Via Eli Rabett, Rolling Stone has the story of the Bush administration's war on global warming science:
But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. An examination of thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.
This would be Soon and Baliunas. (More on the paper here).
The most egregious example of cooked intelligence was a study underwritten in part by the API, Cooney's former employer. The study, which purported to show that the twentieth century was not unusually warm, was authored by two astrophysicists, both of whom were on the payroll of the George C. Marshall Institute, a climate-denial group funded by ExxonMobil and now headed by Bill O'Keefe, Cooney's former boss. The paper's publication in a minor German journal in January 2003 quickly created a scandal, with the editor in chief and three other editors resigning in shame after acknowledging that the paper was fundamentally flawed and should never have been published.
"It was sham science," says McCarthy, the Harvard scientist. "It's almost laughable, except that this study was held up by the administration as a definitive refutation of the temperature record."
A stunning claim has been made by US academics that warming will not increase by more than 1.8 C. That will plateau will be reached by 2100 with business-as-usual and 2150 under Kyoto-like measures.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697#more
The reason is that all fossil fuels will have long been used up contrary to IPCC scenarios. About 0.8C is locked in and the other degree will emerge from emissions regardless of precise timing.
Bizarrely that could mean Rove is right for the wrong reasons. I'd like to hear what IPCC has to say.
Soon and Baliunas are well known hired guns in the business of refuting global warming. One of their earlier contributions was paid for by auto, chemical, and coal corporations and made a big splash in the Wall Street Journal. My graduate ecology seminar class did a great job of running down all the details to determine if this was honest scholarship or not (definitely not). I published my class' analysis in our local skeptics newsletter.
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/index.html
Johnno: Coal.
Subject: "Polar City Red" looking for Hollywood deal!
Dear Hollywood Player,
I need an agent/producer to help bring a global warming sci-fi
thriller to the silver screen, either as a theatrical movie or a TV
movie. This is fiction, but it is based on my current reseach, which
is getting worldwide attention via the Internet. The working title of
the movie is "Polar City Red". It is about a polar city in the far
distant future, which houses remnants of humanity who have survived
global warming in the North Pole area and whose "breeding pairs"
remainthe only hope for the continuation of humankind on Earth. The
year: 2500, maybe 3500. Not so far away, maybe even sooner than that.
My name is Danny Bloom. See my blog at
http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com and see the Wikipedia entry
under "Polar Cities". Also google the term "Polar Cities" and you see
where I am going with this.
It's getting later earlier and earlier. In the line of such films as
"The Day After Tomorrow" and "Sunrise", my movie project titled "Polar
City Red" is based on my blog and represents a major opportunity for
our team to strike gold and have an impact on society as well.
The storyline is this: in the distant future, a group of survivors of
global warming live in a polar city in the Arctic region of Earth, and
the 100 breeding pairs of males and females remain the only hope for
the continuation of the species. The movie explains how climate change
caused all this, how most of Earth's 6 billion people died in the
catastrophe of global warming, and all the things that led up this
event. However, the films is both a warming and a hopeful note that we
can survive in these polar cities of the future and that we will
survive.
I am assembling a team now. Want to join? Want to lead? Email me here.
I live in Taiwan, far from the madding crowds and the madness of
modern life.
Sincerely,
Danny Bloom
Tufts 1971
http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com
"... a group of survivors of global warming..."
Heh! I'm writing a movie about the distant future where a group of survivors of the Kyoto Protocol eek out a living eating bunny livers at the equator while living in harmony with the mighty sasquatch. I think it will be a hit.
I dunno if you guys have seen this, Scott Armstrong's challenge to Al Gore, but if so, care to comment? There's nothing about this at RealClimate yet.
ben, see James Annan [here](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/06/20000-climate-forecast-bet.ht…)
Argh! He's on the idiotic Carson = death bandwagon. Dangit.
The hypothesis in http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697#more comes up with the absolutely ludicrous result that there is actually less carbon in the world's coal reserves than there is in the world's hydrocarbon reserves (refer to its figure 9 and following text). I think a few geologists would have something to say about that. I guess this comes from the author's cavalier attitude to inconvenient data, e.g. the Hubbert forecast relies on a decreasing trend of relative growth rate of cumulative production and puts the forecast total production where the trend line hits zero. If the trend is flat or increasing (such as for China) then there is no forecast. No mater, the author just ignores what is happening now and picks out historical data that suits him best. He's also ignoring factors (such as economic collapse in the former Soviet Union) that might invalidate the assumptions he's making. Even with this bogus analysis, he still arrives at an ultimate additional warming of 1.8C (above the present 0.7C of warming) which is most likely enough to make Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets collapse anyway.
So, the Bush White House manipulates the science for political purposes. What's new? The Clinton White House was not known for being forthcoming with the truth, and Gore manipulates climate science to revive his career. Blair used fake data on BSE, Brent Spar, WMD, and climate change. That's what politicians do.
I think realclimate.org has science issues to deal with. not some dittohead troll's attack on a former vice president. very telling - not just confused about science but even about science blogs.
the debate has shifted from the paid lies of the denialists to the solutions - indeed, even most denialists have made that shift (with their solution being, eat drink and be merry and it probably won't be that bad for the grand kids, and we'll be dead anyway).
Listen up everbody: There is no global warming!
I have been crunching temperature records from lighthouses on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and data show that there is no change in the mean minimum monthly temperatures for Mar, Jun, Sep, and Dec. for the last century.
Go http://www.fogwhistle.ca/bclights for map of BC lighthouses. I chose Quatsino since records go back to 1895. Here is an excerpt of results for the Spring and Fall Equinoxes:
El Nino Years:
1900 Monthly Min Mar 276.5 +/- 4.5 deg K
1998 Monthly Min Mar 276.5 +/- 2.8 deg K
1900 Monthly Min Sep 284.2 +/- 2.7 deg K
1998 Monthly Min Sep 282.1 +/- 2.7 deg K
La Nina Years:
1899 Monthly Min Mar 273.8 +/- 1.8 deg K
1999 Monthly Min Mar 274.5 +/- 1.8 deg K
1899 Monthly Min Sep 282.4 +/- 2.5 deg K
1998 Monthly Min Sep 281.5 +/- 1.7 deg K
Go www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html for temp records.
Go
www.home/earthlink.net/~ponerthemaunder/index.html for chart of El Nino and La Nina indexes.
This is the expected result if there is no climate forcings due to activities of man i.e. CO2 emissions.
Since i'm an old-time, Camel smokin', cola swillin', pot-boiling organic chemist, I'm convinced because for us organic chemists (i.e, the uncomplicated chemists) N is always 1!
Here is my question for Tim "The Math Man" Lambert: There are 8 lighthouses on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. How many of these do I have to examine so that I can confidently say that there has been no change in climate (i.e., temp of air mass coming in from the vast Pacific Ocean) in this region for the last century?
Reason I'm asking is that I do all of the computations
manually with a small calculator with basic stat fuctions and this is back-breaking donkey work.
Notice the values of the SD's. How can the IPCC say that mean global temperatue has increased ca 0.6 +/- 0.2 deg C when natural variation in measured temperature is ca 10 times their SD?
Beats me!
Go to: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics and look under "Contradictory Evidence".
Dr. Pierce says: The data speak for themselves, as they always do, and these data say no change in mean min air temperature at this site for a century. Will this trend hold for all the lighthouses and other remote sites throughout the world? I don't know, but I'm going to find out. After standing at the bench for over 40 years, my gut says these data will show no change in mean global temperature.
Dr. Pierce also says that the IPCC is using trickery in reporting the global mean temperature. The value 0.6 +/- 0.2 is the range mean global temperatures computed by crunching a century of temperature records by various "bookeeping" methods, and the IPCC did not report the true standard deviation. Why? Because if they were honest and did report the true standard deviation as is always done by honest scientists, then they (i.e., the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and scientists ) would be unable to say if any appreaciable global warming had actually taken place.
And who has corrupted them? Don Al "Fat Al" Gore, Godfather of the American enviromental mafia, and his capos on Wall street at Generation Realizations, a carbon credit trading company that he and capos set up so they can get filthy (expletive deleted!) rich by promoting global warming castastrophes with his video "An Inconvenient Truth". As they say, "Follow the Money".
How did the Godfather buy a scientist? Easy! You give him a really big can of Heinz beans!
Stay tuned and stay out of the carbon credit markets!
Be wary. Don't believe anything and trust absolutely no one!
See you all later. I got to crunch more temp records from lighthouses.
Harold Pierce Jr, B.Sc.(Hon), Ph.D.
PS: Webmaster, thank you for this wonderful, easy-to-use message post system. I think I will come back every day so I can use it and annoy everbody!
There is an art, difficult to master, in bringing parody just to the tipping point. I had almost concluded from internal evidence that Harold Pierce Jr, B.Sc.(Hon), Ph.D. was a parodic genius, but Googled for him to be sure.
Sadly, external evidence reveals that he is as sincerely wacky as he portrays himself.
Off-topic in the sense it has nothing (directly) to do with the current criminal mafia occupying the USA executive branch, but otherwise related to AGW, is this report in The Guardian about "[a] new survey suggests [UK] teenagers aren't that interested in climate change", Come on, gang, let's save the world!:
I wonder if pointing out that not being worried, not attempting to do anything, and not believing AGW affects them means they are agreeing with Bush, ExxonMobile, and Co. would cause a change to a more encouraging position?
RE: #14
Ire: Google H. D. Pierce, Jr. and see what you get.
FYI: I earned my B.Sc.(Hon) in the specialized curriculum in chemistry at Urbana-Champaign, IL in 1967 and my Ph.D. at UC Irvine in 1972. I went to Simon Fraser Univ, Burnaby BC in 1972 and did teaching in organic chemistry and research in insect pheromone chemical ecology and yeast sterol biosynthesis. I retired several years ago.
We organic chemist are usually goofy fellows because we live and work everday right at edge: You can buy the farm at anytime, anyday, I have almost bought the farm on a number of occasions, and I tell you explosions don't happen in slow motion like they do on TV and in movies.
Also we are not known for literary scholarship but we try!
Ire, you do the google, come back, and show Dr. Pierce respect! If not, I might ask BC Sasquatch pay you a visit.
Quoth Dr Pierce:
"I think I will come back every day so I can use it and annoy everbody!"
Self admitted trolling. I'm afraid its been done before on the parody circuit.
"And who has corrupted them? Don Al "Fat Al" Gore, Godfather of the American enviromental mafia, and his capos on Wall street at Generation Realizations, a carbon credit trading company that he and capos set up so they can get filthy (expletive deleted!) rich by promoting global warming castastrophes with his video "An Inconvenient Truth". As they say, "Follow the Money"."
It's Generation Investment Management, not Generation Realisations. It's not a carbon offset company. It's located in London not on Wall Street and Al Gore (who inherited several hundred million dollars and has made several hundred more for himself through wholly unrelated activities) is an extremely minor investor in the company.
Your capacity to compact this many errors into a single para is quite remarkable.
Hey give me a break it was 2:30 in the morning. "Generation" is close enough. And I was doing this from memory. How do you know what these capos are really upto? You don't know. I still suspects the Wall street mob is involved. The Wall street mob vultures have come into BC using wiseguys of the international enviromental mafia bankrolled by big foundations of the Eastern Liberal Establishment as money funnellers and have just beat the crap out of the coastal forest companies to point that many of them about to go under. We West Coasters are very wary and suspicous of any enviromentalist who has ties to these Wall street vultures. Why did "Fat Al" set up this company overseas? To avoid SEC disclosure rules, no doubt.
I'm going to sic David Baines of the Vancouver Sun on him.
I stand by what I said. Don Al "Fat Al" Gore ain't nothing more than a low down, no-good-nothin', side-windin', lying, cheatin' thievin', charaltan polecat politician. He knows squat about the enviroment. Google Al gore, Ken Lay and carbon credits. Then come back and tell me what you have found out. He has shifty eyes like a river boat gambler working out Memphis.
You guys make fun of me all want, but I have rock-solid, bullet proof data that will bring him down. Unless Kirsten Byrnes beats me to the punch. Google "paunderthemaunder" and see what this 15 year-old high schooler has to say about Don "Fat Al" and wiseguy "Jimmy White Coat", who eats Heinz beans for breakfest, lunch, dinner and midnight snacks!
Sorry Harold, organikers don't know crap about gas phase chemistry, and essentially nothing about optical spectroscopy. As to physics, the only more math adverse group on earth is biologists, and you appear to have hung around with them. In other words, your skill set is not the one you need to discuss climate.
Eli, take a hike! You don't know squat. I'm really getting sick and tired of you gutless wonders and spinless wimps who hide behind such a stupid and silly alias as Eli Rabett.
FYI, I have had courses at the both undergrad and grad level in physical chemistry, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, photochemistry, spectroscopy, biochemistry, microbiology, analytical instrumental analysis plus numerous courses in organic chemistry, my speciality. Took math thru to the adv. calculus and diffy Q.
Since you a coward and creep, don't you dare judge me. You are totally cluless as to the prestige of the world famous and highly-regarded institutions that I have attended.
How can you not know of Simon Fraser Univ?
I could easily blow any those climatologist, who are promoting this global nonsense, away in about 2 min flat!
For example Dear Phil has posted the latest guesstimate for the mean global temperature increase since 1900 as 0.42 deg C. First question, what is the standard error of the mean? Yuo never see this. From my lighthouse data the monthly SD's range from 0.6 to 5.3 deg for a 100 year period. From my Telluride Co data the monthly SD's range 0 to 14 deg F for a hundred year period. You can flim flam politicians with this IPPC math crap but not scientists. Check the USHCN. Temps are reported with an implied error +/- 1 deg F.
Note the value 0.42 deg C. That is ridiculous. It should have been O.4 deg C. Thermometers that measure to +/- 0.01 deg C are never used in weather stations. These thermometers are available and used by, for example, kineticists. They come a wooden box lined in blue velvet and are bloody expensive!
When I see this kind of crap you quickly concluded: Scam, Swindle, Ripoff! And don't get me going about those stupid radiative forcing factors. These are not measured by instruments as was told to me by Roy Spencer. They are "computed" by various math methods in the fudge factory!
Go back in rabett hole and don't me any more!
Ah yes, the typical savant. You are related to Uncle Al for sure. Roy Spencer does know about radiative forcing factors because his MSU analysis comes from the same lineage and involves very complex calculations and a whole nest of assumptions.
Eli: Cut the crap! Go back down in your rabett hole and stay there. And I ain't related to no Uncle Al. The Pierce clan is from the hills of Kentucky and we have no truck with the Gore clan of Tennessee, who without plantation servants would starve to death.
There is way to measure accurately the radiative forcing factor for carbon dioxide, and this would require use of the ISS and a chamber constructed of cold mirror surfaces.
Go figure this experiment out and come back and tell me about it.
Eli:
I want to see a list of your most recent referred publications. Put up or shut up!
Not sure why I'm bothering, but Eli's identity is know to me and he is certainly a bona-fide scientist with a solid string of publications who knows of what he speaks...he may not be what is classically considered a "climate scientist" but all this radiative transfer stuff is much closer to his field than mine, that's for sure.
On anonymity in general, I'm not a fan, but (given enough material tied to a single nym) it's not that hard to work out who knows that they are talking about, and who does not. The fact that so many delusionalists don't appear to have this skill, places them fairly in the second camp. Go and read Eli's blog.
"Why did "Fat Al" set up this company overseas? To avoid SEC disclosure rules, no doubt."
Yes London's notorious for its lax regulation of the stock market, unlike America.
That's why British scandals like Enron could never possibly have happened in the US.
Less conspiratorial minds will note that Gore's partner in the business (and the major shareholder) David Blood was living in London when the company was formed.
I know I shouldn't be wasting my time but here goes:
"Google "paunderthemaunder" and see what this 15 year-old high schooler has to say about Don "Fat Al" and wiseguy "Jimmy White Coat",..."
Guess what: "Your search - paunderthemaunder - did not match any documents."
"I have had courses at the both undergrad and grad level in physical chemistry, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, photochemistry, spectroscopy, biochemistry, microbiology, analytical instrumental analysis plus numerous courses in organic chemistry, my speciality. Took math thru to the adv. calculus and diffy Q."
I'm sure that's true.
Did you pass any of them?
"the West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia"
Anyone who is genuinely interested in the temperature record of this area can get a graph of GHCN-ERSST annual temperatures for any 'rectangular' area with NCDC's tool. For example, the area bounded by 48N to 51N and 129W to 125W (which covers the west coast of Vancouver Is down to Juan de Fuca Str) shows a mean temperature trend from 1895 to 2006 of 0.06°C/decade. This compares with the whole world average over the same period of 0.05°C/decade.
Cherry-picking trolls can continue doing whatever they like. It makes them feel better.
Ian Gould:
Don't be silly. Of course I passed my courses--with a GPA of 4.5/5! You damn well know reputation of the Chem Dept at the U of Ill. so stop bugging me. Ya know, you guys have a quiver on your belt full of rhetortical barbs and you are always looking for an opportunity to stick it to some hapless victim! You must be at IC, right? Typical wise-cracking Brit! If you are, let know and I'll send you my data.
All my courses were in the "Shrine" except biochemisty which was taught by Prof. K Reinhardt. Prof. F.S. Rowland was the dept chair when I was at UC Irvine. What the white-coated wiseguys are doing is setting carbon dioxide up as bogeyman like it was a CFC. Won't work and they won't get a Noble! Just many case of free Heinz beans!
Since "paunder" is not a word, try "ponderthemaunder". Now you just gotta ask yourself: Did dorky Harold screw up and misspell "ponder" or was this a set up to test your smarts? Well, you will never really know! The young lady is Kirsten Byrnes.
I'm approaching the global warming problem like old-school weatherman: Just analyze temp records. These are available at: http://www.climate.weateroffice.ec.gc.ca.climateData/dailydata_e.html. I'm only using temp records for Mar, Jun. Sep and Dec and only for selected years, namely those years that have approx the same El Nino or La Nina indexes. You can't compare temp records from an El Nino year with those from a La Nina year if you are checking for difference in mean monthly temps. I'm also only using minimum temps. My data show no change in mean monthly temperature for a century.
As Ed Ring said over at ecoworld
Wow! How did you go on your SATs Harold?
Harold Pierce looks to be another Galileo.
We look forward, Hal, to your publication of this blockbuster and, personally, I look forward to the big ol' BOOM of the crash of the instututions you'll bring down with this publication.
IOW: publish, Hal. Let the worrrrrrld know, brothah, whut YOOOOOuv'e discovahd heah.
Preach the word, brothah.
Best,
D
Dano, you watch your stupid, (expletive deleted)ignorant mouth young man! You show respect for your accomplished elders!
Now go study the data in #11. Come back here and tell me what it means!
It means you are conflating the records of maritime stations measuring maritime airmass to continental stations. That might lead to a problem or two when you look at your advection, delta DTR, cloud cover effects, Palmer Index, ENSO periodicity, signal masking by state shifts in the ocean.
See, I learned the basic, fundamental difference between continental and maritime airmasses in weather school, oh, hmmm...twenty four years ago, old man.
It also means that you skipped Rhetoric and Analysis and maybe Classical Literature and Critical Thinking when you did your Oh!Chem. While I was in diapers.
Pasture's thataway, hoss. Trees to shade up n' all.
Hmmm...I might not have considered comment 34 was by a parody character. If so, I apologize to its creator.
Best,
D
Harold Pierce Jr wrote:
Harold Pierce Jr, you are the best poster EVAR. I can't stop reading your stuff. I want you to have my baby so we can propagate a long string of Harold Pierce IIIs and IVs. I know you're a man, but you were an OChemist so the possibility is still there.
WAit a minute, is this Pierce character essentially claiming there is no warming by selecting only some stations from beside the sea, for certain months of the year, and looking only at minimum temperatures? I know very little meteorology or climatology, but it seems to me that looking at minimum temperatures when you have this great big heat sink moderating local temperatures sitting right beside the measuring station is just a little bit silly.
"Don't be silly. Of course I passed my courses--with a GPA of 4.5/5! You damn well know reputation of the Chem Dept at the U of Ill. so stop bugging me."
Actually I don't believe I'd ever heard of the University of Illinois previously.
"Ya know, you guys have a quiver on your belt full of rhetortical barbs and you are always looking for an opportunity to stick it to some hapless victim!"
No just the ons who in their first couple of posts declare they're intention to go out of their way to annoy people.
" You must be at IC, right?"
I don't even know what IC is.
"Typical wise-cracking Brit! If you are, let know and I'll send you my data."
Actually I'm Australian. You Canadians are always making that mistake.
Harold,
The first papagraph of Byrnes' piece contains a glaring error. Can you find it?
Harold is "Uncle Al" south complete with climate rants Oh for the good old days of USENET
I'm convinced now Harold is a parody character. It's a good construct.
Best,
D
Now Eli I knew UncleAl, and Uncle Harold is no Uncle Al.
Harold, take Eli's tip and check the Usenet archives for posts from your fellow glass-blackener UncleAl, mostly to sci.chem but with idiotic scattershots to sci.environment and everywhere else. Mad, bad and bbbbwilliant to boot he's probably still there knowing everything about everything at the top of his profane voice. Let his bad example be a salutary lesson and warning to you young fella (he oughta scare the bejumpinjehosophatz out of you).
"I'm only using temp records for Mar, Jun. Sep and Dec and only for selected years, namely those years that have approx the same El Nino or La Nina indexes."
And as we all know, the only variables that affect weather are the El Nino or La Nina indexes. All the other work that the National Climatic Data Centre does is a waste of time. They don't know what they're talking about. Unlike Harold Pierce Jr.
Just to set the British Columbia record straight, Environment Canada publishes a temperature update every three months in a document called the Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/). There is also a regional section (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/regional_e.cfm). At that website there are data available for annual and seasonal series, although the website is not designed for data download and navigation is somewhat clumsy. The data that are used in the CTVB are from high quality stations that are part of a national network, some of these records have been adjusted to ensure homogeneity (removal of non-climatic effects due to station relocation, instrument adjustment etc). Environment Canada does make the individual homogeneous station data (monthly values) available to researchers. The BC coastal region includes the coastal areas of mainland BC, the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver Island. In that region, since 1948, the mean annual temperature trend has been +0.2 degrees Celcius per decade.
RE: Shut up Dano! Or I'm going to book you for being stupid and a dork.
RE #38 googled ian gould. hit two chemist Ian Gould at Imperial College and ian gould at univ of manchester presently at U of AZ. How can you heard of the U of Ill: Home of the Illiac, world first computer with parallel processors, and NCSCA.
No data for you!
Re #43 The reason for this is that I am doing the calculations manually for the preliminary analyses. However, it doesn't appear that you need more than this.
RE #39 sure there is semicolon where there should be a colon. picky, picky. By pro scientific standard her paper is a very rough first draft. Where is she going find an expert who will review and edit this ms for free?
RE # 40 Huh? You figured out the experiment on the ISS for determing the carbon dioxide forcing factor?
RE #37 I'm looking at inland sites also. So far results are the same.
The lighthouses on Vancouver Island measure the temp of the air mass carried in by the prevailing westerlies.
Goblal warming proponents have claimed an increase in SST due to global warming. No evidence for that. However you miss the point. The magnitudes of the SD indicate that you can't detect slight increse in global temp. Sat data is a pile of crap. You just can't measure temperature to the accuracy they claim.
RE #36 I'm flattered. However,
RE #36 I'm flattered. However, had the "Reno Surprize" at 43 and i'm all tuckered out!
ad the "reno Sur
Re #44 I just donloaded the station temp records from the daily data section and print out the record on legal size paper. It works for me!
RE #44 0.2 deg decade. that is nonsense. To make that claim thermometers would have measure to 0.01 deg.
Anybody else want their butt kicked?
"To make that claim thermometers would have measure to 0.01 deg."
Just one of many that does.
I think old Harold is more used to have thermometers inserted in him than in inserting them into his calculations.
Come on Harold, I'm still waiting for your SAT scores. How else will we know whether to take you seriously or not?
it's much more fun to pick on Harold with his public combination of arrogance and ignorance than it is to consider the source article. Bush, who pledged a slightly non-insane policy as a candidate (although that carbon intensity thing is nonsense, as was pointed out from the start) had an immmediate conversion to the school of doing nothing while lying about it. Harold's claimed ignorance about statistics is relatively charming by comparison, with hope (if he were sincere) that this could be treated, unlike Bush.
I'm with Dano on this, Harold has to be a put-on. Otherwise, he'd know about things like standard errors, and wouldn't get so hung up on instrumental effects. I wonder how this persona would react to the news about the US, British, French, German, Canadian, Japanese, Indian, Chinese, Russian, etc. National Academies of Science and their stated concerns about global warming?
#50- so thats a "I have no data and am making stuff up" then?
RE # 56 Google H.D. Pierce, Jr. and see what you get!
RE: I have the data.
RE #55 Yeah, I have used these. They work fine until you drop the probe or the whole unit on concrete. However, these have only been available in recent times whereas in historical records temps are reported to +/- 1 deg F or +/- 0.1 deg C. For most work you don't to measure temp that accurately.
"RE #39 sure there is semicolon where there should be a colon. picky, picky. By pro scientific standard her paper is a very rough first draft. Where is she going find an expert who will review and edit this ms for free?"
Look harder Harold.
Not going to happen. The worst-case scenario is that the world becomes a tropical paradise, with something like temperate rainforest (think Pacific Northwest) at the poles. That's what we had in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (you can google for that).
Of course that means a sea level 70 m above the present one.
Even if only Greenland and western Antarctica melt (and for Greenland at least that has already begun, though it'll probably take a few centuries), you can kiss Bangladesh goodbye. That alone means evacuating 144 million people.
Respect is something you earn, not a byproduct of age. Learn some climatology and then come back. Hint: it's complicated. A few weeks in Google should be enough to give you a decent background, but you're retired, so I suppose you have the time.
RE #57 That's the politicians speaking not the skeptical scientists. The politicians are spinless wimps who just want to keep the enviros off their backs.
The 1997 Kyoto Accord: Did you ever wonder why the emission targets were set at 5% below the level of 1990?
Here is the reason.
The oil embargoes of the early 1970's was the world-wide wake up call on energy use. By the 1990's the engineers had eliminated inefficient use of energy in industry and commerce. The corrupt pinstripes and white-coated wiseguys knew with absolutely certainity that a country could never ever meet these emission standards by implementation of any technology. For example, just how do reduce emissions from cement plants, steel mills, foundries, base metal mines, pulp mills, aluminium smelters, agricultural, food processing, residential space and water hearing, aviation, etc and from gold, silver, and diamond mines (Apparently, these get a free pass: you don't want to annoy and offend the silk-stocking enviromentalists and limousine liberals in New York City!) You can't. Hence enter Don Al "Fat Al" Gore and his capos with their carbon credit trading schemes. Hence Fat Al buying Jim Hansen with a really big can of Heinz beans. Kyoto is totally corrupt!
PS: Who among you wants to put a cap on professional sport energy consumption? Try putting a cap on football energy consumption. In Europe, they would burn you at the stake in the Colosseum!
"Google H.D. Pierce, Jr. and see what you get!"
I did. It seems that he has something in common with Haldane's God: an inordinate fondness for beetles.
Harold -
Well, let's see.
France has emissions that are 40% of the USA, despite being (unlike the US) an exporter of electricity and manifactured goods. So the idea that it is somehow impossible for the US to lower emissions sharply whilst maintaining lifestyles is bunk.
But on global warming - I've gone one better - I've avoided all external influendes on the thermometer by putting it in the fridge. Average temperatures in my area show a remarkable stability, apart from in power outages.
"I dunno if you guys have seen this, Scott Armstrong's challenge to Al Gore, but if so, care to comment? There's nothing about this at RealClimate yet."
The link doesn't go anywhere, but if it's his offer to bet Al Gore, note that he doesn't speak to average global temperature, but instead wants to bet on whether the temperature at individual weather stations will be higher or lower at a specific day in the future; which is deliberately or inadvertently missing the point. Rather like trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stock market tends to rise continually by betting whether General Motors will be higher next year at this time.
On the other hand, if that's referring to his paper critiquing the IPCC report on the grounds of it failing his test for forecasting studies, that is equally misguided. He ventures to "debunk" the IPCC report on the grounds that it fails his test of 170 or so questions which a forecasting paper must pass. Said test available for sale at his website, where he also sells his book; said book and website being prominently mentioned along with the test in said paper. (Said paper being unpublished in a peer reviewed journal, but rather widely samizdat among the what-climate-change intelligentsia). He seems to be pretty good at self-promotion and an avid participant in free market capitalism.
In his critique, however, the independent lines of evidence for climate change and the proposed mechanism are not addressed at all; the only criteria is that the model fails his test, which consists of questions like "Are the repercussions of the forecast taken into account?". What makes it funny is that these questions seem to be self-evidently vague and open to subjective interpretation, i.e. bias, rather than generating repeatable objective and precise answers between scorers. Unfortunately, the test has, at least from what Armstrong tells us, never been validated against actual data. I.e., in violation of standard practice (and common sense) the test has never been applied to an existing forecast(s), and the answers to individual questions correlated with success or failure of the forecast(s). Thus, all it is is a bunch of random thoughts, guesses, beliefs, and hypotheses posed as a quantitative instrument; one which is claimed to find the IPCC forecast nothing but a bunch of random thoughts, guesses, beliefs, and hypotheses posed as a quantitative prediction. Given that there is evidence supporting the IPCC report and none supporting Armstrong's test, a rational unbiased person can only come to one conclusion re which side is correct......
"Re #43 The reason for this is that I am doing the calculations manually for the preliminary analyses."
Just because you have a cause for doing something wrong doesn't mean you are doing something right.
"However, it doesn't appear that you need more than this."
None so blind as those who will not see. When you know a bit more about statistics you may learn what it takes to discover something significant. As Gavin pointed out.
In comment #52 Harold claims to download daily data from Environment Canada. Harold, just what do you do with that daily data? Are there missing values? Do you estimate them? Do you have metadata on that station? How have you corrected the series for inhomogeneity? Have you compared the data to nearby stations?
Are you aware of the literature that describes how to correctly process meteorological data, or are you just making it up?
Hi Guys! "Old Weird Harold" is back! Do any of you whipper-snappers know who "Old Weird Harold" is?
Once again Windows chokes and coughs up "protection error" furballs! Had to format Drive C and start from Square 1.
RE #62: Glaring errors are the superscript "2" on CO, the lack of a dash in "man-made", and the use an "is" instead of an "are" and the use "variance" instead of "variablity".
I would toss the whole intro and completely rewrite it.
If you got something really important to say, say it! Little minds play stupid (expletive deleted!) little games!
RE: #64 Shut your stupid mouth young man. Climate science is not complicated at all! Actually it is pretty simple as compared to rocket science and no-limit Texas Hold'em poker! The smartest man on the planet is Mike "The Mad Genius" Caro!
Hello Tim! No blocking my posts! "If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen"! I'll bet your site visit meter is spinning so fast that it is startin' to overheat and smoke!
RE: The US is just average with repect to energy consumption (i.e. cabon dioxide output) and economic output. Which countries have the highest energy consumption per capita? Go find out, students!
About a year ago I kicked around the idea of making up skits for comment threads on The Internets, as a way of using the new, nascent medium for entertainment and social commentary. Taking the Dano character and adding more art to it and making more of a sociopolitical statement. I ran out of time to make it happen.
I suspect someone else had the same idea and is implementing it now. I'm feeling grasping, edginess, ants making a picnic out of crumbs, silly ignorance, pomposity...kind of an amalgam of the typical CA or RP Sr poster all rolled into one, which makes the character so...so...disturbing.
My 2¢.
Best,
D
RE: #XY I download the temp records from the station for Mar, Jun, Sep and Dec starting far back as possible. These are sorted into three catagories (1) El Nino years, (2) La Nina years, and (3) years where the El Nino/La Nina indexes are about 0. I then calculate the minimum mean temperature for N=11 with data centered on the equinox or solstice. Finally, I calculate the average deviation and the standard deviation. The average deviation is always much smaller than the standard deviation. This is a better statistical parameter for a small data of finite values.
No more cheap shots, please!
Here is my latest data for Cape Scott, BC for Group #3.
Year-----mean min temp +/- AD Deg K.
1981-----277.9 +/- 1.1.
1982-----275.9 +/- 1.2.
1983-----278.1 +/- 0.6.
1986-----278.7 +/- 0.8.
1989-----277.0 +/- 0.6.
1997-----277.8 +/- 1.3.
2002-----274.6 +/- 2.9.
Note 1980 was the year the Little Ice Age offically ended. Note the constant mean mim temp. I'll do a paired t-test for 1997 and 2002, but I doubt the difference between the means will be significant.
The idea is to do a simple but quite powerful and useful computation. I claim you do not have crunch megatons of temp records to get useful information. However, it is not easy to find temp records for remote stations that go back before 1900.
Harold Pierce: you seem to be on the right track. Heare are extracts fromn Kevin E. Trenberth's recent article on Nature's Climate Feedback blog: (he is one of the top lead authors of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (I abbreviate that as FARt), extracts follow.
"There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess. ... Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used byIPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."
Remember that Trenberth is no 'sceptic'. He maintains that global warming is happening, and humans are causing it. But he concludes,
... the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs."
RE: #75. The data is for Mar. Note the magnitude of the average deviations. These are typical for the stations on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, BC. Note these values, which show the natural variation in temp, are larger than the mean global increase in temperature as estimated by the IPCC. So what are these white-coated weasels (WCW's) really peddling? The WCW's are peddling pure scientific phony baloney!
For a map of BC lighthouses go: http://www.fogwhistle.ca/bclights. This the official website of the BC Lighthouse Keepers Assoc. Check out the pics of the lighthouse. These are just awesome, and show how remote are isolated the lighthouses (aka lightstations) are.
Like I wuz sayin;.
Best,
D
RE: I should send my data to Kevin E so he can peruse rock-solid, bullet-proof data and evalute the methdology.
A scientist just can't have beliefs, in particular the belief that global warming is happening and it is caused by man.
Let us suppose my method shows there really is no global warming and natural variation can account for the present slight warming of the climate. Let us further suppose that Kirsten Byrnes has got it right. Now what? Is Al Gore going to give back his Oscar (i.e., the Ponzi, after Charles Ponzi), the 25 mil he has made off his video. Who is going to compensate all those foolish and naive people who have been ripped off with carbon offset schemes?
How much money has been thrown down a rathole for nothing?
So far, many billions that could have spent on more pressing problems like securing clean fresh drinking water for everbody in the world. Look at all the money that governments are wasting on hydrogen energy systems.
Global warming was an issue that fueled the Anarchists at the G8. Those Anarchists are now heading for Ft. McMurray and the Athabasca Oil Sands for the biggest protest in recent times. These Anarchists are very, dangerous, ruthless poeple. The professional protest gunslingers, Anarchists Mike Hudema and Mike Roselle are leading this protest (google these guys), and they are being bankrolled by GlobalExchange, an eviromental outfit of lowlifes that works out of San Francisco City. But who are these guys and who are the really big money behind them. The global warming nonsense and the thugs who are exploting all this for personal gain or just to raise hell. It is time for all of this to come to end.
Harold said, on 30th June (#21):
Ok, it's been approximately a week now. When are you going to start? Will you being making a recording? It could be very, ah, entertaining...
I, for one, welcome our new Anarchist overlords.
A chemist writes:
"these white-coated weasels"
Oh the hypocrisy.
How do I blow'em away, easy. What is the average deviation of the IPCC-estimated 0.6 deg increase in mean global temperaure since 1900? Based on my lighthouse data it would be +/- 2 deg K. And what does that number mean anyway? It means absolutely nothing.
IPCC: 10 of the last 12 years have been the warmest on record.
Harold: As stated above, the Little Ice Age officially ended in 1980. So warm years can be expected. 10 of the last 12 years have been El Nino years with large positve indexes.
Harold: Where do you get the forcing factors? The IPCC Fudge Factory?
Harold: Where is your experimental proof for the so-called feed back mechanism that operates on water? IPCC Fantasy Labs?
Harold: Where do you get the so-called feedback application factors? The IPCC Fudge Factory?
Harold: In The FAR-SPM temperatures are often reported to +/- 0.01. Don't have guys know how to measure temperature? In the historical temperature records implied measurement errors are +/- 1 F or +/- 0.1 deg C. So what is this 0.01 deg C claim of accuracy nonsense? How is it that over 2000 "scientists" can sign off on this nonsense. Answer: They are all corrupt. And they probably get a free life time supply of Heinz beans!!!
The Sitemeter reads 1,586,131. Maybe I if get totally outrageous and attract enough curious lurkers, I can punch it over 1,700,000 by 16th!!!
I'm going to crunch more temp records from the lighthouses.
I'd like to buy the person who created the Harold Pierce Jr Parody Character a drink. You are clever as h*ll.
Best,
D
Yeah the "Harold Pierce Jr" bot is an hilarious construct for sure but it'd vanish with it's foolish tail between its legs if it ever found out what a lame imitation of Uncle Al it is. Don't go do that bit of research HP, I'd miss you.
Ian Gould: I am concerned at your silence, with no response as yet to my posts on Rio Aluminium and Kevin Trenberth. I trust you are well.
However if you go to
www.lavoisier.com.au
you will find yourself acknowledged in my paper there. If you would prefer to have your name expunged before my paper is published more widely, let me know!
Best
Tim
"before my paper is published more widely"
Hopefully it contains the explanation for what happened to the 780 bn tonnes of water vapour. That certainly needs to be published more widely.
RE: #88
I was absorbed by Fat Al who is just blowing a lot of steam! Ya, know, like that Wizard of OZ guy!
Yikes! The Sitemeter has only gone up a 1000 clicks. I had better start pouring on the coal!
Harold Pierce Jr says, "I was absorbed by Fat Al who is just blowing a lot of steam". It's nice to hear you were absorbed by Fat Al (whatever floats your boat) but I was more interested in one of the consquences of Curtin's First Law of Atmospheric Physics (which is, BTW, that the mass of the atmosphere is conserved). From Curtin's First Law we can conclude that if one gas in the atmosphere increases, for example if the CO2 increases by 780 billion tonnes, then another gas must decrease by 780 billion tonnes. Curtin himself says this other gas is water. You can read all about it from Curtin himself here.