November 7, 2011 - 8:03 am
I don’t have time to write a full piece on this right now, but Anthony Watts has a good post up: basically NOAA’s data shows very significant cooling over the last ten years in the continental US. This is very hard to reconcile with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Update
Consistent with this, the Arctic sea ice extent is growing about 40 percent faster than normal this year, indicating extended polar cold.
Better do yer fact-checking, Charlie. Watts’ on-line essay nowhere claims that his cherry-picked observations are statistically significant in any respect whatsoever … in fact Watts’ own prose never even uses the word “significant.”
… now does it?
Prove me wrong, Charlie … quote a Watts-provided P-value.
Meanwhile, those hard-nosed analysists at Forbes call it like they see it.
—————————————————–
Forbes: Independent Study Confirms That Global Warming Exists
URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/24/independent-study-confirms-that-global-warming-exists/
You’re kind of slow, aren’t you? Who doesn’t know that the earth warms and cools over periods of time since the Earth came into existence?
Glad to see you back, John, I was worried about you.
Now, read carefully in what I said and you’ll find I didn’t say anything stronger than Anthony did, and made no claims for statistical strength. Which would be a straw man, and different from your usual at least.
On the Forbes thing, if you read it carefully, you’ll find it’s the BEST temperature data that I discussed a few days ago. interestingly, if you follow up on that, you’ll find that Rich Muller of the Berkeley Earth Project also says, as I did, that it’s incorrect to assert that the BEST papers anthropogenicity.
Perhaps if you read and quoted more technical sources, you wouldn’t get caught in these embarrassing slips?
`cuz PJ Media *says* Watts’ claims are “very significant”, that’s why!
——————————-
Anthony Watts urges WattsUpWithThat readers to disrupt Forbes blog
URL: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/04/207632/anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-readers-shout-down-comments-section/
No, Johnny. It claims Watts’ DATA shows significance, not his claims. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Now read every word and digest what’s written before attacking your keyboard.
Nice try, John, but that’s not what it says.
Good luck on your quest to find the elusive Man-Bear-Pig.
We’re all totally serial, too.
Mr. Martin, Aphysicist is well aware of the BEST temperature data. He is well aware of the parallel temperature fluctuations of the other planets in our solar system. He is well aware of the corresponding fluctuations in our sun’s cycles. He is well aware of the pattern of dishonesty behind those pushing AGW theory and is himself part of that pattern. If he were some undergrad social science major emoting about mother earth, he could possibly be forgiven on the grounds of ignorance, but he is not. What he is pushing is a calculated, bald-faced lie and he knows it. Worse, he persists when he knows we know it.
AGW is nothing more than a scheme to defraud the consumers and tax-payers of developed countries out of money ( the sum of 76 trillion if I remember correctly ). It is a fraud calculated to deprive those same people of many, if not all, of the rights we here consider sacred. It is a lie that could put an end to much of the social, political, and technilogical advances of the last 150 years. A lie that will cost many, many lives. It is a monstrous criminal conspiracy.
Y’all have alot more patients with his ilk than I do. I have nothing but contempt for them.
A warmmonger talking about statistically significance? That’s pretty funny considering the left’s whole argument is based on a century to century and a half of measurements with uncalibrated instruments with neither the technique, nor distribution of measuring held constant. . . vs a 4.5B year old highly dynamic system.
Newsflash: mankind does not currently have the methodology to ascertain “statistically significant” changes in climate.
But, I guess that doesn’t matter to the left. Back in the ’70′s the “cure” for “man made ice age” was to neuter western industry and transfer vast sums of power to the UN and money to the third world. . . today we have the same “solution” still desperately trying to convince people there is a “problem” it fits.
This is the last time I’ll feed this troll.
It’s pretty impressive that the nation has been cooling, in view of the fact that Michigan hit 600F last year.
http://i.imgur.com/DwSj7.jpg
I am suspicious that the figure 600F may be incorrect.
He probably meant Centigrade.
Thats worse.
Still having problems with reading comprehension, eh, Dr. Stalker John Redherring?
I trust all the readers with kids about to go to college take to heart this fine example of a University of Washington professor.
At’ll learn you to ask where Johnny’s been.
I suspect he has been at one of the OWS demonstrations wearing a che t-shirt.
NASA seems to think that the SUN has a lot to do with our changing weather patterns here on Earth, and around the solar system…
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/
The Forbes link provided does nothing but continue the whitewash of the data scandals that are at the heart of the AGW scam.
LOOK UP…. It’s *global warming!* TM
As one scientist/statistician, I must ask:
What’s the confidence level that the observed increase in surface temperatures is A) statistically relevant when compared to and B) independent of the NASA data concerning solar output variations….
Please take into consideration NASA’s mention of the shortcomings of equipment, failures to maintain consistent measuring apparatus, locations, data failures, and the fact that surface measurements on land fail to take into consideration the 70% of Earth’s overall surface
** NOTE: Global Warming to occur during daylight hours only, global cooling at night!
Cuz cuz … the sea level is going to rise ten feet and salt water is going to flow backward through the Ballard Locks and the Huxeys are gonna have to play up the hill where the Med School is cuz the old stadium will be under salt water, and they’re gonna have to get rid of the med school to make room for the new futbol field, and then everybody’s gonna get sick, and we’re all gonna die!!!
Snork, why don’cha quote Forbes directly?
There. Now was that so scary?
The point is that *real* business folks aren’t scared of plain facts.
And what happens to the solar industry when government dollars go away? Heck, what happens even with government dollars?
I can speak from experience on that! In Louisiana the total subsidy in the form of tax credits is 80% (30% federal and 50% State). Even at this level, a solar power system does not make economic sense when grid-tied, no battery backup, and bare bones. You get a system that does not provide backup power, increases complexity and risk exposure (failing equipment), and if all goes well you MIGHT recoup your outlay in seven or eight years.
I put a system on my house w/ battery backup and the economics just get atrocious when adding more equipment. But it sure is a neat toy!
If you’re a mile from the nearest grid line, it can pencil out. But only in that circumstance.
Now don’t be mean to Johnny Boyo. He’s a government employee being a tenured professor and all, so his perspective is that if the government spends money on private solar panel companies, that means:
1. Irrefutable proof of global warming due to fossil fuel consumption.
2. We NEED to switch over to non-fossil fuels because the government says and spends so.
3. Spending our tax dollars on companies like Solyndra means that we will see job growth if we switch over to non-AGW energy sources. Never mind that man behind the Solyndra curtain, trying to hide the fact that hundreds of people LOST their jobs, and we’re stuck with the bill.
(Ex: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-03/energy-panel-seeks-solyndra-documents/51065708/1)
To understand John is to love him.
I thought A.Phys. made artificial legs or something. What’s that got to do with climatology?
A physicist: You may know physics, but you don’t know economics. The number of jobs created is not a measure of a product’s benefits, it’s a measure of (part of) its cost. If jobs created were a benefit, you could create 80 milliion jobs overnight by banning all farm implements (and after we use up all our surpluses we’ll have a famine).
Maybe because I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Forbes says?
In case you haven’t noticed, you’re the only one here who argues by authority.
That is not a success story, that’s a joke. Unfortunately, the joke’s on us.
Sure, the industry is thriving (well, except for Solyndra and a few other notable exceptions) but it’s at taxpayer expense, and the expense of other, more efficient industries. Spain rather thoroughly demonstrated what an abject failure the “green economy” is. But, of course, those working in the industry think it’s a great success as long as those subsidies keep rolling in.
24,000 people at $836,000 each…of the taxpayers money.
Hey, Johnnie, did BEST ever adjust for those thousands of stations they shut down in Canada and Russia?
You’re forgetting that the new buzzwords are “climate change” and not “global warming.” That means that when they’re wrong they’re right and when they’re right they’re right.
The constant mention of snowstorms in “Jane Eyre” was artistic license, putting that novel in the realm of a science fiction story with gothic supernatural overtones.
Forget Brueghel’s, younger and older’s, ice skaters; more SF.
How does a study that looks at a geographical area (the continental USA) that corresponds to less than 2% of the world say anything important about global warming?
A common accusation against global warming believers is that they promote misleading information. How is Mr. Watt’s post any different?
Actually it’s about 7 percent of the land suface area, and you might just as usefully ask how, in a reasonably well-mixed atmosphere etc, 4 degrees of cooling on 7 percent of the land area wouldn’t make a difference.
But you’d be better advised to consult the BEST data and observe that this is actually consistent with the general cooling observed over the whole land surface in the same time period.
As to misleading information, Anthony’s post makes explicit what data set he used, what the measurements show, and what conclusions he draws; if you were misled, it’s because you made up your own interpretation.
Good point. In statistical analysis, the U.S. is one data point. And you are correct: that alone doesn’t refute global warming. However, this brings up another very important point, which has to do with consistent application of criteria. Fundamentalists cite data points as proof of manmade global warming. If they enter that criteria into the record-one data point is proof-then it is valid to counter with the same. In this case, two wrongs don’t make a right, but they force the original proponent to either:
1. Recant his claim based on the one data point = proof criteria.
2. Accept that Charlie’s argument here is valid.
In either case, it weakens the AGW fundamentalist’s argument, at least in the minds of those still capable of critical thinking.
In the Second Amendment arena, many of us have used this gambit to damage or destroy arguments from the anti-rights fundamentalists. As a result, Second Amendment rights are on the recovery since the Clinton gun ban, when we began to get our act together. So it’s a valuable tool.
Watts never claimed that this proves or disproves anything. It was just an observation. Go show me where he claimed that this disproves “global warming”.
And this tattle doesn’t make that claim, either.
I’d bet a lot of money that the earth is either warming or cooling. I just can’t see how it could be staying the exact same temperature.
So we better do something about it, and that is going to take some serious increases in government spending, because the government guys always know what to do and are never wrong. Thank goodness they are looking out for our best interests. I think they deserve their plush compensation packages and guaranteed lifetime benefits for being so good to us. There isn’t any sacrifice too great to keep them in power.
For those who don’t know proreason, his post was sarcasm.
Charlie – Do you know what would be really useful: One chart showing both CO2 and temperature (or the anomaly).
“This is very hard to reconcile with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.”
If this was a scientific hypothesis, it would be impossible to reconcile it with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. We are talking about a non-scientific non-falsifiable religious beleif that humans are destroying the planet.
No, that’s really not true; there are possible scenarios that might fit. but they don’t seem very probable.
The latest “warming study” that’s intriguing is the BEST study that claims there’s been a “warming” trend for 2 centuries now. If this turns out to be true, then it means any warming that has been occuring is almost certainly NOT anthropogenic, but natural. Here’s why:
It would indicate, for one, that we’ve been doing a slow crawl out of the so-called Little Ice Age, and for another, human “greenhouse emmission” activity would have been insufficient to have contributed to any warming that may have been going on for at least 3/4 of that time. During the entire 19th century, the so-called “industrial revolution” was confined entirely to the temperate band of one quadrant of the northern hemisphere straddling the N. Atlantic. That’s not a lot of surface, and when you consider that HALF of that surface is ocean (which is a giant carbon and heat sink), the land mass involved in industrial activity is miniscule, and any emissions would have been easily absorbed by nature’s defense mechanisms for temperature regulation.
Just a heads up, Charlie. Food fight at Curry’s. How dare she link (without endorsing) a peer-reviewed article that hasn’t been blessed by the climate gods? The unbridled chutzpah!
Yup, pretty amusing. Judith is being accused of allowing a guest post for comment on a paper that had been peer reviewed and published. This is apparently worse than BEP publishing a bunch of papers for comment before peer review.
One of the biggest problems with this AGW debacle is the shoddy and incomplete research that is being used to justify Cap & Trade and other giant corruption scams and the virtual sabotaging of the American economy.
Do you realize that NASA has only just launched the FIRST satellite dedicated solely to climatological research? Just a few weeks ago. Seriously, NOW they launch one? NOW? We could have used that data a whole lot sooner, dontcha think?
And those computer models? Apparently amateurish little efforts with incomplete data done on desktops. I would have thought that multi-faceted multiple modeling on supercomputers would have been called for, and using full sets of data, like all 7,000 weather-monitoring stations, and ALL satellite data, instead of cherry-picked stations and NO satellites. I would also have thought, if this whole AGW thing was so all-fired important, that the hundreds of compromised monitoring stations would have been moved out of heat islands, etc.
You would thunk, right?
For folks who are sincerely interested in the mathematical foundations of AGW theory, this month’s Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society feature article is “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: a Mathematical Perspective” (free PDF download).
Highly recommended … this is how the underlying math of AGW really works … the article covers both the math and the two-hundred-year history of AGW theory.
Like Charlie and Feymnan both say: “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Thanks Charlie, for the fine link to Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis showing present-day arctic ice levels are far below historical norms. That site’s repository of data is much cherished by planetary scientists.
Highly recommended.
——————————————————–
Greenhouse Gas Molecules: a Mathematical Perspective
URL: http://www.ams.org/notices/201110/index.html
Who’s disputing the greenhouse effect?
Snork asks: “Who’s disputing the greenhouse effect?”
… who? hmmmm … disinformation-spreaders subsidized by Big Carbon?
The Skeptical Science folks provide links to the disinformationists.
————————————
The Skeptic Argument: Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
You didn’t answer the question. Are you going to, or are you just going to keep posting off-topic links?
Snork asks: “Who’s disputing the greenhouse effect?”
Skeptical Science lists OISM aka “The Oregon Petition” as the listed greenhouse-denying organization. The Oregon Petition’s funding derives from Exxon-Mobil per the link below.
Duh.
—————————————————
The Global Warming Denial Machine
URL: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html#Oregon_Petition
Uh, Johnny. Uh uh Johnny. Why don’t you read the … you know … actual document?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
So let’s take it from the top one more time: Who’s denying the greenhouse effect? Johnny? Hello? Is this thing on?
And growing dramatically faster.
You see, you keep insisting on this particular straw man: that “denier” are saying there has been no warming. I guess there are such, although they’re not at all credible. But there are none here: as I’ve said multiple times, it’s not whether there has been warming, it’s the magnitude of any anthropogenic contribution, and the magnitude of CO2′s contribution.
Just by the way, John, sea ice extent doesn’t speak at all to CO2 contribution.
You might want to review Roger Pielke (and others) paper, just published, that appears to refute the CO2-dominated forcing model:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/our-paper-land-useland-cover-changes-and-climate-modeling-analysis-and-observational-evidence-has-been-officially-published/
Gosh-golly Charlie Pielke’s blog is pretty plain-spoken:
Yet weirdly, the paper itself makes no such claim.
Gee, perhaps Pielke didn’t read his own article?
You do have to do some arithmetic. If the land-use forcings are a bigger piece of the forcing pie than was previously thought, what happens to the CO2/greenhouse piece of the pie?
You can draw pictures if that’s easier.
Actually, you know, oddly the whole paper isn’t available right now because Wiley’s servers are down.
Are you sure you read the paper?
In any case, until I can read the whole paper, I think I’d take Roger’s word about what his own paper says.
Charlie, the actual conclusion of the Pielke et al article is moderate and reasonable:
Nowhere in the article is any sentence resembling Pielke’s weblog post:
The underline emphasis is Pielke’s (not mine).
John, you do realize that you’re claiming that Roger Pielke is misquoting Roger Pielke’s position, right?
What, Charlie, you actually expect A Super-Smart Physicist to actually read the articles he cites? What do you think peer review is for? It’s so that all the articles say Approved Things About Climate Change so that Super-Smart Scientists can just quote them without having to read them!
Of course, John would feel naked if he didn’t finish every single comment with an irrelevant link, so let me suggest one for him: http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-places-infant-son-in-rocket-to-escape-dyin,2495/
Charlie, Watt’s post doesn’t discuss “significance” anywhere,
… and Pielke’s article makes no claim to “refute” CO2-driven warning,
… and Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis shows ice coverage as extraordinarily low.
PJ Media has been shooting itself in the foot over-and-over on AGW, by making extravagant claims that are not supported by its own links.
Whereas Jon Huntsman and Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) have got it right-on-the-facts … they’re both showing folks what principled conservatism looks like.
Namely, principled conservatism is a Green Elephant!.
————————————————–
The Green Elephant
URL: http://www.rep.org/news/GE_Update/GE_Update_2010-10.html
Wow.
And I thought the ‘professors’ in Nuremberg circa 1933 were moronic tools.
This guy takes the cake.
Roger Pielke Sr sends along this reply to John:
And where’s the response from Dr. John Sidles?
Or, to use a movie metaphor…
Sidles? Sidles? Sidles? (in a monotone voice)
It’s pretty plain, isn’t it? By Prof. Pielke’s own account, the word “refute” appears nowhere in the Pielke et al. article, but only on his web site.
The nearest similar phrase in the article is “risks a misalignment” … which is mighty weak beer, eh?
Now if Prof. Pielke can persuade his co-authors to publicly endorse Pielke’s (far stronger) claim on his webside, then I’ll be impressed!
John, now you’re just making a fool of yourself. As PIelke notes independently, the commenter “must not have read the paper.” See the part about land use etc being a first order forcing? That’s inconsistent with greenhouse gases being the dominant forcing. Since they observe land use being a first order forcing, that refutes greenhouse gases as the dominant forcing.
That’s funny, Charlie. The article I read specifically concluded:
Are yah sure yer not cherry-picking from the middle of the article?
The article’s limited conclusion that local and even global effects of LULCC can be quite significant, and that better understanding of these effects is needed, is of course entirely reasonable, and it is well-documented in the article itself.
Thus it’s not surprising (IMHO) that to date precisely zero of Pielke’s co-authors have joined Pielke in the “refutation” that he claims on his weblog.’
Ain’t that correct, Charlie?
John, he’s already responded. You didn’t read the article effectively and don’t understand the argument. The paper has been published, you can both write Pielke and his co-authors and write an objection to the journal.
Of course, you’d then have to do so using your real name and appointment and put your professional standing on the line too.
So I encourage you to go ahead.
Charlie, Watt’s post doesn’t discuss “significance” anywhere,
John, do you own a dictionary? If so, you might look up the word “significant.”
biggie smalls
biggie smalls
biggie smalls
Guys, of course the Green Movement is working. Just look at all the jobs it is creating. All we have to do is keep throwing Government money at it and it will be fine. At least until after the election. Up until then Obambi and his gang needs to show his great concern for our welfare and what a great job he is doing at creating jobs. With all those hundreds of thousands of jobs going to the green industries. Once he’s assured he will be back in office, then all those companies can fail. He won’t care. He just didn’t throw enough money at the few that failed early. And who knows, maybe one of them might actually come out with something useful.
When claiming that there are those disputing the greenhouse effect we are given an example of eccentric cracked-pots who are not representative of skeptics. But then, who else would dispute the greenhouse effect?
“The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as “a small research institute” that studies “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.” It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools” and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.”
Off topic, anyone else ever notice that when the word ‘institute’ appears in a name it usually denotes a fringe view? You would think they would begin choosing another name…
If we are to pick examples of dishonesty, fringe beliefs, lying or misleading people on the AGW side we get to pick the core players. Currently Richard Muller is in the spotlight, but there are many more. Arthur B. Robinson? Seriously Aphysicist?
http://junkscience.com/2011/10/24/richard-muller-no-skeptic/
Does that include the PJ Institute?
ha! there are exceptions….
The fact is, LaSuthenboy, that right here on PJ Media there are still plenty of folks who are spouting the Oregon Institute party line … it’s kinda nutty, eh?
One wonders whether the PJ Media editors believe this bilge?
—————————————————–
PJ Media posts the nutty OISM party line
URL: http://pjmedia.com/comment/1495953/
you make an eel look like sandpaper. you did not address the main point which is that the ‘fringe’ nut proponents of AGW constitute the core players.
The sad part is, this perfesser actually thinks that this is good debating.
In my high school speech and debate team, this guy would be benched indefinitely, and our coach would probably have used lots of his US Navy vocabulary to express his disappointment.
RedState’s respected Erick Erickson had a change-of-heart today:
Maybe PJ Media, too, needs to “walk it back” on rejecting the sobering science of AGW?
Because the GOP serves America poorly as the ideology-first “Party of Dumb”.
Kudos to Jon Huntsman (and Erick) for facing facts fearlessly.
————————————————–
Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins
URL: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/08/mitt-romney-as-the-nominee-conservatism-dies-and-barack-obama-wins/
Hey, Johnny Boy…
Look at your own link! Erick Erickson, whom you just praised, is saying that if Mitt Romney–who believes in AGW–is the nominee, conservatism–which you say you support–will effectively die!
Let me summarize. An author you just praised says that a pro-AGW candidate, if the nominee, will cause the failure of the political ideology you claim to support.
Either you really don’t read the articles you post, or you’re terribly deficient in reading comprehension. Which is it?
(Knowing you, you’ll either ignore this or toss out a red herring, either of which will prove my point for me.)
By his record, Mitt Romney is pro-Mitt-Romney … nothing more.
What Erick likes about Jon Huntsman is Huntsman’s principled conservatism.