We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, November 15. 2012
5 Cars That Depreciate In Value The Most
Five whooping cranes bed down in Alabama on cross country migration
Harsh review: As Not Seen on TV - Restaurant Review: Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar in Times Square
Google rakes in more ad dollars than entire US print media
The Demise of Twinkies? Yes, It’s True. Parasitic Unions Kill Their Hosts (or, in this case, Hostess)
‘Saudi Dakota’ sets more records for oil production in September as US moves towards world’s top oil producer
Special Report: How a vicious circle of self-interest sank a California city
HuffPo Blames Sandy on Global Warming, Meteorologist Responds
Commenter at Watts re the EU:
That's for sure. Nobody.
Like he doesn't know.
Obama’s uninformative press conference
Still lying constantly: Same Old Obama
Does he lie and deceive more than any president ever? He does it without consequence, because the press has his back.
Sultan: "The difference between the left and the right is that the left has a five-year plan and the right has a five-second plan."
Do conservatives need better Coalition Politics?
Obama's TV Ad Campaign Targeted Low-Information, Unlikelier Voters In Cable Reruns
Related: Inside Obama's shadow campaign
Ways and Means issues yet another subpoena for Sebelius
A stunning initial success for the IDF. Now what?
The World Hears Only Arab Claims-What About the Kurds?
Is Obama Purging Military Commanders?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: HuffPo Blames Sandy on Global Warming, Meteorologist Responds
The meteorologist in question, Joe Bastardi, actually claimed that "Carbon dioxide (CO2) can’t warm the atmosphere because it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.”
RE: The demise of twinkies . . .
Given how "low-carb" is the latest diet fad; and it is a fad that seems to be lasting several years now; why on earth do they think another bakery will step in?
There used to be a Sunshine Biscuit Company in my town. They closed well over a decade ago and now the building sits empty.
Low carb, people, low carb.
re Is Obama Purging Military Commanders?
Who knows? Perhaps it is luck and coincidence?
At the end of October I received an email link to a site that reported 0bama feared a military coup, and was responding by relieving commanders.
Turkey and Egypt have sacked their top military commanders and replaced them with more loyal generals.
Perhaps 0bama is doing the same?
If the most transparent administration in the history of the republic could only be a little bit transparent, then perhaps these kind of stories would not be circulating?
Bird Dog: Report: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago'...
Actually, the report shows a 0.05°C warming from August 1997 to August 2012. That's starting from a particularly high El Niño event.
Yeah, we should calculate trends starting in the cold year 1979. Or we could start them in the warmer years of the medieval optimum. When there are cyclic processes going on with periods of ranging from seasonal to thousands of years, everything short term looks like a trend. The fact is, if CO2 were a direct driver of temperature then the temperature would follow CO2 concentrations. It doesn't. And if you want to argue records, what about all those record low temperatures last month? It is difficult to attach significance to such things, but they make for a good sales pitch.
To me, it looks like Arrhenius, who made the original calculation, got the sensitivity pretty much in the ball park at 1.5C. I think it is going to end up somewhere in the range 0.75C to 1.5C, that is, there a bit net negative feedback.
chuck: The fact is, if CO2 were a direct driver of temperature then the temperature would follow CO2 concentrations.
CO2 is just one of many factors that influence climate, so no, you wouldn't expect direct correlation.
chuck: To me, it looks like Arrhenius, who made the original calculation, got the sensitivity pretty much in the ball park at 1.5C. I think it is going to end up somewhere in the range 0.75C to 1.5C, that is, there a bit net negative feedback.
With water vapor, Arrhenius estimated a climate sensitivity of 2.1°C. That's close to the current estimate of 2.0-4.5°C, with a most probable value ≈3°C.
The water vapor feedback falls in the inknown feedback fudge category. Arrhenius didn't include clouds and such, and I think it clear that a percent or two change in albedo could have significant effects. My sense of current work is that it is pointing towards minimal or negative feedback.
chuck: The water vapor feedback falls in the inknown feedback fudge category.
There is some uncertainty, and it is an active area of research. However, evidence from widely disparate areas of study indicates that climate sensitivity is 2.0-4.5°C, with a most probable value ≈3°C.
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
I note you left out Lindzen and Choi , see in particular Table 2. I'll have to take a look at the Bayesian paper you cite, it reminds me that Mann supported the argument for a reanalysis of some data using a prior of equal probability of sensitivity from 0C-18C in order to provide some bounds. Usually the argument for equal prior probabilities comes from symmetry, but I don't see any symmetry in the sensitivity, there would be easily observable differences if it was 0C vs 18C. But that is the IPCC for you.
chuck: I note you left out Lindzen and Choi 2011
You had to go pretty far afield to find that paper, the "Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science". It's a fix of their previous admittedly embarrassing paper, Lindzen and Choi 2009. The 2011 paper was rejected by PNAS as flawed.
There's a number of problems with the paper, such as assuming that tropical feedback represents global feedback. Heat exchange between latitudes can swamp the tropical signal. Chung et al. 2010 determined that sensitivity has to be calculated on the global scale. Nor did they do much to address contradictory findings.
You might want to also look at Dressler 2011.
Lots of the good stuff has been forced into other journals, statistics journals for instance. But Lindzen and Choi did address your points. Now whether their investigation is correct is hard to say, much published work is wrong. For instance, Mann's hockey stick, published in Nature, has gone bye bye, see Briffa's latest paper and others, the Medieval warm period has returned. Nevertheless, Lindzen is a solid researcher and I like the fact that he is trying to tease the result out of actual data, rather than relying on models. I think we will see more of that and eventually the science will advance.
chuck: But Lindzen and Choi did address your points.
To which we responded.
chuck: For instance, Mann's hockey stick, published in Nature, has gone bye bye,
Multiple studies have supported Mann's overall conclusions.
chuck: see Briffa's latest paper and others, the Medieval warm period has returned.
The Medieval Warm Period never disappeared.
What, all those attacks on Baliunas and Soon were pointless? Omitting the embarrassing MWP temperatures from borehole measurements when the graphs were published, all that for nothing?
Read the climate gate emails, there was a concerted effort to get rid of the medieval warm period because, you know, it didn't show up in Mann's temperature reconstruction.
over 1600 temperature records were set in the U.S. this summer and about 100 of them were for record highs. The rest were for record lows.
In fact it is true that the so-called global warming ended in 1997 and the average temperature today is cooler then it was in 1997.
during the 50's 60's and 70's were experienced global cooling. So much so that scientists were scare mongering a new ice age. During that period CO2 was rising at the same rate it had before and since. Go figure.
The South pole has set new records for total ice and the North pole so far this year is far ahead of normal in forming the winter ice pack.
The biggest problem the warmies have was the massive release of the emails they sent between each other conspiring to hype global warming. Why (you say)? Obviously for money. Since the hyped global warming scare mongering literally billions has been spent on studies. And who benefits from the studies? Why the very same warmies who have been scare mongering us all these years.
The bottom line is this is a natural and cyclical warming period not all the different from the medieval warming period in the 11th century, The primary difference this one is quite mild while the medieval warming was more robust and I might add beneficial. Warming periods are alwasy more beneficial to humans, plants and other animals while global coolings tend to create massive dieoffs. Beware the coming maunder...
GoneWithTheWind: over 1600 temperature records were set in the U.S. this summer and about 100 of them were for record highs. The rest were for record lows.
The U.S. is just a small portion of the Earth's surface, but we might want to start with the facts. Summer 2012 was the 3rd warmest on record, with more high than low temperature records. July was the hottest month on record in the U.S.
GoneWithTheWind: In fact it is true that the so-called global warming ended in 1997 and the average temperature today is cooler then it was in 1997.
Actually, the report shows a 0.05°C warming from August 1997 to August 2012. That's starting from a particularly high El Niño event.
How about you respond to GWTW's point on benefits of warming? It is historically true that humans thrive during warming cycles and die in cool ones.
It would seem crazy to wish for a cooling trend and agonize over a warming one, particularly if that agonizing included ruinous and useless economic policies.
phil g: How about you respond to GWTW's point on benefits of warming?
The question of anthropogenic climate change is largely settled. The question now is how global warming will affect specific regions, and what effective countermeasures people can make.
The modern world is more highly and densely populated than in previous centuries. Rising sea levels alone are a cause for concern, with hundreds of millions living and farming in areas that will be subject to increased storm surge and flooding. Continental interiors, currently some of the most important grain producing regions, will become increasingly arid. Loss of snowpack will threaten fresh water supplies. Increased ecological stress will force human migration, which will increase political friction. Many species will become extinct.
Nevertheless, humans will successfully adapt, though not without needless suffering and losing some of humanity's natural inheritance.
The question of anthropogenic climate change is largely settled
I won't dispute that, so long as you finish the statement with the part that makes it true: "...largely settled as, we have no way of knowing yet, and all the certainty is coming from political/economic players under the stress of their pants being always on fire."
Actually, we're referring to published scientific research.
"The U.S. is just a small portion of the Earth's surface" so we cannot use the massive number of record cold readings to draw conclusions BUT somehow we can use a single storm or a event to hype global warming???
If you cherry pick the graph you may be able to convince someone that the average temperature has increased 0.05 C. But the fact remains it is false.
AGW is a "theory" not a fact. There is no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence to refute it. The theory is based on computer models that cannot even predict past weather when the raw data is entered into them. This is because the models are intentionally weighted to create a global warming scenario or hocky stick result. According to the models in 1997 it should be between 0.5-1.0 C warmer today then it is. The reality is stunning... unless you are a committed warmie and are willing to lie and distort the facts. The models have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong as long as the researchers get funded by scare mongering. They have no incentive to even try to improve the computer models because accuracy would be devastating to their bottom line.
What makes all of this worse is the entire AGW "industry" has been co-opted by Marxist/Socialism. Governments are eager to tax us based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. The carbon tax is a socialists wet dream. Our own socialist-in-chief is foaming at the mouth with just the thought of a carbon tax.
Ironically solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles are not cooperating and in fact we may well be on the verge of a maunder minimum. No worries, the warmies saw this coming and changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" It will be fun (well, except for the crushing carbon taxes and regulations) to watch the looney left change their tune in the middle of a warm stream to global cooling. I predict that some enterprising Warmie (would coolie be racist?) will theorize that in fact CO2 causes atmospheric cooling. But wait! But wait! I also predict that the warmies (or whatever they become) will also predict catastrophic falling ocean levels as a result of increasing ice at the poles. And, wait for it, politicians will step forward and offer new taxes to "fix" the problem. . .
GoneWithTheWind: The U.S. is just a small portion of the Earth's surface" so we cannot use the massive number of record cold readings to draw conclusions BUT somehow we can use a single storm or a event to hype global warming???
You can't extrapolate from a single storm, no.
GoneWithTheWind: If you cherry pick the graph you may be able to convince someone that the average temperature has increased 0.05 C. But the fact remains it is false.
Um, we used the range cited in the original post, which began on an exceptionally strong El Niño event.
GoneWithTheWind: AGW is a "theory" not a fact.
You do understand that theories and facts are different categories? Theories are well-supported explanations of facts.
GoneWithTheWind: There is no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence to refute it.
A simple line of evidence is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, the signature of greenhouse warming.
GoneWithTheWind: Ironically solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles are not cooperating and in fact we may well be on the verge of a maunder minimum.
Solar irradiance does not explain why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.
I see what the problem is. You think "Theories are well-supported explanations of facts"!!! They are not. Theories are theories, period. Just like the theory that the world was flat many theories are proved wrong over time.
"A simple line of evidence is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, the signature of greenhouse warming".
Not true!! It is exactly what happened in the medieval warming period and the Roman warming period and neither of these was caused by humans. They are natural cycles caused by solar cycles of radiance and natural movements of the earths position to the sun. The intervening cooling cycles are also natural and caused by the same thing. You have carfully avoided saying that the "anthropogenic component of AGW has been proven. Why? Simple because it has not. We can all agree that we were/are in a warming period. It began about 1850 (long before SUVs) and it was expected and predicted by science. Science also predicts it will end and be followed by a cooling cycle (Maunder minimum). What is not known is how long or how severe either of these natural cycles will get. As warming cycles go this one is quite moderate and thus very beneficial to humans, animals and plants. Beware the Maunder, it is probably impossible to support 7 billion people or even half that many people in a severe cooling cycle.
GoneWithTheWind: I see what the problem is. You think "Theories are well-supported explanations of facts"!!! They are not.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
You might also want to read Gould's essay, "Evolution as Fact and Theory".
Zachriel: A simple line of evidence is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, the signature of greenhouse warming.
GoneWithTheWind: Not true!! It is exactly what happened in the medieval warming period and the Roman warming period and neither of these was caused by humans.
Not sure how you determined stratospheric temperature in the Roman period.
GoneWithTheWind: They are natural cycles caused by solar cycles of radiance and natural movements of the earths position to the sun.
That won't cool the stratosphere.
Just to be clear, that won't cool the stratosphere while simultaneously warming the troposphere.
Zach now it seems all your eggs are in the stratosphere vs troposphere basket. I'm not sure but that sounds to me like you are abandoning your claims that there is still warming to support your "theory" and are no forced to point to random anomolies as "proof". Kind of like pointing at melting glaciers while simultaneously ignoring those that are expanding. Or pointing to a Artic sea ice melt every summer and ignoring the fact that Antartic ice keeps growing and getting higher and deeper every year. My advice is keep searching. Surely somewhere there is some straw you can grasp at, some pointer pointing in the wrong direction. But don't wait too long, ponder the Maunder. No cooling in the last 14 years and more record cold temperatures. It's not a good sign for the warmies...
GoneWithTheWind: it seems all your eggs are in the stratosphere vs troposphere basket.
Not at all. As we said, it is just one line of evidence, a line of evidence you have ignored, and which contradicts your hypothesis that the modern warming trend is due changes in solar irradiance.
GoneWithTheWind: I'm not sure but that sounds to me like you are abandoning your claims that there is still warming
Yes, the Earth is still warming. The report cited in the original post shows a 0.05°C warming from August 1997 to August 2012. That's starting from a particularly high El Niño event.
GoneWithTheWind: Kind of like pointing at melting glaciers while simultaneously ignoring those that are expanding.
"it is just one line of evidence" now that all other lines of evidence have failed. But more importantly it is not a line of evidence proving AGW it is a line of evidence that is inconclusive. Perhaps every natural warming cycle had these same side effects. The pseudo-scientists you follow have no clue but they do know how to hype their money making theories. If you want truth remove the money from it. ZERO public dollars spent to stop or research global warming. Maybe then we will get real science instead of pseudo-science.
Not true!! However I will concede one point: If you carefully cherry pick where you start the chart for 1997 temperature and where you end it then indeed some of the spurious (vs average) readings can be interpreted by dishonest pseudo-scientists. If this is what you need to do to support your religious-like belief system then so be it.
I assume you read the most recent study by real scientist that the evidence shows it is local weather that is causing most glaciers to recede and the recession would take place even without this natural global warming cycle.
GoneWithTheWind: "it is just one line of evidence" now that all other lines of evidence have failed.
The basic science is well-supported. In any case, the divergence between trends in the upper and lower atmosphere was predicted a century ago.
GoneWithTheWind: But more importantly it is not a line of evidence proving AGW it is a line of evidence that is inconclusive.
It's a signature of greenhouse warming. Start there.
You missed the point completely. Your belief that somehow "why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling" is is well supported science and proof of AGW and proof of greenhouse warming is pure wishful thinking on your part. It is simply a poorly understood side effect of the natural warming cycle and not the cause or even a pointer to the cause. BUT the point was: now that we have had no warming for 15 years and we had 3 decades of cooling in the 50's 60's and 70's while CO2 levels increased unabated and we had 10,000 emails released showing that the major scientists involved in the AGW scam were lying and hiding evidence, THAT NOW iti is necessary to fall back on some other so-called "evidence" of AGW. NOT that the divergence in trends between the troposphere and stratosphere doesn't exist or isn't recognized by science. BUT THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!!!
The point remains that while we have warming, much mildrer then previous cyclical warmings, there is ZERO evidence that it was caused by humans and a plethora of evidence that it is nothing more then a natural occurence. This is after all the 33 naturally occurring global warming since the last ice age and as these natural warming cycles go it is a very mild one. It follows the 32 naturally occurring global cooling event known as the little ice age and since that cooling was greater then most previous natural cooling cycles the natural warming cycle seemed warmer but in fact is less warm then the previous two warming cycles (the medival and the Roman warming cycles). The good news is this warming cycle was very beneficial to humans, plants and animals the bad news is we will soon enter the next global cooling cycle and it will be very detrimental to humans, plants and all other animals. Ponder the Maunder...
GoneWithTheWind: Your belief that somehow "why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling" is is well supported science and proof of AGW and proof of greenhouse warming is pure wishful thinking on your part.
Huh? The greenhouse effect results in an increased temperature differential. This isn't controversial.
Interesting. Now it seems you are content to not address the AGW issue but instead just muddy the waters. Lets agree that "a greenhouse effect would result in an increased temperature differential". That still does not explain or prove that this is a result of this particular natural warming cycle or not. When the total solar radiance decreases due to a coincidence of diverse natural cycles (solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles) the natural and inevitable result is exactly this greenhouse effect within our atmosphere. It is predicted, it is expected, and it is happening consistent with this natural cycle of warming and then cooling. You see the tree but cannot see the forest. Ponder the Maunder...
GoneWithTheWind: Lets agree that "a greenhouse effect would result in an increased temperature differential".
GoneWithTheWind: When the total solar radiance decreases due to a coincidence of diverse natural cycles (solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles) the natural and inevitable result is exactly this greenhouse effect within our atmosphere.
Reduction in solar irradiance would result in a cooler stratosphere and troposphere.
I think the proof that your last statement is wrong is that our current natural warming cycle was indeed caused by "solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles". Just as the little ice age and the Medieval warming cycle were caused by solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles. And all the warming and cooling cycles before that as well. I think you are reading too much into all this. Hopefully your back is OK because you are bending over backwards to find some way that humans have caused this natural warming cycle.
GoneWithTheWind: I think the proof that your last statement is wrong is that our current natural warming cycle was indeed caused by "solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles".
You're assuming your conclusion.
GoneWithTheWind: And all the warming and cooling cycles before that as well.
There is little doubt that solar irradiance is one of many factors that have had historical effects on climate. However, that does not explain the current trend of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.