Harmless Sky

Here are some of the most recent comments, scroll down to continue. To see previous contributions click here.

Brute
10 June 2008 at 15:58
Heh, Heh, Heh……………………
Anecdotal Climate Roundup
10/06/2008
Seattle has coldest first week of June since 1891
Seattle just experienced the coldest first week of June, according to climate records dating to 1891, said Cliff Mass, University of Washington metrologist. Both 1999 and 2008 share the record, with 1917 falling in second place, he said. “Just wait until tomorrow,” he said, when temperatures are going to be even colder.
Story here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004466972_w…
Missoula water park closing due to cold weather ‘to protect children from hypothermia’
Missoula water park closing for week due to cold weather
Associated Press - June 9, 2008 8:24 PM ET MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) - The Missoula Parks and Recreation Department has decided to close the Splash Montana Waterpark this week, because cold weather is forecast.
Story here:
http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=845467…
Lobsterman: ““Global warming is having the opposite effect for us”
Costs up, prices down
Water temperature played a big part in the last minute scramble that closed the season with temperatures falling so low the lobsters were not crawling.
In order for the lobsters to crawl into a trap the water has to be at least over the 40-degree mark and Crouse said the spring season has hardly any times when the conditions are right.
“Our spring is just not viable,” he said. “Global warming is having the opposite effect for us and we are seeing the temperatures of the water stay lower for longer.”
Story here:
http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-220834-Costs-up-prices-do…
Aspen to reopen this June for Skiing
Story here:
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=93380&catid=1…

Brute
10 June 2008 at 16:10
Now here is a sharp marketing campaign!
Book Your Vacation Now Before The Ocean Evaporates!
Ocean City, Md.
The print ad, which takes up most of a newspaper page, shouts, “The Ocean Is Evaporating!”
TV and Internet spots warn that the world’s oceans will disappear - in about a billion years.
But what appear to be public service announcements this week, delivered with a fake sternness by Mayor Richard W. Meehan, are actually an ad campaign to encourage visits to the resort town.
“We’re advising citizens to book their Ocean City getaway now, before the ocean evaporates,” Meehan says in the commercials; the image blurs and jumps like an old newsreel.
The ads ran Sunday and Monday in TV markets from Richmond to New York. The Internet version is at http://www.morefunhere.com. The print version ran Monday in The Washington Post.
The ads are part of a $1 million campaign designed for the Ocean City Department of Tourism by MGH of Owings Mills.
Earlier this year, while searching for ideas, one staffer read about a study in the Monthly Notices of the British Royal Astronomical Society.
The study described how, over hundreds of millions of years, the heat of the sun will steadily increase. After about a billion years, the oceans will boil themselves dry, for reasons separate from climate change.
A light went on inside creative director John Patterson’s head - an enormous, scorching light. If the oceans boil, he figured, that “probably pretty much ruins things” for Ocean City. It was the start of a joke.
Meehan said he felt a little funny making such frightening pronouncements in jest. “Was it kind of Orson-Welles-ish? Yeah,” he said, adding that the ads have generated mostly positive responses.
Unfortunately, Ocean City’s problems are likely to begin long before the oceans disappear. One of the study’s authors, Klaus-Peter Schrder of the University of Guanajuato in Mexico, said in an e-mail to The Post that the earth’s warming will make the oceans to expand before they boil. That will turn Ocean City into just Ocean, he says
“That beach in the advert will disappear long before the 1 billion years are up,” he said.

manacker
10 June 2008 at 19:25
Hi David,
You wrote: “You misunderstand what Spencer actually accomplished, but let’s let that pass, hmm?” No, David, let’s not “let that pass”. I understood fully what Spencer accomplished, and so did he. You apparently are not aware of the major significance of Spencer’s work, which will have a critical impact on feedback assumptions fed into GCMs. Just so you can understand it better, I will repeat:
“What Spencer has done is to validate, based on physical observations, Lindzen’s “infrared iris” hypothesis, thereby proving the validity of a strong negative feedback from clouds. Spencer has estimated that this negative feedback is equivalent to around three-fourths of the currently assumed and model programmed 3K climate sensitivity (or about -2.2K). “
“Your other questions are ones you ought to be able to answer yourself. I’ll just mention that the water vapor in the lower stratosphere that Prather brought up is (1) above the usual hydrological mechanisms and (2) may well be the result of the decomposition of methane. In any case, at that altitude it certainly has a strong postive global warming effect.”
Sure I can answer them myself. But it appears that you cannot and you won’t like my answer.
Prather does not know what has caused this apparent increase in stratospheric water vapor. He does not say that it has anything to do with increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, nor that it has anything to do with the resulting fractional degree C increase in the “globally averaged mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (as measured by weather stations, some of which are suspect), the even smaller “globally averaged mean land and sea tropospheric temperature anomaly” (as measured by satellites with spot checks from balloons) or the negative “globally averaged mean land and sea stratospheric temperature anomaly” (satellites). He also provides no evidence that this increase in stratospheric water vapor has an anthropogenic origin.
It is just one of those many unknowns about our climate and what makes it change that we have to accept. But to put it into the “hopper” of “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” is absurd, as it would be absurd to assume that it is part of a “positive feedback” resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Sorry, David, you have not brought any sound evidence based on physical observations for your assumed feedback of 3K, so lets “let that pass”, OK?
Regards,
Max

manacker
10 June 2008 at 23:06
Hi David,
Just to summarize our exchange on “climate sensitivity” (following a doubling of CO2), and elaborate on it, I am quoting from the introduction to James E. Hanson’s testimony to U.S. House of Representatives, April 26, 2007.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Testimony_20070426.pdf
“The Earth’s history shows that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks dominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak, very slow forcings, and positive feedbacks.”
This rather somber estimation of how the Earth’s climate responds to natural (or anthropogenic) “forcings” has been put into serious question by the physical observation of a strong negative feedback from clouds in a study by Roy Spencer, published after the Hansen testimony.
As the ocean warms, low-altitude clouds increase. These clouds reflect incoming solar radiation, thereby acting to cool the planet. At the same time, high altitude clouds decrease. These clouds absorb outgoing infrared radiation, which leads to warming. So the combined effect is one of strong negative feedback.
These observations validated the “infrared iris” hypothesis of Richard Lindzen.
Climatologists believe a doubling of CO2 levels could lead to a temperature increase of 3C, based on the hypothesis that positive feedbacks predominate (as suggested by Hansen). At a suggested climate sensitivity of 4.2K (with 2xCO2), Hansen’s assumption is even more alarmist than the “consensus” position (as might be expected).
You quoted Pierrehumbert: “’Clouds have both a warming and a cooling effect on climate. High-altitude clouds have a warming effect, since they strongly reduce OLR either by absorption and emission, or by scattering, of infrared radiation. Clouds at any altitude have a cooling influence, through increasing the planetary albedo in the solar spectrum. The net effect of clouds depends on how the competition between these two factors plays out.”
This was wisely put. Now that we have a better idea of how the climate system really responds following Spencer’s observations on clouds, it is probable that the more conservative estimate of climate sensitivity (at 2xCO2) of Shaviv and Veizer at 0.75C is more realistic than the “consensus” position prior to the Spencer study (or, even less, the Hansen estimate).
Hope this clears up the “water feedback” part of climate sensitivity, so we can move on to other topics.
Regards,
Max

David B. Benson
10 June 2008 at 23:44
manacker — Actually read
http://www.physorg.com/news132251958.html
which includes “‘But we really won’t know until much more work is done,’ Spencer said.”
Further note that this researcher gave rise to
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to…
which makes it difficult, most difficult, for me to take you at all seriously. As I stated before, Spencer’s work will have to be replicated before being accepted; especially in light of his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
postings.
With regard to Prather: all he did was point out that lower stratosphere water vapor had been increasing and that, at that elevation, it is a powerful global warming gas. I read and passed on the hypothsis that that water vapor is the result of methane distruction. If so, then the quantity ought to vary with methane production, methinks.
With regard to extremely low values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, paleoclimate data makes this essentially impossible. The atmosphere hasn’t changed that much between then and now.
But when, oh when, are you going to go read some well-regarded papers on climate sensitivity? Looks to be willful ignorance on your part. But then, it seems more and more you are only interested in ‘climatology’, not climatology. Too bad.
By the way, here is an intresting blog about the origin of the IPCC and why it does ‘concensus’:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/06/history-of-opinon…
And who chose the head of IPCC for the 2007 study?

Brute
11 June 2008 at 02:01
Mr. Benson,
You’re trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity.
You and your fellow Alarmists are going to have to pray and offer tofu sacrifices to Mother Gaia or something. Maybe Mother Earth will hear your prayers and speak to the Sun God to help out your rapidly fading cause.
David B. Benson
11 June 2008 at 02:18
manacker — Your latest argument is #34
Skeptic Arguments
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

manacker
11 June 2008 at 19:53
Hi David,
Boy, you are really reaching to the bottom of the barrel when you pull out RealClimate blurbs to rebut something you cannot respond to yourself. RealClimate has absolutely zero credibility as far as being an objective source for “Real” info on “Climate” (as I’m sure you are fully aware).
But this is a typical reaction when something new comes out of left field to shatter a paradigm. It’s called a “paradigm shift”, David. You can read up on it on the Thomas Kuhn” link I provided you earlier.
Looks like Shaviv and Veizer were spot on with their estimate for 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.75K; checks with Spencer’s latest findings.
Don’t think I’ll wait until Wikipedia “accepts” it as “fact” before I accept it. Ya gotta be open to new things, David, especially new physical observations that provide new insight into what is really going on out there (rather than just relying on GCM GIGO results for your info).
Regards,
Max
PS What’s that #34 remark all about?

manacker
11 June 2008 at 22:22
Hi Brute,
You were spot on when you wrote David “You’re trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. I do admire your tenacity.”
Actually, David has switched to the standard ploy of switching subjects as his story becomes weak.
He has used this gambit in his exchange with me as well as in your exchange with him.
We started off with the assumed 3K “sensitivity” (for 2xCO2), which he defended as the “consensus view”.
When I referred to a recent study by Roy Spencer, which confirmed Richard Lindzen’s “infrared iris” theory of negative feedback from clouds based on actual physical observations (and thereby concluded that sensitivity for 2xCO2 should be around 0.7K), David first reacted by ignoring Spencer’s study.
The major negative feedback from clouds is non-existent. It can’t exist today because we do not see it in paleoclimate reconstructions. OOPS!
Then he switched to: Maybe it’s “not non-existent, but it can only have a minor role” because Gavin Schmidt said so. HMM…
Then he waffled with: My scientist (Gavin Schmidt) is better than your scientists (Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen), with a personal opinion “at least Gavin Schmidt does not exaggerate”. OUCH!
Then came a switch back to paleoclimate GCM studies as proof of no negative feedback from clouds. GROAN…
Then came a link to a Joe Romm (!) blog, which labeled Spencer and Christy as “delayers” and tried to discredit them by linking them to a book allegedly published by Exxon-Mobil. HUH??
Then came the statement: “In modern science nothing is proved”, followed by a switch to Swiss glaciers. (SWISS WHAT??)
When I shot down his claim on rate of glacier melting with some facts, David switched to the accuracy of GCM outputs “once instrumentation errors are corrected”. (UGH!)
When I tried to get him back on track David came with the accusation “you made stuff up (MSU); (= “you’re lying”). (BRIEF LAPSE OF MANNERS…)
A switcheroo to “we’re in the warmest period in the Holocene today” (apparently intended to prove a 3K climate sensitivity of 2xCO2??) (PALEOREDUX all over again)
Then came some history: Arrhenius calculated 6K sensitivity, followed by more “MSU” blurbs with a link to a Pierrehumbert model study (apparently intended to disprove Spencer’s observed negative cloud feedbacks??)
This was followed by a humorous interlude, where David accused me of having Fear of Computers (FOC).
Then came a requote of Gavin Schmidt’s estimate of water vapor and cloud feedbacks (as proof that the physical observations of Spencer were wrong??)
After a chat with Joe Romm more model info on water vapor feedback (but no physical observations which “must exist out there somewhere with all those satellites up there”).
Then, strangely, a link to a study and a quote from it that concludes that the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and that “water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate”.
Let me repeat that: “the effects of water vapor and clouds essentially balance each other out and water vapor does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate”
Which is what I was arguing all along! (HOORAY!!)
David backed off from this, of course, once he realized what he had written and the exchange went on a few more days before I cut it off.
I have had the same type of discussion with other climate alarmists, like David. The pattern of these exchanges was similar to that of the David exchange. Many are a bit more abrasive than David, who usually kept his manners. Some are downright hostile and snarly (viz. Joe Romm). Some become extremely emotional. To his credit, David did not resort to emotional outbursts or insults. But they all use the “switch and waffle” tactic when they run out of real arguments to support their position.
I think they are taught this M.O. in the “how to talk to a skeptic catechisms” that are out there.
But it is fun sparring with these guys (as I am sure you have also observed).
Regards,
Max

David B. Benson
11 June 2008 at 23:27
manacker — Follow the link to learn about #34.
As I quoted, even Spencer does not claim for his work what you do. And I’ll not bother linking to the RealClimate threads, becuase it is clear your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused with the facts.
Indeed, you don’t dare read Gregory et al. (2002) which provides information based on observations. These show that climate sensitivity is unlikely to be small.
Worse you don’t dare read Annan and Hargreaves because you might actually be forced to learn something new (for you).
And, by the way, you have also used #22.
“QUIZ: Who said, ‘People who deny the whole global warming thing. They’re just a little crazy.’”
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/11/quiz-who-said-%e2%80%9…

JZ Smith
12 June 2008 at 00:41
Brute, Robin, Manacker,
While I haven’t been posting much here, I have been following fairly closely this thread. I, as well, vigorously tip my hat to The New Statesman for allowing such an open and unedited debate. Free speech is the lifeblood of a free society.
I am surprised that any of you continue to post at Joe Romm’s site, since like so many left-of-center sites, he chooses to edit that speech with which he finds objectionable. Stalin would be so proud! (How ironic, then, Robin, to see the Marxist.com piece you posted on AGW.) In Brute’s case, I’m sure his motivation (for posting on Romm) is purely one of sport.
Manacker, your post above summarizing your long exchange with DB Benson was very instructive. The thing that I have observed with Mr. Benson and his predecessor Peter Martin (They are sly… I never even saw their hand-slap as they swapped positions in the ring), was the predilection to call for “peer-reviewed” studies and calling into question the credentials of anyone holding a contrarian view to the Alarmist position. It’s straight out of the Warm Words AGW handbook. (yes, there is actually a handbook See this: http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%…
Manacker, you, and the original David Whitehouse article that started this long debate are using simple, observed facts that simply don’t fit the predicted outcome. The GCM’s, as you so eloquently put it, cannot accurately predict the future of a chaotic system like our climate.
Things don’t look so good for the AGW crowd, and I suspect they will soon become even more emotional, vindictive, and shrill in their calls for “change”.

JZ Smith
12 June 2008 at 00:47
A follow-up to above: I think Brute gets credit for finding the Warm Words document. If not Brute, then someone else on this of the original DW column did. It was not me!

David B. Benson
12 June 2008 at 01:19
JZ Smith — It is called science. The conclusion is clear. Now action is required.
Of course, AGW is not the only problem. Consider the sad state of the oceans.
In any case, I feaar that you too have been taken in by the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
being handed out by the climate-astrologers such as poster manacker.

Brute
12 June 2008 at 01:52
JZ,
Glad to see you’re still around. Your comment was the first, right?
It was either Tony from Harmless Sky or Robin who posted the Warm Words link/information. In any event, it wasn’t me. Give credit where credit is due…..that’s one of my creeds…… that and “Real men have huge carbon footprints”.
Just built a replica 1965 8 cylinder sports car…….345 Horsepower, no catalytic converters or emission pump….. headers to straight pipes…….should be finished next week. British chassis, American engine. I’m thinking of getting a personalized tag that reads “MOCO2”….get it?
Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson?
Their arguments are falling on deaf ears. People aren’t worried about paying attention to the Alarmists fantasies when they can’t pay for fuel to get to work or heat their homes. Thankfully, the weather…..err……. “climate” is doing the job. If the Sun continues this weak phase it will get very cold this winter and people will be drilling for oil in their backyards with their Makita’s.
The temperature here was 94.75 degrees yesterday, today it was 85.25 degrees. Talk about climate change! The week before it was in the upper 60’s. That’s typical spring/summer weather here……
A 10 DEGREE temperature difference within 24 hours and not a single cute furry creature died from this MASSIVE temperature change. Amazing how all of God’s creatures adapted so quickly!
Benson, Martin and Romm are all cut from the same cloth……mindless servants of the environmentalist agenda, no semblance of objectivity. They’ll never change their minds; and you’re right, it is entertaining to tease them, especially Romm. I back him into a corner and when his Queen is in check he upsets the chessboard….deletes my posts. He threatens to “ban” me…..whatever that means. Maybe I’ll be sent to a Gulag in Siberia to a re-education camp to “get my mind right” ala Cool Hand Luke…..Brings back memories of grammar school for me actually…..maybe I’ll have to stand in the corner.
I’m formulating a really good comment to “push him over the edge”…..the borderline psychotic that he is.
This link is sort of neat:
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/05/a_visual_compa…

David B. Benson
12 June 2008 at 02:02
Brute wrote “Maybe Martin just logged off and re-signed as Benson?” I assure you not.
Maybe just that Martin becme tired of this, as I am becoming?

Brute
12 June 2008 at 02:13
Don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out……………..

Robin Guenier
12 June 2008 at 07:30
JZ Smith: I’m glad to see you’re still around. Yes, this has been a remarkable discussion and all credit to the New Statesman for hosting it and allowing it to happen and to continue.
My congratulations to you for, as Brute notes, writing the first comment (on the Whitehouse article) back in December - and, incidentally, to Brute for his 01:52 comment today which, if you combine the two threads, was number 3,000. Incidentally, it was TonyN from Harmless Sky who posted the Warm Words data.
I agree that things don’t look so good for the AGW crowd these days - but they still have most powerful friends amongst politicians and the media. Although, if the latter switch allegiance, they can be unpleasantly vindictive. If cooling continues for the next few months or so, things may get interesting.
Re Romm, I too enjoy goading them: see my various comments on http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/07/obama-climate-bill-is-…#comment-14322

(Thanks for letting me get (pseudo) #1 post again!)

Robin, I heartily agree with your thinking about the “unpleasantly vindictive” part of the media. I would also add that the AGWers and their powerful, rich, liberal friends are not likely to let their best ever opportunity to control all of human activities go without a vicious fight. Remember, all dictators, no matter how brutal, are always doing ‘what’s best for the people’.

Re: #4, Brute

Funny, I feel “safe” at this forum.

That sounds as though it could be a complement to the management, but on the other hand ………?

Tony,

A compliment. I know that everyone will get a fair chance here.

To:
The commenter formerly known as Black Wallaby:

I liked Black Wallaby better than Bob….Wallaby has more pizzazz.

Hi brute,
There are two reasons why I went-off Black Wallaby;
1) I had an argument with some physicists over at ClimateAudit that the idea that cold air can heat the warmer ground below, which is a standard part of greenhouse theory, poses a paradox since the second law of thermodynamics describes that heat cannot flow from a cold to hotter body. (just like water cannot flow naturally uphill. In a refrigerator this problem is overcome by using a compressor. So, I challenged them to demonstrate where is the pump in the climate system. To cut a long story short it got rather heated over there, and I had to change my ID to Bob_FJ in order to be not ignored on other topics.
2) In Australia, to call someone a “Wally” is an insult.

But, if you like B.W. I’ll see if the system will allow me to switch back

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/2570149348_160a34eb16_o.jpg
This was my self-image on an older blog website.
Tried sending this as B.W. and it seems to want a different Email address!

Regards Bob_FJ

Hi Brute,
If you would like to discuss things with Joseph Romm, he is a frequent author at Gristmill, a fundie site which is surprisingly tolerant of opposing viewpoints and insults.
Here are his two latest leads, but if you go to HOME and scroll down there are many more.

Still, waters run deep
Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods
Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:37 PM on 12 Jun 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/12/102024/948

Toying with you
Something for everyone in the emerging green market
Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 9:59 AM on 12 Jun 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/11/152932/430

TonyN: Sorry about the delay. As this comment had several URLs Wordpress decided to assign it for moderation. I’ll change the settings.

There are 47 (?) kangaroo species coming in various colours and sizes. Wallabies as a group are a little smaller and have pointy faces compared with the more horse-shaped common kangaroos. there are also some little guys like poteroos and wallaroos. The eastern grey kangaroos are very common locally, like mobs of a hundred or more, and if the big males hop across the road, it can be very serious.

Where’s Max? Maybe he’s on his way back to Switzerland. And the other guys?

Hey Brute,
Just a QUICKY, it’s my bedtime. (beyond)
Here’s a new Joseph Romm blog at Gristmill that’s busy and fun: 21 posts already.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/12/102024/948/#comment3
There’s even a guy Christophers who declares that both Romm and us rationalists are equally wrong. I don’t think Goebbles will be enjoying it so far! Some cross linking might be interesting. I have two posts lined-up for there tomorrow.

I’ve been wondering why some of the guys are absent from debate, and upon making enquiries, I’m sad to say that there is bad news. Bob Clive is in mourning because his pet tortoise has died:

http://varnam.org/blog/archives/2006/03/robert_clives_pet_dies.php

Hey! Robin!

Glad to see that you caught up! Just like ole times………….

TonyN,
Actually, I think that David Benson’s departure is just a matter of how he was so easily confused or misinterpreted so many things. I recollect that Brute wished that David take care as he left house to make sure that his screen door^ did not strike him on the rear end. I fear that DB, in typical confusion did not interpret this as Brute’s best wishes, but rather the opposite.

Does anyone have DB’s Email address so that we could explain to him not to be hurt by a silly misunderstanding?

Footnote^ for Europeans. I did not know about screen, (or flyscreen) doors until I arrived in South-East Australia in 1969 from England. They are a secondary door on a self-closer, that keep the bugs out in summer, and they can smack you if you are not careful

Uh-oh… Busted by Tony’s trackbacks! Yes, I have a blog, and yes, with you four or five readers, my audience is up to five or six (seven, when my mother sometimes reads!)

I started blogging in 2004 or 03, and for a while posted quite often. Unfortunately, it got to be too much of a burden as my kids got older and needed more and more of my time. I enjoy posting my thoughts there, although no one but me ever reads it.

Robin, I must also confess that “JZ Smith” is a pseudonym. My real name is sometimes associated with my business, and I prefer to keep my political views separate from business.

I’m sorry that I don’t know what the “Z” stands for; a grandfather (several generations back) changed his name to “James Z. Smith” after an ‘incident’ with the law in the wild west days of Kansas in the 1870’s, and moved further west. I thought it would be a good pseudonym for me as well!

A note to Tony: I didn’t mean to imply by my comment above (”…you four or five readers, my audience is up to five or six…”) that your blog has such low traffic. I’m sure you have a very large audience!

#24, Tony:

No problem on the ‘outing’. I was bound to come ‘out’ eventually. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

Yes, I’ll post more on climate change and some related subjects. Thanks for the words of encouragement.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/giant-sucking-sound/

For Immediate Release: June 17, 2008

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Absurd claims of alarm
The Press | Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Manmade global warming is a myth, and the cult surrounding it will fade into obscurity, but the costs and taxes imposed to combat this imagined menace will remain. (p>In 1998, a peculiar thing happened. Global warming, such as it was, came to an end. Since then, global temperatures have trended downwards, while carbon-dioxide emissions have risen.

The disconnect between carbon-dioxide emissions and global temperature trends proved what many scientists had been saying for some time, that the two are unrelated. But this should have been intuitively obvious in any case because industrial carbon dioxide represents only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, so it is hardly likely to be a powerful climatic driving force.
It stretches credibility to suppose that such a vanishingly small percentage of a naturally occurring minor gas would be potent enough to drive Earth’s climate into meltdown. But it stretches credibility even further to suppose that reducing this fraction by a few per cent would then be sufficient to reverse it.
If the Earth’s atmosphere were that sensitive to infinitesimal tweaks to its minor constituent gasses, we would not be here today debating it, because the climate would have spiralled out of control millions of years ago when carbon-dioxide levels were some 10 times higher than today.
In his alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore suggests the Earth’s biosphere is also incapable of surviving slight shifts in temperature, where less than 1deg rise over a century is cause for alarm. But if this were so, mankind would not have survived the Roman warm period, the mediaeval warm period or the 1930s dust-bowl era, when temperatures were consistently higher than today.
So there is nothing unusual in either higher temperatures or higher levels of carbon dioxide. Indeed, history shows that higher temperatures are entirely beneficial to mankind.
It was during the mediaeval warm period, after all, that most of Europe’s cathedrals were built, England was balmy enough to be a major wine producer, and Eric the Red colonised Greenland.
So what is going on? What is so special about carbon dioxide and 0.6deg warming over 150 years that has the political world in such a flap?
Why is carbon dioxide considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a polluting scourge inimical to life on Earth when the opposite is true?
Despite mounting evidence that manmade climate change is a myth and the science behind it is tenuous at best, the issue is so politically entrenched that the United Nations Human Rights Council has made climate change a human-rights issue.
This astounding development reflects the attitude of Maurice Strong, adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said: “We may get to the point where the only way to save the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse.”
Not to be outdone, the United States Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, Timothy Wirth, declared: “We have got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Even worse, Richard Benedick, who headed policy divisions of the US State Department, said: “A global-warming treaty must be implemented, even if there is no scientific evidence to back the (enhanced) greenhouse effect”.
Yet thousands of scientists are scathing of the IPCC’s forecasts and are concerned that science is being manipulated to prove there is a catastrophe facing mankind, when no such threat exists. They warn of the dangers in relying upon computer models, which have proved hopelessly inaccurate, while being used as a basis for massive economic change.
Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in the Wall Street Journal: “What the public fails to grasp is that these claims (of increased carbon-dioxide emissions) neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
“In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating scepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming”.
Many scientists are concerned that the IPCC is using the implausible threat of catastrophic climate change to frighten governments into introducing drastic economic penalties for carbon emissions solely to undermine Western democracies, scientific progress and industrialisation.
According to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is precisely because the IPCC is an entity of the UN and is dominated by socialist political agendas that it is predisposed to produce reports championing the manmade global-warming hypothesis.
Yet the 1990 IPCC Summary ignored satellite data that showed no such warming, while significant textual alterations were made to the 1995 IPCC report after it had been approved by the scientists.
The 2001 IPCC report claimed that the last century showed unusual warming based on the infamous “hockey-stick” graph, which was later proved fraudulent by Canadian mathematicians Ross McKitrick and Stephen McKintyre.
The 2007 IPCC report downplayed the effects of solar variability on climate, implying the Sun’s massive influence is easily overpowered by minuscule artificial adjustments to a minor natural gas. This is a laughable proposition, yet it is considered sufficient reason on its own to bring about huge economic change affecting the lives of billions of people.
However, as the science behind anthropogenic global warming unravels and the politics based on it becomes untenable, the issue morphs into other hobgoblins: global warming morphs into “climate change” and climate change morphs into “sustainability”.
The carbon cult will ultimately fade into obscurity and become a joke, but the costs and taxes imposed to combat the imagined menace will remain.
Meanwhile, the outspoken alarmists who so espoused this carbon-based religion will fade away or stealthily change their tune to sustainability, as though that had been the issue all along.
“A lie told often enough becomes truth,” as Vladimir Lenin said.

Hey look, What about Peter Martin? Tell him Benson has retired or something. Either of them, if we could do an Email from all of us saying how much we are saddened by absence.
How do we get an Email address?

I got a friendly response from Peter Martin who is on an exrended working holiday at the moment and taking a rest from climate blogging. He may look in when he gets home to Australia.

JZ - well, yes, but I think I may have been getting somewhere with my (familiar) observation that all this AGW stuff (and claims about Obama “leadership”) is really a complete waste of time as China, India, etc. are taking zero notice & are emitting increasing amounts of CO2. At least, no one took even the slightest trouble to contradict me. So - just maybe - not a complete waste of time. Perhaps someone was listening. But, there again, perhaps not.

As things seem to be rather quiet at the moment, here’s a question that I would appreciate some views on.

The cost of oil has rocketed, and there is reason to believe that it will rise further. We are told that this can be explained by basic economic principles; increased demand from the developing world exceeds supply, and expectation of even higher prices has fed through into the futures market. But there could be other factors.

For the last few years governments worldwide have paid lip service to the notion of reducing fossil fuel consumption eventually, and carbon caps and trading schemes have been introduced.

So my question is this: to what extent has oil supply been affected by concerns among producers about falling demand in the long term, and how much have the carbon reduction schemes added to costs?

Robin, I was think about you and how your position on AGW has evolved through this debate. You remind me of Jimmy Stewart’s character in the classic movie “Twelve Angry Men”. If you haven’t seen it please do.

Your postings on Climate Progress, as you outlined above, remind me of Jimmy Stewart saying, “I didn’t say he didn’t do it, I said it’s POSSIBLE he didn’t do it.”

Yes, you, as defense attorney have, in my opinion as juror, proven ‘reasonable doubt’ as to the guilt of human-induced global warming. That is why they at CP and other agenda-driven websites edit and ban views that bring up reasonable doubt.

Drivers cut back — a 1st in 26 years
Price of gas only one of the reasons

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070518/1a_lede18.art.htm

Tony,

Since you’ve asked, I have a couple of thoughts regarding this. I think that oil producing companies and speculators see the writing on the wall and have increased the price of this commodity in order to reap the benefits of high oil prices before the price plunges. For whatever reason, (mass hysteria and personal finances), people are driving less and using less gasoline.

Another thing that I’ve noticed is that every spring, before the summer driving season, the price of gasoline rises, let’s say 50 cents. The manufacturers say that supply is low due to refineries being shut down and switching to the summer blends…… and then mid- summer, the price drops, say 25 cents, but the trend is always increasing. People are angry at the 50 cents increase and relieved at the 25 cents decrease…..(not giving a second thought that they are still paying 25 cents more over last year). They are almost thankful that the price went down a Quarter of a Dollar, (just after rising a Half a Dollar)……A pretty good scheme, don’t you think?

Either way, due to population increases and the number of cars on the road rising, demand will always be increasing….even if the oil companies left the price as it is; they would sell more gasoline as more consumers enter the market(s).

The ironic thing is that high oil prices cause higher oil prices. EVERY company passes along the cost of doing business to their customers. Oil companies must pay higher refined fuel prices……the cost of tanker fuel rises causing their overhead to rise which they pass along to the end user…..a vicious cycle.

I’m not an economist, but to consider all of the motivations and nuances is fascinating.

Gasoline is still a bargain in my opinion. I cannot understand why people will complain about $4.00 a gallon gasoline when they will happily pay $2.50 for a cup, (16 ounces) of coffee. At that price, a gallon of coffee would cost $20.00. People will gladly pay $1.50 for a bottle of water, which would make the price of a gallon $12.00.

Think about the costs involved with producing a gallon of gasoline. Drilling, Pumping, Shipping from the other side of the world, Refining, Taxes, Oil rigs, Exploration in some of the most God forsaken places on Earth…….all of the energy and people involved. Gasoline should cost more than it does……….Oil is still a bargain and the cheapest way to get things done……(for the time being).

Also, governments don’t object to higher gasoline prices. Higher prices mean increased tax revenue, (18% of $1.00 is $.18……..18% of $2.00 is $.36)….more money for politicians to play with……

Nevermind, now it’s correct.

Re: #41, Brute

The fall in road miles in the States is interesting when you consider that, in real terms, the price of oil has still not passed the 1981 level and the four causes of less driving given in the USA Today article do not include concern about AGW.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s the oil market was far less efficient than it is today. OPEC could influence prices by regulating supply, but with increased production from other parts of the world their influence has waned.

All markets are affected by sentiment, often irrationally. They can be talked up to unreasonable levels when traders are optimistic and talked down when morale is low, more or less regardless of fundamentals.

What I was trying to explore with the question that I posed in #37 was the relationship between sentiment and the present high oil prices. If you tell the fossil fuel producers that the market for their products will not be allowed to grow, and indeed must be cut back to levels of two decades ago, surely this must effect their attitude to increasing production and their expectations of future demand. And when traders in the futures markets see supply failing to keep pace with demand, they know exactly what to do.

In addition to this, a completely artificial market in carbon credits has been created as a result of political concerns rather than financial need.

For at least the last century, the most fundamental requirement of a healthy world economy has been cheap, plentiful and growing supplies of energy. What I am wondering is whether energy prices would be where they are today if fear of AGW had never happened?

Max,
I for one, and probably the others here look forward to you rejoining the debate when you have caught-up!

Tony,

It

Offshore oil drilling opponents are rethinking

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-offshore18-2008jun18,0,3372420.story

Finnish Finish “Global” Warming

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/20/finnish-finish-global-warming/#more-329

Re: #50, Brute

All that you say points to continuing high demand for fossil fuels, but with a minor tendency for individuals to try and use these more efficiently in response to a price spike.

What I am wondering is whether this spike would have happened, or at least reached such heights, if here had been no fear of AGW. The rapid development of the Chinese and Indian economies was not unforeseen. Why did the oil producers not take advantage of forecasts of increased demand from these developing countries by boosting production? Have they been mislead by Kyoto and other carbon saving initiatives into expecting overall demand to fall as the developed world cut their consumption for environmental reasons? As this has not happened, are we now suffering because of a failure to increase supply rather than because of a supposedly unexpected increase in demand from the developing countries?

To put it another way, if the oil producer’s strategic planning over the last 5-10 years has been based on Kyoto being a success, then its not surprising that we now have a problem with oil prices.

manacker keeps posting his ‘the world is flat’ stuff. So does brute.

But here are the decadal averages since 1850 CE from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg

which clearly show that the average temperature during the interval 2000–2007 CE was warmer than any prior decade.

Hi David,

Welcome back!

“Flat Earth?” Decadal averages? Hmmm…

Why don’t you just use the data as they are recorded and published. You’ll see things more clearly that way.

Plateau – GISS
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2590412265_d7f734577c_b.jpg

Plateau – Hadley
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2591260894_011a1a6c9c_b.jpg

Plateau – RSS
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2591268046_fa0d4057e9_b.jpg

Plateau – UAH
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2590437485_805bc7a960_b.jpg

It has stopped warming by all published records since 1998 (or, if you prefer, since 2001). Just the facts, David.

Regards,

Max

Hey David,

“Joe Romm clearly wants his blog to consider solutions, not fend off the modern version of flat-earthism. His comment policy makes that clear, I think.”

Naw, David. You got that one wrong (as usual). It appears you are not too strong in the “perception” department.

JR does not want to “consider solutions”, regardless of what he may say his “comment policy” is. He wants to censor the discussion to limit it to his own personal version of the “truth”. Anything that disagrees with his own narrow version is censored out (the Joseph Goebbels or Joe Stalin way).

Tell me, David, are you really that inobservant or are you a “flat-earther” yourself?

Regards,

Max

Max and Bob,

Sorry that your most receent comments were delayed by moderation. I think that this was because there were multiple links in them which Wordpress sees as a characteristic of comment spam. I have now changed this setting.

Bob: There are areas of Wordpress that are still a mystery to me!

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

Bob_FJ — Yes, decadal averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product. That is not ‘20 year smoothed’ and I know of no 20 year smoothed product from the Hadley Centre site (although I haven’t searched hard for it.)

I find the decadal averages to be much easier to read than the raw product.

The decadal cooling from the 1940s to the 1950s is due to a combination of aerosols plus solar forcings, I believe. In any case, it has not been repeated (so far), which is certainly to the point.

I’ve read prediction that the next solar cycle (22 years) will be much stronger than in the last 50+ years. I’ve also read of predictions of a Dalton-type minimum. If the latter, it is just barely possible that the 2010s will be about the same as the current decade. We’ll see.

“but I’m certainly not censored.’

That’s because you regurgitate his religious dogma.

Hi David,

You wrote: “I’ve also read of predictions of a Dalton-type minimum. If the latter, it is just barely possible that the 2010s will be about the same as the current decade. We’ll see.”

Yeah, or a helluva lot colder. But you’re right: “we’ll see”.

Max

Looks like the link to IPCC FAQ got garbled.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor … 1-faqs.pdf

Is it the sun?

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Variation_to_Temperature_Comparison_png

At least not since 1950 CE.

And as for aerosols, poster manacker just continues to MSU without any quantitative support. At least he ought to read the IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical Summary…

Max wrote on June 22nd, 2008 AD at 9:44 pm an excellent analysis with many demonstrations that the IPCC exclusivity ASSUMED for aerosols in the mid century cooling period, cannot be supported.

David B. Benson responded at 9:56 pm that is 12 minutes later, in part:
“And as for aerosols, poster manacker just continues to MSU without any quantitative support.”

My word David, you are so quick, to be able to digest so much information in minutes, and instantly determine that it was made-up. Could you perhaps pick-out just one point and show that it IS made-up.

You also found time in just minutes to try and change the subject, and accuse Max of not reading the Technical Summary…..How do you know that? I would be very surprised if he did not!
WHY do you want to CHANGE the subject?

Here you are………

May 22, 2008
Almost No Correlation Between Climate Models And Reality

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/05/near-zero-corre.html

This new study goes on to examine six popular Climate Models, by looking at old temperature data from different locations on the planet. Then they try predict the weather and climate using the models. All the models failed completely. They were no better than chance, and the correlation between their predictions and the real weather were almost zero.

Sending this again without all the links, since the “spam filter” seems to have problems with lots of links (links will follow separately)

Hi David,

You skipped about a bit with: “Is it the sun?
At least not since 1950 CE.
And as for aerosols, poster manacker just continues to MSU without any quantitative support. At least he ought to read the IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical Summary…”

David, you truly have a knack for waffling, but at least being consistent in getting it wrong every time. Your “MSU” BS is just that. Check the facts, man, and you’ll see that the IPCC’s aerosol rationalization for the mid-century cooling is a classical example of “MSU”. Yeah I read the IPCC AR4 WG1 Technical Summary (groan!). No factual evidence to support the “aerosol” suggestion.

Now to your question “Is it the sun?” Duh! What drives our climate on this planet? Black Wallaby’s SUV or the sun? Get serious, David. I believe you are an engineer, so you should be able to figure out some basic facts.

But since you brought it up, let’s talk about the sun as a driver of Earth’s climate. And (since you prefer longer term trends) let’s not just limit it to “since 1950 CE”.

The Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly recorded a linear increase of 0.65C over the 20th century (1901-2000). IPCC TAR reported this as 0.6C and then later revised it to 0.74C in 2007 SPM by replacing five years of cooling at the beginning of the record (1901-1905) with five essentially “flat” years at the end of the record (2001-2005).

IPCC states that CO2 increased from around 280 ppmv (pre-industrial level in year 1750) to 379 ppmv in 2005 (p.2), resulting in a radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m² (p.4).

The second most important greenhouse gas, methane, increased from 715 ppbv to 1774 ppbv over the same time period (p.2), resulting in a radiative forcing of 0.48 W/m² (p.4).

According to IPCC, warming from other less important GHGs is essentially cancelled out by cooling from land use changes and aerosols.

If we adjust the radiative forcing to cover the period 1901 to 2000, we have CO2 increasing from around 290 ppmv in 1901 to 370 ppmv in 2000 and CH4 from around 800 ppbv to 1774 ppbv over the same period, resulting in a RF for CO2 of 1.3 W/m² and for CH4 of 0.42 W/m².

Applying Stefan-Boltzmann, this gives us a theoretical greenhouse warming of 0.24C for CO2 and 0.08C for CH4 over the 100 years.

IPCC states that the RF from changes in solar irradiance since 1750 is only around 0.12 W/m², but concedes that the “level of scientific understanding” of this factor is “low”.

There have been many studies, which show that the solar impact is actually much higher.

Solanki et al (2004) conclude that “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.” They do state, however, that solar activity alone cannot explain the most recent warming.

Ponyavin et al (2005) state that “It is shown that solar cycle signal is more evident in climatic data during the last 60 years. The result is discussed in conjunction with the problem of unprecedented high level of sunspot activity and climate warmth in the late 20th century.”

Usoskin et al (2006) conclude that “We have revised the earlier sunspot activity reconstruction since 5000 BC, using the new geomagnetic data series, and found that it is roughly consistent with the previous results during most of the period, although the revised sunspot number values are in general higher. Nonetheless, it is confirmed with the new palaeomagnetic series that the Sun spends only 2–3% of the time in a state of high activity, similar to the modern episode. This strengthens the conclusion that the modern high activity level is very unusual during the last 7000 years.”

Geerts and Linacre (1997) constructed a profile of atmospheric climate “forcing” due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period – an excellent match for that period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases.

Using up-dated satellite data, Willson (2003) concluded that “the accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present)” and “historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.” Willson indicates that if the current rate of increase of solar irradiance continues until the mid 21st century, then the surface temperatures will increase by about 0.5ºC. This is small, but not a negligible fraction of the expected greenhouse warming.

Soon et al (1996) pointed out that “a change of, say, 0.4 percent in the total solar irradiance over a time frame of 100 years is about 1 Watt/m2 at the surface of the earth. Since the known increase in greenhouse gas radiative forcing is over 2 Watts/m2 in the last 100 years, it is supposed that the sun has been and will continue to be of lesser importance compared to the forcing from the increase in greenhouse gases. However, such a comparison misses a key point: it is not the arithmetic magnitude of the forcings per se but the responses of the climatic system to these forcings that must be considered. The conjecture that the two radiative inputs give similar responses in the climatic system is an unverified assumption.”

“Computer simulations of the climate suggest that roughly 0.4 percent changes in solar irradiance over many decades would produce global temperature change of about 0.5ºC (Soon, Posmentier and Baliunas 1996: 891). There is evidence of a solar change of just this magnitude in a recent report of an observed difference of total solar irradiance between two sunspot-cycle minima-1986 and 1996-that would amount to about 0.4 percent change in irradiance over a century (Willson 1997:1963).”

The authors also point out that change in total solar irradiance is not the sole driver of solar-influenced climatic change. “The signature of solar variability appears in meteorological records in ways that suggest that change in total irradiance is not the only impact the sun has on the terrestrial climate”. “The consequence of the existence of these significant non-radiative mechanisms of solar influence on climatic change is important: the assumption of equivalence in the radiative inputs of the sun and increases in greenhouse gases is not valid.”

Dietze (1999) referred to a study by Lockwood and Stamper (1996) which showed a good correlation between magnetic field and solar brightness for the interval 1901-1995, indicating a rise in the average total solar irradiance of about 1.65 W/m² or 0.12%, and a solar increment to warming over the period of 0.35K, concluding that “solar brightening could explain roughly half of global warming during the last 100 years.”

In an earlier study, Gérard and Hauglustaine (1991) stated that “a temperature response range of 1.1 to 2.3°C for a 1% solar irradiance increase is predicted by climate models.” “It is thus concluded that, if the climatic evolution is controlled in part by solar activity, other factors than the photospheric and chromospheric indeces must be used to describe the evolution of the solar output and its secular evolution. For example, a changing magnetic field in the solar convection zone would possibly be able to produce luminosity changes reaching 1%.”

Georgieva et al (2005) showed that using the sunspot number alone as an indicator of solar forcing resulted in good correlation with temperature until around 1980. “Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to an underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.” “The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both the closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions.”

The authors propose that there are three “mechanisms for solar influence on climate:
1. variations in the total solar irradiance leading to variations in the direct energy input into the Earth’s atmosphere (Cubasch and Voss 2000):
2. variations in solar UV irradiance causing variations in stratospheric chemistry and dynamics (Hood 2003):
3. variations in solar wind modulating cosmic ray flux which affects the stratospheric ozone and small constituents (Veretenenko and Pudovkin 1999) and/or the cloud coverage (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997), and thus the transparency of the atmosphere.”

The authors conclude: “So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.”

So there is a lot of information out there that confirms a significant warming impact from solar variation (maybe not enough to account for all the observed warming, but much higher than that assumed by IPCC with its admitted “low level of scientific understanding”). These studies also “shoot down” the Wikipedia graph you posted.

The estimated solar impact on 20th century warming in the various studies varies from less than 0.1C to a major part of the total observed warming. If we take the average estimate from all the studies, we arrive at a rise in the average total solar irradiance of about 1.65 W/m² over the 20th century, which yields a solar increment to 20th century warming of 0.35C. This would seem to be a reasonable estimate.

So we have in summary for the period 1901-2000:
0.24C warming from CO2, 0.08C warming from CH4 and 0.35C warming from solar, for a total of 0.67C (compared to an observed warming of 0.65C). Not bad.

This would indicate that around half of the observed 20th century warming came from GHGs (primarily anthropogenic) and the other half from natural solar variability.

It would also raise some serious questions regarding the validity of the assumed positive feedbacks, since the total observed warming can be explained without complicating matters by adding in these theoretical but totally unproven net positive feedbacks.

Max

Links 2:
Solanki et al.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

Links 4:
Usoskin et al.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025921.shtml

Links 6:
Willson
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story03-20-03.html

Links 7:
Soon et al.
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html

Links 9:
Lockwood and Stamper
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/grlcover.html.

Links 11:
Georgieva et al.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

Watch out, Tony - you may be next.

Hi Max,
Your post #61 is most excellent, but I would like to suggest that you have been sucked-in to a ploy by Benson, known as “let’s change the subject”
This diversionary technique is a good move from his point of view when he has strayed into an area wherein he has some deep problems in denying the reality.

I am a deep admirer of the great depth of your work, but I think we should not allow Benson to change the subject before any topic is finalized.

Could we take a step back?

Re: #95, Robin

Oh Dear! Oh Dear! And I’m a pipe smoker too.

But of course it becomes less funny when you remember that Hanson, with Schneider, was one of the first advocates of AGW, and he is still responsible for much of the research that the IPCC relies on for historic temperature trends.

Robin Guenier (77) — Joe Romm can be testy, it is true. I suppose you could attempt to simply ask him where in the IPCC AR4 SFM (SPM?) it states whatever you think he says it states.

Be very carefull to read precisely what Joe wrote, not what you might think he wrote. He parses quite tightly, being a former Assistant Secretary (Acting) in DoE.

manacker (81–95) — That was better. Surely IPCC took all of that into account in the assessment.

All the non-anthropogenic climate drivers (You do understand the phrase ’solar focing’, do you not. No, you don’t. Go learn what it means. Its not the same as TSI.) lead to climate variability. The temperature steps downward in the 1910s and 1950s are in the usual range for climate variability, so I now think that I needn’t attempt to explain these at all. [You are right in that there seems to be no aerosol data from the 1950s, etc.]

Instead, consider temperature anomalies from GISP2 ice core over the entire Holocene, which I take as 10438 ybp to 100 ybp, i.e., 1850 CE. That is 103+ decades. Divide the temperature anomalies into bins to determine the number of times the decadal transistion is to the same bin, the number of times one bin up, one bin down, etc.

This produces, to a good approximation, the usual bell-shaped normal distribution. From such a study one determines that, ‘on average’, the transitions seen up through the 1980s are not statistically unusual. Not so from then on.

So one has to look for one or more causes, i.e., forcings. Since it is not the sun, the only (major) suspect is CO2, together with its water vapor feedback. [manacker, go back and review what the Technical SUmmary has to say about observing trends in upper troposphere water vapor, hmmm? You do understand why that is important, hmmm?] The data supports the physics-based conclusion.

Hi David,

Before you give high school physics lectures on ’solar focing’and ‘TSI’ try reading the studies I cited. With your educational background, you should be able to understand them. They will teach you something that you (as well as IPCC) do not know (or maybe just choose to ignore).

Regards,

Max

Hi David,

Just a note to your self-assessment, “although not yet fully proficient with reagrd to climatology”.

Hey, I’ll agree with you on that one. 100%!

Regards,

Max

Hi David,

After broadcasting you impressive “capsule CV” to BobFJ, I can only wonder why such a learned guy (as you describe yourself) is unable to stay on the topic being discussed and respond with specifics to the argumentation being presented and the scientific studies cited, rather than simply tossing out blurbs defining “pseudoscience” and switching from causes of 20th century warming to discussions of the “entire Holocene, which I take as 10438 ybp to 100 ybp, i.e., 1850 CE”.

Sounds like another evasion tactic or classical AGW-fundie “waffle”, when the debate is going in a direction that challenges the`”AGW-faith”.

Come with pertinent specifics, David, without tooting your horn on what a smart guy you (think you) are or tossing out irrelevant blah-blah.

The many studies I cited show that solar forcings represent around half of 20th century warming, with the other half covered by increases in CO2 and CH4 over the period.

You have not been able to refute these studies.
But you should try, if you want to retain some semblance of credibility on this site.

Regards,

Max

Hi David,

You have stayed entirely consistent in character by shooting off another waffle, without responding to the many studies I cited, which show a significant solar contribution to 20th century warming. This is the same gambit you used earlier to try to defend the myth of a “3K climate sensitivity for 2xCO2”.

Let’s analyze what you wrote in more detail:
“The IPCC concensus process probably tends to produce a scientifically conservative view.”

Ouch! The IPCC “consensus process” does anything but that. It produces a view that supports the message that the UN’s IPCC (along with other politicians) want to ”pitch”, i.e. the message of alarming global warming caused by human GHG emissions, primarily emissions of CO2, which should therefore be taxed (or paid for by carbon footprint cap and trade schemes) involving gargantuan sums of taxpayer money to be shuffled around by the same politicians and bureaucrats, thereby enhancing their power and, in many cases their personal fortunes). Wake up to the facts of life, David, this process generates anything but “a scientifically conservative view”; it produces “agenda driven science” to support a political agenda involving hundreds of billions of dollars. Follow the money trail, David, and you will be able to see how “scientifically conservative” this “view” really is.

“Earlier I had stated something about solar forcing, which you clearly misinterpreted as TSI.” Sorry, David the “misinterpretation” is obviously on your part. You need to truly read the many scientific reports I cited to get a clearer picture of this, David. IPCC only considers a small part of the real solar forcing in making its ridiculous claim that the sun is only responsible for 0.12 W/m^2 of forcing, as compared to CO2 at 1.66 W/m^2. Do not waffle with “earlier I stated” MSU BS, David. Stick to the facts.

“The Holocene record is entirely relevant.” Maybe so for some discussions, David (as is the MWP for others), but the causes for the 20th century warming is a helluva lot more relevant, since that is what we were discussing, and that is precisely what you have avoided discussing. Wonder why?

“However, incoming W/m^2 has to go somewhere. So until the satellite record for TSI becomes long enough, and similarly for clouds and water vapor, the best that can be done, IMHO, is to measure equilibrium climate sensitivity.” No, David, this is just another cop-out. “We can’t “measure” what the sun is doing, so it must (in your “humble opinion” be due to CO2 (which we also “can’t measure”) plus fictitious “water vapor feedbacks” (which we also can’t measure, but others have already refuted , i.e. Lindzen, with a well postulated “infrared iris” theory plus Spencer et al. with extensive physical observations, which validate this theory), so let’s say CO2 plus assumed “water feedbacks” (related to CO2, of course) are our problem. Read the “Bible” or some other religious work, David. It has about the same scientific validity as your rationalization of “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (which we have beaten to death on the precursor of this site, without you being able to refute the physically observed facts which speak against it).

“Guess you don’t really want to learn some climatology.” This is a rather silly and condescending statement, David. I can only suggest to you that you read the many studies I cited, which all showed a significant (50% on average) contribution of solar forcing to 20th century warming, in order that you, my conceited friend, can truly learn something about what causes climate change (as opposed to the agenda-driven pseudo science of “climatology”, which you espouse).

Regards,

Max

CORRECTION, add: in 1940
The simple to read Hadley 20-year smoothed blue line clearly shows a break-over, through a plateau in the raw data IN 1940, and much the same thing apparently developing right now:

David: re Joe Romm and censorship (my post 80 and yours 105). As to my reading what I think he wrote and his parsing “quite tightly”, you might note my background: I’m a lawyer who for 20+ years was CEO of various technology businesses, including the UK government’s Central Computing Agency (reporting to the Cabinet Office). I am, I think, unlikely to fall into that trap – and I also parse quite tightly. My Joe Romm experience is, I think, important – typical of his attempts to suppress inconvenient truth.

So I’ll expand a little. One of Joe’s most visited posts, published last November, is here: http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/17/must-read-ipcc-synthesis-report-debate-over-delay-fatal-action-not-costly/. In the first paragraph, he says that the IPCC

today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions

I didn’t think that the IPCC had issued such a call and that, to claim that it did, was seriously misleading. So I posted a simple request:

Please provide the specific reference. Thanks.

Joe just referred me to the Report. I replied that that was not an answer, that

nowhere in its 2007 Synthesis report does the IPCC make such a call and that, to state that it does, is a misrepresentation of its carefully chosen and measured phrasing

I got nowhere in subsequent correspondence. Eventually, in response to his claim that he found

it strange when people who don’t accept what the IPCC says tell me what it says

I said,

I did not tell you what the IPCC is saying – rather what it is not is saying … it does not, as you claim, “call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. You do your readers a disservice by misleading them on this.

He refused to post that comment, saying that his

interpretation is quite in keeping with the content of the report

In my view, it is dangerously wrong for him to pass off what he thinks the IPCC said (or what he would like it to have said) as what it actually said. So I replied,

why not do what you usually do - post it with a comment? … I’ve reviewed the Synthesis again (most carefully) and … nowhere does it “call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions”. So I ask again: please provide the specific reference. Thanks.

He didn’t reply – nor did he post my comment. I regard that as censorship. Don’t you?

Bob_FJ (116, 117) — The decadal averages clearly show that the 1940s were a local maximum. We cannot know whether the 2000s are a local maximum until well into the 2010s, yes?

You are trying to read too much into data which is filled with varaiblity. Which is why we have statistics to enable us to decide when somethiing is actually significant.

By the way, the other guys graph you linked to seems to have some sort of errors, or something, in the last several years. Anyway, I can’t read it. Here is Tamino’s graph direct from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/t3v.jpg

Robin Guenier (119, 120) — It just occurred to me that Joe Romm might have been referring to the global temperature predictions.

Have you read “Six Degrees”? Or Joe Romm’s own “Hell and High Water”?

Hi David,

Thanks for answer. You wrote, “However, you seem not to follow your own dictum when it comes to water vapor feedback; this is easily explained and is indeed observed; the fact that it doesn’t seem readily calculatable by hand does not make it less true; I observe more water vapor in my locality, in just the last two years or so. Learn to deal with the reality of it.”

Yeah. Guess you could say the same for the negative cloud feedback first proposed by Lindzen and later validated by Spencer, which cancels out any positive feedback from water vapor. So you should “learn to deal with the reality” of that, as well.

Regards,

Max

Interesting Article……Looks like the tide is turning against Hansen, Gore, et al………

Beware the climate change boogey man

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3634

Hi David,

Let me play back your words of wisdom: “There are some things that computer programs are good at; learn what those are.”

Yep. They are fair at forecasting the weather a few days in advance. They are poor at predicting “next year’s climate” (viz. Hadley’s dismal failures for 2006 and 2007 forecasts and Hansen’s even more absurd “tipping point” predictions. And they are totally worthless for long range climate forecasts. Gimme the “Farmers’Almanac” every time.

You point out that they are good in 125 year climate “hindcasts”. Duh! You don’t need GCMs for good hindcasts, David.

Regards,

Max

Typo in above message:

That should read 0.03C lower in 2006/2007 than 2003-2005 average, rather than 0.3C lower.

Sorry.

But conclusion still stands, i.e. no measured water vapor feedback.

Regards,

Max

Please let me repeat:
Do any observers have difficulty with this graph?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg
If so, it will be a signal for me to further explain what I was trying to show. Anyone! Please let me know if it is not clear to you.

Hi Black Wallaby,

Your analysis is pretty clear and straightforward to me - but maybe I lack the mystical insight into reading curves that comes from being a computer scientist like David B.

You show two “blips” - one that occurred at the end of the early 20th century warming of about 0.53C (linear) 1910-1944 and a second one, just starting but projected to continue in the same fashion as the first one, following the late 20th century warming of 0.37C (linear) 1976-1998.

It also appears that Hadley is mumbling about cooling projected to last past 2009, so they are giving sort of grudging credence to your suggestion.

I’m sure even David will be able to get his brain around this prospect once a few more cold months show up on all the records (except maybe the Hansen-run GISS).

Regards,

Max

Bob_FJ — Yes, your graph. I have no good understanding of what happens from 1999 CE onwards. But to the extent I understand what you have done, your 21 point smoothing means you are not matching the actual annual global temperatures.

In any case, it looks to be normal interdecadal climate variablity to me. And for that decadal block averages are certainly good enough and simple to understand.

Correcting an eralier post, doing this on the GISP2 data for the Holocene provides 1033 decades of data, giving a good enough fit to a normal distribution.

Bob_FJ — I forgot to mention that ‘local maximum’ is a well-defined phrase used extensively in mathematics.

The ‘Old’ Consensus?

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/21/2007
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
________________________________________

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren’t they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
“They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times’ John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory “court jesters.” We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There’s nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It’s clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he’s feeling a little chill in the air again.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

David Benson,
Putting aside for the moment that you have still not answered some severally repeated questions, I now present to you a comparison between the Hadley picture on global surface air temperature including raw annual averages and 21-point smoothing, and that of ten-year block averaging by Tamino. To further the debate, I actually broke my general principle, of not to open any link to Tamino et al or any like fundies, for not wanting to increase their website hit-counts. However, curiosity overtook me on this occasion, and it reaffirms that I should try to continue to follow my earlier principle in general.

I have already commented that as an engineer, (retired), I CANNOT possibly approve 10-year block averaging in this matter. (where there is a lot of noise). I’m further shocked to discover that Tamino appears to do his 10-year averaging, not as a centre-mean, 5 years each side, but as an end of block average. (EACH point is the average of the preceding ten years, not five years each side! (Gadzooks, and toss me over with a sparrow feather!)

David, if you are computer scientist, it is most disappointing to me that you have been sucked-in by Tamino. Please study the following graphical mark-ups which show that Tamino transmits great-big-heap-merde!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2611917765_9f96c36086_o.jpg

Additionally, you do not seem to want to admit that the Hadley raw annual data shows a plateau back in 1940, and that the current plateau is looking ever-more similar.
Please check this: my quickly and crudely prepared comparison:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2611926499_8b1dd2688d_o.jpg

Re: #135, Brute

Many thanks for that link.

Tony,
Thanks for unspamming me. No need to do anything much I guess. I’ll just make sure in future that I split out any Flickr links to no more than one in each post.
Single Flickr’s have gone through OK before this!

Hi JZSmith,

You wrote: “Can you either point me in the right direction, or create for me some graphs? Specifically, I seek fairly simple graphs using the recognized sources (Hadley, RSS, NASA, etc) for temperature anomaly over time (ideally 1850-present), overlaid with co2 emissions, solar activity, ENSO, and anything important I’ve missed? It could be one chart or several, but must use data from “reputable” sources such as those cited above.”

You called for info from “smart guys”. I don’t put myself into that category.

But I have downloaded the Hadley record and plotted it in Excel. From the plot I could pull out the multidecadal cyclical nature of the temperature trend with 3 distinct multidecadal warming cycles (1858-1879, 1910-1944, 1976-1988) interspersed with cooling cycles (1879-1910, 1944-1976) and the current “plateau” or slight cooling cycle since 1998.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

This whole cyclical curve is like a tilted (very “jagged”) sine curve with an underlying overall warming trend.

Using IPCCs linear trend approach to analyzing these cycles, it shows that the three warming cycles showed a linear increase of:
1858-1879: +0.38C
1910-1944: +0.53C
1976-1998: +0.37C

The cooling cycles were:
1850-1858: -0.15C
1879-1910: -0.23C
1944-1976: -0.02C

And the most recent decade shows an essentially flat trend since 1998 (-0.01C).

I’ll send the link to a composite curve showing all the cycles in the 159-year period separately, so the spam filter doesn’t overreact.

At the same time I downloaded the data from Mauna Loa on atmospheric CO2 concentration (since 1958) and used the data provided by IPCC SPM 2007 for prior years to plot the change in CO2 over the same warming/cooling periods from the Hadley record.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Then I plotted the change in CO2 concentration versus the change in temperature over the same cycles to see how the correlation looks. The period 1976-1998 gives a good fit to support AGW. Other periods are less obvious.
Link to this plot is sent separately.

Regards,

Max