THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This relates directly to the item I posted re Bob Morrisey who made a career in the 20’s and 30’s ferrying people and film crews to the rapidly melting arctic, where a passenger recorded in her diary about a piece of glacier a mile wide crashing into the ocean.
Just substitute the dates and it sounds familiar doesnt it?
http://www.arctic-warming.com/how-was-the-warming-discussed-in-the-1930s.php
TonyB
Peter
Thank you for the graph, but thats the projection based on GS Callendars rather sloppy 1938 work on Co2 levels through the ages,which a rather credulous (but he was young and just out of University) Keeling believed in 1955. The real readings from thousands of measurements by real scientists doesnt support those levels at all.
Mind you its not surprising Callendar couldn’t get it right as after all he was only an amateur meterologist-he should have left it to the real scientists as you’re always telling us to do.
TonyB
TonyB,
The graph uses figures from Keeling and the 280ppmv pre-industrial level. I just used the function in Excel to fill in the missing data.
This agrees with the graphs from the Antarctic ice cores too which show a smooth upward trend in CO2 levels in the last 200 years. I wasn’t aware of Callendar’s work at the time and, of course, couldn’t have used any of his results.
There has never at any time in recent history been any observed reduction in CO2 levels from one year to the next. The idea that Keeling is wrong, that the Antarctic ice core data is wrong and that CO2 levels rose to 400ppmv when no-one was looking in the the early 20th century and then fell again is fanciful in the extreme.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
You guys seem to think that one unpublished paper which suggests that there might in some circumstances be a negative feedback from cloud cover somehow ‘proves’ that CO2 sensitivity is negigably small but on the other hand you can totally ignore the solid evidence of Keeling and the Antarctic ice cores described in the many peer reviewed papers that have come from the Mauna Loa observatory and from various international teams working on Antarctic ice cores.
You really are just beyond reason. A fruitcake.
Pete,
Is this part of the group of “credible” scientists that you are speaking about? I know that Max and others have brought this up before but it bears repeating……..Next time you’re visiting the USA I’d like to show you a bridge in Brooklyn New York that I have for sale.
Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data
GISS’s October Data. The large reddish-brown area in Russia is actually September readings.
Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.
NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world’s primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.
GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm– a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month’s data.
Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA’s data didn’t agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.
McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS’s US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS’s data?
An alert reader on McIntyre’s blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier– the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.
A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data.
Steve McIntyre informed GISS of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within “about an hour”, GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a “mishap” and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).
NOAA’s Deputy Director of Communications, Scott Smullens, tells DailyTech that NOAA is responsible only for temperature readings in the US, not those in other nations.
The error not only affected October data, but due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results, altered the previously published values for several other months as well. The values for August 2008, for instance, changed by 0.11C and the global anomaly as far back as 2005 increased by a hundredth of a degree.
GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming advocate who has accused oil companies of “crimes against humanity”. Hansen recently made headlines when he travelled to London to testify on behalf of a group of environmentalists who had damaged a coal plant in protest against global warming. Hansen also serves as science advisor to Al Gore.
Dr. Hansen could not be reached for comment.
________________________________________
TonyB/Max,
First of all, congratulations on your work, more volume than I can fully handle recently:
Concerning your CO2 investigations, if I can help a little, it seems to me that it is essential to remove any site or regional sensitivity from the earlier data, including season, wind direction and collective size of CO2 sources. I also have it in mind that Mauna Loa, (ML), whilst being argued as a location where true global mixing should have occurred, this may in itself, (an assumption?), be inadequately tested. (and it has been severely questioned by some scientists)
Also, when it comes to proxy ice-core data, apart from the obvious questions about the assumptions inherent in the extraction of data, there is an additional question as to whether there are any regional atmospheric differences between Greenland, Antarctica, and ML.
I think that these three iconic sites are all at about the same altitude (~10,000ft), but they are very much different in other respects, and I imagine that a lot of the early data you are studying, would be at low altitude and at rather different latitudes.
So, I went looking to see if there was a data SERIES for each of the ice-core locations, using the same methods as at ML. Me no can find! (funny that!)
So, I went looking for CO2 atmospheric variation with latitude and altitude, (using a range of key-words, like mix), and was interested to find the following two abstracts. (But not interested enough to pay money to get the whole works)
ABSTRACT 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John A. Taylor, , a and James C. Orrb
a Mathematics and Computer Science and Environmental Research Divisions, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Building 221, Argonne, IL 60439-4844, USA b Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, CEA Saclay, Bat. 709 L’Orme, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Revised 13 March 2000; accepted 24 April 2000. Available online 6 December 2000.
Although poorly understood, the north–south distribution of the natural component of atmospheric CO2 offers information essential to improving our understanding of the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere. The natural or unperturbed component is equivalent to that part of the atmospheric CO2 distribution which is controlled by non-anthropogenic CO2 fluxes from the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. Models should be able to reproduce the true north–south gradient in CO2 due to the natural component before they can reliably estimate present-day CO2 sources and sinks and predict future atmospheric CO2. We have estimated the natural latitudinal distribution of atmospheric CO2, relative to the South Pole, using measurements of atmospheric CO2 during 1959–1991 and corresponding estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Key features of the natural latitudinal distribution include: (1) CO2 concentrations in the northern hemisphere that are lower than those in the southern hemisphere; (2) CO2 concentration differences that are higher in the tropics (associated with outgassing of the oceans) than those currently measured; and (3) CO2 concentrations over the southern ocean that are relatively uniform. This natural latitudinal distribution and its sensitivity to increasing fossil fuel emissions both indicate that near-surface concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the northern hemisphere are naturally lower than those in the southern hemisphere. Models that find the contrary will also mismatch present-day CO2 in the northern hemisphere and incorrectly ascribe that region as a large sink of anthropogenic CO2.
{http}://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-41V33VT-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2d834e44af447926a4241551030d655b
ABSTRACT 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Analysis of atmospheric CO2 growth rates at mauna loa using CO2 fluxes derived from an inverse model
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
PATRA Prabir K. (1) ; MAKSYUTOV Shamil (1) ; NAKAZAWA Takakiyo (1 2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine-earth Sciences and Technology Center, Yokohama 236 0001, JAPON
(2) Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, JAPON
Résumé / Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) growth rates are estimated for a period 1959-2004 from atmospheric CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Only during a few short periods, 1965-1966, 1972-1973, 1987-1988 and 1997-1998. in the last 45 yr have growth rates of atmospheric CO2 been of a similar magnitude or higher than that due to the total emission from burning of fossil fuels. Using results from a time-dependent inverse (TDI) model, based on observations of atmospheric CO2 at 87 stations, we establish that El Niño-induced climate variations in the tropics and large-scale forest fires in the boreal regions are the main causes of anomalous growth rates of atmospheric COï. The high growth rate of 2.8 ppm yr-1 in 2002 can be predicted fairly successfully by using the correlations between (1) the peak-to-trough amplitudes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index and tropical flux anomaly, and (2) anomalies in CO2 flux and area burned by fire from the boreal regions. We suggest that the large interannual changes in CO2 growth rates can mostly be explained by natural climate variability. Our analysis also shows that the decadal average growth rate, linked primarily to human activity, has fluctuated around an all-time high value of ?1.5 ppm yr-1 over the past 20 yr. A statistical model analysis is performed to identify the regions which have the maximum influence on the observed growth rate anomaly at Mauna Loa.
{http}://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17200683
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally there was also something about some “Uh?” CO2 numbers with altitude in the Stratosphere, but let’s keep it closer to earth for the time being.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pete,
I doubt if you will be able to understand the above, because it’s a bit scientific, but maybe if you read it carefully and repeatedly, hopefully you will see that things aint entirely black or white after-all?
Thanks Bob
The north south slope was talked about and measured as long ago as 1912 and as you say altitude and latitude need to be taken into account. I shall read the two documents you have cited. Thanks.
Peter
Callandar-an amateur meteorologist- had a hypotheses that man was responsible for rising co2 levels and it would cause warming of up to 2degrees C. People with hypotheses tend to want to prove them.
He published an influential paper in 1938 on co2 and examined a small number of measurements showing greatly fluctuating levels of co2 through the 19th century, made by highy reputable scientists. He ignored the seminal work of the period published in 1912 which I have previously quoted from, as that contradicted his view.
He chose to confirm his hypotheses by selecting figures that illustrated low levels of co2 in the early stages, rising gradually in more recent years (to 1938) If he had a different world view and hypotheses he could equally have selected credible measurements showing Co2 levels very substantially higher than 280ppm.
In his 1957 follow up-probably as a response to the skewering of his 1938 work by slocum in 1955- (also referenced here previously) Callandar also chose to ignore Slocum and what was by then a vast bibliography of measurements compiled by nina stepanova in 1952. He also made only the briefest of passing references to the extensive 1912 study he had previously omitted, before taking the figures completely out of context.
Again the measurements he selected for his 1957 study were not at all representative of the total series-I referred to them in a previous post but gave up citing them as so many of them were showing results in excess of 330ppm.
Reading Keelings biography he had been a newly qualifed, young and reluctant chemist and ‘fell’ into his job at scripps. He had no knowledge of the history of co2 in climate science as he had never been involved in climate science up till then. He talked of being influenced by callandar and became convinced of the mesurements of around 280/290 being correct. He was very keen on the outdoors and perhaps perceived that if man was capable of changing the climate what he enjoyed would be put at jeopardy-another world view of the subject. The measurements Keeling took in Big Sur in 1955 then led to the establishment of the gold standard of 315ppm.
He put these together with the callandar 280 figure, which completed the lower end projection and annual increases during a warm-but not exceptional spell-since, has taken the figures higher.
The port Barrow measurements in the 1940’s (a warmer period) were consistently higher than Keelings but were also ignored.
My chart clearly shows keelings figures were about right for the mid 1950’s (a cool period)
Either we are suggesting that 280ppm could result in high temperatures shown in the Hadley 1660 set and in my graph, or we can accept the far more logical explanation that there are numerous missing co2 points-high and low that need to be inserted into the graph.
It is a simple casse of someone (callandar)being in a position 70 years ago to select data to support a hypotheses and someone (Keeling) who was young, inexperienced, in a new job, and with no interest in history, who accepted what he was told by someone far older and more experinced in the science than he was.
TonyB
Brute Reur 2679
Deja Vu All Over Again: Blogger Again Finds Error in NASA Climate Data
Thank goodness that Hansen and his cabal don’t design visits to Mars, or stuff where people could get killed!
But is it ‘Error’ or “Error”, and how many such errors can a generously tax-payer funded organisation make before there should be appropriate governmental auditing and “corrections” to departmental staff?
Poor ol’ Al, even (hopefully) without Pete’s $50 donation; has he been properly advised by Hansen? Can he proceed to advise Obama with a resolutely clear conscience?
(BTW, over here in Oz we have various independent authorities that overlook stuff like this, and harass government and business on price rorting locally and internationally etc.)
Brute you are “over there”…… Why don’t you Email Obama about a changing of the guard?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, you Brits;
Let me also quote Max’s 2436 in part, concerning strangely LARGE Hadley “adjustments“:
…the ex post facto “adjustment” to the temperature record and the ensuing exchange on ClimateAudit, it was actually adjustments to the Hadley record for January-April 2008, which I was questioning (not the GISS record, which had been the subject of John Goetz’ lead article “Rewriting History, Time and Time Again”).
A blogger named “Phil” (Phil Jones?) was quick to defend the Hadley adjustment, first as a result of time lags “the data doesn’t all arrive at once, as data arrives it’s input into the calculation”, later as a result of “variance adjustments” and finally that there really was no major adjustment made. A lively exchange with several other bloggers (including yourself) followed. “Phil” dropped out of the discussion. None of the explanations were satisfactory, so I posted a graph that showed how the Hadley record (before adjustment) showed good correlation with GISS as far as 2008 cooling vs. 2001-2007 was concerned, but that after the Hadley upward adjustment it no longer showed good correlation.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2720385677_7af5ccfd90_b.jpg
As you recall, the exchange died without any resolution of why Hadley had increased the Jan-Apr 2008 temperatures after the fact by 0.08C. So it remains a mystery today.
As the song goes, “it was just one of those things…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, I’d better go and watch the TV 8.00 pm “Catalyst” programme, on how to avoid organ failure, and not die young!
Bob
Hi Peter,
Reur 2678:
Since you have apparently been unable to come with any factual argumentation against a pre-1958 longer-term historical atmospheric CO2 record with some fluctuations (rather than a smooth, flat curve), you switch to the personal attack instead:
“Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
You guys seem to think that one unpublished paper which suggests that there might in some circumstances be a negative feedback from cloud cover somehow ‘proves’ that CO2 sensitivity is negigably small but on the other hand you can totally ignore the solid evidence of Keeling and the Antarctic ice cores described in the many peer reviewed papers that have come from the Mauna Loa observatory and from various international teams working on Antarctic ice cores.
You really are just beyond reason. A fruitcake.”
“One unpublished paper”? Seems to me Beck has cited several totally different studies, so the basic source of the data is from many papers. You should really check it out more closely, Peter, before you write it off as “one unpublished paper”.
“Solid evidence of Keeling” (pre-1958) is exactly what is being questioned. As good as his input data may have been, the data points he has picked are only those, which confirmed his suggestion of a smooth, gradual increase. The data points he ignored or rejected were those that did not. AGW-aficionados have a name for this method of gathering “solid evidence”: believe it is called “cherry picking”.
“Antarctic ice cores described in the many peer reviewed papers” are basically one soure of data, written up and re-written up. No matter how many people write up findings from the same source of data (and even “peer review” these write-ups), it’s still only one source of data, while Beck’s work (which you write off as “one unpublished paper”) cites many totally different sources of data.
Sorry, Peter, your “toothfairy” remark brings nothing to the scientific debate and it appears to me that, if anybody, it is you, not TonyB, who are “really are just beyond reason. A fruitcake.”
Regards,
Max
Hello Peter
Just to clarify my earlier remarks in case they are taken out of context.
First of all there have been reductions in recent history of man made emissions, as per the IPCC chart previously referenced and repeated here
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
This does not take into account the far greater levels of annual natural co2 emissions against which this figure should be seen in context. Any short term drop in man made levels could be more than compensated by natural means as temperatures fluctuated-through plant growth variations and absorption or outgassing by the oceans.
With regards to my overall comments I am interested in two lines of reasoning following the production of my graph-both of which I expressed at the time.
The first is that man made co2 emissions don’t have a close correlation with temperature, consequently any additions we have made to co2 levels have already largely been reflected in temperature rises(the logarithmic curve rather than linear effect)
The second line of reasoning and which was the subject of my post #2681 is that Callandar cherry picked low measurements from history to advance his theory, and Keeling took these at face value. His own figures in 1958 were perfectly correct but that doesnt mean to say they had been on a constantly rising curve for 200 years just because Callandar had said so.
However Ernst Becks may also be guilty of selecting measurements that read high in order to advance his own theory!
There is a vast amount of referenced material on Becks site (much of which I had already found independently) but that is not to say that all of it is correct-however it seems unlikely that all of it can be wrong either-people have been measuring co2 for far too long for EVERYONE to be inaccurate.
At this stage of the game I am corresponding with Beck AND examining all of Callanders output.
So as a sceptic I am sceptical of a sceptic-that must be a healthy attitude!
TonyB
Here are a couple of paragraphs form a BBC Q&A: EU green energy
From this it would appear that an environmental activist group has prompted the EU to introduce a carbon tax that will raise half a trillion euros from industries that produce cheap and efficient energy and invest it in new industries that produfe expensive energy inefficiently. Although MEPs say they want the money raised to be used ‘to finance 12 commercially viable carbon capture plants across Europe, with plans for more in future’, proven technology to do this does not exist yet.
This was published on 17th October 2008.
Has anyone heard a rumour that things might get a little difficult economically over the next few years? It will take months, and perhaps years, for the new realities to sink in, and IMHO it would be a mistake to expect the EU to be among the first places to get the message. It is trapped in a web of its own climate alarmist propaganda, but there are signs that alarm bells may be beginning to ring, however faintly. Today, there are reports of a new EU energy initiative, but this is focused on energy security rather than savng the planet.
Note to TonyB
Believe your approach (of being skeptical of both the AGW-believers and the AGW-skeptics) is the best way to go, and I hope to hear more about your findings.
For the view of one who is skeptical (not of the greenhouse effect, per se, but of climate vulnerability to dangerous tipping points or runaway warming as the result of increased CO2) on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, the study below by Dr. Jeffrey Glassman gives a good summary.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Using Vostok ice core plus other data (plus the basic laws of physics) Glassman demonstrates that the hydrologic cycle plays a dominant role in the atmospheric CO2 / temperature relationship, with temperature leading CO2 (rather than lagging CO2, as hypothesized by the theory of AGW).
Glassman writes:
“The GCMs need to be revamped. They need to have the primary thermodynamic loop restored. This is the chain of dynamic events from solar radiation, through the shading and reflection of clouds responding to temperature changes, absorption primarily in the ocean, and the transport and exchanges of heat and gases by which the oceans create and regulate the earth’s climate and atmosphere. The models need to reflect the mechanisms which make the earth’s climate not vulnerable, but stable.
The CO2 concentration is a response to the proxy temperature in the Vostok ice core data, not a cause. This does not contradict that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it does contradict the conjecture that the presence of a greenhouse gas has any destabilizing effect on global climate. Other forces overwhelm the conjecture of a runaway greenhouse effect. The concentration of CO2 is dynamic, controlled by the solubility pump. Global temperature is controlled first by the primary thermodynamic loop.”
I believe this is a well-substantiated study that makes a lot of sense.
Regards,
Max
This paper (A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology) shows how tree ring temperature reconstructions give incorrect (too low) recent temperatures. An extract from the Abstract:
A short overview is here.
TonyB,
“The first is that man made co2 emissions don’t have a close correlation with temperature”
Look, if emissions stopped on 1 Jan 2009 and restarted on 1 Jan 2010 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the year 2009 wouldn’t be much different to 2008 or 2010. The climate wouldn’t be much different either. But, the emissions would be zero.
It is correlation with atmospheric CO2concentrations that you should be looking for. Not emissions.
That you can’t grasp this simple fact shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Although not all regions have warmed, the warming trend since 1976 has been very widespread. Another widespread feature of the global surface temperature signal is that, at least over the last half century—the period for which we have the most data—the mean daily minimum land, air temperature has been increasing at approximately twice the rate of the mean daily maximum temperature (Karl et al, 1993; Easterling et al., 1997).
So it`s not the sun, it`s not UHI but it`s CO2 that warms the planet at twice the rate at night than in the day. I understood that unless more heat is absorbed and retained during the daytime it cannot be released during the night to raise minimum temps. Perhaps the warmers here can explain exactly what heat source actually raises night time temps. The thing is rural sites do not suffer this phenomenon.
The link below is to a short youtube video, it indicates exactly why Hanson is so afraid to run two studies side by side, he has the data and the funds. It is ludicrous to use station pairs and complex algorithms to extract UHI from urban temperatures when rural and urban data sets exist and only need to be compared with each other as the video shows. At some point in time this will be achieved possibly through Anthony Watts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
This link below shows GHCN world wide coverage, I think this global map says it all, why one wonders is it felt necessary to have so many stations in the US, which I believe represents 2% of the planet. I know the US is the most powerful and the wealthiest, perhaps it also has a greater bearing on global temps contrary to it`s size.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/sc2005.gif
TonyN,
How did you get the graphic on your post?
From the article:
I just paid $1.94 for a gallon of gasoline an hour ago……I believe that’s about .48 cents per Liter. I think the price of a barrel of oil was $55.00 yesterday from a high of $140.00 a few months ago, (this also means less revenue to the government). Boy do I feel pity for all of the poor chumps that bought those motorized roller skates.
A Barack Market
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122653625916922633.html
All of the “money people” that I have talked to are cutting back drastically on their budgets for fear of what Obama and his “Posse” have said they are going to do. As it became more likely that Obama and his Socialist cohorts were going to control the US government, people began withdrawing their funds from circulation and constricting the economy. Consumers have recently embarked on a “spending strike” which is spinning through the economy like a hurricane.
People are spending and investing less……which means they are seeing lower profits, which in turn means less revenue paid in taxes to the government. Many developers that I deal with have placed projects “on hold” indefinitely, (more accurately until after this administration is gone) or until Conservatives regain control of Congress. Businesses that had plans to expand have suddenly, (very recently) shelved those plans due to this election. I haven’t seen such a negative economic reaction to a Presidential campaign outcome since Carter in 1976.
This general economic malaise results in reducing budget expenditures, primarily “green” projects that have uncertain/dubious return on investment. I think it was Max, (or even me) that stated a while ago that an unusually cold winter will probably mean the end to the global warming hysteria……or an economic downturn. Here we have both.
I just read that T Bone Pickens has cancelled his “wind” project…..economically unfeasable.
Hi Bob_FJ,
You put me on to something several weeks ago, but I did not have time to do the literature search to investigate it: the long-term correlation between globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures (Hadley) and global McDonalds sales.
For simplification I have taken the 1976 and 2007 values to see if there is a correlation, as you had suggested.
To my amazement I found an extremely “robust” correlation, with a R² correlation factor very close to 1!
I’ve plotted this on the attached graph.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/3028632192_46f9b0c53c_b.jpg
It is interesting to note that in very recent years, both McDonalds sales and globally averaged land and sea surface temperatures as reported by Hadley have flattened out and reached a “plateau” with even a slight decrease.
More work (backed up with additional model studies) is required on this correlation, of course, in order to define the causation mechanism, but the robust correlation gives a strong indication of a cause/effect relationship.
Thanks for putting me on the right track.
Regards,
Max
Max 2686
Thanks for your sensible contribution to my post 2684. The study does make sense.
TonyB
Max,
I fell off the chair laughing manically. It looks to me as a slam dunk that McDonalds is causing global warming. I remember being interested in “The Bermuda Triangle” several years ago….”unexplained” disappearances in this defined geographic location……until I found that an astute observer parceled out another area of ocean of the same size and discovered the same relative number of “unexplained disappearances”.
This could be fun….I wonder what other comparisons could be made to explain global temperature anomalies? Women’s skirt hem length? I wonder if there is a direct correlation between reported incontinence and global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Hi Peter,
Looks like you are telling TonyB that human CO2 emissions are unimportant when you write (2688):
“It is correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations that you should be looking for. Not emissions.
That you can’t grasp this simple fact shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.”
If the increase in “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” is not coming from “human CO2 emissions”, then why are we even discussing “mitigation” of “human CO2 emissions” in order to slow down the increase of “atmospheric CO2 concentrations”?
The problem is, Peter, that there are a lot of data out there that confirm the “simple fact” that increased “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” are not caused by “human CO2 emissions”, but rather by increased global temperatures. If I am correct, I believe that this is the point of the investigations by TonyB.
So the question is not so much whether or not TonyB “has no idea what he is talking about” (as you claim), but, more likely whether or not “you have no idea what you are talking about”.
And, frankly, I’d bet on TonyB being a bit better informed than you, based on his study work so far and your track record on this site. But that’s just my opinion.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
I truly hope it’s not “women’s skirt hem length” that is driving global warming, as you propose.
This would suggest a trend for longer skirts again (as with the Dior “new look” in 1947, when the early 20th century warming period reversed itself, as the late 20th century warming has done recently).
It would be a pity to cover up all those pretty legs again.
But, hey, I guess it makes sense for the ladies to want to cover up a bit when it gets colder.
So maybe we have “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” as a radiative forcing “driver” of “women’s skirt hem length” rather than the other way around. (Sort of like TonyB is suggesting for CO2, although Peter is having a bit of a problem grasping it.)
Obviously more (taxpayer funded) model studies are required.
If we can get the funding, I’ll volunteer to work on the hem length angle and maybe we can get Peter to take on the “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” angle.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I can attest that this aspect is quite a bit more interesting, although I’d probably get some push back from Mrs. Brute.
Have the good Swiss people resorted to grass skiing in the Alps this winter due to the massive snow melt and glacier retreat? A bit cold here….nothing unusual for November.
I still can’t get over the cavalier attitude from NASA regarding the falsification of October’s stats….arrogance and elitism….typical government employee reaction. They know that they will not be held accountable……they’ll probably receive an increase or promotion regardless.
I had prepared a comment to add to Bob’s post # 2682 regarding the GISS data, but didn’t post it. It certainly is a saving grace that people such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are watching these “civil servants”.
Bob had mentioned that it would be prudent to keep these guys away from anything dangerous. They did send a (unmanned) mission to Mars which burned up in the atmosphere. It seems that they partnered with the European Space Agency which works in the metric system; NASA uses the English system. They never compared notes and their calculations were fatally flawed.
The ice at the North Pole is still there. No water skiing this season…..right Pete?(I just have to check once in a while so that I’m reassured).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.000.png
You all seem very coy about expressing any opinions about your sister website:
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com
I know that little sisters can be embarrassing at times but you should at least acknowledge their existence.
The family traits are there for all to see. An accusation of conspiracy against established science. ‘Its all driven by research grants’ and the ‘liberal establishment’ etc etc. The link between HIV and AIDs is just a “belief” a religion even.
How can this be when Max himself, in his wisdom, has pronounced that the link between HIV and AIDS is “proven”? How is it possible that a group of individuals can have taken it upon themselves to set up a website saying that they are right and established science has got it all wrong? What are these people like?
Pete,
What does AIDS have to do with government paid scientists promoting fraud to further a political ideology and their own personal gain?
Max,
I had you down as being a bit smarter than you seem to be giving yourself credit for with your ” If the increase in “atmospheric CO2 concentrations” is not coming from “human CO2 emissions …” question.
I’m starting to appreciate what it might feel like to a teacher of slow learning kids.
Try thinking of it this way. Concentrations of CO2, above the level measured in pre-industrial times, are the accumulation of emissions. The seas and forests, providing they are in good condition do act to prevent those emissions accumulating but it would take around a hundred years for levels to fall to their pre-1850 levels even if emissions were to stop right now.
Just to keep CO2 levels constant would mean approximately halving emissions. To get them to fall means big cuts, which is why figures of 80% are being discussed.
Going back to my analogy of food and diet, we are in the same position as a person, let’s call him Joe, who started to overeat. In the first year, his weight increased by 5 kg and nothing much changed. People started to notice that Joe was getting quit tubby after the second year. After ten years his weight has increased by 50 kg and now poor Joe has just keeled over from a heart attack!
Unfortunately it happened just at the time he switched over to a healthy diet. He was under the impression that his state of health was directly related to his diet at the time. Unfortunately his body wasn’t quite up to the 10km cross country run that he’d decided upon. The well known band of dedicated diet sceptics (www.dietsceptic.wordpress.com) gets to hear about this. For years they have been arguing against the prevailing wisdom that overeating makes people fat and unhealthy. Look, they say, for that last five years Joe has been getting along just fine on his diet of hamburgers. It was only when he started to listen to you ‘diet alarmists’ that it all went wrong for him.