initial assumption is wrong, so the rest of your essay is also wrong.

woodNfish, thanks for your comment, which echos others in this thread, who say there is no “threat”.

Well, first of all, even if steadily rising CO2 levels are not a valid concern now (and I agree with you they are not, and will not be so for the rest of our lives and those of our children and grands) , I think you would agree there is a definite threat from the CAGW crowd who have succeeded in imposing the cap and trade an other carbon-trading scams in parts of the world, along with draconian legislation in the US. For me, that kind of manufactured crisis is a definite threat.

Most of the media and much of the general population, including much of the educated elite (educated beyond their intelligence, I would say :^) believes that every extreme weather event is due to CO2, which is, of course, false, but that well-established and government-funded belief system is also a definite threat. I do not think we CAGW skeptics will gain any political traction by sticking to the pure science and saying higher levels of CO2 have not been proven to cause any temperature or weather event effects. That is the opposite side of the CAGW coin – they claim everything is due to CO2 and some claim nothing is due to CO2! The truth, as in most matters, in neither black nor white, but in some shade of gray, in this case closer to the nothing side,

You are free to disagree, and write that “Your initial assumption is wrong, so the rest of your essay is also wrong”, but do you really believe it is pointless for me to illustrate and expose data manipulation by the official climate Team and provide materials that may be used to show interested and undecided readers that the human contribution to climate change is minor compared to natural processes and that they should therefore reject the crisis-mongering by the CAGW crowd and oppose any drastic government actions that will further wreck our economy?

We also need to look to the very long run and recognize that we are burning fossil fuels that were sequestered over hundreds of millions of years, and, at current rates, we may use them up in hundreds of years. Yes, oil/tar sands and other sources will last a long time, but the more easily accessible oil and gas may peak within decades. While I agree with some comments in this thread that higher CO2 levels may actually turn out to be beneficial (as they are for most plant life), as a system engineer I do not think it is prudent to change key system parameters of a complex and chaotic (in the math sense) system more rapidly than can be adapted to within reasonable means.

IMHO, you can’t fight something (the politically-based CAGW crisis threat) with nothing. I’d appreciate your further views and those of others who think I am going a bit off the rails here.

Ira, your paranoia cup runneth over. We must be afraid of the Warmistas and counter them with science, and we must be afraid of Government Gone Wacko, and the End of Cheap Oil, and Chaos Tipped Into Chaos, and who knows what else.

Okay, fine. I agree to a degree. But Mother Goose fairy tales about the tip of the tiger’s tail dodge the issues with childish tripe.

And more to the point, there is no engineering solution to any of the above dire reports. Hold onto your hat because I am going to say it again. You can’t engineer your way out of what are in essence human-induced socio-political problems. More better science has a useful role, but the heart of the matter is political and thus not fixable with a hard systems approach.

Is there a role in this human drama for engineers? Yes, but not so much for engineering.

PS — Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, more arable land, more biological productivity, more biological diversity, more abundance, less scarcity, more wealth, more happiness — or more precisely, it would mean those things if warming was happening, which it is not. Please stop raving about the mythical dangers of CO2. It is the key nutrient of all life and without it you and I would not exist.

“There seems to be general agreement here at WUWT that the official climate Team has exaggerated the extent and danger of Global Warming …”

NO. It is much worse that that–MUCH worse. Far from exaggerating, they have the entire climate and CO2 ideal scene BACKWARDS. Warming is good–ask any farmer whether plants grow best at 12 C (54F) or lower or higher. Check the winter versus summer human death rates in any nation advanced enough to report these by month. And CO2 is not only plant food, but the tidbit of research available suggests that even 500ppm is also below the optimum for human and animal physiology.

. . . IMHO, you can’t fight something (the politically-based CAGW crisis threat) with nothing. I’d appreciate your further views and those of others who think I am going a bit off the rails here.

What you can fight them with is the truth, and that ain’t nothin’.

The truth is that, as far as we know, there is no threat to the Earth’s climate from burning fossil fuels whatsoever, and there is not likely to be one.

The truth is that much higher levels of CO2 were common in paleo-geological time, and life thrived.

The truth is that attempting to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is a fool’s errand that may enrich a few, but will impoverish the rest of mankind.

The truth is that the CAGW fear mongers are not scientists at all, but ideological zealots with a political agenda; they cannot be scientists, because they admit no doubt, and strive to brand opponents as heretics and ‘deniers’.

Shine the light of scientific truth on them, and the public will see them for what they are. There is no greater weapon.

/Mr Lynn

Mike D. says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:13 am
Ira, repeat after me, over and over, until it gets permanently lodged in your brain: warmer is better, warmer is better, warmer is better, warmer is better…

Write a post about that! Poll the dear readers, have them score the betterment of warming on a ten-point scale, and average those.

I like that. If we can somehow get a representative sample, it would be great to find out just what we think. A few actually believe ATW (kudos on your courage to read us and to post here!), some believe warming is bad but exaggerated, some know that warming is good…

I have been authorised to give Jim Hansen’s vote by proxy :

Human caused CO2 : +2.3C
Natural variability : -1.5C
Data bias : 0.0C

sarc off

Personally, I have no issue with your numbers, they look pretty much in the right ballpark.

Ira,

while I find your estimates quite compelling, I cannot offer any as I don’t think there is necessarily anyway to really tell. In fact, albedo due to clouds is quite variable and could be responsible for all warming observed although I think there is validity to my 0.21 deg C per W/m^2 average sensitivity value which suggests that some warming of around 0.35 should have occurred if co2 forcing has risen 1.7w/m^2. However, even that is assuming that co2 warming is the same for clear and cloudy sky conditions rather than merely for clear sky conditions. if this is not the case and if the effect of co2 is 0 for cloudy conditions and 3.7w/m^2 for clear conditions, then the effect could be as little as 0.13 deg C since 1750.

Under present circumstances, cloud albedo could basically adjust our temperature by+/- 6 deg C were it to vary from 0 to 100%. A natural setpoint system could also maintain our temperature rather closely for quite a variation in other parameters. External parameters as well as internal parameters (to the Earth system) could also be responsible for practically all of the variation not due to the co2.

Since cloud albedo does vary by a few percent, over twice as much power change due to albedo as a co2 doubling has been observed over a few year span, it is neither constant nor negligible. As such, it is fairly easy for the cloud variation to accommodate variations in parameters, like ghg effects or solar incoming, so that there is almost no surface T change.

“…do you really believe it is pointless for me to illustrate and expose data manipulation by the official climate Team and provide materials that may be used to show interested and undecided readers that the human contribution to climate change is minor compared to natural processes and that they should therefore reject the crisis-mongering by the CAGW crowd and oppose any drastic government actions that will further wreck our economy?”

Absolutely not Doctor, but I do think pointing out how their alarmism is manufactured is laudable, but I think you harm your effort lending agreement to their claim that there is a problem.

I don’t know how many of the “elite” believe this nonsense or are just to busy or lazy to look at it close enough rather than depend on the fraudulent experts (alarmists). And yes, I do think the C&T and GHG emissions regulation is extremely harmful and wasteful. But let me give you something else to consider:

Obama has given the go ahead to the EPA and other parts of the government to regulate GHGs. He did this just before the new Congress came in even though a majority of people want jobs, and this is a jobs killer.

I think he did it to put his bargaining chits in place before the Republican House of Reps begins to try and dismantle as much as they can. Obama can give in on regulations that basically haven’t had an effect – the Republicans can look like they are keeping their promises and Obama looks like he is moving to the center, ensuring his re-election in 2012.

Considering the amount of damage he has been able to do in two years, if he succeeds in getting another four years I don’t know how we’ll survive. And I am not trying to be dramatic.

Mike D. says:
January 14, 2011 at 11:36 am
Ira, your paranoia cup runneth over. …

GRRR! I’m NOT paranoid! (Even though the whole world is against me :^)

And more to the point, there is no engineering solution to any of the above dire reports. … Is there a role in this human drama for engineers? Yes, but not so much for engineering. …

I agree this is a political issue more than a science or engineering one. If engineering is involved it will a very long-range role, for adapting to the normal changes in climate, whether it be the cooling some of us are predicting, or continuing gradual warming, or more or fewer extreme weather events, or for coping with peak oil and gas, etc.

Yes, I agree that warmer is generally better and that 400 or 600 ppmv of CO2 will not be an issue for human and other animal life and will be beneficial for most plant life.

OK, you and I are sold on these facts, but you do not address how we will get the other reasonable citizens of our republic, and our elected leaders, and the opinion-setters to buy these truths. My posting was more for them than you.

Talking and listening to our customer set (military pilots and their defense acquisition agencies) was a key part of my job as a system engineer involved in conceptualizing future systems. So IBM sent me to their marketing school for two weeks. One lesson that stuck with me was that people buy what they want from who they like. A second was not to trash our competitors approaches and products. It does no good to shout “XYZ company is a bunch of stinking liars and their systems are crap.” Saying that (even if it is true) will shut your audience down and they will not hear anything else you say. Better to point out the advantages of our system approach, admit where an opposing concept has some advantages, and where applicable, give factual comparisons that favor our approach and that can be verified: “Our system has X accuracy and theirs has Y accuracy.”

What has this to do with my approach to CAGW? Well, I don’t have to sell you on this issue. But it is a fact that the majority of opinion-setters are closer to the other side than to ours. They will not respond well if we make fun of their concerns by shouting “repeat after me, warmer is better” (even though it is true), or “your paranoia cup runneth over” or “Please stop raving about the mythical dangers of CO2″, etc. Dale Carnegie wrote a great book in 1936, before you and I were born, “How to Win Friends and Influence People!” It is still worth reading.

Anything is possible says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I have been authorised to give Jim Hansen’s vote by proxy :

Human caused CO2 : +2.3C
Natural variability : -1.5C
Data bias : 0.0C

sarc off

Personally, I have no issue with your numbers, they look pretty much in the right ballpark.

THANKS! I love the way you set the “Jim Hansen’s” estimates that they add to exactly 0.8ºC, the NASA GISS supposed total warming since 1880, and that you had to set natural variability to a negative value.

Only 3.27% of CO2 is produced by man, the other 96.73% is natural.
Only 0.001% of water vapor is produced by man; the other 99.999% is natural.
Wv has 26 times the spectral bandwidth absorption or gge than does CO2.
After the gge of N2O, CH4, O3, and CFCs are added, the total gge caused by man is 0.28%, the other 99.72% is natural.
If man ceased to exist, the gge reduction would be 1 part out of 356!

It is going to be the Grand Solar Minimum we entered in 1990 and will bottom out in 2030 that will be the harvest killer and the real crisis for mankind. CO2 is just coming along for the ride, and is irrelevant.

WoodNFish;
I agree with your adjuration not to cede assumptions to the AGW crowd. I have considerable difficulty with “lukewarmist” apologias on this account. They seem to think that saying, “OK, CO2 warms somewhat, but it’s not that much” is sane and effective. It is not. NO warming outside irrelevant lab experiments with closed containers of pure CO2 has been demonstrated. Further, the cloud albedo variability and responsiveness are, as pointed out above, far in excess of any putative effect of CO2, and will not just swamp but erase them.

CO2 is irrelevant to weather and climate.

Brian H says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:24 pm
WoodNFish;
I agree with your adjuration not to cede assumptions to the AGW crowd. I have considerable difficulty with “lukewarmist” apologias on this account. They seem to think that saying, “OK, CO2 warms somewhat, but it’s not that much” is sane and effective. It is not. NO warming outside irrelevant lab experiments with closed containers of pure CO2 has been demonstrated. Further, the cloud albedo variability and responsiveness are, as pointed out above, far in excess of any putative effect of CO2, and will not just swamp but erase them.

CO2 is irrelevant to weather and climate.

I am no expert on these matters, but Prof. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT is and has been so recognized in several WUWT postings. See Lindzen on WUWT where he says: “For sensitivities less than 2°C, the data readily distinguish different sensitivities, and ERBE [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment] data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”

CO2 sensitivity is the expected temperature rise from doubling of CO2 levels. CO2 has risen from around 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv, which figures out to an expected rise of 0.14°C which I rounded down, due to negative feedbacks, to 0.1°C. (Note that the official climate Team pegs CO2 sensitivity at least four times higher than Lindzen, which would increase the temperature rise due to CO2 going from 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv to 0.6°C or more, which is why the IPCC claims, incorrectly IMHO, that virtually all the warming since 1880 is due to CO2 increases. )

What is the basis for your blanket statement that “CO2 is irrelevant to weather and climate.” ? Are you striving to counteract the IPCC’s error (that many of us think is politically driven) of over-estimating CO2 sensitivity by underestinating it in an equally erroneous way, but only more so, in the other direction?

No, your adjectives, not mine. I consider, pace Lindzen, that the power, range, and virtually instantaneous response of clouds and humidity to warming from any source makes actual “signal” and effect from CO2 null.

The reason the Earth is warm, and has a narrow temperature range, is H2O. Period. Its spectrum, phase signatures, quantity, and specific heat characteristics make CO2 less than trivial in impact.

The “physics” of pure CO2 in closed laboratory containers is irrelevant (in the strict sense of having so little influence in an actual wet atmosphere that it is unmeasurable).

Dear Ira,

Thank you for quoting Dale Carnegie to me. I appreciate that you are attempting to engage in a soft systems approach, utilizing marketing techniques.

I am the first to admit that I am persuasion-skill challenged. My style is to shout, “Al Gore and company are a bunch of stinking liars and their CAGW theories are crap,” which as you point out causes spontaneous reactions in the sensitive lay audience.

Maybe treating people like children is the ticket. Compassionate hand holding may be better than a slap upside the head.

But consider this: CAGW is a scam perped by plutocrats with sticky fingers, Enron times a million on a gl0bal scale, the largest rip off in history that has perverted science, the economy, democracy, human rights, and human well-being worldwide. It is not a paper tiger or a set of opinions that can be easily discarded to the trash heap of history. The Big Boys who have perped the scam have their jackboots on the necks of every human being and every institution, and they are powerful beyond measure.

So maybe some excesses of contrarian rhetoric are indeed called for. And since that’s my strength, whereas gentle persuasion is not, I’ll probably continue to counterpunch rather than whisper sweet nothings. You are welcome, however, to take whatever approach you favor.

Mike D. says:
January 15, 2011 at 10:23 am
Dear Ira,

… I appreciate that you are attempting to engage in a soft systems approach, utilizing marketing techniques.

I am the first to admit that I am persuasion-skill challenged. My style is to shout, “Al Gore and company are a bunch of stinking liars and their CAGW theories are crap,” which as you point out causes spontaneous reactions in the sensitive lay audience. …

I know you were paraphrasing a sentence I used when you wrote: “Al Gore and company are a bunch of stinking liars and their CAGW theories are crap,” but, while I am no fan of our former VP, and was very pleased to see his presidential aspirations done in by the butterfly ballot and hanging chads, I would not call anyone a liar unles they met two qualifications: (1) Said or wrote something that is clearly untrue, AND (2) Knew, or had good reason to know, that it was untrue when they uttered it. Gore certainly qualifies on (1), but the evidence on (2) is lacking. As a non-scientist, he put his faith in James Hansen and other government-funded climate scientists.

Yes, Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth talks and movie contain falsehoods. Even Real Climate, a Warmist blog run by members of the official CAGW climate Team admitted, in 2004, a couple years before Gore’s movie, that “CO2 does not initiate the warmings, …” In a 2006 posting at Real Climate, while spinning the story wildly to put the best face on it, they admit:

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change “in just two years”, due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can’t see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I’m skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he’ll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to “global warming”. …

Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore’s use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections …[emphasis added]

So, I let Gore off as a well-intentioned Chicken Little, who, when he got hit on the head by an acorn, thought the sky was falling, and went off to warn and save the world. (I don’t want to know what hit Gore in the head :^)

I do think, however, you could make the case that Hansen, head of GISS in the US and Phil Jones, head of the CRU (Climategate Research Unit) in England qualify on both: (1) They spoke falsely and (2) – They knew it at the time (or at least should have known it, no one can tell what is inside anyone else’s mind, and I accept that they were well-intentioned when they first came up with their CAGW theories and really thought, like Chicken Little, that they were saving the world). I’ve read all the CRU emails that were most likely put out by an inside whistleblower as well at all the NASA GISS emails released under the FOIA, and it is clear, at least to me, there was a concerted effort to adjust the data (in other words lie) to further the CAGW scam. For all I know, both Hansen and Jones may, even now, still have CAGW delusions (sometimes it takes a PhD to believe crazy stuff like that :^), but, as climate scientists, they should have known better, even a decade ago, and, as recipients of public funding, they had an obligation to the larger society to be sure their official pronouncements were supported by science.

As I have pointed out here at WUWT, GISS “adjusted” US Annual temperature data seven times cooking the books to truthify CAGW. Their previously published 1998 data was a decade old and their 1934 data was old enough to qualify for Social Security, but they made that old data work until they changed the initial relationship by over 0.5ºC to make 1998 warmer than 1934. Clearly, that was a lie.

For his part, Climategate Jones, was so frustrated by the climate’s failure to follow the pronouncements of his models, that he actually wrote in emails:

“… there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

“Mike, Can you delete any emails … with Keith re [IPCC 2007 report] Keith will do likewise. … also email Gene and get him to do the same? … Cheers Phil”.

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”

A scientist is a liar when he tries to hide data and evidence contrary to his theories, and is an absolute madman when he wishes that CAGW will happen, regardless of the consequences” (which the CAGW crowd say will be catastrophic for life on Earth) just to sooth his ego.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Another overhyped global warming claim bites the dust

Longtime readers of WUWT may remember this story from 2008:

Nutty Story of the Day: “Global Warming” is Killing the Penguins in Antarctica

The root of this goes back as far as 2006, such as this MSNBC story:

click image for the story at MSNBC.com

Now it appears that assertion of a link between global warming and penguin deaths is dying  faster than the penguins themselves. In what appears to be a manifestation of the observer effect problem in science (the act of observing changes the outcome) we have this article from the science journal Nature that says the act of tagging penguins so they can be tracked by researchers, seems to have a significant side effect on their life expectancy (mortality) and ability to reproduce. The article goes on to question a climate connection.

The cover page headline in Nature:

Flipper-banding reduces penguins fitness and skews climate data

Here’s a news story:

PARIS (AFP) – Tagging penguins with flipper bands harms their chances of survival and breeding, a finding which raises doubts over studies that use these birds as telltales for climate change, biologists said on Wednesday.

The metal bands, looped tightly around the top of the flipper where it meets the body, have long been used as a low-cost visual aid by researchers to identify individual penguins when they waddle ashore.

Foot tags are not used because of the penguin’s anatomical shape.

But, says the new study, the seemingly harmless bands affect the penguin’s swimming performance, causing it to waste more energy in foraging for food, sometimes with life-threatening consequences.

Publishing in the journal Nature, French and Norwegian scientists reported that they took 100 king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus), selected at random on Possession Island on the Crozet archipelago, a sub-Antarctic group in the southern Indian ocean.

All were tagged with a minute, electronic transponder that was implanted under the skin, which can only be read by using specialist equipment placed close to the bird. Fifty of the 100 birds were additionally given a flipper band.

The team then recorded sightings of the group over the next 10 years.

Banded birds were 16 percent likelier to die than non-banded counterparts, and had 39 percent fewer chicks, they report.

“The picture is unambiguous,” researcher Yvon Le Maho told AFP. “Among banded penguins, the least-fit individuals died out in the first five years of the study, which left super-athletic birds.

“In the remaining five years, the mortality rate between the two groups was the same, but the reproductive success of banded penguins was 39 percent lower on average.”

Le Maho said he had warned many years ago against banding penguins on ethical grounds but was sidelined. Opponents argued that the birds were not affected by the practice or got used to the tag after a year or so.

The latest findings, though, are unequivocal, he said.

Entire story here

Here’s a video from Nature on the issue:

You can add “Penguins killed by AGW” to the trashbin along with the now disproven Frogs being killed by AGW hype.

Oh and let’s not forget the fact that the whole of the continent of Antarctica has been shown not to have any statistically significant warming (except in the peninsula, which may be affected by weather station issues, since most Antarctic weather stations are near a warm pocket of humanity, i.e. researchers) by our skeptical scientist friends Jeff Condon and Ryan O’Donnell.

Condon and O"Donnell's Antarctic temperature profile, 2010

Real Climate's Dr. Eric Steig's version, 2009 - from the cover of Nature

Yeah, it’s all about the warming in Antarctica, it couldn’t possibly be anything else.

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Follow up on the solar-neutrinos-radioactive decay story

- A suggestion to Dr. James Hansen: go protest coal in China

- Interior Dept. Inspector General Investigating post facto falsified stateme…

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

104 Responses to Another overhyped global warming claim bites the dust

Also, Disney herded the lemmings off the cliff to demonstrate that lemmings commit suicide.

…but of course, everyone loves Disney, they could never harm animals.

This reminds me of the nature show where the camera crew followed the young bear until it starved to death… how successful do you think he could be with their zippy little camera’s swirling around him and a group of noisy smelly humans around. Sometimes I think scientists do more harm then good and don’t even realize it. I could mention drowning bears .. but I think my point is made. Humans in general apparently aren’t smart enough yet to understand the law of unintended consequences.

“Yeah, it’s all about the warming in Antarctica, it couldn’t possibly be anything else.”

Anthony, it just can’t be that you’re bitter about the years of careless, ideologically driven conclusion-mongering pap passed off as science by leading journals and organizations … can it?

But all penguins die either of cold or starvation (which is apparently why they freeze to death) or getting eaten or being in an accident or, lastly, old age.

The only way for penguins to die extra from global warming, since they, apparently, eat as close to home as, we all and, they can, is if global warming leads to even colder weather and climate.

Funny how the penguins, apparently, thrive come summer, even around the fringes of South Africa in the years when it is extra warm around the fringes of South Africa.

WHY ENVIRONMENTAL FORTUNE-TELLING IS ACCEPTED
a.n.ditchfield
A recurrent thought of Nigel Lawson is that much of the current malaise in the West is due to the erosion of traditional religion and education. The West has lost its bearings. In this he echoes G.K. Chesterton: “The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything”. The epigram expresses what anthropologists have long known: that religiosity seems to be hardwired into the human brain; if suppressed in one form it returns in another.
Before the French Revolution all of Europe was referred to as Christendom and since then, secularisation has advanced by the hand of governments with agendas. In France, the Catholic clergy was disbanded, church property was confiscated and forked out to politicians in power while a state sponsored Humanist creed promptly enthroned a supporting Goddess Reason at Nôtre Dame cathedral in Paris. Bismarck sought to bolster the power of the Prussian state by instituting political control over religious activities, the Kulturkampf. Similar action was taken in Italy, Spain and Portugal at various times, often aimed against religious educational institutions, so as to ensure the indoctrination the young at secular schools. The Soviet Union went the whole hog to establish atheism as the official creed and to exorcise or burn dissenters. While such state action eroded the hold of traditional religion, in more recent times Environmentalism has crept in as the religion of choice of urban dwellers, even in English-speaking countries that had seemed to hold immunity to European-style anticlericalism.
“Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop”. The pagan-like worship of Nature has rites, such as planting a tree to atone for an air trip; believers neither fake nor dissemble the sin of consumerism, but acknowledge and confess it; the faithful make weekly trips to the countryside to enter into communion with Nature; their children attend Sunday school to hear Inconvenient Truths, the sayings of the high priest Al Gore. The congregation dutifully joins processions to sing hymns for green causes, of all things nice and beautiful for creatures great and small. It observes a calendar with red-letter days, such as Earth Day; perhaps green-letter days would be more to the point. There is a hagiography of saints, the followers of the righteous path of Rachel Carson, and a rogue’s gallery of demons, the big bad oil companies and the dirty coalminers that tempt mankind with the unclean combustion that lights the fires of Hades. Railroads that carry coal are merchants of death. The holy waters of the Gulf of Mexico were profaned by an oil spill. Religious orders such as Green Peace and Friends of Earth propagate the true faith. The green religion even sells indulgences, in the form of Carbon Credits for those who cannot stop sinning.
These beliefs could be as harmless as a football match, were it not for consequences on a practical plane when they inspire misguided policies designed to de-industrialise the West and block the ascent of hundreds of millions in India and China to the amenities of an adequate diet, clean drinking water, electricity, and basic education and health care. The undoing of two centuries of achievements of the Industrial Revolution is on the march, a retreat back to poverty and want.
Worse may come for democratic rule of law. Horrible penalties are publicly demanded for heretics who deny the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming or question, on rational grounds, the Articles of Faith that underpin the warning message that the end of the world is nigh:
· We are running out of space. The world population is already excessive for a limited planet, and grows at exponential rates, with dire effects.
· We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by runaway consumption; further expansion of the world economy is unsustainable.
· We are running against time , as tipping points of irreversible climate processes are reached. Carbon dioxide emitted by the economic activity causes global warming. It will soon bring catastrophic climate disruption that will render the planet uninhabitable.
When such issues are quantified, the contrast between true and false becomes clear. Acts of faith have no place when dealing with measurable physical issues.
Is overcrowding a serious problem? It may seem so to the dweller of a congested metropolitan city. This is local discomfort, but not something that can be generalised for the planet. The sum of U.S. urban areas amounts to 2% of the area of the country, and 6% in densely populated countries like England or Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If the comparison is restricted to the ground covered by buildings and pavements, the occupied area amounts to 0.04% of Earth’s terrestrial area. It was estimated that 6 billion people could live comfortably on100 000 square miles, the area of Wyoming, or 0.2% of the total. With about 99.8% of free space available the idea that the planet is overpopulated is an exaggeration. Demographic forecasts are uncertain, but the most accepted ones, of the UN, foresee the stability of the global population, to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population will start to decline at the end of this century and an aging population emerges as a matter of concern. With so much available space is untenable that the world population is excessive or has the possibility of ever becoming so.
It is argued that, ultimately, a limited planet cannot allow unlimited growth. It can also be counter-argued that, ultimately, non-renewable natural resources do not exist, in a universe governed by the Law of Conservation of Mass, which in popular form states that “nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes.” Not a gram of human usage was ever subtracted from the mass of the planet and, in theory, all material used can be recycled. The feasibility of doing so depends on the availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operational it will be available in virtually unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in water in a proportion of 0.03%. A cubic kilometre of seawater contains more potential energy than would be obtained from combustion of all known oil reserves in the world. Since the oceans contain 3 billion cubic kilometres of water is safe to assume that energy will last longer than the human species. Potable water need not be a limitation, as is sometimes said; an innovation like nano-tube membranes holds the promise of reducing energy costs for desalination to a tenth of current costs, which would make feasible the use of desalinated water for irrigation along the coast of all continents (750,000 km). What grounds are there to assume such technologies never will come to fruition?
There is no growing shortage of resources signalled by rising prices. Since the mid-19th century a London periodical, The Economist, has kept consistent records of commodity values; in real terms, they dropped over a century and a half, due to technological advances, to the cheapening of energy and to its more efficient use. The decline was benign. The cost of feeding a human being was eight times higher in 1850 than it is today. Even in 1950, less than half the world population of 2 billion had a proper diet of more than 2000 calories per day; today 80% and have it and the world’s population is three times greater.
There is no historical precedent to support the idea that human ingenuity is exhausted and that technology will henceforth stagnate at current levels. Two centuries ago, this idea led to the pessimistic Malthus prediction of the exhaustion of land to feed a population that seemed to grow at exponential rates.
There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998 after rising the previous 23 years, sparking the current alarm about global warming by human hand. Since 1998, warming has been followed by 12 years of stable or declining temperatures, a sign of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces modifying climate, more powerful than carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels. Natural forces include cyclic fluctuation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect on cosmic rays of the sun’s magnetic activity. All these cycles are known, but mankind can do nothing for or against forces of this magnitude. Measures to adapt to changes make sense; not the de-industrialization of a world where a quarter of mankind still has no electricity.
Caution in public policy must be exerted because climate change predictions are subject to great uncertainty. The existing knowledge about climate comes from numerous fields such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc., with partial contributions to the understanding of climate. There is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity and perhaps there never will be one. Chaotic phenomena, in a mathematical sense, cannot be predicted. Climate forecasts that extend to the next century carry as much substance as readings of tea leaves by fortune-tellers.
With no basis on solid theory and empirical evidence, the mathematical models that support alarmist predictions are nothing more than speculative thought which reflect the assumptions fed into models, and chosen in the interest of sponsors. These computer simulations provide no rationale for public policies that inhibit economic activity “to save the planet.” And carbon dioxide is not toxic or a pollutant; it is a plant nutrient in the photosynthesis that sustains the food chain for all living beings on the planet.
Stories about disasters circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth is attributed to global warming: an earthquake in the Himalayas, the volcanic eruption in Iceland, the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean; tribal wars in Africa, heat wave in Paris; plague of snails on the tiny Isle of Wight; forest fires in California; sandstorms during the dry season and floods during the wet season in Australia; recent severe winters in North America; the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota; the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five cycles centuries. Evo Morales blames Americans for summer floods in Bolivia.
Such reckless allegations of cause and effect indicate that global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon, which finds a parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that once incited masses deceived by demagogues.
As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the opinion of Professor Aaron Wildavsky, global warming is the mother of all environmental alarm: “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” It is the hippie’s dream of a life of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and a vegetarian diet; a lifestyle to be foisted upon the world by dictatorial decree of a supra-national eco-fascist dictatorship and justified by the fantasy of a limit to lebensraum on a finite planet.
Anyone who doubts this as hyperbole should read what James Hansen himself has to say at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101122_ChinaOpEd.pdf

“the least-fit individuals died out in the first five years of the study”
“Opponents argued that the birds were not affected by the practice or got used to the tag after a year or so.”
===========================================================
obviously

At least they didn’t say Arctic………………..

Along with the observer effect, this also illustrates the elite’s refusal to acknowledge the difference between living and dead, and even the elite failure to distinguish male and female. If you understand penguins as living creatures with intention and desire, and you understand the requirements of male and female, you’ll recognize that a visible imperfection will interfere with suitability for mating. If you start from the egalitarian/feminist myth that all things can be treated as indistinguishable passive elementary particles, you’ll miss this recognition.

Here, as in the crime against nature known as the Endangered Species Act, our elites claim to be Darwinists but actually violate Darwin at every step.

[snip - funny, but will be misconstrued by the humorless]

Banding kills penguins or a 50 part per million increase in carbon dioxide kills penguins? Smart money is on the carbon dioxide….duh!

The word “unequivocal” seems to pop up everywhere. Together with “robust” and “unprecedented”.

Interesting article.

It is nice to see that some scientists can figure out the obvious. Anyone that ever saw a penguin swim underwater would release that they are exceptionally hydrodynamic and the tag is going to have a serious negative effect not to mention the fact that it probably makes it look less fit to other penguins. Too bad other scientists don’t seem capable of getting the obvious fact that in order for there to be an effect to study, there has to a reasonable cause that can explain it. Significant warming can’t be the cause they are desperately trying to prove if it doesn’t exist in the first place.

It’s worse than the report. From the Knight Science Journalism Tracker and Seth Borenstein …

However…ahem. The paper and Nature’s summary for reporters both say that flipper-banded penguins had a 16 percent lower ten-year survival rate. By contrast, the accompanying data results table says that chances of surviving for ten years fell from 0.36 to 0.20. Well, subtract those two and one does get 0.16 or 16 points difference, but as our alert AP man saw, what’s important is not that the rate fell 16 points but that 0.20 is about a 44 percent drop from 0.36
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2011/01/13/lots-of-inumerate-ink-penguins-suffer-when-tagged-do-the-math-most-journos-didnt/

It’s unequivocal . Not disputing the story , just noting that the word has been seen a lot today . How many buzz words do these guys use ?

Maybe if they used more attractive tags …….. This reminds me of the frog / toad researchers who, it was later discovered, were spreading disease, while claiming AGW was reducing the critters ability to survive.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php?s=frogs

“Scientists” seem to kill more of nature’s animals by banding,tagging, capturing, hugging, and all other forms of so called studies. Follow the money just like the whole AGW thingy. I am ashamed of all of them.

Is this the beginning of Nature actually publishing real science again?
Once again here is proof that scientists who may be expert in their field, in this case penguin research, lack common sense in their use of flipper tags.
I’ve always wondered whether tags of any kind affect wildlife, but assumed that the scientists had checked that out. Now they have.

The study was started in 1998 and five years later they knew they had a problem – that means the S.H. summer of 2003. This is currently the seventh summer since then – if I’ve got the arithmetic correct. So, how many penguins have been tagged?

I guess I’ll have to modify this to refer to penguins instead of Polar Bears:

Duh! Researchers depend on funding and to get funding they need to find out important things. The whole idea of handicapping animals with metal banding is so so that the animals do indeed die out quickly and catastrophically.

Duh! How else do you think you get more research funds for the next antarctic boondoggle?

That’s the secret.

If the researchers found that Penguins were doing just fine then their research grants would be much more difficult to justify.

Hey, doesn’t everyone realize that the Bling these scientists were giving to these poor creatures would help with their mating chances? Remember Lovelace from Happy Feet? He had those cool rings around his neck, he had the chicks digging him! These poor fellas can’t help it if the female penguins didn’t realize what a fine addition these cool armbands were. I wanna go out and get one myself…

/Sarcasm off

OT, but look at the advert top right of article – Build wealth through investing in real estate. Based on the assumption that, of course, real estate never falls in value. Another article of faith, just like CAGW, that has been blown out of the water in the past few years.

Re the snip. Quite understand.

[snip, funny, but will be misconstrued by the humorless]

Are the penguins drowning like the polar bears?

“Le Maho said he had warned many years ago against banding penguins on ethical grounds but was sidelined.”

I am sure his results are correct but in science (and climate science especially) I hate to see someone promoting a point of view on ethical grounds – then confirming it with his own research and data (observations unverifiable over a long period of time). Hopefully his research will be confirmed by others in a few years.

Next you’ll be telling us that air-conditioners and power generators for the Antartic scientists dwellings have skewed temperature data….oh you have already….

Mark Twang says:

“Are the penguins drowning like the polar bears?”

No, but they’re turning on one another.

Antarctic not Antartic…duh! Must get new glasses or new fingers…

Maybe the Penguins will start studying the Climatologists?

Maybe it was all the polar bears that are in the Antarctic killing and eating the penguins.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/more-than-four-feet-of-sea-level-rise-this-century/#comment-30723

The parallels to researchers spreading the chytrid fungus yet not taking better precautions is a sad tale. But I think in general most researchers try to be aware when they are having an adverse effect.

I am bothered more by the fact that while the ice loving Penguins were declining on the peninsula, where the warm waters of the polar front come closest to the Antarctic continent, The colonies of ice loving Penguins have tripled in the Ross Sea.

This paradox growing populations was mentioned in a recent article in Science on the state of our oceans, but simply dismissed, claiming that “our models say it will warm there soon”. So they then went on to hype only the declining populations.

Reminds me of the story I heard back in the mid 70s about an environmental contractor in the north west of Western Australia. Seems he had to do a fish count in some waterholes. Gelignite made it easy to count the bodies.

Anthony,

Thanks for picking this ‘tip’ up and running with it. Nice article!

REPLY: Gosh I’m sorry, I saw it on my Google alerts feed. Often many things arrive simultaneously via different channels, my apologies if you felt I used your tip without credit, that certainly wasn’t an intent. – Anthony

From http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68666/title/Marking_penguins_for_study_may_do_harm

In a swimming test in a tank, an Adélie penguin wearing a band expended 24 percent more energy than an unbanded penguin.

That’s huge! I’d imagine it also implies the penguins bring back less food
because they need some of the calories.

Biologists are studying penguins to understand the effects of climate change on life in Antarctica, but in the new study researchers found that environmental conditions affected banded birds more severely than their unbanded counterparts. For example, during the warmer phases of the El Niño climate cycle, when the seafood that penguins eat is scarce, the banded birds showed an even greater tendency than usual to arrive late at breeding grounds.

They usually arrive late? Perhaps “usual” isn’t El Niño.

Well in keeping with Smith’s first Law of survival (out in the ocean); to whit:- “There ain’t no such thing as 75% of Top Speed !”

Guess which Emperor Penguins the Leopard Seals will target, as catchable snacks on the hoof ?

You wanna bet me; that Jane Goodall, and her tribe of students; have NOT impacted the lives and behavior of the Gombe Stream Chimpanzee population. I’m not being critical of her; her “discoveries” have been mind boggling; but are they Chimps in the wild, or wily quick learners.

I can remember when we used to pop the lids off the top of Baja rock oysters, in our snorkel gear, and watch the Sergeant Majors dart in to scarf up the oyster out of its shell. Total training period for a new school of SMs; two oysters max; and then they would be gathered at the next oyster waiting for the magic screwdriver to pop the top.

So Heisenberg was right; in the act of studying our subject, we change its behavior.

It would be interesting to “band” about a million 14-year-old with with GPS and telemetry collars to see how many survive and reproduce within 15 years. Or maybe just make them wear khakis and polo shirts.

Re: ShrFnr@ 3:07.

Oh! Come on! I just gotta know!

Overhyped? How? Your story that you link to says that the Sunday Mirror (hardly an authoritative source) seemed to be on its own in making the claim. It mentions an AP source (link now dead) which your story suggests the Mirror had got wrong. Your post here points to an MSNBC story which says something about global warming in a caption.

Overhyped? Is that all there is?

Reverse Hawthorne effect?

If penguins are dying because warming, how come they to mate and breed to a much warmer place tha the Peininsula? They go to the biggest breeding and mating place in the world, Punta Tombo, in Patagonia, where they share territory with guanacos (and toursits in shorts!). Just see:

http://www.patagonia-argentina.com/i/atlantica/puertomadryn/tombo.php

Or:
http://www.destination360.com/south-america/argentina/punta-tombo

“Punta Tombo is truly a unique and pristine part of Patagonia. This five hundred acre Argentina National Park provides a nesting ground for the Magellan penguin population. Each year during the warmer days of spring over half a million penguins come to the Patagonia coasts in order to breed. One of the greatest features to the Punta Tombo is that you can actually experience the walk along side the penguins and observe their intricacies first hand. It is the perfect spot for a curious eye. Become a part of the ‘march of the penguins.’ ”

Also: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Magellanic-Penguins-of-Punta-Tombo.html

I seem to remember that someone was complaining that the increased temps caused more snow and ice and made it harder for some species to reach their inland breeding grounds.

@Nick Stokes

Well golly, Nick – Ididn’t have any problem finding the Nature site. What’s your problem?

“It observes a calendar with red-letter days, such as Earth Day; perhaps green-letter days would be more to the point.”

No, Earth Day is also on Vladimir Lenin’s birthday, so red is the appropriate color; remember, Green is the new Red

this is typical of AGW advocacy, as opposed to science.

It is no better than my going to Brighton, dipping my foot in the water, and then declaring on the basis of such an experience that the Titanic didn’t sink, since it couldn’t be felt underfoot. It would then be said that it was a fable to make a good movie, but ultimately would fall to pieces when checked against the relevant facts, and my declaration would be the fable.

AGW is indeed this sort of trap of assertion, followed by defence of it against relevant facts of the kind in question, but since it deals with a very partial and enclosed set of its own partial facts, can only defend them with rhetoric, as Trenberth does, than with the relevant calculations.

Surprisingly, the IPCC 4th assessment report doesn’t contain the necessary and crucial calculations (which ought to be in the section on radiative forcing) to prove the c02 thesis, and should therefore only be treated as conjecture, or a hypothesis at best.

It’s a real shocker The more I discover the angrier I get!

Banding kills birds it’s supposed to tag
Tuesday, 8 June 2004 Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/08/1127115.htm

They already knew way back in 2004, wing banding of king penguins problems has been reported before:

Discovery News – Jennifer Viegas (June 8, 2004, via ABC Australia): Banding kills birds it’s supposed to tag ;
Over the five years of the study, unbanded penguins fared much better than the banded birds.
They arrived earlier at the colony for courtship and breeding, produced 54 chicks versus the 28 counted for banded birds, and were more likely to survive.

Lead author Dr Michel Gauthier-Clerc, a French biologist with the Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat in Arles, said the flipper bands prevented penguins from swimming normally.
“The major problem is the increased energy cost for swimming that results from decreased hydrodynamic efficiency.
The drag created by the band made banded penguins work harder in the water. The effect could be critical when penguins forage in deep water for their main prey, lantern fish, and during the winter, when the birds must travel and hunt over long distances to build up body weight before they fast for breeding at the colony.
Over the course of the study, banded birds had delayed returns to the colony. In the final year, 36% did not make it back to the island.

Penguins Harmed by Research Bands
The bands that are used to tell birds apart affect the birds’ reproduction and survival, research shows.
Thu Jan 13, 2011
http://news.discovery.com/animals/penguins-bands-research-110113.html

And in another worrisome development, the flipper-banded penguins averaged 12.7 days away from home on foraging trips instead of 11.6. “One day or two days is a huge difference,” says ecologist and study co-author Claire Saraux of the University of Strasbourg and France’s CNRS research network.
Chicks back at the breeding site eat only when a parent swims home with food collected hundreds of kilometers, sometimes thousands of kilometers, away. And young chicks have to build up reserves to survive their first winter, when parental food delivery drops off to only a few times during the whole season.
Slower foraging fits with worries that flipper bands may be increasing drag on penguins during swimming, Saraux says. In a swimming test in a tank, an Adélie penguin wearing a band expended 24 percent more energy than an unbanded penguin.
“From an ethical point of view, I think we can’t continue to band,” Saraux says

So lady penguins apparently don’t like bling.

Just when you thought it could not get more obscene, wore ridiculous, and more utterly void of any logic and reason….guess again.

Stupidity is being bred into science…and it is an alarming thing to observe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110113/sc_livescience/globalwarmingdirepredictionfortheyear3000

The year 3000? LOL What is this, Futurama?

O my ******* ***!

What an embarrassment.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Whoops….last post may have disappeared to spam. Thanks mods, for checking.

Chris

alan neil ditchfield says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm
WHY ENVIRONMENTAL FORTUNE-TELLING IS ACCEPTED
a.n.ditchfield

Excellent post! It deserves wide dissemination. Thank you.

I can’t help but wonder if the Japanese “Research” ships in the antarctic aren’t reducing the number of whales with their research efforts….

Spectacular opportunity for the headline “Scientists link global warming to low numbers of whales”…..What? You mean we killed all the whales to study them?

…Too bad, they were so tasty.

Possible subtitle: When Wildlife Biologists Are Toxic To The Animals They Study

A common phenomenon. In Hawaii the USGS-BRD wye-byes “study” endangered birds (palila, Loxioides bailleui) by climbing ladders to nests and removing the chicks to weigh and measure them. Then they put the chicks back in the nests. Interestingly, 100% of the chicks thusly man-handled (and/or woman-handled) die within a few hours. Must be global warming, eh?

btw, the above is absolutely true. I know unimpeachable witnesses who were shocked and flabbergasted, but the “researchers” were oblivious. I can cite dozens of other cases where gummit wye-byes are extirpating the populations they “study”.

It’s nice to know that Global Warming isn’t killing off the penguins, but what do we do about scientists killing off penguins? Can we be sure there aren’t some fanatics among them willing to harm penguins on purpose just so they can blame it on Global Warming?

Connecting CO2 with global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever, is like searching for a needle in a haystack. It is virtually impossible to to find the needle in the haystack yet, they insist on spending billions of dollars and expending valuable resources looking for it, just so they can pin it on man, and make him pay dearly for it. Even if they found a connection, they probably would not like what they find in that, the connection would probably be of such insignificant consequence as to be considered lunacy when trying to justify such a large expenditure.

(Grammar edit)

Connecting CO2 with global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever, is like searching for a needle in a haystack. It is virtually impossible to find the needle in the haystack yet, they insist on spending billions of dollars and expending valuable resources looking for it, just so they can pin it on man, and make him pay dearly for it. Even if they found a connection, they probably would not like what they find in that, the connection would be of such insignificant consequence as to be considered lunacy, when trying to justify such a large expenditure.

Crikey, even as pimply youths we knew the dangers of mating with females wearing a band donated by others. Could affect longevity.

It must be near closing date for AR5 papers. One symptom is the rushed publication of unfinished work. That’s poor science.

Shucks…I can’t help it! Moderators, I apologize in advance, but this is just TOO appropriate:

#
ShrNfr says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Re the snip. Quite understand.
#
Mike Haseler says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:04 pm

[snip, funny, but will be misconstrued by the humorless]
—————————–

Being one of the humorless, I’m disappointed to be denied the opportunity to misconstrue.

alan neil ditchfield says: Wrote
January 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm
“WHY ENVIRONMENTAL FORTUNE-TELLING IS ACCEPTED
a.n.ditchfield
A recurrent thought of Nigel Lawson is that much of the current malaise in the West is due to the erosion of traditional religion and education. The West has lost its bearings. In this he echoes G.K. Chesterton: “The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything”. The epigram expresses what anthropologists have long known: that religiosity seems to be hardwired into the human brain; if suppressed in one form it returns in another.”

I believe the purpose of humans is to become as God is. Maybe that’s the hardwiring.
One Caviot;
Not everyone gets into the club, first you have to qualify.
I also believe God is not a singular entity in and of itself.

Thomas Brown says: Wrote
January 13, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“(Denialism) The cute little bears”
Thanks. First time I seen that.

If people who disbelieve in man-made global warming are “Deniers”,
That would make people who believe in man-made global warming “Acceptors”.

I used to be very ambivalent about tagging and collaring of wild animals for research purposes. As of today, I am fully opposed to it. And any biologist motivated to study such animals in this way in order to prove their pet theory of ‘the impact of AGW on wildlife’ must be opposed and condemned and their scientific funding cut.

Late last year WUWT reported a polar bear research that involved such collaring without much of a word whether such observation is appropriate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/21/polar-bears-no-longer-on-thin-ice-researchers-say-polar-bears-could-face-brighter-future/

In that thread, I posted a BBC video from youtube that showed a similarly collared snow leopard apparently having difficulty hunting. The narrator is none other than David Attenborough: “Collaring a wild snow leopard is a remarkable breakthrough for science, but it leaves [a researcher] with mixed feelings.” Don’t you say? If you have a mixed feeling about it maybe it is not really a good idea, let alone a “remarkable breakthorugh for science”. However, a breakthrough for the careers of certain unscrupulous scientists, it certainly is. Here is the same video again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1U804VNZII&feature=player_embedded

Incidentally, for those who want to see the effects of such collaring in a fictional world, I’d strongly recommend an episode of an otherwise ordinary sci-fi television show, Star Trek: Voyager. This particular episode is called “Scientific Method”. In that episode, Voyager crew are being collared and tagged for research purposes by invisible aliens, making life very difficult for the crew. You really find yourselves in the shoes of -so to speak- penguins, and snow leopards, and polar bears, and dolphins and whales, and albatrosses. It is bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29

I’m surprised no one has considered that the banded group may be self-selecting, i.e., they were weaker, more stupid, or otherwise less fit to begin with. After all, the scientists were able to trap them and band them. The fitter penguins may have been better able to avoid the scientists or already had higher perches that the scientists didn’t bother climbing up to.

Mike D. says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm

Possible subtitle: When Wildlife Biologists Are Toxic To The Animals They Study

A common phenomenon. In Hawaii the USGS-BRD wye-byes “study” endangered birds (palila, Loxioides bailleui) by climbing ladders to nests and removing the chicks to weigh and measure them. Then they put the chicks back in the nests. Interestingly, 100% of the chicks thusly man-handled (and/or woman-handled) die within a few hours. Must be global warming, eh?

btw, the above is absolutely true. I know unimpeachable witnesses who were shocked and flabbergasted, but the “researchers” were oblivious. I can cite dozens of other cases where gummit wye-byes are extirpating the populations they “study”.

I’d certainly believe that.

I grew up in a neighbourhood that had many pigeon hobbyists. My elder brother was one, too. One of the very first thing any kid is taught is to be extremely careful handling these birds. They are a lot more delicate for manhandling than a cat, the top predator of the pigeons.

The second most important rule is to never handle an egg or a chick. The rationale for this was simple: parents abandon chicks that have been manhandled. Why this is the case, I don’t know.

But I grew up thinking that perhaps indelicate handling was to blame and that the mere contact with the chick for parental abandonment was an exaggeration. And that those who know about such things, such as biologists, are better informed than the pigeon hobbyists of my childhood. It turns out I might well have been wrong to think so highly of scientists vis a vis hobbyists.

“Oh and let’s not forget the fact that the whole of the continent of Antarctica has been shown not to have any statistically significant warming…”

But the link to the original article has the authors writing:

“Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35oC decade-1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land.”

I suggest that Watt at least change his ambiguous statement to “Not all areas of Antarctica show significant warming.”

“Garr says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm

I’m surprised no one has considered that the banded group may be self-selecting, i.e., they were weaker, more stupid, or otherwise less fit to begin with. After all, the scientists were able to trap them and band them. The fitter penguins may have been better able to avoid the scientists or already had higher perches that the scientists didn’t bother climbing up to.”

Garr, that’s very funny. I guess, by that reckoning, any scientist that fell and broke an arm and a leg while chasing these birds could equally be considered “weaker, more stupid, or otherwise less fit to begin with”.

In case people may get confused, they ought to be reminded that only half the number of penguins that were caught were tagged on the wings in the old fashioned way:

“…French and Norwegian scientists reported that they took 100 king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus), selected at random on Possession Island on the Crozet archipelago, a sub-Antarctic group in the southern Indian ocean.

All were tagged with a minute, electronic transponder that was implanted under the skin, which can only be read by using specialist equipment placed close to the bird. Fifty of the 100 birds were additionally given a flipper band.”

Garr.

In the article it explains that they caught and tagged 100 penguins but only put the flipper ring on 50 of them.

Maybe the scientists thought it so unethical that they asked for volunteers and that’s when the stupidity stepped in :-)

“Eduardo Ferreyra says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:21 pm
If penguins are dying because warming, how come they to mate and breed to a much warmer place tha the Peininsula? They go to the biggest breeding and mating place in the world, Punta Tombo, in Patagonia where they share territory with guanacos (and toursits in shorts!)”

There are about 17 species of penguins. Only one, Magellanic Penguin Spheniscus magellanicus, breeds at Punta Tombo, and this species does not breed in Antarctica. Different species have different habitat requirement. Punta Tombo is unique by the way in being the only large penguin colony on the mainland of a continent. Usually such sites are on islands where there are no mammalian predators.
The tourists are probably not much of a problem since most penguins are utterly unafraid of humans (the Yellow-eyed Penguin Megadyptes antipodes is an exception). By the way, much of the time I would not recommend wearing shorts at Punta Tombo,

“Garr says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I’m surprised no one has considered that the banded group may be self-selecting, i.e., they were weaker, more stupid, or otherwise less fit to begin with. After all, the scientists were able to trap them and band them. The fitter penguins may have been better able to avoid the scientists or already had higher perches that the scientists didn’t bother climbing up to.”

I can see you have absolutely no experience of King Penguins. They are utterly unafraid of humans and absurdly easy to catch. You just walk up to them. Also they breed in the open on easily accessible beaches, not in burrows or difficult terrain like some smaller penguin species, i. e. no high perches.

“The second most important rule is to never handle an egg or a chick. The rationale for this was simple: parents abandon chicks that have been manhandled. Why this is the case, I don’t know.”

I have no experience specifically with pigeons, but generally speaking birds are not sensitive to handling of eggs or chicks. This can be a problem with mammals who react strongly to scent, but birds have little sense of smell. There have been large scale studies on the effect of banding of nestling birds which have shown no significant effects compared with unbanded nestlings.
On a more anecdotal level I remember a thrush nest in my garden that blew down in a windstorm. One of the three nestligs was killed, but the other two were unhurt, so I took the remains of the nest, put it back in place (and wired it in place for security). I then put the nestlings back. The parent birds had of course been quite agitated while this was going on, but they resumed feeding the young even before I had taken away the ladder, and both subsequently fledged successfully.

Mike D. says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:18 pm

Possible subtitle: When Wildlife Biologists Are Toxic To The Animals They Study

A common phenomenon. In Hawaii the USGS-BRD wye-byes “study” endangered birds (palila, Loxioides bailleui) by climbing ladders to nests and removing the chicks to weigh and measure them. Then they put the chicks back in the nests. Interestingly, 100% of the chicks thusly man-handled (and/or woman-handled) die within a few hours. Must be global warming, eh?

btw, the above is absolutely true. I know unimpeachable witnesses who were shocked and flabbergasted, but the “researchers” were oblivious. I can cite dozens of other cases where gummit wye-byes are extirpating the populations they “study”.
————————————————————
Well said, Mike (and also the PP who talked about pigeon chicks).

In Australia, we see again and again examples of so-called environmentalists who roust animals (especially small marsupials) out of their nests, weigh them, measure them and tag them, all in the name of ‘environmental science’. Quite often they come back every year and do it again. Then, when the animals have either died out thanks to their interventions, or moved away from these pesky intrusions, they proclaim that this is a sign of man made destruction, and they are right – but not in the sense they intend.

Anyone who has knowledge of non domesticated animals knows that handling their young risks abandonment of them. I can’t understand how people who claim to be so in tune with Gaia don’t get the basics of animal behaviour, which were well understood by amateur and professional naturalists in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

OK, so the banded penguins can’t swim as fast.

What were those bands for again? Oh yes, to pick out specific penguins from the over all crowd of penguins.

Makes you wonder what things sound like over in the Sea Lion colony:

Grizzled Old Sea Lion: Listen up cubs, I’m gonna splain to ya the most important huntin’ skill there be. Identifying the slowest moving ones outa the bunch. Thems the ones ya want to chase for lunch.

Young Smart Aleck Sea Lion; Get with the modern times gramps. The slow ones come with these easy to spot arm bands…

Poor penguins! Leave them alone. Those ugly metal bands must get really cold out of the water as well as being a drag when they are swimming. The bands must conduct heat from the penguin’s flipper and possibly interfere with circulation.

Dr. Mann produced some data a couple of years ago that proved Antarctic warming. The temperature data came from surface stations it was said. It turned out that Mann could not find most of the stations, due to snow cover, and his data set actually came from a GCM model run. How easily these people are fooled by the virtual GCM world and still fail to take any actual observations.

sHx says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:04 pm
(…) It turns out I might well have been wrong to think so highly of scientists vis a vis hobbyists.
- I’m inclined to agree. People who do things as a hobby are, in the most literal sense of the word, amateurs – they do what they do out of a love of their subject, and so are apt to have a surprising amount of knowledge about their little sphere of expertise.
Whereas, as someone once said, professionals designed the Titanic.

Alan Neil Ditchfield,

Some people may have religiosity wired into their brains, some may not.

It is true that much of the modern Western malaise may be due to the loss of traditional values, and to the rapid change in the way of life.

It is NOT true, though, that, once we ditched old fairy tales, we must hide again under their skirts, instead of trying to adapt to reality.

This story reminds me of the environmentalist who, after a bowel movement, burned her used toilet paper (for environmental reasons) and subsequently caused Israel’s worst ever fire. Greenpeace initially blamed global warming.

Frogs: debunked. Lizards: debunked. Penguins: debunked
Each of these is caused by concerned environmentalist researchers or poachers.

References:
http://www.jpost.com/GreenIsrael/PEOPLEANDTHEENVIRONMENT/Article.aspx?id=195702
http://www.greenprophet.com/2010/12/greenpeace-israel-carmel-fire/

Is it possible that the male penguins saw the band on the wing and think the females have a physical flaw and wont take them as a mate?

@George E. Smith, January 13, 2011 at 5:08 pm:
“So Heisenberg was right; in the act of studying our subject, we change its behavior.”

Yes indeed – especially when the study subjects are animals. as your ‘oyster study’ illustrates so perfectly, animals are quick to learn, because e.g. getting food ‘for free’ or cheaply will increase their fitness (less energy spent on searching) and thus their success in reproduction.
Any zoologist studying animals in the wild must constantly be aware of the law of unintended consequences …

tty says: January 14, 2011 at 12:30 am There have been large scale studies on the effect of banding of nestling birds which have shown no significant effects compared with unbanded nestlings.

I call bull on that. Cite your alleged sources, tty. Except you can’t because they are imaginary or else utter crap.

As part of the procedure the USGS-BRD wye byes also band palila chicks with brightly-colored leg bands. When the mother bird returns to the disturbed nest (if she returns), she sees the foreign object and flicks it out, Of course the band is attached to the chick, and out goes the chick, too, which cannot fly and plummets to the ground.

The researchers call such chicks “jumplings”. No sh*t. The wye byes’ twisted thinking is that the baby birds jumped out the nests on their own because, get this, once the chicks have been exposed (by the wye byes) to the great big world outside the nest they want to fly free, even though they can’t fly yet.

The dinglebrained wye byes believe themselves to be Dr. Doolittles who can communicate with the animals. They claim to know what the baby birds are thinking.

So with great compassion and sensitivity, they fetch the jumplings off the ground, climb the ladder, and put them back in the nest again. Back comes the mother bird (maybe), and out go the jumplings again. This is such a common, repeat occurrence that the USGS-BRD wye byes developed a “protocol” to deal with the problem. No sh*t. The protocol requires the jumpling fetcher/replacer to put their hands over the nest for five to ten minutes until the jumpling “calms down”. What really happens is the mother bird abandons the nest permanently. The protocol-treated jumplings no longer jump to freedom (they didn’t in the first place); they just starve to death (if they don’t die immediately of shock).

100% mortality results. It has been measured although not reported. The wye byes are loathe to report the actual outcomes for fear they will be sh*t-canned post haste.

To be fair, I observed these things 15 years ago. I cannot say that palila chick studies still go on today. Although, the very same wye byes are still employed at the very same facility at Volcano N.P., and they still publish palila studies which are still absolute garbage “science”.

Some othe species being extirpated by toxic government wye byes include the alala (the Hawaiian crow), northern spotted owls, Mexican spotted owls, snowy plovers, marbled murrelets, and sage-grouse. Those are ESA listed or candidate species and so pull a lot of research funding, unfortunately for the poor animals as well as the poor taxpayers. Non-listed animals, when they capture the attention of wye byes, are treated even more harshly. Museums like the Smithsonian have ancillary warehouses full of dead animals in formaldehyde vats.

I could write a book about the atrocities committed by wye byes. Maybe I will someday, even though it is a completely depressing topic.

“Jeremy says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Also, Disney herded the lemmings off the cliff to demonstrate that lemmings commit suicide.

…but of course, everyone loves Disney, they could never harm animals.”

They pushed the lemmings off a table in the studio, with a broom.
Now, that’s what I call science.

Funny. If someone watches Discovery or Animal Planet, they’d notice that the most dangerous trip for Antarctic penguins is the walk from the ocean across the sea-ice to the rookery & back. The longer the walk (the more sea-ice), the fewer make it. The Antarctic sea-ice has been at near-record levels the last decade.

Aha! AGW must cause more sea-ice, killing the penguins!

The irony is staggering: GWers claimed that the penguins would adapt to being crippled even though they believed that changing the environments temperature by a fraction of a degree would be deadly. If you think my description of the banding is “over the top”, read the original article. Banding a penguin can cause a 24% reduction in power. Reducing power by 24% should cause about a 31.6% increase (1/0.76) in swim times for a given distance.

Here’s why it is a valid comparison. If you take a look at the 2010 Ford Ironman World Championship results, the winner did the 2.4 mile swim in 51:36. The fastest physically challenged (amputee) time was 84:04. http://c0024956.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/2010/10/2010-Kona-Results.pdf

Translating that into hard numbers, removing one of a world class athlete’s limbs causes a 63% increase in time. Banding a penguin can cause about half the effect of chopping off a limb.

How are we supposed to trust any data from scientists who assume that crippling a penguin has no effect, but changing the temperature by fractions of a degree will kill it? Obviously they don’t understand the concept of control groups. I wonder what experimental conditions would be out of ethical bounds for these “researchers”???

I can’t help posting this, regarding King Penguins, from Harry Hill:

I saw this article before. However, I have to wonder at the small sample size. Since only 50 were tagged each way, the statement that “16 times more likely” seems to be sloppy science again.

I can see where the banding would alter the birds swimming and be detrimental, but that is about the extent of the claim they can make.

Mac the Knife says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Anthony,

Thanks for picking this ‘tip’ up and running with it. Nice article!

REPLY: Gosh I’m sorry, I saw it on my Google alerts feed. Often many things arrive simultaneously via different channels, my apologies if you felt I used your tip without credit, that certainly wasn’t an intent. – Anthony

Anthony,
That wasn’t the way I intended that to sound, I guess. I’m just delighted that you provide a forum and the historical perspective necessary to create such excellent articles documenting the malfeasance et.al. of the ‘global warmers’. Like many others in the workaday world, I see bits and pieces of it, and chime in as time allows. You see the larger picture and the history behind many aspects of it. Your excellent writing provides enjoyable fact-based reading for degreed professionals and laymen alike. The knowledge, technical skills, and thoughtful submissions of the many other contributors attracted to your tolerantly managed open forum set the bench mark for all other blog bosses to emulate.

Sincerely – Thank You!!!

Always a mystery to me that while the Inuit have to beach their boats well away from their hunting grounds and the Canadian Forces are to avoid these entire areas in absolute terms but the WWF and such have no qualms nor troubles approaching in aerial conveyances that would scare the @#$% out of domesticated animals exposed from birth to a cacophony of heavy farm machinery?!?

It was “Global warming” that killed them, was it? Unless they all swam off to Russia or Philadelphia in the northern summer, I suspect it could only be local warming that could affect these penguins.

Then again, it wasn’t even that, was it? We all know how penguins enjoy the cold so much that they all huddle together to share in each others’ fun. They hate the cold, but they’re better suited to it than most other species – hence they dominate on the shores of Antarctica. If it was too hot (ha!), they’d go for a dip in the frigid waters.

If you were to go to a nightclub wearing a tweed tank-top, your pulling style may be somewhat cramped too.

I you think about it, this proves that Global Warming affects penguin survival. We even have the figures!

See – because of Global Warming, there is copious funding for the banding of penguins and other critters to see if their survival is impacted by Global Warming. In fact, because of the banding, their survival is, indeed, impacted by Global Warming.

QED

PhilJourdan says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am
I saw this article before. However, I have to wonder at the small sample size. Since only 50 were tagged each way, the statement that “16 times more likely” seems to be sloppy science again.

PhilJourdan,
Please re-read the original article. It says (and this is a direct quote):

“Banded birds were 16 percent likelier to die than non-banded counterparts”

16% – not 1600%

The eco-whackjobs are bad for everyone including penguins. I like the way some of the people responsible for killing off half the penguins are trying to say their penguin tags are better than the other tags and not responsible for the penguin genocide.

Will the Hague prosecute this atrocity?

I picked up the 23 Dec Nature last night and there is a article about the imminent extinction of Adelie penguins http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/4681034a.html blaming the AGW loss of ice and human-caused food chain distruption as the causes.

There is an 18-20 year growth and retreat cycle of Antarctic ice which (approximately?) matches the Southern African drought/flood cycle (presently near the wet peak). The authors do not mention where Antarctica is on the melt/thaw cycle. The last great “Ice is Melting” scare stories from the south were about 20 years ago so I presume it is at the end of its melting cycle now.

Yvon Le Maho writes, “…I have shown that an increase of only 0.3 °C in sea-surface temperature in the marginal sea-ice zone leads to a 10% drop in the survival rate of king penguins.”

Good thing that the waters around Antarctica are only heating at a rate of 0.4 C/100 years and from the look of it http://i39.tinypic.com/dza246.png the rise is both temporary and meaningless in terms of natural variation.

Interesting that the warming of oceans seems to have basically come to a stop. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/05/march-global-sea-surface-temperatures/

Love this blog. First a snip for humor that “might be misconstrued” (and I too would like the opportunity to miscontrue it), then a Frank Zappa link. With mostly thoughtful discussion and good science inbetween.

jaymam says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Is this the beginning of Nature actually publishing real science again?
Once again here is proof that scientists who may be expert in their field, in this case penguin research, lack common sense in their use of flipper tags.
I’ve always wondered whether tags of any kind affect wildlife, but assumed that the scientists had checked that out. Now they have.

It seems to me that the “affect on wildlife” is the actual capture (together, in many instances, with the added “tranquiliser dart”) in the first place. That is pretty likely to be traumatic and thus have some effect on the wildlife captured!

Papa Bear says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:27 am

Papa Bear – Thank you for the clarification. I had misread it. Still the low sample size does not really lend itself to any conclusions, but 16% is more reasonable than 16 times.

“Mike D. says:
January 14, 2011 at 5:03 am
tty says: January 14, 2011 at 12:30 am There have been large scale studies on the effect of banding of nestling birds which have shown no significant effects compared with unbanded nestlings.

I call bull on that. Cite your alleged sources, tty. Except you can’t because they are imaginary or else utter crap.”

This is a subject where there has been a lot of research. If you are really interested you might start by reading:

Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to Its Importance in Ecological Assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36(4): 253-286.

It is a review paper. It lists about a dozen studies on the effect on birds by disturbance from scientific activities.

Here is another (partial) literature list on the subject:

http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/iba_resources/References/Disturbance%20Literature_April2007_NC.pdf

Or you might just Google “investigator disturbance” (which is the term usually used) + “birds”. You will find hundreds of papers on the effects of investigator disturbance on just about every conceivable bird. Most deal with the effect on breeding success. Whether they are all crap I will leave up to your judgment.
I would however like to point out that most ornithologists have chosen their subject because they love birds, not to make money or a successful career (which is practically impossible).

“PhilJourdan says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:49 am
I saw this article before. However, I have to wonder at the small sample size. Since only 50 were tagged each way, the statement that “16 times more likely” seems to be sloppy science again.”

Have You considered a purely practical matter? The banded birds are easy to find (that’s why the bands are used), but to find the birds with only a transponder you must get to within a couple of meters of them. I think it is pretty good to manage to keep track of even fifty birds like that, even though King Penguins are extremely easy to approach.

PhilJourdan:

The scientists involved in the study have been against banding of penguins for quite some time and performed the study to prove it was adversely affecting them so it’s not really surprising that they chose to band just 50 rather than a few thousand.

“Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 14, 2011 at 9:53 am
I picked up the 23 Dec Nature last night and there is a article about the imminent extinction of Adelie penguins http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/4681034a.html blaming the AGW loss of ice and human-caused food chain distruption as the causes.”

Adelie penguin numbers increased dramatically from the 1950′s to the 1980′s, possibly because of decreasing competition for food from the whales which were practically exterminated in the same time-frame.
It has been known for some time that they are decreasing in the Antarctic peninsula. Perhaps partly because whale stock are recovering in this area where commercial whaling ended first, but probably mostly because of warming climate. Adelie penguin colonies are known to move north and south with changing climate and have indeed been used as a climate proxy (probably one of the better ones), see for example:

http://people.uncw.edu/emslies/research/Emslie%20et%20al%20Geology%202007.pdf

“Yvon Le Maho writes, “…I have shown that an increase of only 0.3 °C in sea-surface temperature in the marginal sea-ice zone leads to a 10% drop in the survival rate of king penguins.”

This I find profoundly unlikely since essentially all king penguins live near the Antarctic Convergence, well north of the marginal sea-ice zone. I think there is only one colony south of latitude 60, also king penguins are rather stationary birds, usually staying fairly close to the breeding colonies. Many of them probably never even see sea-ice.

I had no idea they were collaring felines. I don’t have collars on my cats. It’s too dangerous.
Domestrics cats can be (and sometimes are) strangled by thir collars and these people are collaring wild ones?

I’m disgusted. I also think it’s ethically wrong.

In the old days researchers took the time to KNOW the animals by sight. Actually I wonder how much animal observation they actually do nowadays. Not much I don’t think.

Elise says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm

tty says:
January 14, 2011 at 11:58 am

Elise and TTY, I am not advocating killing more birds in the name of anything, I just made an observation. Given both of your objections (difficulty in tracking and the predetermined conclusion), they probably did as best they could without inflicting additional hardships and death on the birds. I appreciate both your comments as I have learned more about the incident (and about reading things more carefully).

It brings a warm feeling to my heart to see scientist that do not have to justify there findings with CAGW.

Maybe there is hope yet.

“In the old days researchers took the time to KNOW the animals by sight. Actually I wonder how much animal observation they actually do nowadays. Not much I don’t think.”

There is that one show, Big Cat Diary, though I don’t think it’s being filmed anymore. None of the big cats shown had collars or tags; instead the film makers used many spotters driving around searching within the animals’ large territories. The hosts/researchers could recognize the cats by sight. Hard enough with lions, but they also followed cheetahs and leopards.

Here is another global warming claim that can bite the dust. The twentieth century warming is unexplainable. Really, there is a twenty year warming period. 1978-98. Check it out in the record. They can’t explain a twenty year trend. One that is hardly important since it doesn’t meet the definition of climatically significant.

I am going to add a comment on the theme “When wildlife biologists are toxic to the animals they study”. I would like to see some transparent and open research published on this topic.

From my own experience as a geologist, working in the Canadian Arctic from 1994 to 1998, I was shocked to learn how many of the wildlife biology studies being done in the area were conducted. We had two helicopter pilots working for us who said they were so much happier working for geologists becasue they found the work with the biologists very distressing. They said geologists were much more respectful of the wildlife, i.e. we went out of our way to NOT disturb the animals.

One pilot told us stories about how every couple of years the biologists studying an endangered species of caribou on the island would hire a net gunner. They would ask him to fly with the skids of the helicopter at just-above antler level and chase down the poor critters so they could fire a shot-gun loaded with a net at their antlers, trip them up, and then land beside them so they could change the batteries in their radio collars and take a blood sample. According to the pilot, some of the animals had to be destroyed if they broke a leg when they tripped. This same biologists made a lot of noise about how these caribou were under threat by ‘industrial development’ when exploration geologists sought permits to do some prospecting on the island where he studied the caribou. Meanwhile, the local Inuit still routinely hunted these caribou and he didn’t seem to have a problem with that.

As geologists, we always tried to give these poor critters wide berth as it was clear that they were spooked any time they heard a helicopter, so we would always fly high and pick our landing sites away from them, often adjusting our work locations to stay away from the caribou. (We did this for polar bears too – though more to save our own skins then theirs). And while I am not a wildlife biologists, I did notice a distinct difference in the reaction of the muskoxen on the island. They didn’t seem to give a rat’s a** about us and didn’t seem disturbed to have us nearby on foot, or be at all concerned at the sound of the helicopter. They didn’t even do their defensive, (standing butt-to-butt with antlers out) maneouvre, I’m not sure if that’s a difference in the species, or the fact they they had lucked out and not been picked for study by a wildlife biologist.

Another pilot that we worked with had spent a few weeks with a bunch of bird biologists before he came to work with us and he was quite distressed at the technique these biologists used for capturing the birds, i.e. they put up a big net, and had him “herd” large flocks of the birds, with the helicopter, into flying into the net. He found it quite upsetting as many of the birds broke wings, or necks, getting entamgled in the nets.

Ever since those summers I have wondered about the ethics of some of the wildlife biology research techniques, and if some of the approaches are really justified. This story of the banding of the penguins, and the influence of the observer and their research techniques, on their outcomes, is one that I think bears a lot more research itself in the wildlife biology community.

tty: …I would however like to point out that most ornithologists have chosen their subject because they love birds, not to make money or a successful career (which is practically impossible)…

Motivations? You want to bring up “good” motivations as an excuse for bad behaviors? Careful there, sport. Pandora’s Box and all that. Shall we delve into the real motivations of government and quango scientists who abuse science and the wildlife they study? Because I can if you really want to. I doubt the wye byes would approve, however.

Let’s stick to outcomes and leave putative motivations out of it. Unless you really want to get down in the mud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

A Conversation with the Author

click to enlarge

Guest post by Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D

In a New Year’s Day post, Anthony mounted the Abstract from a Paper titled Warming Power of CO2: Correlations with temperature change. Subsequent comments raised some questions about the Journal citation, International Journal of Geosciences, and the publisher, Scientific Research Publishing.

A commenter wrote that he (or she) had called the listed number for SRP and had not received an answer. I had the same experience. I wrote to the author, Professor Paulo Cesar Soares, and received a nice reply saying that yes he is a retired professor and researcher at the Federal University of Paraná, and he did write the article and published with SRP because they have free access to all Journal articles available to researchers and students alike.

So, the article can be judged on its own merits, and the legitimacy of SRP can be judged on the quality of articles it dispenses.

===================================================================

Note: the journal’s first edition can be seen here (PDF)

I would note the list of the editorial board members on Page 2 – Anthony

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1)

- Where the !@#$% is Svalbard?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

About Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D.

54 Responses to A Conversation with the Author

Politeness? He will be ejected from the AGW community immediately. But good for him. Polite debate on the science is what makes for good science. After all, science has advanced only because people showed other people where they were wrong.

Scientific arguments are always judged on their own merits, even if written in pencil on the back of an envelope.

Civility and open disclosure, from a published professor whose expertise lies in atmospheric CO2 science…. How refreshing!

Well……….. let’s hope the manage to tick all the important boxes. If they do, they stand a chance of displacing the current popular list of coffee table mags.

The boxes?

!. Well written articles backed up with real-world data
2. A fair and open review process that authors and the audience can respect and trust
3. A open and fairly moderated response forum that can deal with criticism as well it accepts bouquets

More??????

A brave venture.

Best of luck to them, and success assuming they play a fair game to embrace all scientists, and not allow any of the clique behaviour that spoiled their competitors.

john r

“Note: the journal’s first edition can be seen here (PDF)”

There was an error opening this document. The file is damaged and could not be repaired.

Downloaded the document a second time. Same error message.

REPLY: System issues then, I have no trouble- A

Not surprised. I’ve long wondered at the lack of secular correlation in the ice cores between T and CO2. The millennial correlation is easily explained as a tandem response to ice sheet extension–the apparent multi-century lag of CO2 behind T did not seem relevant in light of the lack of short term correlation, mere icing on the cake.

And as Walter Munk noted a decade ago, length of day tracking argues strongly against serious sea level rise–at least it presents a paradox. And since his paper appeared we have seen only two leap seconds.

The Soares paper itself, Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes, is available free online here:

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf&paperID=3447

On its website it makes the following statement:

Aims & Scope
International Journal of Geosciences is a peer reviewed journal dedicated to the latest advancement of geosciences. The goal of this journal is to keep a record of the state-of-the-art research and to promote study, research and improvement within its various specialties.

Looks like Chinese scientists do not buy the western AGW myth…

What? No paywall? Outrageous!

“I would note the list of the editorial board members on Page 2 – Anthony”

Sorry Anthony. I am a little thick today. I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American, and scientists that apparently don’t prescribe to alarmism as a tenet of good science. These are all relative “unknowns” vis a vis Hansen, Jones, and Mann. Is that what you wanted us to note?

REPLY: Only that it has one, as any proper journal would, and I’ll point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on climate science, in fact it lags much of the world now. It also doesn’t look like it will get any better. If your point is that you think that a new journal on Geosciences must have well known celebrity scientists to be of any value, then I pity your distorted view of science journals. – Anthony

Is it the same Soares who wrote this article?
PALEOESTRUTURAS E PETRÓLEO NA BACIA DO PARANÁ, BRASIL

ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs2/index.php/rbg/article/download/10446/7619

dbleader61,

Perhaps you think Chinese, Russian and South American scientists are’nt as good as US scientists? Maybe you haven’t heard so much about them because they don’t necessarily try to publish in West centric journals such as Nature, Science etc.

Here is the link to the journal.:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg/

I read several of the papers and they are refreshingly candid. There are many other Journals available covering a wide range of disciplines from this organization.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg/

It seems that some of the posters on WUWT might be able to publish in at least one of them. I have certainly read commentary here that is as good, and often better than many journal articles I have read.

Thank you Michael A. Lewis,

I posted some of the conclusion comments from the above paper on one of my Facebook postings. In response a seemlingly resonable request was made to provide a “peer reviewed paper” to support the comments I had made about CAGW and a new paper that showed no correlation between temp and CO2 anymore. So I supplied the above paper.

Then all heck broke loose after I posted a link to the paper, as I was assaulted with vicious personal attacks against me (at least 15 by one of the cementers alone) and vicious attacks against the papers author. Rather than any actual criticisms of the science contained with the paper all that spewed forth were personal attacks of one sort or another.

One of these people even criticized the Journal saying it had a low “Impact Factor” (IF)…

“I asked that it [the paper] be from a credible journal with an impact factor that wasn’t laughable. The journal you cited has an IF of 1.73… Nature by comparison has an IF of 34.5 and when combined with PageRank it’s a 52.” – David Smith BEFORE he had any chance to read the paper!!!

My response was:

“The jury is OUT on ALL scientific papers. Double sigh. Clearly you believe the anti-scientific nonsense you are uttering. Let’s be clear. The journal that a scientific paper is published in has no bearing upon whether or not the paper has any scientific merit. ‘Prestige’ aka ‘impact factor’ of a journal is politics and not science. To think otherwise is unscientific and political.”

So now it’s not enough to be published in a peer reviewed journal but the “Impact Factor” of the Journal determines if the science is correct or not? It’s just stunning arrogance on the part of people like David Smith who think with a “social credibility” aka “consensus” mindset that is picky about WHERE a paper is published rather than a scientific mind set that looks at the actual content of the science within the paper and it’s evidence, claims, methods and conclusions. It’s a strange kind of “scientific snobery” that people like David Smith exhibit and has them “believing” the claims rather than having “vetted, verified or refuted” the claims and being able to support their verifcations or refutations with actual scientific arguments.

It’s been a long while since I’ve directly encountered anyone so vicious in their CAGW hysteria as David Smith. I’m still waiting for his promised response to the content of the paper.

Michael A. Lewis, Anthony Watts, Professor Paulo Cesar Soares, et. al. it’s very refreshing to know that there are people who appreciate the methods of science and more importantly the philosophy of science that has a spirit of validating science claims and not just accepting them carte blanc as if they were dictates of high tech priests in some religious cult.

Keep up the great work asking excellent questions that cut to the heart of the matter! You guys are keeping the flame of science alive!

____________________________________
“Journal Impact Factor is from Journal Citation Report (JCR), a product of Thomson ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). JCR provides quantitative tools for evaluating journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a given period of time. ”
http://www.sciencegateway.org/impact/

“The impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now part of Thomson Reuters. Impact factors are calculated yearly for those journals that are indexed in Thomson Reuter’s Journal Citation Reports.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American,

Is that infering that those scientists are less capable than US and UK scientists? They too were once “unknowns”. Where would Mann be today if not for AGW? An unknown.

Oh, at the time not really knowing what an impact factor was I looked it up and Wikipedia had this little tidbit that supports my point that the science is what matters and not the “reputation” of the journal: “they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published”!

“Incorrect application of impact factor
The IF may be incorrectly applied to evaluate the significance of an individual publication or to evaluate an individual researcher.[22]
This does not work well since a small number of publications are cited much more than the majority – for example, about 90% of Nature’s 2004 impact factor was based on only a quarter of its publications, and thus the importance of any one publication will be different from, and in most cases less than, the overall number.[23] The impact factor, however, averages over all articles and thus underestimates the citations of the most cited articles while exaggerating the number of citations of the majority of articles. Consequently, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.[24]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor#Incorrect_application_of_impact_factor

I love new scientific journals. Just like magazines, if they’re good, they’ll survive, if they’re not, they won’t. In medical literature the old, highly regarded journals become somewhat stodgy and they’re taken over by physicians practicing in academia. About 20 years ago clinical pharmacists started publishing some new journals focusing on pharmacotherapy (i.e. drug therapy). They were consistently better and more clinically relevant to a practitioner than the esoteric, pure research articles published in the well established pharmacology literature. Further, they had a quite rigorous peer review process.

I would think the climate research community would welcome a new journal…unless, perhaps, it’s one where the “elite” don’t own the editorial board and the acolytes don’t serve as the reviewers.

“Consequently, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was urged by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee to remind Research Assessment Exercise panels that they are obliged to assess the quality of the content of individual articles, not the reputation of the journal in which they are published.”

It sounds like the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Technology_Select_Committee] might actually being doing their job!

Now isn’t that astounding, politicians comprehending the scientific method! Could it be?

dbleader61 says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm

“Proof of the pudding is in the eating” so to speak. Does the editorial board select/clear papers presenting sound scientific research? Here is what one accomplished U.S. scientist (more than 350 papers/books authored/co-authored) has to say about another paper in the same issue of the IJG.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/
<
R. S. Knox, David H. Douglass 2010: Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) â€“ In press doi:10.4236/ijg2010.00000

with the abstract

A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

is a solid scientific study on these questions. The paper could, of course, be in error [although it is robust in my view], or the Argo data could have errors that Josh Willis (or others in that community) has not communicated to us. The blogosphere and peer reviewed papers are the venue to debate these questions.
<

As opposed to this millennial prognosis.
“[Kielh]warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.

Kiehl said that global temperatures may gradually rise over centuries or millennia in response to the carbon dioxide. The elevated levels of carbon dioxide may remain in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, according to recent computer model studies of geochemical processes that the study cites.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110113141607.htm

Yup. Those models again. This time adjusted to allow for a doubling of CO2 heat storage capacity and running it through a few thousand years. Why? Because he could.

Was there an earlier version of this post? I thought I had seen earlier that someone had returned his call.

It is somewhat funny* to note that there isn’t much of any “western” doctor in that list and which is why the crazed hippie crowd, mostly, will try and debase the journal by, which becomes scary.

The subdued sneaky racism is still racism.

*The funny thing is that my country, a EU country, and EU actually have decided that doctors’s, real or philosophical, education isn’t worth the same depending on where they come from in the world. It is funny because every country within the european union forgot about science all together for about 1500 years after the fall of Rome to christian fanaticism, but most of the doctors that come to countries within EU but are put down as not having an equal qualitative education, and so has to start all over pretty much from scratch, are from countries that for those about 1500 years actually embraced science, and still had time to go with religious fanaticism.

Now the hippies want to take the “western world” into religion again, forgetting, again, about science, whilst the rest of the world gets ahead by embracing science. Of course “western hippie world” will deny the rest of the world as having qualitative doctorates. Although, I’m thinking the “western hippie world” won’t outgun the rest of the world, to decide the agenda, this time around due to the fact that all them countries with lesser qualitative doctorates are well having nukes too and space programs and what have we not.

Dandytroll’s “Christian fanaticism” is the only thing that kept science and scholarship alive during those “dark ages.” Few events in history were more anomolous than the burning of the Alexandrian library. Tell me what script you use, and I’ll tell you what religion your ancestors were–their religion is the only reason you are literate. –AGF

Poor dbleader61 got pounced on pretty quickly.
I couldn’t see that he was anything more than puzzled as to what he should take note of.
I’m sure he meant ‘subscribe’ instead of ‘ prescribe’ but “…alarmism as a tenet of good science” doesn’t bring me to conclude that he’s a fan of Hansen.
Twitchy trigger fingers?

I read a chat on another forum where a PhD student had been invited onto the editorial board of a scrips journal. He wroter back to point out he was a PhD student. This seemed to count as a yes from the publishers and he ended up on the editorial board listed as a professor.

This is just one example but it suggests a rather low level of scutiny. But I agree with others comments there is serious elitism and to some extent imperialism in the science publishing process which sees scientists from developing countries often excluded from the better journals.

As Antony says judge the science, from what I’ve seen the scrips journal articles that have been highlighted by WUWT have lacked a certain amount of rigor.

Re : dbleader61

I think he is being unfairly berated in these posts.
Read him again. He’s asking, thats all.

I think we have seen the gist of this paper before, in that you look at the changes in CO2 and the changes in temperature and look for correlation. This method amplifies a noisy signa when what you want to do is minimize the effects of noise.

Plotting annual averages for CO2 vs annual averages for temp (from whatever source available) for the last 50 years, using a scatter plot in excel, will show that temperature correlates very well with CO2.

Try it in excell before you slam me. Use Spencer’s temperature data if you like.

dbleader61 says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“I would note the list of the editorial board members on Page 2 – Anthony”

Sorry Anthony. I am a little thick today. I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American, and scientists that apparently don’t prescribe to alarmism as a tenet of good science. These are all relative “unknowns” vis a vis Hansen, Jones, and Mann. Is that what you wanted us to note?

REPLY: Only that it has one, as any proper journal would, and I’ll point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on climate science, in fact it lags much of the world now. It also doesn’t look like it will get any better. If your point is that you think that a new journal on Geosciences must have well known celebrity scientists to be of any value, then I pity your distorted view of science journals. – Anthony

Russian agricultural and associated genetics work lagged the rest of the world when the whole field was politicised by lysenkoism. Climate science in the west will be no different, it too will fall behind while it remains locked into mediocrity driven by political needs.

I can’t download the PDF file, it says it is damaged and can’t be repaired. Someone else had the same problem, is there a trick to getting access?

I have the same problem. Can’t download the file. Says it is damaged and can’t be repaired.

I upgraded to Adobe Reader X (i.e. 10) recently and have had some trouble opening some pdfs online. I haven’t gotten that error message, though. When I tried opening the most recent one I had trouble with in Adobe Reader 9 (on my Windows XP Mode XP desktop) instead it opened fine. Perhaps you’re experiencing that or a related issue.

I had no problem downloading it on Windows Vista and Firefox.

Peer review? How about starting with a proof-read first! Step up… anyone with $800 can suddenly be a published scientist.

About SCIRP:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html
http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/

Check SCIRP’s ‘editor-in-chief’s’ current association with Bentham, another vanity publisher:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html
http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/a-new-model-for-open-access-the-pyramid-scheme/

Any particular reasons why this so-called open access journal wouldn’t be listed within DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). Or why SCIRP isn’t a member of OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association). Does it have anything to do with having to meet such prickly untoward requirements… such as peer review? Just sayin.

File opens, no probs, on my PC in Australia. No messages/warnings attached. Download rate was slow, that’s all.

Seems like your home/work system has a problem, maybe security settings.

To quote Frank Zappa…

“…a penguin in bondage….boing……”

Ed Moran says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Re : dbleader61
“I think he is being unfairly berated in these posts.
Read him again. He’s asking, thats all.”

I agree Ed. I thought when I read Anthony’s reply that it was a little harsh! Maybe the end of a tough day!

no problem downloading/reading…. but then again I dumped Adobe as over the years it turned into an excessively bloated resource hog. I’m very happy using Foxit 3.3.1.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/

btw… Adobe was a real bugger to completely uninstall.

Try Foxit Reader; I had no trouble with the d/l and opening of the document. Foxit has a few issues of its own (seems to blow up recently with “Markup” errors when the document is copy/paste blocked), but overall is less hassle than Adobe, IMO.

The publisher’s web site is registered to Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.
of Wuhan, China, which might explain the abundance of Chinese scientists.
It also might explain why no one answers the phone when you call. They’re all home in bed.

@ peetee

Until you admit that “peer review” as practised by Jones, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann et al, is biased, unscientific, and totally fabricated, please don’t clutter up the threads here and elsewhere

Peer review is what happens when the hypothesis is opened for discussion, as happens in WUWT

Please provide your hypothesis about anything.

People are waiting to discuss your ideas

This journal is not bad because it has a low impact factor, it is so because it’s not even listed as a peer-reviewed journal by ISI Thompson…

As already mentioned, anyone can just start a so-called scientific publication with some money, by attracting some low-profile scientists with a generous proposition to enter the editorial board.

It is good to see however that this is not enough to be considered a peer-reviewed journal.

“jrwakefield says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American,

Is that infering that those scientists are less capable than US and UK scientists?”

And neglecting that often trained by these scientists?

People who are amazed that scientists outside the EU and USA are publishing papers, show to me that there is still a huge amount of snobbery, if not unconscious racism, going on in our science labs at our universities.

Little anecdote from some year back happening in my lab:
One post-grad came from Nigeria, doing an M.Sc. on freshwater snails. He’d been educated under appalling conditions, but he had a proper scientific attitude, and a wonderful mind. His project showed he’d understood the scientific method perfectly, and he worked his socks off, doing everything himself, even getting down and dirty cleaning his tanks etc.
And then there was another post grad, doing a Ph.D in cell biology. He was English, he knew everything better than the other post grads, right after having done his first degree. He never cleaned up his stuff. The worst was that he had no clue about the decimal point. He kept transcribing 10 to the power of -6 with 6 zeros following the decimal point. Precision, especially when dealing with very small amounts, was b*llocks to him, admonition was constantly disregarded.

People like him are the reservoir from which those with that snobbish attitude described above (‘not in Nature? Gotta be junk’) are recruited.

It does seem incongruous that a US site that frequently slams what it views as ‘liberal’ views and ‘socialist’ views (often not distinguishing the two) would promote a chinese/russian publication. Times have changed and new alliances are formed, I guess.

Rob Vermeulen says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 am
This journal is not bad because it has a low impact factor, it is so because it’s not even listed as a peer-reviewed journal by ISI Thompson

Rob, how to completely misunderstand everything. A journal’s badness (or goodness) is not a function of whether ISI chose to list it – about a third of scientific journals are listed by ISI, (and as a function of that listing, have an impact factor) are we to infer that the other two thirds are all bad, worthless, that the publishers, editors, reviewers, contributors, readers are all wasting their time and/or engaged in some complex fraud upon the world at large. Rob, not being listed in ISI really does not mean a journal is not peer reviewed, it just means its not listed in ISI. And, in passing, we can assess the worth of ISI’s ranking when it gives high impact to journals which are prepared to publish the work of the likes of Michael Mann, a clear fail in any discipline apart from climate science. Where ISI have been very successful is in persuading the academic community (in particular library journal buyers and thise academics seeking career advancement) that its ranking and indexing really matters. Actually, it doesn’t.

In reply to Bob at 6:46PM:

So both are going up. Big deal. The point I tried to make is the ice cores show no such correlation over 400,000 years, as compared to your 100 years. The most basic evidence for the assumption of CO2 forcing is entirely lacking in the cores. All we see is the ineptly interpreted correlation where CO2 and T are “forced” in response to ice sheet extension.

Anthony’s reply to dbleader61 January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm:

I’ll point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on climate science, in fact it lags much of the world now. It also doesn’t look like it will get any better.

Come on Anthony, you have to know that NY Times (ugh!) piece is nothing more than a cry of, “We want more money!” As if they don’t have enough already. I have never, ever seen a useful or true climate prediction from any source. The science is crap and so are the models.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/

On the education side, if you remove a couple particular minorities from the studies of US education, we are right up there at the top. And much of the problem with those minorities when it comes to education cultural, and has nothing to do with the schools. And I say that as someone who thinks public schools should be abolished and we go to a tuition voucher system.

[Strong words, strong opinions. Are you sure you want to keep them published as your thoughts? Robt]

Strong words, strong opinions. Are you sure you want to keep them published as your thoughts? Robt

I assume you are referring to my comment about a couple of particular minorities. I refuse to be a part of the insidious lies of political correctness Robt. The facts are the facts and I am not making this up because I have a problem with someone’s skin color. I don’t. Those same minorities also have outliers on their bell curves who are top students, but until they overcome the cultural issues that are holding them back they will remain at the bottom. It’s their choice, and I wish them the best for them and their children.

For those with trouble downloading the pdf, try installing Foxit Reader to replace Adobe. It’s free and a lot quicker to kickstart.

dbleader61 says: January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm

I wondered if that was someone Anthony has already crossed swords with. If you’re overloaded Anthony is there anything we can do to help?

BTW this looks like a great sideways move, a new journal with competent staff from places not mired in AGW, minus The Team, kicks off to one of the missing papers that skeptics know we need to see.

Wow the CO2 can now stay in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years; not just 200 years like it used to. So howcome the north polar CO2 drops catastrophically by 18 ppm in just five months; and does so every single year. So when was the last time that the atmosphere was free of CO2, if it only lasts 10,000 years now ?

Shows you how rong you can be; I always thought that CO2 and H2O were both PERMANENT components of the earth atmosphere; and they both vary with various and sundry emissions and uptakes; according to the usual Physical and Chemical laws (bio too). Of course there is always more H2O than CO2 even at the worst of times and places; well there was a whole bunch of CO2 over the Bay of Naples in 79 AD; but I wouldn’t be surprised if there still wasn’t a lot more H2O. We know there was plenty, because it made all that quickcrete marbles out of the ashes.

But it’s good to know that the CO2 will stay for 10,000 years or so, because what would we do for food, if that doesn’t stay there ?

Is there no end to the grasping at straws these guys try. The longer that they can project into the future, the inevitability of our demise; the less point there is in wasting ANY resources trying to stop what already is unstoppable. We certainly should stop wasting resources on further study; since the science is already settled, and both the late Sephen Schneider, and now Kevin Trenberth; say it is incontrovertible or whatever the euphemism for finality is these days.

I guess the Hype word du jour is unequivocal; not incontrovertible. Does anybody know just how many degrees of badness or goodness separate unequivocal and incontrovertible ?

Bill,

the choice of ISI peer-reviewed or not is based on a whole range of criteria concerning the way peer-reviewing is done, and the quality of the editorial board, among others. Look: I’m a scientist. I could open a climate journal with, say, $1000 – eventhough climate research is not my specialty. I could call that peer-reviewed, since I’m a “peer”. And I could in fact make it publish what I want, depending on my mood.

This is one of the reasons why ISI and others (couldn’t find it on PubMed either) carefully select journals they call “peer-reviewed”. Those not belonging to these lists can simply not be trusted!

IMO this is a stunningly awful paper.

The conclusions do not follow from the analysis – the analysis doesn’t detect what the author claims it does.

Water correlated to temperatures, therefore causing the global warming? Well, of course it’s correlated, that’s what Clausius-Clapeyron tells you. We also know it’s a feedback.

Warming caused by the Sun? Why didn’t the author try some correlation analysis for that and use that to explain how declining solar activity has caused the past 40 years of warming?

CO2 saturated? All because of some hand wavey excuse when proper radiative transfer calculations show it isn’t, and satellites have directly measured increased absorption in line with physics?

Short term temperature changes don’t follow CO2? Of course you aren’t going to detect it with this method, annual temperature changes of +/-0.4 C happen in ENSO all the time whilst the expected CO2 warming signal has been smaller than 0.02 C/year for the entire period looked at. Not to mention thanks to aerosols we expected significantly less (and possibly slight cooling in some areas) for decades.

The conclusions are beyond ridiculous and I’m not surprised that it hasn’t been published in a ‘proper’ journal – they would expect a conclusion to be supported by the evidence.

Quick further explanation lifted from SkS:

- looks at change in T vs change in CO2. Detrends any non-accelerating warming and hides it.
- quick look at GISTemp global has a standard deviation of just over 0.1 C. Assuming that we had 40 years of global warming expected at +0.017 C/year, then you would need 160 years of data to determine whether this exists with confidence. But there isn’t this much data and, furthermore, it assumes non-trended random noise and ignores other radiative forcings.

It’s simply shocking that the conclusions were allowed to be published… and it’s no surprise the journal isn’t on ISI because ISI tries to filter for quality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe by email to this site

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Government at work: spend $500,000 to save $8,000

Gosh, it can’t be the money, can it? There must be something else going on. The juxtaposition is priceless. From Tom Nelson:

UVA spends $500,000 on lawyers when it would cost only $8,000 to deliver public documents?

Commonwealth Foundation – Mann: From Transparency Champion to ‘Bully’ Victim

UVA has been resisting (spending about $500,000 on outside lawyers for the effort) a similar, previous request by Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who is investigating Mann under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

That the e-mails are public documents seems clear. Mann, while a professor at the school, used an e-mail account at least partially paid for by taxpayers. Just as an elected official’s or state worker’s official correspondence is open to the public, so is a professor’s at a state school.
…
The school estimated it would cost up to $8,000 to deliver the e-mails. That sounds high, but then we do not know how much of a mess their backup servers are. Whatever the accurate cost, if Marshall and friends will pay it, they do not deserve any more hassle from UVa than any other citizen seeking public records.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

66 Responses to Government at work: spend $500,000 to save $8,000

Oh, you mean THIS gate key!

;-)

Well it could be the math department is just as good as the climate studies department.

It is public university. It has absolutely no immunity of any kind, much less the made up privileges of its loony professors. Cough them up.

Yes, but the damage to the school if those documents are ever released will be much worse than a puny 500,000…

I’d rather they spend their research dollars on lawyers rather than on their religion of climatology. It’s still a win win for logical reasoning. The less propaganda we let them produce to brainwash the masses the better.

This has been my argument all along….

If there’s nothing to see here, why are they fighting it so hard.

Sounds like a bargain. I am not, REPEAT NOT, a “Birther,” but something over $2M in legals costs have been spent on an issue which could be solved for the cost of a simple letter of release. One wonders about how cost/benefit ratios are calcualted today.

It is because Mann’s research was funded by federal grants. If the University had any way of knowing it was bogus, it would be liable to repay those funds and would be disqualified and barred from soliciting any new grants. Grants make up a large portion of a university’s research funding.

Whom is paying the Lawyers?
The students tuition or taxpayer’s money? It’s not like UVA is using money from snack bar sales.

There is nothing to hide, right? I can think of 492,000 reasons to at least question that assertion. But what is a half a million dollars anyway?

They certainly seem to be going to great lengths to hide something….

[snip - Too many problems in this post. While WUWT is not a fan of Dr. Mann, imagining what he "might" say and printing it is just a bit OTT- moderator]

No smoke without fire. They are fighting hard over no wrong doing. So stop fighting and deliver.

It’s not the $8,000 that they’re worried about. It’s the precedent that would be set in having the right to refuse these sort of requests in the future that they’re fighting over.

But publically funded efforts require public disclosure of the results of those efforts, as long as privacy or contract issues are not being violated.

I do not know how UVa is funded, but it may be an over simplification to say that it is publically funded. For example, do the students pay tuition fees? Do companies provide research grants? Are there Awards and Scholarships not paid for out of the public purse? etc. Again, I do not know US immunity law, but there seems no obviously good reason why a university or a lecturer at a university should enjoy any special immunity dispensation.

Whilst I liked the joke about the Maths deptartment, someone must have done the sums and taken the decision that it was worth spending so much money resisting the enquiry. Presumably, this would only be money well spent if the contents of the e-mails was damning. alternatively, if a stance of principle was being taken on the basis of the thin end of the wedge etc, ie., if they were to make disclosure this time (although there is nothing to hide), it could lead to a dangerous precedent in the future when they may really have something to hide.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this enquiry since one way or the other, it will tell us something about the world we live in.

It’s also possible they are defending this on principle, rather than because Mann specifically has something to hide. However, I’ve been racking my brains and I can’t think of a coherent principle one would seek to defend it on, unless “academic freedom” is considered.

latitude says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:04 am
This has been my argument all along….

If there’s nothing to see here, why are they fighting it so hard.

Well, you know what they say:

“It’s the principle of the thing.”

One might question the timing of displaying principles, though.

Half a Mil here, half a Mil there, pretty soon it will be real money. Oh, I forgot… half a Tril here, half a Tril there…

Reminder to self… next time, make sure to consult government guide on what “relatively modest” funding means…

They had their chance to distance themselves from Mann but chose to join the fray and go all in with a cover up. One only has to ask why.

After applying the old skeptics-are-funded-by-big-oil smear, Mann paints himself as the victim and also as a champion of the ‘progress of science’. What a w*nker:

“There is substantial case law defending scientists and academics against such thinly-veiled attempts to suppress scientific inquiry by harassing individual scientists. I suspect that U.Va, as other great universities have in the past, will respect that tradition and stand up against these transparent attempts not just to bully me, but to thwart the progress of science,”

JohnWho says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
“It’s the principle of the thing.”
===============================================
John, they have released other people’s work, no questions asked.

It is a given that the emails will ultimately be made available; as has been stated, they are clearly subject to public access. UVA is merely stalling this as long as possible in the hopes that things will have changed and the appetite for such information is reduced. When there is no alternative to the truth, stall stall stall, then request a continuance.

http://www.virginia.edu/presidentemeritus/report10/pdf/StatementsNotes10.pdf

Small beans, you see. They only had an operating loss of ~$305,000,000.

Ironically there may be nothing within these e-mail , but who now would believe that after all the effort UVA has put into avoided their release ?
How to create a rod for your own back 101

Bob Ramar:
As I understand it, most NIH and NSF grants are applied for and issued to individual scientists, who have proprietary control over their grants. Universities usually lack supervisory or administrative control over the grants or research work.

Thus, Mann is personally liable to the state for any violation of its false claims law. There is a parallel federal law that also covers Mann’s work.

UVA is entering into a very spicy legal arena. As someone pointed out, much of Mann’s funding is surely federal, and a percentage goes into the U’s general fund as “indirect cost recovery” or some such term. In many cases it’s in the realm of $.45 on the dollar.

The rub here is where the legal defense dollars are coming from. The feds won’t allow their funding dollars to fight legal battles, so the money has to come from other sources….and THAT is something the taxpayers are entitled to know…which further complicates the issue.

Now, there’s grounds for another FOIA request….where the defense money is coming from. And let UVA defend themselves to the foundation donors, taxpayers, and anyone else whose funding the place.

Taxpayers paying to defend UVA from revealing information the taxpayers request on information taxpayers paid for??

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Being more or less a libertarian, I think there are issues here worth well more than $500K, and not necessarily “coverup”-related. Distinguishing at a constitutional level what is rightly to be considered public and what is private is a core issue for Americans.

In this case, given the public finding of such universities as UVa, it seems likely that the work of employees of the uinversity performed on university-owned equipment is probably public and subpoenable.

The more the university resists the more difficult it is going to be for them to claim ignorance of the activities of their departments and the more embarrassing. Parents might question the worth of an education for their sons and daughters at UAV.

It’s not the smell of money that emanates from this, it’s that of what is their underwear. They certainly don’t want certain things to be made public. In any case, it’s still public money, so you can add this on top and demand the documents and emails relating to this decision.

The Roanoke Times sure has changed since I was a kid .

They will take the consequences and destroy the e-mails and say they were mistaken when the said they found them and were right the first time when they said they were missing.

latitude says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:42 am
JohnWho says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
“It’s the principle of the thing.”
===============================================
John, they have released other people’s work, no questions asked.

Perhaps because the lack of principles would not have been exposed?

The University has taken sides. When asked for materials about Pat Michaels (skeptic), they complied promptly, I believe. They know full well there’s no ‘academic freedom’ issue here.

glacierman says: “They had their chance to distance themselves from Mann but chose to join the fray and go all in with a cover up. One only has to ask why.”

Should we consider the possibility that George Soros or a Large Left-wing Foundation has promised to cover their costs? “You keep them from unraveling our beautiful, world-wide global warming scam, and we’ll donate twice your legal costs.”

Very soon (2013), UVa will have a Department of Wanker Studies. Guess who will be the Chair?

They act like they are hiding something.
Grandma says that indicates they are.

False piety in the ivory tower is not a virtue.

O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!

Marmion by Sir Walter Scott.

pat says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:44 am
It is public university.

You are correct – and you also hit on the reason it will spend a fortune to save a penny. Colleges have no conception of a budget. In a recession, the only 2 things that continue to rise are government spending and college tuition.

Half million? Pocket change for the incoming Freshman class.

richard verney says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:28 am
I do not know how UVa is funded,

Like all “Public” colleges, it gets some of its money from the government (state) and some from students. In the case of Virginia Colleges, only about 25% comes from the government, the rest from students and endowments.

Did they not release other work to Greenpeace,not an issue of academic freedom there! and did they charge Greenpeace $8,000.

Virginia’s answer is simple, reduce the funding of the University until it delivers. If they want to hold onto the materials in the face of Freedom of Information requests, they shouldn’t be in charge of any state supported research.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess, but UVa hasn’t done so well in the “Wall street” department have they?

They’re not exactly famous for producing economic geniuses, and, so, maybe it is no wonder that they have invested so heavily in CAGW. :p

Perhaps the reason why the university is resisting is that they realize what a chilling effect it might have if all of their professors had to make all of their private e-mail correspondence public for any sort of politically-motivated fishing expedition.

Of course, people like Anthony Watts could show their good faith by making all of their own private e-mail correspondence public first. Otherwise, they seem to have little ground to complain about others not wishing to have all such correspondence made public.

REPLY: Joel, you’re on thin ice here, public funding means public ownership. Private means private ownership. I’m under no more obligation to release my private emails than say, Joe Romm or Al Gore is. I’m pretty sure if you ask them they’ll tell you to go take a flying leap at the moon. It has been proven in court that there is no expectation of privacy in public funded communications with issues of national security being excepted. Enabling access to these is the reason the FOIA exists. – Anthony

UVA has rather poor timing in pulling this stunt. States are rapidly approaching the bankruptcy cliff, and this sort of nonsense is going to come up again when the universities wish someone to save their floundering endowments and pension systems.

I wonder…. Could the current students of UVA pursue a class action suit (or other suitable legal action) against the university for financial malfeasance, if any of their tuition fees were used for this $500,000 act of obstruction of justice?

Same thing for misappropriated alumni contributions….. research grant funds…. or taxpayer funds?

I’m just a simple country engineer… Any lawyers out there, with knowledge in this area of jurisprudence?

A few years back, a Member of Congress had the audacity to suggest that academics receiving government grants should account for how they spent those grants. The roar of outrage (from the academics) was deafening. “An insult to professionalism!” they cried. And the issue went away. This seems no different. You (the taxpayer) are not entitled to know how we (the enlightened) spend the money you owe us for saving the planet.

Hmmm. Seems to me that he who pays the piper should call the tune.

Y’all don’t want to release what we paid for, then we should stop paying for it.

But that’s mean …

Scott Covert says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:10 am

Whom is paying the Lawyers?

Just who is this Whom of whom you speak.

Anthony:

(1) Public funding has never meant that academics surrender all rights of privacy and intellectual property. For example, NSF has clearly stated that the computer code developed under their grants remains the intellectual property of the researcher.

(2) While you might feel that you are under no obligation to release such things, don’t you think it would be a good gesture to show how you are willing to do so just to set a good example?

(3) Would you be taking the same position if it was a Democratic attorney general on a witchhunt demanding all the e-mails from Roy Spencer and John Christy so he could investigate the circumstances under which their initial satellite record analysis got a trend that was so far off the mark until others pointed out errors that they had to correct?

Mac the Knife, remember you can sue for anything, no matter what about and what for. On the note of academic freedom, Bull$&!, They took my money knowing full well that i or any other American can and should be able to ask for ALL the information at any time. There is no “academic freedom” when it comes to taxpayers money being involved. IMO.

Wow, Joel, your ignorance of this distinction is staggering. Statements like these, that defend the faith at all costs regardless of [] legitimacy, really call into question your objectivity.

Mark

The school estimated it would cost up to $8,000 to deliver the e-mails. That sounds high, but then we do not know how much of a mess their backup servers are. Whatever the accurate cost, if Marshall and friends will pay it, they do not deserve any more hassle from UVa than any other citizen seeking public records.
—————
Well if they saw it as “any other citizen seeking public records” there would not be a problem. As they likely see it as a form of harassment of a member of staff by someone with a political agenda they will be taking the principalled route of protecting academic freedom.

You have to use your imagination and step outside the frame constructed by a spin merchant. Gives you a whole new perspective on the bogus moral outrage.

Paddy says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:49 am
Bob Ramar:
As I understand it, most NIH and NSF grants are applied for and issued to individual scientists, who have proprietary control over their grants. Universities usually lack supervisory or administrative control over the grants or research
——–
Seriously? I would have thought that it is the direct opposite of everything you said.

You have to wonder why the University of Virginia coughed up Patrick Michael’s files with such great alacrity but fights tooth and nail to protect Michael Mann’s files.

It’s not the $8,000 they’re trying to save. And it’s not their Fundamental Principles. It’s more like their Principals’ Fundaments.
:)

Are they doing this because the lawyers told the university administration they couldn’t plead the Fifth?

Joel Shore says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:02 pm

No doubt Joel you’ll make public access available here to all your emails then?

Academic Freedom means that academics can do their research without outside agencies/governments telling them what to research and what not to research. It means no outside interference into my research project. It means I can do my research even e.g. against Lysenko without fear of being thrown into the GULAG.

Academic Freedom does not mean I can sit on my research results and tell other scientist or those who have founded my research to b*gger off.

Why are some academics not able to understand the difference?

Businesses in Ireland are protesting over the Government’s latest Climate Change Bill, saying the legislation will stifle the economy by almost €4bn. http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/climatechange004/category/9

“Anthony:

(1) Public funding has never meant that academics surrender all rights of privacy and intellectual property. For example, NSF has clearly stated that the computer code developed under their grants remains the intellectual property of the researcher.

(2) While you might feel that you are under no obligation to release such things, don’t you think it would be a good gesture to show how you are willing to do so just to set a good example?

(3) Would you be taking the same position if it was a Democratic attorney general on a witchhunt demanding all the e-mails from Roy Spencer and John Christy so he could investigate the circumstances under which their initial satellite record analysis got a trend that was so far off the mark until others pointed out errors that they had to correct?”

Joel

Get Real. That ship sailed long ago.

1. Those academics with brains have private e-mail accounts for private communications. I know some who are quite insistent that private messages are not sent to their government funded account. The public funded communication is subject to FIOA requests.

2. The University has already yielded on the academic freedom argument when they released the e-mail of a septic. Your argument for fairness is insane in that light. There is no justification for skeptic’s to be treated as second class citizens not entitled to the same protection as Professor Mann’s work. As the skeptic’s work was released to Greenpeace how can you possibly argue that other skeptics work be released first? What is unreasonable about expecting those with a legal obligation to comply with the law?

3. Where is your argument that UVA should not have released e-mails to Greenpeace? Do you see any argument here, except for equal treatment that UVA should have not released the skeptic’s information?

Your points are biased and foolish in light of the facts.

Tell me, Joel, how a public employee operating a publicly-owned computer in a public building on the taxpayers’ dime and time can possibly be engaged “private” correspondence?

Nobody is requesting that Dr. Mann’s private computer in his private home be searched. Except for you, in regards to Mr. Watt’s private computer in his private home.

Talk about a chilling effect! Maybe you should chill out, dude.

A public university and all of its assets are owned by the public. How the university receives its funding is irrelevant. As soon as the money is in the university’s coffers, the money belongs to the public.

1DandyTroll says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Funny you should mention UVA and economics. While my sheepskin does not come from such a “prestigious” university, at least we won the Emory games in my senior year. UVA was not even in the finals.

And we are down the road from them, so not like it was across the country.

Viv Evans says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:32 am
Academic Freedom means that academics can do their research without outside agencies/governments telling them what to research and what not to research. It means no outside interference into my research project. It means I can do my research even e.g. against Lysenko without fear of being thrown into the GULAG.

I’d believe that people seem to overlook the notion that the only true “academic freedom” is self-funded. Otherwise, your results are always suspect to influence by your benefactor. At least with self-funded research, you only defend yourself…not your grantor.

No, grants are issued to the institution. That means if a researcher leaves an institution, the grant money stays with the institution. If they transfer to another institution, they can ask the first one to transfer the funds, but it can be a complicated process and isn’t always allowed. Further, any equipment purchased using a federal grant is the property of the institution, not the researcher, so similar rules apply to transferring equipment if the researcher relocates. Sometimes just changing departments within the same university can become an accounting nightmare.

From LazyTeenager on January 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm:

Well if they saw it as “any other citizen seeking public records” there would not be a problem. As they likely see it as a form of harassment of a member of staff by someone with a political agenda they will be taking the principalled route of protecting academic freedom.

Wow. So for the “protection of academic freedom,” public records may be withheld simply because they don’t like the motives of those asking for the info?

As found here (bold added):

Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming. In emails stolen from the university he asks one climate change sceptic: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” In a grilling by MPs, Prof Jones admitted he had withheld data and sent some “pretty awful” emails. But he insisted it was “standard practice” to refuse certain information to other scientists.

–Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 2 March 2010

From the email numbered 1107454306.txt, copied here, comes one of the most interesting Climategate revelations from the esteemed Dr. Phil Jones:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Seems pretty obvious what was being protected wasn’t “academic freedom.”

It appears you Freudian slipped the correct word, and UVA is indeed taking the “principalled” route, of protecting the principals involved, namely themselves.

You have to use your imagination and step outside the frame constructed by a spin merchant. Gives you a whole new perspective on the bogus moral outrage.

Well, it’s not exactly a “whole new” perspective of your moral outrage, as this is what I’ve come to expect of your spin.

Another Ian says:

No doubt Joel you’ll make public access available here to all your emails then?

No, because I am not the one demanding that anybody’s e-mails be made public.

Paul A Peterson says:

1. Those academics with brains have private e-mail accounts for private communications. I know some who are quite insistent that private messages are not sent to their government funded account. The public funded communication is subject to FIOA requests.

Well, if U Va is spending money on lawyers, they apparently have good reason to believe that the government-funding argument does not mean that a researcher gives up all rights to private communication, even about work-related issues. When I write e-mails at work, I have an expectation that in general they will be seen by me and the recipients (and who that recipient or I choose to show it to). It is ridiculous to claim any e-mail whatsoever is subject to be made public! Clearly, for example, e-mail messages between myself and a student that involve the student’s grade are subject to privacy issues.

2. The University has already yielded on the academic freedom argument when they released the e-mail of a septic. Your argument for fairness is insane in that light. There is no justification for skeptic’s to be treated as second class citizens not entitled to the same protection as Professor Mann’s work. As the skeptic’s work was released to Greenpeace how can you possibly argue that other skeptics work be released first? What is unreasonable about expecting those with a legal obligation to comply with the law?

Do you have a cite to back up this claim? I just did a google search and all I could find were a few unsubstantiated claims like yours that U Va had turned over such things. The closest to a reputable source was an op-ed piece in a right-wing newspaper that made the claim that Greenpeace “was promised, e-mails and other materials of Patrick Michaels” in response to their FOIA request. And, in fact, I found this article that said U Va had so far not in fact turned over any documents to Greenpeace: http://www2.wsls.com/news/2010/jun/03/uva_climate_skeptics_also_target_of_information_re-ar-361873/ (Here is a blog post that makes the additional point that Greenpeace’s request was apparently much more tightly focused: http://www2.wsls.com/news/2010/jun/03/uva_climate_skeptics_also_target_of_information_re-ar-361873/ )

So, until you can produce something more than an unsubstantiated claim that U Va turned over such e-mails, and details about what exactly they turned over, I have nothing of substance to comment on.

All I can say is that I think that U Va should deal with such requests in a consistent manner and one that reasonably balances the public’s right to know with the individual researchers rights to not have all their communications be made public at the will of anybody who wants to go on a political witchhunt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Trenberth’s upcoming AMS meeting talk: ClimateGate Thoughts

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) a U.S. publicly funded research center, uses the term “denier” six times in this upcoming talk, which he has submitted as a preprint to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in full public view. I’m reproducing it in full below, with only one comment: he uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language. His planned talk is enlightening, I suggest that everyone read it in full. Dr. Trenberth also helpfully includes his NCAR email address in the publicly available document, such that if anyone has any suggestions for him on how he might improve this address to the AMS before he gives it, he can be sent comments.

UPDATE: Physicist Luboš Motl has some thoughts, see here

UPDATE2: Steve McIntyre weighs in with some historical perspective as does Warren Meyer with A New Scientific Low

UPDATE3: Willis Eschenbach offers an open letter to Dr. Trenberth – highly recommended reading.

This talk is in honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public. I have given many public talks on climate change, and I have always tried to emphasize the observational facts and their interpretation, rather than the less certain projections into the future. I will illustrate how I have always tried to present the material in a fairly policy neutral way, and I have pointed out ways to encourage discussion about value systems and why these lead to potentially different actions about what one does about climate change. For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation. The WCRP Observations and Assimilation Panel, which I have chaired for 6 years, has advocated for the climate observing system and the development of useful products. Moving towards a form of operational real time attribution of climate and weather events is essential, but needs to recognize the shortcomings of models and understanding (or the uncertainties, as Steve would say). Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.

===============================================================

The above is the foreword posted on the AMS website along with the link to the PDF there. Here’s the text of PDF of his upcoming talk, which I’ve saved locally also in case the main one disappears or is changed.

ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2

AMS, 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THOUGHTS ON CLIMATEGATE
Kevin E Trenberth*
NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307

1. INTRODUCTION: CLIMATEGATE
This article briefly summarizes my views that have formed in recent years on communicating climate change in the light of first hand experiences in so-called “climategate”. The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way. Instead there should be condemnation of the abuse, misuse and downright lies about the emails: that should be the real climategate!
I was involved in just over 100 of the hacked email messages. In my case, one cherry-picked email quote went viral and at one point it was featured in over 110,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. But that is the way a vast majority of the internet stories and blogs interpreted it.

*Corresponding author: Kevin E Trenberth, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.
Email: trenbert@ucar.edu

Several of the emails document the detailed procedures used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 Fourth Assessment report for Chapter 3 (for which Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth were coordinating lead authors) and other chapters. In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment. The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held. It was not sanctioned by me. Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC. As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.

Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010).

Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry. The IPCC assessments are a means of taking stock and avoiding some of the “noise” created by the different approaches and thereby providing conservative but robust statements about what is known and what is not.

2. THE DENIERS
But their critics are another matter entirely, and their false claims have not been scrutinized or criticized anything like enough! Perhaps climategate comes from the somewhat inept response of climate scientists to criticisms from various sources. The climate change deniers have very successfully caused major diversions from the much needed debate about what to do about climate change and how to implement it. It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. Climate varies slowly and so the message remains similar, year after year — something not exciting for journalists as it is not “news”. Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority or those with vested interests or ideologies. The climate deniers have been successful in by-passing peer review yet attracting media attention. In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.

4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments. Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions. They find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding.
While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press. Others are diverted from their science to address the concerns. There is continued pressure to do policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science. Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.

Many scientists also do not help with regard to communicating the role of global warming in climate. Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high. In general in this case, scientists assume that there is no human influence and to prove that there is requires statistical tests to exceed the 95% confidence level (5% significance level) to avoid a chance finding of a false positive. To declare erroneously that the null hypothesis is not correct is called a type I error, and the science is very conservative in this regard about making such an error. Scientists are thus prone to make what are called type II errors whereby they erroneously accept the null hypothesis when it is in fact false.

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.

So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.

Another point is that we have substantial natural climate variability from events like El Niño and La Niña. Given that global warming is always going in one direction, it is when natural variability and global warming reinforce one another that records are broken and extremes occur. This takes place with warming in the latter part of and shortly after an El Niño event, for instance, as has happened in 2010.

When asked about what could and should be done about climate change, many scientists back away for fear of being labeled advocates. However, scientists should note that the IPCC strives to carry out policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science assessments, with considerable success. Given the physical science findings, what are the ramifications for society and the environment? It is important for scientists to recognize that Working Group II of IPCC deals extensively with the past and future expected impacts of climate change, the vulnerabilities that exist, and the adaptation and coping strategies for dealing with these. Similarly, Working Group III deals with options for mitigating the problem by reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists should recognize that these options exist and, to the extent they are familiar with them, state what they are. Scientists should also be aware of the national and international discussions and negotiations underway to address the problem. Putting a price on carbon, carbon taxes and offsets, and cap and trade systems can be discussed in a neutral way to inform the public.

Personally, I close this aspect of my presentations with a statement that “you will be
affected by climate change, and you already are, whether you believe it or not. But more than that, you will be affected by the outcomes of legislation and international treaties, perhaps even more!” As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.

5. THE POLITICIANS
The argument is that to make decisions, all aspects of the problem must be taken into account and it is the politicians who are supposed to do this, not the scientists, in order to represent all interests. My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole. It is clear that climate science has become politicized, and scientists are slow to recognize this. Politicians hide behind the apparent uncertainties and have failed to act. Hence while politicians are often also part of the problem, implementation of policies necessarily goes through them.
In the days of hundreds of TV channels and the internet, people do not have to hear “inconvenient truths” and become informed. As scientists we can continue to try with our message of what is happening and why, what is expected in the future, and what options there are to change the outcome, but we need to do more.

6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Environmental groups and one segment of scientists have focused on what is called “mitigation” that aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and slow and ultimately stop climate change in its tracks. Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change. However, by itself, I view this as short-sighted, as the steps required are so revolutionary as to be highly unlikely to be achieved. Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda.

The major failures in making progress, such as in Copenhagen in December 2009, imply that we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable, along with environmental refugees, and so what are we going to do with them? Some steps in this direction were taken in the recent meeting in Cancun. It is too bad if success means that we are able to limit the outcome to an ongoing series of environmental disasters that inevitably happen locally as hurricanes strike, heat waves and wild fires take their toll, droughts cause famine, and water shortages or flooding (ironically — in different places, or different times) cause mayhem. The summer of 2010 with floods in Pakistan, India, and China, and devastating drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia, is a case in point. Indeed, 2010 provided many such examples from the New England flooding and “Snowmageddon” in the Washington D.C. area in February and March to the flooding in California associated with a “Pineapple Express” of moisture from extending from the Hawaiin Islands to California in December. Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.

The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.

Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).

It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.

Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.

Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.

REFERENCES
Hasselmann, K., 2010: The climate change game. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo919, 511-512.
Trenberth, K. E., 2008: Observational needs for climate prediction and adaptation. WMO Bulletin, 57 (1), 17-21.
Wilson, K., 2009: Opportunities and obstacles for television weathercasters to report on climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1457-1465

Share this:
StumbleUpon

- Digg

- Reddit

- Facebook

- Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society

- Pew Poll: Belief in global warming as a serious problem continues to decline

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

314 Responses to Trenberth’s upcoming AMS meeting talk: ClimateGate Thoughts

Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”.

Such people used to be tarred and feathered in the past. Unbelievable.

“unequivocal”

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride”: He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

[True dat. ~dbs]

I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers. Has this ever been proven that it was actually hacked as I do not recall any official report coming out saying who hacked it and when but rather I see many muddied references to it being hacked in an effort to detract from the information by damaging its source.

As a lot of the information included in the emails were relevant to several FOI requests both before and after the leak of these emails, they should have already been in the public domain. Isn’t it time the warmists moved on from their you hacked us mantra and stopped causing major diversions and distractions by bigging up an unproven source for the information rather than enter into full disclosure and a complete free discussion of the information contained.

I always see these people dismissing the mikes trick, however I have not seen them reply with why we should trust the data which was shown to be so polluted with garbage in the readme file. I can only assume that,careful cherry picking of the data is in operation, much like it is to back up the whole AGW position.

[snip. Read the Policy page. Calling other commentators "deniers" is unacceptable. ~dbs, mod.]

Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile

Did I read this right? He’s basically saying that scientists should use any single “weather” event to promote the environmentalist cause (which they do, of course). It’s heartening to know that many weathermen/women have sometimes been downright hostile!

The scariest part:

“Scientific facts are not open to debate or opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

In Trenberth’s mind the concepts of Science and Religion are completely switched.

A fact which is “not open to debate” is by pure definition NOT a scientific fact. It is an axiom of faith for the adherents of one particular faith. And the entire purpose of science is to bring in alternative views for some form of debate or counterpoint.

His section on the media turned me right off anything else valuable he might have to say, with its complete cognitive dissonance and circular arguing.

The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.

How anyone can see the MSM in the US, UK or Australia as anything but enthusiastic shills for AGW beats me. And to say the MSM has deliberately chosen such a stance (which is what the word ‘complicit’ means), is a serious if equally absurd charge.

..the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority … In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.

That only holds if you have already decided in advance what ‘the solution’ is, and so expect the MSM to do your bidding.

Trenberth et al need to realise that the more they make these shrill and repetitive denunciations of ‘deniers’, the more people turn off from their message.

Well there we go. Science shouldn’t be debated or questioned by the unwashed masses since scientists are supreme beings, all deniers should be totally ignored and never engaged. ….. scientists never overstate the obvious, man made global warming has been proven with a greater than 95% confidence, and EVERY weather event is caused by AGW.

The guy is an absolute nut! He isn’t a scientist, he thinks he is a PROPHET!

His idea of science is that it is a religion. Utterly bizarre.

´Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.´ – section 6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Imposing taxes on successful civilizations, in order to bribe failed cultures, neither answers the question nor is ethical.

What an evil speech.

I can’t decide if the logic hand waving he uses to justify a new null hypothesis is a textbook example of confirmation bias, or simply a statement of religious dogma.

Ah blind faith:

Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been…

What a sickening piece. I read as far as “Scientists make mistakes …” and decided I’d given this idiot too much of my time.

Scientists don’t make mistakes. They make testable hypothesis which they then subject to test. It is not a mistake if they are wrong, because science is based on the belief that all assertions could be found to be wrong when or if the right experimental conditions were created.

That is why science progresses … because real scientists don’t think in terms of “mistakes” but in terms of “testable hypothesis” and they progress by testing those hypothesis not by stating that their best chum is a marvellous fellow and everyone who disagrees with them are therefore wrong.

Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms.

Here we have the art of the unfalsifiable hypothesis: The SST are colder and the water vapor is lower but they are higher than they would have been….. ?

You should also respond directly to the AMS Executive Director, Keith Seiter, who schooled under his predecessor Dick Hallgren, who was Al Gore’s phone mate.

He has been pushing the AGW agenda (like their counterparts at the AGU) in their journals and conferences. They have been arm twisting TV mets to become evangelists for the cause, subtly hinting their seals could be at risk.

He told me personally over lunch that sites like WUWT and Icecap were not helpful to the science (his science).

Trenberth is an enigma – sometimes admitting they don’t have all the answers, and the science is not where it needs to be and other times like in this address that their thinking is not open for question.

You can express your opinion to Keith at kseitter@ametsoc.org

Sarah says: (January 13, 2011 at 3:14 am)
…however I have not seen them reply with why we should trust the data which was shown to be so polluted with garbage in the readme file.

My feelings exactly, Sarah; often voiced.
Have you read “Is it in their Nature to lie?”

Heh, like a small child, wrong at the top of his lungs.
===============

I am gobsmacked that activist Gaian cultists such as Trenberth and Hansen remain on the public payroll while spouting their alarmist left-wing ideologies, and equally surprised that organizations such as AMS would give them a podium.

Literally ever paragraph of his presentation is a proclamation of bizarre and hypocritical Gaian nonsense, for example directing his charges at the various groups that are impeding the progress of the alarmist religion, and then asserting that “Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides.”

Unbelievable.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

That a scientist should endorse the idea that the correct procedure for the evaluation of science is by a political committee is very concerning.

When your belief is this strong, can you be an objective scientist?

He has noted himself that we cannot track what is really going on, that there significant parts of the additional energy expected from global warming that is missing. Yet, he is fully 100% convinced anyway, enough so that he doesn’t even want to debate it anymore.

It is a jump the shark moment really.

You can tell right off the bat where he was going. The reference to the “hacked” emails shows no regard for the facts to begin with.

Devastating. Without even considering whether AGW exists or not, from a purely scientific viewpoint, Trenberth’s ramblings are a shame.

By using the word denier and saying weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile I believe we have a government employee who is using hateful speech to incite. In the wake of the Arizona shootings I wonder if Obama can tell him to turn it down until we have all the evidence.

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based.
All data here are scientific facts and physically based:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Not that I expect that Dr. Trenberth would read or consider it, but by any miracle if he does, I am happy answer any objections he might have, and if he is so inclined to debate it. Dr. Judith Curry thought it important enough to take a good look, and at least considered it as a possible factor in her forthcoming Arctic study.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ”

The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific ‘fact’ after another turned out to be completely wrong. In honest science everything is questioned, everything is tested and tested again, and the most important scientific technique is scepticism. Even Relativity, probably one of the most successful scientific theories, is still tested by scientists trying to find if there is anything wrong with it. Unlike AGW, Relativity has stood the test of time, and so, for the moment, it stands.
If it were not for scientific scepticism we would still believe that the sun rotates around the earth and that continents do not move.
In my humble opinion Trenberth’s statement is beneath contempt.
Chris

Anthony I’m serious about my comment. I don’t know if you would like to start a campaign whereas a general comment that all of us can use to e-mail or send to our representatives but I’ve seen it before. When everyone uses the same comment to send IMHO it’s shows unity and there is strength in numbers. Just a thought.

Has there been a statement by the investigating police force confirming hacking, or is that still merely warmist white noise?

Considering the time Dr. Trenberth has had to consider his position since the release of the CRU tapes, I would have expected something more sophisticated.

The verbal and mental acrobatics exhibited in this speech are breathtaking.
First we have this statement (my emphasis):
“Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions.”,
with the following statement in the next segment (about ‘deniers’):
“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

So while scientists argue with those who arrive at different conclusions, this debate is actually quite wrong, because credibility is being given to these alternative views?
IAW, you can argue if you’re part of The Team, but only with members of The Team. Everybody else must not be allowed to utter a word?
Reminds me powerfully of Lysenkoism – but perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that we’re not ending up in GULAGs or psychiatric clinics …

Oh – and if scientific facts are evidence and/or physically based, doesn’t that imply that climate science models are, ahem, not science?
Unless, of course, a computer model is eo ipso both evidence and physically based.
Mind – geologists and palaeontologists have accumulated quite a nice amount of real evidence. However, this evidence isn’t sitting in computer models but relies on actual physical entities like rocks, strata or bones. We must therefore assume that, according to Trenberth, it can’t be science …

Watch ‘em scurry like cockroaches, eh ValoSnah?
===============

Look at the pdf and go to the cartoons at the end. It is hard to reconcile the political nature of these with the scientific method. If he lived in an earlier time I expect he would be beside James Hansen at the front of the crowd tossing logs onto fires burning deniers.

So the Coldest December on record, which we’ve just experienced in the UK, would have been colder still if it wasn’t for AGW???

The guy definitely has a God-complex, and such people are dangerous, as history has shown.

And you’d think that he might have been able to come up with some better excuses for Climategate by now, given it’s now more than a year. He must be a very busy man.

Last updated at 11:49 AM on 13th January 2011
Mount Etna spews lava on the southern Italian island of Sicily yesterday evening
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/13/article-1346685-0CBDE12E000005DC-979_964x645.jpg

Bill @ 3:53AM re: Brisbane.

Lofting haughtily
Over the wretched waters;
Trenberth jumps the shark.
============

OTOH, perhaps this is a good thing – perhaps a lot more people will now perceive both him and the whole AGW theory as being completely unhinged and derailed.

Does this man think he is God. There are many peer reviewed papers out there that state that his theory about GHG’s is a load of rubbish. I think that these prove him to be human after all and a great maker of mistakes.

James Griffiths says:

““Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.””

“That a scientist should endorse the idea that the correct procedure for the evaluation of science is by a political committee is very concerning.”

That is why you cannot call someone like Trenberth a scientist. A scientists is not someone who calls themselves a scientist, nor even someone who others call a scientist. They are simply someone who uses the scientific method, and if like Trenberth, you don’t agree with the scientific method, then you have no right to call yourself a scientist or expect anyone else to do so!

Yes, it could be said that Trenberth is a denier of the facts

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? His statements lead to the resignation of someone who actually knew something about hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, from the IPCC. Landsea saw no correlation and resigned in disgust. Who was right? Perhaps Trenberth should include that little story in his address to the AMS. I find it disgusting my taxpayer money funds this human piece of junk. As far as ‘denier’ is concerned I think he should be ‘denied’ any further funding.

I wholeheartedly support the points made by Dr Trenberth and may even send him an e-mail praising his bravery in standing up for his principles in these dangerous times. Bravery because I believe many climate scientists whose e-mail addresses are given out on blogs such as these get abusive and life-threatening messages and so it does take courage, knowing that there are some very sick individuals out there who think that e-mail messages are not enough.

“”Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based”"

Thought all the out put was on “models” very little phyiscal based study takes place anymore.
much nicer to sit in warm office and play on a computer

This guy seems to miss the point, if you study the claims of the non-scientists on both sides you can find outrageously worng statements from both crowds. He is a scientist and should instead focus on the scientific claims and validity of peer reviewed papers on both sides. If he were to do that, his statements would not be as strongly negaTIVE ABOUT “DENIERS” OR AS STRONLY POSITIVE OF HIS WORLD VIEW.

Its the sceince, stupid.

We have equally fatuous comments by warmist scientists in Australia. They resemble old time religious rhetoric and attitudes. Could it be they are the emerging priests of the new religion of AGW?
The question is, will the intended audience swallow it, or will there be objections, placards, and walkouts?
I look forward to a report on the audience reaction after this propaganda piece is delivered.

It reads much more like a call to the faithful from a religious leader than anything to do with science, so in one sense it’s a perfectly fair speech.

Dear Anoneumouse

I will be on travel in Europe until 19 January 2011.
[Bern ISSE 9-14; Grenoble ECRA 15-18]
I will have only limited access to email.

Love Kevin

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

So no scope to discuss potential flaws in methodology then Kevin?

Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions.

Would that be the Phil Jones version of the scientific method?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html
Jones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. “It hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it’s not,” he said. ‘They never asked’ Asked whether other climate scientists reviewing his papers ever required such data, he said, “They’ve never asked.” In response to a specific question about why he had failed to grant freelance researcher Warwick Hughes access to data, he said simply, “We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it.”

This is the bit I like the most (from Kevin)…

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t.

In other words, the climate club should be free to run around making silly claims, should be instantly accepted, and skeptics have to do all the legwork debunking them.

IMO, What a travesty of a scientist!

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.”

Really? and where is your criticism of Hansen’s tipping point claims Kevin? Serreze’s ‘arctic death spiral’? Now you see’em now you don’t Himalayan glaciers? Are you in denial about them perhaps?

Well, while he’s getting personal, this denier is loathe to take guidance from a man who looks and sounds like a character from a 70′s disaster movie. You know, the panicky idiot who causes the meteor strike / nuclear meltdown / new ice age..

His language is part of a deliberate move to shore up the ‘consensus’, as previously credulous people continue to ask awkward questions of Warmist assertions. From the beginning this has been done by framing any scrutiny of AGW dogma as an attack on science itself in the hope of nurturing an ‘us and them’ attitude amongst real scientists (you know, the ones who deal in physical observations and falsifiable hypotheses, who don’t wave around model outputs like some kind of magic staff).

This is aided by the tactic of casting critics of the orthodoxy as angry, scientifically illiterate right wing nut-jobs and – as we all know – invoking the spectre of holocaust denial (devaluing this term and its true implications as a result). A scientist wishing to examine the ‘evidence’ for her/himself beyond AGW laden abstracts and press releases is discouraged by the idea that to do so would be to undermine science itself and give power to those who would seek to attack it. Just as physicists, biologists, geologists and chemists are likely to be highly intelligent and possess strong critical faculties, they are not are immune from herd-mentality and group psychology. Nobody likes their family to be attacked by outsiders, and people from any background will always club together, form a consensus, to protect their own.

Unfortunately this tactic works, for now. I’m wondering for how long the AGW High Priests can go on imploring real scientists to avoid ‘peering behind the screen’, using poisonous mischaracterisations of their critics, while the earth continues in its refusal to fall in line with their apocalyptic predictions. I’m giving it five more years. Climate mystics like Trenberth will continue to spew forth projections of doom into the ever more distant future, hiding the ‘missing heat’ in an increasingly complex and bewildering array of asserted, often self-contradicatory climatic interactions, projected scenarios that are always somehow just round the corner, and idealised models with arbitrary ‘tipping points’ in order to shore up their flimsy confirmation-bias ridden hypotheses. It won’t matter though. By then they will be seen for the smug, self-interested, hubris-ridden panicky idiots they all really are, and will be rejected by scientists and public alike.

When you look through the whole meeting program it is easy to understand why climate change goes on and on. The meterology profession seems to be dependent on the topic for research dollars. There are so many papers on the subject – not just the so-called effects of climate change but also communication. This paper is from the second session on Communicating Climate Change. I notice Vicky Pope and David Karoly are also presenting on the subject.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/23CVC.html

The fact that Kevin Trenberth is a fellow Kiwi makes me squirm in embarrassment!
The NZ education system is quite good when judged on a world-wide basis, and has been for a very long time, as witness the achievements of Lord Rutherford, Dr Pickering (formerly of NASA ) and many others, but the odd nutter does slip through, however.
Trenberth’s nasty speech, which I could only skim after feelings of revulsion set in after a few minutes of close reading, is a wierd mix of the pseudo-religious with a Marxist flavour and is an attempt at self-justification for his past actions and statements as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ emails and also a means of venting his spite that the world is obviously disregarding his incredible expertise and knowledge which, in his lofty view, just cannot be argued with; I am sure that if the emails in question were either stolen or hacked, the Norfolk constabulary would have made a definitive statement by now. I am amazed that he feels the MSM have been aiding and abetting ‘The Deniers’ when the reverse is so obviously the case, and his use of the term ‘Deniers’ only serves to highlight the view that he is operating from an alternative reality that most of the rational populace does not share. His attack on professional weather presenters is yet another window illuminating his irrationality.
I am amazed that any professional society would accept this disgraceful rant without questioning his attitudes, his so-called facts and his name-calling. The really scary thing is that he and his cohort see this rant as normal and as professional behaviour. It is similar in tone and intent as the odd pieces that Mann wrote fot the NYT and is equally disgraceful.

NOAA, 1998 temperature 1.3 degrees warmer than 2010. U.S. cooling at a 0.94 degree per century rate. And don’t you deny it!
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-reports-that-1998-temperature-was-13-degrees-warmer-than-2010-us-cooling-at-94-per-century-rate.html

To quote what Mark Twain might say about this… “lies, damn lies, and unequivocable CAGW”

“3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. “

LOL. He should have said:
“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the Warmists.”

“The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held.”

——

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419

Doesn’t sound like naïve to me when he used the words “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”.

The only deniers in this whole sad saga are the Thermists. Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.

“the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. ”

Isn’t that like going in to buy a car and demanding the auto dealership prove you don’t have the money.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.” That someone so central to the IPCC message can say something that at least as applied to the principal antagonists Mann (“scientist”) and McIntyre (“denier”) is so outrageously untrue tells you all you need to know about the judgment and/or forthrightness of those whom the world bodies have chosen to instruct us on climate.

Still, from a tactical point of view, Trenberth was probably right to lead off with many CAGW skeptics’ focus on his arguably ambiguous “travesty” quote. Skeptics may have led with their chins on that one, since it is a mere footnote to the important Climategate point: those largely in control of the IPCC message were, as many skeptics had long suspected, actively and enthusiastically subverting the scientific process by hiding data and suppressing others’ views.

Frankly I find the whole thing puerile. If this is an example of how scientists communicate then they have a long, long way to go. That any “scientist” thinks and talks like this – in terms of black and white with no shades of grey should embarrass the entire scientific community.

Scientific facts are unequivocal – so which “fact” proves unequivocally that man is causing additional warming. My understanding is that they can’t think of anything else, so it can only be anthropogenic -just like astronomers couldn’t work out why some planets appeared to go backwards when it was plainly obvious that the sun was the centre of the universe.

All critics, doubters, questioners and agnostics are called deniers and are charged with misrepresenting the facts. He seems to be in denial himself – reading this blog regularly demonstrates the thousands of people concerned enough to voice their concerns that the certainty of climate scientists is misplaced given the reliance placed on computer modelling. When anyone claims “the science is in” alarm bells start ringing in my mind – the history of science shows this is plain wrong and that there are always new facts to discover; drawing a line under science shows a closed mind.

All media support the critical position – he ought to get out more.

He appears to have missed out two categories in his list.
1) The Career Environmentalist whose future advancement is linked directly to crying wolf and getting funding for wolf traps
2) Incredibly importantly, The Man in the Street, that bolshie bloke (or blokess) who doesn’t take well to being patronised and then whizzed for a large sum of cash on the say-so of ruling elites for whom the initiatives and legislation have no personal impact other than a positive one on their careers.

And as to his cartoons …. pathetic in the first case and irrelevant in the second – who can object to energy independence, preserving rainforests etc (although I question green jobs as so often these are only a partial solution to the jobs lost in the process of developing a green economy).

In summary, his document is sour-faced bitching with absolutely nothing new to offer.

Kevin Trenberth – marks out of ten for communication skills – 0(zero).

Basically, a regurgitation of “the debate is over” meme. Pretty lame.

Apart from anything else, this rant is internally inconsistent. Consider:

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats “

and

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, “

“As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.”

[according to whom??]

So not much caution or caveats there – in fact a reversal of the burden of proof because in his opinion we are failing to properly attribute human cause because our statistical hurdle is too high.

Pathetic.

At what point can you call a person ‘evil’? His dishonesty and lies are deliberate. He doesn’t care how many thousand billion dollars, how many million jobs, and how much public trust in the case of a false diagnosis the policy implications of his vision would cost. He only sees the blind justification of his cause and disregards the rest. Repulsive.

4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.

Other non societal motivations include funding, prestige and going on the media to make stupid comments like the following regarding UK snow.

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event“.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

As CS Lewis pointed out, Pride is a fall.

Yeah one shocking ramble for a professional man to make.
I cringed reading it, I assume the people he is making it to will cringe too (if they do not, then lord help us all…)
Now unfortunately my comment is indeed ‘playing the man’ but again unfortunately that is what he is doing for the most of his speech.
Coming on top of the revelations on Pielke Sr’s website the other day, I admit I’m surprised by these outpourings from Trenbeth. I’d not paid too much attention to his sayings in the past, figuring he was a ‘head down’ bod, but lordy, Monbiot on steroids.
I’m actually quite taken aback.
Maybe his ‘exchange engine’ is under threat and he is having a ‘moment’…its a pita when a pet project falls apart I guess. Been there.
Thing is…is there no one on the AGW orthodoxy who can talk without engaging the emotive side of thier brains. Can’t we just talk to someone, give us anyone, who can use logic not hysterics.
Bizarre.

Trenberth needs to read this paper:

http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based.

What a crazy thing to say!

I would rephrase:

Scientific facts are open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based.

Wouldn’t this guy be the first to complain about hate-speak?

An open letter to Dr. Kevin Trenberth:

Good sir, please consider,

The current views a few prominent scientists regarding what is often referred to as global warming can only be compared to the views of fundamentalist Mormons or the views of young-earth creationists who relentlessly insist that only their views coincide with science, but more importantly, coincide with their own group’s dogma.

The typical North and Central American paleontologist poo-poos the Mormon’s insistence on the history of North and Central American peoples. I suppose these paleontologists are deniers.

The typical scientist in all life sciences poo-poo the antievolutionary rhetoric of the creationists, considering the arguments of the creationists hardly worthy of thought, often not even worthy of public debate. I suppose these scientists must also be called deniers.

The facts and history stack up as a firm fortress for the scientists against the Mormon and the creationist.

Please review the views of the climatescientologists like yourself. If you will be honest with yourself, you will see that, like the Mormon and creationist, the facts stand firm against you and your models of dogma. The earth has been much warmer throughout most of the geological record. Humans are much more adapted (and adaptable) to higher temperatures than lower. Cold kills. Warmer is better. Until the current climate dogma was forced upon us, we referred to historical warm periods as climate optima. Optima! Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for life. It is NOT a pollutant. Water and oxygen directly cost billions in damages and take many lives annually, worldwide. Yet I trust no one will try to label these substances as harmful pollutants and regulate them!

The bottom line is that the purported cure for feared effects of global warming are quantifiably, and with high certainty, worse than the worst case fears. In fact, “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” (I trust you recognize the reference.) Our continued well being globally depends on innovation, individual liberty, and free market forces operating unhindered by excessive government regulation, interference, and delay.

The adage constantly proves true, follow the money. Please take off you blinders to the flood of grants pushing and corrupting scientists looking at even absurd connections and possibilities related to global warming. Please compare these billions to the thousands presumably provided by corporations to consider alternatives. Please keep in mind, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. While the assertion applies to the capitalist, it applies at least as much to the scientist.

With earnest sincerity,
Lonnie E. Schubert

Juraj V. says:
Such people used to be tarred and feathered in the past

and it is a travesty that we can’t.

This guy is the epitome of a Green Fascist.

He says “The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean the planet is already overpopulated” and “population issues are largely missing from the discussion”.

Which segments of the global population would he eliminate? Those poor people in underdeveloped countries who aspire to a higher standard of living that includes clean water, steady food supplies, education for their children and transportation that is not on 4 legs (or 2)? Or those living in developed countries who already enjoy many of those attributes of a higher standard of living? Or should demands for a higher standard of living be eliminated, no matter makes them?

What exactly is this man saying? Whatever it is, it sounds very frightening on its face!! Malthus is alive and well in Trenberth’s mind.

If he is to be taken serious, even if we ignore the science aspects of it, he should start to use right and honest labels for most of us.

Either he should change the term deniers to heretics, because most of us are non believers in the cult of CAGW.

Or

If he persists in the derogatory “holocaust” label of deniers, he should call us, “dangerous human caused climate change deniers”, as few if any of us are climate change deniers.

Talking about a person sitting in an ivory tower!

It’s a travesty that he uses “denier” six times.

Trenberth is not fit to be labelled a scientist. He does science a great disservice.

I found it very difficult to read that speech. There is so much that I know to be wrong and so many philosophically based statements that I am ideologically opposed to. His use of the word ‘denier’ is an abomination. And how can he call himself a scientist and then come out with a statement like : “Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.” ??

It defies belief. I hope the AMS members start slow handclapping when he speaks such utter crap.

This is really a sign of desperation on Trenberth’s part. He sounds like he’s going “all in” (to use a poker term) because he knows that (1) public belief in CAGW is on the wane, (2) trust in climate scientists (and by extension their methods and data) has declined, (3) the US House of Representatives (which controls the purse strings for government Climate Ca$h) has changed hands and will be scrutinizing the unnecessary and wasteful programs within the climate science community (which, as we know, is receiving billions of dollars in government money).

I think Trenberth, Hansen and their ilk should resign their government-funded jobs so they can spend full time in the political arena – which is where, it appears, they now spend most of their time anyway. I’m sure George Soros, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. would readily fund their activities…

Trenberth fails to note that the evidence and/or physically based (facts) are subject to interpretation. It’s the interpretation that’s up for grabs and also, it seems there are some facts not generally taken seriously by many climate scientists, like GCR and solar influence in general. If some causative agent other than CO2 forcing make the global temperature go down far enough long enough, the CO2 forcing will be irrelevant. I’m also not satisified that they understand long-term, natural CO2 sequestration well enough. Ditto on ocean acidification.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

How can a senior scientist say that? Surely he knows that the globe warms and cools naturally. Surely “global warming is ‘unequivocal’” during a natural warming period. Why on earth should the fact that the globe warmed recently justify assuming as the null hypothesis that humans caused it this one time out of all the other times that it happened naturally?

It is not possible to be an activist and a scientist in the same field.

Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
======================================================
Because they keep asking such annoying questions…..

They are doing themselves in anyway, don’t need any help.

When it’s hot, it’s global warming.
When it’s record cold and snow, it’s global warming.
When it drought and floods, it’s global warming.
When it’s more hurricanes, when it’s less hurricanes.
When global temperatures go up, when they go down, when they stay the same……

People have too many things, that are much more important, on their plates right now…

…and this global warming stuff is just looking silly

Buddenbrook is right. Trenberth isn’t crazy, he is an evil man manipulating the system for personal gain. In the very first sentence, Trenberth praises Steven Schneider, who advocated lying to the public to push the CAGW agenda.

It cannot be repeated too often: the CAGW alarmist contingent, of which Trenberth plays a central part, rejectes the scientific method. The scientific method uses the null hypothesis of natural climate variability, within defined past parameters, to test the alternate CAGW hypothesis against. Trenberth says:

“…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

This rejection of the scientific method is proposed for one simple reason: climate alarmists like Trenberth cannot show that anything out of the ordinary is occurring. The increase in CO2 has caused no verifiable harm to the planet. In fact, the only definitive result of the rise in CO2 is increased agricultural productivity.

The null hypothesis of natural climate variability falsifies the claim that the rise in a harmless and beneficial trace gas has caused any harm – so Trenberth now wants to jettison the inconvenient scientific method.

If the AMS had integrity, they would allow a response from a skeptical scientist [the only honest kind of scientist, because every scientist should be, first and foremost, a skeptic]. Trenberth rejects skeptical views because he cannot falsify their arguments.

Red Nek Engineer perhaps has the best suggestion: folks can email the AMS Executive Director, Keith Seiter, at: kseitter@ametsoc.org. Be polite but emphatic. Ask him to provide a rebuttal by a credible skeptic, such as Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT. The last thing the AMS wants is to lose credibility by publishing only one side of this contentious issue.

Sarah says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:14 am
“I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers. “

It’s strange how the police have been so silent on the matter. ;O)

Award Trenberth an “F” for his statement. I would point out all his errors, but he’s not worth me wasting my time.

If Trenberth had any scientific evidence to prove his assertions, he would have produced them here. He did not. What we have instead is a bitter rant at everyone involved in questioning his “Global Warming” religion, which was found to be fraudulent when the Climategate emails were published.

Re. Climategate

The point that most people (including Trenberth) miss is that Jones and the CRU had been denying the existence of these emails for years to everybody with a legitimate request to access them. Then all the emails ended up in the public domain, and not only revealed while a bunch of liars Jones and the “Global Warming” worshipers are, but also that the whole CRU team had been cooking the books for years, and pretty much making it up as they went along.

Trenberth must feel very bitter that his every pronouncement is no longer being received by the hushed and overawed ignorant masses with the reverence to which he believes he is somehow entitled, and to which he has grown rather too accustomed.

Trenberth has produced nothing of scientific worth, being the incoherent, inconsistent, illogical ramblings of a mind emptied of any ideas other than of attacking those of superior intellect that have proved that he is wrong and that he has wasted his reputation and his whole working life in the pursuit of a complete lie. Trenberth is clearly unsuited to the disciplines of science, having no capacity for rational scientific debate, contradiction or correction, and should instead consider taking up some established religion or other, as he clearly can only find satisfaction when preaching to the converted.

He says: “The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

Fine, then release ALL the emails and let us judge if they were “cherry-picked”.

You say “climate change” as if that is something new. Climate has been changing since there was enough atmosphere to have weather. If you mean CO2 caused climate change, then say so.

Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Well, that was “consensus science” at one point in time and it took a “denier” risking his life to say “no it doesn’t” in public.

If you want the public to be more civil and trusting, then release ALL the data, adjustments to that data and source code.

Stephen Schneider’s starting theory was Malthusian via Ehrlich. If you believe such to be the case, you are left with few non-authoritarian/totalitarian options. This is Trenberth’s post normal starting point.

Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming

And given that his radical bias is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all of Trenberth’s statements are affected by AGW hysteria and should not be taken into consideration.

This man feels himself standing with the back against a wall. This is not a speech you’d expect from a scientiest, but an agitator. How bad.
This point made me laugh though: … “While (scientists) statements about climate change are cautious …”
Can somebody remind him of Hansen’s NYC flooding prediction, death trains etc.?

“I smell a rat. A big, fat, commie rat.”
Gen. “Buck” Turgidson (from the movie Dr. Strangelove).

… Debating them {the ‘deniers’} about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.

So, let me understand you Trenberth. You, a scientist, are telling other scientists not to debate other human beings about the subject on which you are experts. Your reasons for this are that in a debate, it is impossible to counter lies. I find this interesting since debates are often the best place to catch your opposition in a lie and expose them. You also state that scientific facts are not open to debate, which is an interesting position to take considering if the scientific community felt so strongly in this way, then piltdown man might not have been uncovered as a fraud. Also, you seem to be saying that debate should be shut down because debates give credibility to others that should not have credibility. I would counter that open debate is the best way to expose the truth of what humanity really knows, and single-minded preachy speeches like yours are the best way to remove the light of real intellectual curiosity from the civilized world.

Hi Antony, wondering if you have sent this to Judith Curry as she has a level head, Personally it seems to be more of a sermon than a meeting talk.

Sermon – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sermon is an oration by a prophet or member of the clergy.

[Or is that "profit or member of clergy"? 8<) Robt]

Spindar activated, Spindar working…

Very good spin. But spin nonetheless. If you have to convince the populous through spin, you don’t have all the facts yet (or you forgot to put them in your brief case), and you run the risk of appearing as a snake oil salesman.

Hey Trenbreth? Wutchasellin’?

******
orkneygal says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:32 am

What an evil speech.
******

Yes. These are the ramblings of a man who is certain he knows what’s best for everyone else (himself & his brethren excluded), considers the masses as mental/moral children to be rightfully punished for their sins, and fully committed & active in forcing it down their throats.

He learned well from the likes of James Hansen.

Trenberth states:

“As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.”

I wonder how he can quantify the superiority of the IPCC review process? It seems to me quite a few mistakes crept through, including of course the notorious Himalayan glacier melt claim. This reminds me of ‘educratic’ justification of split-grade classes in elementary school: viz. a classroom is improved by a greater diversity of experience. Never mind that the school teacher has only half the time to dedicate to each grade. “We do not keep any papers out….not all could be included owing to space limitations.” I wonder how those exclusions were decided? I wonder if the Climategate e-mails might not give a clue? Count me totally unconvinced by this sorry apology for Trenberth’s version of science.

Wow what a disgusting and warped piece.

Mr Trenberth, i humbly suggest that were i to come and audit your work i would, given your rantings above that i would find your work, lacking.

The repeated use of the term ‘denier’ not only discredits you as a scientist, but also as a human being. It is one of the lowest tactics that can be used in a political debate.

You also seem blissfully unaware of the scientific process, which is hardly suprising given your position. A shame, as i (indirectly) fund you and your organisation.

In reading and learning from the commentators on WUWT, I take comfort in the knowledge that there will be voices of reason to repair the damage done to science after the religion of CAGW finally collapses in on itself.

Join the Club….and we’ll forget that Global Warming thing:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

What Trenberth produced is a sermon. Trenberth has taken science and manufactured a religion from it. He’s not a scientist he’s a clergyman for a new age cult. It’s enough to make me gag.

If this man was worried about his travesty statement going viral….. how about what is going to happen with his unequivocal null hypothesis reversal speech. This will be quoted forever for what it really is. First rule of holes violated here… in spades.

If you find yourself deep in the mire
And have as your only desire
To be free of the mud
Which surrounds like a flood
Then your spade you should quickly retire.

Don’t keep digging and digging my friend
It’s a law mother nature will send
If you take such tact
You will it’s a fact
Robustly forever descend.

Unequivocal is this great law
No debate is allowed of its flaw
If you keep digging south
With your pen or your mouth
Your hole won’t allow your withdraw.

[Trenberth writes] Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. …

That is a strawman set up to be demolished. Perhaps some who may properly called “deniers” accept that null hypothesis, but reasonable skeptics accept that human activities are responsible for some of the warming since 1880. The proper questions are: 1) Has there been net warming since 1880? 2) How much? 3) Is moderate warming bad? 4) What, if anything, should we do about it? My answers are: 1) Yes, perhaps 0.5ºC (out of the 0.8ºC supposed warming), 2) About 0.1ºC, 3) Not necessarily, and 4) Not much, since most of the warming is due to natural cycles not subject to human control, but we should make reasonable improvements in energy efficiency and, when reasonable cost-effective, use more nuclear and renewables.

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Each of Trenberth’s null hypotheses is too extreme, equivalent to saying the human influence is either all black or all white, when everyone knows it is clearly shades of gray.

The butterfly effect, based on chaos theory, says a small change in some initial condition for a complex system may cause a larger effect later. (A butterfly in Africa flaps its wings a certain way and that causes a hurricane to pass over Florida rather than turn out to sea, or vice-versa.) Yes, AGW, even if it as small as I think it is, may be resposible for some increase (or decrease) in precipitation and storms, and so on. But, when compared to natural cycles, this effect is insignificant. Trenberth’s entire argument is beside the point.

What else can the Alarmists do? They have to keep pressing on. And if it means changing the narrative (more of a PR issue) to “climate extremes” (whatever that means), so be it. In the mean time, climate scientists will continue to pour out pounderous studies, spend taxpayers money, and continue to back-up large public bureaucracies. And as the EPA has shown, modern public bureaucracies by and large operate as a government within a government -beyond the voters consent.

Trenbreth is now just a bureaucrat. And good bureaucrats from time immemorial defend thier turf. Climate Science has now reached the same level as economics. It is highly political (with partisans on each side), very subjective, and is used by the government to push political outcomes.

“Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).

It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.

Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.

Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.”

As this is going to appear in the “Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,” I assumed that this was a plea for more cash. Even more so if the Met Office are speaking in the same session when we know they want more cash for a “better” computer. Same old story, then!

I am quite happy to call myself a denier, if only to irritate the warmists, but reading the whole of this presentation has brought me out in a rash and I think my blood pressure has probably shot up again. I am sickened by the self-righteous, sanctimonious, belly-aching that I have just read, not least when I think of the amount of time and aggravation that people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick and many others have invested in checking out their claims.

When is Anthony’s paper on weather stations coming out? This is surely going to be another thorn in their sides. And not a moment too soon, in my opinion.

It is now obvious that we are watching evolution in action.

Say goodbye to homo sapiens (wise and knowing man) and welcome homo superbus (arrogant man)

They not only walk amongst you, they seek to control you.

Me thinks it is time for a bit of reverse engineering. Now is not the time to let up!

I am surprised he didn’t find the space or opportunity to talk about the Inter Academy Review of the IPCC…

Well, not really.

It might be relevant to this claim that he makes:

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues”

However, the Inter Academy reviews seems to think the exact opposite at work in the IPCC…

“However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.”"

Our tax dollars pay for this guy? The inmates are running the asylum for real this time. The line about
“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based”

It’s hard to believe anyone with a college education could actually say that. Its jaw dropping.

Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been…

I won’t say that you can’t make this claim. You can’t make this claim unless you know what they would have been. How about it? A complete historical record of what temperature would have been without CO2. Also to paraphrase from Princess Bride. Inconceivable!

Was my comment eaten by the spam filter? I don’t see it in queue. Thanks.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
=======================================================
Well Kevin, it says what it says………………………………….

Ok, now I see it. I tried refreshing the page before asking about the spam filter, but it popped up when I posted another comment. Oh well! :-)

Oh, and I think Trenberth should also share the formula he uses to show what temperatures would have been. It will be very handy.

Judd says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:42 am

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth?

You must not point out observations as the are not scientific “facts” as Tenberth might say.

2010
Inconvenient hurricane facts
Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows
Global tropical cyclone activity still in the tank

Remember that we have just been through the “hottest decade on the record” and 2010 was one of the “hottest years” evahhhhh. How do the warmists behave towards the evidence. Bury head in sand and say no, no, no. Yet they call us nasty names like ‘deniers’.

Why make such a fuss about Kevin Trenberth’s speech?
One famous climate skeptic, Richard Lindzen, says he likes to be called ‘climate denier’: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/bbc-interviews-nobel-prize-winner.html

The Cult of AGW is so pervasive that a man who claims to be a scientist thinks nothing of abandoning the scientific method and donning the vestments of a pseudo-priest. It is very clear that science (all fields) is under assault and risks total corruption by entrenched government employees such as Trenbirth and Hansen and special interests. Sack them all. Any “scientific” society that does not call out his unscientific approach is bankrupt.

Mike Haseler says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:42 am

“Scientists don’t make mistakes. They make testable hypothesis which they then subject to test. It is not a mistake if they are wrong, because science is based on the belief that all assertions could be found to be wrong when or if the right experimental conditions were created.”

That sounds right. Scientists don’t make mistakes. That’s why we have engineers. Engineers make mistakes and engineers are held accountable for their mistakes. Scientists don’t make mistakes and absent mistakes there’s no blame and no accountability. Scientists are divorced from accountability and responsibility.

This is actually sad.

Trenberth writes:

…it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate”

He says this has to now be abandoned because:

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, [to quote the 2007 IPCC report]

This is such a fundamental error it is embarrasing to even point out.

That the ‘globe is warming’ cannot become ‘proof’ that humans are doing it!

Ooh – his lips are moving! That can mean but one thing.

If his view is the norm for what science seeks to become then my will needs to be re-written to exclude science as a beneficiary.

Trenberth has shown himself here to be a bigoted fundamentalist. I had some respect for him once, but no more. He clearly knows very little about the history of science and philosophy, the philosophy of science, epistemology, scientific methods, what scientific knowledge is and how it can be known, what the object of scientific investigation is etc etc.

No wonder science – and climate science in particular – are in a mess.

“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.” Quite, so, because Trenberth doesn’t know what science is. He would not stand a chance as soon as his presuppositions, biases and ignorance were exposed for all to see.

“In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. ” Quite so, like the loudly proclaimed statements that often have little or no basis made by climate scientists.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ” None but cranks tend to dispute clear evidence; but those that are clearly open to dispute can’t be called ‘scientific facts’ and nearly always are opinions, and must be open to debate. This is a trick used for centuries to close down debate on controversial matters.

“a debate actually gives alternative views credibility”. Usual complaint of extreme fundamentalists.

” It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.”

Or… Heads I win, tails you lose.

“R. de Haan says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:27 am

NOAA, 1998 temperature 1.3 degrees warmer than 2010. U.S. cooling at a 0.94 degree per century rate. And don’t you deny it!
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-reports-that-1998-temperature-was-13-degrees-warmer-than-2010-us-cooling-at-94-per-century-rate.html”
I did not see anyone remarking on this. I entered the figures in Noaa’s boxes here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and got the same result. Try yourself. This is what I got (straight quote)
“Annual 1998 – 2010 Average = 54.13 degF
Annual 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.94 degF / Decade ”
This should be more widely publicised. Perhaps something for Anthony Watts to write about.

Trenberth’s speech is a prime example of the disingenuos and misleading pronouncements of the climate establishment.The whole argument is based on the acceptance of the statement :
” that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report”
and the implication that this was true then and is still true today. What does the data show?
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period. It is clear that the IPCC models have been wrongly framed. Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot even estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. This is in fact what the science section ( as opposed to the political Summary for Policy Makers ) of the AR4 report says.
The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:

“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
Clearly the correct procedure should be to estimate the natural variability and then see what effect human activity has rather than vice versa.
Statistical analysis is not knowledge. All time series can be cherry picked ,and statistically manipulated to provide nice looking slides for illustrative purposes. They make convey no useful information unless the context and their construction procedures are known.
Since 2003 CO2 has risen and the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the PDO and AO a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
Trenberth’s statement “Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive” is not a “given ” at all and is simply untrue.

“Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been… ”

… if the earth had never escaped the savagery of the last ice age?

Damn those Mammoths! They must have driven some HUGE 4x4s.

“I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? ”

It is a tragedy that we cannot account for them.

Tremberth says:-

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed…….”

He defines what he means by “null hypothesis” here:-

“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” ”

He is therefore making the claim that IPCC AR4 said that human influenced climate change is unequivocal.

But it didn’t!

When the UN issued a first draft of the proceedings of the Cancun Conference they made the same incorrect claim, saying:-

3. Recognizes that warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report;

Perhaps surprisingly, no lesser person than the NYT’s Andrew Revkin pointed out the mistake to Pachouri – who apologised and had the wording changed.

Revkin noted:-

[Dec. 5, 10:35 a.m. | Updated Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chariman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed the small error in the draft described below. On Sunday morning, he told me he was contacting relevant officials about "the need for correcting the wording that the statement uses."]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/a-draft-shared-vision-on-climate-with-a-glitch/

All that IPCC AR4 ever said was

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

Qualified by:-

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

So, as far as I can see, “Lord of All Creation” Tremberth is misrepresenting what IPCC AR4 said and owes the AMS and its members a big apology.

Don’t waste time communicating with Trenberth or the AMS. They stopped making sense long ago. Those of us in the USA should send a copy of his remarks to our appropriate House member with a note urging that Mr. Trenberth be invited to testify under oath before a House committee. He could explain how a public employee like himself holds such views and defend them in a setting where he could not equivocate. The new majority in the House is eager to find ways to stop wasteful spending. I can’t think of a better place to look than NCAR.

O.k I forced myself to read all of this dreck in detail and I can safely say after 35 years as a practicing scientist I’ve never heard anything so disingenuous from another scientist. Just to mislead, he starts off by saying global warming is “unequivocal”, which nobody disputes, but makes it clear throughout that what he means is that CO2-caused climate disaster is unequivocal.

He then goes on to call honest scientists names, falsely represents their positions, tries to explain away wrong doing, makes unsubstaniated claims about how the climategate e-mails were released, blames certain e-mail statements about peer review on a colleague, blames everyone else in sight because his vested interest is not roundly supported by the rest of humanity despite it’s lavish funding, makes wild-eyed claims about human population, an issue which he has clearly not given more than 5 seconds of thought and which he will only suceed in agravating, acusses the rest of us of being corrupted and then tries to promote himself as a moderate voice of reason.

I don’t have another second for this guy. He is the acme of unprofessional and I won’t waste 1 Hz of bandwidth e-mailing him any suggested improvement for his talk.

Surely “global warming is ‘unequivocal’” during a natural warming period

Well, quite. You can talk until you’re blue in the face…………..

I would also like to point out that, in assessing corporate governance, one of the best practices is to note the culture of the top management. Many people blamed the culture Ken Lay and Jefferey Skilling created for the downfall of the company. If you have ever seen ‘The Smartest Guys in the Room’, you’ll remember the section titled ‘Ask Why, Asshole’. It involves a phone call where an investor asked why the cash flow and earnings statements never come out at the same time, and why they are the only company that can’t put them out together. Skilling calls him an asshole over the phone, and the floor traders made a sign with Enron’s logo and slogan on it ‘Ask Why’ but penciled in the word ‘Asshole’ because they thought it was great that the then CEO was calling an investor an asshole. He also starred in a corporate video shortly after they got mark to market accounting taunting the veracity of the standard by pretending they were going to use ‘Hypothetical Future Value’ accounting. Or in other words, just make the numbers up.

Now, I know there are many that do personally attack the scientists, but it isn’t as pervasive and personal as someone showing up at Anthony’s house (or was it place of business?). More often you will see the word denier thrown about by leaders and followers alike. The bunker mentality of these scientists is clearly on display in these emails and now in their public speeches, and there is no surprise that they continue to take the skepticism towards their work as personal attacks. What is the ‘tone at the top’ of the AGW science foundation? This is no small matter, either. Businesses across the country are evaluated on these things on the off chance that comparatively few investors lose money. Who are the investors (willing and unwilling) in AGW? Why do we not deserve the same level of accountability that is demanded of our publicly traded companies? Don’t we have the right to have figures that must be taken on trust, in which we all have enormous stake, audited by skeptical and independent (in fact and appearance) third parties?

I am not accusing them of fraud, I just think they are wrong. But when you have an extremely complicated mathematical process that involves a good deal of statistical sausage making to crank out a number that is supposed to be pretty easy to understand, I do get the Enron signal that more people should ‘Ask Why, Asshole’.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

So even allowing for the nonsense that is: “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”,” by reversing an extreme Null Hypothesis he is seeking to force realists to prove a negative, which theoretically is impossible.

He should prove that mankind has been responsible for the earth’s unprecedented warming, and seeing that it has not been proven that the earth’s warming is unprecedented, then there is no way to prove that mankind is responsible for all, or even, most of it.

The Alarmists have still failed to prove it! They cannot prove it, so they are asking realists to prove a negative in response.

This is deeply dishonest and shows that the Alarmists cannot be trusted.

Remember this from last week?

The ARGO buoys show deep ocean cooling — and Trenberth responds in his usual manner.

Well, I was really going to try and politely but firmly bring up some serious questions and points regarding the topics he wrote in an e-mail. I can’t. I’ve started 3 different times and each time I couldn’t contain my acrimonious bewilderment. It either comes across dripping with sarcasm with an underlying loathing, or blatant outrage. I could no more seriously engage this person on climate change issues than I could Nancy Pelosi if she were dressed in a Bozo the clown outfit. Maybe someone else can engage this person, but I’m going to have to be content with ridiculing and scorning.

*******
Ulick Stafford says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:13 am

When you look through the whole meeting program it is easy to understand why climate change goes on and on. The meterology profession seems to be dependent on the topic for research dollars. There are so many papers on the subject – not just the so-called effects of climate change but also communication. This paper is from the second session on Communicating Climate Change. I notice Vicky Pope and David Karoly are also presenting on the subject.
******

Some U.S. audits of federal “Climate-change” funds show that about 80% went to “media” and “communication” activities. A mere 20% went to everything else.

IOW, U.S. public tax money meant for “AGW research” is mostly spent on newly-created & existing, “bought” media corps, not for actual research.

We in the US must now be proud to have the best-paid & most extensive media-propaganda machine in the world, all backed by Science! Just ask Kevin Trenberth.

Ok, something screwy is happening with my computer. Could you rescue my post from wherever it may have ended up? I am off to reboot and see if that fixes whatever issues are going on here. Thanks mods, sorry about all the extra comments.

[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

To me Trenberth falls into the category of “useful idiot”. I don’t think he’s inherently evil or has been bought for money, I think he simply enjoys the attention.

Looking at his picture I see a guy who wasn’t popular growing up whereas now he’s front and center because of the nonsense he spouts. Gotta be heady stuff for a life-long nerd…

In the future, when the AGW nonsense is put to rest, this speech would make a very good learning experience for psychology students. It is filled with one projection after another. Probably the biggest is the use of “denier” which he realizes, at some level, is what he has been doing for years.

This is typical behavior for addicts and there is no doubt Trenberth is addicted to the acclaim that AGW has brought him.

“My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole.”

Of course, thou shalt not judge me by the same rule of ethics.

Beautiful. Just beautiful. With opponents like Dr. Trenberth, the skeptic/realist/denialist side just cannot lose the debate. Talk about dynamiting the heck out of the branch beneath one’s backside!

But, being a researcher myself, I cannot help but wonder – this person calls himself a scientist?! On what merit? OK, the panic in his ramblings is palpable. That alone speaks volumes. But the absence of a shred of logical thinking in his arguments is, for me, simply staggering. One example:

Trenberth writes:
“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high.”

Fair enough. Then he states:
“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

One cannot help but wonder if Trenberth actually read what he wrote: in plain English, he admits to equating the fact of “unequivocal” global warming with proof that said global warming is anthropogenic. Well, he might be short on logical reasoning but his faith certainly makes up for the deficit.

So here’s hoping he gets his next research grant for the de-travestization of “global warming”. These clumsy verbal moves certainly do not bode well for his alternative career as a street illusionist.

I want to swear in a meaningful Anglo Saxon way ;)

Being self-righteous is not the same thing as being ethical.

I will allways think of Trenberth as….Trendberth.

I think Trendberth’s speech is ….a travesty.

Here is a simpe lesson on why no one should listen to the alarmist scientists.
In Australia state governments were confidently told that Australia’s climate would be more drought prone. State government invested in desalination plants. Over the past year Australia has seen massive amounts of rain. Now the desal plants are being mothballed after billions of dollars have been wasted.

Lesson two – the Met Office. They have constantly warned the public of milder than expected winter thus leaving councils unprepared until disaster strikes.

Governments should take great heed to the above examples as it is what awaits governments from around the world if they continue to listen to these pathetic people.

From: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

“An update is provided on the Earth’s global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses. In 1997 Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past such estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows, with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of
0.9 W m-2.”

ERBE Homepage: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.html

Rick Bradford says:
Trenberth et al need to realise that the more they make these shrill and repetitive denunciations of ‘deniers’, the more people turn off from their message.

Actually, for that exact reason, I hope they DON’T realize it.

“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. ”

That is completely idiotic as a null hypothesis and it sounds like a typical straw man. Of course there is some influence. The problem is when you get activists in the name of science like Trenberth that think their mission in life is to spread the message of a doomsday cult.

He has no problem with stating that global warming is unequivocal:
“Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.”

No Trenberth, the term “global warming” should not be not be used. Significant and harmful human caused warming should be used since that is what your doomsday cult implies all warming is. You, Trenberth, haven’t even come close to demonstrating that. Then it makes your arguments seem foolish rather than what you pretend is just a legitimate science suggesting the possibility of some human influence.

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. “

If ever there was a science that was open to debate it is Anthropogenic Global Warming speculation and contradictions. Below are just a few:

————–
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html

Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
———–
“…(CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002…/2001GL013672.shtml

“Global warming will make Earth spin faster”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/landererfelix/landerer_07_GRL.pdf
———–
“…much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty…”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5729/1772.abstract

“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier,…”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12528
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030126.shtml
———–
Avalanches may increase
http://www.taiga.net/nce/schools/lessonplans/snowstudy_impacts.html

Avalanches may reduce
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2001/00000032/00000001/art00029;jsessionid=27gjw6f50jw2.alice
———–

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.”

Given that the ENSO (amongst others) has such a large effect on all of our climate indicators in both hemispheres and until such time as it is possible to demonstrate that it is indeed somehow driven by changes in CO2 concentrations, this recomendation to change the null hypothesis is probably a little premature IMHO.

We should welcome this.

Any right minded person, either scientist or layman, can see it for what it is.

Alexander K,

I’ll trade you Mann or Hansen for Trenberth!!!

We should welcome this.

Any right minded person, either scientist or layman, can see it for what it is.

The argument about the “nul hypothesis” beggars belief!

Sometimes I can almost convince myself that the actual climate scientists, outside of Hansen and a couple of others, aren’t Climate Religion Advocates.

Then Trenberth makes this speech.

[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

Thank you sir.

Rick Bradford says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:27 am
“His section on the media turned me right off anything else valuable he might have to say, with its complete cognitive dissonance and circular arguing.”

“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.”

Good point. Was watching the Weather Channel last night and listened to a “meteorologist” explain how Global Warming is causing all the cold weather and snow right now due to “unusual high pressure areas” and “arctic ice melt”. At this point he then used the term “Climate Change” rather than Glbal Warming. He cautioned viewers not to believe there was no AGW problem just because there is no warming.

So, there is disinformation out there but it is a matter of opinion as to the culprits. Of course the Weather Channel is now the grocery store check out counter newspaper of Weather reporting.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form… Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.”

What pragmatic steps? Inquiring minds want to know. How can one possibly control world population without implementing a centralised global government? Is this the change in government Trenberth is referring to in the above quote?

It’s a very short slide from reproductive rights policy down to eugenics. How does the AMS respond to this?

Is Trenberth a direct descendant of Pope Urban VIII?

As a Layman with some training in the Scientific Method, I am always appalled at
the decent into medieval church politics that this appears to be. What next the
Dunking Chair for Anthony? The Rack for Roy Spencer? The Iron Maiden for
Piers Corbyn? Guilty for being correct or pointing out the lack of Clothing on the
Profit(eeewww!)? Trenbreth is asking for the true believers to unite around a
dying cult…

Don’t you hate it when “Reality Deniers” make it into the NCAR? Enough of this political garbage. Talk science or shut up.

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.
———————————————————————-
To quote an old joke, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I know what I want to do, but I don’t know where to begin.

What on Earth is a ‘scientific fact’? I mean, the kind that is ‘not open to debate and opinion’? Even gravity is still properly referred to as ‘the theory of gravity’.

As for his second point, totalitarians throughout history, religious and political, would agree.

What a disappointing speech. One thing it does achieve is to “honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider,” who I’m sure would lead the applause if he could be there.

It will be interesting to hear the response of the AMS membership. It likely won’t be as supportive as the AMS board and organizers hope.

It seems to me that Trenberth has decided to carry on Schneider’s efforts and this is his stake in the ground.

“”"”" Alexander K says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:14 am
The fact that Kevin Trenberth is a fellow Kiwi makes me squirm in embarrassment! “”"”"

Well I have to be doubly embarrassed. Not only was I the beneficiary of what was in those days an absolutely superb New Zealand Education System; but I also have a colleague who is the spitting image of Kevin Trenberth. But this chap is a very fine mechanical engineer; besides being a very level headed, and non confrontational type; who would never resort to what Trenberth has put out, in this purely political piece of his.

I glanced through it casually; I’m not going to waste another minute reading it; or even a second trying to understand it.

That this is the fellow, who purportedly turned out the official earth energy budget map, casts it in an even more laughable light.

To construct an apparently linear equilibrium snapshot, of a highly non-linear, and never in equlibrium chaotic system; is NOT my idea of the presentation of scientific “facts”.

Maybe Alexander; we need to have the Southern Cross stars tattooed on our foreheads; to make clear to one and all, that we are products of the land that produced Kevin Trenberth.

“This talk is in honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public. ”

Yes he was very good at communicating climate change, one year we were in for a new ice age and the next year it was catastrophic global warming.

He never defines the term denier.

There is a large spectrum views in the climate community on the anthropogenic influence of climate (aerosols, land use/land cover changes, greenhouse gases). See http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/guest-post-by-bill-dipuccio-on-the-three-hypotheses/

Who along this continuum qualifies as a denier in his mind? Anyone who does not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC? Is Roger Pielke Sr, or Richard Lindzen, or Roy Spencer a denier? Or is he just referring non-scientists on the outer fringes?

The use of inflammatory language is not only beneath his dignity as a scientist but his failure to define the term is inexcusable (a “travesty” indeed).

@David Falkner re culture

As a layperson I used to believe the catastrophic predictions. I mean, all sorts of disaster happen, and change happens, so why not global warming…

But one day I heard the media / scientists say that anybody who disagrees with AGW must be a shill or crank and should be ignored. What?? How can science be self-correcting if you put blinkers on? Maybe AGW was right but I could no longer trust them to be objective. They say, “oh well you’d listen to someone who says the sun won’t rise tomorrow” — but why do they liken a future prediction about a complex system… to something every human has repeatedly observed daily for 50,000 years??

In short, their defensiveness is totally obvious. We are dealing with people who are very skilled, very smart, very influential and succesful, and who know that they have put themselves in a position where their teaching will be found unsound if examined too closely. So they bark at anyone who comes near.

They bark at the man in the street for being too stupid to understand the science, or too selfish to take action — but somehow, despite this predominance of stupidity and selfishness amongst most of the people, of politicians, CEOs, engineers, airline pilots, doctors, gardeners (David Bellamy) and conservationists, etc. these AGW scientists are themselves claiming to be collectively immune to personal selfishness or stupidity — they are curteous to each other but insult great swathes of the people as “deniers”. Their defensiveness is totally obvious. Consciously or unconsciously they know they are in trouble if people look too closely.

For all I know AGW might be true, but without objective open minded scientists we will never know.

( Just for the record I believe that the next great and necessary step for humankind will be a radical resynthesising and integration of planetary development, cultures, and environment, and things like “nationalism” will become as outdated and distasteful as the racist Apartheid system. But the current AGW game has blunderingly set that project back 50 to 100 years. )

I actually find this hilarious. Since when have we stopped debating on the basis of facts. The last thing we need in science is arrogance and sore losers.

…caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis

In Trenberth’ context, it is the so-called “deniers” who are making “loudly proclaimed confident statements.” Where has he been for the last 10 years? The fact is that there has been an insessant drumbeat of “loudly proclaimed confident statements” from people like him.

For example, his use of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric when that metric was high, but his silence when that metric is now low. This is Trenberth’s “real travesty.”

Fixed links

…caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis

In Trenberth’ context, it is the so-called “deniers” who are making “loudly proclaimed confident statements.” Where has he been for the last 10 years? The fact is that there has been an insessant drumbeat of “loudly proclaimed confident statements” from people like him.

For example, his use of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric when that metric was high, but his silence when that metric is now low. This is Trenberth’s “real travesty.”

kuhnkat says:
“I’ll trade you Mann or Hansen for Trenberth!!!”

It’s hard to find a winner in this transcation. Earth and Science still lose.

What a tool.

‘Scientific fact’ is not open to debate? Really? Evidently, this is a new corallary to the Phil Jones “why should I give you my data, when you are only going to try to find something wrong with my work” version of the ‘scientific method’. Peas in a pod, those two.

‘Global warming’ only goes one direction, and thus drives all events the same way?Really?

So, there are no negative feedbacks in climate systems? There are no local manifestations of any anthropogenic climate forcings that run counter to the average trend exhibited by the sum of all such local manifestations? Really?

It is only when ‘global warming’ and natural processes reinforce that extremes are reached and records are broken? Really? There is no manifestation of natural climate processes that could cause an extreme or break a record without the reinforcement of ‘global warming’? There is no manifestation of natural climate processes that could cause an extreme or break a record despite some effect of ‘global warming’ that operates in the opposite direction? Really? So, ‘global warming’ is not only ‘unequivocal’, it is dominant everywhere, all the time?

In what pal reviewed journal were those assertions declared ‘scientific facts’ and thus rendered unquestionable?

As a practicing scientist, it pains me to see religionists like Trenberth operating under our mantle. We have enough trouble with anti-science worldviews as is, without having to deal with them coming from someone putatively within our ranks.

Btw, Trenberth is presenting a second paper at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting. It’s available to pick apart here: http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper177326/New%20Gewex_AMS11_v2.pdf

In it, Trenberth proposes what he calls the New GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment), with this alleged objective:

”To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land, atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate services.

He proposes what he calls seven “imperatives” for the project:
Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and land hydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of the land and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreach to the user community.

Some one get a big old “gong” from say the set of the “gong show” warehouse, take it with them to this talk, use it as needed.

This one should test his own self-aquired truths.

As have some others above , I have to take issue with this statement : “Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal , they are still higher that they would have been ….” . Define “normal”. This simply doesn’t make sense .

To be honest , I have issues with the entire speech , and at first considered it a long winded , misleading whine ( especially about the media ) , but now , I see it as a desperate rant from someone who is about to go off the rails . Unfortunately , the AMS will probably take him seriously .

This article by Trenberth is the best ‘evah’ insight into the man’s character and the way he thinks. It’s all I need to know about him, he says it all! Reminds me of Captain Queeg of ‘Cain Mutiny’ fame—- This quote might serve as an illustration:-

“Captain Queeg –Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…

Lt. Commander Philip Francis Queeg: Mr. Maryk, you may tell the crew for me that there are four ways of doing things aboard my ship: The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way, and my way. They do things my way, and we’ll get along.”

Douglas

So if Trenberth says.

‘Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.’

How can he then later say,

‘Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming.’

Biased he certainly is and we all know the couse of action he’s advocating!Eventually he will be a pariah to the scientific community, but unfortunately it’s going to take a few cold years and some real data that hasn’t been fudged by psuedo scientists to make that a reality. But it will happen.

Will the national climate service (that Trenberth proposes above) make available to the public its datasets, analysis, process, and modeling for the public to test, just as NOAA’s National Weather Service makes available all its data and models for weather prediction today?

See here: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

Considering the social and economic changes expected to result from accepting global warming as true and the loss of freedom that comes with government laws and regulations being proposed to avoid the consequences it seems to me that critical review, and argument is essential. Trendberth rejects any questioning of global warming theory.

He expects the world to submit to his scientific facts on climate without question and states scientific facts are not open to debate. He calls such debate useless. He is a scientist promoting a discovery which he claims proves the world is about to be destroyed by the productivity of man. He proposes mankind must change direction to save itself from itself. And can only call those who oppose him deniers. His attitude toward debate and review is in opposition to what he claims to be, a scientist.

In view of the consequences he proposes it is mandatory all information he and his organization has that convinces them of their claim be made public for review.

And what about access to the expensive supercomputers that we’d need to run them on?

Kate says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:41 am

Phew, Kate! I could not possibly have put it better.

I think we have found Trenberth’s missing heat–it is all of the hot air in this speech…

Of course Global warming caused by increased co2 in the atmosphere has only one direction and if we could work out the other factors affecting the climate then we would know the effect of co2 and whether it is significant.Are we talking about science fact or science fiction.Can we prove that that co2 warms the Earth significantly or not?If it is a scientific fact then we should be able to prove it, not be told that we must disprove it.I think science just became a lot less complicated recently when politicians decided proof was no longer needed in science and that anyone who disagreed with their views should be labeled flat earth believers.

In the end Gaia is fulfilling the task: According to physical laws, the lower the temperature the lower the emissions will be…

Tony says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:59 am

Rick Bradford says:
Trenberth et al need to realise that the more they make these shrill and repetitive denunciations of ‘deniers’, the more people turn off from their message.

Actually, for that exact reason, I hope they DON’T realize it.

—

Don’t worry, they are not capable of anything else. It’s on a par with their rhetoric long years before Climategate.

Billions of dollars are risked every day on the predictions of NOAA’s National Weather Service. Trillions every year.

The data and models on which those predictions are based should be made available to the public.

Does anyone know whether they are available?

Check here: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ”

I find this remarkable coming from Trenberth. In the same email in which he asserts that the missing heat is a “travesty” he concludes that the DATA MUST BE WRONG. I’ve remarked on this before. The fact is, his “travesty” assertion is vastly less interesting than that statement regarding the data. Then, to say this … wow!

As an side, given the repeated “adjustments” and “homogenization” that climate data are subjected to, the data consistently are becoming less physical with each adjustment over time and more of an opinion.

This “warming is unequivocal” statement that Trenberth and others make is so irritating. Granted, warming due to carbon dioxide is unequivocal, based on principles of physical chemistry. Is it significant, is the important question. It is also unequivocal that Lake Mead, Lake Sakakawea, etc. hold back water going to the ocean and thus lower sea-level. The degree is what’s in question. Please Trenberth, stop thumping the big drum and demonstrate that anything is of crisis proportion. Don’t make arguments that only demonstrate half of your thesis and then complain that those who point out your thesis is incomplete are deniers.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press.”

I wonder if Dr Trenberth can name some of these shrinking violets. The Hockey team can’t wait to get in front of a microphone even Phil Jones hugged the limelight.

The whole of Trenberth’s political diatribe is full of excremental special pleading and as a political treatise does not stand even the most cursory inspection. It is on a par with “I smoked but did not inhale” and “I did not have sex with that woman”

Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.

This kind of self-confidence in your own way of thinking is just amazing. I have never heard or read such a statement from a prominent scientist like Mr. Trenberth. Gordon Manley, the original author of the Central England Temperature record wrote in 1974: Science has been said to proceed through a series of approximations of increasing precision. http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf It is ‘very likely’ that Manley’s ideas were completely disappeared from mainstream climate science. As we all know, scientific advancement cannot be achieved without continuous questioning, re-examining and debating. When real world based observations are starting to disagree with a certain theory, it is high time to adjust our views instead of saying ‘nothing to see here, move along’ or even worse: modifying the data in order to save a worshipped theory.

Apart from the religious talking points cited above, I would love to see the ‘unequivocal’ evidence for the hypothetical constant global relative humidity, which forms the base of the whole IPCC positive water vapor feedback concept. Yes, we have plenty of evidence for a general warming trend in the last 150-160 years, but I have enough reasons to be unconvinced about its anthropogenic origin.

Does anyone actually think that Trenberth’s proposal for a new GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment), would make progress toward its alleged objective?

”To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land, atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate services.

Isn’t there enough of what he proposes going on already?

“Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves, floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and land hydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of the land and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreach to the user community.”

And why would he be presenting this at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting? http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper177326/New%20Gewex_AMS11_v2.pdf

Hmm…dedicated to “stretching-the-truth” and “tthrow-up-scary-scenarios” Schneider who in the 70s was scaring the world about slipping into an imminent anthropogenic ice age. This fellow has plumbed a couple of extreme null hypotheses of climate change. Probably somewhere in the 80s he talked about the travesty of no cooling. I fear he will be rehabilitated as a guru for predicting the misertable cold climate in the offing. You don’t suppose these guys are illustrating climate variability with their travesties?

This is a fairly predictable hissy fit.

Imagine what it must be like. A person is at the top of his game last year, and now things have changed. A once loyal media is now more likely to publicise adverse comment. Working relationships have noticeably cooled – the sense that colleagues are now keeping their distance, wary of close association. Trusted channels of communication can no longer be relied upon for privacy. Creeping doubt, with more questioning and testing of views which would been accepted on trust and authority just a few months earlier. Past analysis and reports could be picked open, as more recent data becomes availabe, and doesn’t neatly confirm previous assertions. There may even be nagging feelings of whispering and sniggering.

It can’t be easy. Expect more hissy fits to come.

Wow, what a profoundly interesting look into the mind of an influential warmist. Fundamentally misunderstands the scientific method, lacks an ethical committment to the pursuit of truth, has no apparent interest in historical accuracy. A mind like that is capable of doing great harm.

Why aren’t more of us complaining that NOAA’s National Weather Service doesn’t release the hourly data from its ground stations and satellites that it uses for its weather predictions?

Billions of dollars are risked every day on this data. Trillions every year.

Can we trust NOAA with this?

So it is true then? It is settled.

Trenbert seemingly unequivocally dislodging himself from the scientist community to start the journey of previous like minded and become a wannabe cultist leader who, dare I say, will hence forth, just like his idols before him, make sure he only speak in front of a majority, of the infamous, crowd of already converted cultist and like minded wannabes.

Before the consequences creeps into the light of day, or filling up the digital mailbox, as they always tend to do, Trenberts trek up the mountain of madness, will, I’m sure, to him, seem like the grandest dandiest gloriously most spiritually uplifting trailblazing pathfinding bestest of holiest mission (ever deviced by a climatological self proclaimed wizard’s most triumphant of machinations.)

Oh, how happy the days will seem before D-day. A time to rejoice and bath in the light of imaginary glory. To experience a perfect time. A bliss. Enlightenment even. And to be chosen to once light to all who just will listen and believe. Even they can become one with me and the light of gaia.

Will the madness never end. Is there even an end in sight? Check back a week from d-day, for we normal putts usually call this type of pre-hangover wondrous endeavor for what it truly madly just is: a “prima fidelis” bender.

Some posters have compared Trenberth to a priest. Please don’t insult priests.

It will be interesting to see whether Trenberth’s Alice in Wonderland turning of the “null hypothesis” on its head will gain traction in the warmist community and the media. It might.

All the best.

Sometimes I find myself wondering if there may be something to the AGW theory after all.
Then I read things like Trenberth’s latest offering here, and I’m quickly returned to solid earth ;-)

Trenberth needed to come clean.

The whole point of the “redefinition” of peer literature was really this as we pointed out in the book.

1. That Jones responded with a process TRICK, rather than science. His response should have been, “let’s write a paper to counter McKittricks work”. That wasnt his response. His response was to threaten a process trick.

2. Jones and Trenberth TRIED a process trick. for the first two rounds of the drafting process the REFUSED to cite the paper.

3. When forced to consider the paper, they engaged in another process TRICK. they dismissed the conclusions of the paper by making arguments NOT SUPPORTED IN PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE.

until trenberth and jones defend the sentences they wrote dismissing Mckittricks work, they are guilty. full stop.

The problem of course can be fixed quite easily. The following paragraph of AR4 should be changed From:

“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”

To:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) demonstrated that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused up to 50% of the observed warming over land since 1979. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development may not have the level of statistical certainty those papers established . In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.”

As the paragraph stands Trenberth and Jones simply made stuff up. There is NO study showing that Ross’s work fails to be statistically significant after accounting for circulation effects ( in fact Ross has follow-on work showing this is not the case.

To be clear, I do not think that Ross’ work is without issues ( we’ve discussed some of them on CA) but I think that the summary given by Trenberth/Jones is just wrong . Yes they finally agreed to discuss the paper. But in their discussion they dismissed the findings on grounds that have NO BASIS in peer reviewed literature.

The wrong doing is pretty clear.

“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”

That is a mathematical statement. Trenbertha and Jones claim that the correlation ceases to be significant. trenberth….. SHOW THE CITATION WHERE THIS MATH IS DONE. he can’t. jones cant. they cant because they guessed at it and did not do the math.

Here is my wish. My wish is that all skeptics would please focus on this precise detail.

If you want to write to AMS or write to trenberth ask this simple question.

or Anthony, put this simple question up as a post, a challenge to believers in AGW

Dr. Trenberth, in AR4 you and Dr. Jones wrote :

“However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.”

can you please cite the paper or show the math you did to determine that the relation found in Mckittrick 2004 ceased to be statistically significant?

Focus on that detailed question. Don’t cloud the issue with anything else or they will slip their way out of it.

[Trenberth] uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language.

In contrast to the AMS “Board”, I would think that many AMS members out there at large should desperately want to get the AMS out of the Climate Science Tribe of CAGW “believers”, with their regressive verbiage and “science”, and back to doing Meteorology based upon the objectivity of the scientific method and principles; which I’m sure is much more personally and professionally satisfying for rational, ethical people; and in strong contrast to the alleged Totalitarian thought-control escape to a “saving the world” Utopia offered up by the deluding and delusional, “perception is reality”, Post Normal Scientists and the rest of their fellow Looting and Controllist evolutionary throw-backs and deviants

Otherwise, everyone in the AMS will probably also have to start getting used to listening to more of the same quality of Trenberthian propagandistic gibberish from people like Climate Science’s “Mini-me”, Greg Craven, just as they did at the AGU’s own recent Steven Schneider Climate Change Meeting

If you wait for the the time when the AMS Board and its Climate Science Shamens start “talking in tongues”, it will be too late!

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated,” and “Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible..”

Not only is his Null Hypothesis a pitiful excuse for science, but he continues to propagate a behavior more characteristic of a cult than a scientific debate. For example, all hypotheses should be subjected to an attempt to falsify. In the case of “climate change” that is pretty easy. If the sited “climate change triggered events”, such as floods, wildfires, droughts, heavy snows in the winter, etc. occured routinely before man put the “extra” CO2 in the atmosphere, then I would suggest that the hypothesis has been falsified – or nullified in this case – time for a new hypothesis.

Granted, the total abandonment of science with his new “null hypothesis” is ridiculous, but perhaps the most alarming statements of all involve his attitude towards people. Let me guess, he and his ilk will design the pragmatic steps to eliminate the over-population issue – afterall, if people emit CO2, then fewer people means less CO2 – and if CO2 is the root of all weather evil, then we must stop at nothing to overcome…

Sad to say that my hard earned money is being confiscated to support such nonsense.

I too a genius like Al Gore to discover that the trace amount (less than 0.04%) of a clear gas like CO2 could cause all these problems.

Don’t forget that if you send an email to Trenberth, you will be added to a list and investigated by John Holdren and Homeland Security. Sarc/off

It’s a balmy 25 C below today where I live in central Alberta. Thank goodness for AGW or it might have been 40 below …. Sarc/off

“given that global warming is unequivocal”, when did that happen?!!!. Have I missed something?

” Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Is this supposed to be the modern approach to writing in a reasonable, scientific manner, or is this author paraphrasing a politician’s opinion?
Utter drivel.

(I took the liberty of sending the following to Dr. Trenberth, since he obligingly included his e-mail address in his draft remarks)

Dr. Trenberth

I have seen numerous examples of much higher temperatures during the Holocene than present. A graph of Greenland ice cores leads to an obvious conclusion: during the past 10,000 years, roughly 9,100 of those years were warmer than the warmest year of the past century (which according to NASA was 1934 in North America).

Numerous studies of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are in disagreement with Mann’s Hockey Stick, which suffers from a large number of study errors and flaws.

It is obvious that we have had intermittent warming during the past two centuries. That is to be expected, given the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800’s. A graph of the Greenland ice cores showed that such warming was frequent and normal (not human driven) over the past 10,000 years. It also shows our present warming to be remarkably unremarkable.

I’m sure you know sea levels rose over 400 feet in just over 10,000 years, an average of about four feet per century. Our current rate of increase in sea levels of about six to eight inches per century is a natural continuation of melting since the Ice Age, the most recent but not the last glacial period.

During that period coral not only survived great fluctuations in temperature, but coral growth rates were easily up to the task of keeping up with the rapid rise of sea levels. Recent photographic studies of the Tuvalu Islands, supposedly endangered by global warming sea level increase, shows they have actually grown overall during the past fifty years.

And, Dr. Trenberth, this is all derived from peer-reviewed studies, unlike the IPCC’s assessment reports which contain much material which is not peer reviewed.

With so much arrayed against climate change being caused by human activity, and so little evidence for it being catastrophic (since it has been much warmer and colder in times past), I am surprised that you are not more open to debate.

Sincerely

Michael B. Combs, Major, U. S. Air Force (retired)
MBA, CPA, husband of the CEO of Vulcan, Inc., a leader in industrial baling wire for the recycling industry
Gualala, CA

At the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)

In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.

Trenberth says

While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers.

Many posters to WUWT have noted that the reverse is very true.

I do not blame Trenberth for his emotionalism about the subject, though. After all, we are talking about potential disaster and the well-being of billions of people and trillions of other organisms. I am VERY emotional about this issue myself. This difference is he has his “head in the clouds” literally–and also figuratively as he relies upon models without a track record of predictive success. In my high school physics class, they told me that successful prediction is the essence of science. I am a biologist, and have actually studied the effects of carbon dioxide and temperatures on living things. The FACTS there are 180 degrees opposed to Trenberth. Oh yes, I get very emotional indeed.

Marc Morano hits the nail on the head when he posts the following header at Climate Depot:

Climategate & UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s reveals ‘mindless worshiping’ of IPCC – Offers ‘weird opinions about climate’ – Slams ‘Deniers’ — Calls for a planned economy ‘for decades ahead’

http://green-agenda.com

Lubos Motl simply says ‘Wow”.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html

The solution to Global Warming
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/the-solution-to-global-warming/

Sorry, as soon as someone uses the term “denier”, I tune them out. It is instinctive as I know they have lost any rational thought and are now appealing to emotion.

I do not deny the Holocaust. I do not deny climate. In point of fact, I deny nothing except close minded individuals who deny all else.

I could not resist a few comments, given the email address.

Dear Dr Trenberth,

Regarding the text or your speech for January 26th:I have a few comments from my first reading.

“Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!””
This goes to intent and state of mind. Just because the papers were eventually included, it does not mean that his intent was to not exclude them (and could not), indicating that he had/has an unscientific approach to others’ work. Unprofessional thinking. This is far from the only egregious thinking, attitude, or activities indicated by the e-mails

“Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct   . . .   established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues.”
Not true. The three investigations by biased, predisposed-to-validate committees who did mostly cursory and incomplete investigations and then basically whitewashed the affair—I think one even mentioned that they were nice guys‚ that’s objective?

In fact, these scientists have every reason to mislead the public as they are funded by a politically motivated agenda to promote global warming and their income depends on forwarding this program. “You cannot trust a man whose income and the welfare of his family depends on his agreeing with his employer.” You have here a clear conflict of interest, and the tendency for this effect to corrupt scientific thinking is apparent in the e-mails.

There is no evidence that the “climategate” e-mails were hacked. The composition of the collection suggests quite strongly that they were assembled by an insider and either left to be downloaded (at a public-accessible site) by outsiders or purposely released. Stop pretending that these were stolen—it begs reality to think that a hacker could draw e-mail from so many sources, or sort from a huge e-mail storage base, such a selection of e-mail with such specific, related content—it would take too long.

“they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect”
Not true again. Firstly, you are essentially saying that skeptics make (all) false claims, and that, if they cannot be shown to be incorrect, then they still must be false. This is innuendo that begs the listener/reader to assume skeptics perforce make false claims. And you are saying that, just because you cannot show them untrue, they must be untrue anyhow. That’s so self-serving. But, that is what propaganda is all about. Pummel the public with a false story and faulty logic that looks believable on the surface and try to swamp out the real story. Public memory will eventually start to believe the false story.

“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies,”
Ah, but telling lies, half-truths, and faulty logic is the only way you (warmists) can win. However, without real science behind you, you perforce lose. Sorry. Life is tough. This is a patently ingenuous statement as, if your science is valid, you will win. Further more, you counter lies with real facts. Unfortunately, if your “facts” are of poor quality or your, other better facts will trump the junk facts.

“The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers.”
Oh, come on! The media has been so into supporting the global warming junk science that it has been hard for real science to see the light of day. This is a specious argument and simply pretends that you are the victim, when in fact the realists are the victims of disinformation campaigns against them—and we face a funding gap that is ridiculous; tens of billions for warmists and 10s of millions for skeptics (most them get nothing). Do not whine, it’s unbecoming

Remember the two hallmarks of losing an issue is to attack and impugn the character of the other and to claim the debate is over. You are close to that here.

To use the term “deniers” is to flag yourself the loser. Beyond that, one does not need a peer-reviewed publication to point out obvious flaws in published papers, opinions, and junk science put forth by the alarmists. Notice we do not have a denigrating term for scientists who are morally corrupt, feel free to adulterate data, and create junk science and false models to further a political agenda which is not designed to help the planet and specifically designed to hurt man while benefitting a few.

“While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. ”
Okay, let’s talk about Dr. Hansen. He’s cautious? The claims of numerous catastrophes do not come from the skeptics, nor does the artificially warmed temperature data and failed predictions; they come from your camp. We (skeptics) are constantly pointing out that many warmist claims are overstated, exaggerated, or nonexistent. We also believe that many climate changes are better handled with adaptation and not Draconian policy changes, massive restructuring of the world’s society, economic destruction, or a new totalitarian world order/government. So, who is being cautious here?I would say the alarmists are rather rash and incautious.

Null hypotheses are difficult. You could legitimately say that every organism on the planet affects climate by its sheer presence. And it is also impossible to prove that any individual has no effect—you cannot prove a negative. BUT, although long-term global warming (from the Little Age) is unequivocal, a manmade influence has not been clearly shown at any level. It’s that simple. The computer models are worthless and should not even be mentioned—anywhere—they are a huge waste of resources.

The IPCC is political body masquerading as a scientific entity. It takes largely honest efforts by scientists to describe climate change, albeit heavily biased with the assumption that warming is ongoing, and then adulterates the summary to serve a political agenda. The integrity of most of these scientists is intact, but the product and the temperature data sets have been highjacked by a small number (yourself included, imho). The propensity and abundance of non-peer-reviewed, activist, and/or plainly incompetent sources in the latest IPCC report clearly shows that they cannot support their political position using real science—it has to be polluted with tainting opinions from nonscientific sources to give it the flavor they need. They literally hope that most people will not delve into an examination of the sources, under the assumption that the public is stupid.

“Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, . . .”
You labor under the assumption that warming is a given and cooling not an option, ignoring the historical fact that global temperature goes up and down at the decadal level as well as longer periods. To blithely say that it is happening and pervasive is to ignore sites where warming over a hundred years is zero or actually cooling. So, “happening” and “pervasive” are both wrong!

“As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.”
Good on you for mentioning it, but you seriously underplay the evil nature, widespread harm, and critical flaws in this entire endeavor. The sooner the whole debacle is killed, the better.

“Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change.”
Yes, the least of which is climate change, as you know very well that a trace gas cannot warm the atmosphere in the face of the water vapor-driven convectional cooling of the water cycle. The water vapor heat engine is a global negative forcing factor. There is no evidence to support the contention that CO2 does or will cause detectable warming, except in a real glass greenhouse where convection is suppressed. Actually, if CO2 did cause warming, it would serve to ramp up convectional processes and possibly lead to slight cooling.

The Russian developments describing that most oil and gas may actually derive from the Earth’s core supports the fact that we find these materials virtually everywhere that we drill deep enough and suggests that this is a huge and possibly renewable, in effect, resource. As CO2 is rather low at the moment, compared to historical levels and plant and animal needs and tolerances, higher CO2 would be a real boon for the planet and man. CO2 as plant food is one of the key limiting plant growth factors. And coral reefs love it. Acidification alarms are false and unfounded as an equilibrium cannot influence itself with its own products. More CO2 means more CaCO3 deposition.

Husbanding our resources is always good, but we also need to be realistic regarding the consequences. Copenhagen was not a failure as we missed a horrible agreement which was aimed to set up a one-world government/power structure which would be in control of the world’s economies and all of our lives and for no real, valid reason, except a political agenda of power-grabbing and wealth redistribution. The latter agenda itemis not designed to help but to make undeveloped countries into nanny nations, permanently stunting their development—this is evil dressed up as aid, claiming compenasation for non-existent climate change damages. (This is the same as giving someone morphine for their pain knowing full well that you do not care, and even intend, that they become irreversibly addicted.) So, the overall goal of the Copenhagen group was not climate mitigation, but a new world order that does not care a fig about climate. They admitted as much at the Cancun conference. Is that what you support with junk science?

The problem you have regarding the environment is that you have no proof that the climate is moving in any one direction or that it will continue in that direction (forever as alarmists seem to think). This year’s events in Russia and Pakistan devolve from jet stream blocking events which typically happen during periods when the climate is cooling. Not mentioning this and simply listing such weather events as part of global warming is to lie to the audience.

It would appear that your claim that warming affects/causes(?) everything essentially would include that it causes the lack of warming and cooling we have seen in the last 15 years. So, you are saying that warming causes cooling. WHat would it take for you to drop warming and admit that cooling might be a dominant trend or process, despite CO2 still rising (we all know about the lag time between cooling and CO2 decreases; it is also possible that our emissions will prevent the lagged decrease, but there is no evidence that this is or will be a bad thing).

You can continue to ignore natural ocean cycles and solar influences all you want, but it does not take a climate scientist to realize that warming and cooling periods happen—we could not be warming out of the LIttle Ice Age, if it had not cooled from the Medieval Warm Period—and that to assume, unilaterally and arbitrarily, that, just because CO2 is increasing, warming must persist. There is no evidence for this unfounded assumption, unless, of course, you ignore all other natural factors. To refuse to include all factors, you construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It’s clear why you focus on CO2. It is the only way to blame climate on man’s activities. Unfortunately, as it is not true, you find it very difficult to make a clear case and have to resort to extended innuendo, omissions, fuzzy-thinking, and half-truths.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. ”
Wrong and wrong. It simply does not follow that we are over-populated because we want a higher standard of living. You suggest that being beyond agrarian is sufficient and we should just stop there? This is a meaningless statement which cloudily suggests that there is some hidden connection; this is fuzzy pseudo-thinking.

And it is far too easy to say that many things are unsustainable and never have to show anything to support this. Not only are most things more sustainable than the average person might realize (sure we need to take care of usage, recycling, etc.), but we have yet to fail to replace anything that has come into short supply with a useful alternative. That’s the progress of science and technology in action. It works just fine and it will sustain us. To shout “That’s unsustainable!” is a cop-out and tantamount to quitting—the attitude of a loser who does not have a real grasp of the realities and real options we do have. Too many times the unsustainable label has been applied just because an individual decided so because they felt like, more than anything else. They want to create guilt and worry as the public tacitly assumes that the label is properly applied—most often, I believe, it is not.

It must be hard to have to come up with all of this convoluted material. I have to give you credit for creativity, but not for science. As a propaganda minister, you have a job. But, then again, you are undoubtedly paid enough to make you suitably productive. Good oh, on so much diatribe that is designed to claim that you operate at a disadvantage and are fighting an uphill battle. You are, but it’s the real world you fight as well as those of us who stand for morality, integrity, the real world, and real world decisions made with the planet and human welfare reasonably considered.

I am a member of the AMS. On reading Trenberth’s panflet i felt initially insulted, later amused and finally bored. In the end what concerns me more is the disconnection between the AMS board and its membership (likewise AGU and EGU) and I wonder what ordinary members can do to keep the AMS a meteorological society and not an organization for the promotion of dogmatic nonsense (whatever its political advantage)

He quite literally said that science is non-falsifiable. Literally, he is saying that the scientific method is no obsolete and the new method is to accept without question the dictates of hard left scientists. Fat chance, it’s time they learn that the government has zero obligation to give scientists anything. Fun to see them howl when the 2012 government cuts them off.

The fact that this “scientist” alludes to scientific method at the same time calling other scientists and sceptics “deniers” makes him unworthy of his title.

Below is a list of Trenberth’s journal articles in 2003 and 2004 and a link to all his publications over the last 15 years. Most can be read in full, as indicated. That far back, his errors should be obvious to all!

15 year index: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth-publish.html

2003:

Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak and J. M. Caron, 2003: Preliminary evaluation of vertically-integrated fluxes of moisture and energy from ERA-40. Proj. Rep. Ser. 3, 265-266

Karl, T. R., Trenberth, K. E., 2003: Modern Global Climate Change. Science 302, 1719-1723. [Abstract] [Paper]

Trenberth, K. E., A. Dai, R. M. Rasmussen and D. B. Parsons, 2003: The changing character of precipitation. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 1205-1217. [Abstract] [Paper(.pdf)] *

Trenberth, K. E., and B. L. Otto-Bliesner, 2003: Toward integrated reconstructions of past climates. Science, 300, 589-591. [Summary] [Paper]

Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2003: Co-variability of components of poleward atmospheric energy transports on seasonal and interannual timescales. J. Climate, 16, 3691-3705. [Paper] *

Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2003: Seamless poleward atmospheric energy transports and implications for the Hadley circulation. J. Climate, 16, 3706-3722. [Paper] *

Mann, M. E., C. Ammann, R. S. Bradley, K. Briffa, T. J. Crowley, M. Hughes, P. D. Jones, T. Osborn. M. Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. E. Trenberth, T. M. L. Wigley, 2003: On past temperatures and anomalous late 20th Century warmth. Eos, 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003, 256-257.

Mann, M. E., C. Ammann, R. S. Bradley, K. Briffa, T. J. Crowley, M. Hughes, P. D. Jones, T. Osborn. M. Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. E. Trenberth, T. M. L. Wigley, 2003: Response to comment “On past temperatures and anomalous late 20th Century warmth.” Eos, 84, No. 44, 4 Nov 2003, 473,476

2004:

Dai, A., and K. E. Trenberth, 2004: The diurnal cycle and its depiction in the Community Climate System Model. J. Climate, 17, 930-951. [Abstract] [Paper] *

Trenberth, K. E., 2004: Rural land-use change and climate. Nature, 427, 213-214.[Paper]

Trenberth, K. E., J. Overpeck and S. Solomon, 2004: Exploring drought and its implications for the future. Eos, 85, No. 3, 20 Jan 2004, 27-29. [Paper (.pdf)]

Dai, A., K. E. Trenberth and T. Qian, 2004: A global data set of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. J. Hydrometeor., 5, 1117-1130. [Paper(.pdf)]

Dai, A., P. J. Lamb, K. E. Trenberth, M. Hulme, P. D. Jones and P. Xie, 2004: The recent Sahel drought is real. Intl. J. Climatol., 24, 1323-1331. [Paper (.pdf)]

Trenberth, K. E., and D. P. Stepaniak, 2004: The flow of energy through the Earth’s climate system. Symons Lecture 2004. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 130, 2677-2701. [Paper (.pdf)]

Paul Ehrlich of the 21st century?

Anyone calling people denier over climate = Denier of reality.

Viv Evans says on January 13, 2011 at 4:14 am:
“…but perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that we’re not ending up in GULAGs or psychiatric clinics …”
Don’t count your chicken Viv, – The “deniers” haven’t won the war …..yet. – And if Dr. Trenberth has his way —–

Okay. Please – one of you – boil this one down for me…for the sake of a ‘little s’ scientist and avid Learner of Truth:

ISN’T THIS GUY ASKING FOR THE ‘NULL’ TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT’S SO DARNED ‘TOUGH’ TO DEFEND…okay. I believe it’d be like saying: “Officer let me PROVE I didn’t beat my wife!” kinda thing, am I close here? Anthony ~ can YOU tell me if I’ve understood this correctly??? Any Moderators, …please?

Isn’t he asking that the standard be changed to become ‘Let me PROVE I didn’t beat my wife’?

Forever Inquiring…and hoping for an answer from you…

Cynthia Lauren Thorpe

Hey Guys and Gals-

While it’s true that a NOAA climate model that accurately predicts temperature and precipitations trends 5 or more years into the future could save us tens of trillions of dollars, it takes years or decades to test whether a climate model is really accurate.

Since we already risk trillions of dollars each year on predictions made by NOAA’s weather data and models, wouldn’t it be more useful for us at “Watts Up” to help NOAA improve their weather data and models instead?

Let’s ask NOAA to make available to all of us at “Watts Up” their hourly land- and ocean-based data and their continuous satellite data, as well as the continental and global climate models they use to process it. We could look them over, compare them to what’s actually happening around our own neighborhoods, and perhaps point out flaws or errors that they’ve overlooked.

And maybe they’ll give us access to their supercomputers to test out our ideas and see if we can’t do a better job.

A fresh set of eyes, like the kind were offering to Kevin Trenberth, would have a more immediate impact, if we used them to help the National Weather Service, than Trenberth’s proposed National Climate Service.

And then we could immediately test whether (weather?) we know what we’re talking about.

This is the first post on this site that I have been unable to read to the end in one sitting. Sheer revulsion at Trenberth’s “Through-the looking-glass” world view sent me reeling four or five times. There are so many things wrong with this speech I don’t even know where to start. There is something shocking, untrue, irrational, devious or demented in just about every sentence.

Something not stated specifically in the text, but may be inferred from it, is the significance of the refusal to debate. There are two ways of changing peoples behaviour: a.) convincing them through debate; or b.) through compulsion by force. Trenberth has discarded option a, option b will be attempted next.

As others have commented on this thread, this is a most evil speech.

Apparently, according to Trenbert, climate science equations only have one solution each, and the likes of, and including, Trenbert have decided the solutions ‘afor hand, and not knowing the answer to the equation is moot so long as you also merely believe in their single solution and that it might, possibly, could, if only, be correct.

What is climate science then other ‘an a socio-political pseudo science.

Place your right hand on the IPCC AR4 Report and repeat after me:-
I, Kevin Trenberth, do solomnly swear (by Mann & Hansen) that the evidence that i give will be, truncated, homgenized,manipulated, adjusted, cherry picket and subjected to analysis employing short scentring in order to produce confirmation of my preconceptions.
Thank you Mr Trenberth, please produce your evidence.
Err what now. That is so unusual because by asking me to actually produce evidence , you are impuning my integrity as a scientist. (under his breath) What is the world coming too, this is me Kevin Trenberth.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth likes putting labels on people he disagree with. One example from 1177158252.txt (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=790&filename=1177158252.txt) is:

“…Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.”

Thor

Trenberth’s re-interpretation of his “travesty” comment doesn’t get him off the hook just because he plays it down. The comment may have involved not being able to understand the earth energy imbalance (because the significant discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy wasn’t showing up in temperature increase), but so what? Not understanding that process clearly implies that even the basic science is not yet understood.

The real travesty has been that the major news media, our basic check on political improprieties , has contributed significantly to the work of this alarmist cabal.

To Cynthia:

No, it’s more like the null hypothesis is that wives always have bruises and broken bones. Husband’s activities are so minor that they should be ignored.

This is the typical jargon that goes with a power grab (theft).
The bigger the grab the more extreme the claims.

Well, at least his Energy Flow Plan is proof positive that the “Greenhouse Theory” is not just any old theory. —Good boy!

He’s calling for censorship, pure and simple.

Thor, looking at his publication list I’m not surprised that Trenberth labels other people as lazy.

He seems to be obsessed with trying to understand the global climate.

What’s up with that?

Below is a list of Trenberth’s journal articles in 1999 and 2000 and a link to all his publications over the last 15 years. Most can be read in full, as indicated. You’ve got to give him credit for persistence in trying to pull the wool (clouds?) over our eyes. But it looks like he slacked off in 2000.

15 year index: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth-publish.html

1999:

Trenberth, K. E., 1999: Conceptual framework for changes of extremes of the hydrological cycle with climate change. Climatic Change, 42, 327-339.[Paper (.pdf)]

Trenberth, K. E., 1999: Atmospheric moisture recycling: Role of advection and local evaporation. J. Climate, 12, 1368-1381. [Paper (.pdf)]

Trenberth, K. E., and T. Owen, 1999: Workshop on indices and indicators for climate extremes, Asheville, NC, USA., 3-6 June 1997: Breakout Group A: Storms. Climatic Change, 42, 9-21.

Dai, A., F. Giorgi and K. E. Trenberth, 1999: Observed and model simulated precipitation diurnal cycles over the contiguous United States. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 6377-6402.

Dai, A., K. E. Trenberth and T. R. Karl, 1999: Effects of clouds, soil moisture, precipitation and water vapor on diurnal temperature range. J. Climate, 12, 2451-2473. [Paper (.pdf)] *

Trenberth, K. E., 1999: Global climate project shows early promise. Eos, 80, 24, (June 15, 1999), 269, 274-275.

Trenberth, K. E., 1999: The climate system and climate change. Current topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry, 3, 4-15.

Trenberth, K. E., 1999: The extreme weather events of 1997 and 1998. Consequences, Vol 5, 1, 2-15.

Hurrell, J. W., and K. E. Trenberth, 1999: Global sea surface temperature analyses: multiple problems and their implications for climate analysis, modeling and reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 80, 2661-2678. [Paper (.pdf)] *

Trenberth, K. E., and J. W. Hurrell, 1999: Comment on “The interpretation of short climate records with comments on the North Atlantic and Southern Oscillations”, Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 80, 2721-2722.

Trenberth, K. E., and J. W. Hurrell, 1999: Reply to Rajagopalan, Lall and Cane’s comment about “The interpretation of short climate records with comments on the North Atlantic and Southern Oscillations”, Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 80, 2726-2728.

Karl, T., and K. Trenberth, 1999: The human impact on climate. Scientific American. December. 100-105.

2000:

Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak and J. M. Caron, 2000: The global monsoon as seen through the divergent atmospheric circulation. J. Climate, 13, 3969-3993. [Paper (.pdf)] *

Hurrell, J. W., S. J. Brown, K. E. Trenberth and J. R. Christy, 2000: Comparison of tropospheric temperatures from radiosondes and satellites: 1979-1998. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 81, 2165-2177. [Paper (.pdf)] *

Easterling, D. R., T. R. Karl, K. P. Gallo, D. A. Robinson, K. E. Trenberth, and A. Dai, 2000: Observed climate variability and change of relevance to the Biosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 20101-20114.

Trenberth, K. E., and J. M. Caron, 2000: The Southern Oscillation revisited: Sea level pressures, surface temperatures and precipitation. J. Climate, 13, 4358-4365.[Paper (.pdf)] *

Wasn’t it Stephen Schneider back in the 1970′s who was warning us about the impending Ice Age? Wasn’t it Dr. James “Thumbs On The Temperature Scale” Hansen back in 1980 writing computer programs predicting global cooling?

These “scientists” who spend their entire careers grazing at the bottomless trough of government grant money will investigate whichever way the global warming wind is blowing to keep from making an honest living. They should be ashamed of themselves.

“Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms.”

Global warming is god.
Ok done, now for a beer…

I wonder who Trenberth is talking about as ‘denier’. He must have someone in mind as the archetype. Any guesses ?

Unfortunately sometimes civilization has to to use crude methods for crude people who refuse to stop their wrongdoing. He simply needs to be booed off of the stage at such of a speech, only then will some sanity return to science… to be put in his corner by his true peers (not speaking here of the hand picked friends called “peer reviewers”.

“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. ”

That sounds like a statement from a hard-core left-winger.

If I were to translate it, I’d say it means the affluent will need to reduce their standard of living, that we will need to share the atmosphere (which means an equitable per-capita use of oil for all), and that we will need to change our political system to one of a very leftist nature.

NIEO redux

Having ploughed through this BS, the following concepts come to mind:

1. Trough – government funds

2. AGF Cult – fanatic believer

3. Science – if the theory is good, it’s good – if it’s wrong in practice, this can be ignored

4. Heavyweight Bureaucrat – comfortable life style – need to preserve

5. Employability – not in the real world outside government

6. Favourite phrase : “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”

7. Contempt – for ‘little people’ & real science

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. ”
Albert Einstein

Enough said.

Simple. He spews rhetoric.

I refuse to read his tripe. I don’t mind and he doesn’t matter. So, I’m not wasting my time no matter how good/bad his argument is.

I am positively gobsmacked after reading Trenberth’s speech. It was a little like suddenly finding oneself in the Twilight Zone, “somewhere between light and shadow, between science and superstition”. Some of the episodes were uplifting, if strange, others pretty creepy. The Trenberth Zone is just plain creepy.
Among his countless howlers was:
“The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.”
Ah, if only. Sadly, Trenberth and his cohorts work in the Climate Change industry, and have but one goal in mind; that of keeping the fraudulent, self-serving Climate Change industry chugging along, oblivious to, and at odds with the truth and with science, much to their great shame.

The HBO series by Penn and Teller comes to mind while reading that crappy talk. Too bad P&T are done for now. With Trenberth’s talk they’d have enough material for season eight.

It must have been quite a lark at first. Pushing something that was a conjecture at best and seeing a few politicians swallow the bait and take the matter further. The money followed, along with fame.
There was just that niggling little thought at the back of their minds that it was, after all, just a conjecture and not enough was known to really draw any firm conclusions let alone take action that would affect billions of people and cause them to spend their blood and treasure. By now though it was too late and halting the juggernaut would have been hazardous to their careers, wealth, fame and reputation.

Climategate must have been a visceral shock. That terrible sinking feeling, the loosening of the bowels, the panic.
So they descend into ever more bizarre statements trying to defend the indefensible.
By now the stress of maintaining the lie is beginning to tell and they slowly become unhinged. Maybe they even now have convinced themselves that that they believed in the lie all along.

Either that or they are evil psychopaths who will do anything to further their own agenda no matter how many other people are damaged in the process.

I finally found something I agree with in all the drivel :

“As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.”

Here here. The rest is leftist, one-world government, “believe us because you aren’t smart enough to understand” elitism. I don’t think he understands “marginal gains” though since there is a negative return (energy-wise) on the production on ethanol.

How can this guy consider himself a scientist when he makes comments like the one on sea temperatures… so if the data doesn’t support his hypothesis, his hypothesis is still correct? He has fallen so far from the scientific method it’s embarrassing.

“My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole.”

Their role is not to be a conduit for the political advocacy of scientists.

There is another corrupting influence – the messiah complex. How many politicians could resist having an ‘expert’ first warn of impending tumultuous peril and then map a guaranteed route out of danger? The insistence that the issue is both urgent and can only be solved with massive political, social and economic upheaval aids in persuading people this must be done – experts wouldn’t possibly suggest it if it wasn’t necessary, would they?

These days it would seem the higher the position a politician achieves the less likely they can resist that temptation to lead us to salvation.

How many times can climate science jump the shark?

The Hubris is not even fathonable. Science is always about testing and challenging hypothesis. It is never a given, or no new discoveries would never be made.

Science (and Engineering – me) should only have a small, soft, voice in policy, not an overarching one.
Roger Baxter

As occurs with Piers Corbyn’s messaging, there’s certainly a lot of hyperpartisan nonsense to filter out of Trenberth’s message here.

–
Selective commentary:

Dr. Trenberth wrote:

1) “The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

I agree with the latter part of the statement: “[...] cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way.”

2) “climate change deniers”

Trenberth made a mistake here. For example, even amongst the most virulent hyperpartisans around here, I can’t remember reading even a single comment suggesting that the climate doesn’t change. I have no objection to use of the word “denier” (for example, to clearly differentiate from sensible nonalarmists a category of maliciously unrestrained political hyperpartisans), but putting the specific words “climate change” in front of “denier” introduces an irresponsible disconnection with reality (if it isn’t just cheap politics).

3) “They [scientists] find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding. [...] It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources.”

Admission to being frustrated & disturbed is not a good sign. It suggests emotional instability triggered by challenges with comprehension of complex natural phenomena (including social dynamics) where objective tenacity would be more adaptive (particularly for anyone in a leadership role).

4) “type I [...] type II errors”

See point 5 below.

5) “Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results.”

The latter part of the statement is key: “[...] often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results.”

6) “It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both.”

Note that Trenberth does not qualify “global warming” with “anthropogenic”. I want to suggest that terms like “global warming” & “skeptic” need to be clearly qualified as a courtesy to more sensible audience members who will sincerely appreciate efforts to eliminate irresponsible ambiguity in this important discussion.
–

Those who read Trenberth’s cutting edge papers on natural climate variations know that, as happens with Corbyn, stimulating scientists sometimes go off the rails with hyperpartisan climate politics (which sensible people filter out of messaging, retaining only substantive bits).

Sensible nonalarmists are alarmed by neither global warming nor global cooling (for example towards a supposedly imminent ice age which some predict). Being prepared for whatever nature might bring is prudent, but being alarmed isn’t sensible.

Trenberth’s attack on deniers is not an attack on sensible nonalarmists. I see no cause for alarm. Now, back to appreciating nature & doing serious data exploration, such as the following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/

Regards,
Paul L. Vaughan, B.Sc., M.Sc.
Ecologist, Former Stats Instructor

All I can say is – this guy has really jumped the monkey.

Paul Vaughan says @ January 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm:
3) “They [scientists] find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding. [...] It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t amusing that after stating that the IPCC peer-review is 100 times more rigorous than the normal journal peer-review process, as he states:

“…which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper…”

that we find things like Glaciergate? There are so many points like this where he contradicts his own position that the speech is laughable. Only the CAGW faithful could possibly lap this stuff up without question. And he has the temerity to assert that the media should pay less attention to blog sites… but it is perfectly OK for the IPCC to use unreviewed references from advocate NGOs.

Another Gareth

I would say climate change advocacy is stuck in a vicious cycle of shark jumping.

IMHO, if Trenberth had ANY sense, he would just shut up! He is obviously desperate, just like the rest of the “Team.” He is embarassing his friends in climate science and all other climate scientists (and probablyALL scientists), and he is making all of the “discipline” more of a laughing stock among real scientists. Every time he speaks. It’s time for the “has-beens” in climate science to admit that they have lost the fight. It is getting really funny. Good grief, already!

Quietly murmur the questions and cast the intellect on a wider scope. That which makes the true believers stutter has no limit.

Trenberth’s proposed AMS talk is an ode to bias.

John

Responding to Stephen Mosher…

To be clear, I do not think that Ross’ work is without issues ( we’ve discussed some of them on CA) but I think that the summary given by Trenberth/Jones is just wrong . Yes they finally agreed to discuss the paper. But in their discussion they dismissed the findings on grounds that have NO BASIS in peer reviewed literature.

Excellent, excellent post, thank you Stephen. Yes indeed there are issues with my modeling work. I’ve been pushed to address many of them by critics, and no doubt there will be more to arise with new work on this topic.

I hope people realize what is at stake. The integrity of the land-based surface temperature data is essential to the IPCC conclusions regarding the rate of warming and the attribution to GHG’s. If the data are contaminated then such findings suddenly become a lot more tentative than the IPCC evidently wants to be able to claim. If the IPCC was really interested in producing solid science they would devote a whole chapter to a thorough top-to-bottom quality check of their most basic data, taking their lumps as necessary. Instead they simply wave away the issue in a few places, and in the one place they elaborate (a little) they lie about the evidence. The claims that Oxburgh or the UK Select Committee or the Muir Russell Inquiry exonerated anyone on this matter are false — these investigations sidestepped the issue or changed the topic.

Write Trenberth if you like, but of more use would be to write Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Hall or anyone else in a position to put Trenberth under oath and ask him whether he had any evidence to substantiate what he wrote. I would also like to know why Jones felt so confident about invoking Trenberth’s name in his scheme to keep all mention of the papers out of the AR4. Had they corresponded or spoken about this previously?

To Paul Vaughan

I suggest you read the below blog article by Steve McIntyre with Kevin Trenberth to see what kind of a person Trenberth is

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/13/trenberths-bile/

After reading the above, tell us if you would trust Trenberth with anything.

Sarah says
————
I may be far off the mark here and slightly off topic but once again I see climategate referred to as a hacking incident with the emails illegally taken off the servers.
————
Since the realclimate servers were apparently hacked so as to deposit the emails there, I think it is reasonable to conclude that actual external hackers were involved.

And climate skeptics immediately tried to spin this as being due to some heroic whistle blower, to prevent damage to their own position. If it was a wb I would expect the police investigation to have produced a result by now.

At some point, I must write a song about Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth.

http://www.gather.com/viewVideo.action?id=11821949021918437

Ross McKitrick says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm

Hello Mr. McKtirick. No offense intended if you do indeed have the honorific of Dr., I am not sure.

I wondered if you still stand by this paper, or if there have been problems pointed out in it? I haven’t been able to find a paper to rebut it, but that doesn’t mean that one does not exist.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/EssexMcKitrickAndresen07-globalT_JNET2007.pdf

Garry says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:50 am
I am gobsmacked that activist Gaian cultists such as Trenberth and Hansen remain on the
———-
Good grief! I thought climate skeptics were the Gaian cultists. An unshakable faith that the conditions on the planet will not change irrespective of how much waste is dumped into the atmosphere sounds very very Gaian.

And sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere without paying seems very very left wing to me.

To Dr Trenberth:

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind.

Robert A. Heinlein, 1978

This post must be a first for WUWT. 236 responses and NOT one in defence of Trenberth! To include “Thoughts on Climategate” in the title of his paper and then to reference only two of the emails, those that referred to him, seems pretty self serving.

Red Nek Engineer says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:43 am

You can express your opinion to Keith at kseitter@ametsoc.org

————–
Ahh the good old stalking and harassment tactic much favoured by climate skeptics.

I call it thuggery. Red Nek would you like to add your professional email address to the end of that message so that any abusive email messages can be cc’d or forwarded to you. [SNIP ~dbs] Or don’t you have the guts?

The tone of Trenberth’s proposed AMS talk makes me think of that evoked by the opening lines of a poem:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,”

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)-THE SECOND COMING

I feel a despair in Trenberth as if he knows the AGW Libation Bearers are prepared to pack up and go home.

It is as if he senses that the scientific tide has turned and is much less favorable for IPCC AGW supporters.

John

Lazy T,

The more you post, the more of a clueless fool you appear to be.

The change in the atmosphere of one-hundreth of one percent is not even measurable. And it is not “waste,” it is beneficial plant fertilizer. Sorry you’re ignorant of the difference.

As a direct result of increased CO2, agricultural production is rising significantly, thus keeping a lid on rising food prices, which especially benefits the billion people who subsist on less than $1 a day. Not that you give a damn about them.

Your canard about “sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere” is the same thing as accusing charities of “sponging” off the economy in order to help the less fortunate.

Obviously you are a product of the dysfunctional government education industry. Sad for you. And for the rest of us.

Come on Guys! This has to be a spoof written by some wicked Denier…

LazyTeenager says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Good grief! I thought climate skeptics were the Gaian cultists. An unshakable faith that the conditions on the planet will not change irrespective of how much waste is dumped into the atmosphere sounds very very Gaian.

And sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere without paying seems very very left wing to me.

The faith belongs to the people who believe the alternative hypothesis without falsifying the null. In this case, you. Pointing out that you haven’t excluded the null isn’t faith, it’s fact. You can huff and puff until blue in the face but the fact is that the null still stands. Unless, of course, Trenberth can pull that formula out of his keester and show what the temperatures would have been without the additional CO2. But he’ll have to keep a running count, because I won’t be holding my breath.

Chris Wright says
——
The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific ‘fact’ after another turned out to be completely wrong.
——
No it’s not. Very rarely has it been a case of “completely” wrong.

The use of evidence tends to place a lot constraints on how wrong a scientific theory can be. E.g. Relativity is a generalization of Newtonian dynamics, so Newton was “wrong” in some weak sense, but he was right enough that Newtonian dynamics is still used to place a rover on Mars to a few meters accuracy.

It’s such nonsense that Louise supports it unreservedly. How bad is that?

Arg. Pamela, it’s “populus” the noun, not “populous” the adjective. Unless you are trying for “the populous populus”?
;)

Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.

The CRU data set was flat for a while if memory serves, but weren’t climate skeptics trying to fly the idea that the CRU data set was fake? Except when it showed cooling.

Which would mean that Phil Jones was simultaneously faking the data to prove global warming and faking the data to prove global cooling. All very confusing really.

Which, by the way LT, is why Trenberth wants to flip the null hypothesis on its head. It is too inconvenient to prove your theory when you just know it is right.

As someone noted, “unequivocal” doesn’t mean what he (and the IPCC) think it means. It applies to communications or communicators, not to propositions or data. And it basically means “clearly expressed”.
For the opposite, see below*:
So the statement, “Given that global warming is unequivocal …” is nonsense. He and the IPCC are trying to fudge the word they really mean, “unquestionable”. But that would be too overt.

*The Bard on equivocation:
–PORTER:
…
Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the
scales against either scale, who committed treason enough
for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O,
come in, equivocator.
…
MACDUFF:
What three things does drink especially instigate?
PORTER:
Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine.
Lechery, sir, it provokes and unprovokes: it provokes the
desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much
drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it
makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes
him off; it persuades him and disheartens him; makes him
stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in
a sleep, and giving him the lie, leaves him.
;)

colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public.

He sure was

Bulldust says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm

How can this guy consider himself a scientist when he makes comments like the one on sea temperatures… so if the data doesn’t support his hypothesis, his hypothesis is still correct? He has fallen so far from the scientific method it’s embarrassing.

Embarrassment for global warmers? Nothing that a little whitewash can’t take care of.

Come on people, over 200 negative comments.
I will post the first positive comment, Hmmm, let me think,
Oh, I got it,
Kevin did not use the victim card. That has to be worth something?

Thanks Ross.

I will repeat my request to WUWT readers. Please read this carefully and with an open mind. Since the publication of Ar4 steve McIntyre and Ross ( and the readers of CA) have known about the issue with the paragraph Jones/Trenbert wrote. We knew this BEFORE climategate. But this instance of rewriting the science has been lost in the noise of other issues, some of them spurious. When you write to Sensenbrenner, please keep this in mind. If we all speak with one voice, if we all raise the same issue, there is a chance we get it addressed. It is a real issue. The documentation is solid. It’s the BEST CASE you have.
If you keep your complaint to that one single issue, they cannot ignore it as easily. if you raise 16 other issues, rest assured the system will find a way to ignore the important issue. We saw that happen with climategate.

The case Ross has is made stronger by the existence of the climategate mails, because there is evidence that the ill treatment Ross’ work received was premeditated. They wanted to keep it out of AR4. they were force to consider it, and when they considered it, they dismissed it with no cited science to back up their claims. It’s really open and shut, unless Trenberth/Jones can cite a source for their claim.

So focus. They premeditated treating Ross’ paper differently than others. The record shows they did. They need to explain THAT.

With Ross’ follow up paper You should expect this to be a battleground for Ar5 as well. It’s a key issue where better science is needed and Ross has a view of things that cannot be brushed off in a perfunctory manner. One way to insure that UHI will get a second look is to press for a resolution of Ross’ claim.

Focus.

I wrote to Dr Trenberth.

Here is his reply to my query and observation below. I am not a scientist so did not like to comment on other areas.

To: Helen Armstrong
Subject: Re: Your address to AMS

Because science is evidence and physically based, it is based on facts, and one who says otherwise is a denier. The events in Queensland are indeed a portent for the futures and a sign of global warming. Since you live in the neighborhood, you perhaps should take note.
Kevin Trenberth

On 1/13/2011 6:55 AM, Helen Armstrong wrote:
Dear Mr Trenberth,

Re your manuscript, http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2.pdf I have a query. Why do you resort to ad hominem attack on persons sceptical of CAGW by labelling them deniers? Can you not carry your argument without descending into abuse? It does not add to the gravitas of any one to do so.

An observation re the media. Please, have you ever seen the media do a good news story, except at the end of a bulletin to make people feel better? Of course the media run ‘the end of the world is here’ stories – case in point re the Queensland floods here in Australia. Link here

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/

“Franks was interviewed by the ABC’s PM program, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods. The alarmist’s opinion was broadcast, and the expert’s was not.”

Regards

Helen Armstrong

“Helen Armstrong says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm”

That is a shocking reply and I wonder what physical facts he’s talking about? Surely something else other than those generated in computer models? Also, if he is stating that the 2010 Queensland floods are proof of AGW, as a direct result of emissions of CO2 by humans, and worse is still to come, then there must have been more AGW in 1840, 1890 and 1910.

I see Lazy Twonks hanging around here trolling as usual, all hot air no substance, i’d ignore the troll he’s just trying to get a rise out of people. Leave him to it its not his fault the cult has managed to brain wash our Lazy Teenagers by teaching CAGW in our schools. Image after 10 years of being taught CAGW you find out the truth, it must be a shock to the system. All you can do is wait for they to leave adolescence and become an adult.

Don’t feed the trolls. (They’re the ones with all mouth no trousers).

Helen Armstrong says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm

“I wrote to Dr Trenberth.”

Thanks Helen, but it doesn’t help me decode whether he’s a total whackjob or evil psychopath. Heck, maybe he’s both.

I se I was censored on my comment on calling person that denies climate change on a non-scientific ground for deniers. Du you have a suggestion on how to adress the group that spread false information supporing their denial of climate change?

[Reply: Scientific skeptics is an acceptable term for those you disagree with. ~dbs, mod.]

Great article from Prof Trenberth. Thanks for posting it.

@ Helen Armstrong. Prof Trenberth makes a good point.

Regarding says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.

Lazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warming stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.

From this site…http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html

“Note that the RSS AMSU and UAH AMSU satellite records showed that 2010 was somewhat cooler than 1998 while all the surface records claimed a statistical tie – in the case of GISS, it was a tie with 2005 which is GISS’ warmest year on record. That’s despite the fact that 2010 and 1998 were very similar when it came to the dynamics of the ENSO index throughout the year”

Now, do not be a LAZY teenager, read the post and understand the significance of comparing both ENSO indexs BEFORE responding. REALLY, prove to yourself you can be objective and to many here you are not a troll. Read it and as a thought experiment take the skeptic side and understand the veracity of each point made.

LazyTeenager says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Lazy, reading your splatterings, a classic phrase from then vice-president Dan Quayle comes to mind:

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Kevin Trenberth’s talk seems to be a combination of whinging, self-contradiction and hedging to mitigate any future blame for world upheaval in AGW’s name.
It leaves an impression of slight panic that would seem to reinforce the realisation that the CO2- AGW proponents may have been wrong —-the meaning that was
taken by most people from his email statement—–
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He focuses on the claim that the emails were hacked or stolen, but doesn’t for one minute call for an investigation into that.
He wants a deliberate and explicit boast by Phil Jones , that he [ Jones] and Trenberth are prepared to, and determined to, manipulate the peer-review system to make sure alternative views are not published—— to be seen as just naivety and lack of understanding on Jones’ part.
The real naivety is in his expectation that the world would believe his explanation.
He pleads for three demonstrable whitewashes to be seen as inquiries that provided legitimate vindications of the actions of his colleagues and himself.
He tries to convince his audience that the media is in the tank with the sceptics, when anyone following the issue can see that the diametric opposite is the truth in the US, the UK and most certainly in Australia, where the MSM doesn’t even bother to make a feeble attempt at balance.
‘Amplify the view that there are two sides’ is exactly what the media don’t do.
He whinges that climate scientists can’t win debates with sceptics—but does want debate about policy that takes the certainty of CO2-induced AGW as its premise.
He obsesses that politicians won’t toe their CO2-induced AGW line.
He implies that events that do have [ pre-fossil fuel] precedents in history [ documented in varieties of ways], should now be deemed unlikely to have happened without CO2-induced global warming.
He says global warming is ‘unequivocal’, but then goes on to equivocate, wanting sceptics to accept the burden of proof, and saying that any cooling should actually be accepted as warming, because tempaeratures are ‘still higher than they would have been’—with no explanation about his evidence for that.
He advocates promoting the policies of a carbon price, carbon taxes, offsets and a cap and trade scheme to the public—-says ‘decarbonising the economy is very important’—- but in the next breath says those policies are short-sighted.
He raises over-population, but offers no suggestions for solutions.
The hedging and cover seems to be in his almost complete avoidance of linking CO2 with the ‘global warming’, ‘human influence’[ knowing ‘human influence’ covers land use changes, deforestation, burning of wood etc---many things that humans did before industrialisation and CO2]
It’s also in his talk of instead ‘slowing the pace of climate change’ and ‘work to reduce emissions’, and ‘plan for and adapt to the change’, and ‘we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable’——–which doesn’t exactly fit with the very alarmist nature of his colleagues’ pronouncements, and some of his own .
It’s almost as if Trenberth knows that the whole house of cards is shaky—maybe about to collapse—-and he doesn’t want to be blamed for the fall of realist governments that call for all sides to be heard—-for livelihoods lost—-for industries decimated—-for energy shortages and disruptions that may cost lives—-for destruction of economies—for more third world poverty and for unprecedented and irreversible global political and economic upheaval.

ValoSnah says:
January 14, 2011 at 3:34 am
I se I was censored on my comment on calling person that denies climate change on a non-scientific ground for deniers. Du you have a suggestion on how to adress the group that spread false information supporing their denial of climate change?

If you can prove they knowingly spread false information, you can call them liars. But you have to prove that #1 – the information is false, and #2 – they knew it to be false.

However not having done either, why do you want to denigrate the opposition that you merely disagree with? Would it not be better to engage and debate the information you feel is incorrect pointing out the errors and offering corrections?

Merely labeling those you do not agree with using a derogatory label indicates not only laziness on your part, but an insecurity in your own position.

Dang, moderating ValoSnah’s comment about searchlights and the d-worders pusillanifies my comment about cockroaches. V should thank you.

I had another thought. Kevin’s screed demonstrates ‘The Dismalling of Science’.

More, I agree with Moshe. Just as it’s the clouds, it’s the UHI.
==================

Poor fellow, needs full review of “logical fallacies” … He obviously missed that in school.

Wonderful stuff! Many commentators have pointed out the unscientific self-delusion that has completely gripped Trenberth, and there is nothing for me to add.

However, I see this in its historical context. What a rich primary source he has created for future historians, researching into the the causes of the great AGW madness that gripped the world: you could write a classic reference book of every cognitive bias known to man, interwoven into a rich tapestry of religious-like zealotry and self-delusions.

Wonderful – Trenberth, the gift that keeps on giving.

“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null
hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. ”
That is logically incorrect. Only when there is solid and widely accepted evidence that the “unequivocal” global warming is “unequivocally” largely produced by human influence should the null hypothesis be changed. And *that* evidence, Prof. Trenberth, is what we’re all still waiting to see, rather than the minimal effects of our footling (claimed) addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere. The “unequivocal” warming is … just warming, and not many, even among “deniers” like me, deny it.
But then, it’s so much easier to set up the ol’ straw man that all “deniers” deny everything, then make a noise about knocking it down. Religious dogma never was strong on nuance.

Helen,
If you are reading this thread…

Was the paragraph from Trenberth’s email the entire response from him to you?

It would appear that Trenberth has plagiarized Klaus Hasselmann.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/14/12736/

To recap for clarity and emphasis:

steven mosher says: January 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm
…The following paragraph of AR4 [by Jones and Trenberth] should be changed from:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.

to:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) demonstrated that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused up to 50% of the observed warming over land since 1979. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development may not have the level of statistical certainty those papers established.”

As the paragraph stands Trenberth and Jones simply made stuff up…

Ross McKitrick says: January 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm

…I hope people realize what is at stake. The integrity of the land-based surface temperature data is essential to the IPCC conclusions…

Write Trenberth if you like, but of more use would be to write Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Hall or anyone else in a position to put Trenberth under oath and ask him whether he had any evidence to substantiate what he wrote.

Golly gosh.

As if Trenberth hadn’t given his skeptics enough, he’s on the roll with lots more quotable quotes, opening the path for interesting adaptations and interesting ways of putting two of his statements side by side. True quotes are in italics.

“We can’t account for the lack of hurricanes I prophesied in 2005 and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth’s real travesty His stance drove the real hurricane expert Chris Landsea out of the IPCC.

“We can’t account for any trustworthy science at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. “

“Debating [‘deniers’] about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies… Scientific facts are not open to debate. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility… [But scientists] regularly [debate]with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.”

Helen Armstrong says: (January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm) I wrote to Dr Trenberth. Here is his reply:

“Because science is evidence and physically based, it is based on facts, and one who says otherwise is a denier. The events in Queensland are indeed a portent for the futures and a sign of global warming.”

Regarding facts, check Steve Mosher and Ross McKitrick above, re Trenberth’s “travesty” of factual reporting in AR4 so as to eliminate McKitrick’s UHI paper challenge. As McKittrick says, this is an essential issue. And IMHO this correction is a job that needs doing, by us / whoever. It certainly makes nonsense of Trenberth’s claim re facts.

Reply to Venter who reacted to my objective observation that neither Corbyn nor Trenberth are presenting clean, distilled, concentrated truth in an emotionally balanced & ethical manner:

The link you provided routes to yet another article bogged down in politics. I was unable to learn anything about natural climate variations by reading it.

There are very few people capable of figuring out natural climate variations (e.g. Corbyn & Trenberth). Tying them up at committee with distracting politics puts a thick bottleneck, if not a cork, on vital progress.

Burying more needles of truth in haystacks of BS is not the way to help streamlined efficiency take enduring root in the field of natural climate variations research. Patience & tenacity, rather than automatic dismissal of needles of truth with loads of hay, will see us through to more fertile days.

It seems that is has been quite some time now; many posts ago, since Oregon Perspective last posted its list of Dr Kevin Trenberth’s extensive bibliography of peer reviewed publications.

Surely Trenberth has published in the interim; so maybe it’s time for Oregon Perspective to repost that list just to keep us all up to date.

Just a suggestion.

Sou says:

“@ Helen Armstrong. Prof Trenberth makes a good point.”

And what ‘good point’ is that?

Trenberth claims facts support him – but he provides no facts. Perhaps you can step up and give us some convincing facts supporting CAGW.

starzmom says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:04 am

He says “The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean the planet is already overpopulated” and “population issues are largely missing from the discussion”.
————————–
Thank you, I missed that bit. Now the picture becomes full and I am fully sickened.

They really don’t like us ordinary, little, common people, do they? Be much better if we simply weren’t there. Fit in much better with their idealised, perfect future.

Just another eugenicist, like Holdren.

Do we all see what is happening?

I’ll see your Trenberth and raise you a Will Rogers…

“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ”

K. Trenberth

“It’s not the things we don’t know that get us into trouble; it’s the things we do know that ain’t so.”

Will Rogers

The AMS should not offend its members with such a piece of untrue statements, denalism and plagiarism by one of the persons affiliated with climategate. This should be cancelled.

A fitting tribute to Stephen Schneider . It’s the parallels between Schneider’s

“it is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as though it were a question of balance. … I don’t set very much store by looking at the direct evidence. … To avert the risk we need to get some broad-based support, to capture public imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make some simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …

and Vladimir Lenin’s

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.

Which prompts my use of the label eco-leninist .

This is a death-rattle .

I challenge Trenberth to show me the handful of equations demonstrating he even knows how to compute the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

Anthony, do you think this guy got his scientific training from that great documentary film Plan 9 From Outer Space? In the conclusive summing up by psychic Criswell:

“Based on sworn testimony – can you prove it didn’t happen? – God help us in the future … ”

Apart from the last bit which of course violates the separation of church and state, thereby threatening the end of civilisation as we know it – the logic of this summing up is uncannily similar to Trenberth.

I don’t know why he bothers. Already his alarmism can be effortlessly converted to the null hypothesis – just use the precautionary principle for CAGW while making zero use of it for the risk of putting a lot of ordinary people out of work for a hypothesis which in fact is not settled.

Trenberth’s paragraph about reversing the Null Hypothesis there is no human influence [ on mean global temperature ] is literally too illlogical to try to make sense of . But even that original null hypothesis is untestably broad .

The most commonly asserted quantitative null hypothesis is itself not proper and has is a continuing source of massive confusion . It’s the impossible assumption that despite reflecting about 3o% of incoming sunlight , the earth’s spectrum is such that it radiates 100% of the energy it does absorb . This is the source of the assertion that without “greenhouse gases” the earth would be about 255k , 33c colder than measured .

But that’s a choice of a particular , very biased , in fact impossible , spectrum . A neutral and mathematically tractable null would be that our temperature would be about that of a gray ( flat spectrum ) ball in our orbit , about 279k , and invariant with respect to reflectivity . That leaves about 10c “greenhouse” spectral effect as a pure orthogonal variable to be explained .

The bias of this ubiquitous null is why a 20c or so “greenhouse” effect has been found on the moon .

Stupified says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:45 am

“Its the sceince, stupid.”

Stupified maybe it would be better, in that manner at the very least, not to call other people stupid. Can you see why?

@Amino Acids in Meteorites

‘colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public.

He sure was’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZLbFm-X3Q&feature=player_embedded

And in the end at least Leonard Nimoy ended up getting a roll as a talking head in Futurama. So, in the end, it is always more lucrative to be the bobble head.

I don’t know if the tears on my cheek is from laughing or crying.

This is absolutely amazing, and vindicates everything skeptics have said all these years, even when it’s a defence and attack in one.

I have never seen someone sacrifice their values, in this case the scientific method, in such a incompetent way before. I’m stumped. He’s a scientist?

Judd says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:42 am

I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? His statements lead to the resignation of someone who actually knew something about hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, from the IPCC. Landsea saw no correlation and resigned in disgust.

There is considerable evidence that in this particular matter, poor Dr. Trenberth has recently been found to be either misleading his colleagues (who failed to conduct any due diligence) or is suffering a bout of what perhaps is best described as “false memory syndrome”.

See:

Kevin Trenberth: false memory syndrome?

While reading the good doctor’s proposed speech I kept having a mental image run through my mind at his comments..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY

Where to begin…

” Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility.”

Thankfully someone raised and debated an alternate view to the Earth being flat, or that the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth, or that trains could do no more than 13mph lest the air be sucked out and all passengers suffocated, etc etc.. who knows what kind of a world we would live in if those theories had not been challenged (and thusly debated by skeptics at the time) with the facts.

As for his assertion that “global warming is “unequivocal”” based on a single (biased and discredited) IPCC report is astounding. Truly an example of ‘The Princess Bride Syndrome’ (ie: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”). If it was truly “unequivocal” then there would be no need for the term “deniers”, since there would be none who questioned (denied) the accuracy of the theory. Since people are indeed skeptical (and for good reason given the FACTS), then obviously it cannot be “unequivocal”.

Once again, the good doctor needs to provide irrefutable proof that rising CO2 levels are responsible for the Earth warming, and that those increased CO2 levels are due to human intervention. Since there is already evidence (Proof, or facts) that CO2 levels were higher in the past (pre-Industrial Revolution and modern human civilization) and that global temperatures were actually COOLER than present the burden of proof is on him and his followers, not on the skeptics.

To assert that the null assumption should now be discarded due to AGW being “uneqivocal” (already proven to be false in itself) is to suggest that in future legal matters where a person is accused of a crime (theory) that they must prove their innocence, rather than the accusers proving the truth (guilt) of the charge (theory).

As regards the comments by poster “LazyTeenager” I can only surmise one thing: He/She has decided to completely swallow the AGW theory and not research any alternatives…. thus proving that their ‘nom-de-plume’ is very apt.

Shub Niggurath says:
January 14, 2011 at 8:09 am
Helen,
If you are reading this thread…

Was the paragraph from Trenberth’s email the entire response from him to you?

Yes, the entire response, I just copied and pasted.

It is simply preposterous that any highly educated person (an assumption) would say that the null hypothesis should be changed to say essentially that “we are causing a problem,” thereby forcing the “science” to prove a negative, which every educated person knows is logically impossible. And, therefore, totally anti-scientific! I think any climate scientists who have some integrity should object to this version of “climate science!” Otherwise, they are tacitly supporting a real breach of logic and an eventual destruction of their discipline. Silence is not golden in this case!

jae says:
January 14, 2011 at 7:23 pm

It is simply preposterous that any highly educated person…

Educated ≠ Intelligent

Not saying Trenberth is unintelligent.

I am so VERY offended by his Hansen-like rhetoric.

Grrr. You think you are gaining sympathetic individuals to your cause, Kevin?

Guess again.

You are not.

Keep it up. You will lose all support. No skin off my back, really.

But the part that PISSES ME OFF THE MOST (and yes I am yelling) is that YOU ARE PUBLICLY FUNDED.

You have no right nor platform to spout your opinion here. GET BACK TO SCIENCE AND SHUT UP!

(And yes I am yelling. You deserve it, Kevin. You really do.)

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Thanks Lucy.

What’s really telling is that people would fight against making those simple changes I suggest. That tells me they care more about keeping Ross out than about a fair rendering of the record of published science.

What Chris said….whole heartedly ***damnit!!!!

Trenberth: “It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.” I have noticed that too. Not one of them has had anything to say about my work, especially Trenberth himself who should be very familiar with it. They simply think that debating with deniers dignifies their work undeservedly. Plus, they need to keep the acolytes ignorant lest they start to think that there is another side to the CAGW story that they don’t know about. Here is an example: when Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine tried to get someone to debate Bjørn Lomborg about his movie “Cool It” everyone in the alarmist camp he asked refused to have anything to do with it. Head and neck firmly in the sand I call it.

David says
——
Lazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warmiLazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warming stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.

ng stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.
——–
David, I waded through you blog post trying to figure out what your argument is. It’s obscure and more based on assertion about private calculations rather than presentation of evidence.

It seems you have attempted to subtract the effect of El Niño from your favorite temperature data set to get the underlying trend.

This process is somewhat more honest than I have seen others use, who have exploited the 98 El Niño to fake a negative temperature trend.

However it appears that you isolate the last 12 years to get a trend which you acknowledge is statistically insignificant but then you shift over to calling it a real lack of trend. That is a fallacy.

Also I do not believe that isolating a 12 year segment to derive a trend and ignoring the information in previous years is a valid procedure.

In my view your claim for a flat trend over 12 years cannot be supported given the amount of random variation in the temperature record and an insufficienlty rigorous analysis.

P.S. I believe the ENSO subtraction procedure has been done elsewhere and produced different results and was explained more clearly. Maybe Tamino or Eli perhaps?

Brian of Moorabin reckons
——-

As regards the comments by poster “LazyTeenager” I can only surmise one thing: He/She has decided to completely swallow the AGW theory and not research any alternatives…. thus proving that their ‘nom-de-plume’ is very apt.
———-
I have looked at all of the alternatives. And 99 percent of the sc arguments are bad.

There are a lot of people out there who want AGW to go away. Consequently there is a huge confused mess of mutually contradictory arguments. Many climate skeptics are desperate to believe them all.

beng says:
January 14, 2011 at 6:20 am
LazyTeenager says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Lazy, reading your splatterings, a classic phrase from then vice-president Dan Quayle comes to mind:

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
———-
please accept my condolences

Smokey says
——–

Lazy T,

The more you post, the more of a clueless fool you appear to be
———-
You could not come up with a decent argument so you became frustrated?
———-
The change in the atmosphere of one-hundreth of one percent is not even measurable.
———-
I cannot discern the relevance if this statement. Badly expressed perhaps?
———-
And it is not “waste,” it is beneficial plant fertilizer. Sorry you’re ignorant of the difference.
———-
Well CO2 is waste and as it happens some waste is fertilizer. Urine and feces are also simultaneously waste and fertilizer. Sorry you are ignorant of these facts.

The primary school notion of CO2 as plant food is correct as far as it goes. You need to move beyond primary school.

You mentioned food prices; have you noticed what is happening to the price of food commodities recently? Think about that if you insist on pretending the moral high ground.

CO2 is “waste”? Not if you’re a plant. And a plant’s “waste” is O2.

Funny how that works, huh? Without “waste” CO2 there would be no biosphere.

Finally, rising food prices are largely a function of creating a bigger demand for food, to turn it into ethanol.

I’m surprised a teenager didn’t know that. I thought they knew everything.

Shevva says:
January 14, 2011 at 12:39 am
I see Lazy Twonks hanging around here trolling as usual, all hot air no substance
———
My postings were in some cases in response to other OT posts. So maybe I should not be feeding the trolls.

But i think the real issue here is that you can’t come up with a decent argument so you respond by lying and calling me a troll.

P.S.
———
Some here get all outraged about Trenberth refusing to debate them.

Others here get all outraged when I deviate from the group think and debate them.

It is no surprise that you have a confused position.

Paul Vaughan says:
January 14, 2011 at 10:25 am
“There are very few people capable of figuring out natural climate variations (e.g. Corbyn & Trenberth). Tying them up at committee with distracting politics puts a thick bottleneck, if not a cork, on vital progress.”

What gives you reason to believe Trenberth is capable of figuring out natural climate variations? Is there any evidence that leads you to believe this?

From the introduction to Trenberth’s talk: “For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation.”Amen. But he and his gang do not abide by this ideal. The best possible information about climate comes from global temperature measurements by satellites but all of them – NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office – use their own secretive sources. Why is that? It is because satellite temperature measurements show that the world is not warming and prove that the “warming” that is supposed to have started in the late seventies did not happen. There is no way to interpret satellite records any other way and that is why they are ignored. And that warming that is concocted for the eighties and nineties that satellites cannot see is the famous warming that Hansen introduced to the Senate in 1988. “Global warming has started and we are responsible because of the CO2 we are putting in the air” he testified. Just where did he get this info I wondered. Checking the 1990 IPCC report, there is a global temperature chart in it that must have been available to him. It shows no warming from the fifties to the seventies and then a sudden start to warming in the late seventies. That would give Hansen a ten year warming to talk about in 1988. But in his written statement to the Senate he talks of a twenty-five year warming period. Where did that suddenly come from? It turns out that when he testified to the Senate he used his own private temperature curve that he and Lebedeff had just published before the meeting This is known as pulling a Deus ex machina to reach an otherwise unattainable goal. There were papers in the literature questioning his assertion that the warming was anthropogenic but they were ignored. When the full satellite record is analyzed it shows that the only global warming within the last thirty one years was a short spurt that started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised global temperature rose by a third of a degree, and then stopped. Its cause was warm water brought over by the super El Nino of 1998. It was followed by a six year warm period – the twenty-first century high – but no further warming. A third of a degree may not sound like a lot but it is fully half of what has been attributed to the entire twentieth century. That is why the first decade of our century has been unusually warm. There is Arctic warming but that one is not anthropogenic either It started suddenly more than a century ago when a rearrangement of North Atlantic current system started to direct warm currents to the north. Our climate now is an alternation of warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods that started with a La Nina cooling in 2008. That is our future, not any imaginary carbon dioxide greenhouse catastrophe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Subscribe to this site by email

- Fred Pearce The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming

Climategate: The CRUtape Letters Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller

Paperback: click image

Kindle version: click here

WUWT Stuff:

New iPhone App – very useful!

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

World Climate Widget – FREE

Shameless Plug

to help keep the www.surfacestations.org project going.

Lukewarmers

Political Climate

Pro AGW Views

Skeptical Views

Tools

Live Weather Roll

Sea Ice

DMI Polar Temperature

SOHO MDI

ENSO/SST Page

Blog Stats

and counting…

Posts by date

Feed Me

RSS - Posts

RSS - Comments

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

Meta

Sponsored links

IT Certifications:

Braindumps
Pass4sure CISSP
CCNA Certification
CCDA Pass4sure
CCIE Pass4sure

Table of Contents

EndUserSharePoint

Custom Column Data Display Names Using a Data View Web Part - Part 2

Multi Lingual Metadata and Content Types in MOSS 2010

5 Steps to a Knockout Online Presentation

Working with Web Parts in SharePoint Designer 2010

SharePoint 2010 Data View and XSLT List View

Office 365 Believe the Hype!??

A SharePoint MVP Needs Your Assistance

Drop the Visual Studio and step away from the computer

SharePoint 2010 - Configuring List Item Permissions with Workflow

12 Step Program for SharePoint Community Addiction

End-User Adoption: Multi-tab Browsing

How to Setup Mail Enabled Document Libraries in SharePoint 2010 Part 3

Life on the Farm: SP2010 Configuration - Prep Work Part 4

Watts Up With That?

Dueling Hypotheses

Is the Brazilian flooding catastrophe evidence of another global warming era extreme ?

Saturday Silliness – Josh on Keven Trenberth’s AMS speech

TV weathercaster re-education proposed by NSF and GMU

NASA: La Niña has remained strong

Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth

Worrisome engineering patches

Bogus claims on Australian and Brazilian floods from ABC and Dr. Richard Sommerville

New Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) baseline value – solar min measured lower in 2008

Friday Funny

More Unsubstantiated Global Warming Hype

Quote of the Week

Where’s John Mashey and “DeepClimate” when we need them?

According to NCDC’s own data, 2010 was not the warmest year in the United States, nor even a tie

Green journalists lament the lack of overwhelming coverage of global warming in the liberal media

Tale of the Global Warming Tiger

Another overhyped global warming claim bites the dust

A Conversation with the Author

Government at work: spend $500,000 to save $8,000

Trenberth’s upcoming AMS meeting talk: ClimateGate Thoughts