Harmless Sky

Jack and Robin

Back to Lindzen’s incisive remark.

I think it is obvious that if we “roll back” all the progress we have made since the start of the Industrial Age in some guilt-driven frenzy to go back to simpler times, etc., we are simply committing slow suicide.

The world (with all its faults) is an infinitely better place today than it was 100 or 150 years ago.

This is especially true for those billions of people who have been able to pull themselves out of abject poverty and misery because of industrialization.

To “roll back” all of that in order to destroy a virtual computer-generated hobgoblin called “anthropogenic global warming” would be self-destruction.

Our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents that gave us all the prosperity we enjoy today would roll over in their graves if they saw us throwing it all away for nothing.

Fortunately, the AGW craze, itself, is dying a slow and painful death, with many of the the politicians of this world (and others who would stand to gain from it) trying to keep it alive despite the fact that it has stopped warming.

But, if it continues to cool off for another few years, AGW is a dead duck.

Max

TonyN (7803)

Josef Goebbels said “the truth is the biggest enemy”, so through his propaganda machine the truth was censored out [snipped?] and replaced with the big lie [comment?].

I went to Real Climate for the first time in ages yesterday, and for only the second time ever. It took only 2 minutes to see why I stopped the first time around. TonyN I was so desperate to post something but respect your wish that we leave Peter T to deal with it in his own way. The fact that we can read what was snipped will get back to those that frequent the site and in time if not already now Gavin will be left with just a dozen or so hardliners that will continue to massage is ego. At some point in the not too distant future Gavin will post an article and no one will reply. He will look around and suddenly realise that the world has moved on and he is caught in a time warp.

He is such a foolish person for censoring Peter T’s post. That action alone causes greater mistrust than fronting up and arguing a lost cause. I expect a load of obscure scientific argument that is hard to follow, this being part of the whole act of trying to make it sound so complicated that no one except themselves are qualified. But it is the sheer arrogance of Gavin Schmidt and the way he completely dismisses Peter T and his obvious deep knowledge and experience that I still find hard to comprehend.

The only parallel that I can recall in my lifetime were certain Politicians in the 92 UK General Election, who managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Gavin may feel a certain sense of Political protection as he is certainly not looking out for his own well being. He would do well to read the story of Bomber Harris, one of the UK’s greatest wartime generals, who did all the dirty work on behalf of his Political masters (from Churchill down) but was left alone holding the blame for the destruction wrought from the bombing. The only wartime leader not to get a peerage, and a black mark on Churchill, for trying to sidestep his responsibility. I’m not for a moment suggesting Gavin is in anyway great as was Arthur Harris, but the lesson is there when the political masters sense the public mood, and realise they are backing the wrong horse the support structure can disappear faster than a bolt of lightning no matter who you are or how great your achievement..

Max,

You are correct when you say “The world (with all its faults) is an infinitely better place today than it was 100 or 150 years ago.” Except that I’m not sure about ‘infinitely’. That’s a pretty big number!

Then you go on:

“To “roll back” all of that in order to destroy a virtual computer-generated hobgoblin called “anthropogenic global warming” would be self-destruction.”

You are presenting a false choice of just two alternatives here.

Can’t you think of any others? What if we just suppose, for a moment, that AGW does turn out to be correct. Can’t you think of any way to still maintain a progressive path for humanity and protect the environment at the same time?

Peter Martin

Your treatise on 19th century politics was interesting (#57 on the other thread), but I failed to see mention of the “robber barons” (Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gould, etc.) and their European counterparts.

These guys may well have been bastards, but they gave our grandparents and parents the industrial infrastructure that helped pull us out of poverty and give us the standard of living, which we enjoy today.

But the truth of the matter is that this all has very little to do with today’s situation, in particular the on-going debate on the scientific, political and economic issues surrounding AGW.

Here we have a group of scientists (the “consensus”), who get their grants from politicians (who use taxpayer money) in order to further the cause of AGW by lending scientific credibility to the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, with the objective of implementing draconian carbon taxes (direct and/or indirect as cap ‘n trade schemes) as sort of a “guilt tax”, to be paid by the very same taxpayers whose money they are using to finance the whole show.

The same politicians carry out (taxpayer funded) propaganda campaigns on TV and in the press to sell the AGW story (and the need for the tax) to the taxpaying public.

The media have jumped on this bandwagon with imminent disaster stories, pictures of drowning polar bears, etc. The craze has even given birth to a new genre of journalism, the “environmental journalist and editor”. These individuals screen the horizon for new scientific reports, which they can turn into scare stories. Scare mongering pays off: ratings and profits are up. And those who dare question the validity of the AGW premise are openly denigrated as “flat earthers”, “deniers”, etc.

AGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business in itself. As Peter Taylor has pointed out, we also have a collusion of diverse interest groups including corporate executives, money shufflers, hedge fund operators, environmental NGOs and lobby groups, all lining up to get a piece of the (taxpayer funded) action.

There are also some fuzzy headed politicians and bureaucrats who truly believe that we should go back to the simpler life of our grandparents or give away our wealth to some international body that will redistribute it to the underdeveloped world as sort of a “guilt tax” for being successful. And there are many AGW-believers (or “groupies”) for whom AGW represents an almost religious faith.

Then we have another group of scientists (the “skeptics”), who do not believe that the scientific support for the AGW premise is valid. Some of these have published (peer-reviewed) studies showing that human CO2 plays only a very small part in our planet’s climate. Others have stated their objections to the AGW premise openly and with petitions to their governments and the UN, etc. (and are beaten over the head by the “consensus” group for doing so). Some write books (like Ian Plimer and Peter Taylor) pointing out the flaws in the AGW premise.

And, finally, we have the taxpaying public, that was once a lukewarm supporter of the AGW premise, but is becoming increasingly skeptical as they read new books and reports raising questions on the supporting science and as they see that it has not been warming for a decade, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2.

This circus all has very little to do with the 19th century days of laissez-faire capitalism, which you mention, Peter.

The only correlation I might see is the collusion of the “mighty” (in today’s case the politicians, the media and the various industrial interest groups that stand to reap profits from the AGW movement) with the little guy left to pick up the tab. But that is simply human nature. The rich and powerful have always worked together to fleece the general public.

Only this time, Peter, you are curiously on the side of the rich and powerful.

Max

Peter M

You asked me (7808):

“Can’t you think of any way to still maintain a progressive path for humanity and protect the environment at the same time?”

Yes. I believe in “protecting the environment” and I would support any measures taken by industries as well as individuals to achieve this.

This includes elimination of waste, real pollution abatement (CO2 is not “pollution”), improving energy efficiency of automobiles and at the industrial and individual level, developing huge new petroleum resources (oil shale, Arctic) and doing so with maximum effort to minimize any harmful impact on the environment, developing cost-effective renewable energy sources that do not involve despoiling the landscape, etc.

There have been many suggestions for “no regrets” adaptation measures, whereby we could prepare ourselves for either a long-term resumption of the late 20th century warming or for several decades of continued 21st century cooling (as Peter Taylor foresees).

Implementing a direct or indirect carbon tax will achieve nothing, so this plan should be abandoned, as should the Hansen-supported plan of stopping the construction of all new coal-fired plants in 2010 and shutting down half of the existing ones by 2050, which will be very costly but have no discernable impact on atmospheric CO2 levels or global temperature.

Yes, Peter, I am all for “maintaining a progressive path for humanity and protecting the environment” (but this has nothing to do with AGW).

Max

Jasper Gee and Peter Geany

Back to Patrick 027 at RC.

In defending the ability of GCMs to simulate our climate even when there are unknowns, Patrick 027 wrote (my italics):

“The uncertainties come in with processes that cannot be explicitly resolved by the grid scale used, which itself cannot be arbitrarily small because of limited computing power. Such processes must be parameterized. But that is not a guessing game – the possible relationships can be constrained by other modelling excercises and by observations.”

Here there is a very good case in point.

The net cooling impact of clouds is generally known. Low altitude (water droplet) clouds reflect incoming solar radiation (climate forcing is estimated to be –48 W/m^2). High altitude (ice crystal) clouds allow incoming solar radiation to pass through, but absorb outgoing LW radiation (climate forcing is estimated to be +30 W/m^2). The net cooling forcing impact of clouds is –18 W/m^2, or over 4 times as high as the GH warming expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

Naturally caused changes in cloud cover are not considered by the GCMs cited by IPCC (see Peter Taylor’s book for more on this).

The CGMs consider the impact of clouds only as feedbacks to the warming caused by increases in anthropogenic GHGs. These are estimated to contribute +1.3°C to the 2xCO2 temperature impact (or climate sensitivity) of +3.2°C total.

But back to Patrick’s statement.

A recent study based on physical observations in the tropics (Spencer et al.), showed that clouds exhibit a strongly negative feedback with warming, of at least the same order of magnitude as the assumed positive feedback. These are the observations that should now be used to constrain the GCMs, as Patrick suggests.

Then there is the question of parameterization.

GCMs have not been able to do a good job of simulating the impact of clouds, due to the limited computing power mentioned by Patrick.

A study entitled: “Climate sensitivity and cloud response of a GCM with a
Superparameterization” touches on this problem.
ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu/pub/breth/papers/2006/SPGRL.pdf

“Cloud processes in conventional GCMs rely on parameterizations to represent motions smaller than the resolved grid scales and to calculate the fraction of the sky covered by cloud within each grid box.”

Using SP-CAM, we present the first global atmospheric climate sensitivity experiments in a GCM with superparameterization.

The world’s first superparameterization climate sensitivity results show strong negative cloud feedbacks driven by enhancement of boundary layer clouds in a warmer climate.

The CAM-SP shows strongly negative net cloud feedback in both the tropics and in the extratropics, resulting in a global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W m-2).

The global annual mean changes in shortwave cloud forcing (SWCF) and longwave cloud forcing (LWCF) and net cloud forcing for SP-CAM are -1.94 W m-2, 0.17 W m-2, and -1.77 W m-2, respectively.

IPCC AR4 chapter 8, has made no mention of this study or of superparameterization, although the study was published in March 2006, before the final deadline for the AR4 report.

ClimateAudit has gone into more detail in analyzing this study and its impact on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6234

But, again, these physical observations and model studies using superparameterization actually confirm Partick’s statement, at the same time showing that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative and, thus, that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is likely to be no higher than 1°C (rather than 3.2°C as assumed by the GCMs cited by IPCC).

Max

Hi All

I assume everyone here saw the PR stunt of the underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldieves on the MSM somewhere.
So far the MSM seem to be ignoring this

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OpenLetter.doc.pdf

This is the sort of thing that infuriates me so much about the AGW bandwagon. The president of the country apparently knows his sea levels aren’t rising but (i assume) jumps on the bandwagon anyway looking for a handout from a guilt ridden (or just plain stupid) western governments. And the media no longer give a monkies, as it slips off the narrative and would make them look like idiots for not having researched the story properly (or at all) in the first place.

rant over

James P 72

I think Lomberg’is a believer but is convinced we are dealing the wrong way with the problem of AGW. We can all readily see his point of view and it makes a lot of sense. However I don’t think he has bothered taking a critical look at the root cause of AGW and just accepts the whole hypothesis.

Peter Geany and James P

Lomborg is not a “climate scientist”, but an economist.

It would not be wise for him to enter the debate concerning the “science” supporting the AGW premise, as Peter Taylor has done, for example.

This is not Lomborg’s battlefield, so a priori he accepts the premise (a) that it is warming and (b) that human CO2 emissions are at least partly responsible as correct.

He is, however, well qualified to have an opinion on the economic alternates to the AGW “mitigation” proposals from the global economic cost/benefit standpoint, as compared to other spending proposals.

His conclusion is that even if AGW were real, which he does not dispute, there are other problems that have a higher cost/benefit ratio.

Others (like Peter Taylor or Ian Plimer) can fight the battle of questioning the “science” behind the AGW premise, but this is not Lomborg’s battlefield.

Makes sense to me.

Max

Jasper Gee and Peter Geany

Here is why blogging on RC is a total waste of time.

I sent Gavin the following response to his comments on my post to Patrick 027:

Gavin

Thanks for your comments to my post directed at Patrick 027.

Let me see if I can respond.

The reference to the Ramanathan and Inamdar study did indeed show that clouds have a net cooling effect on our climate.

You commented that this was an “apples to oranges” comparison.

There is no “apples to oranges” comparison made or intended here, Gavin, just stating what the study concluded, namely that clouds on average have a cooling impact on our climate.

To my statement that naturally caused changes in cloud cover are not considered by the GCMs cited by IPCC (see Peter Taylor’s book) you commented:

“Nonsense. Clouds change naturally in GCMs as well as changing due to aerosol indirect effects, or contrails, etc.”

Maybe I should have worded this “naturally caused changes in cloud cover are not considered to be very significant in the GCMs”.

To my mention of the Spencer et al. study, which concluded that clouds have a strong net negative feedback with warming you commented:

“A complete misreading of the study (though to be fair to you, this is how the author has described it outside of the literature). He looked however at the impact of a dynamical mode of variability (the ISO a.k.a the MJO) and looked at the effect it had on both SST and clouds. This is very certainly not the same as the impact of SSTs have on clouds despite what might be claimed.”

The study does conclude:

“Our measured sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature is -6.1 W m-2 K-1”.

This sounds like a strong negative feedback from clouds to me.

You did not comment directly to the superparameterization study, which also found that clouds have a strong net negative feedback.

When I quoted the IPCC AR4 Ch.8 figures for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with and without the model generated positive cloud feedback, (+1.9°C without; +3.2°C with, both being the mean values cited), and stated that replacing the +1.3°C impact of clouds with an equivalent strong negative value would result in a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of less than 1°C, you commented

“Wrong again. Even the model with close to zero cloud feedback has climate sensitivity much larger than this. Plus the constraints from paleo make it almost impossible that sensitivity could be this low.”

I was not talking about the IPCC “model with close to zero cloud feedback”, I was talking about replacing the model generated strong net positive feed for clouds with the (observed and modeled with superparameterization) strong net negative feedback.

Plain simple arithmetic tells me that putting in a negative cloud feedback would result in a 2xCO2 CS significantly below the 1.9°C, as estimated by the IPCC models with no cloud feedback.

Max

After censorship by Gavin, here is what got posted

Gavin

Thanks for your comments to my post directed at Patrick 027.

Let me see if I can respond.

The reference to the Ramanathan and Inamdar study did indeed show that clouds have a net cooling effect on our climate
.
You commented that this was an “apples to oranges” comparison.

There is no “apples to oranges” comparison made or intended here, Gavin, just stating what the study concluded, namely that clouds on average have a cooling impact on our climate.

[Response: Much as I’d love to have the time to point you to dictionary definitions of the word ‘comparison’ or school you in the difference between an absolute level and a change in that level, or point out (yet again) that you are indulging in strawman argumentation, I really don’t. So please go and play games somewhere else. - gavin]
[edit]

[End of discussion]

It is truly a waste of time to try to enter a discussion on AGW on this site.

Max

Jack Hughes

Thanks for your post 77 comparing AGW “science” with astrology (“bowmanthebard”) and “cargo-cult” science (your analogy).

The premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is based on a plausible but untested hypothesis.

Instead of following the scientific principle that the hypothesis must be tested by empirical data, we have the situation where the data are “massaged” (or ignored) in order to fit the hypothesis.

The “Moon is indeed in the seventh house”.

Max

PS This discussion may belong on the other thread according to TonyN, but it is pertinent in any case.

Peter Geany and Jasper Gee, Re; Max’s 7813 in part:

“…There is no doubt that Patrick 027 is knowledgeable and logical in his argumentation…”

I too once held this view but after continuing a debate started and closed at RC, over at Chris Colose’s website, I concluded otherwise:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-981

The volume of text produced by this guy was amazing and was sprinkled with heaps of impressive technical jargon, much of which was not relevant to the issues I raised. After a while it became clear to me that it was largely waffle. (and sometimes he seemed to have lost track of what both I and he had already written). I found it impossible to address all of the waffle and tried to keep it on track, but it became progressively irrelevant and illogical.

Interestingly, Chris C allowed some of my related posts that were deleted without comment at RC

Germany breaks record for ‘lowest ever October temperature’…

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091020-22693.html

Pete,

Your sycophantic hero worship of Schmidt is amusing.

Do you have a man crush on the guy?

Get a grip Pete……Schmidt is an environmentally fanatic……WEATHERMAN.

He just doesn’t have enough charisma to make it on the 5 o’clock news……

TonyN,

I did as you asked, and I sent an email to David Cameron to ask his opinion on the £6 million campaign with the suggestion that he should show some lead on this issue. I’m not sure it will do any good. If he’d wanted to say anything about it he would have done so already. To use a cricketing metaphor, I would suggest that he’s quite happy to let that ball go through to the keeper.

Your comment, on the other thread, that the UK Conservatives have use the AGW issue to “detoxify” their image was interesting if somewhat puzzling. If you are right, or from your point of view, how can it be good politics to suggest spending taxpayers’ money on a non-existent problem?

Brute,

I’ve asked this question before without ever getting a satisfactory answer but maybe you can do better.

How much would you say you understand of Gavin Schmidt’s work? I’d say not very much. S,o how is it that you “know” he’s wrong?

Previous retorts to this question have been along the line of “How do you know he’s right?”. I don’t know if a lot of scientific knowledge is right. For instance, I have only a very hazy understanding of Watson and Crick’s Nobel prize winning work on DNA. I, like many others, don’t know if they are right, but anyone would have to be real dickhead to start saying they weren’t without a good understanding of the Biochemistry involved.

Peter Martin

You wrote (7832):

“Your comments… illustrate your real motivation better than any of your particular scientific objections to the consensus position on AGW. You’ve decided that its not a good idea to “roll back” the progress that has been made, and therefore the consensus must be wrong.”

Sorry, Peter, you’ve got that backward.

Let me repeat to you how the logic flowed here.

I first heard about “global warming” several years ago. This was before it had become a craze. I did a bit of checking on the “science” behind the AGW premise and found that it was based upon an as yet unvalidated (in the scientific sense) but highly plausible greenhouse theory.

But then the avalanche of alarmist press releases started, from sources (such as Hadley, NASA, etc.) that had up until that time reported the facts without any hysterical undertones, as they are empowered to do by the governments that pay them.

So I began to apply the filter of rational skepticism to all the hype, and found much of it to be grossly exaggerated. In many cases, there was no scientific justification for the disastrous predictions for the future that were made.

I suppose that IPCC 2007 SPM was the final straw in turning me into a skeptic. Curiously, it was first published in February 2007, several months before the AR4 WG1 report, which provided its scientific backup.

I went through this report in some detail and found:
· areas where published scientific reports were ignored or not accepted,
· unfounded claims of severe weather events caused by AGW,
· discounting the importance of the UHI distortion of the surface temperature record,
· discounting the importance of the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity on our climate by counting only the impact of direct solar irradiance, despite the disclaimer that IPCC’s “level of scientific understanding” of solar climate forcing was “low”,
· changing of measurement method and scope on sea levels to show an artificial acceleration in late 20th century sea level rise which did not exist,
· untrue statement that the discrepancy between the surface and satellite records had been largely reconciled,
· cleverly worded comparisons of short-term and long-term temperature trends to show an apparent acceleration in late 20th century warming which did not exist,
· questionable statements about the 20th century being the warmest in 1,300 years based on dubious hockeysticks and their spaghetti copies but ignoring at least 20 reports from all over the world confirming a MWP that was warmer than the late 20th century,
· serious omissions of scientific work on alternate theories, in addition to
· alarming forecasts for the future that simply did not pass the test of reason.

Another thing that caught my eye, when comparing SPM 2007 with the earlier TAR report was the arrogant tone of the later report. It was truly a “sales pitch” directed at “policy makers”, who were not going to check into the details, anyway, but needed a hard pitch.

When the AR4 WG1 backup report came out several months later, I started digging into it as well. Instead of supporting the claims of SPM, I found several additional problems:
· the false claim that the troposphere had warmed more rapidly than the surface, thereby confirming the greenhouse fingerprint,
· the unsubstantiated rationalization that the mid-century cooling was caused by human aerosols rather than natural factors,
· a strange logic that AGW had to be a major cause for late 20th century warming because the GCMs could not explain it any other way (when the same GCMs were unable to explain the slightly higher early 20th century warming),
· model “storylines” and “scenarios” which had atmospheric CO2 growing exponentially at rates up to 5 times the current rate, to levels higher than possible even if all fossil fuels on the planet were consumed,
· exaggerated assumptions on “positive feedbacks”, most notably from clouds, where all models assumed these to be strongly positive based on extremely dicey model outputs rather than actual physical observations, despite conceding “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”
· despite the fact that the “Mann hockeystick” had been thoroughly discredited and was removed from the SPM as a “centerpiece” of evidence of unprecedented 20th century warming over the past 1,300 years, it again shows up in the WG1 AR4 report as a relevant paleoclimate study.

So after reading all this, I became convinced that there was something strangely unscientific going on here.

Only then did I really start to look more deeply into the political and economic aspects of the AGW movement.

I realized that it had become a multi-billion dollar big business and that it was being used to promote a program of direct and/or indirect taxation on carbon that would run into the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, with every man, woman and child picking up the costs and all sorts of people and organizations lining up to get a piece of the cake.

But the rational skepticism of the science supporting the “consensus” premise that AGW is a potentially serious problem, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, came first in my case, and your reasoning is dead wrong.

It would be just as silly as if I accused you of first wanting to tax the inhabitants of the wealthy nations of this world for redistribution to the poorer ones and then, later, accepting the science behind the “consensus” position because it supports you ideas on global wealth leveling. Get the point?

The science comes first, Peter.

Max

Brute and Peter M (7829/7830)

Regarding Gavin Schmidt, his type is probably best described in Peter Taylor’s book (pp.371/72):

A member of “a small cabal of computer specialists” who have “little real comprehension of ecology and in particular of past ecological environments” who are “fundamentally mathematicians and physicists, chemist and computer technicians and prone to all manner of ambitions to further their field of knowledge and make a play for saving the world from what they genuinely believed could be a future threat”.

His performance on RC shows that he is highly opinionated and does not allow any opinion to be expressed that conflicts with his own. He does this by either attempting to put down the other opinion with an often irrelevant but snotty comment full of double-talk or (if he is unable to do this) simply censoring it out with a “snip”.

If this is the kind of guy we rely on for unbiased and objective scientific opinion, heaven help us!

Max

On sea level rise this is pretty much the scientific position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

There doesn’t look to be any noticeable recent acceleration in sea level rise. If there is no acceleration, we can expect about another 200mm sea level rise this century.

However as many scientists have pointed out, and as economists have recently been reminded by world events, tipping points can and do occur. You can’t always predict the future by an extrapolation of a straight line!

Jack Hughes (7821)

Richard Black makes a reasonable case for his own lack of bias, but I hardly think that extends to the rest of the BBC. In fact, I seem to recall a comment a couple of years ago from some senior BBC person (doubtless irritated at the repeated accusations of bias over what was then called global warming) that they weren’t obliged to report opinions from dissenters on a subject that was so clearly already settled. Does anyone remember who and when?

Pete,

Regarding your childlike reverence to people such as Gavin Schmidt I found it coincidental that I found this passage today from a book that I’ve been reading chronicling the fall of the Berlin Wall. The book reviews the events that occurred in Europe of the period before, during and after the fall.

One of Nicolae Ceausescu’s replies to his interrogators reflected his posture. “I am the president of Romania and the Commander in Chief of the Romanian Army. I am the president of the people. I will not speak with you provocateurs any more, and I will not speak with the organizers of the putsch.”

As for Elena Ceausescu, she was no innocent bystander. She was a Politburo member and first deputy premier. At her trial, she occasionally piped up with remarks like “Such impudence! I am a member and the chairwoman of the Academy of Sciences. You cannot talk to me in such a way!”.

The remark from Elena Ceausescu is particularly telling in that she believed that she was somehow above reproach due to her membership in the Academy of Sciences. That somehow she had some “Messianic insight” that was unfathomable to the common man. That her decisions and conclusions, no matter how destructive and oppressive, were justified due to her station in life.

Reading through Gavin Schmidt’s comments and submittals I see the same arrogance……that somehow his thought process is sacrosanct and anyone that dares question his views is beneath contempt, (or comment)……not worthy of his precious time. Further, his arrogance and self aggrandizement are fueled by people such as yourself, people that stroke and inflate his ego to the point that both you and he feel that he has achieved some god-like, mythical, unapproachable status………

Your opinion of Gavin Schmidt’s persona as well as his self-opinion is dangerous.

Poll: Americans’ belief in global warming cools

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/poll-americans-belief-in-169483.html

TonyB,

I think you’ve got hole of the wrong end of the stick as regards the Uni of Colorado’s sea level measurements.

What they are saying is:

3.2mm +/-0.4mm /yr

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Not 0.4 +/-150mm . I don’t know where you’ve got that from.

PeterM and TonyB

Here are some data from the Holgate report I cited earlier:

The period measured by Proudman was 1904 to 2003.

The total period showed an average rise of +1.74±0.16 mm/year or 15.8-19.0 cm over the century.

The first half (1904-1953) showed an average rise of +2.03±0.35 mm/year.

The second half (1954-2003) showed an average rise of +1.45±0.34 mm/year (29% lower than the first half).

The decade with the highest annual rate was the period 1975-1984, with an average rate of +5.31 mm/year.

The decade with the lowest annual rate was the period 1960-1969, with an average rate of –1.49 mm/year.

From this we can conclude that longer-term trends (such as 50 or, even better, 100 years) may be meaningful, provided consistent measurement methods are used throughout, but shorter term (i.e. 10 year) periods are totally meaningless, since the multi-decadal fluctuations far outweigh the trend.

Yet another reason why the IPCC claim of “faster rate of sea level rise” based on a 10-year sample is meaningless.

Of course, as pointed out earlier, what makes the IPCC claim fraudulent is that it is based on comparing “apples” with “oranges” by changing the scope and method of measurement.

But I agree with TonyB. We have beaten this dog to death (unless you have something constructive you would like to add).

If not, let’s move on to the validity of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly”, being used to sell us on the validity of the AGW premise,

Max

Peter #7851

I will not forget Wikipedia. Their much viewed graph cuts of at 2003. The last 6 years contradict their claim. The claim by William Connelley-an associate of Real Climate-is based on a series of assumptions which Max detailed chapter and verse in ~7845, together with a graph showing overall trend.

It is nothing to do with science and everything to do with a manipulation of statistics.

As for satellites, this has been given to you before but you just don’t read anything that conflicts with your view. Here is

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf

Go to page 431 section 5.A.4 ‘estimation of sea level rise’. This is an imprecise science whose margins of error are very large
This has been studied numerous times.

Both the following sites give a good description of the satellite process-which is being constantly refined but doesn’t get more accurate as the inherent flaws in measuring capabilities can’t be resolved.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_jacobs_et_al.pdf
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/dec/abs1635.html

The following sites deals with problems of satellite accuracy and data;
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859

This with reliability;
http://lightblueline.org/satellite-tracking-sea-levels-set-launch

For local information it is preferable to use long standing reliable tide gauges. Best of all is gathering information from local people such as the Harbour master or those who work the fishing boats and who know what is really happening.

Modern Sea level rises- where happening- are not being seen in context as another of those regular cycles that stretch back much further than the satellite records into the depths of recorded time.

tonyb

PeterM

Looks like the latest post from TonyB and mine crossed.

I see he has provided the link to the 2009 Ablain et al. study that points to a current rate of sea level rise of around 1 mm/year based on a “new error budget assessment of the global Mean Sea Level (MSL) determined by TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 altimeter satellites between January 1993 and June 2008”.

Max

I sent this privately to several of those here. It concerns the politics of climate change. It has been suggested I post it also as it is highly relevant to the Advert debate.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments

I was asked if all parties would continue to support the AGW hypothesis after the election.

We all know about Labour, John Prescott visited Al Gore in 1997
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo971205/text/71205w11.htm

David Cameron and 80 Tory Mps met Al Gore in the UK in 2007 and were enthusiastic supporters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545133/Cameron-recruits-green-warrior-Gore.html#

Debate on Climate-this week-House of Commons-much enthusiasm by the Lib-Dems.

On the surface the support will continue. Cameron seems to have back-pedalled a little. Peter Lilley might be having an influence there.

If the treaty gets signed I think it would take a glacier at the door of the House of Commons for any party to renege on it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091021/debtext/91021-0021.htm

Tonyb

[TonyN: See here. Sorry about that]

Max

This is an effective confirmation of the 1984 approach of the UK govt regarding the politics of climate change that I outlined in my #7856. Press ‘count me out’ and see what happens.

Truly sinister

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

Tonyb

Max,

Its curious that you feel that the “mighty” are these days “the politicians, the media and the various industrial interest groups that stand to reap profits from the AGW movement”.

True, there are sections of the US and world ruling classes who do understand the science of AGW and the urgent need to tackle the problem. So, yes the scientific world does have some mighty allies in that respect. Maybe its just my own politics, but I have always considered industrial capitalism should be considered differently from financial capitalism. The former generally plays a progressive role in our society. Financial capitalism could play a progressive role if it limited itself to supporting the industrial sector but instead it has taken on a life of its own with far too much emphasis on acquiring short term speculative gains in Real Estate, and the stock and bond markets. The financial sector are certainly nervous about the implications of accepting the scientific case on AGW as you can read nearly every day in the Wall Street Journal. They may be wounded but they have the money and can well be described as ‘mighty’.

It’s not correct, in any case, to assess the veracity and correctness of the scientific case by looking at who does and doesn’t support it but nevertheless it does shed some light on the politics of it all.

You obviously don’t like governments per se. Even democratically elected ones. Or maybe I should say especially democratically elected ones. Democracy is far from perfect but at least your “little guy” has an equal vote to the richest and most powerful in any democratic society.

That doesn’t worry the rich and powerful too much though. They know that their power isn’t proportionate to the number of votes they personally cast. Americans have a good democratic system. In fact they have the best democracy that money can buy. I’m told that there are 3 or 4 paid lobbyists for every elected Congressman in the US. If you want to know what the rich and powerful want in the US just take a look at the activities of their lobbyists. And are they lobbying for Governments to listen more carefully to scientific advice? I don’t think so.

Lobbyists you say Pete?

Here’s a good one……The “environmentally concerned”,” holier than thou” Democrats in the US Congress draft a cap and trade, global warming bill that exempts their buddies that just happen to be building a…………COAL FIRED POWER PLANT.

I’m certain that this “situation” was simply an “oversight”.

EXCLUSIVE: Lobbyists help Dems draft climate change bill

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/04/green-lobby-guides-democrats-on-climate-bill/?page=3

If you cannot access the link I provided at 7863, the text is here.

I fear Clive James may be jeopardising his position at the BBC.

Clive James is succinct and to the point.

“A conjecture can be dressed up as a dead certainty with enough rhetoric and protected against dissent with enough threatening language, but finally it has to meet the only test of science, which is that any theory must fit the facts, and the facts can’t be altered to suit the theory.”

The (once) highly-respected Science Museum in London is running an exhibition with the interesting and provocative title “PROVE IT!” The website is here. It claims to set out the evidence that “climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action”. Click on “evidence” (described as “all the evidence” and you’re told that:

Human greenhouse gas emissions are upsetting the natural balance of the greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap in more heat than can escape. This causes the planet to warm up.

And:

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.

Visitors are invited to vote for “Count me in” or “Count me out”. (In either case, you’re then asked to provide name (presumably it can be fictional if you’re shy) and email address.) There’s also a link (bottom RH corner of webpage) where, “If you’re not convinced by the evidence”, you can “tell us what you think”.

Apparently, it is being claimed that there are more people requesting that they be counted in than counted out - implying that that reflects public opinion. I have asked to be counted out and urge others to do likewise. Also, I have, under “Tell us what you think” commented as follows:

The hypothesis that mankind’s continuing to emit CO2 will cause dangerous climate change has not been verified, as required by the scientific method, by empirical (real world as opposed to theoretical) evidence - evidence that can be confirmed and repeated by independent research. No such evidence is found on this website - nor (and more seriously) can it be found in the most recent IPCC report. Therefore, it remains no more than an interesting hypothesis. It is most unwise to propose huge changes to the global economy (damaging, for example, to some of the world’s poorest people) on the basis of an unverified hypothesis.

[TonyN: the following link adds some useful context to RObin’s excellent comment:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece ]

Re my 7868, I missed something important. At the top RH corner of the website is a counter. It now stands at (wait for it) 368 “in” and 1945 “out”. As Anthony Watts says, this is “Another online poll that might go horribly wrong”. Let’s hope so - go for it everyone.

Sorry, TonyB, I missed that. BTW the count now stands at 391 “in” and 2058 “out”.

Robin,

I voted “out” and used my E-mail address.

If I get a visit from a member of the British equivalent of the Ministerium für Staatssicherhei, it’ll be your fault!

The “out” votes were 2114 (vs. 365 “in”). I’m certain that this scientific “poll”, will be tossed into the dustbin of the scientific museum as are datasets that do not support the Anthropogenic Global Warming agenda.

We have a lot to be sceptical about, and if you read through the material you have been given on a plate concerning sea levels, perhaps you might start to realise the IPCC case is by no means solid-should you want to make that leap of faith-which I suspect you don’t.

Because Pete unquestionably adheres to, and ideologically supports, the proposed political “solutions” to the AGW fraud.

Doing otherwise would violate his political worldview.

Robin:

I’ve taken the liberty of adding this link to your Science Museum comment #7868

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece

It provides some very interesting context to what this museum is doing, and a parallel with the TV adverts seems inescapable.

I’m particularly angry about this as, when I was a child, the greatest treat that I could imagine (other than seeing Brian Rix at the Whithall Theatre) was a trip to the Science Museum. I don’t suppose that it is very different for many children now. Just how cynical and unprincipled can people like the Milibands and Chris Rapley get? And how long will the general public put up with such manipulation before there is a terrible backlash?

Robin,

I wouldn’t worry too much about Mrs. Brute. Although she is a petite woman and weighs probably 110 pounds soaking wet, she is fully capable of handling any situation. Thank God for the second amendment and woe to anyone that seeks to do her harm as she has been fully trained with her Glock 23………capable to handle any scenario.

According to The Times, Obama isn’t going to Copenhagen.

The link I gave at 7882 seems to be incorrect. Here it is again.

Geoff: yes, I suppose it’s more serious (political control of the “Science” Museum than the ad). But not “a million times”. Scaring people (and especially children) with false information on prime time TV is pretty bad also. What has our country come to?

Tonyb,

Just curious……How much Carbon Dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere in order to charter a ship and barge to the Arctic, load an island onto the barge and then parade the ship, island and barge around the UK?

Come to think of it, how much carbon dioxide can be attributed to the 2012 Olympics?

Seems to me a frivolous waste of energy…….emitting all of that excess carbon dioxide to watch and participate in “games”.

I’ll bet that the emission will be “offset” by donating money to Al Gore’s bank account in the name of “awareness”.

Robin:

I think that this thumb-nail sketch of Chris Rapley makes what his is doing easier to understand, but even less easy to excuse.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=209274

It may also explain how he slithered into his present appointment?

Tonyb,

Really…..is this a joke?

The Foreign Secretary’s attitude and choice of words speak volumes (Times Online article, linked to in #7868.) Accusing the public of lacking a sense of urgency, he is basically saying that the public are dangerously out of touch with the government. Does he not realise how that comes across? It reminds me a little of the old newspaper headline: “Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off”. Truly these people are getting desperate.

David Miliband is castigating the British public for being off-message, when even Labour MPs mostly voted against against joining the pathetic 10:10 campaign, recently; see this entry on LabourList for some spin (and interesting comments) on that subject.

The “nowhereisland” stupidity makes me very angry. “Huge numbers of people will be able to get involved with the island and the ideas behind it. nowhereisland will provoke thought, create excitement and will help us to fulfil our ambition to make great art available for everyone.” And from the Arts Council England: “Between 2008 and 2011, we will invest £1.3 billion of public money from government and a further £0.3 billion from the National Lottery to create these experiences for as many people as possible across the country. www.artscouncil.org.uk“.

I’m generally a mild-mannered person, but when I read things like that, I start to have some less than peaceful impulses. Brute, I’m almost tempted to ask to borrow your wife’s very efficient-looking handgun (perhaps it could be FedExed over?) so I could venture forth to create some impromptu “art” of my own at the Arts Council. Well, on second thoughts maybe not; I suppose a stern e-mail will have to do.

As I think Max has pointed out in earlier posts, there is a strange and horrible circularity to the way government-sanctioned climate change protest works. We work hard, we pay taxes, the government uses our taxes to encourage Greenpeace lobbyists and fund expensive idiocies such as Bedtime Stories and “nowhereisland” in order to mould our way of thinking - the aim being that we then encourage the government to pour even more of our dwindling tax money down the “tackling climate change” drain, and keep the cycle rolling.

The only flaw is that the wider public - and the climate itself - appear to be no longer co-operating.

Brute,

It always worth going back to the original text. This is the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So its good to know that your wife is part of a “well regulated Militia”.

It also worth remembering that this was drafted in 1791 , just two years after the outbreak of the French revolution. The concept of an armed ‘well regulated militia’ outside the control of the ruling classes was certainly both radical and revolutionary. The UK at the time was ruled by the Tory aristocracy who would certainly have ruthlessly suppressed any attempt to set up similar militias there.

I thought you might have accused me of anti Americanism when I suggested that your democratic system was corrupted by, and in the pockets of, big business. Instead you agreed with me. Even on climate questions too? So maybe there is some common ground after all.

Brute,

You don’t seem to like the second amendment as it was actually written. You’ve ceated your own sub-amendment with the word “free” added and left out the part about “regulated militia”. You don’t seem quite so keen on that bit. I guess square bashing at 5am and 10km runs aren’t quite your thing?

TonyN: the thumbnail note on Chris Rapley at 7888 goes some way to explain the sad failure of the once excellent Science Museum to deal properly with “climate change” - turning itself instead into a propaganda tool of Government. Thanks.

BTW the “in”/”out”count now stands at 468/3133. Most unfortunately, it turns out to be worthless. All simple online yes/no online polls are fairly useless but it’s been pointed out on the WUWT thread that this one is especially so as it’s easy to post multiple votes - i.e. to cheat. That’s great pity as it gives the Government a good excuse to ignore it. Either the Science Museum was absurdly careless in setting it up (which doesn’t say much for its competence) or it’s all a cunning plan: we know the vote will go against us, so let’s design it so that we can discredit it.

The Sunday Telegraph has an article on that Science Museum poll. Its sub-headline describes it as having “backfired after being hijacked by sceptics”. Pity about the “hijacked” - but I suppose it may be (partly) true: see my 7898. The ST reports that the results are due to be published in December.

More important (given the inadequacy of the poll): I wonder if they will also publish the comments?

Geoff: I believe you’re wrong to suggest (7901) that we should be fearful about “the names of sceptics being collected for future use”. On the contrary, I suggest there is everything to be gained from speaking out under your real name. As I said on WUWT this morning, I appreciate that - say for professional reasons - some commentators may require anonymity. But I believe that most probably don’t and therefore should have the courage to stand up and use their real names. Strong, challenging and coherent comments that can be traced to their source are IMHO far more convincing that those delivered from behind a cloak of anonymity. Come on, Geoff, what is there to fear? There are a lot of us who understand the issues (see the online comments on almost any MSM climate change article) and the sooner our masters understand that, so much the better.

Robin, I agree absolutely about the need for openness. I don’t really live in fear of a knock on the door. I just thought it worth pointing out that the director of the Science Museum (described as “eye-poppingly vehement” by the interviewer), apparently approves of Nuremberg-style trials for people who disagree with him. (Imagine the fuss if Nick Griffin had expressed such an opinion!) And that I therefore find it wholly believable that the museum would keep a list of no-voters. Monbiot clearly keeps close tabs on sceptical commentators to his Guardian articles.
There is also the strange coincidence of the phrase use by the journalist back in 2007 “anyone who was not in was out” and the labelling of the voting forms on the Museum poll “count me in / count me out” - which suggest that the museum director was closely involved in the preparation of the poll.
There is an interesting contradiction between the Times article and the Times Higher Education interview. From the latter, it is clear that Rapley is a militant campaigner for AGW, yet in the former he claims that there was no plan to mount an exhibition on climate change until 2011. Would that have been to coincide with the next IPCC report? Was it brought forward because of the danger of the imminent collapse of public support when Copenhagen proves a failure? Mounting such an exhibition in two months and getting two government ministers to open it must have taken some organising. Oh for a Deep Throat to reveal how these things go on.

ps to Tony N at #7887: What did you mean: “They could have good reason to be very scared, and not just about climate change”?

From the Science Museum website. Clearly they want to have their cake and eat it…

The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.

Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.

So is it warming or cooling? I’m confused.. :-)

Brute,

I’m just reading the second amendment as it is written. I can well imagine that the exact meaning has been tested several times in the US Courts. What is a “militia”? Is this any group of people or does it have to be sanctioned by the State. Can an individual not connected with militia claim the same rights under the amendment? If so why does the amendment mention a miltia? What does “well regulated” mean? Who does the regulation.

Does “bear arms” mean “own arms”? Is the right collective or individual? How do the words “free state” relate to the amendment itself? Maybe you’d like to tell us.

Notwithstanding, the 5-4 majority verdict which you quote, its quite apparent, at least to me, that what the authors of the 2nd amendment had in mind, in 1791, was quite different from the interpretation which the US extreme right wish to put on it now. Its just a pity that they didn’t think it necessary to make their meaning absolutely clear at the time.

Peter M

Yes, the direct referendum in Switzerland does give everyone an equal chance to vote on issues.

More often than not recently, these referendum votes have resulted in another choice than the one promoted by the federal government.

This choice has usually been a bit more conservative than the proposal by the government, pointing out that the Swiss are, in general, a conservative bunch.

Recently there was no referendum taken on the government proposal to introduce a (fairly small) CO2 tax, which is supposed to get “redistributed back to the people”. The timing was right for the government; there was not enough opposition to put together a referendum initiative.

Public opinion has shifted a bit in the meantime (as it appears to have done elsewhere) and it is doubtful that it would pass referendum today.

The referendum system is far from perfect, but it seems to work here, keeping in mind that Switzerland, with under 8 million inhabitants, is small enough to have such a system.

I believe that California in the USA has a similar referendum possibility for major issues. But California is already much larger than Switzerland, and the whole USA is infinitely larger, so it would be very hard to have a direct referendum on every major issue there.

In the USA it is pretty clear (if the polls are anywhere near correct) that cap ‘n trade would fail in a general referendum, but passed in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and may even squeak by in the Senate.

This would seem to be a case where the “little guy” on the street would vote one way, while his elected representatives vote in another way.

One of the basic problems in a non-direct system is that often there are strong lobby groups that influence the representatives. And the government is often out-of-touch with the public, with a “we know what’s best for you” mentality.

Another problem is that the government has many ways to push something through, even if the people have voted against it. A case in point is the recent “gay marriage” proposal, which was turned down by the California voters in referendum, but is now being challenged in the courts as “unconstitutional”.

No system is perfect. But democracy beats the other systems, as I’m sure Brute, as an American (from the second oldest living democracy in the world) would agree.

To your suggestion:

Climate change legislation too. Make it a level playing field and set up rules for equal access to TV and other media so that the rich and powerful can’t dominate the argument by their crude financial muscle.

I would agree, and would include the government politicians, the environmental lobby groups and all the many industries hoping to profit from climate change legislation under the “rich and powerful”.

Max

Max,

One technical addendum to your post # 7910.

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy, (mob rule).

I would urge participants to watch this video.

It’s long (10 minutes) but worth it to understand how American government is supposed to work.

What is America’s true form of government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

This link illustrates weather pattern changes thousands of years ago in (what is now) the Western Sahara Desert……(much wetter than now)………and my gasoline hog sports car was just a pile of dust then.

Ancient Life in the Western Sahara Desert

http://archaeology.about.com/od/africa/ss/gobero.htm

Interesting link from Stanford………

Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient World

http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary.html

Pete,

I‘m afraid that the modern day “changes” in weather……I mean, “climate” pales in comparison to the archeological/geological record.

You ask “In any event, what do you care? You live on the other side of the planet.”

Do you really need me to point out that US policies on climate change have effects which don’t end and begin at the country’s borders?

Generally speaking I’ve no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the USA. Except that it is a bit galling, for the rest of us in the world, to be continually lectured on the benefits of democracy by the leaders of a country whose own ‘democracy’ is so much based on the financial power of the participants.

Brute

Thanks for interesting video clip on US government.

In that sense, I suppose tiny Switzerland is also a constitutional republic rather than a democracy as described in the video, whereas the old (East) German Democratic Republic was neither democratic nor a republic despite its name.

Max

tempterrain #7916
I’m British, but live in Europe, so I won’t be standing. Where are you? You’re not American, apparently, but you talk of “Labor”.
The identity of the candidates would matter little, since they won’t win. The idea would be to create a party, ie a group of people willing to put up the deposits, and the minimum number of candidates necessary for tv exposure.
It is not at all certain that a Climate Sense candidate would split the right wing vote. Working class Labour voters have the most to lose from high fuel taxes.
Ideal constituencies would be those with MPs with high profile Green opinions, or whose credibility has been dented by the expenses scandal. A 5-10% vote would suffice to save deposits and gain publicity, without changing the overall result. The point is to say to all parties that they cannot ignore the sceptic vote, and that their mindless espousal of a corrupt “scientific” “consensus” will be punished at the ballot box. That’s democracy.

For what it’s worth (zilch - see my 7898), the “Science” Museum’s poll has changed dramatically overnight. From around 500 “in” to 4000 “out”, there has been a massive surge in the “ins” and it now stands at 3881 to 4587. So in the middle of the night it seems that over 3,000 people decided suddenly decided that they the supported the Government’s programme. More realistically, as someone monitoring this said (see WUWT), “someone has obviously got a script going. The “in” votes are going up at the rate of about 1 every 10-15 seconds. Either that or they have some trained monkeys”.

It’s completely ridiculous. If it’s stopped (as it should be), no doubt the Museum will blame “deniers” for widespread cheating.

Brute,

You write ‘Maybe posing as a Swiss national to throw Peter off the scent?’

and

“The time stamp gave you away…”

I’ve often thought the same myself. You on my side now?

But maybe Max is a night shift worker and there is no boss around to check on what he gets up to?

I once did get offered a job in the USA but I’ve never felt very much at home there and working visits have been quite enough. I’ve also worked in England and Scotland and that was good. The Scots and I seem to share a healthy dislike of the English Tories and I felt very much at home there. Americans have always been very nice to me personally but, at least the ones I’ve met, wouldn’t have liked what my Scottish friends and I had to say about Mrs T.

GeoffC,

Australian spellings are pretty much the same as English ones but there are a few exceptions, like ‘Labor’ and sometimes ‘color’. We can’t make up our minds on that one. I try to adjust my spellings to suit but I sometimes forget. Sorry about that.

Pete,

I’ve often thought the same myself. You on my side now?

I was being sardonic……I think Max realizes that.

I once did get offered a job in the USA but I’ve never felt very much at home there and working visits have been quite enough. I’ve also worked in England and Scotland and that was good. The Scots and I seem to share a healthy dislike of the English Tories and I felt very much at home there.

Well Pete, as they say, “misery loves company”.

I just find it rather selfish to foist your Socialist world view on non-socialists in an attempt to make everyone equally unhappy.

Envy is an evil emotion……..

You should endeavor to elevate within the confines of your own country as opposed to advocating government oppression elsewhere in an attempt to force everyone into the same mindless drudgery that you’re experiencing.

I have sent a complaint to the Science Museum’s feedback address. Does anyone have Professor Rapley’s?

Brute (7921)

You are right. Have been in sunny California for two days now (SF Bay area). The snow line had moved dangerously close in Switzerland (global warming, no doubt), and I don’t do shovel work any more.

Max

TonyB (7923)

Peter may have some other info on this, but here are some thoughts on the UHI distortion to the Hadley (HadCRUT) and GISS (NCDC) surface temperature records (links to references posted separately).

The “Ill considered – How to talk to a climate skeptic” catechism puts it this way:

“Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly and simply found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What’s more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data.”

The site refers to a NCDC paper by Thomas Peterson covering the USA.
[See reference 1]

“All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.”

This study, made by NCDC to show that “there is no significant distortion to the NCDC surface record resulting from the UHI effect” showed (surprise!) that “there is no significant distortion to the NCDC surface record resulting from the UHI effect”.

This brings to mind the famous quotation from Mandy Rice-Davies, “they WOULD say that, wouldn’t they?”

There have been many studies from all over the world that show that the UHI effect is real, it is significant and it is global. These are ignored by IPCC (SPM 2007, p.5):

“Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values (3.2).”

A set of “calm night/windy night studies” by Parker et al. are cited by IPCC (AR4 WG1, Ch. 3, p.244) to demonstrate that there is no significant UHI effect. These have since been debunked (Pielke).

A major problem with the surface temperature record is that surface weather stations have historically been placed where people live (and, hence, want to know what the temperature is). These locations have grown exponentially with increased world population and urban plus economic development, with buildings, concrete and asphalt surfaces, automotive traffic, air conditioners in summer and building heating in winter, etc. All of these factors are listed by NOAA in its U.S. Climate Reference Network classification as contributors to readings that are between 1 and 5°C higher than the actual temperature away from these sources. They have contributed to the UHI distortion, which is not noted in the satellite record, since it covers the troposphere all over the globe, but away from these sources of error. For a good summary on how the UHI effect works, which points to errors in the Peterson assumptions (see above) see:
[See reference 2]

There is another major factor contributing to a significant UHI distortion. Around two-thirds of the weather stations, mostly in remote and rural locations in northern latitudes and many in the former Soviet Union, were shut down between 1975 and 1995, with over 60% of these shut down in the 4-year period 1990-1993. This coincides exactly with a sharp increase in the calculated global mean temperature (particularly in the Northern Hemisphere), giving additional credence for a significant UHI distortion of the surface temperature record. There is good reason to believe that, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, these remote Siberian locations systematically reported lower than actual temperatures, in order to qualify for added subsidies from the central government, which were tied to low temperatures, so as this distorted record was removed, it resulted in a spurious warming trend. For a graph showing this correlation see:
[See references 3 and 4]

Finally, meteorologist Anthony Watts has examined two-thirds of the 1,221 weather stations making up the U.S. Historical Climatology Network and published the results. Of those examined, more than half fall of those examined short of federal guidelines for optimum placement. Some examples include weather stations placed near sewage treatment plants, parking lots, and near cars, buildings and air-conditioners - all artificial heat sources which cause spurious higher temperature readings, providing physical confirmation of a root cause for a significant UHI effect on the record.

Watts gives the example with photographs of two fairly closely located weather stations, both located north of Sacramento. CA: one (Orland, CA) is properly positioned in a grassy area with trees around, while the other (nearby Marysville, CA) is located near an asphalt parking lot with buildings and airconditioning units nearby. A comparison of the official NASA GISS temperature records of the two stations over the period 1981-2005 shows that the improperly sited station shows a spurious increase in temperature of around 0.2 deg C per decade higher than the well-positioned station, again confirming a significant UHI distortion.
[See references 5, 6 and 7]

The data are out there on UHI, showing that it has indeed caused a significant upward distortion of the surface temperature record, particularly in the latter part of the 20th century.

Unfortunately, these data are ignored or rejected by IPCC, NCDC (GISS) and Hadley.

Max

Reference 2
How UHI works (IceCap)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf

References 5 and 6
Siting distortion, two nearby cities (Watts)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725910040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745000030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

TonyB and PeterM

From its beginning in 1979 the satellite tropospheric temperature record (UAH) shows a linear warming trend of 0.126°C per decade.

Over the same period the surface temperature record (HadCRUT) shows a linear warming trend of 0.150°C per decade.

Yet IPCC informs us that the theory tells us that greenhouse warming should be at a higher rate in the troposphere than at the surface.

IPCC also tells us that the discrepancy between surface and lower- and mid-tropospheric records have largely been reconciled.

IPCC also tells us that the UHI distortion to the surface record is “real but local” and only accounts for less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans.

This tells me that we either

a) have a UHI distortion of the surface record of more than 0.024°C per decade, or
b) are not seeing greenhouse warming, but something else

The other conclusion would be that the satellite record has a major distortion, but there have been no studies showing this, since the initial orbital drift corrections were made to the record several years ago.

What could be the cause for this unreconciled discrepancy?

Do either of you have an idea?

Max

Robin,

I previously pointed out the link between people like Ian Plimer and the IPA (Institute of Public (sic) Affairs).

Bob Carter is just another of their hirelings:

Scientific sceptics are turning up the heat | Institute of Public …
4 Jul 2009 … hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth all came out … Become a member of IPA today …
www.ipa.org.au/…/scientific-sceptics-are-turning-up-the-heat - Cached - Similar -

There are lots more like them in Australia.

And who are the IPA?

They are a right wing think tank funded, amongst others by, BHP-Billiton, Western Mining Corporation, Rio Tinto Zinc, Monsanto, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon), Shell, Woodside Petroleum, Gunns Timber

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

Oh no, Peter, after all this time, you still haven’t learned. Re Bob Carter, deal with what he says - show where he’s wrong (if you can) - but please don’t moan about who he is and who you say his associates may be. We’ve told you over and over again: ad hominem attack is a pathetic argument that has nothing to do with science.

Robin,

I thought that, even though you admitted you were weak on science, you claimed some level of expertise with the English , and maybe the Latin?, languages. An example of an ad-hominem attack on Bob Carter would be to say that he has sweaty armpits and therefore he is wrong about climate change. It’s a logical fallacy of course. It is not a logical fallacy, nor is an an ad-hominem attack, to say that because he is in the pay of mining interests who are much more concerned about their profitability than the environment, that what he says is scientifically unreliable.

I must say that I’m never sure if scientists of his ilk know they are talking nonsense or if somehow they have managed to convince themselves otherwise. They are not unintelligent people. In Ian Plimers case, his book ‘Heaven and Earth’ may turn out to be a parody, a complete piss-take to use a cruder term, of the all the denialist arguments that we’ve come to know and love in recent years. It even caused some mutterings from contributors to this blog about corrections being needed. We may have to wait for his death bed confession to know the real truth.

Bob Carter does, I have to admit, sound more genuine. I’m not sure that this shows anything though. I’m told by those who are more informed than I on these matters, that if you pay a few hundred dollars, much less that Bob Carter would receive from the IPA, to certain quite attractive young ladies around town, that they shortly afterwards produce moans of pleasure which sound very genuine too!

PeterM

Just saw that your 7944 and my 7945 on the same topic crossed.

You wrote:

It is not a logical fallacy, nor is an an ad-hominem attack, to say that because he is in the pay of mining interests who are much more concerned about their profitability than the environment, that what he says is scientifically unreliable.

Yes, Peter, it is both a logical fallacy and an ad hominem attack.

First of all, you do not have any facts concerning the “pay” Carter receives from “mining interests”, so you are really just talking through your hat (to put it politely). You also have brought no facts about the environmental concerns of the mining group(s), which he represents, but just made another unsubstantiated blanket statement (talking through your hat, again),

But aside from your unsubstantiated allegations, your logical fallacy lies in the fact that Carter can have a scientifically reliable opinion on AGW, even if he is an advisor to a mining group, just as Phil Jones can have a scientifically reliable opinion on AGW, even if he is in the pay of a group that benefits directly from the AGW movement.

Are you able to see this or is it too complex for you?

Max

All you have to do, Peter, is read Carter’s short article and tell us why you consider it to be wrong. All your wriggling about his being “recruited by the large mining interests of Australia to fool the gullible”, whether true or not, has no bearing on that and suggests that you are trying to avoid a simple request.

Re: 7949

Another example is Al Gore who has managed to amass 100 million dollars in net wealth since leaving his government post through his involvement in promoting global warming and financial interests in Generation Investment Management which brokers climate indulgences…………and his traveling climate change show which nets him “obscene” profits from huckstering his global warming doomsday myths.

I suppose the views of the IPCC should be invalidated as their paychecks are a direct result of promoting the global warming scenarios………conflict of interest you know. If they didn’t continue “research”, their funding would dry up.

Joe Romm is in the employ of George Soros who benefits financially from propagating global warming hysteria.

Shall we list all of the universities that benefit financially from global warming “research”?

How about all of the special interests environmental organizations, (Greenpeace/WWF) that collect billions of dollars each year from rubes that believe in the nonsense that they peddle……How about environmental lobbying firms that get rich from the continuing global warming hysteria? Do they have a financial dog in the fight?

By the way Pete, I thought the science was “settled”?

Why continue funding for further “research” if the conclusion has already been reached?

Global Warming is a hustle………you know it as well as we do.

Sanctimony is another unattractive character trait Pete.